MINUTES OF THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION CITY OF HAYDEN, KOOTENAI COUNTY, IDAHO

March 7, 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 5:04PM

ROLL CALL OF COMMISSION MEMBERS: Sam Ross, Chairman Tom Everson, Vice-Chairman Sheree Cooper John Gentry Brian Petersen

STAFF PRESENT: Connie Krueger, Director John Cafferty, Legal Counsel Brett Boyer, City Administrator Jill Bowes, Senior Planner Jamie Gardipe, Planner, Recording Clerk

FLAG SALUTE:

Present Present Present Present Present

Commissioner Petersen led the meeting in the Pledge of Allegiance.

CALL FOR CONFLICTS OF INTEREST: No conflicts reported.

CONSENT CALENDAR: Vice-Chairman Everson made the motion to approve the consent calendar as presented, including the minutes from February 22, 2016, the Written Decision for Case No. SUP 0033, Harmony House Expansion, and the Written Decision for Case No. SUP 0034, R&R Smith Coffee Stand. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Cooper. All were in favor, none were opposed.

NEW BUSINESS: Case No. ADMINX 0015, New Leaf

Staff Introduction: Jill Bowes, Senior Planner, introduced the application. This is a hearing for an administrative exception to the parking development standards. Any time an applicant requests an exception of greater than 35% of what is required, the decision is made by the Planning and Zoning Commission. The request is by New LeafNursery, formerly known as Huckleberry Wholesalers, located at 12655 N Government Way, for a parking surfacing exception. This criteria needs to be addressed in order to approve a site plan that has been on file for some time.

1

Applicant Presentation: Ben Christen, the General Manager of New LeafNursery, spoke on behalf of the request. The skid steer equipment used in the garden center industry does not work well with paved parking. The bulk of the traffic is during the summer months and the pavement would be subject to deterioration. He then asked for questions and shared some pictures on the site. He went over the areas of the site, including the plant material locations, thoroughfares, and parking areas. The general parking area is the main area of concern. Because of the location of the parking and the nature of the business, they would have to constantly maintain or repave because of the heavy traffic and usage. They request to remain using% crushed, compacted gravel. They would like to only pave the apron or approach up to the gate, approximately 3 5 to 40 feet. They would also pave the ADA parking space and the dumpster site. The ADA parking space is located directly outside of the main building where the restrooms are located. He also noted that the building has active permits with the city for the building improvements, including the restrooms. There also is a second entrance to the north off of Lancaster Road. The materials are at the end of the loop to the north. They fill large dump trucks and the trucks and heavy equipment access most of the site. The materials start in the greenhouse and move as the season opens. They change displays about every week as different products are in season.

Chairman Ross asked what they do with their water runoff. The runoff from the building does cross the parking lot to the swale to the north of the lot. They purposely like the nursery to be in a wooded area for multiple reasons, particularly to have a farm theme and a unique environment. The surfacing request is partially to maintain the site character. Ms. Bowes clarified that the swale is just north of the entrance and reminded the Commission that this request is to address the paved parking requirements only.

Commissioner Cooper asked when the apron will be completed. Mr. Christen responded that he would like the construction to be done at a time that will not affect business but it will be done this year. Cutting off the entrance on Government Way would force all the customers to enter the site from the approach off of Lancaster Road that has a barrier preventing traffic from entering from the east.

Chairman Ross questioned dust control. Mr. Christen responded that they use products to prevent dust in the parking areas and the road from entrance to entrance.

Commissioner Gentry stated that the Commission makes the decision or recommendation based on the code. He commented that having to pave a landscape yard seemed excessive.

Chairman Ross mentioned a similar project from a few years ago in which paving was required in this area for North Kootenai Water District. The code has since changed to allow for exceptions.

Ms. Bowes responded to a question by Commissioner Cooper and clarified that paving the apron is a requirement and is not part of this request.

Staff Presentation: Ms. Bowes started her presentation with City Code 11-8-5.B.2 that states the paving requirements. Another section of Code, 11-18-3.B.2 allows for an exception to be applied for. In most cases, administrative exceptions are done administratively. However, a request that exceeds 35% requires a decision by the Planning and Zoning Commission. The site is located at 12655 N Government Way and is 4.46 acres. There is frontage on Government Way, Lancaster Road, and US Highway 95. The neighbor to the south is 95 North, the land to the north is outside of City Limits and undeveloped, the land to the east is undeveloped residential property and to the west is US Highway 95.

Ms. Bowes went over the site plan and highlighted the area affected by this request. She showed that the paved approach will go up to the gate, the materials area at the north entrance, the parking areas and the

2

various buildings. She then showed pictures of both entrances. The locations ofthe materials differ depending on the season or year.

Ms. Bowes presented some examples of other local nurseries. Northland Nursery at 8093 W Prairie Avenue in Post Falls has a paved approach and paved parking but the remainder of the site is gravel. Westwood Gardens in Rathdrum has a paved area with a graveled area to the back where they have all their stock. Ms. Bowes explained it was hard to find examples, particularly because New Leaf is one of the only year round nurseries in the area. In Hayden, the other nursery, Judy's Nursery, is seasonal. That facility is not paved and there are no fmished frontages. Chairman Ross asked about Reed Enterprises. Ms. Bowes stated Reed Enterprises is not paved but that is because the site predates the paving requirements. The only other close comparison Ms. Bowes could think of was Grace Tree Service on Hayden Avenue. They also have a paved approach but the remainder of the lot is gravel.

Ms. Bowes went over the findings to be made in 11-18-3.B.2.d and explained that finding number four does not apply to this request. The applicant meets all of the other requirements for parking areas. She also noted that the Code addresses storage surfaces for landscaping materials and access areas.

Ms. Bowes responded to a question by Commissioner Petersen by explaining that the site never received site plan approval or building approvals. The City worked with the applicant to come into compliance and one of the remaining issues is getting the site plan approved. They have gotten close to a site plan approval but something always came up. The process started with the construction of the bam.

Deliberations: Commissioner Petersen stated that the applicant needs to meet findings 1 through 3 ( 4 is not applicable). This request comes down the finding number 1. He asked the applicant to explain how the proposal meets this requirement. Mr. Christen explained that they specialize in caliper trees and other large materials that generally cannot be lifted by a person. The use of skid steer loaders is needed to move materials and load them into customer vehicles in the parking lot. This request would prevent damage done to paving by this equipment. Commissioner Petersen agreed with the applicant's statement. Commissioner Gentry stated that the request is legitimate and meets standards 1, 2, and 3. He stated that finding number 2 was satisfied with the location, access and paving of the ADA parking space. Vice-Chairman added that crumbling asphalt would be worse for the public safety than gravel. Commissioner Petersen stated that it meets finding number 3 for the same reason. Gravel would be a better surface material than paving in this case. Finding number 4 is not applicable because the applicant is not requesting a reduction to the number of parking spaces. Commissioner Cooper added that dust and weed control is in place.

Vice-Chairman Everson made the motion, in the case of ADMINX 0015, based upon the requirements in City Code 11-18-3.B.2.d., the Commission finds that the request meets findings 1 through 3 and number 4 is not applicable. For requirement number 1, the modification does not generally apply to other properties or similar uses subject to requirements. The Commission finds that the farm-like nature of the business as well as the use of skid steer loader on asphalt has a unique character that meets the requirement. Requirement number 2 is satisfied because the pavement will deteriorate over time from the use of equipment and could be more injurious than gravel. Also, the handicap access, paved apron and weed and dust control is sufficient. For requirement number 3, the Commission finds that the paved aprons, the handicap parking and unpaved path are protecting the public interest and paving would actually be detrimental. Requirement number 4 is not applicable because they are not asking for a reduction in parking. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Gentry.

3

Roll Call: Commissioner Cooper Yes Commissioner Gentry Yes Commissioner Petersen Yes Vice-Chairman Everson Yes Chairman Ross Yes

CONTINUING BUSINESS: Discuss draft document containing various code amendments

The Community and Economic Development Director will walk the Planning and Zoning Commission through a compilation of proposed code amendments accrued from throughout 2015.

Ms. Krueger started her presentation by stating that the administrative exception review was the result of the last set of code amendments. The 35% threshold was part of that set and is just seeing implementation now. Ms. Krueger explained that near the end of the code amendment process last year, Ken Ela presented a letter listing additional concerns in the Code. Following that letter, the Commission discussed additional amendments. Tonight we will address those amendments in addition to the next series of amendments. This round of amendments is primarily cleaning up language, items that have come up over the year and things that came up as we were finalizing the last set of amendments. The purpose of this meeting is to familiarize the Commission with the proposed changes and gauge when to move forward with a public hearing.

11-1-2: General Rules: Ms. Krueger started the discussion with front yard setbacks. The Commission discussed setbacks in length last year. Following that discussion the Commission was comfortable with a fifteen foot (15') front yard setback with twenty-five feet (25') to the garage. Because of this change, the setbacks to cornices, canopies, eaves, etc. need to be modified to clarify that they cannot encroach in the fifteen foot (15 ') front yard setback. Commissioner Gentry stated that the word measurement works better than dimension.

11-1-3: Definitions: Ms. Krueger went over the definition of Accessory Living Units (ALU). This proposed change specifies what point a living space becomes an ALU with the addition of a sink, refrigerator, oven and stove top. Vice-Chairman Everson does not like the wording of"permanently installed". As an appraiser, he knows that refrigerators are not considered to be permanently installed appliances. Commissioner Gentry recommended removal of the word "permanently". Ms. Bowes and Ms. Krueger noted that this clarification is because most people don't want to be considered an ALU, requiring clarification on what kicks in those requirements. The Commission agreed that it should read " ... and a single kitchen with a refrigerator and a permanently installed sink, oven, and or stove top." Ms. Krueger explained this helps with the mom and pa suites in which they have their own space but utilize the main facilities. An ALU is intended to be an independent living unit.

Ms. Krueger explained the addition to the alley definition is due to the creation of a new typical section for alleys. The "Zoning Certificate" definition is proposed to be deleted because there is no mention of it in the code. The next edit is a clarification in language to single-family and two-family dwelling units. The definition of"Grade" is also proposed to be removed because that is not how we define grade. Building codes and engineering practices have the definition we use. The definition of "Lot" adds clarification that a lot is not created by the assigning of a tax parcel number. The definition of"Irregular Lot" has been added because we did not have a definition for this that has made it difficult to address setbacks in the past. This definition came from another jurisdiction and will help address setbacks. She explained you can easily end up with many definitions of irregular lots. This is a way to address this

4

without complicating it. The definition of "Sign" is proposed to differentiate decorations from signage. She explained that some items are more decorative and do not have a written or symbolic message component. Ms. Krueger explained her history in other jurisdictions with sign codes. This addition should allow us to avoid code enforcement for things that are not really signs and are more decorative. Mr. Cafferty stated that you cannot regulate the messages on signage. The last definition change proposed is to the "Utility Infrastructure or Facility, Major" to include "solar farms." We have had a proposal for a solar farm, leading to the question of where this is appropriate. She explained this does not include a panel or two on a house but is large facilities/lots of panels. Commissioner Gentry stated this is a reasonable addition at this time because of the direction of energy sources.

11-3-4: Nonconforming Structures: This addition clarifies that nonconforming residential structures in the Commercial Zone can be rebuilt, regardless of the percent of damage. This will help financing of existing homes in the Commercial Zone.

11-3-5: Nonconforming Uses of Structures or of Structures and Premises in Combination: Ms. Krueger proposed changing time a structure can be abandoned to six consecutive months at which point it becomes nonconforming. It is difficult to work through issues in three months as the code currently allows. Commissioner Gentry proposed that twelve months is more appropriate and Commissioner Cooper was in agreement. Mr. Cafferty commented that state law is one year in Idaho Statute 67-6538. Commissioner Gentry suggested adding some language on state law. Ms. Krueger stated we will work through any issues with state law prior to going to public hearing as well as look into the application process.

Title 11, Chapters 4, 5, 6, and 7: Building Setback Requirements: The first modification is to change the wording of "Residential Structures" to "Principal Structures" and "Authorized Accessory Building" to "Detached Accessory Building" for clarification. She also added information in a footnote that attached accessory buildings have to meet the setbacks for the principal structure. Once they are separated they have to meet the detached setbacks and the Commission needs to decide a distance required between the principal structure and the accessory structure. She explained that Coeur d'Alene uses a separation of three feet (3 '). She explained that applicants want to construct a structure that is not connected to the house in order to avoid the residential structure setbacks by separating the structures by an inch or two. The Commission discussed distances and agreed on a distance of five feet (5') between structures. Ms. Krueger will add clarification to the first* that it only applies to the fifteen foot (15') setback, not the twenty-five (25') setback. The proposed code amendments in this section are the same in the Residential Suburban, Residential, and Residential Multi-family Zones.

11-8-4: Uses Permitted (Commercial Zone): This section includes the addition of language excluding large animals in animal clinics and allowing outright contractor's offices with indoor storage. She explained these came up recently with a proposal for a large animal clinic in the Commercial Zone. The exclusion of large animals is necessary in this zone because there needs to be an area or enclosure to load and unload animals from large vehicles or have an outdoor treatment area. Animal clinics that serve large animals are proposed as a Special Use in the Commercial Zone. Also, we recently had the addition of the Rosenberger's new contractor's office and storage on Taryne Street that does not have outdoor storage. Traditionally contractor's offices had equipment outside and heavy uses, this is not always the case now. If it only has indoor storage it functions more like a business already allowed in the Commercial Zone. Contractor's Office with outdoor storage will remain as a Special Use in this zone. Ms. Bowes suggested that it read "Contractor's Office without Outdoor Storage" for clarity.

5

11-8-7: Special Uses (Commercial Zone): In addition to the modifications to animal clinics and contractor's offices, staff also proposes towing companies as a Special Use. Ms. Krueger does not know if it is an appropriate use in the Commercial Zone so it was included in this proposal as a special use in the Commercial and Light-Industrial Zones to allow for discussion. She discussed the purpose of special use permits to mitigate the impacts of the use in that zone and stated that we have allowed more heavy commercial or light industrial uses in the Commercial Zone recently. Towing companies are likely more appropriate in the Light-Industrial Zone. Vice-Chairman Everson stated that he is good with towing companies as a special use in Commercial Zone and Light-Industrial Zone. Ms. Krueger suggested creating a development standard in 11-11 for towing companies.

11-9-7: Special Uses (Light Industrial Zone): The only proposed addition is Towing Company. Ms. Krueger explained that it would be a special use in the Light-Industrial Zone because auto wrecking is also listed as a Special Use.

11-11-2 Accessory Living Units: Ms. Bowes explained that the ALU code allows an ALU to be incorporated in the main structure. There is little clarification to the point it becomes a duplex. The proposed changes add clarification. Vice­Chairman Everson stated that a duplex has to be separately metered. He asked if there was any thought towards a percentage of size difference instead of an 800 square foot cutoff and requested that staff look into the idea. Ms. Krueger stated that an ALU has to share all the same utilities, even though they have their own sewer ER. Ms. Bowes commented that it does not specify billing for electricity. Ms. Krueger stated that we need to have more dialogue on this topic.

11-11-10: Storage: The first proposal in this section is to add clarification to storage. Staff has had a storage request with Leisure Park to dedicate a lot just to storage for the residents of the subdivision. This change would help with future subdivisions as well, as offsite storage for ''toys" such as RVs and boats is a growing trend. This would help avoid code enforcement issues with the storage of these items occurring on the street or in the front yards. The second proposal is an amendment previously discussed from the Ken Ela letter. The purpose of this change is to allow fencing or landscaping of refuse be waived if the perimeter of the lot is fenced or landscaped.

11-11-11 : Landscaping and Screening: Ms. Krueger proposed the change to the buffer requirements for the Light Industrial Zone to exclude buffer requirements for light industrial next to light industrial. She also proposed changes to the Street Frontage Buffer language. She explained that Hayden's requirements for street trees are excessive in comparison to other areas. The changes are more consistent with Post Falls and Coeur d'Alene, requiring one tree for every fifty feet (50').

11-11-11: Landscaping and Screening (continued): Ms. Krueger explained the addition of language on perimeter tracts under Street Frontage Buffers. She also explained the removal of the allowance to space the trees irregularly or clustered. She is requesting they be spaced uniformly. Ms. Krueger then explained the last change to the landscaping section, some clarification to the Buffer Width Reduction.

Ms. Krueger gave a quick overview of the remainder of the amendments and drew attention to the last section that adds Boundary Line Adjustments (BLA) to the code. The proposed language is based off of Coeur d'Alene's code language, Kootenai County's language and Ms. Krueger and Ms. Bowes' previous experience with BLA codes. Ms. Krueger requested the Commission look close at the language in A.1. to remove the words "lot boundaries and".

6

NEXT MEETING: We will bring the second half of amendments back at the next meeting and also review the revisions to sections discussed at this meeting. The next meeting is scheduled for March 21, 2016. Ms. Krueger clarified that the code amendments will go to public hearing after we discuss all the changes. At that time, the Commission will make a recommendation to City Council who will make the final decision. The next meeting is a Special Use Permit for a 2,000 square foot accessory structure in the Residential Zone.

Commissioner Gentry requested an outlook appointment for each meeting.

ADJOURNMENT: The motion to adjourn was made by Chairman Ross. The meeting adjourned at 7:26PM.

7