Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutP&Z MINUTES NOVEMBER 20, 2003cis of ~~uitG ~ PLANNING AND ZONING MINUTES Thursday November 20, 2003 7:00 p.m. Chairman: Winston Dyer Members: Robert Schwartz -Excused Mike Ricks Steve McGary Jerry Hastings Mary Haley David Stein -Excused Joseph Laird -Excused Randall Porter ConsentAgenda: 7"he consent agenda includes items which require formal Planning Commission action, however they are typically routine or not ofgreat 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) IVlinutes from the November 06t'`, 2003 meeting Mike Ricks moved to approve the minutes on the Consent Agenda; Mary Haley seconded the motion; all vote aye, none opposed. The motion carried. Noncontroversial Items Added to the Agenda: Winston Dyer reviewed the progress on the Comprehensive Plan rewrite. He requested some support to move forward on the Comprehensive Plan. Kurt plans to send a "draft" to the Commissioners at the next meeting. Discussion on working with the County and Sugar City to pass on Ordinance for Commercial Design Standards that applies to alI three jurisdictions. The Commissioner reviewed the language in the proposed Ordinance for Commercial Design Standards. They discussed building standards in other cities. Kurt Hibbert mentioned that the Residential Design Standards are being incorporated into the new Planning and Zoning Ordinance which covers multifamily housing. Zoning Compliance: Kurt Hibbert presented a Notice to the Planning Commission that is designed to be a "Warning Notice" to people that are not in compliance with the Zoning Ordinance. It is a friendly notice from the City indicating that a citation will be given for if the situation is not brought into compliance with the Zoning law. The Building Department will red tag construction projects that are not in compliance with the Building Codes. The objective is to educate the residents concerning the requirements of the Zoning Ordinance. Discussion on the rental properties that are not in compliance with the Zoning Ordinance. Discussion on giving the public more information that will make them aware of the Zoning Ordinance requirements. Public Hearings: 7:05 p.m. Conditional Use Permit for a Business at 11 East Main Street (Preventive Pest Control recruiting office and office space) Greg Hunt and Kevin Olsen - 11 East Main Street introduced the request to have a training center with office space at the above address. Kurt Hibbert reviewed the location of the Business on the overhead screen. Three quarters (3/4) of the building will be used as retail space ~; ~ while one quarter ('/4) of the building will be used for a business venture. They plan to recruit BYU-I students to work in a business called Preventive Pest Control. Mike Hammond will be at the business during business hours. In the evenings, there will be recruiting and training of small groups which will start after business hours. Kurt Hibbert explained the reason for applicants to have a Public Hearing. The training facility requested did not fit under any of the "Services: Business Types" in the Planning and Zoning Ordinance. The Business is a Marketing Business with recruiting and training at the same location. Winston Dyer opened the Public Hearing for public comments. Those in favor of the request -None given Those neutral to the request -None given Those against the request -None given The Public Testimony was closed. John Millar indicated that the Fire Code review of the building would be covered under the Building Code review by the Building Department. . Discussion on the parking needs for the Business. 2 Mary Haley joined the meeting. Steve McGary moved to approve the request for a Conditional Use Permit if the conditions were met on 6.13 of the Planning and Zoning Ordinance, including the approval of the Fire Department and the City Staff; Randall Porter seconded the motion; all voted aye, none opposed. The motion carried. 6.13 Conditional Use Permits. Pursuant to Idaho Code Section 67-6512, the Council and Commission may issue conditional use permits. Prior to issuing a conditional use permit, at least one public hearing shall be held. At least fifteen (15) days prior to the hearing, notice of the time and place and a summary of the application shall be published in the official newspaper or paper of general circulation with the City of Rexburg. Notice shall be posted on the premises not less than one (1) week prior to the hearing. Notice shall also be provided to property owners within three hundred feet (300') of the boundaries of the property and any others that the Commission determines shall be substantially impacted by the proposed development. A. Application. In addition to the information required under Section 6.9 above, the Administrator may require a narrative statement discussing the general compatibility of the proposed development with adjacent properties and the neighborhood, the relationship of the proposed use to the Comprehensive Plan, and the effects of the following on the adjoining property: noise, glare, traffic generated, vibration, odor, fumes, drainage, building height, massing, and solid waste. i The Commission or Council may require that the applicant conduct studies of the social, economic, fiscal, and environmental effects of the proposed use. B. Standards Applicable to Conditional Use Permits. The approving body shall review the particular facts and circumstances of each proposed conditional use and shall find adequate evidence to show that the proposed use will: (1) Constitute a conditional use as established in Table 1, Zoning Districts, and Table 2, Land Use Schedule. (2) Be in accordance with a specific or general objective of the City's Comprehensive Plan and the regulations of this Ordinance. (3) Be designed and constructed in a manner to be harmonious with the existing character of the neighborhood and the zone in which the property is located. (4) Not create a nuisance or safety hazard for neighboring properties in terms of excessive noise or vibration, improperly directed glare or heat, electrical interference, odors, dust or air pollutants, solid waste generation and storage, hazardous materials or waste, excessive traffic generation, or interference with pedestrian traffic. • 3 (5) Be adequately served by essential public facilities and services such as access streets, police and fire protection, drainage structures, refuse disposal, water and • sewer service, and schools. If existing facilities are not adequate, the developer shall show that such facilities shall be upgraded sufficiently to serve. the proposed use. (6) Not generate traffic in excess of the capacity of public streets or access points serving the proposed use and will assure adequate visibility at traffic access points. (7) Be effectively buffered to screen adjoining properties from adverse impacts of noise, building size and resulting shadow, traffic, and parking. (8) Be compatible with the slope of the site and the capacity of the soils and will not be in an area of natural hazards unless suitably designed to protect lives and property. (9) Not result in the destruction, loss or damage of a historic feature of significance to the community of Rexburg. C. Supplementary Conditions and Safeguards. In granting a conditional use permit, the approving body may prescribe appropriate conditions and safeguards. Such conditions to be attacked to the permit may include but not be limited to: (1) Minimizing adverse impact on other developments. (2) Controlling the sequence and timing of development. (3) Controlling the duration of development. ~, ~ (4}Assuring the development is properly maintained. (5) Designating the exact location and nature of development. (6) Requiring the provision for on-site or off-site public facilities of services; (7) Requiring more restrictive standards than those generally required in this Ordinance. 7:30 p.m. Planned Residential Development (PRD) at 276 South Pioneer Road - Ray and Dean Petersons Winston Dyer declared a perceived conflict of interest, indicating that he had done some work for the Petersons. No one on the Commission or the owners objected to having Winston remain at the table. Kurt Rowland Schiess & Associates - 135 East Main Street reviewed a 6 acre piece of ground Zoned MDR (Medium Density Residential) for 24 (four plex buildings). These buildings are to be sold individually. There are 240 parking places for the development which includes 2.5 parking stalls per apartment. There is a 25 foot set back with the buildings with a staggered presentation. There are 40 foot back yard setbacks with a play area. There is another play area by the Hwy 20 that is 90 feet by 40 feet. The SE corner of the project will have an additional access. Kurt Rowland reviewed the locations that would have a "no parking" zone. He indicated that there would be 50 percent landscape area with a berm. 4 ~`~ Mike Ricks reviewed the easement between the existing proposal and the property to the North. . Mike was concerned with the north access being used by both properties. He indicated that a renter of the rental units to the north could block the roadway for the access to the development. Discussion by the Commissioners concerning the developer using the canal as part of the green space requirement. Discussion on how the units would be sold. A PRD (Planned Residential Development) will allow the sale of the four-plex buildings individually. The homeowners agreement and fencing for the Development was discussed. Mike Ricks was concerned with the Canal Companies ability to clean the Canal. Kurt Rowland mentioned that there would be a 25 foot easement on the south side of the Canal for access. Ray Peterson explained the plan to break up the buildings to make them unique. Randall Porter asked for some variety in ±he construction design of the buildings. Discussion on the need to meet the Design Standards for the City. Winston Dyer opened the meeting for public comments. Those in favor of the project as a PRD -None given Those neutral to the request -None given Those against the project -None given The public input for the Public Hearing was closed. Kurt Rowland reviewed the elevation drawing for the buildings. He discussed the design criteria, site plan and access issues. The drainage and layout were acceptable to the Public Works Department in their review. Kurt reviewed the parking and green space for the development. John Millar reviewed the PRD checklist. The Ordinance requires no more than 50% of the property in the development with the remaining area developed as green space. They are two percent over the hard space requirement of 50 percent. Discussion on the new drawing which shows a shared access to the north for the development. This access will require a joint easement agreement with the property to the north. Discussion on a common use agreement with no fences and a shared use canal agreement. The parking is adequate with covered parking as required by the PRD Ordinance, (one covered parking stall per unit or four per building). The durnpsters will be enclosed on three sides and they won't black the canal access. The handicap stalls need to be shown on parking plan. • S `• Steve McGary moved to approve the Conditional Use Permit for the Planned Residential Development conditioned on City Staff approval; Randal Porter seconded the motion; all voted aye, none opposed. The motion carried. John Millar asked the Commission to act on the Preliminary Plat for the Development. Jerry Hastings moved to approve the Preliminary Plat for Peterson Park Planned Residential Development if the required easements and site plan are completed and approved by the City Staff; Mike Ricks seconded the motion; all voted aye, none opposed. The motion carried. Discussion on the setbacks and the green space areas for the Peterson Development. The buildings will be really nice and comply with the new Residential Multifamily Design Ordinance. New Business• Consider the Downtown District Redevelopment Plan {Rexburg Redevelopment Agency) Jon Weber from the Rexburg Redevelopment Agency discussed the reason for the request. He reviewed the location of the seven blocks in the proposal. It excludes the Melaleuca property. The purpose for the Redevelopment Plan is to capture the marginal increase in tax funds that are ', • assessed from redevelopment activity. The Redevelopment Plan will go for 7 years. Questions from Planning and Zoning: Jerry Hastings asked about tax increment financing. When the valuation goes up due to redevelopment, the increased amount of tax goes into the fund. Winston Dyer mentioned the new development that is going in on North 2nd East by the Teton River. The land was not developed last year. With the new development this year, the property will see tax increases would be applicable for a Redevelopment Plan. Discussion on the anticipation of re-development in the Downtown area. There is not any planned growth at this time; however, if new development does come to the Downtown area, this Plan would be in place to capture any increase in tax revenues. This Redevelop Plan does not happen over night. The Melaleuca property was excluded because the growth and development was already completed for that property. The consultants advise the Agency to exclude the Melaleuca property. Jerry Hastings mentioned that the Plan shawl an increase in the School District property taxes. 1t is a plan for the future development of the property. Jerry asked if Grants were available to pay for this plan. • 6 Kurt Hibbert explained that this is a tool to help development the Downtown area. Kurt • continued to explain the reason for this request. Discussion on the possibility of expanding an existing Redevelopment Plan to include this new area. The School District and the County would need to agree to expand an existing Redevelopment Plan. Jon is the Secretary to the Redevelopment Agency. Randall Porter asked who the Agency is is representing. Jon mentioned that some of the downtown businesses are interested in getting help to develop downtown properties and projects. This Plan would help with downtown development. Jon has visited with a few business owners who are excited to get going on the Redevelopment Plan. Winston Dyer was in support of the concept of the Plan. Jerry Hastings was in support of the Plan if people understood the purpose of it. Kurt Hibbert reviewed the Zoning District which recommends and supports the Redevelopment Plan for downtown. Randall Porter asked how much the City lost by not having a Redevelopment Plan in place. Winston Dyer explained that it allows bonding immediately instead of waiting for a later date. • Kurt Hibbert indicated that the plan expedites the redevelopment of the Downtown area. Jerry Hastings moved to approve the Resolution indicating that the Redevelopment Plan was in conformity with the Comprehensive Plan; Mike Ricks seconded the motion; all voted aye, none opposed, Steve McGary abstained. The motion carried. Winston Dyer welcomed Rex Erickson and Shawn Larsen to the meeting. Winston welcomed the scouts to the meeting. Zone Change request fora "Professional Overlay" between Rolling Hills Drive & 512 South Millhollow Road. The current Zone is LDR. Winston Dyer declared a conflict with the Smiths on another piece of property. No one indicated a concern with the perceived conflict so Winston remained at the table. Randall Porter declared a conflict indicating that he has received inquiries on a piece of property he owns by Doctors for the purpose of building doctors offices. Sally Smith reviewed the reasons for the request. A zoning map was laid on the table for the Commissioners to review. The Smiths are requesting to have a Professional Overlay for the property along Millhollow Road. There are 12 acres in the parcel. The property north and west . of the property would remain residential. The proposed Professional Plaza would come off from 7 `' ~ Millhollow Road. The Commission reviewed the proposal on the map. Sally indicated that the actual developed property would be 7 to 8 acres. Mike Ricks moved to go to send the request to a Public Hearing for the Professional Overlay; Mary Haley seconded the motion; all voted aye, none opposed. The motion carried. Unfinished/Old Business: Kurt Hibbert reviewed the proposed changes to the Comprehensive Plan. He is planning to have it ready to send to Public Hearing in January, 2004. Kurt displayed a proposed development at the North Rexburg Exit that is being considered for development and annexation. Kurt continued to review the Comprehensive Plan map with the Commissioners. They discussed the proposed changes to the map that would be sent to a Public Hearing in January. ReAOrt on Proiects: None Tabled Requests: None Adjourned \ • •