Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutP&Z MINUTES FEBRUARY 09, 2000~~~ DATE: (020900) PLANNING & ZONING February 9, 2000 7:00 p.m. Present:. Chairman: Davawn Beattie Members: John Watson Bobbette Carlson Raymond Hill LaDawn Bratsman Ted Whyte Roger Muir Doug Smith City Clerk: Marilyn Hansen P.F.C.: John Millar Council Member:. Donna Benfield City Attorney: Stephen Zollinger A motion was made by Ted Whyte to approve the minutes of January 26, 2000, motion was seconded by Bobbette Carlson. All voted aye. RE: Keven Snell and Aaron McCracken Zone Change TOPIC: (500,227,,,SNELL*KEVEN,ZONE CHANGE,PUBLIC HEARING5,2ND EAST, 3RD SOUTH) • John Millar read the Notice for Public Hearing for Keven Snell and Aaron McCracken requesting a zone change from LDR1 to MDR on property located on the corner of 2nd East and 3rd South.John explained the request for zone change. This property had recently been given a Conditional Use Permit for a duplex. Keven Snell - 3783 E. 100 North, Rigby, ID Keven presented a model of the proposed building and a plot plan. He feels this could work under the current classification as a duplex. He had been under the assumption that he could put more students in the facility, then when the zoning ordinance was reviewed he discovered his only other option is to have it rated in a medium density zone to allow for more students. Related to college housing he is looking at a Manager's unit and up to 12 girls in the other unit. Bruce Williams - 262 S. 2nd East He is concerned with two things: Parking, as you drive up 2nd South between lst -East and 2nd East that situation is a nightmare. People are parking on the sidewalk, parking on the grass, parking everywhere you can imagine and the area .is turning into a ghetto. He is concerned with 9 parking spots with 12 people, theoretically that should be enough but with friends he is concerned there will be cars parked everywhere as well as on his sidewalk. The other concern is the situation particularly on 2nd South between 1st East and 2nd East turning into a ghetto because of the way the landlords are taking care of their property. In the area mentioned snow is not shoveled, the sidewalks are not cleared and it is a nightmare. Bruce lives next to the dorms and with them as far away as they are he is concerned about • the loud music and the boom boxes that shake his house as they go by. ~~~ The proposal is aesthetically pleasing but he is concerned about these. other items. Richard Western - 149 E. 3rd South Richard is concerned about adequate parking. If you have 12 girls with 9 parking spots, and with his experience most of the students have their own cars. The zoning might indicate there is adequate parking but he believes there will be an overload. In the mornings he has a tough time getting out of his driveway because the students park with part of their cars in his driveway. He is also concerned about the noise level, being right across the street from the girls dorms they get some noise but with a building right next to them it would be worse. The gentlemen of the school seem to visit the girls and he can see a lot more cars being there. He has a grandchild that visits and he is concerned with the traffic safety. Dan Hess - 275 So. 2nd East Dan has only one parking spot by his driveway and when they have visitors that is taken up. He has to impose on Dale and Phyllis Bond to park in their driveway. They need more parking, he believes there is a safety factor, and a congestion factor. He also believes it lowers the value of his home with all the congestion. That many girls will be attracting more girls and boys, boys have more cars and when it is time for snow removal that presents a great problem. He feels all of this is even a problem when it is zoned to Low Density, a higher density will only add to the problem. Ric Page - Vice President of Student Life at Ricks College He was asked by the college to respond as a neighbor. The college has two concerns, one is the requirement for parking making sure they meet the requirements so there are no further parking problems. The second issue is the one. of density. Twelve students in one apartment is unusual and depending on the way it is configured may or may not qualify for college housing. That needs to be looked at from the college perspective not from zoning, but 12 girls in one apartment would be very unusual. Mary Hess - 275 So. 2nd East In spite of the fact that they are directly diagonal from the dorms they have found that there is enough distance and enough wall around the dorms that the noise has never bothered or permeated into their part of the neighborhood. With an additional 12 students right on the corner she is thinking of the safety of her grandchildren when they visit and are out playing. With the added congestion, added traffic brings added traffic hazards. A change of zoning for that spot would be a change of zoning for the wrong. Clifford Jaussi - 257 So. 2nd East He cannot even imagine putting more cars on that road than there are now. He explained the difficulty in getting across at the corners and explained the danger of it. Having an entry into a lot that close to that dangerous corner with all the cars and sometimes when they get • plugged up they are clear down the street to where the old water shed is. Trying to get out of his yard when the cars are piled up like that ~~~ is an impossibility. The people that live on the. west and east side of {~ First East need to have the alley clear just like he does so they can go down the alley to get out on the street. Without the alley you cannot move some of the time. If a student does not have a car this year he will have one next year and you're doubling the traffic. Another concern is all the garbage that comes across. The students come up and park with the girls and leave their malt cups and fry boxes, the wind blows from the southwest and comes right over in his yard. He would not mind having one nice home in there and down where the alley is but not come on that east road to get in or out. He would just as leave them not build anything but he is told a person has a right to build and he doesn't care, but don't build something that is going to be a headache. Richard Western - 149 E. 3rd South Another thing that came to his mind has to do with the number of housing units already in Rexburg for college kids. He believes there is approximately 800 beds in town that are not even in use right now. He does not particularly like the vacant lot and the way it looks either, for a single family dwelling he would not be so opposed but for more students he believes there is enough housing already in the city. Gary Thompson - 241 So. 2nd East He is opposed because of the safety problem on that street. This property was zoned the way it was for a reason and he is not opposed to having something built there for a family or a duplex but when you start letting that many students in there you are compounding the problem. The plan Keven has is not unattractive and something you could live with but when you do enter that driveway part of those cars have to come up the alley or you are not going to get 9 spaces in there. The kids always park in there anyway, you are always kicking kids out because you cannot get through. Nyle Fullmer - 236 So. 2ndEast His concern is the same as has been expressed. He will not say that he is out and out opposed but as he looks at it, it is well and good to say we have 12 girls in there and there will be up to 9 cars. As worst case scenario, if there are 12 girls and someday Keven sells this property and someone decides to put 12 boys in there, there will then be 12 cars with 12 boys. He acknowledges there is not a problem being in such close proximity to the college, he sees where it may cut down on some of the congestion and it may eliminate some of those people that are using that lot now as parking. Every once in awhile you will see a semi parked in there and that is not particularly attractive either. He is pleased to see that someone is showing interest in trying to build on that property. If we can come up with something that appeases everyone then he is all in favor of it, he would like to see it cleaned up rather than to stay looking like the mess it is right now. His concern is if access to those 3 or 4 parking spaces are from the alleyway, is the alleyway then going to become encumbered by traffic coming through there as well. ~~o Mary Hess - 275 So. 2nd East They had hoped that when they saw the parking lot constructed on the ~ corner of 3rd South and Cornell which has the same problem that this corner has that perhaps they would do the same thing which would reduce the congestion that is already there. Why can't this lot be sold as an additional landscaped parking corner the way that Cornell and 3rd South has been done. Keven Snell - 3783 E. 100 North, Rigby, Idaho The concerns are concerns and parking is an issue. Part of the heavy traffic that people are concerned with are not necessarily going to be done by his project. Those are existing problems that exist in Rexburg and have continued to exist and are not necessarily from this situation but like situations up the street where a home with 6 or 12 students have inadequate parking. Those issues compound the traffic problems and the concerns they have are valid concerns on those streets. The project he is proposing is basically going to be students that are not going to be moving their cars to park somewhere closer to campus because they are not going to get any closer to campus. His project would clean up the vacant lot, .stop the kids from parking and throwing their stuff out and make. it a better place. He has tried to put it so that the students would go away from the residential area with the impact towards the college. That part of the project would make it a better situation for some of the neighbors A parking lot would 3 times the problem because we will have 3 times the cars there, you will have 3 times the traffic and you will have students fighting to get to the parking lot. What he is trying to do is lower the impact and make it so that students can walk and have an easy access to the campus. Dan Hess - 275 So. 2nd East You do not help a problem when you increase it. In other words where there is so much traffic you add more that does not solve it. He does feel that this zone change will increase the problem that is already there. Nyle Fullmer - 236 S. 2nd East Another concern is he knows in the past that the City has tried not to just do spot zoning, to rezone something just to accommodate something specific. He believes most of his block and the blocks around are zoned LDR so are we just doing a spot zone to accommodate something, is it going to be the only MDR piece within several blocks? Keven Snell - There are only 3 lots that adjoin or are directly across from the campus from any point completely around the campus that are not zoned Medium Density or higher. Davawn read into the record 5 letters and 2 petitions from neighbors in opposition to the zoning. The public hearing was closed and turned to the board for discussion. John Watson read the 7 points of criteria required in the application • for re-zoning. The board would have to feel comfortable with these 7 r _ issues before the property could be re-zoned. His comment was that the ~3l lot is 7100 sq. ft. Based on that size it would not begin to fit into ~`~ MDR1 which is 8000 sq. ft. What we have is a substandard lot to begin ~ with and it seems what we are trying to do is take a substandard size and convert it to a higher density. Ted Whyte states that when we issued a Conditional-Use Permit last year we really stretched allowing a duplex to go on that lot to start with, let alone add additional building requirements. We looked upside down and backwards trying to accommodate a lot that was created substandard between the city streets and alleys, we realized the home owner was in a bind and we bent over backwards accommodating putting in a duplex. We are stretching it way too far to do any more than that. Coming in off the alley for the first 4 parking spaces is another concern and 5, 6, and 7 are already encroaching the 5 foot backyard that had already been adjusted for the duplex. The Conditional Use Permit allowed 5 feet on the backyard, a parking lot allows 4 feet. The block .from Cornell up into 2nd East is all zoned LDR so he believes it would be a spot zone situation. The City has tried not to do that. There is higher density surrounding but not on the block where this property sits, nothing directly to it that is MDR, the dorms are HDR on the south. Doug Smith made a motion that this property not be changed and that. the zoning would stand as it is now allowing the existing Conditional Use Permit to stand as is. LaDawn Bratsman seconded the motion. Those voting aye: Ted Whyte John Watson LaDawn Bratsman Bobbette Carlson Roger Muir Doug Smith Raymond Hill Those opposed: None RE: Christian Lenhart Eagle Scout Project TOPIC: (500,231,,,EAGLE PROJECT,D.A.R.E. PROGRAM,SIGNS) Christian Lenhart - 1761 Morningside Dr. - Eagle Scout Project Christian presented and explained his Eagle Scout project which is putting up DARE signs in areas around .Rexburg. He distributed a map showing the locations of where the signs would be placed, he also showed an actual sign as well as the signs that would be put around public schools. He asked if he could use the posts of existing signs, 3 of .which are State Highway signs and 2 are City of Rexburg signs. • The 3 State Highway signs would have to be approved by the State Highway Department. There are 2 signs on the south side of town belonging to the City of Rexburg and there would not be a problem with those. It was suggested to Christian he contact the School Superintendent for permission for the schools and contact Jahn Millar to determine which poles around the City can be used. i • ~~~ • RE: COMMUNICATION TOWER ORDINANCE TOPIC: (500,232,,,COMMUNICATION TOWER,FCC,VALLEY WIDE CO-OP) The rush on a communications tower ordinance is FCC has stepped into some communities in the absence of an ordinance and preempted their ability to prohibit towers in any zone.. Requests for towers in all zones have been allowed unless there is a specific ordinance designating where and how towers are built. The item precipitating a communications tower ordinance is Valley Wide Co-op. They are looking at putting up their own 90 foot tower (antenna) by their fuel pumps in the back or mounting one on the building that would be similar height. The antenna would be regulated by our Planning & Zoning Ordinance as a structure unless they open it up for lease space or sell air time on the radios to other individuals. Discussion on communication towers and antennas and regulations thereof. This antenna is governed by the structural prohibitions, height restrictions in the CBD is 45' or 2-1/2 stories for a sprinkled building. The place to fix this ordinance as far as antennas would be to change the language to structure height. It was concluded that this item should be tabled to revisit at an ordinance work meeting. RE: AIRPORT CLEAR ZONE REVIEW TOPIC: (500,232,,,AIRPORT,AIRPORT BOARD,FAA,Z000,ZONING ORDINANCE) • Stephen stepped down from his position into the audience. Those attending from the Rexburg Madison County Airport Board were Warren Smith, Howard Jensen and Bart Webster. John reviewed the issues that needed to be addressed: Does there need to be an airport zoning ordinance, .does the City need to be more in compliance with FAA Part 77 and do we want to obtain aviation easements or acknowledgments of the vicinity of the airport which were discussed at the last meeting. Warren Smith was invited to comment concerning the airport board. They are trying to address height requirements adjacent to the airport. FAA regulations say that anything adjacent to the airport has to be approved and this is also a protection for the City and County. In a subdivision where there is a noise problem he feels that either the first or second guy they will go after would be the developer so this is a protection for him as well. The other is a federal regulation and it should be complied with. The board suggested that these forms could be a part of a building permit or in some way part of the process to understand that there is a reason for the Form 7460-1 and they would like to see that acknowledgment adopted. John reviewed the Armstrong study draft airspace proposal which basically defines the imaginary air space surfaces in Part 77. Essentially this is the same one that the State has filed with the County but it has more teeth if we adopt it as a zoning ordinance. ~p~o~ Discussion of height regulations, what structures have filed and have (~ not filed. The Airport Board has no idea what is happening within 4 miles of the airport and there is no other way to bring this to the attention of the potential homeowner except by the Building Inspector. If you are building in an area that is already built up then you do not have to file. An ordinance would only. alert the builder and needs to be filed by the property owner. It was suggested that the City would be safe to require the form be filed with any structure being built. Although FAA does not want to see one on every structure, just to be required as part of the building permit process and then the City and/or County could make the determination if one needs to be filed or not. Stephen Zollinger spoke on behalf of ZOCO properties which are the owners of the. development directly south. ZOCO has filed the Form 7460 which was required, the homes being built have filed their 7460 and are waiting response. The issue as a developer is tying a building permit to a return from FAA, it is inconsistent with Part 77. All Part 77 requires is that the filing be made, none of the structures that could be built in this subdivision could be high enough to give the FAA any ability to say that the structure cannot be built. There are various planes in a flight which were all explained by Stephen. Developers have no problem with giving notice to everyone who obtains a building permit anywhere in that 20,000' radius but they are a little confused as to why it should fall upon the property buyer to sign some sort of acknowledgment saying they need to be made aware that they are building within so many thousand feet of an airport. If acknowledgment. is all that is being looked for then giving notice should suffice and notice can be given in the process of obtaining a building permit. They could acknowledge receipt of their package and the package should require that they return and let the City send it in. The City would determine if the form needed to be sent in but the homeowner still acknowledges they are building within proximity to the airport. As a developer there is no problem with that but the manner in which it is accomplished stiiould not be a burden on people who are trying to build a home. Doug Smith stated that one of the problems is the noise and dust that come with an airport. If we do not require something that acknowledges they are building in that area they will come back whining and at least you have their signed acknowledgment. As long as the airport is operating legally, which it is, there is no lawsuit that will be sustained against them. It is not legal on the part of this board to extort that easement by saying we will not give you a building permit until you give us .something of value. By giving a permit in that area they acknowledge the proximity of the airport and as long as the airport is operating legally there are no concerns of a • lawsuit for noise violations. `~~ F '~ The City is actually the building enforcement agency that is issuing the permit and is the responsible party for seeking that compliance is met. As a developer he sees no reason to balk at filing the 7460 forms. Developer has no opposition to filing the 7460 forms. He does not believe the homeowners will have opposition to filing 7460 forms, they just simply do not believe it would be fair to hold the building permits during the time that the 7460 form is being processed unless the City feels there is a possibility the structure will be prohibited if it breaches the 20:1 or 34:1 plane. The City is in a unique position to provide two of the elements that are required for the 7460 which are the longitude, latitude measurements. To buy them from a surveyor is from $50.00 to $200.00 which would be an additional cost to the homeowner. The City can provide those in .just a short time and the City should consider providing those measurements to the homeowner when they make application. John Millar recommends that the City take a serious look at the zoning ordinance because at this time there is no real zoning ordinance around the airport. Discussion has been centered around what is in the ordinance for the airport overlay. There is not an airport overlay and this needs to be addressed. As part of the building permit there needs to be a recommendation on getting more involved in the Part 77 requirements which decision will ultimately be required by the City Council and also do we see it as a benefit to get some type of acknowledgment for the vicinity of the airport through the building permit process. The only feeling the airport board had as stated by Warren Smith is that in public meetings such as this if legal issues are going to be discussed that legal counsel be available. Discussion by the board. A motion was made by Doug Smith that this issue be tabled, the P&Z Commission review the zoning ordinance and make a final recommendation at the next meeting to be held on February 23, the motion was seconded by Raymond Hill. All voted aye. Meeting adjourned.