Loading...
Planning Minutes 08/06/2002 . CITY OF AMMON PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION August 6, 2002 Minutes of the Public Hearing and Regular Meeting of the Planning and Zoning Commission: The meeting was called to order by Chairman Tom Hunsaker at 6:30 p.m. in the City Building at 2135 South Ammon Road, Ammon, Idaho. MEMBERS PRESENT Tom Hunsaker, Chairman Maxine Hardy, Vice Chairman Ron Folsom Dick Bybee Cindy Donovan Greg Maeser Doug Willden Elaine McGary MEMBERS ABSENT Kevin Murray . CITY OFFICIALS PRESENT Randy Waite, City Councilmember David Wadsworth, Public Works Director Bill Manwill, City Engineer Aleen Jensen, City Clerk OTHERS PRESENT Alan Cunningham, Mountain River Engineering Brad and Scott Pickett Doug Hall, 2452 South 45th East, Idaho Falls Cindy Donovan led the Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag. The first item of business was a Public Hearing at the request of Lee Gagner to rezone an additional piece of Eagle Pointe from R-1 to R-2. The members of the Commission received maps to identify the proposed area. The Commission had previously recommended approval of the area to the north and some to the west to be zoned C-1. When the request came before the City Council, it was approved for C-1 directly behind the Anderson property and a narrow strip on the south to be zoned to R-2, which is more restrictive, because all the developer wanted to build on this property was four-plexes. The request considered at this meeting was to rezone an additional strip on the south to line up with 21st Street. . . Planning and Zoning Commission August6,2002 Page 2 Notice of the Public Hearing was published in the Post Register on July 20 and July 27, 2002. Notices of the hearing were mailed to property owners within five hundred (500) feet and to additional parties in interest. All parties who had an interest in the development of the property were encouraged to be sworn in so they would be able to present testimony. Chairman Tom Hunsaker administered the oath to Doug Hall, Brad Pickett, Scott Pickett and Alan Cunningham . The Public Hearing was opened, and Alan Cunningham of Mountain River Engineering represented Lee Gagner, the developer. Alan reviewed the history of the request. At first, the developer came to the Planning and Zoning Commission with a request to have the whole corner rezoned to C-1. When the request was taken to City Council, there was concern about all the C-1. In discussing the concern, it was agreed to go to the more restrictive zone of R-2 for a strip on the south. This was agreeable with Lee Gagner. In a following discussion, the developer expressed a desire to continue the R-2 zone down to where 21st Street comes in. This would serve as a buffer for the C-1 zone, and is in harmony with the development plans. The developer initially considered a zone of R-3A instead of R-2, but the City Council was not in favor with that dense of residential. A corner lot south of 21st Street was also included in the new request for rezone because it is largely lava rock. Chairman Tom Hunsaker called for testimony from parties in favor of the zone change. There was no public input. Next, testimony was requested from parties who were neither for or against the zone change. There was no public input. Finally, testimony was requested from parties who were against the zone change. Doug Hall, 2452 South 45th East, responded. Mr. Hall has a two-acre residence a short distance south from the property being considered. The request concerns his neighborhood and is on his side of the street. . He assumed that the Planning and Zoning Commission operates to some sort of guiding principles regarding how to zone. However, as Mr. Hall looks at the map of the proposed rezone, it is strange to have an island residence in the middle of commercial. Also, the alley way of R-2 amounts to a very thin strip. He was of the opinion that it was City policy not to have multi-family zoning east of Ammon Road. Basically he sees C-1 on the corner, C-1 behind a residence, and a strip of R-2. He believes R-2 amounts to commercial because it is a business of renting property. It appears to be creeping commercialism. . Planning and Zoning Commission August 6, 2002 Page 3 He wanted to understand the City's plan for a buffer between the commercial property and the residential acreages. He was also interested in traffic plans because he believes the City is asking for trouble unless there are some traffic controls. Traffic will be coming out of a driveway where motorists have just crested the hill going south on Crowley Road. People are on a two-mile run from First Street to Sunnyside Road. His preference is to not have multi-family dwellings in this location. If the City insists on that, he would like to understand what the plan is with regard to insulating multi-family dwellings from acreage residential housing, which is immediately south, as development marches southward. Chairman Hunsaker called for additional public testimony. There was none. Alan Cunningham was given the opportunity for rebuttal. . Alan Cunningham stated it is a valid concern about buffering from commercial to residential. The developer has planned the development with C-1 to R-2 to R-1. R-1 is in harmony with Mountain Valley Estates. Ted Peterson and Doug Hall own property between Eagle Pointe and Mountain Valley Estates. Their properties are not platted. Originally the developer wanted more commercial, but the City Council had concerns about extending the commercial south on Crowley Road. R-2 is a more restrictive zone than C-1. The zoning does go around the Anderson home, but the Anderson home was considered for annexation with the County Islands. The Planning and Zoning Commission recommended approval of annexation of the Anderson property with a C-1 zone. The City Council has not taken action on the annexation of the County Islands. Alan Cunningham did not have an answer regarding the traffic issue. Brad Pickett, 6237 East Partridge Court, had questions about R-2 for the corner properties on the eastern side of Crowley Road. He thought the County had that area zoned as commercial. He asked about the Commissions' intentions for that property to remain commercial. Ron Folsom said Planning and Zoning designated it as commercial because it was necessary to mirror the County's Comprehensive Plan. It has been generally agreed that the corners on major intersections be commercial. . Chairman Hunsaker declared the Public Hearing closed and opened the meeting for Commission discussion on the issues. By way of information, it was pointed out that our new ordinance does not allow driveways to be built on to an arterial such as Crowley Road. The property has to back on to the arterial. The way that back on is defined it could be the back of the house or the side of the house. A driveway would not be allowed to go on Crowley Road. . Planning and Zoning Commission August 6, 2002 Page 4 Ron Folsom asked if the Commission had done a Comprehensive Plan change. The reply was No. Lee Gagner's property that has already been rezoned and his property that is proposed for rezone to R-2 is shown on the Comprehensive Plan as low density. The rezone is in violation of the Comprehensive Plan. It does not mean we can not rezone it, but the Comprehensive Plan needs to be changed. Tom Hunsaker said that this is when the training provided by Jerry Mason is understandable. Attorney Mason encouraged that maps are painted with broad strokes and you get down to the nitty gritty in the actual verbiage. For example, corners will be commercial. It was agreed our Comprehensive Plan would need to be addressed at some point. . In Eagle Pointe, the property on the western side and the property along East 1 ih Street have been platted. The rest of the layout is based on the approved subdivision preliminary plat. The request is to extend the R-2 one large lot south of 21st Street because of lava outcropping. Ron Folsom opposed zoning property to the south of 21 st Street as R-2 even though the developer has good reason why he wants to. This would open the door for more R-2 and constitutes letting the commercial creep south on Crowley Road, which was a concern of a neighboring property owner. Dick Bybee agreed the R-2 zone should not be approved for the lot on the south of 21st Street. Chairman Hunsaker pointed out another concern. It appears that on the one lot on the north side of 21st Street that the driveways of a four-plex would be on 21st Street. He wondered how close the Commission would allow driveways to come to an arterial. There has been no lot configuration established to the north because the zoning was not approved. There are platting possibilities that can eliminate any problems. Commission members discussed various ideas. They were interested in not creating a similar situation as happened in the development of the Stonehaven Addition. Engineer Manwill provided information. The major concern was to be sure there is not an access too close to Crowley Road. The discussion continued on high density and low density. Whenever there is commercial there will be some high density as a buffer to transition to low density. It is inconsistent to go from commercial to low density. The proposed R- 2 is a good step from the commercial. . Ron Folsom moved to recommend to the City Council approval of the request for rezone from R-1 to R-2 with the following changes: The southern portion, which abuts Crowley Road, is to be left R-1. When the developer brings a preliminary plat to us, they have to address the Planning and Zoning Commission's access concerns on Crowley Road and 21st Street. In addition, expedient action should . Planning and Zoning Commission August 6, 2002 Page 5 be taken to address our Comprehensive Plan whether the verbiage is changed to show that it is broad or whether we change the map to cover this. Greg Maeser seconded the motion. Seven members voted -Yes. Dick Bybee voted - No. The motion carried. Dick Bybee voted No because he did not see the need for the change from C-1 to R-2. He would have voted for a zone of R-1A for a transition to twin homes, but the proposal was for four-plexes with the possibility of rental units and/or selling four-plexes to individual buyers. He does not like the idea of the individual unit sale of four-plexes mixed with rental units. Dick Bybee was assigned to make the Planning and Zoning Commission report at City Council meeting on August 15, 2002. The next item of business was a review of the amendments proposed for portions of Title 10 of the Codified Ordinances of the City of Ammon related to parking and loading areas and site plan review (10-5-23 and 10-29-13). The proposed amendments were taken to the City Council, and they had concerns that they wanted the Planning and Zoning Commission to review. . Ron Folsom led the discussion. Regarding call centers, the Planning and Zoning Commission recommended "One (1) space for each one hundred fifty (150) square feet of floor area." The City Council felt more parking spaces were needed. The requirements of other cities were researched. City of Idaho Falls started with six spaces per one thousand square feet, but they dropped the requirement for more important issues. City of Boise does not address call centers. City of Rexburg does not address call centers. Henderson, Nevada has a requirement of one parking space for 500 square feet for a communication center. The Commission reasoned that the City of Ammon did not have any experience with call centers so there is no need to address them. It was agreed to recommend deletion of the parking requirements for a call center and to address the issue on an individual basis when there is a need to. . When calculating a garage for a parking space, the Commission was only going to count a garage as 1/2 of a parking space. This was to assure that there were more parking spaces than the garage for apartments. This caused a question as to whether or not the driveway was a parking space. The proposed language of the ordinance indicated a driveway was not a parking space. If the driveway is to be a parking space, the language needs to be changed. This is specific to multi- family dwellings of three or more units. Many apartment dwellers use their garage for storage. There was a discussion to help clarify if a driveway should count as a parking space. One idea was, if the driveway is not counted, then the . Planning and Zoning Commission August 6, 2002 Page 6 garage should be counted as a full parking space. The minimum required parking space for one or two unit dwellings is two (2) parking spaces per unit. If two spaces are required, can one be a space that is a garage or a carport and can one be wherever? Regarding location of parking spaces for dwellings, the ordinance reads: "In all zones (except those in which dwellings are not permitted), space for parking of automobiles for dwelling units shall either be enclosed in a garage or carport, or sufficient yards must surround the parking space so that an automobile can be enclosed in a building or carport having yards which will comply with the requirements set forth in this ordinance." This was interpreted, if located in the front, there would have to be thirty (30) feet more of set back. The garage counts as one parking space. If there is sixty (60) feet of front setback, the driveway can also count as a parking space. . It was recommended to leave 10-5-23 (D) 1(a) ii: "Three or more unit dwellings shall provide as follows: One (1) or two (2) bedroom units shall provide two (2) parking spaces per dwelling unit. Three or more bedroom units shall provide two and one-half (2 1/2) parking spaces per dwelling unit." For multi-family dwellings 10-5-23 (F) 5 will apply. "When calculating parking for a building containing (3) or more attached dwelling units, the garage shall be used as one-half (1/2) of a parking space per garage stall." . The City Council discussed employee parking. One suggestion was to make changes to read, "If, on the largest shift, there are more than one (1) employee per 1000 square feet, there must be one (1) additional space for each extra employee." The Planning and Zoning Commission discussion brought out that it is hard to address employee parking because it is subjective. Wal-Mart parking plans were discussed. You penalize successful employers, if you tell them every time they grow, they have to provide additional parking spots. Based on the standards the City has and compared with the surrounding other cities, the new ordinance is adequate. If the City Council feels it is necessary to address excessive parking, it was suggested an addition to the ordinance: "In the event that the City Council is presented with evidence to show a public safety issue or a public nuisance, there shall be a review performed of the parking for the business in question by the City Zoning Administrator. If it is found that the business is in compliance with the minimum number set forth in this ordinance then a public hearing shall be held to hear the complaints and review the public safety issue or public nuisance issue. If it is determined by a majority of the City Council that the business parking is in fact a problem then the Council may require the business to provide additional off street parking." This addition to the . Planning and Zoning Commission August 6, 2002 Page 7 ordinance would be hard to enforce. Anytime you pass any law there is an unintended consequence. Requiring additional parking for employees is a safety valve and that becomes a matter of enforceability. Legal counsel has indicated it would be difficult to enforce and could only be defended in a court of law if applied uniformly and consistently throughout the City. When the City Council discussed the amendments to Title 10 for a site plan review, Lee Gagner was concerned about the time involved in getting residential site plan approval. He suggested that Planning and Zoning does a site plan review for apartments or multi-family units if there are more than four units per building. At the present time we do not have site plan review ordinance. It was recommended that two Commission members could sign off residential building permits for four units or less. Residential building permits of five units or more would require a sight plan review. . Council member Randy Waite reported on City Council activity. The Council is working on the budget for fiscal year 2003. There is an informational meeting planned for August 8 to discuss annexation of the County Islands with the property owners involved. The Council is pushing the developer to get the well up on the hill (Quail Ridge) completed by September 15, 2003. There may be a problem with having a quorum for Planning and Zoning meeting on September 3 because of the Labor Day holiday. A preliminary site plan has been received for a gas station at Wal-Mart, and the developers asked for instructions about how to proceed. The final site plan for the Wal-Mart Super Store project included the gas station. Therefore, the preliminary site plan has already been approved. The developers of the gas station need to submit their final site plan and their building permit application. The meeting was adjourned at 9:00 p.m. Chairman Minutes recorded by Aleen Jensen Minutes approved .