PZC Minutes 06-06-2016

MINUTES OF THE PLAI\NING AND ZONING COMMISSION
CITY OF HAYDEN, KOOTENAI COUNTY,IDAHO
June 6,2016
Regular Meeting: 5:00 PM
Council Chambers
Hayden City Hall,8930 N. Government Way, Hayden, ID 83835
CALL TO ORDER:
Chairman Ross called the meeting to order at 5:06 p.m.
ROLL CALL OF COMMISSION MEMBERS:
Sam Ross, Chairman
Sheree Cooper, Vice-Chair
Alan Davis
John Gentry
Brian Petersen
Present
Present
Present
Present
Present
STAFF PRESENT:
Connie Krueger, Director
John Cafferty, Legal Counsel
Jill Bowes. Senior Planner
Jamie Gardipe, Planner, Recording Clerk
FLAG SALUTE:
Tom Everson led the meeting in the Pledge of Allegiance.
ADDITIONS OR CORRECTIONS TO THE AGENDA:
None.
CALL FOR CONFLICTS OF INTEREST:
Commissioners Gentry and Everson disclosed that they are members of the Development Impact
Advisory Committee. Mr. Cafferty clarified that it is not a conflict of interest. Chairman Ross stated he
had a conflict of interest with the school district Special Use Permits as a neighbor in opposition of the
requests and will be testiffing as a member of the public.
CONSENT CALENDAR:
The consent calendar included the approval of the meeting minutes for May 16,2016 and the Written
Recommendation to City Council for SUB 0015, Gabriella Glen, First Addition. The motion was made by
Commissioner Petersen and seconded by Commissioner Gentry to approve the consent calendar as
presented. All were in favor, none were opposed.
PUBLIC HEARINGS:
1.
Consider adoption of a renort entitled "Capital Improvement Plans and Development
ImDact Fees"
StafflApplicant Presentation :
Ms. Krueger introduced the proposal by the City of Hayden and the Development Impact Fee Advisory
Committee to update the impact fee ordinance and related study. The current ordinance and study has
been in effect for a number of years. Under state law and City Council direction, two members of the
Planning andZoningCommission are serving on the Committee. The purpose of the two public hearings
is to provide a recommendation to City Council on adoption of the study and the ordinance. Mr. Cafferty
added that all the members of the Committee are required to have a background in real estate or
development. Ms. Krueger went over each member and their backgrounds. John Young is the owner of
Young Construction and will be speaking on behalf of the Committee; Glenn Miles is the Executive
Director of the Kootenai Metropolitan PlanningOrganization (KMPO); Eric Shanley is the Director of
Highways for Lakes Highway District; Mitch Swenson is the owner of MDM Construction; Chris Meyer
is a partner in Parkwood Business Properties; John Gentry is from the Planning and Zoning Commission
with has a background in development; and Tom Everson is from the Planning andZoning Commission
with a background in real estate appraisal and assessment. Ms. Krueger added that Donna Phillips and
Brett Boyer were present at the public hearing and attended most of the Committee meetings.
Ms. Krueger went over the purpose of the impact fee study, to ensure there are adequate public facilities
for new growth and development and to promote orderly growth and development by establishing
uniform standards by which the City may require 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. The purpose is to move forward with the same level of service. The rules under state
law are that impact fees are one time payments for system improvements needed to accommodate new
development; it represents new growth's fair share of capital facility needs and is subject to legal
standards, with three key elements: need, benefit, and proportionality. She explained the methodology has
changed and will be based more on square footage instead of use. Ms. Krueger explained that they
initially were going to hold the public hearing with City Council, but after some discussion, they decided
to hold two public hearings, one with the Planning and Zoning Commission. Ms. Krueger went into the
history of the project. She explained that we are using a different consultant than the previous study.
There were six Committee meetings in20l6 and the Committee made sure that the numbers were good
and locally relevant. The Committee voted to recommend adoption of the study on May I 8, 201 6. City
Council will hold an additional hearing on June 28,2016.
Ms. Krueger explained the impact fee categories addressed in the updated study were Parks and
Recreation and Transportation. She explained there are existing funds in Public Safety addressed in the
study but at this time the City does not plan to impose impact fees for Public Safety facilities. The
collected funds will be spent in accordance with the applicable law. Ms. Krueger explained the new
methodologies. Parks and Recreation is incremental expansion for land acquisition and park
improvements and Transportation and the Community Center are plan-based. She stated that we do not
collect parks fees for commercial development. There are two different calculations for parks, one
including a community center and one without and City Council will decide whether or not the
community center will be included. The Committee recommends that City Council not start collecting for
the community center until they have adopted the Capital Improvement Plan (CIP) and identified
matching sources of funding. She stated that they worked with KMPO to model haffic growth to show
areas where growth will cause level of service failures and explained that the modeling done by KMPO
was compared to other local studies for accuracy. She then went over the calculation for the transportation
fee, which is the growth-related capacrty net cost multiplied by the percent by land use, then divided by
the net increase in demand units by land use from2015-2035. Ms. Krueger went over the CIP for
Transportation. She then went over the fee calculation and CIP for Parks and Recreation. She explained
the project demand and recommended fees that are a result of the calculations. The Committee wanted to
be certain that the information in the study was relevant to Hayden. Staff pulled Residential and
Commercial building permit data to support the data. She then explained the recommended fees in
comparison to the existing fees and how they are implemented. Residential fees are flat fees and nonresidential is based on square footage. She showed the difference between the numbers with and without
the community center. The Commission questioned if the change to square foot from vehicle trips will
cause a reduction or increase in fees. Ms. Krueger stated that the Committee was more concerned with the
fairness of the methodolory. However, Mr. Young did run it through a scenario and he can speak on that.
Ms. Krueger explained that notice was published in the Coeur d'Alene Press and news releases were
emailed to the Spokesman Review, Nickelsworth, KHQ, KXLY, KREM, and Blue Sky Broadcasting. The
requested action is the recommended adoption of the draft study to City Council. The requested action by
the Planning and Zoning Commission is to recommend adoption of the study and implementing ordinance
to City Council.
Questions:
Commissioner Gentry stated that the data is reviewed on an annual basis and can be adjusted. The
Committee is required to annually review land use assumptions and review the growth rates to see if they
are in line with the plan. They also will revisit the CIPs to make sure the projects are still accurate. Mr.
Cafferty explained the study goes out twenty years but they need to evaluate annually and update the
study every five years. Ms. Krueger explained the Transportation CIP was modified to fifteen percent
(15%) City fund match for federal aid on some projects because the environment for federal aid has
become more competitive. We do not have general fund dollars to put towards these projects because of
the low tax levy rate in Hayden. Vice-Chair Cooper questioned the large decrease in the fees. Ms.
Krueger explained that they chose a subset of projects that can be completed in a reasonable timeframe to
lower the cost. Mr. Cafferty added that Idaho cities are subsidized, unlike most other states, and raising
the percentage to fifteen percent (15%) is important when anticipating a decrease in federal funding.
Commissioner Petersen questioned how the new fees compare to the surrounding communities. Mr.
Cafferty explained that the numbers are based off of what Hayden has and cannot be directly compared to
the surrounding communities. The data needs to support the fee. Commissioner Everson stated that this is
the maximum we can justiff, not necessarily what the Council will charge. City Council can lower the
fee, but it can't raise it. He explained that it is self correcting because more growth will generate more
revenue. He also added some comments on the Community Center and why it is optional. The Committee
had concerns with adding a Community Center because impact fees are intended to maintain existing
facilities and infrastructure.
One public comment was received, from Denise Hall of Leisure Park. Ms. Krueger responded to her
comments prior to the meeting.
Public Testimony:
Name: John Young
Address:2051 E Woodstone Dr., Hayden,Idaho
Comments: Mr. Young spoke in favor of the study on behalf the Development Impact Fee Advisory
Committee. He explained that he has been on the Committee since 2011. The Committee evaluated
assumptions and facts and it came down to how accurate the information is that goes into the equations.
He explained that Glenn Miles was able to bring in information on local transportation trends and the
complexity of our roads with multiple agencies involved. He stated that impact fees cannot cover
deficiencies, only gtowth related impacts to the current level of service. We don't have a community
center to maintain a level of service and that is why the Committee chose to provide two options to City
Council. The CIP from the transportation plan was much larger and they looked at the projects that were
realistically going to happen in twenty years. They took a conservative approach, knowing that we can
adjust in a year. They also factored in inflation. He explained they did not calculate the fees in
comparison surrounding communities. However, after they calculated, the found they are in between Post
Falls and Coeur d'Alene.
Mr. Cafferfy added that the Committee did their homework and donated a lot of time to the City for this
project.
Vice-Chair Cooper questioned when the new fees go in affect. Ms. Krueger stated that we need to have
the City Council public hearing, adopt the ordinance and then update the City's fee schedule. She
anticipates adoption in early to mid-July. Mr. Cafferty explained that they will be under the fees at the
date of the application.
Chairman Ross stated for the record there was no public attending this hearing.
Applicant's Rebuttal:
No additional Comments.
Chairman Ross closed the public hearing at 6:08 PM.
Deliberations:
Commissioner Gentry made the motion to recommend the adoption of the Capital Improvement Plans and
Development Impact Fees study to City Council. Vice-Chair Cooper seconded the motion.
Roll Call:
Commissioner
Davis
Commissioner Gentry
Commissioner Petersen
Vice-Chair Cooper
Chairman
2.
Ross
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Consider revisions to Title 9. Building Resulations" Chanter 2. Imnact Fees of the Havden
Citv Code
The staffand applicant presentation for this public hearing was combined with previous public hearing
for the study.
Deliberations:
Commissioner Petersen made the motion to recommend to City Council the adoption of the revisions to
Title 9, Building Regulations, Chapter 2,Impact Fees of the Hayden City Code. Commissioner Gentry
seconded the motion with the additional information that is recommended based on the considerable time
and information that was used to support the data in the report.
Roll Call:
Davis
Gentry
Commissioner Petersen
Vice Chair Cooper
Chairman Ross
Commissioner
Commissioner
3.
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Case No. SUP 0037. a request by Coeur d'Alene School District #271
Chairman Ross stepped down from the podium and as Chair for the next two hearings as a result of his
interest in speaking as a member of the public. Vice-Chair Cooper called the meeting back to order. She
opened the public hearing at 6:28 PM.
Staff Introduction:
Jill Bowes, Senior Planner, inhoduced the proposal by the Coeur d'Alene School District #27l.Hayden
Meadows Elementary School is requesting the placement of one portable in addition to the one existing.
Applicant Presentation:
Cory Trapp with Longwell + Trapp Architects, 665 N Tuscan Lane, Coeur d'Alene, Idaho spoke on
behalf of the applicant's request. Bryan Martin, the Coeur d'Alene School District director of
maintenance was also present. The School District is asking to add one portable to Hayden Meadows
Elementary with connection by a new sidewalk ramp. The portable will hold thirty-seven (37) additional
students in the special needs program. The school district is aware of the issues with traffic when children
are picked up from school and they have been working on some solutions. The portable is twenfy eight by
seventy feet (28' x 70') and will ran north/south in the same direction as the existing portable. This is a
modification from the original proposal to run the building easVwest because the building would not have
made current grading requirements going that direction. The school district is seeing a lot of growth in the
north area of the district, creating the need for portables at Hayden Meadows and Atlas. This will be a
new portable and it will be painted similar to the existing portable. Mr. Trapp stated there will not be any
bathroom facilities in the portable and the students will use the facilities in the main building.
Bryan Martin, 5679 N l6th Street, Dalton Gardens, stated that the portable needs to be located there, in the
same spot, just at a different angle, than one that was there before. The location is important because of
security and fencing. Another location behind the main building would create visibility issues with
students at recess. He stated that he has worked with the City on access and they closed off the west
entrance to create a double stacked queuing lane to get parents in and out fast. This is the second year
they have been re-routing the traffic and there has been a noticeable difference. There is only a problem
about forty-five minutes in the afternoon when parents are waiting for students. The increase in students
proposed is under five percent (5%). The Commission questioned what the long term plan is to address
the increase in students. Mr. Martin stated that the school district will run another bond to add one or two
new elementary schools on the north side of the district in order to eliminate the portables. Vice-Chair
Cooper questioned why they are not using the old Hayden School. Mr. Martin explained that it would be
four to five times more expensive to utilize that school instead of using portables. The school district is
planning to make a decision on the future of that site in the next couple months because the location on a
busy intersection is not ideal for an elementary school. Commissioner Davis questioned what happens if
the portables are not approved. Mr. Martin explained they might use the Hayden School but more likely
they would fit more kids in the existing schools by taking music, art and computer classes and put them
on cart classes. He explained the negative impacts of this on those programs. Mr. Martin also explained
overcrowding is an issue at all of the schools. He stated that the new schools, if approved by the voters,
could go up in as fast as two years. It is hard to predict the traffic and it can be weather dependent. All of
the new students at Hayden Meadows will be from Hayden. Mr. Trapp explained that the connection to
Morgan Lane is the bus loop. Mr. Martin added that special needs students come in early and leave early,
so they
will not
be on the same schedule as the other students.
Commissioner Petersen asked the applicant to summarize the standards of approval.
Mr. Trapp went over each of the standards of approval and responded as follows:
l. Will, infact, constitute a special use as established in this ordinance for the zoning district
involved. It is a special use in that zone.
2.
Will be harmonious with and in accordance with the general objectives or with any specific
objective of the Comprehensive Plan and/or the Zoning Ordinance. He explained that there
already is an existing portable on site.
3.
Will be served adequately by essential public facilities and services such as highway, streets,
police andfire protection, drainage structures, refuse disposal, water, sewer and schools; or that
the persons or agencies responsiblefor the establishment ofthe proposed use shall be able to
provide adequately any such services.It will be. They are not adding any utility services and the
streets are already there.
4.
Will be designed, constructed, operated and maintained to be harmonious and appropriate in
appearance with the existing or intended character of the general vicinity and that such use will
not change the essential character of the same area.It will be painted to match the other portable
so it will blend with the other buildings there.
5.
Will not create excessive additional requirements as to public cost for public facilities and
services and will not be detrimental to the economic welfare of the community. There will be no
water or sewer. They will be evaluated for sewer fees with the building permit.
6.
Will not involve uses, activities, processes, materials, equipment and conditions of operation that
be detrimental to any persons, property or the general welfare by reason of excessive
production of trffic, noise, smoke, fumes, glare or odors. They are not generating anything, just
will
housing students for educational purposes.
7.
Will have vehicular approaches to the property which shall be so designed as not to create an
interference with traffic and surrounding public thoroughfares. They are not changing any
approaches and the school district has already made changes to address traffrc.
8.
Will not result in the destruction, loss or damage of a natural, scenic or historic feature of major
importance.No.
Staff Presentation:
Ms. Bowes started by explaining the site plan was revised since the staff report. This is a request for a
special use permit for one additional temporary portable classroom that is twenty-eight by seventy feet
and will be located south of the existing portable. They will be adding a ramp that will tie into the existing
sidewalk. There are no additional restrooms. The lot is ten acres in size, located south of Hayden Avenue,
east of Ash Street and west of Finucane Drive at site address 900 E Hayden Avenue. A special use permit
is required under City Codel l-6-7 to allow a portable in the Residential Zone. The first portable was
placed in 1999, prior to the requirement for a special use permit. Ms. Bowes showed a picture of the
existing portable and the location of the future portable. The subject site and the surrounding properties
are zoned Residential. The surrounding uses are Ptarmigan subdivision to the north, a 10 acre parcel
owned by the school district to the south, Finucane Estates to the east and Hayden Meadows subdivision
to the west. The Comprehensive Plan Future Land Use Map designates the area as Residential. Outside
agencies were notified of the request and comments were received from Kootenai County Sheriffs
Office, Panhandle Health District and the Coeur d'Alene Airport with no comment and Northern Lakes
Fire Protection District provided a letter with some comments. Staffwas provided with Idaho Code 676519 regarding highway districts and school placement prior to the meeting. A request was made to Sean
Hoisington, City of Hayden Public Works Director to provide comments. According to Mr. Hoisington,
there are traffic concerns including queuing delays and pedestrian congestion and there have been
complaints of blocked driveways and parking on lawns along Finucane Drive. He recommended the
school district work with an engineer to develop a plan to better address the situation on and offsite.
Commissioner Davis stated that the applicant has said the additional kids will be fit in there anyways, so
the increase in traffic is not tied to the approval or denial of this request. Commissioner The Commission
discussed Mr. Hoisington's email and the problem identified regarding traffic. Vice-Chair Cooper
questioned what the Commission can condition to mediate the traffic issues. Ms. Krueger stated that
sewer usage is addressed at the time of a building permit, which they will be required to obtain to move
and set a portable. The concern is the amount of purchased flow factors currently billed. Ms. Bowes
continued by explaining the infrastructure is all existing and no new connections are proposed. There is a
Type III Visual Relief landscaping buffer required between the school and the adjacent properties. Ms.
Bowes went over the Comprehensive Plan applicable goals and policies: Section III, Goal l, Policy 3;
applicable Idaho codes:67- 6512,67-6519,67-6535; and applicable city code sections ll-6-1, lI-13-7,
I l-13-5 and I l-13-3. Ms. Bowes then showed the standards of approval and stated this project will
require a site plan approval through the building permit process. Mr. Cafferty added that there are six no
parking signs on the school side of Hayden Avenue.
Public Testimony:
Name: Gary Mallon
Address: 9505 N Ash Street
Comments: Mr. Mallon spoke in neutral of the request and stated his property borders the school
property. The staff and applicant presentations answered all of his questions. However, he added that the
signage for no parking on Hayden Avenue in front ofthe school has been covered by plastic bags and
when the storm blew them off they were replaced.
Name: Sam Ross
Address: 9456 N Finucane Drive
Comments: Mr. Ross spoke against the request and showed on the map the location of his property in
conjunction to the subject site. He stated that the no parking signs are ignored throughout this area. He
stated that people park up and down Finucane Drive and on the corner of Morgan Lane and will park on
the grass behind the no parking signs. Kids will sit on the stone wall at that corner waiting to be picked up
until 4:30 - 5pm. He explained that the grass in the swales are all mud because of the traffic and the
homeowners have to put pickets out to keep people from parking. The asphalt is also broken all along the
road as a result. He explained his concern with kids being hit by cars because of the visibility. He stated
that the school is not a good neighbor. He added that he taught in portables before and one building has
the capacity for sixty students, thirty per classroom. One additional portable, full of students, could mean
as many as sixty more cars. He explained many of these parents have big SUVs and even the school buses
have trouble getting in and out. He had a similar concern with Hayden Elementary and the concern with
the ability for emergency vehicles. The gate at the west entrance of the parking lot at Hayden Meadows
has made a huge difference but it's not enough. One neighbor along Hayden Avenue put up pickets to
keep out the cars and they were all bent over a day later. He proposed the school district consider using
the ten acres to the south that has a large gravel parking lot to help solve the problem.
Commissioner Davis questioned what leverage the City has to encourage the school to implement
alternate parking and what leverage does the City have with law enforcement to enforce the parking in
this area. Mr. Cafferfy stated that as a special use permit, the Commission can impose conditions to
address concerns. The City contracts with Kootenai County Sheriff s Office and the Commission can
make a request for the Mayor and City Council to address this in their decision.
Applicant's Rebuttal:
Mr. Trapp stated that the school district does not like portables either and would like to remove them
when they can. Mr. Martin stated the no parking signs on Hayden Avenue were covered in plastic as a
request by the city of Hayden in order to allow the cars to stack up on Hayden Avenue. He also stated that
all the neighbors need to call the police when this happens so that they will come out and enforce. If three
or four people get a ticket they will stop for a while. He stated that the school district has sixteen sites and
it takes a lot of education. The school sends out flyers with the students not to park on the neighboring
lots and they get lazy and ignore. The applicant is willing to work with the City on additional solutions.
Mr. Martin stated that the parking lot to the south is a little bit too far for little kids to walk. He would
prefer to use the greenbelt next to the bus lane but this creates a problem with kids running between the
buses. He added that the school district can include traffic flow in the bond that comes up. They don't
have the finances right now to make major modifications. He also addressed the water and stated the little
amount of additional students does not make much difference. If you compare the water consumption
from the opening of the building to now, it is not even half because of all the low flow technology now.
Commissioner Petersen asked what the applicant's opinion is regarding Mr. Hoisington's comments. Mr.
Martin responded that the district is open to options and willing to meet with the City. However, the issue
is current funds.
Vice-Chair Cooper closed the public hearing for SUP 0037 at 7:31 PM.
Deliberations:
The Commission proceeded with deliberations. Commissioner Petersen stated the issue is traffic and the
school district has ideas to address this. He added that even though the kids will be added regardless of
this approval, we still need to consider traffic because the issue causes the request to not meet one of the
standards of approval. He is in favor of approving with the condition that they work an engineer to
address the traffic problem. Commissioner Gentry agreed but questioned how this could be quantified as
far as how, when, and to what extent. He also questioned more education and motivation for the parents
to get offthe roads by the school. Ms. Krueger stated that there is a site plan approval and they could add
a public works authorization. Commissioner Davis recommended that the condition not affect the kids'
ability to start school in the fall. The Commission continued to discuss how to address standard of
approval no. 3 with an additional condition. They discussed requiring an engineered traffic plan, Public
Works approval, and/or education components. They also discussed continuing the public hearing to a
later date in order to receive additional documentation on a traffic plan. They clarified with the applicant
that extending the public hearing would cause a delay in the placement of the portables to the point they
would not be installed in time for fall classes to begin.
Mr. Cafferty clarified that it is his interpretation that the Commission has gone through the eight
standards of approval and based upon their deliberations they can base their motion off of this discussion.
Commissioner Petersen made the motion in Case No. SUP 0037, that the Commission grant the
applicant's request for the special use permit because they have demonstrated that they meet the
requirements with the exception of condition no. 3. The motion is conditioned that they work with the
City of Hayden Public Works Department to come up with a traffic control plan that will adequately use
the infrastructure to support the additional use, subject to a sign-off by the Public Works Director on the
building permit. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Gentry. Mr. Cafferty clarified that the
application meets all of the required findings under City Code I l-13-3 with the exception of no. 3,
specifically dealing with parking and you are imposing an additional condition that prior to the issuance
of a building permit the applicant shall work with the public works director to have an approved traffic
control plan. The Commission stated yes, that is the intent of the motion.
Vice-Chair Cooper questioned standard no. 6. The Commission has some discussion and agreed that it
meets the condition and the motion still stands.
Roll Call:
Commissioner Davis
Commissioner Gentry
Commissioner Petersen
Yes
Yes
Yes
Vice-Chair Cooper
4,
Yes
Case No. SUP 0038. a request bv Coeur d'Alene School District #271
Chairman Ross remained a member of the public and Vice-Chair Cooper continued with the next public
hearing.
Staff Introduction:
Jill Bowes, Senior Planner introduced the proposal by the Coeur d'Alene School District to receive a
special use permit to place two portables at Atlas Elementary.
Applicant Presentation:
Mr. Trapp and Mr. Martin spoke on behalf of the request. The two portables will be oriented north/south
just south of the existing portable that was put in two years ago. There are irrigation controls in the
original proposed area, so they revised the plan from the original submittal. The doors will face inwards
so that they share an existing pathway. There is an existing gate to the east development. He showed the
bus loop and parent pick up and drop off on the site. Similar issues to Hayden Meadows happen here,
with cars parking after school in the subdivision to the east. There is a movement in the school district to
have all parents pick up kids in a designated pick up lane for safety. The two portables are coming from
the Hayden Elementary site.
Mr. Trapp went over the standards of approval as follows:
1. Il/ill, infact, constitute a special use as established in this ordinance for the zoning district
involved. It is a special use in that zone.
2.
IMll be harmonious with and in accordance with the general objectives or with any specffic
objective of the Comprehensive Plan and/or the Zoning Ordinance. He explained that there
already is an existing portable on site.
3.
Will be served adequately by essential public facilities and services such as highway, streets,
police andfire protection, drainage structures, refuse disposal, water, sewer and schools; or that
the persons or agencies responsiblefor the establishment of the proposed use shall be able to
provide adequately any such services. The streets are adequate in that area. There is a lot of
parking available. There will not be any sewer or water to the portables.
4.
Will be designed, constructed, operated and maintained to be harmonious and appropriate in
appearance with the existing or intended character of the general vicinity and that such use will
not change the essential character of the same area. They will add an additional landscape buffer
and a vinyl fence along the east side ofthe portables.
5.
Will not create excessive additional requirements as to public cost for public facilities and
services and will not be detrimental to the economic welfare of the community. There will be no
public cost.
6.
Will not involve uses, activities, processes, materials, equipment and conditions of operation that
will be detrimental to any persons, property or the general welfare by reason of excessive
production of trffic, noise, smoke, fumes, glare or odors. They are adding up to a hundred kids,
including those with special needs.
7.
Will have vehicular approaches to the property which shall be so designed as not to create an
interference with trffic and sunounding public thoroughfares. They are not changing any
approaches and the school district has already made changes to address traffic.
8.
Will not result in the destruction, loss or damage of a natural, scenic or historic feature of major
importance. The proposal will not cause any of these.
Mr. Martin stated that he went out and watched the cars after school and everything seemed to work. He
stated that this is the largest parking lot of all the elementary schools in the district. He stated that they
could cone offthe parking lot at do a longer queuing line in needed. He added that part of the site plan
revision was to allow the buildings to be closer together, elimination some sight issues. The Commission
questioned where the new kids were coming from. Mr. Martin stated that all the kids are from Hayden.
There is overcrowding in all of the zones, particularly the ones in Hayden. The biggest issue is people
returning to the area following the recession.
StaffPresentation:
Ms. Bowes presented the facts on this case. The applicant is requesting the placement of two portable
classrooms measuring thifty-eight by sixty-six feet (38' x 66') southeast of the school to hold up to one
hundred additional students. There will be no restrooms in the structures and a ramp and sidewalk will be
constructed to tie into existing site circulation. The applicant is proposing a Type III landscaping buffer
between the portables and the subdivision to the east. Ms. Bowes noted that landscaping is not a
requirement. The site is l0 acres and is located on the southeast corner of North Atlas Road and West
Honeysuckle Avenue. The school was built in2004 and the first portable was set in20l4. At that time a
special use permit was not required for portables in the Agricultural Zone. Ms. Bowes showed pictures of
the site. She went over the surrounding zoning with Agricultural to the south, Residential to the north and
east and unincorporated Kootenai County to the west. The surrounding uses are single-family residential
to the north and east, Panhandle Health District to the south and three single-family dwellings on larger
lots to the west. The Comprehensive Plan Future Land Use Map identifies the area and the surrounding
properties as Residential. Outside agencies were notified of the request and comments were received from
Kootenai County Sheriffs Office, Panhandle Health District and the Coeur d'Alene Airport with no
comment and Northern Lakes Fire Protection District provided a letter with some comments. Public
comment was received, one opposed and one in favor. The concerns presented by those opposed were the
increase in taxes, decrease in home values, more traffic on North Courcelles Parkway, blocked mailboxes,
children in the street, odors from a port-a-potty and broken sprinkler heads. Sean Hoisington, Public
Works Director, did not have any additional comments on this site. Ms. Bowes continued by explaining
the sewer infrastructure is existing and no new connections are proposed. There are no frontage
improvements required and water is provided by Hayden Lake lrrigation District. Staffrecommended a
condition to provide a landscaping buffer as described in the applicant's narrative. Ms. Bowes went over
the applicable Comprehensive Plan Goals and Policies, State Statutes, and City Code sections. She then
listed the standards of approval for special use permits. In response to a question, Ms. Bowes stated she
was not aware of any portable bathrooms on the site and the applicant is not proposing to add any.
Public Testimony:
Name: Sam Ross
Address: 9456 N Finucane Drive
Comments: He spoke neutral on this project. His wife works at Atlas Elementary and his grandkids go to
school there. He stated that he was picking up one of his grandkids a few days ago and the cars were
stacked onto Atlas Road. He has concerns about adding another one hundred kids and the affect that will
have on the surrounding neighborhoods. The difference here, compared to Hayden Meadows Elementary,
is that Courselles Parkway has sidewalks and curb. He added that there were two port-a-potties by the
10
portables two weeks ago when he went by and they had been vandalized. Queuing is a problem but Mr.
Martin has a good idea on how to increase the on-site queuing.
Name: Robert Stanley
Address: 8655 N Courcelles Parkway
Comments: Mr. Stanley spoke against the request. He lives directly behind where the two portables will
be placed. When the first portable went in two years ago he was told it was because of the Hayden
Elementary remodel and that when it was completed the portable would be removed. Now they are
adding two more. Putting the buildings north/south creates a vandal zone for kids between the two
buildings. They would be placed about twenty feet from his back property line. Vandalism is already
occurring with the existing portable at night including turning the port-a-potty over. He does not have a
problem with portables, just with the location they have chosen. He would like to see them moved to the
west of the site where they will not impact the neighbors. He added that his neighbors have told him
about the traffic issues during the day. He also stated he finds trash in his yard. Putting them north and
south is going to create an impact when kids get back in there at night. He has a lot of beer cans in his
back yard. He has no objection other than that.
Applicant's Rebuttal:
Mr. Martin stated he understands the vandalism but he wants to keep the gate open afterhours because it
is a great place for kids to get out and do stuffafter hours. They possibly can put in motion lights on the
portables. They could also put cameras in between them. He stated the port-a-potties are sifiing outside
the fenced area in the corner and they are there for park uses and soccer uses by the City of Hayden. The
school district does not use them and they arejust up during soccer season, about a six week period. The
City is in charge of dumping the material every four to five days. The school district could look into
options to chain them up so they cannot be tipped over. He also verified that the distance between the
portables and the neighboring property line is twenty feet. Commissioner Davis questioned why the
portables have to be located so close to the subdivisions on such a large site. Mr. Martin responded that it
has to do with the location of utilities and the visibility of the playground during recess. They also want to
save as many of the fields for soccer as they can. He added that the school district over Commissioner
Gentry questioned the cost of putting in a portable. Mr. Martin responded it costs about $25,000 to
$30,000 per portable. The Hayden Meadows portable will be $91,000 because it is new. He explained
why they don't just build an addition on the elementary schools. The school district doesn't want
elementary schools to have more than five hundred and fifty (150) students.
Vice-Chair Cooper closed the public hearing for SUP 0038 at 8:33 PM.
Deliberations:
The Commission proceeded with deliberations. Commissioner Petersen stated they meet the requirements
and have suggestions for traffic issues. Commissioner Gentry stated the capacity is there, it is more of an
education and implementation issue. Vice-Chair Cooper had no concerns beyond the portable bathrooms,
which are temporary.
Commissioner Gentry made the motion in case no. SUP 0038 to approve the special use permit as it's
been discussed and demonstrated that it meets the requirements with the staffrecommendation for the
landscaping buffer behind the portables. Commissioner Davis seconded the motion. Vice-Chair Cooper
asked if they should include the motion lights and/or cameras in the approval. The Commission agreed
that the applicant has stated they will work on it and they do not want to require it.
Roll Call:
Commissioner Davis
Commissioner Gentry
Yes
Yes
71
Commissioner Petersen
Vice-Chair Cooper
5.
Yes
Yes
Consider a variety of code amendments to the Havden Cifv Code generallv described as
follows:
o Title 2, Chapter l, Planning and Zoning Commission: modiffing residency requirements to
allow two members of the commission to reside outside of the area of city impact but within
Kootenai County and clarifring requirements for quorum;
o Title 10, Chapter 3, Private Streets: increasing the number of residential lots or units from 12
to l5 that can utilize a private road for access;
o Title 1 l, Chapter l, General Provisions, various revisions to clariff for consistency with other
codes or laws, establish what constitutes a kitchen for an accessory living unit, creating
ground cover, irregular lot and sign definitions and including solar and wind farms in the
definition of major utility infrastructure;
o Title I l, Chapter 3, Nonconforming Uses, clarifuing that non-conforming single family
dwelling units may be maintained and reconstructed in a commercial zone regardless of
percentage of damage and ensuringthat a non-conforming uses are noticed and allowed to
continue consistent with State law;
o Title I l, Chapters 4-8, Agricultural, Residential Suburban, Residential and Residential Multifamily zones, revising front yard setbacks from 25 feet to l5 feet for a single family dwelling
and creating a separation distance offive feet between accessory and principal structures;
o Title I l, Chapter 6, Residential Zone, adding temporary sales, development offices, or
storage facilities for subdivision or building sites as an allowed use;
o Title I l, Chapter 8, CommercialZone, clari$ing that animals clinics not serving large
animals are allowed as an outright use and require a special use permit if serving large
animals, clariffing that a contractor's office without outdoor storage is allowed as an outright
use and requires a special use permit with when outdoor storage is present, adding towing
companies as an allowed use with a special use permit;
o Title I l, Chapter 9, Industrial Zone, adding temporary sales, development offices, or storage
facilities for subdivision or building sites as an allowed use and adding towing companies as
an allowed use with a special use permit;
o Title I l, Chapter I l, Accessory Living Units, clarifuing difference between a duplex and an
accessory living unit;
o Title I l, Chapter I l, Storage, allowing storage as a primary use on a lot within a PUD;
clariffing fencing requirements for refuse enclosures in already enclosed areas;
o Title I l, Chapter I l, Landscaping and Screening, eliminating ten foot landscape buffer
requirement between industrially zone properties, allowing phased buffering plans with site
plan approval, and revising street trees required from one every 20 feet to one every 50 feet;
o Title I l, Chapter 1 l, Home Occupations, clariffing that customers can visit the business of a
Class A home occupation if only one customer is visiting for a pre-scheduled appointment;
characterizing a Class B home occupation, and clariffing that limited delivery traffic is
allowed under certain circumstances;
o Title I l, Chapter 13, Special Use Permits, establishing a two year deadline for special use
permits to be implemented and termination of the permit when a use is abandoned for one
yeat;
o Title I l, Chapter 16 Amendments, clarifying how zone code text and zone map amendments
are to be processed;
o Title I l, Chapter 18, Off Street Parking and Access Standards, providing process for parking
standard exceptions, clariffing parking stall dimensions, allowing for a fourteen foot one-way
aisle under certain circumstances, revising bicycle parking standards, and requiring
submission of a photometric lighting plan.
72
o
o
o
o
o
o
Title I l, Chapter 19, Planned Unit Development (PUD), clariffing concurrent plat
submission and approval standards, clarifuing duration of approval and process for extensions
of approval for PUD and condominium plats within a PUD;
Title I l, Chapter 20, Site Plan Review, clarifring when green belt tracts are required related
to the site planning process, minor reorganization for clarification, and providing a term for
duration ofapproval;
Title I 1, Chapter 22, Sign Code, allowing for an additional menu board sign at drive-throughs
and calculating total sign area by percentage of each fagade (15%) instead of square footage
per building (85 sq. ft.);
Title 12, Chapter 5, Minor Subdivisions, revising for consistency with submission and
approval standards for major subdivisions and establishing a term for duration of approval
consistent with major subdivisions;
Title 12, Chapter 6, Required Subdivision Improvements, eliminating requirement for
entrance signage and clariffing street tree standards;
Title 12, Chapter 7, Boundary Line Adjustments, establishing ability to make boundary line
adjustments and complete lot consolidation.
StafflApplicant Presentation
:
Ms. Krueger stated that this is the final copy of the city code amendments previously presented and
discussed with the Commission. She sent an email two weeks ago that went over a couple of highlighted
changes since the last draft. She explained there are not really standards ofapproval for these. This is a
recommendation to City Council. Since we have no public present, Ms. Krueger proposed allowing the
Commission to ask questions. One comment came in from Ms. Denise Hall of Eborall Realty/Leisure
Park asking for clarification on l1-11-10, Storage, on page 59 of the draft code amendments to allow for
storage as a primary use on a lot within a Planned Unit Development (PUD). Ms. Bowes stated that the
Leisure Park Planned PUD does not allow for lot storage, so they will be required to go through another
PUD amendment if this code amendment passes.
Ms. Krueger then went over a synopsis of the entire proposal, listed above. She stated that notice was
provided to public agencies, published in the Coeur d'Alene Press and emailed to Spokesman Reviewo
Nickelsworth, KHQ, KXLY, KREM, and Blue Sky Broadcasting. The requested action is a
recommendation to City Council to adopt the amendments with clarification on l1-l l-10, Storage.
Questions:
Commissioner Petersen requested discussion on the storage change. Ms. Krueger read the email from Ms.
Hall. Residents of Leisure Park would like to be able to place small, premade sheds and RVs. The Leisure
Park CC&R's do not allow residents to place these on their own lots. Ms. Krueger stated this type of
storage would still have to be screened. Chairman Ross stated that he has lived in places with this type of
storage and just wants to make sure there are no standards in terms of fire codes. The Commission
discussed the exact wording and agreed to change to language to, "All storage, unless allowed outright
pursuant to Hayden City Code, shall be accessory to the permitted use on the site. In a Planned Unit
Development, storage is allowed as a primary use on a lot so long as the storage site is only utilized by
internal owners/tenants and not external customers. Storage sheds and equipment storage within a PUD
may span property boundaries within a designated storage area so long as it meets the standards of
Hayden City Code."
Public Testimony:
No public was present for this public hearing. There was one written testimony from Ms. Hall that was
addressed by staff.
Chairman Ross closed the public hearing at 9:04 PM.
13
Deliberations:
The commission proceeded with deliberations and had no further discussion.
Commissioner Davis made the motion to recommend to City Council to accept the variety of code
amendments to the tlayden City Code generally described as disoussed. Vice-Chair Cooper seconded the
motion.
Roll Cell:
Genty
Petersen
Davis
Cooper
Chairman Ross
Commissioner
Commissioner
Commissioner
Vice-Chair
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
ADJOT]RNMENT:
The motion to adjourn was made by Vice-Chair Cooper and seconded by Chairman Ross.
The meeting adjourned at9:07 p.m.
ie Gardipe, Recording Clerk
t4