MINUTES OF THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION CITY OF HAYDEN, KOOTENAI COUNTY, IDAHO. September 17, 2018

Transcription

1 MINUTES OF THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION CITY OF HAYDEN, KOOTENAI COUNTY, IDAHO September 17, 2018 Regular Meeting: 5:00 PM Council Chambers Hayden City Hall, 8930 N. Government Way, Hayden, ID CALL TO ORDER Chair Petersen called the meeting to order at 5:00 p.m. ROLL CALL OF COMMISSION MEMBERS Brian Petersen, Chair Alan Davis, Vice-Chair Corey Andersen Michael Cramer John Gentry Benjamin Prickett Shawn Taylor Not- Not- STAFF PRESENT John Cafferty, Legal Counsel Donna Phillips, Senior Planner Marie Holladay, Planner Heather McNulty, Commission Clerk FLAG SALUTE Chair Petersen led the meeting in the Pledge of Allegiance. CALL FOR CONFLICTS OF INTEREST No conflicts were reported. CONSENT CALENDAR The consent calendar included the approval of the meeting minutes for September 5, 2018 with the amendment requested by Chair Petersen to include Connie Krueger, Community and Economics Director in attendance. The written recommendation to City Council in Case No. ZC 0027 and the written decision in Case No. SUP The motion was made by Commissioner Cramer, and seconded by Commissioner Taylor to approve the consent calendar. All were in favor, none were opposed. PUBLIC HEARING Case No.VAR 0006 Anderson Landscape Buffer Variance request by Toni Villelli and Jeramie Terzurlli on behalf of the owner Marc Anderson Staff Introduction: Marie Holladay, Planner introduced the application a variance for the Type II Visual Separation Buffer required between the Commercial and Light Industrial zones, prior to requesting a zone change which would require this standard. The Anderson Landscape Buffer Variance request affects one lot of approximately one (I) acre, 350 feet west of North Government Way, more commonly known as 91 West Wyoming A venue. The subject site currently has an eight (8) unit apartment structure on the southeast portion of the subject lot.

2 Applicant's ation: Tony Villelli l 0815 North Hayden Point Drive Hayden, Idaho presented for the property owners Susan and Marc Anderson. He reviewed the proposal and stated that the owners of the property would like to utilize the property by building a self-storage complex in the rear, vacant portion of the lot. This development will require a minor subdivision and a zone change application; prior to moving forward with the required applications, they are seeking approval of the landscape variance through the Commission to access viability of the proposed development. He continued by stating that the proposed lot, the rear, vacant portion of the subject lot to be subdivided, would be the only portion of property requiring future rezone as industrial. Mr. Villelli continued by stating that the Variance does not affect the frontage improvements, it will only affect the east, west, and south property boundaries, as the Type II landscape buffer is required between the Commercial and Light Industrial zones. Upon review, should the Variance be approved, it would grant the following: east property line: a combination of fencing and 4.2 feet buffer, a 5.8 feet deviation from the standard: Proposed south property line, north of the apartment complex: 3.2 foot buffer, a 6.8 feet deviation from the standard: Proposed east property line, north of the apartment complex: 7.8 foot buffer, a 2.2 deviation from the standard. West property line: a 10 foot wide building to be placed on 160 feet of the lot line, no landscape buffer, a 10 foot deviation from the standard. Mr. Villelli pointed out that the property to the east, Judy' s Greenhouse, has a structure built over the Andersen's east property line. Commissioner Cramer asked how much of the structure encroaches on to the Andersen property. Mr. Villelli stated it is four (4) feet onto their property. Chair Petersen asked if the proposal includes intent to rebuild the fence on the east property line to act as an additional buffer. Mr. Villelli stated that yes, a 4.2 buffer landscape that would include a site obscuring hedge row and fencing on the east property line in that specific area. Jeremy Terzulli 3182 East Cambridge Drive in Hayden, Idaho representing the applicant said that the direct interpretation of the landscape buffer code does not give enough room for the internal circulation isles in accordance to the fire code. The applicant would like to use the back of the proposed new building, as the site and sound buffer on the west property boundary. Mr. Villelli stated there is no variance requested along Wyoming A venue and that the required street trees, dedications, and improvements will be met. The newly proposed building would be the site and sound buffer on the west property line and the existing car port on the neighboring property also provides a buffer on the west property line. Chair Petersen asked if the buildings would make a zero lot line setback along the west property boundary. Mr. Villelli stated that yes then the applicant would be able to add two additional buildings to the property. Mr. Villelli then gave some example pictures of landscape deviations throughout the city to show that landscape is able to grow and flourish without the required ten (I 0) feet buffer. Mr. Ville Iii then reviewed each standard for approval He stated that the location of the existing apartment complex is prohibitive to development and limits the ability to add the two additional proposed buildings. 1. The existing building' s location limits the amount of additional buildings the applicant can add and still meet City requirements. They would like to leave Judy' s Greenhouses' fence in place even though it is encroaching on their property. 2. Potential uses the applicants have looked at limit the access to the back of the property. The Applicant thought about building apartment complex but could not implement proper rear and front setbacks for residential structure.

3 3. Due to no fault of the Owner, the property has existing buildings and carports that limit access to the rear of the property. 4. There are existing properties as shown in the prior slides which have taken advantage of a variance to landscaping. The examples presented are landscape buffers between residential to commercial zone. Chair Petersen asked if it was Mr. Villelli's testimony that those photos were all taken in the City of Hayden and that the Commission granted variances for the photos presented. Mr. Villelli replied that no, he does not know if they were required or granted a variance. He stated that they were from newer developments, all in the City of Hayden, but he did not research if they were from a granted variance. Commissioner Cramer asked how many total units are going to be proposed in the self-storage facility. Mr. Villelli stated that there is 8,100 square feet of overall storage. He also stated the Owner approached each tenant in the apartment complex and they seemed to have positive comments. None of them had a desire to speak at this evening's public hearing. Commissioner Cramer asked if there was a fence proposed north of the apartment complex. Mr. Villelli replied yes there would be either a fence or a building to enclose the property and that the rear setback of 25 feet to the apartment complex still applies. Commissioner Cramer asked if there is a fence to the east. Mr. Villelli stated that there is an existing fence and it would be upgraded to six feet tall site obscuring fence. Staff ation: Ms. Holladay reviewed the surrounding zoning and land use of the properties adjacent to the application site. Chair Petersen asked Mr. Cafferty how this discussion for a variance comes before the Planning and Zoning Commission due to the fact that they are asking for a variance to property lines that do not exist. Mr. Cafferty replied that yes that appears to be true. Chair Petersen then asked if there is a zone change and subdivision that should come before this case. Mr. Cafferty replied that the Commission can only review the application that is before them and whether or not it meets the standards for approval. Vice Chair Davis stated that he is assuming the applicant is working with the City and that the City told the applicant that the variance is a way to solve their problem; he then asked if that is a bad assumption. Ms. Holladay replied that the applicant has come in for several Pre-Development Meetings with the City and there haves been several options discussed with both the Fire Department and the City Engineer, all with limiting factors. The Planning Department then allowed the applicant to apply for this Variance. She continued by stating that the presentation has three (3) staff recommended conditions of approval that could possibly make this proposal work. Commissioner Cramer stated that he is in agreement that this is the proper sequence (the variance first), for the applicant's proposal of future development on the property. Instead of coming forward with an anticipated zone change and a possible minor subdivision without approval of the variance, why spend the money and time. Ms. Holladay then asked the Commissioners if she could please proceed with her presentation so that she does not lose her train of thought and continue to present her review which may answer their questions. Chair Petersen asked if there were any other questions of Council before they proceed, they did not have further questions. Ms. Holladay continued with the review of the proposal stating that the landscape requirements according to City Code , Landscaping and Screening, Definitions:

4 Buffering landscaping: A combination of physical spacing and vertical elements, such as plants, berms, fences, or walls, the purposed of which is to separate and screen incompatible land uses from each other. Type II Visual Separation Buffers (required on the east, west, and south sides of the property as requirement between the proposed industrial zone of the property as a requirement between the proposed industrial zone of the property and the commercial zoned properties adjacent. A Variance to this standard is being sought on the east, west, and south sides of the property): Buffers to create a visual separation between similar uses shall consist of the following: A minimum ten foot (10') wide strip planted with trees, of which a maximum of fifty percent (50%) may be deciduous. One (1) tree shall be provided for each twenty (20) linear feet of landscaped area and may be spaced irregularly or clustered rather than uniformly spaced; and Evergreen shrubs spaced and sized to achieve desired screening for a Type 11 buffer and ground cover to provide seventy five percent (75%) coverage of designated area within two (2) years from planting. Ms. Holladay then reviewed infrastructure analysis and stated that portion of a development will be reviewed at time of application, at this time there has only been review of landscaping requirements. Ms. Holladay stated all noticing requirements had been met and that there were no public responses received. The Staff recommendations were as follows: 1. The approval of this variance is based upon and applies to the application narrative, proposed use through zone change (Light Industrial) and minor subdivision, and related site plan provided. If alternate uses and/or modified site plan are proposed and a variance to required standards is requested, a new application will be required. 2. The approval of the subject variance presupposed facts that are unknown at this time. If approved, the variance will be conditioned upon the approval and completion of a minor subdivision to match the site plan approved, and the approval of the zone change to light industrial - in a period no longer than two (2) years or the variance is null and void. 3. All permits from outside agencies (i.e. PHD, IDEQ, and NLFPD) shall be obtained prior to construction of any future development or building permit issuance. Chair Petersen asked why recommendation number three (3) all permits from outside agencies were asked to be required. Why would that be a requirement to this variance if it is up to the state that the applicant will comply with the state code. Ms. Holladay stated that it was not completely necessary to require the verbiage in number three (3) due to the requirements of permits necessary before the issuance of building permits. Commissioner Taylor asked when the Applicant moves forward with a Minor Subdivision would they be requesting the entire lot to be changed to Licht Industrial.. Ms. Holladay answered no, that you cannot have residential activity on an Industrial zoned property, and the application would be denied for that reason. Mr. Cafferty added that the Commission does not know what they are asking to be re-zoned, that application is not in front of the Commission at this time. Public Comments: No public was in attendance Rebuttal: Mr. Terzulli stated that they have had multiple meetings with the City and there was an agreement that asking for the variance first was a wise move. He stated that it would not matter if the zone change were approved if they could not receive a variance to the landscape buffer to construct the proposed development.. In regards to the question about permits, if someone built the structure before asking for a Variance, a contractor could skip the Variance all together and that is why there is redundancy in terms of the agency approvals.

5 Chair Petersen stated that the Commission is unable to approve this Variance application due to Hayden City Code: City Code Title 11, Chapter 14, Variance Permit; : Purposed: The Planning and Zoning Commission may authorize in specific cases such variance from the terms of this title as will not be contrary to the public interest, where, owing to special conditions, a literal enforcement of the provisions of tis title would result in unnecessary hardship because of the characteristics of the site. No nonconforming use of lands, structures or buildings in other districts shall be considered grounds for issuance of a variance. Variances shall not be granted on the grounds of convenience or profit but only where strict application of the provisions of this title would result in unnecessary hardship. Chair Petersen stated that by removing the proposed buildings on the property lines the applicant would not require a variance to the landscaping requirements. He then stated that the applicant is asking for the variance for economic profit. He explained that if the proposed building was relocated to the center of the vacant property, there would not be a need for the variance. Mr. Villelli responded by stating eliminating the buildings would eliminate the need for a variance, however, the property would continue to sit vacant in the rear as the Applicant will not be able to make a profit to move forward with this development proposal. Staff ation: Ms. Holladay stated that there was an important part of the staff review that was not discussed. She stated that in working with the City Engineer and Fire Department the twenty (20) feet circulation isle is a requirement for fire truck turnaround. She stated that the proposed development meets parking requirements, one (1) parking stall per 100 storage units. She also noted that a residential multi-family structure requires two (2) off street parking spaces per dwelling unit, and how developing an additional residential unit in the rear would be required to meet that standard. Rebuttal: The applicant had no rebuttal. Public Testimony: There was no public in the meeting. Commission Discussion: Commissioner Cramer had been trying to think of a better use for the property. By adding additional multi-family residential structures there is just not enough room. It benefits the community as well as the Applicant. Commissioner Cramer would like to see the land use development to be beneficial for the City as much as to the land owner. Vice-Chair Davis stated that there are special conditions to this site. He would be depriving the Applicant's private property rights if the Variance does not move forward. There needs to be good use of the land, if we deny this it would be a hardship for the Applicant to further develop. Commissioner Taylor stated that the proposal has a lot of interesting points and realizes they have looked into many options to use this property. He believes it will be a good decision for the community. Commissioner Prickett discussed how the Applicant has gone to great lengths to improve the situation, he then stated that any time the City is not responsible for frontage improvements, bike path curbs and such, it benefits the community. The item holding him back is that the Variance is being sought for economic profit, though he is leaning towards being in favor of the Variance. Chair Petersen agrees that it is a good fit for the property site however they do not meet the standards for approval specifically because City Code states that it cannot be granted on the grounds of economic profit or convenience for the Applicant. This proposal does not qualify as unnecessary hardship for the site as the buildings do not exist yet. Chair Petersen cannot vote for

6 the variance. These are not little variances they are asking to cut the landscape by more then in half the amount required. Mr. Cafferty stated that the recommended staff conditions are on page eight (8) of the staff review. He stated that by granting the approval of the Variance, it does not presuppose the outcomes on any future applications. Motion #1: Vice-Chair Davis made a motion to approve the request with the three (3) staff recommendations of approval and this decision does not presuppose the outcomes of any future applications by the Applicant on this property. He moves to approve the request in Case No. VAR Commissioner Taylor seconded the motion. Commissioner Cramer stated that he believes future development along Wyoming is part of the long range transportation plan and would like to add that frontage improvements for the entire parcel are included along with the three (3) staff recommendations of approval that have been discussed. Motion #2: Vice-Chair Davis amended the motion to include the development of frontage improvements be made by the Applicant on Wyoming Avenue. Commissioner Taylor seconded the amended motion. Roll Call: Commissioner Cramer: Commissioner Prickett: Commissioner Taylor: Vice-Chairman Davis: Chair Petersen: No Four (4) were in favor. One (1) opposed. The motion passed. Mr. Cafferty asked the Commission if it is their intent to have staff produce the written decision in accordance to the decision for the Commission to review. REVIEW OF UP COMING MEETING CALENDAR, AND REPORT ON COUNCIL ACTION Planning and Zoning Commission October 1, 2018 Consent Calendar Phone in New Business -Verbiage Annexation October 15, 2018 Consent Calendar Annexation discussion New Business verbiage City Council Actions September 11, 2018 Approval of Warren K Industrial Park ih Addition Acceptance of infrastructure 3 rd Amendment to Hayden Village (Hayden North) Subdivision and Planning Unit Development Master Development Agreement Chair Petersen will be at the City Council for the report on September 25, Commissioner Taylor clarified that in the recommendation to deny Case No. ZC 0027 that the Commission found that number three and five standards for approval were not met in that case. Ms. Phillips stated that if a Commission member ever has a question on the Consent Calendar the case can be moved to New Business and discussed then brought back for approval at a later date.

7 ADJOURNMENT The meeting adjourned at 6: 17 p.m. '-1=\,.0, 0 b 9 D ':::in C.. '1 ) '",u,) b Heather McNulty, Commission Clerk ~