STAFF REPORT KETCHUM PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING OF JUNE 11, 2018 PROJECT: Sundali Mace Rezone FILE NUMBER: P18-039 PROPERTY LOCATION: Lot 1A, Block 67, Ketchum Townsite PROPERTY OWNER: REQUEST: PUBLIC NOTICE: REVIEWER: ATTACHMENTS: Bill Sundali and Shane Mace Applicant initiated request to rezone Lot 1A, Block 67, Ketchum Townsite from a combination of General Residential Low Density (GR-L) and Tourist (T) to entirely Tourist (T). April 25th, 2018 a public notice was mailed to political subdivisions, outside agencies, property owners within 300 of the subject property, and was published in the Idaho Mountain Express. On May 4 th public notice was physically posted on site. Brittany Skelton, Senior Planner A. Public comment
The application has been withdrawn by the applicant. Public comment received is included for the record. Sundali Mace Rezone, Planning and Zoning Commission, June 11, 2018 City of Ketchum Planning & Building Department Page 2 of 3
Public Comment Sundali Mace Rezone, Planning and Zoning Commission, June 11, 2018 City of Ketchum Planning & Building Department Page 3 of 3
From: Kelley Maybo <kmaybo@gmail.com> Sent: Wednesday, May 30, 2018 4:40 PM To: Participate <participate@ketchumidaho.org> Subject: Re-zone of lot on 2nd and 6th May 30, 2018 Ketchum Department of Planning and Building PO Box 2315 Ketchum, ID 83340 Subject: Sundali Mace Rezone Planning and Zoning Commission: My sister and I are permanent residents of west Ketchum residing at 200 8th street W. We strongly object to the proposed re-zone and the lot line adjustment. We have been told by our neighbors that the Lot 1 property the original T zoned triangle approximated only 1,500 sq. ft. The recent Lot line adjustment/encroachment of triangular Lot 1 into the railroad right-of-way created a rectangular lot amounting to something in excess of 5,000 square feet. If we understand the facts, this latest proposed Sundali Mace re-zone would increase the total T zoned area of Lot 1 to 8,000 sq. ft. +/-. This does not fit into what we thought was already established the last time this lot came into issues with re-zoning a couple years back. We own our property and have believed we've been living in a low density residential neighborhood. Being shown the zoning maps by our immediate neighbor, it's obvious that it is now and was then the intent of Ketchum s 2014 Long Range Plan (i.e. low density residential). We find that the "re-re-zoning" of this property during slack and re-applying on short notice is just a way to sneak around and make something happen when many folks are out of town. Many folks that may be strongly against this rezoning! The sign left on the corner does not even have the corrected date for the new hearing, still showing May 14th, leading those that read the sign to believe that it's too late to even show up and represent our neighborhood. It would be such a pity that this re-zoning go in a direction not suitable, at all, for this neighborhood (especially without parking on a heavily travelled street). What message does this send to the community? To keep tricking it's residents when we need to keep our town as lovely as it is and not turn it into a town full of tall structures that will likely stay empty half the year. Let's be smart with the future of Ketchum, there is no town like it! Why do those "in office" keep stretching the rules when it comes to zoning and building regulations? (Does one really drive into Ketchum and feel that the Limelight "fits in"?) We agree with our neighbors that the only reasonably acceptable solution would be to re-zone the entirety of the Sundali Mace property to GR-L. It's a beautiful lot that should be used appropriately. The proposed re-zoning is not a friendly option. Kelley Maybo and Monica Montgomery 200 8th street west #1
Richard T. Roats Post Office Box 9811 Boise, Idaho 83707-4811 208.853-9999 June 7, 2018 City of Ketchum Planning & Zoning Commissioners 480 East Ave. N. Post Office Box 2315 Ketchum, Idaho 83340 participate@ketchumidaho.org Re: Sandali Mace Rezone I own the property located at 160 W. 7 th Street, Unit 2A, directly across 2 nd Street from the subject parcel. For the record, I am opposed to the applicant s request to rezone a portion of Lot 1A, Block 67, Ketchum Townsite from GR-L to T for the following reasons: First, staff notes that City Code allows the Tourist Zone to be extended 25 beyond the area zoned Tourist, SR at p.9. I believe that even without a rezone of the property, the applicant could utilize this infill procedure to develop the lot. Second, staff analyzed the characteristics of the parcel under the Tourist Zone and determined that it would not be reasonably incompatible with the surrounding area based solely on the setback factor, SR at p.6. However, staff then notes (correctly) that the Tourist Zone diverges from the surrounding area under the developable square footage, permitted building coverage, and building height, SR at p.6, but fails to use these factors to determine incompatibility. I would proffer that these factors are the factors to be utilized in determining the true impact on the surrounding properties then simply considering the setbacks. Third, although staff notes that 66% of Lot 1A is currently zoned Tourist, SR at p.2, the more important percentage to consider is the comparison of the Tourist Zone with remaining square footage of the property owned by the applicant, which is zoned General Residential- Low Density (GR-L). Under this comparison, the Tourist Zone is only 16.67%- a percentage that accurately reflects just how incompatible this rezone request is with the surrounding properties. Fourth, staff notes that the subject property and much of the surrounding area is Medium Density Residential, SR at p.7. Reviewing the Future Land Use Map, it is clear that the proposed rezone is inconsistent with the map and it should be denied. The property to the north, west, and south is low density residential, SR at p.9. Staff s justification is that
P&Z Letter June 4, 2018 Page 2 of 2 Tourist zoning is contextually appropriate. Tourist zoning is not as intense as CC, but more intense than GR-L. Per the City s code, Context is the natural and manmade features adjoining the development site. Staff apparently did not do an analysis of the adjoining features, rather staff simply compared this rezone to a CC Zone, which is irrelevant and confusing to the analysis. Finally, if this was a straight up request to rezone the entire Lot 1A from GR-L to T, applying the factors set forth in the Comprehensive Plan Goals and Policy Analysis, the request should be denied as it is in conflict with the City s Comprehensive Plan. For these reasons, I request that the rezone be denied. Sincerely, /s/ Richard T. Roats