Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutP&Z MINUTES MARCH 18, 2004CITY OF REXBURG PLA~~~IING AND ZONING MINUTES Thursday March 18, 2004 7:00 p,m. Chairman: Winston Dyer Members: Robert Schwartz -Excused Mike Ricks Mary Haley Steve McGary Jerry Hastings David Stein Joseph Laird Randall Porter 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. Explanato~~y information is included in • the Planning Commission 's agenda packet regarding these items. a) Minutes from the March 04, 2004, meeting Randall Porter moved to approve the minutes for March 4, 2004; Steve McGary seconded the motion; all vote aye, except Mary Haley and Mike Ricks who were not currently present at the meeting. The motion carried. Non controversial items: Kurt Hibbert announced a workshop on March 27~' meeting in Pocatello on Planning and Zoning in Idaho. Kurt will get the information sent out to those on the commission. Heather Westenzweig, Madison County Planning and Zoning Administrator, mentioned that the County would like to start revising their comprehensive plan this summer. Winston recommended having another joint meeting with the Madison County and Sugar City Planning and Zoning soon. Impact Area Re-Zone request from Ag-1 to Light Industrial located North of the East Moody Road and West of the Railroad Tracks, approximately 24 acres- Five Brothers Family Limited Partners. Greg Stoddard, a member of Five Brothers Family limited partnership showed on the overhead screen where they are making the proposal. There is a business currently running on this property and they are trying to come into compliance for this business. Half of the property shows light industrial already in the comprehensive plan. Greg explained what kind of Light Industrial business is currently running on this property. Winston explained that this is in the Impact Area and the vote of the county Commission Members on the Commission count more than the City Commission Members. Public input: In favor of this proposal: None Neutral: Norse Against this proposal: Burt Pugh, Archer, is here to represent his mother-in-law whom lives on the Moody Highway. There is Light Industrial property across from her house and the owners do not keep the property looking nice. They have some concerns that if the property being proposed is changed to Light Industrial that it might attract businesses that do not keep the properly looking nice. Discussion on what the proposed property was used for previously and how they can buffer the property by recommending a berm or shield. • Randall Porter asked if they have a plan to have more Light Industrial businesses. Greg commented that they do not have a plan at this time. Mike Ricks moved to recommend to change the property to Light Industrial and on existing businesses and as further development occurs they recommend using fencing and other buffering and recommend this to the county commissioners; David Stein seconded the motion; all voted aye, none opposed. The motion carried. The two County Commission members were in favor of the proposal and voted for the proposal. Conditional Use Permit for a Monopole Cellular Communications Tower at ll7 North 2"~ East-AFL Telecommunications Greg Ford with AFL Telecommunications in Salt Lake City, went over what was proposed before on the first request that was denied. The proposed monopole is now moved back so it is not as noticeable from North 2nd East. The radio equipment will be located in one of the storage facilities. It will still be an 80 foot monopole. The Commission is pleased that they took in to consideration the recommendations from Planning and honing and the City Council on moving the pole and changing the appearance of the pole. David Stein asked about interference with the other cellular pole. Greg Ford commented that there would be not be any interference with the proposed location of this pole. 2 • Kurt Hibbert showed the distance on the overhead screen. He measured the poles from the curb. Public input: Those in favor: None Against: Written input: Winston read a letter from Carolyn Phillips froir~ Shoreline `vVashirigton. She was against the approval of the monopole for cellular service. She believes that the cell phone industry will change the look of the land and take away from the beauty of Idaho. Close public input. Winston Dyer commented on being pleased with the planning process by the applicant. David Stein commented that this is a better proposal and it meets their concerns. Randall Porter asked how this proposal goes with the Ordinance that is being put • together on cell towers. Stephen Zollinger talked about what this new Ordinance entails. The Ordinance mainly mandates cell tower clustering. Mary Haley made a motion to accept this plan as submitted to the Commission for approval with the changes made and recommend this to the City Council; Mike Ricks seconded the motion; all voted aye, none opposed. The motion carried. Conditional Use Permit for a duplex on each lot of a proposed lot split and '6~ariance fora 10 foot back yard setback pending a lot split at 252 South 5th West- Andrew Clark Andy Clark, 252 S. 5~' W., showed where the proposal is located. They are proposing two conditional use permits. First permit is for their current duplex to come into compliance. The second permit would be for a duplex on a lot split. Their present home has been rented out as a duplex before they bought the home. Andrew is also asking for a variance fora 10 foot setback. The current setback is 20 feet. That leaves only 26 feet to build a building on this lot with a 20 foot setback. Conditional Use Permit on the current Duplex • Public input on the current duplex: Infavor: None • Neutral: None Against: Val Dietrich, 685 S. 5000 W., representing Bi11 Henderson.. He is opposed to three of the proposals. He commented that Bill Henderson asked for four plexes before and was turned down. He mentioned that parking and access was a concern. He presented a petition to the board of those that are against this proposal. Close public input. Discussion on the existing duplex and if it meets staff approval There is enough parking for this request. This was brought up to the life safety standards. Stephen McGary made a motion to grant the conditional use permit for the existing duplex facing South 5~ West. Jerry Hastings seconded the motion; all voted aye, none opposed. The motion carried. Conditional Use Permit on the lot split Andy Clark clarified that they want to develop this lot because it is a big lot. Public Input • Infavor: Jeff Zollinger indicated that he was in favor of this proposal He thinks the house will look like it will fit into the community and with the subdivision. Mark Hymas, 650 Cook Ave., lives in the Henderson Subdivision. He would rather see this lot developed and he would like to see something Looking nice. He thinks this proposal is in accordance with the subdivision. Neutral: None Opposed: Dan 1VTedrow, son of Glenis Nedrow who lives at 270 South S~' West, commented that they are concerned of the conditional use permit because they do not want an apartment in that area. Val Dietrich, 685 S. 5000 W., representing Bill Henderson, is opposed to this because it does not meet the requirements of a setback. Written input signed by Rich Andrus. Winston read through the letter that is against the • proposal. 4 Rebuttal: Andy Clark clarified that the letter is addressing a zone change and they are not asking for a zone change. A duplex is allowed under a conditional use permit in a LDRI zone. Public input closed. Mary Haley asked if they do not have to grant the applicant a Conditional Use Permit. Stephen Zollinger explained that it can be turned down only for reasonable reasons for conditions. If he cannot meet those conditions then they can deny the request, not the Conditional Use. Jerry Hastings commented that they should put a condition on the request that would require that the duplex look harmonious with the rest of the homes in that area, then that would. protect the look. Discussion on setting a condition that requires the access to be on Henderson Ave. or put conditions on the parking. David Stein made a motion to approve a Conditional Use Permit for a split lot at 252 South 5~ West with the following conditions: 1) The house will face Henderson Ave.; 2) The back yard on the south side will be screened with screenings; 3) The design of the duplex will be compatible of the single family nature of the Henderson Subdivision; 4) The building will be similar in design to the one brought forth by the applicant which would include things such as a pitched roof; 5 j The architectural detailing will be similar with separate entrances and garages; b} The front yard setback will meets setbacks for the Henderson Subdivision. Stephen McGary seconded the motion; all voted aye. None opposed. The motion carried. Variance request on the split lot Kurt Hibbert reviewed the setback requirements for the lot. The applicant is asking for a 10 foot setback. The requirement is 20 feet. If the applicant goes by the 2Q foot requirement then that leaves about 26 feet to build a home. He is asking to be able to expand abuild-able area in this lot 10 feet to the south. Public Input: Infavor: Andy Clark, 252 South 5~' West, commented that he is willing to have the side yards be 30 feet which would give more yard space. • 5 Neutral: Mark Hymas, 650 Cook Ave., a resident of the Henderson Subdivision he preferred that if the back yard setback is to be 10 feet, then make the duplex more appealing to the subdivision. Gordon Tychsen, 214 South 5~' West, would rather see the house facing the Henderson Avenue than sitting in long ways. Val Dietrich, 685 S. 5000 W., commented that the setbacks are set for a reason and they are for everyone to follow. Opposed: Dan Nedrow is concerned with the rules and regulations that are in place. If they allow the setback to be less, there is no reason why they can't allow any other requests. Public Input closed. Winston went over the Ordinance conditions to approve a variances. David Stein commented that this property lot was changed when a Street was put in the side of it. Jerry Hastings commented that he could build a 26 foot wide house, but it will look better if it was wider. Discussion on if they approve this then they can't disapprove other requests. Randall Porter made motion to table this request until the next meeting because there is a lot of other business on this agenda. David Stein seconded the motion; all voted aye, none opposed. The motion carried. Preliminary Plat for The Meadows Condominiums Phase 1 and Phase 2 Asset Amalgamation, Joseph Harding- Design Intelligence, Scott Spaulding Scott Spaulding showed on the overhead screen Phase 1 and Phase 2. There are already four 4-plexes built and four 4-plexes are in the process of being built. There was a concern by the Commission with the access into the complex and if there needs to be two accesses because of the amount of the proposed units. Discussion on fire hydrants and sprinkler systems. Discussion on if they have everything that they need to have to approve a preliminary plat. Scott asked if it is necessary to do the architectural design. The commission needs to have elevations that demonstrate that they meet their architectural standards. The. Commission rejected the application due to lack of information. h Preliminary Plat for Robert Sipherd- Millhollow Subdivision 2- South Millhollow Road John Millar reviewed the subdivision on the overhead screen. They are proposing this to meet current City standards. They were required to put a note on the plat indicating the variance to the building set back requirement will not be granted. Mike Ricks asked if there will be any widening of that road. John Millar commented that the City Council is working with the owners along Millhollow Road. Richard Smith commented that Millhollow Road is the narrowest residential street in the City of Rexburg. He recommended requiring language be included that Mr. Shipherd can not average the setbacks which he created 30 years ago as to create a new setback which is closer to the road. Mike Ricks moved to accept the Preliminary Plat for the Millhollow Subdivision 2 with the conditions that they have full setbacks on the front of the property and that they are going to be made aware of the required 34 foot setbacks and there will be no averaging and no variance to building setbacks. Mary Haley seconded the motion. Discussion on • what to call this subdivision because there is already a Millhollow Subdivision. It was decided to call it Millhollow Subdivision 2. All voted aye. None opposed. The motion carried. lr'inal Plat for Teton River ~%iilage- 48~ N. 2n~ E. Ellsworth-Paulsen Construction Terry White, Harper-Leavitt engineering, representing Ellsworth-Paulsen. Winston asked why the step around easement was not changed. They changed the easement to move over so in lot 3 it is big enough for the building and parking to go into this lot. Discussion on the sign not being finished. Mary Haley made motion to approve final plat and recommended that the final plat be approved by the City Council; David Stein seconded the motion; all voted aye, none opposed. The motion carried. Annexation of properties on South 5th West, East 7th North, and South Yellowstone Highway Kurt Hibbert showed 3 separate parcels on East Th North that are proposing annexation. Discussion on the neighbors around the property talking about the annexation. On the south side of town next to Taylor Chevrolet there are two parcels in an annexation request. Ted Whyte has a parcel on South 5~' West that he wants annexed. Kurt • reviewed the requested Zoning for the parcels. Jerry Hastings moved that the Brian Partridge, Joyce Huskinson, and Randy Fogle • properties to be noticed for first public hearing for possible annexation into the City of Rexburg; Mary Haley seconded the motion;. All voted aye, none opposed. The motion carried. Discussion on possible growth on the south side of town. A neighborhood from the south side of town has been meeting and they know that when the south arterial comes in, they will be looking at annexation. They are starting to talk about what zoning they would like to see there. Council l~~ember Rex Erickson commented on the discussion at Ciry Councii the previous night. They were concerned with the Ted Whyte annexation because it will make an island that will not be part of the City. They are trying to talk with those that are created within that island. David Stein made a motion to move forward to public hearing far annexation of these 2 properties keeping in mind that there has been apre-annexation hearing with City Council and they voted that it moved forward with the appropriate process for annexation; Mary Haley seconded the motion; all voted aye except Mike Ricks because of the island that would be created within the City from this proposal. The motion carried. Councilman Erickson presented Ted Whyte with a plaque for his years of service • (seven} on the Planning and Zoning Commission. Comprehensive Elan Draft Kurt Hibbert showed the proposed map to the Commissioners. The Mayor would like to see this go to public hearing as soon as possible. He would like to split the City by elementary schools into neighborhoods to have the public hearings. Kurt went through the map. Scott Eskelson, an attorney from Idaho Falls, was present on behalf of Mrs. Gale Taylor and her family trust. Heather with county talked about the access and site issues along with landscaping issues. Winston Dyer commented on maybe getting the Impact Area expanded. Next month the council will meet with the county and Sugar City and they will be bringing that issue up. Raymond Hill asked if there was a definition of mixed use. Kurt commented that there is not a definition for that right now and that they want to get public input for this proposed Zone. • Discussion on when to have these meetings with the neighborhoods and how to handle these meetings. Randall Porter suggested holding these meetings where they vote. There is already a voting precinct map. Winston Dyer talked about having the first meeting in May. Discussion on having a 30 minute period before the start of the meeting to have an open house. The Commission could answer public questions in an informal setting. Adjourned at 12:05 a.m. • • R RE: Public Hearing 3/18/04 M arch 13,.2004 CUP for 80' mono-pole antenna Dear City of Rexburg; Planning & Zoning, and City Council: Please consider saying no to th~st~,tower~. d at this time the full I respectfully recommenh~considert • cost of these towers, and how they want ~$~ their city to look. For example: the ugliness on the landsc~~e, and the resources used to build these and~do we know the full effect of these towers, other than that? Where I live, north of. Seattle,. they have sprung up on the landsc~~pe: along the freeway; at the edge of parking lots; and, where I wait for the bus, two -- one at each corner of the block -- in a Neighborhood of homes. The towers are built for the convenienbe of people using cellular phones. Does the City of Rexburg want to encourage the use of cellular phones? Is there a ban on the use of.. using a cellular phone when driving? (There have been car accidents, and fatalities, here, involving a driv~xt~ balking on their cell phone.) Please inform people there of.. how their use of anew convenience could change their City. Idaho is beautiful -- a favorite place. As use of this unnecessary convenience increases, so do the towers. In conclusion, thanks to you for letting me comment. I realize only one tower is being considered at this • hearing, and that it is in a Highway Business District. The towers follow the cellular use, and I would like my comment to be remembered for not only "consider saying no ",~~~# and my stand is to say no, but: What is the ful~~# cost, the true cost? and How do you want your City to look., and be? Again, thank you! and forgive my messy typing! Sincerely, ~ ~ V Carolyn Phi. lips a a of Idaho P.O. Box 55245 __ Shoreline, WA. 98155 .. • ~. ,. PETITION TO THE RE~BURG PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION The undersigned hereby represent to and petition the Rexburg Planning and Zoning Commission as follows: 1. The undersigned are property owners of- property at the addresses listed next to the signature of each of the undersigned below. 2. There is currently a public hearing scheduled to be heard on March 18, 2004 at 7:30 p.m., concerning a request for variance and conditional use permit filed by Andrew Clark, concerning property owned by Andrew Clark, located at 252 South Fifth West, Rexburg, Madison County, Idaho. 3. The undersigned, each, are owners of residential property in near vicinity to the property of Andrew Clark for which the variance and conditional use permit is sought. 4. The undersigned hereby represent and communicate to the Rexburg Planning and Zoning Commission their strong opposition to the granting of such variance and conditional use p ennit. 5. The granting of such variance and conditional use permit by the Rexburg Planning and Zoning Commission would be contrary to the existing LDRl zone; would be contrary and upsetting to our expectations and living situation as residential property owners; and would be damaging to our property values. 6. We hereby petition and request that the Rexburg Planning and Zoning Commission deny the above referred-to requested variance and conditional use permit. )ate of Signing •~' .~~.G , ,.~ d `r 3 -l7-0~ 7 ~~ ~7~ ~~ ~- _ ~, `~~~~~ ~ Name of Person Address Date of Signing • r~ LJ •