Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout05.12.20 LUDC minutes1 0 A H 0 City of Chubbuck Land Use and Development Commission Regular Meeting May 12, 2020 7:00 PM City Hall Council Chambers 5160 Yellowstone Avenue, Chubbuck, ID 83202 MINUTES Board Members Present: Chair Jason Mendenhall, Mike Schwartz, Vice -Chair Dan Stoddard, Rebecca Berls, Thais Ayre, Carrie Holm, Brady Smith, Brandon Jackson and TJ Budge. Staff Members Present: City Attorney Tom Holmes, Planning Manager Don Matson, Planner Paul Andrus, Office Administrator Kami Morrison, also joining via zoom; Riley Sorensen and Ken Menlove. Mendenhall called the meeting to order at 7:00 pm Mendenhall asked if any Commissioners had a conflict of interest within the items before the board tonight. Commissioner Ayre recused herself from General Business item #2. APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES: April 14, 2020 Mendenhall entertained a motion to approve the minutes as emailed. Stoddard moved the minutes of the April 14, 2020 meeting be approved as emailed; Schwartz seconded. The full Commission approved. GENERAL BUSINESS 1. Election of Officers- The Commission will appoint a Chair and Vice -Chair for the next calendar year (Action Item) Mendenhall opened nominations for Chair. Stoddard nominated Jason Mendenhall to continue to serve as Chair, Schwartz second. No other nominations. Roll call vote: Stoddard, Yes; Schwartz, Yes; Smith, Yes; Holm, Yes; Ayre, Yes; Jackson, Yes; Berls, Yes. Motion carried. Mendenhall opened nominations for Vice Chair. Schwartz nominated Dan Stoddard as Vice Chair, Berls seconded. Stoddard noted this will be his last year on the Commission and the Mayor can appoint someone else at any time to replace him. He will be moving from Chubbuck in about 2 months. Roll call vote: Jackson, Yes; Holm, Yes; Budge, Yes; Smith, Yes; Schwartz, Yes; Berls, Yes; Ayre, Yes; Mendenhall, Yes. Motion carried. 2. An application for a Conditional Use Permit for a self-service storage facility with a watchman's residence in a Limited Commercial (C-1) on approximately 8.71 acres of land. Subject property is generally located at the Southeast corner of Philbin and West Chubbuck Rd, Chubbuck, Idaho at approximately the 1200 block of West Chubbuck Rd. The property is currently zoned as Agriculture. This item was tabled following a public hearing at the regular April meeting pending more information regarding zoning preferences. Since the meeting, the applicant has decided to withdraw the rezoning application to C-1 and to keep the property under its current zoning designation. Type of Action: Commission Decision. (Action Item) Ken Menlove, representing the applicant, stated that when they presented last time they didn't know changing the zoning to C-1 would limit them to a three acre project. To be economically feasible they need 4.5-5 acres. Menlove added that the project will be a fully enclosed, fortress style development with decorative colored masonry walls surrounding the property. They have planned for the required 25 foot setback and then 10 foot tall decorative masonry walls around the entire project. The only area you can see through is at the entry gates which are wrought iron automatic lift gates with a keypad system. Menlove stated he is a civil engineer as well as general contractor and has designed and built over 350 of these and has won 7 national awards for designs. The project is state of the art as far as security, lighting, etc. Mendenhall asked if facility is 24-hour access. Menlove stated it is usually set hours. The keypad can be controlled to allow access between certain hours. There is a caretaker on site 24 -hours. Caretaker will usually let people come after hours if needed. Riley Sorensen stated typical access hours are 6:OOam-10:OOpm. Gates lock down at 10:OOpm but they do allow exceptions. Office hours are 9:30am-6:OOpm and closed on Sundays. Paul Andrus, Planner, said the memo he sent states that the project is allowed in Ag zone, both the dwelling unit and storage units. Mendenhall asked if lot 2 on the west side is staying as Ag also. Andrus replied that yes it will stay as Ag and there are no limit on storage units in Ag zone. The owner of the property is reservingthat space for future commercial/retail otherthan storage units. Matson stated that it could be limited in a motion to number of units shown. Menlove stated the request is for 4.5 acres that the owner will build in 2 phases. The size won't exceed what's shown. The intention is to build something like a gas station/retail use on other corner. Zone would have to change to C-1 there eventually. Would re -plat at that time. Berls asked if the wall will be going around the units or also around lot 2. Menlove stated the wall surrounds lot 2 and will be on all 4 sides of facility. Only place there will not be decorative all will be at the two entries, one on Chubbuck and one on Hiram. Berls asked if at the last meeting, visibility at intersections for corner lots was discussed. Matson clarified the wall will be behind the landscaping and that will also be address in design review. Berls asked how large the buffer is. Menlove said the current buffer shown on the north, east and south is 25 foot landscaped buffer. Will also use buffer as a storm water retention area as recommended by City and will also be heavily landscaped. Budge asked if the comprehensive plan identifies this as a mixed use zone. Andrus said that was correct. Budge stated the City Code requires Conditional Use Permits be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and he has concerns that this is not consistent with comp plan because the mixed use zone is for commercial and residential and those zones don't allow storage units of this magnitude. Andrus stated that the Ag zone is overlaying zone for everything. Smith disagreed adding it has always been interpreted as underlying until something more appropriate based on the comp plan is available. It's never has been interpreted as a catch all. The applicant has already stated they will come back for commercial zoning in the future. Using the base Ag zone to get what they need now and will form fit later. Menlove stated that was correct and when they look at a property they look at current zoning and what uses are permitted. If zoned something else they would've followed that recommendation. Withdrew original zoning change application. Schwartz asked how zoning from Ag to C-1 effect taxing of the entity. Matson stated that it wouldn't effect it much. The Assessor bases those on the use. The Ag exemption is based on if it's used as farm land. Andrus asked for clarification on if there will be a wall between lot 1 and lot 2 or around the whole perimeter as Menlove stated earlier. Sorensen stated it would not be around the entire perimeter and doesn't think a block wall around the entire thing makes much sense but there will definitely be one between lot 1 and lot 2. Mendenhall stated the Conditional Use Permit really should only apply to proposed lot 1. Lot 2 without the CUP right now is an empty lot. If they wanted to come back to rezone there wouldn't be an issue with CUP attached to it. Budge stated his understanding is that it is only for lot 1, which is the 4.5 acres. Andrus confirmed that was correct. Regarding the Conditional Use Permit Budge commended the applicant for raising the bar for that type of facility but struggles putting a really sizeable storage unit facility in what is currently predominately homes, schools and churches. In reviewing the materials Budge had a couple thoughts 1; city code requires that a CUP is consistent with the comp plan. For mixed use zones, those are intended to allow a mixture of compatible residential and commercial uses. A storage unit of this size doesn't fit in either of those so in the application doesn't comply with section 18.28.050 of the comp plan. 2; when evaluating a CUP they are to take into account the aesthetic qualities of proposed use and surrounding land and also the character and use of land in the vicinity. When looking at that area a large scale storage facility is not compatible. There are other places in the city where it would be appropriate but he does not feel it meets the standards of a CUP. Berls stated she agreed with Budge and cited code 18.08.10, enumeration of districts, which describes the purpose of Ag and stated it doesn't fit with the surrounding neighborhood or with the comprehensive plan. Mendenhall entertained a motion. Budge moved to deny the application for a conditional use permit based on inconsistencies with section 18.10 of city code and 18.28.040 subsections C5 and C6 and also City Code 18.28.050. Seconded by Berls. With all commission members understanding the motion they voted. Roll Call Vote: Mike Schwartz, Yes; Dan Stoddard, Yes; Rebecca Berls, Yes; Brady Smith, Yes; Brandon Jackson, Yes; Thais Ayre, Yes; Carrie Holm, Yes; TJ Budge, Yes; Jason Mendenhall, Yes. STUDY SESSION 1. The Commission may review proposed city code text amendments by City Staff and provide input on the following sections of draft code: 18.20 Planned Unit Developments (PUDs) Chapter, 18.06 Definitions Chapter, and a new proposed chapter 18.10, relating to Accessory Dwelling Units (ADUs) as well as relative references in other chapters and sections of code relating to PUDs and ADUs. Matson stated there are three parts of the code to discuss. Regarding the PUD ordinance they discussed a few details in the past and want to now make sure the Commission is satisfied with the wording. Those included: • The minimum size of a PUD, page 2, some thought one acre was thought too small. • The setback transition between commercial/industrial and residential language was simplified to say it needs to be appropriate for the site. Also added specifics for Industrial including 10 -foot setback with dense vegetation. Main goal is to make it work with the site. • Parking incentives, page 22, language changes regarding 3 different types of land uses combined for sharing parking. • Others are minor technical corrections. If ready to move on will bring back for a hearing next month and recommendation to council. Budge commented that he reviewed other city ordinances with PUD provisions and wondered if this is how we want to use these in the City of Chubbuck. Chubbuck has used PUD's in ways that are less conventional than in other places. Elsewhere, PUD's are used when a variety of land uses are developed together as a cohesive project, or one land use is done in unique way and the PUD gives flexibility to combine land uses or to structure for more open space and more clustered development. Budge added he went back and looked at some Chubbuck PUD's and they seem more like it's being used as a work around to not comply to densities that would be applied in that zone. Higher levels of density than would be allowed in R-1 or R-2. Budge continued saying it maybe merits some discussion on — is this how we should be using them. Berls stated she was in agreement and thinks they shouldn't be less than 3 acres. One acre is such a small area and just gives an out for anyone to be able to develop in that space. Smith commented that it's a challenge as a city to have a lot of infill properties that aren't as desirable. It's not a fresh 40-80 acres to cut into. Part of the reason for PUD's is a way to develop lesser desirable properties. About 37% of the town is infill, there are a lot of places in town where just not a big enough area to make a master PUD happen the way we would like to see it. It does offer flexibility for those types of developments. Stoddard stated the goal of the comp plan is to encourage infill development. A PUD is one way to do that. Staff has put in a lot of thought in how to go about it and how to offer incentives to developers. Budge asked about the city code and stated at one point there was an infill chapter. Budge wondered if the PUD chapter is a replacement for that. Matson stated he was unfamiliar with the ordinance before but that we do need incentive for infill parcels. They have added an emphasis on aesthetics to the draft code and a menu a developer can choose from that will appeal to their market and do affordably. Holmes noted that the infill chapter was broke out as a separate ordinance years ago, it was taken out of the PUD and put in its own but seemed to work better within PUD. It is a way that allows those odd parcels to be developed and really is a policy decision whether it's desirable or not. Mendenhall stated that the rewrite is 100 times better than what existed previously. It will help staff and developers know what can or can't do rather than just saying we will pigeon hole in this area, especially concerning amenities. Budge restated that he doesn't think it's a bad idea but worries about changing the character of neighborhoods by infilling with high density PUD's but also need to accommodate infill and be more flexible. Budge asked about page 18, density incentives. Matson clarified that the percent's are meant to have a maximum. They still have to accommodate the requirements of the PUD. The amenity requirement could be modified but not waived. Matson continued adding that they would like to see some incentive for infill because that's where the greatest need is. The City has a huge investment in streets, sewers, water lines as well as parks and private utility providers. Those infill parcels with existing utilities are an untapped source of revenue but also a solution to what the community needs; more housing, accessible to other uses, walkable, etc. Wanted to include special incentives for infill specifically and allow for more creativity. Mendenhall requested it be clarified that residential infill and residential density can't be used together, has to be one or the other. Holm asked about the current infill properties and if the majority were in residential areas. Matson stated the properties were largely in commercial areas. Two of the largest are old mobile home sale lots on Yellowstone, both several acres, which qualify for infill because of development around them. Holmes commented that there may be a general bias against density but because of price of housing some have no choice but to live in more dense areas. Holmes asked if we are better off with a dense PUD or something like Mobile Manor. Holmes suggested selecting some PUD's that have been done over the years and see if they are really bad or are there just things that need to be improved and make sure we cover those in our ordinance. Budge and Mendenhall stated they thought that was a great idea. Budge added he is just trying to look at long term implications of the PUD ordinance and how we apply it. Holmes stated that one of the larger PUD's, Pheasant Ridge is fairly dense but was done in very efficient way. When you look at the valuation per square foot, it's one of the City's more valuable areas. It's not creative but does provide a huge base of affordable housing and has lower crime than a regular residential area based on Police Department studies. Berls commented that they are so successful because they charge homeowners association fees for maintenance and asked if any others charge HOA fees. Andrus stated there are several others like Park Meadows, Copperfield Landing that are more residential, single family, twin homes but most of those little ones are infill PUD's and some are usually wholly owned by one individual so don't have HOA's. Mendenhall asked for clarification regarding acreage of PUD's vs the Creative Community zone. Matson said anything over five acres is eligible for the create community zone and they would be encouraged to consider that. Matson added that the Creative Community zone has a higher bar on contributions from Developer. Mendenhall clarified that the PUD ordinance is really designed for pieces between 1-5 acres that are infill. Budge asked for a list of PUD's in Chubbuck, and plats so Commissioners can drive by individually. Matson will provide list to Commissioners. Mendenhall asked the Commission if they should hold off on the public hearing until they receive the list from Matson. Stoddard commented that the public hearing isn't the last step in the process but maybe is the right next step to get input from developers and those that it will impact. It will still have opportunities for revisions and changes before going to Council. Smith and Schwartz agreed and said they should let it move forward. Mendenhall said they will move it forward for public hearing and can look at the list beforehand, but staff will provide additional information during staff presentations at the next meeting. Ayre pointed out a typo on page 23, item #4, should say parking "incentive". Matson presented code changes to Accessory Dwelling Units, page 44. There are a few lines in code that talk about residential dwellings and are a little obscure. As written any rental would need approval before moving forward, these changes clear that up. They also outlined a process in order to standardize and legalize rentals. Matson showed PowerPoint presentation and video, (attached). Matson asked the Commission for input on several items; size, parking, and owner occupancy. Regarding owner occupancy, Mendenhall suggested changing the language for family relation to include niece or nephew and aunt or uncle. Mendenhall also asked if staff had concerns about the 1000 sq. foot size limit and that being the max. Matson stated they were more concerned with having a max on size than number of bedrooms or occupants. Size is easiest to enforce and the Building Department would know up front if they are dealing with the correct size. 900 is the average. Holm stated she wasn't bothered by the square footage. Ayre asked about taxation and homeowners exemptions, regarding how state would like at rental income and if it is exempt from the total. Matson stated he would need to research that item. Matson asked Commissioners for input on parking. If there should be off street parking required, designated or have an additional space. Mendenhall stated he felt it should be off street provided. Holm asked about taxation and if it would just add additional square footage if it's not connected. Matson stated he wasn't sure but it would be assessed as living space. Matson noted the draft also prohibits having separate sewer lines, utilities, etc. Could be converted back to one unit unless required by utility provider or post office. Matson will find an example of a deed restriction for the next meeting so Commissioners can see how they look. Matson presented changes to definitions. First was getting rid of numbers, some is renaming, some are illustrations. They added ADU's to the definition of single household dwelling. Adding townhouse/twin home to those as well. They also added sign types, current sign code needs lots of improvements. Then page 5 of ordinance shows changes to the Land Use District Table changing "residential rental dwelling" to "accessory dwelling". Finally they modified how zero lot lines are referred to and added condominium. Holmes explained why the numbering was done years ago. Per state code when they amended definitions they had to have those all included. Mendenhall asked if the state still requires that they be numbered. Holmes confirmed. Mendenhall suggested it may be a good reason to keep them numbered. Mendenhall asked if the definitions were ready to go to a public hearing. Matson stated that yes they would be after he adds the numbers back in. Mendenhall confirmed they will move it to a public hearing for next month. Mendenhall requested a study session on ADU's once more but move the other two items to a public hearing. Mendenhall thanked everyone for being able to get on Zoom and for attending the meeting. Mendenhall entertained a motion to adjourn; Ayre made the motion. Stoddard seconded. All voted to adjourn at 8:34pm. Jason Mendenhall, Chairperson K mi Morrison, Office Administrator This meeting was available to the public electronically and by phone. Via Zoom Teleconferencing: Meeting ID: 910 1583 0144 Due to the occurrence and imminent threat to public health and safety arising from the effects of the 2019 novel coronavirus (COVID-19). Governor Little issued a Proclamation on March 13, 2020 suspending section 74-203(5) and requiring All Public Meetings to be held electronically or by phone.