HomeMy WebLinkAboutP&Z MINUTES MARCH 06, 2001PLANNING & ZONING
March b, 2001
7:00 p.m.
Presiding: John Watson
Members: LaDawn Bratsman
- Ted Whyte
Raymond Hill
Mike Thueson
Bobbette Carlson.
Glenn Walker
Mike Ricks
Robert Schwartz
P.F.C. John Millar
Excused: Marilyn Hansen, City Clerk
Stephen Zollinger, City Attorney
Minutes: Janet Williamson
Mike Ricks made a motion to approve the minutes of February 28`x. LaDawn Bratsman
seconded the motion. All voted in favor. None opposed,
Public Hearing -Ricks College Conditional Use Permit
In the absence of Stephen Zollinger, City Attorney, John Millar, P.F.C. read the Notice of Public
Hearing for Ricks College Conditional Use Permit. He explained that when the ordinance was
established it was agreed that Ricks College had. a lot of small buildings that were internal to
Ricks College campus so it was decided that any building under 10,000 square feet would not
require a Conditional Use Permit but buildings over 10,000 square feet would require a
Conditional Use Permit. That does require one public hearing. Two weeks ago we met and
reviewed their plans. At that time we requested some justification and modification to the plans.
Those have been drawn up and submitted.
John Watson opened the hearing to public comment. There were no comments from the public
and John Watson closed the hearing to public comment and asked for a spokesman for Ricks
College to explain the changes they had made.
Lanny Herrin, Architect, said that since the last meeting they had met as architects with the
College and had agreed that 3 81 cars would be an acceptable number based on the occupancy of
the building. The occupancy was determined by looking at the Uniform Building Code. Also,
they widened both the north and south roadways.
•
Dave Waldron, Civil Engineer, explained they have widened the north approach and extended it
to the Kimball parking lot to provide better traffic flow. It is now 3-12 foot lanes plus curb and
gutter on each side so it is 41 feet wide. This allows for a left and right turn lane onto 2nd East.
By the Kimball building there will be a small curb to direct traffic into the Kimball parking lot.
Emergency vehicles can still get over the curb going West. They have also widened .the south
approach onto 2nd East to allow for stacking.
Sohn Watson asked if they had utilized the compact car rule. Dave Waldron said that all parking
spots-were for full sized cars. The minimum is 9x18, the spaces on this-plan are a119x20.
For clarification, John Watson explained the 2 ways of calculating the number of parking spots.
If you argue that this is a College there is 1 per 4 at maximum capacity. (pg 45 of Zoning Ord.)
In his opinion the word capacity should say occupancy because then that gives them some
criteria. The building code says that in a certain sized room your occupancy load may be 20
square feet per person so then there is a way of calculating. This building fits somewhere
between a College and a religious facility. If you say this is just a religious facility then it is 1
per Oft or 8ft of bench in the main meeting room. They based this on capacity or occupancy load
and are going to put an occupancy load sign on the wall somewhere. John is comfortable with
that, and they have made a good effort.
Mike Thueson stated that he had a "perceived" conflict of interest, but moved that they approve
the new drawing with the 381 parking places and widened roadways as shown and send it to City
Council. Glenn Walker seconded the motion. All voted in favor. None opposed.
i Green Valley, Inc. Request for a Parking Variance
John Millar explained that this is on the corner of 2nd South and l5t West across from the
stad~~un. One of the houses was moved out last Fall. It is probably not a variance that they need
but it needs to be determined if they fall under the grand father clause. In discussing this with
Stephen today, the properties that they had a vested interest in, (they purchased the property and
spent the money to take the house off), could be grand fathered. Additional properties
purchased after the ordinance was changed, not as clear. His feeling is maybe we need to be
somewhere in-between -maybe on a proportionate property basis.
Bill Follett, 1 North 3400 E., Rigby -
Over a year ago they were approached by the owner of the Breckenridge Apartments about doing
an addition to their existing facility. At that time he owned the existing apartments and 21ots.
There are 2 additional lots that he purchased in August, the one across from the stadium where
they moved the house off the one behind it. In the summer they came up with a design that fit
with the code at Ricks College then they employed Mountain River Engineering to put together
a temporary plat. They submitted it to Val Christensen, Building Inspector, in August and Val
wrote them a letter saying it was looking good but there were some questions. He had also given
it to Dee Owens the fire inspector. They came back with a number of items that needed to be
addressed. They started working on these items and then got the notice in December that the
parking requirement had changed. This is something they have been working on for quite a
•
2
while and he is hoping that they can get some type of variance that can work for them. Currently
their proposed layout is 55 parking places. They are building 4 units, 3 high with 6 students per
unit equaling a total of 72 students. If they were granted a variance for . 7 they would need 51
spots (4 extra) If they have to work with the 1 spot per student they would need 72 spots (17 shy
of the requirement.)
(Discussion and explanation of drawing.)
Mike Thueson mentioned that a few months ago a gentleman came in that owned some property
for several years and he wanted now to build apartments and wanted to be grand fathered in with
.7 because of ownership. Did we set precedence there? How is this different?
John Millar quoted Stephen as saying the buying of the property was not the actual investment.
The buying of the property did not bring them grand fathering. The cost expended to move the
house out of there shows a cash out lay for development of that property; therefore, the property
where the house was located could be considered as grand fathered. The gentleman before
hadn't done any physical work to move the project along.
Bi11 said that before the ordinance, he had submitted drawings. John Millar said the drawings
were not enough to show grand fathering but moving the house was.
(Discussion)
Ted asked if they could do 3 buildings instead of 4 then they would meet the 1 per student
parking requirement: Bill said they have already cut back from 5 buildings to 4 and to cut back
to 3 would not work financially for them.
John Watson was uncomfortable making a decision on grand fathering without legal council.
Ted Whyte made a motion that they come back to the next meeting with correct drawings and
time tables of when properties were purchased, plans submitted, houses moved, proposals of
why they should be grand fathered, etce and submit these to Stephen Zollinger to review before
the meeting. Glenn Walker seconded the motion. A11 Aye. None opposed.
Site Plan Approval for Driveway and Parking -Chris Poch Property
John Millar handed out an aerial view map of the property in question. He explained that what
they were thinking of doing was bringing an access down the property line and putting a paved
area in the back for parking.
Discussion.
•
Mike Ricks felt there was not enough room for full size cars to turn around. John Millar said the
ordinance allows that 40% can be allowed for compact cars. They are proposing 10 parking
spaces. It is not known what they are planning to do with the property but the issue is to just
consider the parking plan.
Ted pointed out that they would have to have screening if adjacent to residential.
Mike Ricks mentioned that Pineview Apartments is only 5 feet from the fence.
John Millar said they have shown grading the lot back onto the lawn. He said the screening
requirements were on pg 32, 4.7, A-l . -you can require fencing or landscaping or both. If you
require both they would not have enough room to do this parking lot.
John Watson asked if they approved the drawing and it was stamped would they be assured that
that is the way it would be done: John Millar said it would fall to the building inspector to make
sure it was done correctly as shown on the plan.
Raymond Hill made a motion to approve the parking lot site plan with fencing on the north and
south side (there is already a fence on the west side). Mike Ricks seconded the motion. Those
voting for:
John Watson Mike Ricks
LaDawn Bratsman Raymond Hill
Robert Schwartz Bobbette Carlson
Mike Thueson Glenn Walker.
Ted Whyte opposed the motion. Motion passed.
John Millar asked the commission to consider a new issue. On our site plans and parking plans,
we are fairly open as to what can be done there. The Engineering Department has talked about
needing some help in that at some point -whether it be a certain size of commercial building,
square footage, or certain number of apartment complexes -they would request the requirement
be added that site plans or parking plans at a certain size be done by a licensed professional ----
engineer, architect, landscape architect, surveyor, etc. They already have that the buildin plans
over a 4 plex need a professional stamp, but not the site plan or parking plan. The commission
wanted this put on the `housekeeping' list.
Meeting adjourned.
•
4