The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutP&Z MINUTES DECEMBER 18, 2003CITY OF REXBURG • PLANNING AND ZONING MINUTES Thursday December 18, 2003 ?:00 p.m. Chairman: Winston Dyer Members: Robert Schwartz Mike Ricks Mary Haley Steve McGary -Excused Jerry Hastings -Excused David Stein Joseph Laird Randall Porter -Excused Portions of the meeting were recorded Consent Agenda: 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 ite>ns. a) Minutes from the December 04th, 2003, meeting Requested corrections to the minutes on December 04, 2003. Page 4 -The motion by David Stein: The reason for the abstentions by Winston and Mary was because they were not present for the entire discussion. Page 8 -Jerry Hastings instead of Jerry Dyer Page 9 -Clarification on the comment to add additional items to the Planning Commission's agenda. Winston commented 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. Mike Ricks moved to approve the minutes of December 04, 2003 with the noted changes; Mary Haley seconded the motion; all vote aye, none opposed. The motion carried. Public Hearings: 7:05 p.m. Conditional Use Permit for a Telecommunications Monopole for Cellular • Communications at 117 North 2nd East. The current Zoning is Highway Business District • (HBD) -AFL Telecommunications Kurt Hibbert reviewed the location for the request on the overhead screen. It will be located at the east end of the Clair and Dees Tire Store storage building. This location is east of an existing cell tower. The Zoning is HBD, which requires a Conditional Use Permit for a cellular tower. John Clark - 429 Lawndale Drive in Salt Lake City, Utah is requesting an 80 foot monopole. The exiting pole on the property is also 80 feet high. US Cellular owns the other pole. This applicant represents Verizon Wireless Communications. Discussion on the type of equipment that will be located on the pole Mary Haley asked why they could not attach to the existing pole on the property. John Clark indicated that the RF frequency would require the location to be 1 S feet below the tern, ~f the pole. Six±;~-five feet of height on the existing pole would not allov~ the Company to reach their objective. They have to be at least 50 feet away from the existing pole. Winston Dyer asked about the location of the existing pole on the overhead screen. John Clark indicated that they will have a.similar configuration as is on the US West tower; however, they will not have as many antennas on this monopole. • Discussion on havin the e ui ment surface mounted on the mono ole. John indicated that it g q p p would be possible to surface mount the hardware on the pale. Winston opened the meeting to public input. Those in favor of the proposal: Mike Thueson - 581 Summerwood Drive representing the owners of the property requested that the Commission approve the request. Mike explained that they have contracted with U. S. Cellular for the existing cell tower on the property. He indicated that it was a good ~t for the property to have cell towers. The equipment for this request (a monopole) will be located inside the storage building for the tire store. Other locations on their property to the west did not have as good of a location due to easement restrictions and available space. Those neutral to the proposal: None given: Those opposed to the proposal: None given: The Public Hearing was closed to public input: Mary Haley asked if there were any complaints with the existing communications tower on the property. Mike indicated that the frequency is not the same as the garage door openers and other • TV or radio communications. The band width that they are using _for communications has limited traff c. This frequency has not been a problem. They have one other tower on 2nd East 2 by the City water tower. This location down on the valley floor is ideal for covering the back • side of the City where the hospital is located and other locations farther east towards Newdale and Clementsville. The lay of the land requires addition locations to reach the customers. Discussion on the Cell Tower Ordinance being revised to eliminate the Towers in the residential areas. Kurt Hibbert indicated that there has been negative feed back from residents when a cell tower is located inside the City. He indicated that it would be preferable to work with the Cell Tower Companies to find locations that would allow clustering of the towers in special areas. Kurt indicated that residents do not want their horizons blocked with the view of a cell tower. Winston Dyer mentioned that the location of the cell tower in the middle of the Commercial block would help substantially. He discussed the complaints that he has received when a cell tower is located in an area that is noticed by the public. He recommended putting the cell towers in lnr~atjnnc that are ~nner"1 fnr r.ell~lar tn~zrerc, Mike Thueson indicated that he had worked on a committee that did work on an Ordinance that did riot materialize. He ~~~entioned that it had some legal issues. The needs of t he general public must be met with the request. He indicated that the height of the tower was also a problem when they were working on the cell tower Ordinance. Mike reviewed the airport restrictions on the height of cell towers. He indicated that they would better serve the public by being located in Highway Business Zones (HBD). Discussion on the reason far Iocating the tower at this site. Discussion on the restriction the Citffy has put on the height of cell towers. If the U.S. Cellular Tower ~'=V'o uld have been b~llrlt Lo a 1~JV feet, thell a seCGild colllpally co uid ha`v'e used the Jallle pole and located at the 80 foot level Discussion on other locations in the City that would be allowed. BYU-Idaho property was mentioned as a property that does not allow cell towers. Mike Thueson reviewed the plan to locate the electronics and other equipment inside an existing building on the fire store property. Discussion on the reason that the cell tower is being located on the east side of the storage building. Mary Haley requested the applicant to relocate the tower to a less intrusive location away from 2nd East. Discussion on the 20 foot easement that was given to U. S. Cellular on the north side of the building. The easement can not be encumbered by an additional cell tower on the north side of the building. Mary continued to pursue other possible locations for the tower on the property. Winston Dyer indicated that the Commission is concerned with the reaction of the public if the Commission allows another tower to be built at that location. He indicated that this is a very progressive Commission; "but we are scared spitless of what our public is going to do, if we • 3 • consider putting another tower up there"; "That's the bottom line". "They are not going to be happy, at all, because they haven't been happy thus far". David Stein indicated that the property has been maximized for cell tower locations. The location is so close to the street that it is an eye sore. Winston Dyer reviewed the underlying zone as Highway Business District (HBD). He asked the Commission to make a decision. Discussion on the reasons to deny the request. Paragraph B on page 52 of the Zoning Ordinance was reviewed by the Commissioners. Winston read some of the conditions; especially mentioning number 9. B. Standards Applicable to Conditional Use Permits. The approving body shall reyie~ar the partiC~.:lar facts and .r,~rct:mStanCPS of each proposed C.nnr~liti~nal Ilse and Shall find adequate evidence to show that the proposed use will: (1) Constitute a conditional use as established ire 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 i Pian and the regulations of this Ordinance. David Stein mentioned number 3: He indicated that it is not harmonious with the business district and so close to the street. i3e pr efelled a location avYay 1 otll file Street. (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. • Mary Haley mentioned number 7: She was not aware of any buffering for the proposal. 4 (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. David Stein moved to deny the Conditional Use Permit for a Telecommunications Monopole for Cellular Communications at 117 North 2nd East because the finding of fact being that it is not harmonious with the existing character of the section of the Business District and it is so close to the street. David referenced section 6.13, subsection B3 of the Zoning Ordinance; Mary Haley seconded the motion; Discussion on the subjectivity of the issues. Discussion on the location of other cell towers relative to the highway. Winston asked David how close to the street is too close. Discussion on the lack of an Ordinance that specifies the distance to the street. Three hundred feet was mentioned as an appropriate distance. Winston asked Mike Thueso_n_ if he had any comments Germaine to the motion. 1l~ike Tlaneson spoke to the location of the tower in a Commercial Zone verses a Residential Zone. He mentioned that the nature of business's today is to use cellular communications. Mike Thueson indicated that the Business District is an appropriate location for the cell towers to be located. He asked "Where else are you going to put it"? Mike indicated that one option would be to allow higher towers to provide for additional companies to use the same tower. Mike • mentioned the territorial issues with competing companies trying to use the same location. This location will provide coverage for the downtown area and the other side of the hill behind the hospital Discussion on the fact that the Commission is not anti cell tower. There inay be other locations that will provide coverage for the applicant and be less intrusive to the Community. Winston Dyer read procedures of the process from page 54 of the Zoning Ordinance. D. Action by the Commission/Council. Within sixty (60) days after the public hearing, the approving body shall either 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. 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. • 5 David Stein indicated that the Commissioners have talked about Number One and Number two. The question on number two is the issue of how close to the street is considered non-harmonious to the Business District, since the City does not have an Ordinance that defines that distance. Discussion on the distance from the street that would be considered appropriate in a HBD Zone. Sorne of the other Cell Tower sites in Rexburg were reviewed as to the proximity to the street. Joseph Laird indicated that he was not concerned with the location of this request because it is located in a Business District and it is hidden in the back of a store on 2nd East. Continued discussion on the location of the proposed monopole. Discussion on the location of the existing cell tower on the property and the inability for the traffic on 2nd East to notice the tower. Winston indicated that it is very visible from the hill; "it sticks out like a sore thumb". Winston mentioned that there are only three st_ruct~~_res that are visible from the hill; two cell tower structures and the McDonalds sign. Mike 1[~ieks joined the meeting. Mary Haley indicated that she is opposed to this location on 2nd East due to its proximity to 2nd East. She is not opposed to cell phones. Kurt Hibbert mentioned section C subsection 5 in the Zoning Ordinance; also, Kurt mentioned #7 on the next page. 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. Winston Dyer indicated that the motion is to deny. This section will not lend it self to that discussion. David Stein indicated that the nature of the motion is that the applicant indicated that there is not another spot on the property that will work for the tower. As David understood the issue, • the monopole could only be located in the requested spot on this property. 6 • Winston Dyer called for Question: Those voting for the motion Mary Haley David Stein Winston Dyer Those voting against the motion Robert Schwartz Joseph Laird The motion to deny the request passed by a three to two vote. The request was denied. Winston Dyer -indicated to the applicants that they could come back with a different proposal to the Commission or appeal the decision through the appeal process. New Business: Preliminary and Final Subdivision Plat for Woodshed Apartments 355 West 2nd South -Kevin Snell Kurt Hibbert reviewed the proposal as both a preliminary and final plat request. The plan is to sell individual four plexes in a subdivision. Discussion on how a subdivision plat can be both a preliminary and a final plat. Kurt indicated • that it is not possible to review both plats in one document. It violates the Subdivision Ordinance. There is no provisior_ in the Ordinance fnr this tfpe of review or. one doctn'::ent. Winston Dyer indicated his opposition to this proposal due to several questions. He asked who is going to keep up the maintenance on the rest of the property. There is a need to have a Homeowner Association Agreement and other requirements (Protective Covenants) for a preliminary and final plat. These items are missing from this request. Winston was concerned with the development being changed from a single development with common parking into a split development with shared parking. Kurt Hibbert reviewed the normal process for a Plat. The first request is to have a preliminary plat approved through the Planning Commission. The next phase is to have City Council approve the preliminary plat. If the preliminary plat is approved, then the developer would submit a final plat to the Planning Commission and then to City Council. There are different requirements on the preliminary plat than there is on the final plat and they must be considered independently of each other. David Stein reviewed the list of items needed far a Condominium Plat. The Commission is not sure what type of development this Subdivision is going to be based on the paper work that has been submitted.. 7 Ryan Lerwill indicated that there was not any common ground in the subdivision that would require a Homeowners Agreement. The developer intends to have a three parcel split for the subdivision. The objective was to sell the buildings as four plexes. Ryan reviewed the reasons for the request, which is to have the units approved on separate parcels. There is not any plan to have condominiums in this development. Discussion on the parking lot and how the parking lot would be split up between the units. Lot four does not have any parking. Winston Dyer indicated that it was not in the public's interest to approve this Plat without more information. He mentioned that it was an offense to this Commission to have this plan submitted after the buildings are under construction. Robert Schwartz indicated that it was the developer's responsibility to bring plats to the Commission and City Staff that are complete with the specific requirement completed that are required on a preliminary and final plat. The plat needs to indicate where the storm water drainage is handled etc. Discussion on the previous approvals that were given to approve the development as a complete planned development with shared parking etc. Discussion on the previous requests to change the Zoning for this property to NIDRZ. This first Zone change request was denied by Planning and Zoning Commission. After the first denial the City Council referred the request back to the Planning Commission for a second hearing. It was denied a second time by the Commission to increase the zoning to MDR2. Kurt Hibbert mentioned that it is the property owner's right to request to subdivide a piece of property under the Subdivision Ordinance. There have been several properties that have done this same request after the buildings were constructed. Continued discussion on the need for a Homeowners Association Agreement with Protective Covenants. The Subdivision Ordinance was reviewed with the needed requirements for this request to be approvable. Joe Laird moved to table this request until the developer can present an appropriate survey necessary to subdivide the parcels because there are S lots that need to be tied to a survey inside the city with reference to the parking issue and missing plat procedures; Robert Schwartz seconded the motion; Question: all voted aye, none opposed. The motion carried. The request was tabled. Noncontroversial Items Added to the Agenda: • Winston Dyer reported on a presentation he made in behalf of the Planning and Zoning Commission to the City Council on December 17t''. He gave the Council the request from the 8 Planning and Zoning Commission to have a 120 day moratorium on Planned Residential • Developments. Winston indicated that the Council will take up the Ordinance at the next City Council meeting on the 7~' of January. The PRD Ordinance will be placed on the agenda for the 22nd of January for Planning and. Zoning Commission. Winston Dyer asked the Commissioners if they could meet with the Council on the 14th for Commercial Design Standards discussions with the Council. David Stein discussed the Design Standards in both Highway Business and other Zones. He mentioned that the Design Standard for Commercial could be different from one Zone to another Zone. Kurt will meet with the Businessmen in Rexburg to get input for the discussion. Winston Dyer expressed sincere appreciation to Council Member Shawn Larsen for his input to the Planning and Zoning Commission while he has been assigned to the Planning Commission. Winston appreciated the fact that Shawn would take the intent and concerns of the Planning Commission on critical issues back to the City Council. Kurt Hibbert passed out a working draft of the Comprehensive Plan to the Commissioners for review. He plans to have the document ready for Public Hearings in the near future. He reviewed the new map designs that will be in the Comprehensive Plan. He requested that the Comprehensive Plan be added to the agenda on the 8d` of January. Zoning Compliance: Kurt Hibbert reviewed a request from a resident to bring his property into zoning compliance. Winston Dyer indicated that there is a 90 day period available by Ordinance to allow for relocations. Mike Ricks was not in favor of the resident's request for an extension on the zoning violation. He indicated that this is a perfect example of doing what you want while disregarding the Zoning Ordinance. Winston Dyer indicated that there are innocent parties that will be impacted by the decision. Winston discussed the process of putting on Zoning violation stickers when a zoning violation is observed. Kurt Hibbert mentioned that he has put 10 stickers on violator's cars and all were complying with the Zoning Ordinance. C] 9 David Stein moved to have this property on 534 Park Street be brought into compliance with the Zoning Ordinance by Jan Ol, 2004, which is option #2 as presented by the owner; Mike Ricks seconded the motion; Discussion: Question: all voted aye, none opposed. The motion carried. New Business• Unfinished/Old Business: Report on Proiects: None Tabled Requests: None Adjourned • 10