Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout10 12 2021CHUBBUCK I u n H o City of Chubbuck Land Use and Development Commission Regular Meeting October 12, 2021 6:00 PM City Hall Council Chambers 290 East Linden, Chubbuck, ID 83202 In-person attendance is allowed, this meeting will also be available to the public electronically or by phone. Web -conference (no webcam is necessary to participate): https://us02web.zoom.us/j/84731610413?pwd=bHk5b3dGTmhJZnN5aFdFUFVWL 1 dhdzO9 Telephone: Dial by your location +1669 900 6833 US +1253 215 8782 US Meeting ID: 847 3161 0413 Passcode: 655066 General information on joining a Zoom meeting can be found at https://support.zoom.us/hc/en- us/articles/201362193-Joining-a-Meeting. AGENDA I. CALL TO ORDER & DISCLOSURES OF CONFLICTS OF INTEREST II. APPROVAL OF MINUTES for September 14, 2021 (Action Item) III. GENERAL BUSINESS 1. Review Chubbuck Impact Fee Process and Structure (Zions Public Finance will present the History and status of current impact fees) 2. Discussion of Minor Code Revisions Affecting Titles 5, 16, 17, and 18 of City Code. IV. ADJOURN City Hall and the City Council Chambers are accessible for persons with disabilities. Any person needing special accommodations to participate in the meeting should contact City Clerk, Joey Bowers at 208.237.2400 at least 24 hours prior to the meeting. City of Chubbuck Land Use and Development Commission Regular Meeting CHUBBUCK Septe6 00 PM 2021 I Q n H 0 City Hall Council Chambers 290 East Linden, Chubbuck, ID 83202 MINUTES Board Members Present: Chair Jason Mendenhall, Brady Smith, Carrie Holm, Mike Schwartz, and TJ Budge. Staff Members Present: City Attorney Tom Holmes, Planning Manager Don Matson, Development Services Manager Sean Harris, Planning and Development Director Devin Hillam, and City Clerk Joey Bowers. Mendenhall called the meeting to order at 6:OOpm. Mendenhall asked if any commissioners had a conflict of interest with the items before the board. Budge abstained from all 5 public hearings and Smith recused from general business items 2 and 3. APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES: August 10, 2021. Mendenhall entertained a motion to approve the minutes as emailed. Schwartz moved to accept the meeting minutes of August 10, 2021 as emailed; Holm seconded. The full authority approved. PUBLIC HEARING 1. An application for a Change in Land Use District from Single Family Residential (R-1) to Dense Residential (R-4) on approximately 2.0 acres of land. Subject property is located on the west side of Philbin Road north of Sawtooth Street in Chubbuck, Idaho. The Comprehensive Plan Future Land Use map designates this area as Mixed Use. At the meeting, the Commission will consider whether the proposal satisfies the approval criteria in municipal code section 18.28.050.8. Type of Action: Recommendation. Planning Manager Don Matson presented an application for a Change in Land Use District from Single Family Residential (R-1) to Dense Residential (R-4) on approximately 2 acres of land. Matson stated that this application had been reviewed by City Staff and appears to meet the standards of Titles 16, 17 and 18 of City Code, and recommended approval. The applicant is willing to sign a development agreement that would automatically revert this property back to an (R-1) zone if any changes are made or the applicant does not move forward with the proposed preliminary plat. Stuart Ward, DIOPTRA, represented the applicant. Mr. Ward presented a 9 unit subdivision, which will include eight twin homes and one single family residential. Mr. Ward stated that the proposed development would meet the density standards for a Limited Residential (R-2) zoning. But due to the size and shape of the parcel, and easements on the property the applicant has requested for an (R-4) zone. Mr. Ward felt like this application would clean up a blighted part of the community. Schwartz asked about access for emergency services and sanitation services. Ward stated that access for sanitation services and emergency services will be contained within the property and will not need to be accessed off of Philbin road, but could be accessed off of Philbin Road if necessary. Smith asked how this application was different from previous applications. Ward stated that in 2017 the applicant applied for General Commercial (C-1) zoning, but due to not having a preliminary plat the Land Use Board denied that zone change. Mendenhall asked about the height difference between the two story twin homes and the surrounding single family homes. Ward originally stated that he thought these twin homes would be about 35ft at its peak but after reviewing that information stated that these twin homes would actually be 27ft at its peak. Holm asked City Staff if there was any improvements planned for Philbin Road in the near future. Matson stated that there is an open house scheduled for the end of September to discuss installing a roundabout on the corner or Chubbuck Road and Philbin Road in 2022, which would be just north of this development. Mendenhall declared the public hearing open for public comment. Victor Loiselle at 10795 N. Philbin, was Opposed. Mr. Loiselle felt like a two story building would not fit in with the surrounding single level residential homes. Mr. Loiselle did not want to see anymore apartments being built off of Philbin Road, and would be in favor of single family residential homes being built on this property. Cheryl Loiselle at 10795 N. Philbin, was Opposed. Mrs. Loiselle was concerned about the height difference between a two story twin home and the surrounding one level single family residential homes. Mrs. Loiselle would be in favor of one level town homes, as long as they are not rentals. Roy Thompson at 1331 Sawtooth, was Opposed. Mr. Thompson felt like there needed to be a secondary entrance in and out of the Grove Subdivision, and Philbin Road needed to be a double painted line from the interstate to Chubbuck Road to stop people from trying to pass. Aubrey Naasz at 4636 Pahsimeroi, was Opposed. Mrs. Naasz was told that the City would not allow two story buildings to be built in this area. Mrs. Naasz was concerned about traffic in this area. Mrs. Naasz would be in favor of an 8-5 commercial development on this property rather than two story twin homes. Mrs. Naasz also felt like this development would have a negative impact on their property values. Sean Jahla at 1470 Sawtooth, was Opposed. Mr. Jahla stated that his house was 25ft at its peak, and was concerned about the height difference between a two story twin home and the surrounding one level single family residential homes. Mr. Jahla asked what division this property was originally plated under because the legal CCNR's for the Grove Subdivisions Div. 1 and 2 would not allow for two story buildings to be built. In the Grove Subdivision CCR 2.22 requires homes to be a minimum of 2,300 square feet and have a triple car garage. Mr. Jahla was also concerned about the increase in traffic and the negative impact on property values. Smith asked if anybody in the audience had any data showing the negative impacts that this type of development would have on property values. Paul Harding at 4640 Pahsimeroi, was Opposed. Mr. Harding was concerned about traffic and the negative impacts a two story development would have on the view from his back deck. Mr. Harding felt like the traffic issues needed to be address and resolved before allowing anymore development off of this section of Philbin Road. Brady Goodrich at 4633 Pahsimeroi, was Opposed. Mr. Goodrich was concerned about traffic, the height difference between a two story twin home and the surrounding one level single family residential homes, and the negative impact on property values. Daniel Elder at 1388 Sawtooth, was Opposed. Mr. Elder was concerned about traffic, the height difference between a two story twin home and the surrounding one level single family residential homes, and the negative impact on property values. Due to no more public comment Mendenhall closed the public hearing. Ward stated that these twin homes would have a single car garage and would be sold as individual units. Mr. Ward also stated that this property was never platted as part of the Grove Subdivision and therefore would not fall under the CCR. Budge asked Mendenhall to read the names of those individuals that filled a petition in opposition to this application. Those names where Gene Warren, Kasey Watson, Nathan Palmer, Floyd Hitchcock, Leroy House, and Cheryl Loiselle. Smith gave a brief history about this property, and was concerned that the applicant was not available to answer all the concerns from the surrounding neighbors, and was also concerned about traffic and did not feel like this application was in the best interest for the community. Schwartz asked City Staff about access. Hillam stated that this property would meet the access guidelines which allows a single property an access off of an arterial road. Ward stated that the plat shows an entrance on the north of the property and an exit on the south of the property. Mendenhall also did not feel like this application was in the best interest for the community. Smith felt like this was an issues that was not going to go away, and the Board had already denied a commercial application for this property. Smith motioned to deny the application of a Change in Land Use District from Single Family Residential (R-1) to Dense Residential (R-4) on approximately 2 acres of land, as presented, on the basis that the application does not meet the policies as set forth in city code. Schwartz seconded. With all commission members understanding the motion they voted. Roll Call Vote: Carrie Holm, Yes; Jason Mendenhall, Yes; Brady Smith, Yes; Mike Schwartz, Yes; TJ Budge, abstained; Motion carried. 2. An application for a Comprehensive Plan Amendment to the Land Use Designation Map, on approximately 4.18 acres of land from Commercial and Mixed Use, to Mixed Use. Subject property is located on the north side of Quinn Rd west of Ronald St in Chubbuck, Idaho. At the meeting, the Commission will consider whether the proposal satisfies the approval criteria in municipal code section 18.28.040.D. Type of Action: Recommendation. Planning Manager Don Matson presented an application for a Comprehensive Plan Amendment on 4.18 acres of land from Commercial and Mixed Use to Mixed Use. Matson stated that this application had been reviewed by City Staff and appears to meet the standards of Titles 16, 17 and 18 of City Code, and recommended approval. Joel Dixon, Knudsen Engineering, represented the applicant. Mr. Dixon stated that the applicant is wanting to remedy this property so it has one zoning classification and not be split between commercial and mixed use. Mendenhall declared the public hearing open for public comment. Kyle Ruud at 4020 Ronald, was Opposed. Mr. Ruud was representing the neighborhood and was wanting to know how the applicant intended to use this property Mendenhall informed Mr. Rudd that this item of business was not to change the zoning but to update the City's comprehensive plan map. Mr. Rudd did not have any concerns with updating the map. Due to no more public comment Mendenhall closed the public hearing. Schwartz motioned to recommend approval of a Comprehensive Plan Amendment on 4.18 acres of land from Commercial and Mixed Use to Mixed Use as presented, to the City Council. Smith seconded. With all commission members understanding the motion they voted. Roll Call Vote: Jason Mendenhall, Yes; Brady Smith, Yes; Mike Schwartz, Yes; Carrie Holm, Yes; TJ Budge, abstained; Motion carried. 3. An application for a Change in Land Use District from Limited Residential (R-2) to Dense Residential (R-4) on approximately 4.18 acres of land. Subject property is located on the north side of Quinn Rd west of Ronald St in Chubbuck, Idaho. The Comprehensive Plan Future Land Use map designates this area as Commercial and Mixed Use. At the meeting, the Commission will consider whether the proposal satisfies the approval criteria in municipal code section 18.28.050.6. Type of Action: Recommendation. Planning Manager Don Matson presented an application for a Change in Land Use District from Limited Residential (R-2) to Dense Residential (R-4) on approximately 4.18 acres of land. Matson stated that this application had been reviewed by City Staff and appears to meet the standards of Titles 16, 17 and 18 of City Code, and recommended approval. Joel Dixon, Knudsen Engineering, represented the applicant. Mr. Dixon stated that the applicant currently does not have any set plans for this property, but this zone change will allow the applicant to start that process. Smith felt like that from the application the applicant is most likely looking at a higher density use for this property. Mr. Dixon agreed that would be the route that the applicant would most likely intends to use this property for, but currently does not have any set plans for this property. Mendenhall declared the public hearing open for public comment. Kyle Ruud at 4020 Ronald, was Neutral. Mr. Ruud was concerned about the increase in traffic, and not having sidewalks for pedestrian safety along Quinn Rd. Mr. Ruud asked if there was any improvements planned for the Hawthorne Road and Quinn Road intersection. Kenneth Funk at 441 Chesapeake, was Opposed. Mr. Funk felt like the applicant was trying to avoid not having a public hearing to put in apartments, and recommended not changing the zone until a plan was in place for the surrounding neighbors. Heather Quinton at 4019 Ronald, was Opposed. Mrs. Quinton was concerned about the increase in traffic, and pedestrian safety. Due to no more public comment Mendenhall closed the public hearing. Holm asked which City was responsible for Quinn Road. Matson stated that most borderline roads are split in the middle between the cities, but Quinn Road is a City of Pocatello Road. The City of Chubbuck starts at the property lines along Quinn Road. Smith asked about planned improvements at the Hawthorne Road and Quinn Road intersection. Hillam stated that there is no set schedule for any improvements at that intersection. The City of Pocatello and Bannock Transportation is currently looking for funding to install a four way light at that intersection in 2022. Hillam also stated that this property will be required to install sidewalks along Quinn Road as it develops. Smith motioned to recommend approval of a Change in Land Use District from Limited Residential (R-2) to Dense Residential (R-4) on approximately 4.18 acres of land, as presented to the City Council. Schwartz seconded. With all commission members understanding the motion they voted. Roll Call Vote: Brady Smith, Yes; Mike Schwartz, Yes; Carrie Holm, Yes; Jason Mendenhall, Yes; TJ Budge, abstained; Motion carried. Smith also motioned to recommend approval of a Change in Land Use District from Limited Residential (R-2) to Dense Residential (R-4) on approximately 4.18 acres of land, conditional upon the City Council approval of the Comprehensive Plan Amendment. Schwartz seconded. With all commission members understanding the motion they voted. Roll Call Vote: Mike Schwartz, Yes; Carrie Holm, Yes; Jason Mendenhall, Yes; Brady Smith, Yes; TJ Budge, abstained; Motion carried. 4. An application for a Comprehensive Plan Amendment to the Land Use Designation Map on approximately 21 acres of land from Commercial and Employment to Commercial, and on approximately 18 acres from Commercial and Employment to High Density Residential. Subject property is generally located on the east side of Yellowstone Avenue between Adams Street and New Day Parkway in Chubbuck, Idaho. At the meeting, the Commission will consider whether the proposal satisfies the approval criteria in municipal code section 18.28.040.D. Type of Action: Recommendation. Planning Manager Don Matson presented an application for a Comprehensive Plan Amendment on 21 acres of land from Commercial and Employment to Commercial, and on 18 acres of land from Commercial and Employment to High Density Residential. Matson stated that this application had been reviewed by City Staff and appears to meet the standards of Titles 16, 17 and 18 of City Code, and recommended approval. Joel Dixon, Knudsen Engineering, represented the applicant. Mr. Dixon stated that the applicant feels like these changes will better fit within the surrounding areas and allow for a more gradual transition from residential to high density residential, and then to commercial. The current compressive plan designates this area as Industrial which would allow 70ft buildings to be built in this area. Mr. Dixon feels like this change would be in the best interest for the community. Smith asked what the zoning was for the Diamond Court Apartments just south of this property. Matson stated that the Diamond Courts Apartments where developed as Dense Residential (R-4) zoning. Mendenhall declared the public hearing open for public comment. Anne Butler at 375 Roanoke, was Opposed. Ms. Butler was opposed to the Comprehensive Plan Amendment map, because of the proposed zoning. Kenneth Funk at 441 Chesapeake, was Opposed. Mr. Funk was opposed to the high density zoning and the increase of traffic onto New Day Parkway. Mr. Funk asked about planned improvements to expand New Day Parkway to Yellowstone Ave. Mr. Funk was also concerned about the negative impact high density housing would have on overcrowding the schools. Mr. Funk asked if a park would be required to be built in this area, and wanted a two story building restriction to be placed on this property. Due to no more public comment Mendenhall closed the public hearing. Mendenhall asked for an update on improvements to New Day Parkway. Hillam stated that due to scheduling conflicts with the railroad the expansion of New Day Parkway from Whitaker Road to Industry way had been postponed until 2022. Idaho Transportation Department (ITD) will be expanding Yellowstone Ave and as part of that expansion will also widen New Day Parkway the rest of the way to Yellowstone Ave. in 2023. Mr. Hillam stated that the School District receives notification and are given an opportunity to express any concerns that might have a negative impact on the schools. The City had not received any concerns from the school district on any of the applications on the Boards agenda this evening. Mr. Hillam also stated that the developer has the option to build a park that in turn will give him credits towards a parks impact fee, or the applicant can choose to just pay a parks impact fee that will go towards building larger destination parks for the community as a whole. Smith asked about the current employment designation and how that differed from when Diamond Court was developed. Hillam stated that the City was following State Law more than it had in the past that is why this amendment was before the Board this evening. Matson stated after talking to Development Services Manager Sean Harris that Diamond Court was developed under Dense Residential (R-4) zoning. When the comprehensive plan map was adopted that designated this area as Employment/ Industrial it was a common practice among cities to make that designation along railroad tracks as a buffer. Smith asked about industrial developments. Hillam stated that industrial developers are looking for land that is not adjacent to residential developments, so cities are now moving more towards high density developments as a buffer along existing railroad tracks. Smith motioned to recommend approval of a Comprehensive Plan Amendment on 21 acres of land from Commercial and Employment to Commercial, and on 18 acres of land from Commercial and Employment to High Density Residential. as presented, to the City Council. Schwartz seconded. With all commission members understanding the motion they voted. Roll Call Vote: Carrie Holm, Yes; Jason Mendenhall, Yes; Brady Smith, Yes; Mike Schwartz, Yes; TJ Budge, abstained; Motion carried. 5. An application for Initial Zoning District designation as Commercial General (C-2) on approximately 21.07 acres of land, and Dense Residential (R-4) on approximately 18.43 acres of land. Subject property is currently in the Bannock County Multiple Use Zone and is located on the east side of Yellowstone Avenue between Adams Street and New Day Parkway in Chubbuck, Idaho. The Comprehensive Plan Future Land Use map designates this area as Commercial and Employment. At the meeting, the Commission will consider whether the proposal satisfies the approval criteria in municipal code section 18.28.050.B. Type of Action: Recommendation. Planning Manager Don Matson presented an application for an initial Zoning District as Commercial (C-2) on 21.07 acres of land, and to Dense Residential (R-4) on approximately 18.43 acres of land. Matson stated that this application had been reviewed by City Staff and appears to meet the standards of Titles 16, 17 and 18 of City Code, and recommended approval. This property had submitted an application for annexation that will go before the City Council in October. Joel Dixon, Knudsen Engineering, represented the applicant. Mr. Dixon stated that the applicant feels like these changes will better fit within the surrounding areas and allow for a more gradual transition from residential to high density residential, and then to commercial. Mr. Dixon feels like this change would be in the best interest for the community. Mr. Dixon also stated that the applicant would like to eventually bring Industry Way South from New Day Parkway and connect to the northern border of this property as commercial development. Mendenhall declared the public hearing open for public comment. Anne Butler at 375 Roanoke, was Opposed. Ms. Butler was opposed to the proposed zoning, and requested that the 300' (C-2) zoning be denied and instead be zoned (R-1) or (R- 2) along the eastern border of this property. Ms. Butler also requested that a proper privacy screening be required along the eastern boarder of the property, 6ft privacy fence, as well as a 100' buffer with trees planted every 30', and a maximum 2 -story height restriction. Ms. Butler was also opposed to the high density (R-4) zoning as majority of the surrounding area was zoned (R-1) and (R-2), and requested that the proposed (R-4) zone be denied and instead be zoned (R-1) or (R-2) along the eastern border of this property; and a proper privacy screening be required along the eastern boarder of the property, 6ft privacy fence, as well as a 100' buffer with trees planted every 30', and a maximum 2 -story height restriction. Ms. Butler was also concerned about the negative impact on property values, increase in traffic, and overcrowding of schools. Kenneth Funk at 441 Chesapeake, was Opposed. Mr. Funk seconded everything that was presented by Ms. Butler. Due to no more public comment Mendenhall closed the public hearing. Dixon stated that the (R-4) zoning gives the applicant more options to develop this area in the best interest for the community. The applicant is financially unable to commit to all the requests that have been presented by Ms. Butler. Smith asked if the applicant was open to buffering options along the eastern border. Dixon stated that the applicant is looking at all his options including the possibility of developing a park along the eastern border. Mendenhall asked how much of an impact would it have on the developer to develop the entire eastern border as High Density (R-4) zoning along the railroad tracks and moving the commercial boundary to the west. Dixon stated that the applicant does not own all the land to the north that would make a connection to New Day Parkway and would like to work with the owner to the north to allow for more commercial development along New Day Parkway and the norther border of this property. Smith asked if the board would be interested in placing some sort of buffering restriction as a recommendation to the City Council. Attorney Tom Holmes stated that the Board legally should not place or recommend any type of restrictions at the zoning stage that would fall under the current City Ordinances at the preliminary plat. Schwartz asked if the tracks and the railroad right of way was used to calculate buffering between developments. Matson stated that the railroad right of way/easement is a clearly defined undeveloped property that can be used in buffering calculations for developers, and would be addressed during a preliminary plat. Smith wanted it know for the record that he would be interested in the future seeing some sort of buffering along the eastern border of this property. Budge wanted to make sure that those in the audience understood that although the Board does have the ability to control the density on the initial zoning application. The Board does not have the authority to impose any sort of height or buffering restrictions at this stage of the application as requested during the public hearing. Mendenhall recommended zoning the entire eastern boarder as (R-4) and moving the commercial zoning to the west. Hillam stated that City Staff would be supportive of that change. Attorney Holmes asked the applicant if they would be ok with the proposed recommended change and if they would prefer for the board to table a recommendation until they could provide an updated legal description. Dixon preferred to not have the Board table a decision but to recommend approval of the application as presented. Matson reminded Mendenhall that the Board just recommend approval of a Comprehensive Plan Amendment on 21 acres of land from Commercial and Employment to Commercial, and on 18 acres of land from Commercial and Employment to High Density Residential. Which would not allow for that portion of the property to be developed as High Density (R-4) zoning without a conditional use permit. The applicant could in the future apply for a conditional use permit and develop that portion of this property as High Density (R-4) zoning in the future, or it could be developed as commercial depending on the market if approved by the City Council. Mendenhall stated that he would recommend leaving that decision up to the City Council as they also look at the annexation application for this property. Smith motioned to recommend approval for an initial Zoning District as Commercial (C-2) on 21.07 acres of land, and to Dense Residential (R-4) on approximately 18.43 acres of land, conditional upon the City Council approval of the Comprehensive Plan Amendment, and annexation of this property. Schwartz seconded. With all commission members understanding the motion they voted. Roll Call Vote: Jason Mendenhall, Yes; Brady Smith, Yes; Mike Schwartz, Yes; Carrie Holm, Yes; TJ Budge, abstained; Motion carried. GENERAL BUSINESS 1. Review and Possible Approval of Arbor Court Preliminary Plat. (Commission will discuss the application and if it meets City code). Applicant Daren Crockett presented an 11 lot preliminary plat and also wanted to address concerns from the sanitation and fire departments. The sanitation department stated that "The Sanitation Department had reviewed the applicant's proposal for compliance. The turning radius does not accommodate Chubbuck garbage service vehicles without using multiple point turns and backing. Sanitation believes they can service the site with their trucks and a very careful driver." The Fire Department stated that The Fire Department had reviewed the applicant's proposal for compliance. The turning radius does not accommodate Chubbuck Fire Department vehicles without using multiple point turns and backing. With the current layout, the Fire Department only has one fire truck that could make the turn. All other trucks will have to make multiple point turns to make the corner." Mr. Crocket presented multiple examples similar to his application around Chubbuck that both the sanitation department and fire department currently services. Mendenhall asked City Staff for clarification. Harris stated that although the sanitation and fire departments provided a few concerns during design review, both departments had stated that they would be able to service this development as presented. The applicant has provided additional space in this development to allow for the sanitation, and fire departments to more easily service this development. Budge asked if the parking lot would be one way traffic. Mr. Crockett stated the parking lot was designed for one way traffic. Budge also asked about fencing and creating a buffer for future developments. Mr. Crockett stated he would be providing a 6ft privacy fence along the western border and a 3ft fence along Chubbuck Road. Budge motioned to recommend approval of the Arbor Court Preliminary Plat, as presented to City Council; with a recommendation that the City Council to be made aware of the Staff Report that was presented to the Land Use Commission, about the concerns from the sanitation and fire departments during design review. Holm seconded. With all commission members understanding the motion they voted. Roll Call Vote: TJ Budge, Yes; Brady Smith, Yes; Mike Schwartz, Yes; Carrie Holm, Yes; Jason Mendenhall, Yes; Motion carried. 2. Review and Possible Approval of Copperfield Estates Div. 6 Preliminary Plat. (Commission will discuss the application and if it meets City code). Brent Monet represented Summit Building Group. Mr. Monet presented a 55 lot preliminary plat. Mr. Monet also stated that they had met with the surrounding neighbors and was able to address most of their concerns. Summit Building Group is also working with City Staff to help create the envisioned park around the City's well site as part of this development. Development Manager Sean Harris stated that this application had been reviewed by City Staff and appears to meet the standards of Titles 16, 17 and 18 of City Code, and recommended approval. Mr. Harris also stated that the Public Works Director had reviewed this application against the previously approved PUD by Mr. Darris Ellis, and felt like this application complied with the guidelines of the PUD and also recommended approval. Budge asked about guest parking. Mr. Monet stated that there would be guest parking provided on site and that there would be street parking available. Schwartz motioned to recommend approval of the Copperfield Estates Div. 6 Preliminary Plat, as presented to City Council. Budge seconded. With all commission members understanding the motion they voted. Roll Call Vote: Carrie Holm, Yes; Jason Mendenhall, Yes; TJ Budge, Yes; Mike Schwartz, Yes; Brady Smith, recused; Motion carried. 3. Adoption of Resolution 2021-01 Harvest Springs Urban Renewal Plan. In compliance with the Idaho Urban Renewal Law of 1965, Chapter 20, Title 50, Idaho Code, as amended and the Local Economic Development Act, Chapter 29, Title 50, Idaho Code, as amended, the Urban Renewal Plan for the Harvest Springs Urban Renewal Plan, adopted by the Chubbuck Development Authority on September 7, 2021, will be presented to the Commission for review and recommendations as to the plan's conformity with the City of Chubbuck's Comprehensive Plan. Executive Director Devin Hillam represented the Chubbuck Development Authority. Mr. Hillam presented an urban renewal plan for the Harvest Springs development that was adopted by the Chubbuck Development Authority. Mr. Hillam stated that before the City Council could review/adopt this plan it needed to be brought before the Land Use Commission for review and determination as to its conformity with the City's Comprehensive Plan. Mendenhall motioned to adopt Resolution 2021-01 as presented, Schwartz, seconded. With all commission members understanding the motion they voted. Roll Call Vote: Mike Schwartz, Yes; Carrie Holm, Yes; Jason Mendenhall, Yes; TJ Budge, Yes; Brady Smith, recused; Motion carried. Mendenhall entertained a motion to adjourn; Schwartz made the motion. Smith seconded. All voted to adj ourn at 9:3 Bpm. Jason Mendenhall, Chairperson Joey Bowers, City Clerk This meeting was available to the public electronically and by phone. Via Zoom Teleconferencing: Meeting ID: 843 5519 0788 Impact Fee Calculations Review City of Chubbuck Land Use and Development Commission Meeting September 14, 2021 ZIONS ©0 PUBLIC FINANCE,INC. 1 ®® Development Impact Fees Overview • Development Impact Fees are an equitable way to plan and finance public facilities needed to serve new growth and development. • Impact Fees: — ensure adequate public facilities are available to serve new growth; — Promote orderly growth and development by establishing uniform standards for a local government to require new growth to pay their proportionate share of the cost of new public facilities; and — Ensure that new growth and development PAYS NO MORE than their proportionate share of the public facilities. • Development Impact Fees are regulated by Title 67, Chapter 82 of the Idaho State Code. • City contracted with Zions Public Finance in spring of 2017 to complete the impact fee analyses in accordance with state law and Impact Fee Advisory Committee met regularly to make decisions on the impact fee analyses. Impact Fee Advisory Committee Requirements • Any entity considering adopting an impact fee must establish an advisory committee • The committee must have at least S members, at least 2 of these members must be from the development/real estate community. An existing planning or zoning commission can serve as the committee as long as it meets those requirements • The committee's purpose is to: — Assist in adopting land use assumptions — Review and monitor Capital Improvement Plans (CIPS) and amendments — File written comments and periodic reports (at least annually) — Recommend updating land use assumptions, CIPS, and impact fees • The City needs to give the committee all related materials Impact Fee Key Terms • Impact Fee: A payment of money imposed as a condition of development approval to pay for a proportionate share of the cost of system improvements needed to serve development. • Proportionate Share: The portion of the cost of a system improvement which reasonably relates to the service demands and needs of the project. • level of Service: Measure of the relationship between service capacity and service demand for public facilities. Project vs System Improvements • Project Improvements — Cannot be included in an impact fee — Generally considered improvements that do not benefit the City as a whole (such as neighborhood improvements) — HOA improvements (not available for public use outside of the HOA association or funded with HOA fees, not City revenues) — Improvements beyond the requirements of City Code • System Improvements — Improvements that do benefit the City as a whole, have a useful life of ten or more years, and can be included in impact fees How the Impact Fees are Calculated • For each impact fee study, we looked at: — Historic costs of system improvements, — Future capital improvements the City has planned, and — The excess capacity or existing deficiencies in the historic or future capital facilities • A project with excess capacity can serve new growth without lowering the level of service for existing City residents • A project with an existing deficiency does not adequately serve existing City residents and cannot serve new growth unless the capacity of the project is increased or upgraded do 2018 Development Impact Fee Analysis 2018 Impact Fee Analysis covers: • Parks &Recreation Impact Fee • Police and Animal Control Impact Fee • Emergency Services (Fire and EMS) Impact Fee Parks Impact Fee Analysis Level of Service • Parks Master Plan park inventory was used to determine the parks level of service — Current level of service was determined to be 5.22 impact fee qualifying park acres per 1,000 residents — $277,275 park amenities per 1,000 residents (amenities include playgrounds, picnic tables, sports field improvements, etc.) z9VER omitImpact Acreage LOS Per 1,000 Fee Qualifying Parks Acres Qualifying Cost Community Neighborhood 51.69 24.78 $ 7,139,163 650,279 3.53 1.69 Park Total 76.48 $ 7,789,442 5.22 Amenities Total Cost of Existing Amenities Amenities LOS Per 1,000 Amenities - $ 3,328,212 $ 227,275 Amenities Total - $ 3,328,212 $ 227,275 Parks Impact Fee Analysis • "Community" and "Neighborhood" parks are impact fee qualifying. — The City had more than 76.5 acres of park land at the time of the 2018 study, but only those 76.5 acres meet the definition of "impact fee qualifying". — Mini parks are not qualifying. — Park land that was donated to the City is not impact fee qualifying. If current residents didn't have to pay money for it, then future residents shouldn't have to either. • Park amenities that were donated are not impact fee qualifying. — All other amenities that the City funded (or received in lieu of fees that a developer owed the City) are impact fee qualifying. Parks Impact Fee per Capita • Parks impact fees are assessed to residential units only. Not to businesses or any other land use types. • The impact fee per capita is calculated first and then an impact fee per household can be calculated. • Impact Fee per Capita Calculation: Calculation of Park Impact Fee Per Capita Total Impact Fee Eligible Park Acres (76.5 acres @$20,000) Cost $ 1,529,538 Population -. 14,644 $ Fee P - Capita 104.45 Amenities Cost 3,328,212 14,644 227.27 Improvement Costs ($2.25 per Sq Ft) 7,495,501 14,644 511.85 Professional Expenses 10,000 14,644 0.68 Total Park Impact Fee Per Capita $ 844.25 Parks Impact Fee per Household • The City had an average of 2.79 persons per household(PPH) for single family houses and 2.60 PPH for multi -family units. • Impact fee per capita of $844 is multiplied by the average PPH to come up with the final parks impact fee per household. Impact Fee CalculationmA Fee Per �nAit Average Household Size/Total Single Family Residential (SFR) Units 2.79 Gross Park Impact Fee per SFR Household $ 2,355 Average Household Size/Multi Family (MFR) Units 2.60 Gross Park Impact Fee per MFR Household $ 2,195 Police/Animal Control and Emergency Services Impact Fees • Police/Animal Control and Emergency Services impact fees are both calculated based on the number of historic calls the City receives by land use type (single family, multi -family, commercial, etc.) per year. • Annual average number of "Calls per unit" for each land use type tells us what the impact will be on the call volume when a new development/home is built. • The impact fee "cost per call" is calculated based on the historic and future costs of stations, vehicles/apparatus, etc. • Cost per call is multiplied by the annual calls per unit to calculate an impact fee for each development type. Police and Animal Control Impact Fee Analysis • We did not include the cost of the existing police station and the animal shelter because there was an existing deficiency. • Future facilities included a new, expanded animal shelter, police headquarters station expansion, and two police substations to be built in conjunction with new fire stations. • Table below shows the cost per police/animal control call ($296.35 per call), the calls per unit for each development type, and the resulting impact fee per unit: Emergency Services Impact Fee Analysis • The existing fire station has excess capacity to serve new growth, however, we did not include a cost for the existing fire station because it was built so long ago there isn't record of the original cost. • Future facilities include two new fire stations, West Fire Station and North Fire Station, to serve the west and north areas. • Table below shows the cost per emergency services call ($2,718 per call), the calls per unit for each development type, and the resulting impact fee per unit: ergency Services Cost per Calls per Impact Fee MM Call Unit per Single Family Residential Unit $ 2,718 0.101 $ 274.01 Multi -Family Residential Unit 2,718 0.090 243.45 Non Residential General Commercial (per 1,000 SF) $ 2,718 0.113 $ 308.13 Office (per 1,000 SF) 2,718 0.053 145.41 Institutional (per 1,000 SF) 2,718 0.016 43.73 Contact Information Megan Weber Anderson Financial Analyst Zions Public Finance, Inc. 800 W. Main St., Suite 700 Boise, ID 83702 Office: 208-501-7482 Cell: 541-270-7664 CHUBBUCK Memo Community Services Department Planning Services Division PO Box 5604 — 5160 Yellowstone Avenue, Chubbuck, ID 83202 208.237.2430 — Fax 208.237.2409 www.CityofChubbuck.us To: City of Chubbuck Land Use and Development Commission From: Don Matson, Planning Services Manager Sean Harris, Development Service Manager Date: October 5, 2021 Re: Discussion of Minor Code Revisions affecting Titles 5, 16, 17, and 18 As conditions in the community change, including development activity, major and minor needs arise for alterations in City Code. The attached exhibit includes proposed minor additions and deletions broken into twelve items for discussion. Highlights include: 1. Clarify plat review process time from ten calendar days to ten business days. 2. Update details and regulations of sexually oriented business in Titles 5 and 18, and amend Title 18 to be more in line with Idaho Statutes and Municipal Code Title 5. 3. Clarify landscaping requirements between streets and multi -family, commercial, and industrial parking areas. 4. Minor change to PUD review process to align to new process in Title 18.28 and set forth front yard setback requirements. The requested action today is for discussion only. CHUBBUCK CITY CODE SUGGESTED MINOR CHANGES TO CITY CODE TITLE 5: BUSINESS LICENSES AND REGULATIONS; TITLE 16: LAND IMPROVEMENT STANDARDS; TITLE 17: LAND DEVELOPMENT; AND TITLE 18: LAND USE For discussion with LUDC 10/12/21 - proposed additions and deletien REF SECTION and PROPOSED CHANGE COMMENT 5.36 5.36.020 ZONE: That zone in title 18 of this code in which In Title 18 "adult business" has been An Adult a sexually oriented business may operate. changed to "sexually oriented business," which is the predominant use 5.36.130.A: A person commits a misdemeanor if that person operates or causes to be operated a sexually oriented business in any zone other than one zoned for throughout Title 5.36. These corrections would complete the correlation between the two titles. ate-"adul a "sexually oriented business" as defined in title 18 of this code. 16.12 16.12.020 Streets: This is a correction in City code from 61 feet to 56 feet measuring back of Type of Street Right of Standard Swale Way Width Back to Section Curb curb to back of curb on standard streets. Back to Curb Major Arterial No change Minor Arterial No change Collector 66 feet 6456 feet - 66 feet 148 feet Local No change 17.12 17.12.080G. The reviewing representatives/departments Because of holidays, vacations, and shall have ten (10) cal en d A r business days from the date various changing conditions, it has been that notice is provided to transmit their the desire for many to change the time recommendations in writing to the Public Works limit for review and comment from ten Director. If no written comments are submitted by the (10) calendar days to ten (10) business required date, it shall be noted for commission review days. that there are no City or agency concerns given to the City regarding the proposed subdivision. 17.12 17.12.260 Copies and Original to be Filed: With recorded reproducible mylar plats After the approved final plat has been recorded, a being housed at the Bannock County ^duel le original mylar copy and an electronic Courthouse and the City moving to document in PDF format of the recorded instrument, digital file storage there is no need to bearing all certificates required as set forth in store hard copies of plats any longer. section 17.12.320 of this chapter, together with an approved digital drawing format with coordinate system based on City of Chubbuck grid coordinate system, shall be filed with the Public Works Director. (Ord. 754, 2016) 18.061 18.06.100 Drive-in / Drive-through Establishment: The definition section describes drive-in A business location designed to allow provisions of goods or establishment, but the schedule of controls services to customers who remain in or on vehicles. (Land Use Table) lists drive-in restaurant. REF SECTION and PROPOSED CHANGE COMMENT 18.062 18.06.290 Sexually Oriented Business: The Title 18 definition is limited to A business which derives more than five percent (5%) of sales/rentals of materials as opposed to its gross income from selling or renting any of the other activities listed in Title 5, and Idaho materials described in Idaho Code sections 18-4101 or Code references are different from the 18-15141 or ;.,h;^h ^^1 I^ ^r r^^+^ any ^r+u^ r,a tee ,; ,i intent in the definition. As written, the ,�o^^r;hoa in1,�.,�,,, r„ao 18-4105 is classified as a definition maybe considered to refer only sexually oriented business per Title 5.36.030 of City to book and novelty stores, but not other code. types of sexually oriented businesses. Statutes: 18-1514 describes indecent and obscene materials relating to harm to minors and vulnerable adults. 18-4101 describes general indecent and obscene materials. 18-4105 prohibits public display (visible from outside the building) of offensive sexual material - already forbidden in state law. 18.08.04 18.08.46 18.08.040 Land Uses by District Commercial Retail Drive-in row drive- through establishment No change to land use district columns 18.08.046 Schedule of General Controls: Off Street Parking Type of Use Parking Space Required Commercial: Banks. financial institutions and similar uses Funeral parlors, ... Hotels and motels Dining rooms, restaurants, taverns, nightclubs, etc. Offices, public or professional administration or service buildings Retail stnres Vehicle repair sites All other types of business or commercial uses permitted in any business district Recreational or entertainment: Auditoriums, ... Bowling alleys Dance floors, skating rinks D+RiRg FeeFRS, rest s, .. OffiGes, ... Outdoor swimming pools, ... Retail is All etheFtypeS, of No change to parking requirement No change to parking requirement Common use can differentiate between drive-in and drive-through establishments. The changes would be more consistent and require a CUP for both drive-in and drive-through businesses in the C-1 zone. This change reconciles where these uses belong in the table, simply moving them to the Commercial section. No changes to the parking requirements are suggested at this time. REF I SECTION and PROPOSED CHANGE COMMENT 18.14 18.14.020.D.1 Required Landscaping Adjacent to Public The depth of the required landscape Rights of Way: buffer has always been clear, ten feet, A strip of land at least ten feet (10') in depth located but a twenty-five square foot between the abutting right of way and the off street requirement doesn't match with the ten parking... shall be planted in a planting area of at least foot dimension requirement. This twenty five (2--'+) one hundred (100) square feet with a proposed change clarifies the standard. dimension of at least ten feet (10') on each side.... 18.20.40 18.20.040.E. PUD Approval or Denial: The newly adopted administrative 2. Within sixty (60) days after receipt of the chapter (18.28) altered the approval recommendation of the Commission, the Council shall process to require only one public hold a public heaFing and review the PUD Zone and hearing for Comprehensive Plan and MDP and approve, approve with supplementary zoning/land use district changes. This conditions or deny said plan. proposed change keeps it in step with the revision to Title 18.28. 18.20.70 18.20.070.A PUD Development Standards: General Requirements: (insert as 3rd row in table after Maximum Height, and add * note below the table) LDR I MDR HDR MU C E Minimum Front Yard Setback* * Residential setbacks between interior edee of sidewalks and garages shall not be less than twenty feet (20'). 18.20.70 118.20.070.0 PUD Development Standards: Waivers and Adjustments: The Council may grant waivers or adjustments ... Special consideration may be given for PUDs in infill areas. 1. Deviations shall be listed in full as a Dart of the PUD application and MDP. Modifications to other zoning and subdivision standards will be determined by Commission and Council on a case by case basis. 4-2. Zoning Standards: The developer may deviate from the height, lot line setback, and lot dimension schedule found in chapters 18.08 and 18.12. However, Deviations shall h., listed- in full a a a, -r .,f rh., Pill) application Qixa MDR 4vai€iEati6n5 t-6 ether zeningand r#A, 1A, 1S .411 1, l r ,v ,, 1 13.. the r„mm;oo;,.r, -A,,.1 r.,1,,,..;1 . a ease by pasta hasis hb. p^cia^^*i^1 residential setbacks shall not be reduced between interior edge of sidewalks and garages to less than twenty, f�(20'). 3. Municipal Standards: The following standards may be modified if requested as part of the PUD approval... The new PUD ordinance did not include minimum front yard setbacks that apply to the perimeter of the development. As with other setbacks in the table, the proposed setbacks mirror the more intense zoning district allowed in the corresponding Comprehensive Plan Land Use category. Also, the * note reiterates a concern of the LUDC that is consistent with the rest of the PUD ordinance. This change re -orders the deviations with the general statement before the zoning and the municipal development standards. It makes the section easier to understand.