Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutP&Z MINUTES JULY 17, 2003~ • CITY OF REXBURG PLANNING AND ZONING MINUTES July 17, 2003 7:00 p.m. Chairman: Winston Dyer Members: Robert Schwartz Mike Ricks Steve McGary Doug Smith -Excused Jerry Hastings -Excused Mary Haley Jordan Dyer -Excused David Stein Joseph Laird Randall Porter Public Works Director -John Millar Financial Officer ~ Richard Horner P & Z Administrator ~ Kurt Hibbert City Attorney Stephen Zollinger City Clerk Blair D. Kay Portions of the meeting were recorded. ConsentAgenda: The consent agenda includes items which require formal Planning Commission action, however they are typically routine or not of great controversy. Individual Commission members may ask that any specific item be removed from the consent agenda for discussion in greater detail. Explanatory information is included in the Planning Commission's agenda packet regarding these items. a) Minutes from the )uly 03, 2003 meeting Winston Dyer mentioned that Jerry Hastings asked to be excused from the meeting. Randall Porter asked for a correction on page 7 of the July 03, 2003 minutes. He only indicated medical buildings in his comment. Randall Porter moved to approve the Consent Agenda; Mike Ricks seconded the motion; all voted aye, none opposed. The motion carried. • 1 Noncontroversial Items Added to Agenda: None • Winston Dyer mentioned that the Commission needed to discuss Design Standards for the Commercial Zones and Utility Installation Standards. Zoning Compliance: Kurt Hibbert mentioned an outstanding ticket violation. The City of Rexburg will follow up the ticket with a letter indicating atwo-month time frame to come into compliance. The City will accept this time line for compliance. Public Hearings: 7:05 p.m. Re-Zone University Property on SE corner of 2nd East and 3rd South from University Property to Low Density Residential 1 (LDRl) - (Richard Smith) Kurt Hibbert (Planning and Zoning Administrator) reviewed the reason for the request to change the zoning back to the original zone of LDRl . The home wih_ be sold as residential home. The property was originally sold to the University by Randall Porter. Those in favor of the Zone change: Dan Hess - 275 South 2nd East -Lives just across the street from this proposed zone change. He was in favor the zone change to a residential zone without an apartment. Those neutral to the Zone Change: None Those against the Zone change: None Public Testimony was closed. Discussion on the Zones adjacent to this parcel. LDRl Zoning in adjacent to this property. Further east of this property the Zoning is LDR which does not allow an apartment. The Commissioners reviewed an updated Zoning map that showed the property currently zoned as University Property. This proposal is to re-zone the lot back to a residential zone (LDRl). The requested Zone is consistent with the adjoining Zone. Mike Ricks moved to re-zone the parcel from University Property (U) to Low Density Residential (LDR1); Steve McGary seconded the motion; all voted aye, none opposed. The motion carried. New Business• Preliminary Plat for Stonebridge Subdivision Phase II -East 7d' North -The Dyer Group Dick Dyer declared a conflict and stepped away from the table. Robert Schwartz became the Chair person for this discussion item. . 2 • Winston Dyer - 667 Summerwood Drive -Representing the interest of the developer out of Salt Lake City. Winston reviewed the Plat on the overhead screen. The City has approved the development of Stonebridge Subdivision Phase I. This is a proposal to develop Phase Two of the Stonebridge Subdivision adjoining to the south of Phase One. Winston reviewed the location for the storm water drainage system. Phase Two will require a lift station on the south end of the development. It will also service wastewater from the property to the west. There is a 14-inch line for sewer wastewater planned for the development. The lots on the south end of Phase Two were platted to the center of the river. The storm water pumping station will be about 16 feet deep. It is going to be about 100 feet from the river. Randall Porter asked about a greenbelt for the area. Winston indicated that there are plans to allow a public path way from the river on the Southwest corner of the subdivision going north to the nearest road around the subdivision. Winston reviewed the history of Phase Six in the Hidden Valley development. The City required the developer to provide an access to a City Park in that development. Winston indicated that there are real costs to the developer to provide for public access to these open areas. David Stein reviewed the conflicts that can occur with private developments and the need to do City Planning for the public good. Randall Porter reviewed the public access that is required for public waterways. • Stephen Zollinger indicated that there is a defacto right inside the high water mark of a waterway for public access to the river. Joe Laird reviewed the history of the Green Belt Committee's desire to create a green belt on both sides of the river in this area. Stephen mentioned the conditions that may exist to require a meandering easement for access to a public waterway. John Millar asked who owns the river and can the City install a pathway inside the high water mark. Stephen Zollinger indicated that the Corp of Engineers can maintain the open area or bike path. Stephen mentioned that the Greenways Committee may desire to have the walking path developed away from the river on the north edge of this development. Steve McGary reviewed an alternative access for a green way walking path for this proposal. Discussion on two gravel pits that are located in the area owned by Growers and Walkers. They area located on the east and the west of this development. Stephen Zollinger discussed the two gravel pits that are adjacent to this development. Continued discussion on the precedent that would be set by requiring a greenway area for this development adjacent to the river. Discussion on the difference of having a dedicated or a defancto right of way. Discussion on the 3 high-water mark for the river. Discussion on the make up of the motion for this proposal. . Steve McGary moved to approve the Preliminary Plat for Stonebridge Subdivision Phase II conditional on the applicant working out a compromise with the Greenways Committee concerning the compatibility of the developer's proposed Subdivision and the Greenways Committee's plans for the area; David Stein seconded the motion; all voted aye, none opposed. The motion carried. Winston Dyer rejoined the Commission at the table as the Chair for the meeting. Final Plat for Legacy Town homes -Casper Avenue - Forsgren Associates, Inc. Kurt Hibbert reviewed the proposal on the overhead screen. The development is for Phase Two. Phase One was previously approved by the City of Rexburg. The parking for the development is in the rear of the town homes on a private drive called Legacy Lane. The development meets minimum requirements for parking stalls. The lot lines will include the carports. John Millar reviewed ±he plans for the carports and the street on the Final Plat for Phase One. It showed the road for Phase Two. David Stein asked if the town homes would fall under the new design standards. Randall Porter asked about the requirement to have a Homeowners Association for a townhouse development. Discussion on zero lot line construction needing a common property agreement to take care of the common property in the development. Steve McGary moved to accept the Final Plat for Legacy Town homes as proposed conditioned on the following: I) The town homes must meet the International Building Code 2000. 2) City Staff approvals. 3) Homeowners association with protective covenants and associated contracts and regulations. Mike Ricks seconded the motion; all voted aye except Robert Schwartz who voted nay; The motion carried. Robert Schwartz opposed this type of development in this area. Winston Dyer asked Kurt Hibbert to address the conversion of apartments to town homes or condominiums after they have been approved as apartments. The Commission is concerned with the Final Plats being changed from one type of plat to another after the original plat is approved. Discussion on the reasons that the market place moved the market (customers) from a $500 4 rental to a $625 house payment. Ownership of property can be advantageous to the renter if the ~ • rent approaches the same cost as a house payment. Discussion on the need to have an applicant in attendance for requests that come before the Planning Commission so that the applicant can present the proposal to the Commission. Discussion on the number of people that can live in a townhouse. Stephen Zollinger indicated that single family housing falls under the definition of a family. Discussion on town homes being sold as single student housing. Discussion on the parking requirerr~ents for apartments verses town homes. Final Plat for Valley Wide Cooperative Subdivision No. 1- 12th West and West Main Street Kurt Rowland representing Dave Holtman of Valley Wide Coop indicated that they have widened the road as requested next to Hwy 33 on the final plat. The lots adjacent to Hwy 33 face the interior street. Kurt mentioned the developer's desire to have buildings in the subdivision that will match the Valley Wide Coop building. The Commission reviewed the type of trees that would go into the buffered area on the south boundary of the development. The property owners will be responsible for the leaves that fall ` • from the trees. Steve McGary recommended evergreen trees instead of a poplar tree for the buffer zone on the south boundary by the canal. Winston Dyer reviewed the letter from Mr. Harris concerning the development. Kurt Hibbert reviewed the requirement for a buffered area in the Zoning Ordinance page 32: 4.7 Fenci~ and Screening Requirements. Screening and fences within the City shall be constructed and maintained in conformance with the following standards: A. Screening Requirements. 1. Parkin~as. An effective buffer shall be provided between parking areas for more than five (5) vehicles and existing residential uses, schools, hospitals, nursing homes and other institutions for long-term human care. The buffer shall consist of a minimum of four (4) foot-landscaped strip to be planted with shade trees and low shrubs, and/or a suitable fence otherwise in compliance with this ordinance of sufficient height and density to screen the two parcels, as specified by the Planning and Zoning Commission. (Amended the 20th day of October, 1993; Ordinance No. 753) `, . 2. Commercial/Industrial Uses. Where a commercial or industrial use adjoins uses, residential zones, or undeveloped land shown as residential • uses on the Comprehensive Plan, there shall be proved along the abutting property line a yard equal in width to that required in the residential zone. The yard shall be planted with a combination of shade trees, low shrubs, and ground cover, and/or a suitable fence otherwise in compliance with this ordinance of sufficient height and density to screen the two parcels, as specified by the Planning and Zoning Commission." (Amended the 20th day of October, 1993; Ordinance No. 753.) B. The maximum height of any fence, wall, or sight obscuring objects within fifteen (15) feet of the public right-of--way shall be three feet. Fences would be allowed in excess of three feet if constructed out of rigid materials and approved by Planning & Zoning with 50% or more see through per lineal foot and that they be between 3' to 6' high within 15 feet of the right-of--way. Fences shall not be greater in height than eight (8) feet. (Amended the 15`h day of April 1998; Ordinance No. 802) 3. High Density Residential Uses. Where a lot in the HDR or HRD2 district adjoins a lot in the LDR, LDR1, or MDR district or ur_incorporated and designated as single family in the Comprehensive Plan, a seven (7) foot wide landscaped buffer shall be proved on said property line. The buffer shall consist of ground cover and trees. The trees shall be planted at forty foot intervals. When a public street is located between the front lot line of the HDR zone and the single family zone, a landscaped buffer seven (7) feet wide shall be constructed and maintained on the front lot line. The buffer shall include trees and an understory of shrubs. The landscaping shall be planned and maintained so as not to violate Section 4-6 of this Ordinance. 4. Open stora e~ Open storage area in HBD zone shall be screened from view of the streets by structures or by a landscaped strip at least seven (7) feet in width which may include a fence or wall. 5. Swimming Pools. Unenclosed swimming pools shall be surrounded by fences at least five (5) feet in height. Any opening shall be equipped with self-enclosing and self-latching devices. 6. Dog Runs• Dog runs shall be placed in rear yards only and shall be at least ten (10) feet from any residence. 7. Fence Reauirements for Schools, Churches, Universities, Colleges, Hospitals Nursing Homes, City and County. The height, location and placement of fences by the foregoing entities maybe altered, subject to prior written approval of the Planning and Zoning Commission. However, sight triangles at any intersection must be maintained pursuant to Section 4.6 of this Ordinance. • 6 8. In HBD, CBD, NCD, and I zones, any fence higher than 36 inches cannot 6,, • extend beyond the line of the existing buildings. As long as there are no set-back requirements for the building, then there shall be no set-back requirements for fences. In any set-back area bordering a street, the fence cannot be higher than 36 inches within the designated set-back from the property line to the front of a building. A. Fronta es. The maximum height of any fence, wall, or other sight obscuring object within fifteen (15) feet of the public right-of -way shall be three (3) feet. Fences shall not be greater in height than eight (8) feet. B. Floodplain. No fence shall be construcied in the floodway without the approval of the Planning and Zoning Commission. C. Barbed Wire and Electric Fences. Barbed wire and electric fences shall not be erected or maintained within the City unless approved by the Planning and Zoning Commission. D. Maintenance. Fences shall be maintained in a good state of repair. E. Compliance with Section 4-6. The height provisions of this section on fences shall not be construed to permit any structure, fence, wall, shrub, hedge, or sight obscuring object to exist in violation of • Section 4-6 of this Ordinance. Discussion on the requirement for a shading landscape and a fence in the buffered area. Randall Porter asked about protective covenants for the development in order to protect the area from unsightly conditions being allowed in the development. Mary Haley recommended having a common fence for all of the lots on the south side of the property. Steve McGary discussed the need to have Commercial Design Standards for Commercial Developments. Discussion on the landscaping needed for the Hwy 33 corridor. Landscaping designs were discussed. Randall Porter discussed the need for architectural requirements in the Hwy 33 corridor. John Millar mentioned that there is about 200 feet on average between the canal bank and the Widdison Addition. :_ • 7 David Stein moved to approve the Final Plat for Valley Wide Cooperative Subdivision No. 1 • with the following conditions: 1) Adhere to existing buffer requirements in the Zoning Ordinance 725 on the south side of the Subdivision. 2) Continuous 6 foot fence or evergreen trees that are at least 6 feet in height in three years placed at a minimum of every thirty feet. 3) The buffer on the north and east need to have a landscaped six foot berm. 4) Design Standards for commercial development. Joseph Laird seconded the motion; Discussion: Mary Haley requested a solid fence. David amended his motion to include a solid fence. Joseph agreed with the change to the motion and added his amended second to the motion. Winston Dyer asked if there is a need for a buffer next to the on ramp to Hwy 20 on the east side of the development. Mike Ricks indicated that you are up in the air about 26 feet on Hwy 20 looking down at the development. Question: All voted aye as amended; none opposed. The motion carried. Kurt Hibbert reviewed different buffering options that the Commission could add to the Zoning Ordinance. Final Plat for the Andrews Addition No. 2 -Casper Ave. off Pioneer Road - Schiess & Associates (Kurtis Roland) Kurt Rowland representing Mark Andrews -The developer dropped one lot from the original • proposal with some modifications to the roads. Discussion on the drainage for the development that will go to a catch basin on the development. There will be an easement for the detention pond. Kurt Hibbert indicated that the name of Park Place is confusing with another street named Park Street. He recommended a name change on this street. The Commissioners discussed the drainage issues and the street name change. Robert Schwartz moved to recommend the approval of the Final Plat for the Andrews Addition No. 2 with the following conditions: 1) Upon the appropriate conclusion to drainage issues including the catch basin and the easement for the detention pond. 2) Change the name of the street. Mike Ricks seconded the motion; Discussion on the buffering of the development from U.S. Hwy 20. Design Standards would be applied to these multifamily housing units. Discussion on the need for a Landscaping Ordinance. Robert Schwartz recommended landscaping on U.S. Hwy 20. The motion was amended to include landscape buffering along U.S. Hwy 20; all voted aye, none opposed. The motion carried. • 8 t • f ~,_• `ice • Subdivision Ordinance -Review the document for an update. Kurt Hibbert reviewed the proposed changes to the Subdivision Ordinance with the Commission. Specific Items reviewed were the following: a) Condos and Townhouses definitions b) Add Design Standards c) 30 foot private street with no street parking to include street construction standards d) Homeowners Association Insurance on f~1e with the City. e) Parking requirements f) Visitor Parking (One stall for every three units) g) Maintenance building for subdivision h) Garbage dumpster placement i) Lighting for entrances and parking areas j) Planned Unit Developments k) Planned Residential Developments 1) Curvilinear street construction design m) Flood Plane restrictions n) Flood Proofing o) Flood Insurance Rate Map p) Federal Emergency Management Administration (FEMA) q) Hazardous materials in flood plain r) Cemetery development s) Areas of critical concern t) Wet lands u) Environmental impact v) Litigation plan by applicant w) Variance Procedure x) Penalties The Commission went throught the draft Ordinance for subdivisions in the City of Rexburg to make recommended modification for the final draft. Unfinished/Old Business: Comprehensive Plan (Draft Document for review) -Kurt Hibbert, Joshua Garner Kurt reviewed the Comprehensive Plan Map. Discussion on the Comprehensive Plan map and how the proposed changes that the Commissioners have suggested are different from the results of the public input on the Comprehensive Plan Survey. 9 Kurt Hibbert handed out the Oregon State wide Design Standards plan in a handout to be • discussed in a future meeting. Winston asked to have the Comprehensive Plan and Commercial Design Standards on the next meeting agenda. Mike Ricks would like landscaping standards that require a larger size tree. A 68 foot right of way plus an additional 10 utility easement was discussed. Winston recommended that the City of Rexburg work with the Utility Companies to resolve the issue. Report on Proiects: None Tabled Requests: None Adjourned 11:40 p.m. • • 10