Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutP&Z MINUTES DECEMBER 04, 2003CITY OF REXBURG • PLANNING AND ZONING MINUTES Thursday December 04, 2003 7:00 p.m. Chairman: Winston Dyer Members: Robert Schwartz Mike Ricks Steve McGary Jerry Hastings Mary Haley David Stein Joseph Laird -Excused Randall Porter Robert Schwartz was asked to chair the Commission until Winston arrives for the meeting. Portions of the meeting were recorded. ConsentAgenda: The consentagenda includes items which require formal Planning • Commission action, however theyare typicallyroutine ornot ofgreatcontroversy. Individual Commission members mayask thatanyspecific item be removed from the consent agenda for discussion in greater detail. Explanatoryinformation is included in the Planning Commission's agenda packet regarding these items. a) Minutes from the November 20`'`, 2003 meeting Jerry Hastings moved to approve the minutes on the Consent Agenda; Mike Ricks seconded the motion; all vote aye, none opposed. The motion carried. Noncontroversial Items Added to the Agenda: Commercial Design Standards -Ordinance 907 The Commission discussed a date that they could meet with the City Council and formulate policy by Ordinance on the issues of Planned Residential Developments and Commercial Design Standards. January 21, 2004, at 6:00 p.m. was the date that the Commission would like to meet with the City Council. The Planning and Zoning meetings for the Month of January, 2004 were set to be on the 8tl' and the 22"a of that month. • Zoning Compliance: Kurt Hibbert reviewed the progress with the violation stickers that are being used to notify those people that are in violation of the Zoning Ordinance. Kurt is keeping an enforcement log to track the infractions. The Police can't give a ticket without allowing the time factor to work. The City will have the required documentation (photo) in hand before a ticket is issued and possible court hearings. One of the reasons for this ticketing process is to educate the public to the Zoning Laws. Kurt asked the Commissioners to use common sense when using these notices. Holidays and other high traffic days may not be the best time to notify the public with these notices ofnon-compliance. The violators will have 48 hours to comply with the Ordinance before action by the City will be pursued. Mary Haley asked if the residents can park on the right-of--way or apron of the street. Kurt mentioned that Ordinance 648. The Commissioners will post stickers on the vehicles that are in violation of the Zoning Ordinance. Kurt Hibbert reiterated that it is about educating the public, not giving tickets. Kurt indicated that Zoning issues can not be grandfathered when there are Health and Safety violations to the Zoning Ordinance. ' • Public Hearings: 7:05 p.m. Conditional Use Permit for single student (dormitory) housing (340 & 348 West 2"d South with a shared parking lot. The current Zoning is MDR) - Bryce Owen Kurt Hibbert reviewed the proposal on the overhead screen. There are two homes that are being converted to dormitory style housing. The parking lot is in the rear of the properties. The front yards are being converted to green space with the removal of the existing driveways. The new driveway access to the rear of the property for the new parking lot. Staff is in the process of reviewing the site plan. The railroad property is on the west side of this development. The east side j oins another housing complex's parking lot. Randall Porter asked about the conversion of the properties to dormitory style housing and discussed the parking issues for the properties. He asked if the proposal meets the green space requirements. Kurt Hibbert indicated that the parking lot meets the Ordinance criteria. The front yard will be converted to green space to meet the green space requirement. The proposal is in an MDR Zone. Dormitory style housing is an allow use with a Conditional Use Permit in an MDR Zone. Each home will be converted to have four units. • 2 Discussion on the number of units in the two buildings. There will be a four-plex in one home • and athree-plex in the other home. Hard surface for this complex in the front yard will be less than 40 percent. Those in favor of the proposal: Ryan Briggs from Harper Leavitt Engineering, Inc. of Idaho Falls explained-that this project would be done as a 1St class conversion. They will make the units look like they fit in the neighborhood. The two properties are currently used as rentals. The property will be enhanced by removing the driveways in the front yards and putting the parking lot in the rear of the properties. We will be replacing and fence and installing a landscape buffer on the north to buffer an existing residence. We are enhancing 2"d South with this project. The developers want to make these two homes into a nice apartment complex. Ryan reviewed the properties that are adjoining this proposal. This request is consistent with what is being done in this neighborhood. He reviewed the location of the fire hydrants in the neighborhood that are available for fire protection. The trash will be picked up in the rear parking lot on the island in the middle of the parking area. Those neutral to the proposal. -None Those opposed to the proposal. An anonymous letter was given to City Hall that expressed some safety concerns with the • proposed development of the properties. The letter mentioned traffic flow on 4th and 5th West. There were concerns with absence of sidewalk in that area. The absence of green space in the front yard was mentioned. The addition of additional renters to the property was also a concern. The letter also mentioned that snow will be piled on the sidewalk that is adjacent to the street. ADA requirements, fire escapes, parking access, and green space were additional areas of ~ concern. The developer will relocate the down guys that support the overhead power line in the front yard back to the rear parking area on the island where the second power pole is located. They have contacted Utah Power, Cable One, and Qwest to make that change. They are adding a basement entrance to the front area of both homes. Mike Ricks reviewed the width of the parking area driveway that will be located between the existing homes. It will be 22 feet wide according to the presenters. The public input portion of the hearing was closed. Winston Dyer arrived at the meeting. Kurt Hibbert reviewed the parking lot in the rear of the homes. There will be 36 parking stalls ~ with 40 percent of them being sized for compact cars. Randall Porter discussed the responsibility of the home owners to keep the sidewalks clear of snow. Discussion on the fact that the units are already rentals and the snow needs to be removed from the sidewalk by the property owner. The parking that is currently in the front yard will be relocated to the back yard. Kurt Hibbert mentioned that existing structures will not have to comply with the multi-family building Design Standards. Mary Haley arrived at the meeting. David Stein moved to approve the Conditional Use Permit for the single student (dormitory) housing at 340 & 348 West 2"d South subject to adhering to the conditions of the Planning and Zoning Code Chapter 6.13 and the City Staff approval; Jerry Hastings seconded the motion; Discussion: All voted aye, except Winston and Mary abstained from the vote not having been present for all of the discussion; 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. The Commission or Council may require that the applicant conduct studies of the social, economic, fiscal, and environmental effects of the proposed use. t • 4 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. (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 attached 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. D. Action by the Commission/Council. Within sixty (60) days after the public hearing, the approving body shall approve, conditionally approve, or disapprove the application. • Upon granting or denying the permit, the approving body shall specify: (1) The provisions of this Ordinance and standards used in evaluating the application. (2) The reasons for approval or denial. (3) The actions, if any, the applicant should take to obtain a conditional use permit. E. Appeals. The applicant or any affected person may appeal a final decision of the Commission on a conditional use permit application to the Council by submitting a written appeal to the City Clerk within fifteen (15) days of the decision of the Commission. Decisions of the Council may be appealed as provided in Idaho Code Section 67-6521. F. Authority of Commission to Review Conditional Use Permits. The Planning and Zoning Commission may, without approval of the Council, grant the following conditional use permits: (1) Permits for parks. • 6 (2) Permits for nursery schools, day care centers. • (3) Permits for churches, synagogues, and temples. (4) Permits for funeral and crematory services. (5) Permits for boarding houses. (6) Permits for home occupations under Section 4.10 B. (7) Permits for developments with four or less dwelling units. (8) Permits for government buildings. (9) Permits for household goods warehousing and storage All other conditional use permits may only be granted after review and recommendation by the Commission and approval by the City Council. The Commission and the Council shall each hold a public hearing. Formal notice will be sent to applicant after approval of a Conditional Use Permit. Notice will state the conditions of the permit. If conditions are violated or not met there will be a 90 day period to cure the problem. Failure to comply with the terms may result in • revocation of the Conditional Use Permit. Winston Dyer sat at the table to chair the meeting. New Business• Planned Residential Development (PRD) FINAL PLAT at 276 South Pioneer Road (Ray and Dean Peterson) Kurt Rowland from Schiess & Associates at 135 East Main Street reviewed the proposal for a Planned Residential Development. The Preliminary Plat was approved subject to some conditions by the Planning and Zoning Commission. Those conditions have been satisfied. (1) There has been an additional access added to the south end of the project. (2) A shared 40 foot ingress/egress easement has been added to the development for the property adjoining this Plat on the north side of the project. (3) A six foot vinyl fence has been added along the canal. Winston Dyer asked if a copy of the easement has been given to the City and executed with the County. Kurt Rowland indicated that it will be written and recorded on the Final Plat. Winston wanted the easement written and recorded on both pieces of property. 7 ~' Jerry Hastings asked how a building permit could be issued before the final plat has been approved. Winston indicated that the developer has approved concrete waivers; however, they are not approved to begin construction until the building permit has been completely approved. Kurt Hibbert reviewed the canal area that is being used for an open area for the development. Discussion on the fact that streams and waterways are often used in a development and counted as part of the open area of the development. Mary Haley asked the procedures for reviewing final plats. Discussion on the site plan review for this proposal. The landscaping and elevation drawings were reviewed at the last Planning and Zoning meeting. Discussion on the fact that both properties will need to have the recorded document indicating that the 40 foot easement is a share easement for both properties. Winston Dyer reviewed the possibility of deferring this decision fora 60 day fact finding period. The requestors are working under the current Planned Residential Development Ordinance. David Stein moved to approve the final plat for Peterson Point Planned Residential Development subject to the conditions of the PRD Ordinance, ingress/egress easements filed • appropriately, and Staff approval; Jerry Hastings seconded the motion; Discussion: Design Standards apply to Planned Residential Developments. Kurt Hibbert indicated that the City does not have approvable building plans for this development at this time. Discussion on elevations, landscaping, lighting, and car ports that are required for a Planned Residential Development. Discussion on the canal being used for open space in this development. Randall Porter requested that the minutes contain the attitude of the Commission on these Planned Residential Developments. Randall indicated that Ray Peterson did mention that they were planning to comply with the Multi-family Design Standards in a prior meeting. The Commission has expressed a desire to have developments that are more pleasing than row housing type developments. The Commission does not want to approve another military type design style for a development. Stephen Zollinger explained that the waterway may be a canal, pond, stream, or creek. It is an allowed use of an open area for a development. Mary Haley asked if the fence along the canal would eliminate that area from being counted as open area for the development. John Millar indicated that no more that 50% of the development can be considered to be hard space. The remaining soft cape can include the canal. Question: All voted aye except Mike Ricks and Robert Schwartz who voted nay. The motion carried. Planned Residential Developments (Proposed Moratorium while the Ordinance is under review) -Planning and Zoning Commission r ~. • 8 General discussion on the proposed Design Standards Ordinance and the concerns the Council • had with the proposed Ordinance. Randall Porter recommended that more attention be given to the aesthetics of the buildings in a Planned Residential Development. Winston Dyer indicated that there was a need to revisit the set backs for the PRD developments. The Wagon Wheel Apartments were mentioned as an example of a pleasing set back area from the street view. He mentioned that the Planning and Zoning Ordinance and the Comprehensive Plan are currently on the table for review and the Public Hearing process. He asked the Commissioners if they were interested in taking on more work at this time or should the Commission wait until the current issues are completed. Randall Porter indicated that the Comprehensive Plan review could be delayed for a time. Steve McGary joined the meeting. David Stein indicated that the Design Standards that were passed in July of 2003 were making a difference on the building designs. Small buildings can look good in a PRD if they follow the Design Standards using some unique building designs between buildings. Robert Schwartz mentioned that a Committee review of building designs could be helpful to allow a majority review pick the most pleasing design. • Randall Porter indicated that it takes some time to effect change on building design standards. Discussion on the changes that need to be done to the Planned Residential Development Ordinance. 1) Require a size change between buildings every so many units. 2) Require different designs for buildings every so many units. 3) Possibly add curved roads to the developments. 4) Allow an either/or stipulation on the requirements. 5) Keep the Ordinance simple to administer and enforce. 6) Keep the changes at a minimum cost. 7) Explore the possibility of having a model to follow for a ratio of single family to multi-family housing in a development. Jerry Hastings indicated that a licensed architect is required for an architectural review of multi- family housing plans. Kurt Hibbert mentioned that the Village Complex is adding $5,000 to $10,000 per building to comply with the Design Standards. He mentioned that the concept behind PRD's is to cluster the housing and allow larger green space areas. He indicated that the developers are desirous to provide input on the changes to the PRD Ordinance. • 9 (~ Robert Schwartz moved to recommend to City Council a (120 day maximum) moratorium on the approval of any additional PRD Plats for the following reasons: 1) Pending concerns Planning and Zoning Commission has with the current developments. They have a generic (Sanitary) look. They are often referred to as having a military barracks look. 2) Need modifications to the Planned Residential Development Ordinance. 3) Design Standards. 4) Mitigate against the row housing appearance. 5) Protect the appearance of the Community. 6) Allow an input period for public input. 7) Update the new City Council on the issues and concerns with a PRD. 8) Maintain and improve the image of the City. Mike Ricks seconded the motion; Question: All voted aye, none opposed. The motion carried. Unfinished/Old Business: Report on Projects: Tabled Requests: None f Adjourned I~• 10