Planning Minutes 07/02/2002
.
CITY OF AMMON
PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
July 2, 2002
Minutes of the Public Hearing and Regular Meeting of the Planning and Zoning
Commission:
The meeting was called to order by Chairman Tom Hunsaker at 6:30 p.m. in the
City Building, 2135 South Ammon Road, Ammon, Idaho.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Tom Hunsaker, Chairman
Maxine Hardy, Vice Chairman
Ron Folsom
Elaine McGary
Kevin Murray
Greg Maeser
MEMBERS ABSENT
Cindy Donovan
Dick Bybee
Doug Willden
.
OTHERS PRESENT
Randy Waite, City Councilmember
David Wadsworth, Public Works Director
Bill Manwill, Engineer
Aleen Jensen, City Clerk
Greg Maeser led the Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag.
The first item of business was to review the minutes of the Planning and
Zoning Commission meeting held April 2, 2002. Chairman Tom Hunsaker
pointed out some problems. On Page 2, Paragraph 2 regarding Sheldon Dance's
site plan for proposed apartments, the minutes state the apartments are to be
located behind Rex's. The actual location is behind K-Mart. The number of
required parking spaces calculated should be 23 spaces instead of 22 spaces.
On Page 2, Paragraph 3 regarding Steve Pulley's site plan, the minutes were
confusing. It was recommended to delete the sentence, "The School District to
the west may have Owen Street go through to Hillcrest High School and Sand
Creek Middle SchooL" On Page 2, Paragraph 4 the last sentence should be
corrected to read, "There were discussions on setback requirements - side yard,
front yard, and rear yard: Ron Folsom moved to approve the minutes of April 2,
2002, as amended. Elaine McGary seconded the motion. Voting was all in
favor. The motion carried.
Chairman Hunsaker opened the Public Hearing to consider repeal and
. amendment of a portion of Title 10 of the Codified Ordinances of the City of
.
Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting, July 2, 2002 - Page 2
Ammon 10-5-23 Required Parking and Loading Areas and addition of a new
section 10-29-13 Site Plan Review. Notice of the Hearing was published in two
issues of the Post Register. There was no one present to provide public
testimony. Chairman Hunsaker closed the Public Hearing and opened the
meeting for Commission review and discussion of the proposed changes and
additions.
.
Ron Folsom said that the issue of how we calculate parking, whether we
calculated it on square footage plus employees or not, is going to come up at the
City Council level. Before it does, he wanted to discuss it to make sure the
Commission is all in agreement. He prepared a chart to compare the
requirements for Idaho Falls, Rexburg, Chubbuck, and Pocatello with Ammon's
requirements. In addition, he considered information obtained from the American
Planning Association Planning Advisory Service Report No. 432. In most cases
when they are using square footage plus employee parking they are using it in a
service industry rather than for retail. Probably the reason for not using square
footage plus employee parking is because, when a building permit is issued for a
new building, the permit is for a building that will be leased. The occupancy of the
building is not always known. In putting together the proposed requirements, the
plus employee kept coming up so the requirements specify either or. For
example, it reads one space for every 200 square feet or one space for every
employee which ever is greater. On a building permit issue, the Commission
would not be able to calculate parking on a plus employee. On a business use
issue, it would be different.
Kevin Murray agreed that it would be difficult to calculate on an employee plus
situation. Most times developers want to develop to provide for resale. It is the
businessman that suffers if there is not enough parking.
Chairman Hunsaker thought maybe we should not add the option based on
employees because the numbers should include employees plus customers with
a few exceptions. Ron Folsom added that nothing is going to be perfect. When
you look at the problems other cities have, most of the problems have come with
changes in uses. There is one other thing that other cities do that we do not do.
They let a business count the drive through, however many cars as they can
stack, as parking. Out of the five cities compared, Chubbuck probably has more
strict parking requirements than any other city. On retail they are the same as
Ammon. Chubbuck reported that when they had a problem they fixed it so they
would not have a similar problem any more. In any ordinance it says, if there is a
problem, we can make them do something about it.
.
One change in the residential parking is to change it to require two parking
spaces instead of one.
. Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting, July 2, 2002 - Page 3
There was a discussion regarding Sheldon Dance's plans to build apartments
behind Kmart. His plans have not been approved and a building permit has not
been issued yet. One area of concern about that particular development was
that all of the parking was provided in garages. When Mr. Dance was asked
where a visitor would park, he replied "In the street." This is a problem with multi-
family units. Kevin Murray recommended considering that a garage counts as
only half as much parking. For example, a two-car garage would count as only
one parking space and a one-car garage would only count as one-half parking
space. The City is going to get more and more pressure from the multi-family
units regarding parking. Retail establishments are not going to get customers if
there is no parking, but developers will stuff people in residential complexes.
City of Idaho Falls bases all their commercial development parking requirements
on square footage of the building. They take nothing else into consideration.
Every use has a different square footage. In almost every case, City of Ammon
requires more parking spaces than City of Idaho Falls. There was a discussion
on commercial parking requirements.
.
Kevin Murray commented on parking requirements for hotels/motels. It was
noted that in the information packet the requirement is one parking space per
sleeping room. On busy weekends there is no overage for desk clerks and
various other employees including cleaning help. It may be good to have one
parking space per sleeping room plus some spaces for employees. The
reference, which Kevin commented on, is Rexburg's requirement. City of
Ammon parking requirement for hotels/motels specifies one parking space per
sleeping room plus one parking space per employee on the largest shift.
Hotels/motels are service related.
There was a review of the draft only copy of the proposed changes as
advertised. Chairman Hunsaker recommended a change in 10-5-23, Required
Parking and Loading Areas. On Page 1, 10-5-23 (A), the last line of the
introductory paragraph should read, "may reduce or eliminate the requirements
for off-street parking under any of the following conditions." There was no
change to the remainder of the section.
City of Rexburg has a separate parking requirement for higher density residential
housing. It states single-family residential is two spaces per unit. Multi-family
residential is 2 spaces per unit and they consider multi-family is like a 2 unit town
house. They have two other multi-family designations. For a one-bedroom
apartment they require 1% parking spaces. For a two-bedroom apartment they
require 2 parking spaces and for a three-bedroom apartment they require 2 %
parking spaces. The Commission liked the requirements for Rexburg. On Page
. 2, it was recommended to change 10-5-23 (D) 1 (a) and there was a discussion
.
Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting, July 2, 2002 - Page 4
on how to change. Ron noted on the draft copy "Change to Rexburg" and he
agreed to draft a wording change to fax to the Commission members.
Page 3, Paragraph xii should read "Drive-ins (involving no inside seating): One
(1) space for each thirty-five (35) square feet of building floor area, plus one
space for each employee on the largest shift."
Page 4, Paragraph 5 (a) v. Public or private elementary and junior high schools:
change to read, "Ten (10) spaces, plus one (1) space for each full time
equivalent employee."
Page 5, Paragraph E 2 change corporation to "legal entity." Line 2 should read,
"serve, or is possessed by a legal entity established for the purpose of providing"
and line 6 should read, "in the office of the County Recorder, or by a certificate
from the legal entity."
ADA mandates handicapped parking. Parking for mobile home parks is
addressed separately. The sections on Combined Parking Facilities, Mixed
Uses, Size of Parking Spaces, Access to Parking Facilities, Other Access
Requirements, and Circulation within a Parking Area were reviewed.
.
Chairman Hunsaker called for a discussion of Page 7, (M) 1 Location of Parking
Facilities Restricted in Residential Zones, to make sure everyone interprets this
the same. Regarding "parking shall not be permitted in the required front yard or
the required side yard that faces on a street", he wanted to make sure that we
are not saying you can not park in the driveway in front. We are going to allow
parking in the driveway and count it as parking, but when you read (M) 1 it
seemed to say we are not going to allow parking in the front yard. A discussion
followed. It was decided to change (M) 1 to read, "In Residential Zones, the
parking required by section 10-5-23 (D) 1(b) shall not be permitted in the front
yard or the required side yard that faces on a street. Parking may be permitted in
other required side and rear yards in the residential zones, providing all other
requirements of this ordinance are met."
On Page 5 (F), Computation of Required Parking Space, it was agreed to move
No. 5 to No. 6 and to add a new No.5. No. 5 should read, "When calculating
parking for a building containing three (3) or more attached dwelling units the
garage shall be used as one-half (1/2) of a parking space per garage stall." In (I)
where it states the space shall be ten (10) feet by twenty (20) feet that shall also
apply to garage stalls.
.
Greg Maeser moved to recommend to the City Council that they adopt the
changes the Planning and Zoning Commission have discussed and
recommended for portions of Title 10 of the Codified Ordinances of the City of
.
Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting, July 2, 2002 - Page 5
Ammon regarding required parking and loading areas (10-5-23) and site plan
review (10-29-13). Kevin Murray seconded the motion. Voting was all in favor.
The motion carried.
The next item of business was the Final Plat of Cottonwood Hills Estates. Alan
Cunningham of Mountain River Engineering presented a vicinity map and
explained the final plat. The road shown on the approved preliminary plat was
shifted five to ten feet on the final plat so the road stubbed out to the north would
make a clean jog. The Commission members reviewed the details of the plat.
Engineer Bill Manwill provided input on East 21s1 Street and Crowley Road. Kevin
Murray moved to recommend approval of the Final Plat of Cottonwood Hills
Estates as presented as long as they work out the entrance on Crowley Road to
meet the specifications of Bonneville County Road and Bridge. Greg Maeser
seconded the motion. Voting was all in favor. The motion carried.
.
Councilmember Waite reported on City Council actions. The Council has been
working with a parking violation problem in the Briarwood addition. The water and
well~issue concerning The Cottages and Quail Ridge is still unresolved. We
will continue to issue building permits in these subdivisions until July 11. After
that date, issuance of building permits will be contingent upon receipt of an
acceptable performance bond or escrow agreement. The finish date for the well
has been pushed back until September 1. The City Council acting as the Board
of Adjustment granted the sideyard variance for 2705 Sawtooth. Teri Johnston
has been allowed to keep her home occupation permit. The City Council has
scheduled July 25 for a discussion on the changes to Title 10. The Wal-Mart
building permit has been issued.
Ron Folsom reported on the meeting of the City of Idaho Falls Planning and
Zoning Commission held June 4, 2002. Kevin Murray reported on the meeting of
the Bonneville County Planning and Zoning Commission held June 26, 2002.
.
Ron Folsom reported that he went to the Association of Idaho Cities Conference
in Pocatello. He attended several of the workshops, but the main one was on
annexations and the new annexation law that went in to effect on July I, 2002.
Overall the new law makes it easier for a city to annex, but we have to be more
organized. The procedure outlines a number of steps. One of the things learned
was regarding properties that are completed surrounded and are on city services.
When the people hook up to city sewer and water, the State considers that as
intent to annex. There are three types of annexation classifications-Class A,
Class B, and Class C. The Legislature feels that it is important for a city to be
able to annex properties. The new law looks really good, but there is opposition
that will be working to bring it back before the Legislature. The meeting was
adjourned at 8:40 p.m.
Chairman
Minutes recorded by Aleen Jensen
Approved