MINUTES OF THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION CITY OF HAYDEN, KOOTENAI COUNTY, IDAHO. August 15, 2016

Transcription

1 MINUTES OF THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION CITY OF HAYDEN, KOOTENAI COUNTY, IDAHO August 15, 2016 Special Meeting: 5:00 PM Council Chambers Hayden City Hall, 8930 N. Government Way, Hayden, ID CALL TO ORDER: Chairman Ross called the meeting to order at 5:01p.m. ROLL CALL OF COMMISSION MEMBERS: Sam Ross, Chairman Sheree Cooper, Vice-Chair Alan Davis John Gentry Brian Petersen Shelley Rosenberger Present Present Present Present Present Present STAFF PRESENT: Connie Krueger, Director Nancy Stricklin, Legal Counsel Donna Phillips, GIS/Engineering Coordinator Jamie Gardipe, Planner, Recording Clerk Heather McNulty, Recording Clerk FLAG SALUTE: Chairman Ross led the meeting in the Pledge of Allegiance. ADDITIONS OR CORRECTIONS TO THE AGENDA: None requested. See corrections to the agenda in discussion below. CALL FOR CONFLICTS OF INTEREST: No conflicts reported. CONSENT CALENDAR: The consent calendar included the approval of the meeting minutes for August 1, The motion was made by Vice Chair Cooper and seconded by Commissioner Davis to approve the consent calendar. All were in favor, none were opposed. PUBLIC HEARING: Case No. SUP 0039, a request by REED ROAD Investments, LLC Staff Introduction: Jamie Gardipe, Planner, introduced the proposal by Reed Road Investments LLC for special use permit approval to allow the construction for a residential 4-plex, at site address 9533 N Reed Road, just south of Hayden Avenue. A special use permit is required for multifamily housing in the Commercial Zone. 1

2 Applicant Presentation: Aron Dicksion, located at 1270 W Miles Avenue in Hayden, Idaho spoke on behalf of the request. He is a partner of Reed Road Investments and is requesting a special use permit to build a residential townhome development with four units on a Commercial zoned lot, addressed 9533 N Reed Road. The building will meet all required setbacks, height restrictions and open space requirements. The building will be compatible with the adjacent properties, as it will be of a traditional residential design. The building will be a good buffer between Commercial and Residential Multi-Family zoning and there is no foreseen impact on adjacent properties. Staff Presentation: Jamie Gardipe, Planner, discussed the project in detail. She started by showing an overview of the project, explaining the location and the property owner, MS Rentals LLC, managed by Mike Sperle. The request is to construct a residential 4-plex in the Commercial Zone, which requires a special use permit for multifamily dwellings, more than three units. The two lots will be combined prior to applying for a building permit, making the lot a total of acres. The site plan proposed has approximately seventy percent (70%) open space and it is of a traditional residential design. The current zoning of the site is Commercial, with Residential Multi-Family to the south and Residential Suburban to the north. The Comprehensive Plan designates the area as commercial and Residential. Ms. Gardipe noted that the Future Land Use Map boundaries can fluctuate up to three hundred feet (300'). The Future Residential Densities Map identifies the area as high density, which is seven to twelve dwelling units per acre. The existing site has been vacant since subdividing and has been primarily used as storage, including one small accessory building on the north lot by the road. This building will be removed at the time of development. The surrounding uses to the north, south and east are single family dwellings and to the west is a multi-tenant commercial office building. Ms. Gardipe then went over infrastructure. Sewer is currently available on Reed Road and there is an existing sewer stub to the property. Water is located within the Hayden Lake Irrigation District and they will be required to have the water district sign off on their building permit prior to developing. The developer will be required to place street trees and curb on the Reed Road frontage, but no dedication of right-of-way is required. The City Code requirements are detailed in Chapter 8, Commercial Zone and in the development standard for multi-family dwelling structures in Ms. Gardipe noted that the lot has to have a minimum of sixty-five percent (65%) open space and they are proposing about seventy percent (70% ). There is adequate off street parking with the garages and the driveways for each unit. No sidewalks are required on Reed Road in accordance with the Transportation Plan. Refuge and garbage collection areas used by more than two families shall be behind a six foot (6') sight obscuring fence. In this case, the applicant is proposing single-family residential garbage refuse, so there won't be a general collection area. Setbacks of the Multi-Family Zone shall be met, in accordance with City Code Ms. Gardipe then explained that eleven public agencies and thirty adjacent property owners were sent notices for comment. The notice was also published in the Coeur d Alene Press and the site was posted with the yellow City of Hayden Public Notice sign. Ms. Gardipe explained the staff comments that there is a site plan review, building permit review and all ofthe development standards of City Code have to be meet. Four outside agency comments were received. The Coeur d Alene Airport requested an avigation easement over the entire property. Panhandle Health District had no concerns. The Northern Lakes Fire Protection District provided a letter stating all the requirements and conditions for a development. The Kootenai County Sheriff's Department also had no concerns. Two written public comments were received, both in opposition. One comment requested more commercial development and less residential and the other comment was regarding the increase in traffic at Reed Road and Hayden A venue. Ms. Gardipe explained that the Comprehensive Plan analysis is detailed in the staff report. She briefly summarized the applicable sections regarding land use and housing. She explained the applicant's proposal calculates out to about fourteen (14) units per acre and high density is defined as seven to twelve 2

3 (7-12) units per acre. The intersection of Hayden A venue and Reed Road is currently identified in the Transportation Plan as a level of service F. Ms. Gardipe explained that the Transportation Plan also addresses improvements to Hayden A venue, including expansion, to address these intersection issues. Ms. Gardipe then listed the applicable legal standards, including Idaho Statutes , , and ; and Hayden City Code sections , , and Staff recommended two conditions, including that the approval of the special use permit be based on Exhibit A-1 0 in the record and that the applicant must consolidate the two lots prior to applying for a building permit. Ms. Gardipe directed the Commission to the standards of approval for a special use permit and explained their action is to approve, approve conditionally, or disapprove the application. Questions: In response to questions from the Commissioners, Ms. Gardipe explained that the majority of Hayden Avenue is zoned Commercial; however, Gleason Road to the north is Residential Suburban and likely would remain as such since it is built out. She also clarified that the new front yard setback is fifteen feet (15') to the front ofthe structure and twenty-five feet (25') to the garage and that the applicant is proposing a thirty foot (30') setback for the entire front of the building. Public Testimony: None. Applicant's Rebuttal: No additional comments. Chairman Ross closed the public hearing for SUP 0039 at 5:18PM. Deliberations: Commissioner Petersen stated that it appears the applicant's request meets the standards of approval and there are no issues with the staff recommendations. The Commission was in agreement. Commissioner Petersen made the motion for Case No. SUP 0039, stating that the conditions for approval have been met, that it is a special use in the Commercial Zone, it is harmonious and in accordance with the general objectives ofthe Comprehensive Plan, will be adequately served by essential public services and facilities, will be designed, constructed and maintained to be harmonious with the general facility, it will not create excessive public cost, it does not involve uses, activities, processes, materials, equipment and conditions that will be detrimental to any persons, property or the general welfare, it will have appropriate vehicular approaches to the property and will not result in the destruction, loss or damage of any natural, scenic or historic feature of major importance. Based on those findings, he motioned that the Commission conditionally approve the applicant's request for a special use permit with the staff recommended conditions identified on page 11, items 1 and 2 in the staff report. Commissioner Gentry seconded the motion. Roll Call: Commissioner Davis Commissioner Gentry Commissioner Petersen Commissioner Rosenberger Vice-Chair Cooper Chairman Ross 3

4 PUBLIC HEARING: Case No. SUP 0040, a request by Findley Construction Staff Introduction: Ms. Gardipe introduced the special use permit request by Findley Construction to allow three two-family dwellings in the Residential Zone on Lookout Drive. Applicant Presentation: Bill Robinette, located at 2441 E Woodstone Drive in Hayden spoke on behalf of the applicant. Mr. Robinette clarified that these are townhouses that will be sold individually after condo platting. He explained that the term "duplex" is sometimes viewed negatively because they are usually rentals and it is important to see the difference. The location seems to be good for this use because there is an assisted care facility to the east and residential uses to the west. A good townhouse development can be a good transition between these uses. Questions: The Commission asked Mr. Robinette if they accept the staff recommendations. Mr. Robinette stated that he hadn't seen them, but Mr. Findley of Findley Construction was also present and stated he was in agreement. Staff Presentation: Ms. Gardipe discussed the project in detail, starting with the location. She explained there are three separate lots, Lots 11, 12, and 13 ofthe Subdivision of Avondale Tract 89, platted in Only the south lot has an address and it is 9869 N Lookout Drive. The property owner is Benjamin Simpson. The request is to construct three separate two-family dwellings, one on each lot. They would like to access the three properties off of Lookout Drive, an unimproved public right-of-way, from Helen Avenue to the south Ms. Gardipe explained the property is zoned Residential as well as the surrounding properties. The Future Land Use Map also designates the area as Residential, with high density of seven to twelve (7-12) units per acre. She stated that the site has never been developed and the surrounding uses are single-family residential to the north, south and west and the Wellspring Meadows Assisted Living Facility is to the east. She went over the infrastructure needs, explaining that sewer will need to be brought in, as Lookout Drive does not currently have sewer. The water district is Avondale Irrigation and a water district sign off is required on the building permit application. She explained that Lookout Drive will be constructed to the Local Street standards, similar to a private street design, but within public right-of-way. Ms. Gardipe then explained the zoning requirements in City Code, including the development standards for two-family dwellings in These standards stated the minimum lot size shall be at least 9,900 square feet and all standards and requirements of the underlying zone shall be met. Ms. Gardipe stated that eleven outside agencies and thirty-four (34) adjacent property owners were provided notice to comment. Additionally, notice was published in the Coeur d'alene Press and the site was posted. The staff comments included the requirement for a site plan review, building permits and compliance with the development standards. Three agencies provided comment, including the Coeur d'alene Airport requesting an avigation easement, and no comments or concerns from Panhandle Health District and the Kootenai County Sheriff's Office. No Public comments were received. The Comprehensive Plan analysis was detailed in the staff review. Ms. Gardipe briefly highlighted the sections on land use and housing, explaining the proposed density of 5.5 units per acre, the upscale development style and the transportation impacts. She explained that access is requested to be taken off of Helen Avenue and not off of Dakota A venue in order to minimize traffic impacts. This led to discussion 4

5 about taking access off of Dakota A venue and snow removal. Ms. Krueger responded that the fire district was a part of the pre-development meeting for this and they do not have an issue with one access for the proposed number of lots. Ms. Gardipe explained that mixed uses and densities suggested in the Comprehensive Plan are met with this plan. Ms. Gardipe then listed the applicable legal standards, including Idaho Statutes , and ; and Hayden City Code sections , , and Staff recommended three conditions for this project including approval of the special use permit based on the conceptual site plan identified in the record as A-9, The applicant must apply for and receive approval for the use of Lookout Drive as a local access road from City prior to applying for a building permit and access to Lookout Drive shall be taken off of West Helen A venue, not off of West Dakota A venue. Ms. Gardipe stated that the standards of approval for a special use permit are on pages 11 and 12 of the staff report. The action by the commission is to approve, approve conditionally or disapprove the request. Public Testimony: Name: Charles Zeits Address: 9985 N Buttercup Lane Mr. Zeits lives adjacent to the Wellsprings Assisted Living facility and is against this request. There is another assisted living facility on the opposite side of Reed Road and it's a small facility. He explained that there are no rental properties or high density homes there. He explained his concern that these could easily become rental duplexes. He stated that the surrounding homes are very well kept and they do not want to see their properties de-valued because of renters that do not maintain the properties. The other thing that concerns them is if they are condo platted, if they would then be sold later. There is nothing to prevent that. Mr. Zeits then explained there are traffic issues on Dakota Avenue as the result of industrial park development on Hayden Avenue to the west. If we add another six homes, there will be more traffic. He then questioned ifthe existing properties on septic along Dakota Avenue would be forced to connect to City sewer as a result of this development being connected to sewer. His last question was if the County would plow the street if it is private. Ms. Stricklin clarified that if they are going to condo plat the units, they would need to go through an additional application process. Applicant's Rebuttal: Mr. Robinette stated that he would share Mr. Zeits concerns if he was a neighbor. He stated that according to the applicant, Dave Findley, a lawyer has been hired to begin the condo plat process to include covenants and restrictions that will be applied to the development through a homeowners association. Commissioner Petersen asked if the applicant would be opposed to adding a condition to this approval that it has to be condo platted. Ms. Stricklin stated that you cannot guarantee a condo plat will be approved by the City so if it is a condition, it would halt the project from moving forward if not approved. Ms. Gardipe clarified that Lookout Drive will be designed similar to a private road, but it will still be a public street, within the city right-of-way. Because of this, it would be subject to the City's plowing schedule. She also stated that properties on septic would not be forced to connect to sewer. If sewer is available in front of a property, it becomes a fail/sale which means they must connect to sewer at the time of sale of the property or at the time of septic tank failure. Ms. Gardipe also clarified that prior to this meeting there was a lot of discussion about what Lookout Drive was going to look like. The staff report stated that it would be a private street with a licensing agreement with the City, but that has since been removed and the road will now be subject to the local street standards. Ms. Stricklin noted there does not 5

6 need to be a condition because it is already in the public right.:of-way. Ms. Gardipe suggested removing staff recommendation number two. Chairman Ross closed the public hearing for Case No. SUP 0040 at 6:02 PM. Deliberations: Commissioner Gentry made a statement to Mr. Zeits letting him know that his time coming to the meeting to express his reservations is important and that the Commission's decision is made based on the guidelines in City Code that were approved years ago. The Commission does not want the public to feel like their time is wasted. The Commission discussed the request and agreed that it meets the standards of approval. They also discussed the condo plat process and whether or not they can or should condition a condo plat to this approval. They agreed not to add a condition. Commissioner Gentry made the motion to approve SUP 0040, with the staff recommendations, minus the second condition recommended, as it will not be a private street and will be in the public right-of-way. The Commission finds that it constitutes a special use as established in the code for the zoning district involved, it will be harmonious with and in accordance with the general objectives or with any specific objective of the Comprehensive Plan, it will be served adequately by essential public facilities and services, it will be designed, constructed, operated and maintained to be harmonious and appropriate in appearance with the general vicinity, it will not create excessive additional requirements as to public cost for public facilities and services, it will not be detrimental to any persons, property or the general welfare, it will have vehicular approaches to the property that will not create an interference with traffic, and it will not result in the destruction, loss or damage of a natural, scenic or historic feature. Commissioner Petersen seconded the motion. Roll Call: Commissioner Davis Commissioner Gentry Commissioner Petersen Commissioner Rosenberger Vice-Chair Cooper Chairman Ross Ms. McNulty left the meeting. PUBLIC HEARING: Case No. PUD 0005, a request by Hayden Village, LLC (6:30PM) Staff Introduction: Donna Phillips, introduced the proposal for Preliminary Planned Unit Development (PUD) approval for Hayden Village, a mixed-use residential development. Applicant Presentation: Robert Tate, 1625 N 4th Avenue in Coeur d'alene spoke on behalf of Hayden Village LLC. The proposal is for a PUD development, with approximately one hundred and ninety (190) residential lots and ninetysix (96) multi-family lots. Mr. Tate showed the location of the proposed multi-family units on the south side ofthe subject area. He explained the property was annexed into Hayden in 2013 and the annexation agreement allowed for four units per acre unless a PUD is applied for. It was zoned based on net instead of gross. The exceptions requested are a front yard setback of twenty-two feet (22') instead of twenty-five feet (25') and lot overage up to fifty-six percent (56%) to accommodate three-car garages. He explained 6

7 that open space is a big part of a PUD layout and this project exceeds the requirement for ten percent (l 0%). Phase I includes a pocket park to be located in the middle of the development that will include parking. They are also asking for bonus density because they are proposing intermodal greenbelt areas with an interlinking trail and open space tracts on some of the corners. They are proposing a boulevard style entrance that is an exception to the street standards. This would look similar to the style of Government Way in the Central Business District and would be maintained by the homeowner's association. There also will be a central mail facility at the main entrance. Mr. Tate explained that Vernon J. Baker Boulevard will be expanded with curb, and pathway. Bentz Road will be expanded to the half width road improvements. They will also provide additional right-of-way for the future Ramsey Road if necessary, including dedication for a round-a-bout at the intersection with Lancaster Road. The internal roads will be limited to one side parking, with "no parking" signage provided on the opposite side. Mr. Tate stated that the applicant has reviewed the staff report and is in agreement with the proposed staff conditions. Staff Presentation: Ms. Phillips went into detail on the request. She started by stating that the subject site is 64.4 acres and is located northwest of the intersection of Lancaster Road and Vernon J. Baker Boulevard. The site was annexed in zoned as primarily Residential with about five hundred feet (500') of Commercial on the south side. The proposal includes seven subdivision phases with a total of one-hundred and ninety (190) single family units and ninety-six (96) multi-family units, averaging 4.4 units per acre. The multi-family area will include twelve buildings with eight units each and a community/clubhouse building. There will be a total of twenty-two (22) tracts of common open space and trail system. Based on their phasing plan, total buildout ofthe development will be complete by Ms. Phillips explained the exceptions requested. The first exception is to allow the public road design to accommodate a boulevard with two landscape islands and a mailbox island. The mail facility was discussed with the applicant and the Post Office and a second mailbox location was proposed. However, the Post Office would like to minimize the additional miles to their route as much as possible. They are also looking for an exception on the minimum lot size and lot coverage. The lot sizes range from 6,000 square feet to 11,1 7 5 square feet with an average lot size of 8, 700 square feet. They are also requested a lot coverage of fifty-six percent (56%). Ms. Phillips clarified, in response to a question, that there will be an egress point out to the future Ramsey Park. She then explained that multi-family dwellings, more than 3 units, are allowed in the Commercial Zone with a special use permit (SUP). The PUD process allows special use permits to be approved as part of the PUD approval, as long as the SUP standards of approval are met. In response to a question from Commissioner Petersen, Ms. Phillips explained that the multifamily section has not been finalized. They will come in with a site plan with their building plans. Ms. Stricklin added that a site plan does not have to be provided for a SUP approval because it is a zoning issue, not a site specific issue. In response to Vice-Chair Cooper's question, Ms. Krueger clarified that the small portion ofthe proposed multi-family area zoned Residential instead of Commercial will not have any structures on it. Ms. Phillips continued her presentation explaining the setback exceptions requested. They are proposing a twenty-two foot (22') setback for the front yard, fifteen feet (15 ' ) of separation between buildings, a five foot (5') setback on side yards abutting open space and a flanking street setback of ten feet (1 0' ) in the multi-family section. Chairman Ross stated his concern with decreasing the front yard setback and referred to the discussion during the last set of code amendments on why a twenty-five foot (25') front yard setback is necessary in residential zones. Ms. Phillips then explained the exception request for the greenway alternative drainage and recreation trail treatment. The typical sections for roads do not allow for flexibility on Vernon J. Baker, only on the local streets. Ms. Phillips showed the General Notes from the for Local Streets typical section that would allow for the trails to meander, retain the old growth timber and allow humps and valleys while maintaining stormwater and other code requirements if applied to Vernon J. Baker. 7

8 As Mr. Tate discussed, the base density allowed for the annexed area is 4.00 units per acre. The proposed base density for the Residential area is 4.77 units per acre, requiring a density bonus. The requested density bonus would allow for a density of 4.6 units per acre. In order to receive a density bonus of fifteen percent ( 15% ), the request needs to include landscaping and common area design features in excess of the minimum required by code, including incorporation of community art in common areas, design of plazas and public meeting areas, provisions of green space interconnected with adjacent developments, preservation of significant existing older growth trees and unique and natural features and design features, beyond those required in code, including unique street sections, quality of development, and architectural styles and themes, and harmonious use of materials. Based on the applicant's narrative, they will define the proposed development through use of compatible building materials, use entry monuments, "pocket park" signage, trail markers, trail maps and street sign monuments at key locations and include unique street sections, including the boulevard entrance and one sided street parking. Ms. Phillips explained that PUDs have an open space requirement often percent (10%) and they are requesting a total of 10.17%, or 6.55 acres. This does not include the perimeter buffer or boulevard islands. She then went over greenways, explaining that their principal function is to provide the linkage of park and recreation facilities for the purpose of resource conservation and safe pedestrian-oriented transportation. The configuration of these greenways may be natural or man-made to include collector road right-of-ways and allow for the consolidation of landscaping and storm water swales to reduce the overall land requirements for greenspace. Ms. Phillips showed the typical street section for Lancaster Road and explained that the annexation agreement required a wider street section based on the 2007 Transportation Plan. The current road section is narrower by ten feet (1 0'). Ms. Phillips showed the design for the intersection of Lancaster Road and Ramsey Road with a proposed round-a-bout. Ms. Phillips then showed the street section for Vernon J. Baker Boulevard and Bentz Road and the local street typical section. She noted that staff will address the phasing of infrastructure at each subdivision phase. Ms. Krueger added that there are few infrastructure items that would be needed outside of each individual phase. Most of the connectivity is there with each phase. Ms. Phillips continued, stating that the open space area includes a pocket park. There are elements identified in the 2008 Parks and Recreation Plan for what a pocket park needs to consist of. The applicant has included these items and has requested the addition of a picnic shelter, two basketball courts, and parking. They will also berm the landscaping around the park to mitigate the noise of the basketball court. The applicant requested an impact fee credit for parks; however, staff analyzed this request and did not find support for the request in the Impact Fee Study. Commissioner Gentry clarified that impact fees can only be applied to what is in the study. Ms. Phillips continued, stating that a property owners association is required to maintain the common owned properties, open space, PUD buffers, landscaping buffers, meandering trails, road islands and mailbox facilities. Ms. Phillips went over a few clarifications and modifications addressed after the staff reviews were sent to the Commission. The first change is that the applicant proposed to reach full build by They have since determined this would more likely be She explained that the PUD code only allows for up to two years after preliminary approval for final plat approval. Because this is a phased project, several of the phases will be applied for after two years. The code allows for extensions up to five years or a different time specified in the master development agreement. Ms. Phillips explained that their anticipated buildout is five years, so a timeframe longer than that would be appropriate. The next proposed modification is an alternative design for the PUD setback on the west side of the development. The PUD requires a twenty-five foot (25 ') setback around the entire perimeter and a required landscaping buffer. In order to minimize impacts and guarantee maintenance while acknowledging property fences, staff suggests a twenty foot (20') wide tract along this side with a reduction to the rear yard setbacks on the adjacent lots to five feet (5 '). This would maintain a setback of twenty-five feet to structures while combining and maintaining the perimeter landscaping and the ten foot (10') roadway, drainage, utility and 8

9 snow storage easement. Ms. Phillips then went over the annexation agreement issue with Lancaster Road again. Ms. Phillips went over the recommended conditions of approval as follows: 1. The applicant shall be required to enter into a joint storm water agreement with the City of Hayden addressing the property owners association maintenance of areas where the Greenway Tract and road right-of-way stormwater are comingled, should the Greenway alternative drainage and recreational trail treatment exception be approved. 2. In what the applicant has identified as Phase 5, a sewer easement shall be placed through Tract W to future Bentz Road to allow for future sewer connectivity. 3. In what the applicant has identified as Phase I, sewer shall be extended to the east ofnorth Boulevard and the intersection of Vernon J. Baker Boulevard. 4. The applicant shall update the concurrency analysis at Phase II (or the second phase), with additional updates for each phase as a condition of the PUD approval to determine when the identified off-site mitigation should occur, or if additional off-site improvements are required based on the concurrency analysis. 5. The applicant shall be required to dedicate a ten foot "roadway, stormwater, utility, and snow storage easement" along the frontages of all external and internal roadways based on the typical sections for the roadway that will be dedicated on the face of the subdivision plat. 6. The applicant shall be required to make improvements to Lancaster Avenue as part of what the applicant has identified as Phase I and II subdivision construction to include the thirty foot (30') landscape buffer, trails, curbs, swales, and widening of pavement north ofthe section line to the ultimate street section. 7. The applicant shall be required to make improvements to Vernon J Baker Boulevard as part of what the applicant has identified as Phase I and 5 subdivision construction along the frontage to include the meandering trails, curbs, swales, landscaping, and widening of pavement at a minimum west of the section line to the ultimate street section. 8. The applicant shall be required to make improvements to Bentz Road as part of what the applicant has identified as Phase 5, 6 and 7 subdivision construction along the frontage to include meandering trails, curbs, swales, landscaping and widening of pavement at a minimum to allow two way traffic. Full width improvements may be required at the time of preliminary plat. 9. The applicant shall be required to dedicate right-of-way as part of what the applicant has identified as Phase II for the future Ramsey Rd Extension round-a-bout at Lancaster Ave. 10. The applicant shall as a condition of the Phase II preliminary plat, address consolidation of the Ramsey Rd Extension typical section, round-a-bout, and the meandering trail on the southwest comer of the PUD. 11. The applicant shall, as a part of the landscaping plan note the proposed preservation of existing, older growth trees on the subject property. 12. Landscaping plans shall include all areas to be landscaped including buffers, pocket park, greenway, common open space, swales, street frontages. 13. Trees to be included in the landscape plans need to be in accordance with the adopted City Street Tree Standard. 14. Should perimeter fencing be placed in the pocket park, it shall be of a visually transparent nature (i.e. chain link, wrought iron, etc.) to promote visibility and public safety. 15. Management and maintenance of all properties held in common ownership shall be the responsibility ofthe property owners' association. 16. Dry utilities, including electric, gas, cable and communication utilities shall be installed underground within the development in accordance with HCC Title Street lighting shall be required on all external and internal streets. 18. Street signs, including but not limited to stop signs, speed limit signs, no parking signs etc. shall conform to MUTCD standards and shall be installed by the developer. 9

10 The additional staff recommended conditions added after the staff review was sent to the Commissioners included the following: 1. Prior to Final PUD, the Applicant shall work with the US Post Office to identify (at a minimum) a second collection point with specific construction requirements to be addressed during that Phase of Construction. If easements are needed, these shall be required to be shown on the final plat. 2. The applicant shall reconfigure the parcels with rear yards within the twenty-five foot (25' ) planned unit development setback to allow for a twenty foot (20' ) tract owned and maintained by the property owner's association, and to show the twenty-five foot (25 ') planned unit development setback and buffer overlaying this twenty foot (20' ) wide tract and five feet (5 ') into each lot, thus reducing the rear yard setback to five feet (5'), should the exception be approved. 3. The applicant shall dedicate the required sixty feet (60') of right-of-way per the annexation agreement as a condition of Final PUD approval; or the applicant shall ask to amend their annexation agreement to dedicate what is required for the half-width of Lancaster at the time of preliminary plat for Phase I to be dedicated at the time of final plat of Phase I. Vice-Chair Cooper questioned the impact of a five foot (5 ' ) rear yard setback on the lot size. Ms. Phillips explained that the lots would be come right around 6,000 square feet. She then continued with the conditions, stating that the PUD is subject to all City Code requirements, subdivision regulations and the recorded annexation agreement. A detailed analysis will occur during the subdivision process that may require revisions to plan elements. If they are substantial, an amendment to the PUD would be necessary. Minor revisions would be approved administratively. She also added that conditions noted herein may be further modified at the time of preliminary and final plat application based on the demonstrated need for functionality, connectivity, or similar needs. Ms. Phillips stated that comment request letters were sent to fourteen agencies on July 15, 2016 and two comments were received. The Coeur d' Alene Airport requested an avigation easement and staff found that there is already an avigation easement in place; and Panhandle Health District had no comment as long as the development is served by municipal sewer. The adjacent property owners were also sent notices as well as a posting in the Coeur d' Alene Press. One comment was received in support of the request. Ms. Phillips then went over the purpose and goals in Hayden City Code for PUDs and the findings required for approval in principle of a preliminary plan from City Code (B)(3). The action by the Commission is to recommend approval, approval with conditions, or denial in principal of the Preliminary PUD. Commissioner Petersen asked Ms. Stricklin if the annexation agreement is still in effect. Ms. Stricklin stated that only City Council can amend the annexation agreement. Ms. Stricklin and Ms. Phillips noted the agenda incorrectly identified the location as the southeast corner of Lancaster and Vernon J. Baker. The site is located to the northwest ofthat intersection. Ms. Phillips stated that all the public notices had the correct location. Vice-Chair Cooper questioned the parking at the mailbox island, considering the number of mailboxes for a development of this size. Ms. Phillips responded that they are proposing one parking space on each side for quick mail pick-up. The Planning and Zoning Commission discussed the discrepancies in the agenda and Commissioner Petersen made the motion to amend the agenda to change case number to PUD 0005 instead ofpud 0003 and change "southeast" to "northwest". Commissioner Gentry seconded the motion. All in were in favor, none apposed. Public Testimony: Mr. Tate stated that he had a letter from a person that wanted to provide comment. Ms. Stricklin stated that it is too late to provide written comment. Ms. Gardipe stated that she spoke with the person who wrote the letter and explained to him that the comment had to be verbal, so he would have to have 10

11 someone speak his comments on his behalf if he couldn't attend the meeting. Ms. Krueger noted that there will be additional hearings for this project, allowing more opportunity to provide comment. Name: Jim Fink Address: N Sherwood Court Comments: He is the adjacent property owner to the south at 600 W Lancaster Road. His concerns are the density and increase in traffic. The existing intersection already has a lot of traffic in all directions. This traffic includes heavy truck traffic because of the adjacent commercial and light-industrial uses. He is concerned with the Ramsey Road round-a-bout with the large trucks. He proposes that the setback requirements be maintained like normal residential areas, particularly with the ten foot (1 0') side yard setback. Commissioner Gentry asked what the current level of service is at this intersection. Vice-Chair Cooper questioned the size of the proposed round-a-bout. Ms. Krueger stated the Honeysuckle A venue and Ramsey Road round-a-bout will be two lanes. The design for Lancaster Road will likely be similar. She added that Ramsey Road is proposed to be built to Lancaster Road by Commissioner Petersen referred to the staff report regarding the level of service. Ms. Phillips explained the importance of a new concurrency analysis with each phase. Ms. Krueger stated that the previous concurrency analysis included full buildout of the first phase and it determined no off-site improvements were needed at this point in time. Applicant's Rebuttal: Mr. Tate stated that the Master Development Agreement timing of around eight years would be adequate. They are also willing to withdrawn the request for a smaller front yard setback. Mr. Tate went through the goals of a PUD and explained how he meets the goals at the request of Commissioner Petersen. He stated that the proposal meets the second and fourth objectives by providing and interconnecting open space and by utilizing the space efficiently with smaller lot sizes to provide more affordable housing. Chairman Ross questioned credits for affordable housing. Mr. Tate responded that they did not request workforce housing. Commissioner Petersen questioned the exception to the street standards for Vernon J. Baker Boulevard. Ms. Phillips explained that Vernon J. Baker is a collector street and is designated as a "C 1" typical section. Collectors do not allow flexibility to the street design. Local streets do, particularly with the location and design of sidewalks/paths and swale locations. Ms. Stricklin added that they can modify the street standard through an exception as part ofthe PUD. Vice-Chair Cooper questioned if the 6,000 square foot lots would be buildable with the original setbacks. Ms. Krueger explained the combination of the twenty-five foot (25') perimeter setback and the ten foot (1 0') landscaping buffer creates an issue with maintenance if the properties are fenced. The separate tract allows for maintenance by the property owner's association. With the proposed reduction to a five foot (5') setback in the rear yard, the buildable footprint is the same; there is just a fence twenty feet (20') from the right-of-way. This proposed change is the result of a similar design issue with Leisure Park. This only applies for the homes bordering the future Ramsey Road. Commissioner Rosenberger asked if there is a fence planned for that area. Staff responded yes. Vice-Chair Cooper clarified that the applicant is okay with removing the front yard setback exception to the entire development, including the lots against Ramsey Road. She also stated that she does not support modifications to the setbacks. Chairman Ross asked about Hayden Crossroads and Hayden Canyon. Ms. Krueger explained that this property was originally part of Hayden Crossroads, which is now Hayden Village and New Frontiers East to the south that is developing commercially. Hayden Canyon is moving forward with construction drawings. Chairman Ross closed the public hearing for PUD 0005 at 8:03 PM. 11

12 Deliberations: The Commission proceeded with deliberations. Chairman Ross stated that it seems like they have asked for a lot of exceptions. Commissioner Petersen added that it seems like a lot of exceptions but in reality it isn't that bad because it is a PUD. Commissioner Petersen addressed the lot sizes and the setbacks. The PUD allows for these modifications and as it is presented, it works. Vice-Chair Cooper questioned applying the standard setbacks to the larger lots, and allowing the exceptions to the smaller lots. Commissioner Petersen stated that it would be hard to assign individual setbacks at this time. The Commission then discussed the MDA timeline and what is adequate. They agreed on eight (8) years. Commissioner Petersen made the motion in Case No. PUD 0005 that the Commission finds based on the testimony provided that the request is consistent with the PUD ordinance and recommends of approval with conditions in principal. Specifically, items two and four of the PUD objectives have been met. The request also meets the standards for the special use permit to allow multi-family housing in the Commercial Zone. This recommendation is based on the applicant complying with staff recommended conditions one through eighteen, the additional staff recommendations one through three, and the other conditions identified in the report, and with the withdrawal of the setback request for twenty-two foot (22 ') front yard setbacks by the applicant and a life of eight years in the Master Development Agreement. Vice-Chair Cooper seconded the motion. Roll Call: Commissioner Davis Commissioner Gentry Commissioner Petersen Commissioner Rosenberger Vice-Chair Cooper Chairman Ross DISCUSSION: Additional September Meetings Staff explained that the next meeting on August 29, 2016 will be for the HURA Zone Change. They expressed a potential need for an additional meeting in September to approve consent calendar items in order to keep projects moving forward. No additional dates were scheduled at this time. ADJOURNMENT: The motion to adjourn was made by Vice-Chair Cooper and seconded by Commissioner Gentry. The meeting adjourned at 8:28 PM. 12