09/19/1979 P&Z Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Search

Rage -Planning and Zoning September 19, 1979 Under new business, Mr. Gourley brought up the matter of the increasingly wider road easements that the county was requiring. Presently the county required a 100 -ft ease- ment on plats and a situation was created where the easements varied from 60 to 100 feet along the highway. The county got the land free from the people who came in with a plat, but were purchasing the land from other landowners to extend the right- of-way. The engineer had recommended that the City not require the 100 -ft easement, but that it be required as a setback so the county could purchase the land it wanted. Thus the easements would still be 33 ft. instead of the 50 ft. the county had been asking for, but there would be an increased setback along county roads of 100 ft. Mr. Nadeau noted that it was just on thoroughfares that the ordinance called for 100 feet. Mr. Gourley indicated that only Highway 8 and County 23 were classified as thoroughfares, and the rest were designated collectors. Mr. Nadeau felt that if 20th Avenue was considered a collector, there should be a reduced speed limit, not 55 mph as on the freeway. Mr. Gourley indicated it was still considered a collector by the county because it brought people to the freeway. Mr. Nadeau suggested increasing the setbacks on the collectors to 40 feet. Mr. Gourley noted the ordinance now asked for 60 feet from the centerline on collectors, so an additional 30 feet should be asked for, to bring it up to 90 feet. He felt that if this was held for the Comprehensive Plan, it would not be put into action until 1980, and asked if it could be done by resolution. Mr. McLean felt this could be requested of developers, but not actually put in the ordinance until later because of the costs. Mr. Gourley raised the question of whether this would force developers to increase lot sizes. This was not thought to be a problem. Mr. Nadeau felt this requirement by the county was for safety, but also to compel people to back up and come out on a collector or main road driving forward rather than backing out. Mr. McLean felt the requirement could be stated in the ordinance two ways, whichever was less;either 57 feet from the road easement or 100 feet from the centerline of the road. Mr. Gourley moved to recommend to the Council that the City require a 66 -ft road easement on all collectors and further require a 100 -ft building setback from the centerline along collectors or a 67 -ft building set- back from the road right-of-way along collectors, whichever was less; and further recommended that the Council do this by resolution at this time rather than an ordin- ance change to avoid the expense of public hearings and publication. The Planning Commission will incorporate this change into the Comprehensive Plan. Mr. Reinert seconded the motion. All were in favor. Motion declared passed. Mr. Gourley had another item for discussion under new business. This was in regard o special use permits, and the suggestion that had been made to issue these permits with a common renewal date. At present they came up for annual review on the date of their issuance. If, for example, a special use permit were requested in May, and the date of common renewal was set for June, then either a 1 -month or 13 -month permit could be issued. Mid -year had been suggested for this renewal date rather than the first of the year. Also, the Council had taken a position on some special use permits, and Mr. Gourley suggested the P & Z request that they initiate a review of all special use permits, as it would be necessary for the Comprehensive Plan to determine which ones were still in force. Mr. Gourley moved to recommend to the Council that a common renewal date for all special use permits be set and that special use permits be issued in such a manner that they all come up for renewal on that specific date; and further recommend that the Council initiate a comprehensive review of all special use permits and forward the results of that review back to the Planning Commission so it could incorporate into the Comprehensive Plan allthe active special use permits at this time. Mr. $heaven seconded the motion. Mr. Gourley indicated the Council should be aware that the P & Z was planning to complete the zoning district map around the first of the year, so the information on the active special use permits would be needed by the November meeting. All were in favor. Motion declared passed.