Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout03 08 2022CHUBBUCK 1 o H H 0 City of Chubbuck Land Use and Development Commission Regular Meeting March 8, 2022 6:00 PM City Hall Council Chambers 290 East Linden, Chubbuck, ID 83202 MINUTES Board Members Present: Chair Jason Mendenhall, Brett Hiltbrand, Thais Ayre, Mike Schwartz, Brady Smith and Darell Stewart. Staff Members Present: Attorney Ryan Lewis, Planning Manager Don Matson, Planning and Development Director Devin Hillam, Development Services Manager Sean Harris, and City Clerk Joey Bowers. Mendenhall called the meeting to order at 6:00pm. Mendenhall asked if any commissioners had a conflict of interest with the items before the board. Smith recused himself from public hearing #2 and general business #1. Hiltbrand disclosed that he had driven by the location associated with public hearing #1. PLEDGE ALLEGIANCE TO THE FLAG APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES: March 1, 2022. Mendenhall entertained a motion to approve the minutes as emailed. Schwartz moved to accept the meeting minutes of March 1, 2022 as emailed; Smith seconded. The full commission approved. PUBLIC HEARING An application for a Conditional Use Permit to construct apartments in the Agriculture (A) zone. The site is under conditional approval to be included in the Commercial General (C-2) zone and comprises approximately 8 acres of land. Subject property is generally located on the north side of Knudsen Blvd. and east of Hawthorne Rd. in Chubbuck, Idaho in the NW % of Section 10, Township 6 South, Range 34 East of the Boise Meridian, Idaho. The Comprehensive Plan Future Land Use map designates this area as Commercial. The application will be reviewed against criteria in section 18.28.020.0.5 of City Code. Type of Action: Decision. Planning Manager Don Matson presented an application for a Conditional Use Permit (CUP) to construct apartments in the Agricultural (A) zone. The site is under conditional approval to be included in the Commercial General (C-2) zone and comprises approximately 8 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 for a conditional use permit, and recommended approval. Jennifer Merrill CJM Development Group, represented the applicant. Mrs. Merrill presented six 4 -story buildings which will include 96 two-bedroom one bath tax credit units, and 96 three-bedroom two bath tax credit units for a total of 192 apartments. The project will have a full amenity package including a community center with exercise facilities. The property will offer surface parking, a community pool, playground and a large outdoor area for the residents to enjoy, will be professional managed with an onsite management team, and remain under single ownership. Smith asked about the proposed 54ft setback and if that included the raised Fort Hall Irrigation canal. Merrill stated that the 54ft included the canal and required easements for maintenance. Stewart asked if the applicant would be willing to modify these buildings to 2 -story buildings to help address the concerns with parking and the surrounding neighbors. Merrill stated that to make a two story development to be financially feasible the applicant would need significantly more space. Mendenhall asked if 192 apartments was the minimum amount that the developer would need to make this development financially feasible. Merrill stated that studies have shown the huge need for housing in Chubbuck and felt like the 192 units would help address some of those housing shortages. Matson stated that these building would be 45-50ft in height and went over some of the landscaping features the applicant had presented to assist with providing privacy for the surrounding neighbors. Stewart asked if the fire department had the necessary equipment to service a four story building. Matson stated that the fire department had reviewed this application during design review and didn't have any concerns with being able to provide services. Mendenhall declared the public hearing open for public comment. Tari Jensen at 4563 Burley Dr., was Neutral. Mrs. Jensen asked about parking and didn't feel like enough parking was being provided. Christopher Meinhard at 5053 Brookstone, was Neutral. Mr. Meinhard asked if the developer would be using local builders to work on this project. Ron Ramsey at 4699 Misti, was Opposed. Mr. Ramsey was concerned about privacy and the negative impact this development would have on his property value. Mr. Ramsey was also concerned about the increase in traffic. Smith asked Mr. Ramsey if he had any data showing that these types of developments had a negative impact on property values. Mr. Ramsey didn't have any data but felt like it was common sense that it would have a negative impact on property values and privacy. David Foltz at 4691 Misti, was Opposed. Mr. Foltz was concerned about parking, privacy and property values. Mr. Ramsey was also concerned about fire protection and maintenance on the irrigation berm. Suzette Porter at 4716 Heidi Ct., was Opposed. Mrs. Porter felt like the city needed more single family housing and less multi -family housing. This development would not be harmonious to the surrounding neighborhoods. Mrs. Porter was also concerned about traffic, parking, privacy, property values, and the increase in drugs and crime. Glen Evans at 413 Idealya Ln, was Opposed. Mr. Evans went over some statistics that show a drop in property values within 1000 ft. of these types of developments, and the increase in crime. Mr. Evans was concerned about the impact this development would have on the school system, and property values. Thomas Drais at 421 Idealya Ln, was Opposed. Mr. Drais stated that he would lose his view and any sunlight that hits the back of his property with this development. Mr. Drais was also concerned that there was no elevator in these buildings. Boyd Byrd at 5036 Kevin Ave., was Opposed. Mr. Byrd was concerned about traffic and asked if this development was allowed under commercial (C-2) zoning, and if the height of these buildings was allowed in a (C-2) zoning next to a residential subdivision. Matthew Parkin at 4719 Kimmi Ct., was Opposed. Mr. Parkin felt like this did not meet city code and would not be harmonious to the surrounding neighborhoods. Mr. Parkin was also concerned about schools, traffic, parking, privacy, and property values. Jennifer Evans at 413 Idealya Ln, was Opposed. Mrs. Evans went over some statistics and the impact these type of developments have on crime, and property values. Mrs. Evans was concerned about schools, traffic, parking, privacy, and property values. Mrs. Evans was also concerned about the increase in foot traffic using the irrigation berm behind her property, and maintenance on the irrigation berm. This development would not be harmonious to the surrounding neighborhoods. Mrs. Evans submitted a petition in opposition of this development with 21 signatures. Jennifer Evans read a letter of opposition from Luann Hemenway at 4661 Hawthorne Rd. Mrs. Hemenway was concerned about fire protection, traffic, views, privacy, property values, and the increase in crime. Steve Landon at 4748 Kimmi Ct, was Opposed. Mr. Landon felt like this application did not meet the requirements within city code for a conditional use permit. Mr. Landon was also concerned about schools, traffic, parking, privacy, and property values. Due to no more public comment Mendenhall closed the public hearing. Jennifer Merrill stated that city code allows for building heights of 70ft within a commercial zone. Mrs. Merrill stated that CJM had already received approval for the zoning and parking requirements for this development. This project is not subsidized/low income housing but falls under section 42 housing, which is a 10% decrease in market rates. CJM would be using local builders to develop this project. Colin McAuliffe also represented CJM Development Group stated that the maintenance for the irrigation berm would fall under the irrigation authority. Mr. McAuliffe also stated that elevators are not required by law for any development under 5 stories. Making this development two story buildings would require additional land to allow for more buildings and additional parking. Smith asked if they would be willing to provide landscaping to increase privacy on and along the irrigation berm if they could get permission from the irrigation authority. McAuliffe stated that they had not had those conversations with the authority but CJM would be willing to have that discussion. Smith also asked about fencing on the east and north side of this development. McAuliffe stated that there was no fencing currently planned with this development. Hilthrand asked if the developer would be willing to at least drop the two buildings that are directly behind the residential neighborhood to a three story building. McAuliffe stated that losing those two floors could make it unfeasible to develop. Hiltbrand also asked if the developer had looked at moving this development south toward the freeway to allow for more distance from the residential subdivision. Merrill stated there are a lot more requirements which also include sound studies that a required when developing next to a freeway, it is very difficult to find investors and lenders for developments close to a freeway. Mendenhall asked how this development meets city code for a conditional use permit that requires the application to be harmonious to the surrounding neighborhoods. Merrill felt like this application was below the 70ft threshold and the other conditions within city code, and the design and color scheme of the buildings will be harmonious with the community. Hillam stated that commercial zoning does allow for some developments to reach a 70ft threshold. But this application falls under a condition use permit which falls under a different section of code and under the discretion of the Land Use Board. Smith asked if the developer had considered moving the two story club house to the back of the property along the residential neighborhoods and moving one of the 4 story buildings to the front of the development along Knudsen, to be less intrusive on the surrounding neighborhoods. Schwartz also asked about moving the parking lot to the north to create an additional buffer. Merrill stated that they would be willing to have their engineers look at repositioning the buildings and the layout of the parking lot. Smith also asked city staff if a traffic study had been performed for this area. Matson stated that a traffic study had been performed when Knudsen Blvd. was developed. Hillam stated that the City Engineer looked at that study and felt like this development would fall under those impact thresholds, but any future developments would be required to do a traffic study in this area. Matson 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. The Board was concerned about the height of the buildings and the negative impact these buildings would have on the surrounding neighborhoods. The Board asked the applicant if they would like them to table a decision until the applicant had an opportunity to look at a different layout. McAuliffe asked the Board to table a decision. Hillam suggested the Board also hold another public hearing when the applicant submits a news layout for this development. Smith asked the applicant if they would be willing to talk to the irrigation authority before the next meeting. McAuliffe committed to reach out to the irrigation authority about some possible landscaping and buffering options. Smith motioned to table a decision on a conditional use permit application to allow the applicant an opportunity to resubmit a design layout to include fencing along the north and east boundary line, landscaping options along the irrigation berm as authorized by the irrigation authority, and to hold another public hearing for this application. Schwartz seconded. With all commission members understanding the motion they voted. Roll Call Vote: Thais Ayre, Yes; Darell Stewart, Yes; Jason Mendenhall, Yes; Brett Hiltbrand, Yes; Brady Smith, Yes; Mike Schwartz, Yes; Motion carried. 2. An application for initial designation of property into the Limited Residential P (R -2P) Land Use District (zone) that is proposed to be annexed into the City of Chubbuck. The subject property comprises approximately 12.87 acres of land and is located at the northwest corner of Lea Ave and N Lamar St in Chubbuck, Idaho. The Comprehensive Plan Future Land Use map designates this area as Low Density Residential and Medium Density Residential. The application will be reviewed against criteria in section 18.28.050.6.8 of city code. Type of Action: Recommendation. Brady Smith from Rocky Mountain Engineering represented the applicant. Mr. Smith presented an initial zoning application for 12.87 acres with Limited Residential P (R -2P) Zoning. This development will be developed as single family housing. Planning Manager Don Matson stated that this application meets the standards of the comprehensive plan for a Limited Residential P (R -2P) zone. Mendenhall declared the public hearing open for public comment. Amy Critser at 4922 Wiltshire, was Opposed. Mrs. Critser was concerned about the negative impact this development would have on property values. Aaron Amson at 4882 Wiltshire, was Opposed. Mr. Amson was concerned about schools, traffic, and property values. Christopher Meinhard at 5053 Brookstone, was Opposed. Mr. Meinhard was concerned about an increase in crime, schools, traffic, and property values. Jenica Carter at 4853 Wiltshire, was Opposed. Mrs. Carter was concerned about crime, parking, schools, traffic, and property values. Due to no more public comment Mendenhall closed the public hearing. Smith stated that the Limited Residential P (R -2P) zone is already mixed in and part of the current Brookstone subdivision. Smith also stated that the applicant is currently in the middle of a traffic study for this area. Lamar is identified as an arterial street within the City. Matson 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. Schwartz motioned to recommended approval on the initial zoning for 12.87 acres of land located at the northwest corner of Lea Ave and N Lamar St as Limited Residential P (R -2P) as presented to the City Council. Ayre seconded. With all commission members understanding the motion they voted. Roll Call Vote: Darell Stewart, Yes; Jason Mendenhall, Yes; Brett Hiltbrand, Yes; Mike Schwartz, Yes; Thais Ayre, Yes; Brady Smith, recused; Motion carried. 3. Ana mend me nt to the Comprehensive Plan to adopt anew chapter establishing goa Is and policies in the area bounded by the centerline of Chubbuck Road at the north, the western right-of-way line of the Union Pacific Railroad, the north right-of-way line of Interstate 86, and the centerline of Yellowstone Avenue, including amending the functional class road system map and future land use map. The amendment will be considered against criteria in section 18.28.040.D. of city code. Type of Action: Recommendation. Planning and Development Director Devin Hillam presented an application for a Comprehensive Plan Amendment which included a future street map for the Chubbuck Downtown area. Hillam 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. Smith thanked City Staff for their efforts and all the surveys they sent out to get public input on creating a downtown area for the City of Chubbuck. Mendenhall declared the public hearing open for public comment. Mark Adolfson at 4750 Burley Dr., was Neutral. Mr. Adolfson asked how this application was different from the zone change listed with as public hearing #4. Hillam stated that the comprehensive plan is the vision and would need to be updated before any zoning changes could be considered for adoption. Bryan Hancock at 585 Nathan, was Neutral. Mr. Hancock asked about the future street map. Hillam stated that this maps shows proposed future roads that could be developed as properties in this area redevelop. Boyd Byrd at 5036 Kevin Ave., was Neutral. Mr. Byrd thought this policy was a large detailed plan and just wanted to make sure the current land owners would be protected. Jim McKee at 130 Evans Way, was Neutral. Mr. McKee wanted some clarification how this application would affect his business in the future. Mr. McKee also was concerned about traffic along Evans Way. Greg Armstrong at 293 E. Linden, was Neutral. Mr. Armstrong wanted some clarification how this application would affect his business in the future. Mr. Armstrong asked the City to involve the local business owners in these discussions. Doug Newbold at 4562 Burley Dr., was Opposed. Mr. Newbold was opposed to adding more roads and increasing the traffic in this area. Tari Jensen at 4563 Burley Dr., was Opposed. Mrs. Jensen was opposed to this application because its opens the door to approve the next application to change the land use district in this area. William McKee at 265 E. Chubbuck Rd., was Opposed. Mr. McKee doesn't want to be told by the City what to do and how to redevelop his property. Mr. McKee was concerned about the proposed street that is designed to go through his property. Michael Harper at 4700 Burley, was Opposed. Mr. Harper wanted some clarification how this application would affect his business in the future. Suzette Porter at 4716 Heidi Ct., was Neutral. Mrs. Porter felt like the city needed more single family housing and less multi -family housing. Mrs. Porter also felt like the City already had a sufficient amount of parks. Jared McKee at 225 E. Chubbuck Rd., was Neutral. Mr. McKee wanted some clarification how this application would affect his business in the future. Bryan Burton at 223 E. Linden, was Opposed. Mr. Burton wanted some clarification how this application would affect his parents' residential property, and what development group was backing this plan. Due to no more public comment Mendenhall closed the public hearing. Hillam stated that there was no development group backing this plan and that it is not the plan of the City to kick any business currently doing business out of the area. This is a long term plan that will allow the City to better plan for the future as properties in this area develop and redevelop. This plan could take 50 plus years to become a reality. The City does not intend to tell property owners what they can and cannot do with their properties but to set standards that will need to be met as their property redevelops. The vision of this plan is to make this area a more walkable/bikeable area for the community. Hiltbrand motioned to recommended approval of the amendment to the comprehensive plan in the area bounded by the centerline of Chubbuck Road at the north, the western right-of-way line of the Union Pacific Railroad, the north right-of-way line of Interstate 86, and the centerline of Yellowstone Avenue, including amending the functional class road system map and future land use map as presented to the City Council. Ayre seconded. With all commission members understanding the motion they voted. Roll Call Vote: Jason Mendenhall, Yes; Brett Hiltbrand, Yes; Mike Schwartz, Yes; Thais Ayre, Yes; Brady Smith, Yes; Darell Stewart, Yes; Motion carried. 4. A petition by the City of Chubbuck to create a new Chapter 18.18 Chubbuck Village and two new land use districts, Highway Corridor (HC) and Village (V); to change the Land Use District (zone) from General Commercial (C-2) to a new district, Highway Corridor (HC), on approximately 17 acres of land comprising several parcels with Chubbuck Road at the north, Yellowstone Avenue at the west, Interstate 86 at the south, and east from Yellowstone Avenue approximately 250 feet to the eastern boundary line of each parcel bordering the east side of Yellowstone Avenue, including parcels on the north side of E Burnside Avenue; and to change the Land Use District (zone) from General Commercial (C-2) and Limited Residential (R-2) to a new district, Village (V), on approximately 53 acres of land comprising multiple parcels with Chubbuck Road at the north, Yellowstone Avenue at the west, Interstate 86 at the south, Central Way at the east, Evans Lane and the southern boundary of the property located at 5432 Burley Drive at the south, and the Union Pacific Railroad at the east, excluding parcels as described above to be included in the Highway Corridor (HC) zone; setting forth the purpose and intent, special provisions and relations to other chapters Mendenhall declared the public hearing open for public comment. Mark Adolfson at 4750 Burley Dr., was Neutral. Mr. Adolfson asked about streetscapes and if each property owner would be responsible for its own property. Mr. Adolfson wanted some clarification how this application would affect his property in the future. William McKee at 265 E. Chubbuck Rd., was Opposed. Mr. McKee was concerned about the proposed street that is designed to go through his property, and the negative impact that would have on trying to sell his property in the future. Tari Jensen at 4563 Burley Dr., was Opposed. Mrs. Jensen read a letter she submitted in opposition to this application. Mrs. Jensen doesn't want to be told by the City what to do and how to redevelop her property. Mrs. Jensen felt like the existing commercial properties should be allowed to remain under the current commercial zone. Mrs. Jensen also stated that it is very costly to get a commercial appraisal just to verify if the value of the new addition will exceed the value of the existing building as required in section 4. Bryan Burton at 223 E. Linden, was Opposed. Mr. Burton wanted to make sure the current land owners would be protected now and in the future. Michael Harper at 4700 Burley, was Opposed. Mr. Harper wanted some clarification how this application would affect his business in the future. Mr. Harper asked if city staff would review and approve the architectural drawings or if it would be a committee made up of residents. Jared McKee at 225 E. Chubbuck Rd., was Neutral. Mr. McKee wanted some clarification how this application would affect his property in the future. Due to no more public comment Mendenhall closed the public hearing. Matson stated that selling an existing business would not require the new business owner to meet the requirements for these sections of code, unless triggered by external improvements to the existing property. This section of code also does allow for multifamily developments. As properties develop or redevelop the property owner would be responsible to install the required streetscapes. Mr. Matson also stated that the architectural drawings would be reviewed to meet the standards within city code by the design review committee. Hillam stated that the City and Chubbuck Development Authority (CDA) has already made significant investments to its streetscape improvements in the proposed downtown area to show its commitment to this plan. The CDA also plans to invest into those same streetscape improvements as it redevelops its other properties in this area. Hiltbrand asked about adding another option other than a professional appraisal to determine if the value the new addition will exceed the value of the existing building as required in section 4. Matson suggested adding the appraised value as assessed by the County Assessor as another option. McKee at 265 E. Chubbuck Rd asked again about the proposed road through his property. Smith stated that there are proposed roads all over in city code as part of long range planning that will probably never exist due to development. Hillam stated that the plan is to have that road eventually connect to Chubbuck Rd. whether or not that road runs through Mr. McKee's property or move more to the west will all be determined with the redevelopment of those properties. Schwartz felt like the businesses owners needed to be given an opportunity to express their concerns on this application to the City Council. Hillam agreed to hold another public hearing before the City Council on this application. Schwartz motioned to recommend a public hearing to be held on this application, city staff make language updates to windows and roofing, improvement percentages, and adding an appraised value and or the appraised value as assessed by the County Assessor. Smith seconded. With all commission members understanding the motion they voted. Roll Call Vote: Brett Hiltbrand, Yes; Mike Schwartz, Yes; Thais Ayre, Yes; Brady Smith, Yes; Darell Stewart, Yes; Jason Mendenhall, Yes; Motion carried. 5. A proposal by City Staff to update several sections of City Code: Chapter 5.36, Sexually Oriented Businesses, correlating definitions of sexually oriented business with Title 18, Land Use; Chapter 16.12, Engineering Standards, correcting widths for standard streets; Chapter 17.12, Platting Requirements and Procedures, changing review requirements from calendar days to business days and removing requirements for reproducible mylar copies of plats; Chapter 18.06 Land Use Definitions, changing Drive-in Establishment to Drive-in/ Drive- through Establishment and changing Sexually Oriented Business references to Idaho Statues and adding a reference to City Code Chapter 5.36, Sexually Oriented Businesses; Chapter 18.08.040 Land Uses by District, changing Drive-in restaurant to Drive-in / drive-through establishment; Chapter 18.046 Off Street Parking Requirements, reordering land uses by group; Chapter 18.12.030.E Supplemental Controls for Particular Uses, changing Drive-in establishments to Drive-in / drive-through establishments; Chapter 18.14 Landscaping, clarifying minimum area of landscape strips along rights-of-way; Chapter 18.20.040 Procedure for Approval of a PUD, reducing public hearing requirements to correspond with recently adopted changes in other sections of code; and Chapter 18.20.070 PUD Development Standards, establishing Minimum Front Yard Setbacks and re -ordering the waivers and adjustments for potential approval with a PUD. The application will be reviewed against criteria in section 18.28.050.B.8 of city code. Type of Action: Recommendation. Planning Manager Don Matson, and Development Manager Sean Harris presented minor code revisions affecting titles 5, 16, 17, and 18. Some of these updates included to clarify plat review process time from ten calendar days to ten business days, 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, clarify landscaping requirements between streets and multi -family, commercial, and industrial parking areas, minor change to the PUD review process to align with the new process in Title 18.28 and set forth front yard setback requirements, and other minor housekeeping changes throughout these sections of code. Mendenhall declared the public hearing open for public comment, Due to no public comment Mendenhall closed the public hearing. Hiltbrand motioned to recommend approval of the city code updates as presented to City Council. Smith seconded. With all commission members understanding the motion they voted. Roll Call Vote: Mike Schwartz, Yes; Thais Ayre, Yes; Brady Smith, Yes; Darell Stewart, Yes; Jason Mendenhall, Yes; Brett Hiltbrand, Yes; Motion carried. GENERAL BUSINESS An application for a preliminary plat for the Bilyeu Estates Subdivision, Division 8. Applicant proposes to subdivide 4.34 acres into 13 single family residential lots. Property is in the SW % of Section 4, Township 6 South, Range 34 East of the Boise Meridian, Idaho, generally located at the ends of Kolton Dr. and Pierce Ave. on the east side of Philbin Road, Chubbuck, Idaho. Current zoning designation on the property places it in the Limited Residential (R-2) land use district. The Comprehensive Plan Future Land Use map designates this area as Mixed Use. Application will be evaluated against standards found in municipal code section 17.12.100. Type of Action: Recommendation. Brady Smith from Rocky Mountain Engineering represented the applicant. Mr. Smith presented an application for 13 single family residential lots. Development Services 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 with conditions. Schwartz motioned to recommend approval of the Bilyeu Estates Div. 8 Preliminary Plat, conditional upon a $750 irrigation pump fee to be collected with each building permit as presented to City Council. Hiltbrand seconded. With all commission members understanding the motion they voted. Roll Call Vote: Thais Ayre, Yes; Darell Stewart, Yes; Jason Mendenhall, Yes; Brett Hiltbrand, Yes; Mike Schwartz, Yes; Brady Smith, recused; Motion carried. ADJOURN: Mendenhall adjourned at 10:36. Cl17 VP son Menden all, Chairperson City Clerk