7
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING COUNCIL CHAMBERS JANUARY 13, 2015 12:00 P.M. CALL TO ORDER: ROLL CALL: Jordan, Bowlby, Ingalls, Luttropp, Messina, Ward, O’Brien (Student Rep.) Cousins (Alt. Student Rep. O’Brien) STAFF COMMENTS: Pocket Housing Hilary Anderson, Community Planning Director ADMINISTRATIVE: 1. Applicant: Dennis Cunningham Request: Interpretation of approved Planned Unit Development setbacks for the “Circuit at Seltice” and “Riviera Walk” ADMINISTRATIVE (I-1-15) ADJOURNMENT/CONTINUATION: Motion by , seconded by , to continue meeting to , , at p.m.; motion carried unanimously. THE PLANNING COMMISSION’S VISION OF ITS ROLE IN THE COMMUNITY The Planning Commission sees its role as the preparation and implementation of the Comprehensive Plan through which the Commission seeks to promote orderly growth, preserve the quality of Coeur d’Alene, protect the environment, promote economic prosperity and foster the safety of its residents.

PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING COUNCIL CHAMBERS JANUARY … · PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING COUNCIL CHAMBERS JANUARY 13, 2015 12:00 P.M. CALL TO ORDER: ... ADMINISTRATIVE: 1. Applicant:

Embed Size (px)

Citation preview

Page 1: PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING COUNCIL CHAMBERS JANUARY … · PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING COUNCIL CHAMBERS JANUARY 13, 2015 12:00 P.M. CALL TO ORDER: ... ADMINISTRATIVE: 1. Applicant:

PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING

COUNCIL CHAMBERS

JANUARY 13, 2015

12:00 P.M. CALL TO ORDER:

ROLL CALL: Jordan, Bowlby, Ingalls, Luttropp, Messina, Ward, O’Brien (Student Rep.) Cousins (Alt. Student Rep. O’Brien)

STAFF COMMENTS:

Pocket Housing – Hilary Anderson, Community Planning Director

ADMINISTRATIVE:

1. Applicant: Dennis Cunningham Request: Interpretation of approved Planned Unit Development setbacks for the “Circuit at Seltice” and “Riviera Walk” ADMINISTRATIVE (I-1-15)

ADJOURNMENT/CONTINUATION: Motion by , seconded by , to continue meeting to , , at p.m.; motion carried unanimously.

THE PLANNING COMMISSION’S VISION OF ITS ROLE IN THE COMMUNITY

The Planning Commission sees its role as the preparation and implementation of the

Comprehensive Plan through which the Commission seeks to promote orderly growth,

preserve the quality of Coeur d’Alene, protect the environment, promote economic

prosperity and foster the safety of its residents.

Page 2: PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING COUNCIL CHAMBERS JANUARY … · PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING COUNCIL CHAMBERS JANUARY 13, 2015 12:00 P.M. CALL TO ORDER: ... ADMINISTRATIVE: 1. Applicant:

PUBLIC HEARING - AA-1-14 - Administrative Appeal – Interpretation of

Municipal Code Section 17.07.1020(B) (1) – Pocket Housing access from alleyway by

Miller Stauffer Properties, Inc.

STAFF REPORT: Mr. Wilson explained that this is the type of item we do not see

often. The Municipal Code allows for the appeal of an interpretation of city code. This

appeal stems from a literal reading of the alley access requirements for pocket housing.

The code states that if there is an alley then parking access should come from the alley,

with the intent to make parking as unobtrusive as possible. This specific development

has street frontage on a public street and lots abutting an alley. He informed the Council

that it has the ability to interpret the wording and intent behind the code.

PUBLIC COMMENTS: Mayor Widmyer called for public comments.

Dick Stauffer, Coeur d’Alene, stated that he represents the applicant and believes that this

is a new Ordinance that can be applied differently and that this type of development (with

access off of both the alley and the street) was not anticipated when the Ordinance was

created. The purpose behind pocket housing is to create more efficient use of land, and to

stimulate new housing compatible with surrounding development. He clarified that the

current use of the land is a parking lot and that all other design standards and

requirements are being met by the development. The developer is proposing to use north

south lots in an east west alignment. He believes it is a good infill development.

Mayor Widmyer closed public comments.

MOTION: Motion by McEvers, seconded by Edinger to approve the administrative

appeal AA-1-14.

DISCUSSION: Councilmember McEvers asked for examples of other pocket housing

developments that have worked with the alley access parking. Mr. Wilson explained that

all of the developments are a bit different and some had alley access and some did not.

He clarified that the proposed product makes sense but the code does not currently allow

for it to access parking off of the street. Mr. Wilson further explained that if the Council

thinks this type of access meets the intent of the code he would recommend the planning

staff come forward with a code amendment. It could be deemed that the intent of the

code was that alley access be required for parking abutting the alley. Councilmember

Adams asked if the appeal were denied would the developer need to rotate the

development. Mr. Stauffer stated that the proposed development is the right way to go

for the location and that if it were denied they would have to look at the entire

development.

Mr. Wilson clarified that there is existing code language regarding design review

requirements that allows for design departures that could be used for a similar process in

the pocket housing code. Councilmember McEvers stated that the term thoughtful

development applies to this development and pocket housing should have some

flexibility.

Page 3: PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING COUNCIL CHAMBERS JANUARY … · PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING COUNCIL CHAMBERS JANUARY 13, 2015 12:00 P.M. CALL TO ORDER: ... ADMINISTRATIVE: 1. Applicant:

ROLL CALL: McEvers Aye; Miller Aye, Gookin Aye; Evans Aye; Edinger Aye;

Adams Aye.

Motion carried.

Page 4: PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING COUNCIL CHAMBERS JANUARY … · PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING COUNCIL CHAMBERS JANUARY 13, 2015 12:00 P.M. CALL TO ORDER: ... ADMINISTRATIVE: 1. Applicant:

I-1-15 JANUARY 13, 2015 Page 1 of 2

MEMORANDUM DATE: JANUARY 13, 2015 (12:00 PM)

TO: PLANNING COMMISSION

FROM: PLANNING DEPARTMENT

RE: I-1-15 INTERPRETATION OF: PUD-1-14 “The Circuit” (Front Yard Setback) PUD-2-14 “Riviera Walk” (Front Yard Setback & Extensions into Easements) - Formerly known as “Revel at Riverstone”

DECISION POINT: Determine whether the approval of the two PUD requests listed above defined the setbacks requested by the applicant consistent with the Planning Commission’s approval.

HISTORY:

On February 11, 2014 the Coeur d’Alene Planning Commission held a public hearing for a PUD known as “The Circuit” which was approved with conditions by a 3 to 0 vote. The Circuit PUD allowed for a 39-lot development with modifications to setbacks, lot size/frontage, street widths, driveways, and a gated entryway. On March 11, 2014, the Coeur d’Alene Planning Commission held a public hearing for a PUD known as “The Revel at Riverstone” at the time of hearing, which is now known as “Riviera Walk”, approved with conditions by a 3 to 2 vote. The Revel at Riverstone PUD allowed for a 24-lot development, with modifications to setbacks, lot size/frontage, street widths, driveways, and a gated entryway.

REQUEST FOR INTERPRETATION:

NOTE: Please see the interpretation request letter attached from the applicant. Both PUD narrative requests asked for front yard setbacks of ten feet (10’) to “The face of the porch” with a summary of deviations requested, below, asking for a ten foot (10’) front yard setback. The Legal Department for the city determined that the discrepancy between the two would require an interpretation by Planning Commission to determine what the front yard setback should be. The applicant has requested that Planning Commission review this interpretation for the following:

FOR BOTH PUD’s (CIRCUIT AT SELTICE & RIVIERA WALK): Determine whether the provisions of Planning Commission’s approval for both Riviera Walk and Circuit at Seltice allowed for front yard setbacks of ten feet (10’).

In addition to the front yard setback interpretation above, the Riviera Walk PUD asked for a “maintenance easement” allowing for a property owner to maintain the side of their home which could be built at zero lot line (0’ side yard). While staff was reviewing the first building permit for Riviera Walk, we noticed that there appeared to be an eave

Page 5: PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING COUNCIL CHAMBERS JANUARY … · PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING COUNCIL CHAMBERS JANUARY 13, 2015 12:00 P.M. CALL TO ORDER: ... ADMINISTRATIVE: 1. Applicant:

I-1-15 JANUARY 13, 2015 Page 2 of 2

extension (approximately 18”) into the 5’ side yard maintenance easement. Since the PUD request did not define any extensions allowed into the maintenance easement, staff was left with not approving the building permit as submitted, leaving the developer to a redesign of the home on the maintenance easement side. While the CC&R’s for Riviera Walk define the extensions allowed into the maintenance easement, the city does not enforce CC&R’s, and must rely solely on PUD approval and final plat.

FOR RIVIERA WALK PUD ONLY: Determine whether the provisions of Planning Commission’s approval for the Riviera Walk PUD would allow extensions into the approved 5’ maintenance easement, consistent with city code 17.06.495 (Defined under CODE ANALYSIS below).

CODE ANALYSIS:

FOR RIVIERA WALK PUD ONLY: This portion of the applicant’s interpretation request seeks to allow extensions into the maintenance easement as allowed in any required side yard (sans easement). Below is the code that allows specific extensions into side yard setbacks.

17.06.495: EXTENSIONS INTO REQUIRED YARDS: B. Extensions Into Side Yards: When any side yard is required,

no building shall be hereafter erected nor shall any addition be made to an existing building that projects into the minimum required side yard, subject to the following exceptions:

1. Eaves, cornices, belt courses, private noncommercial greenhouses, and similar ornamentation may extend into a side yard for a distance of not more than two feet (2').

2. Platforms, terraces, and steps, not over forty two inches (42") in height may be extended into a side yard not more than two feet (2').

3. Chimneys may extend into a side yard a distance of not more than twenty four inches (24").

4. Structures completely below natural grade may extend into the side yard not more than one-half (1/2) the distance of the normal requirement.

PERFORMANCE ANALYSIS:

Legal and planning staff has determined that the Planning Commission may interpret if the request is consistent with the original approvals.

DECISION POINT RECOMMENDATION:

FOR BOTH PUD’s (CIRCUIT AT SELTICE & RIVIERA WALK): Determine whether the provisions of Planning Commission’s approvals for both Riviera Walk and Circuit at Seltice allowed for front yard setbacks of 10’.

FOR RIVIERA WALK PUD ONLY: Determine whether the provisions of Planning Commission’s approval for the Riviera Walk PUD would allow extensions into the approved maintenance easement, consistent with city code 17.06.495 (Defined above).

Page 6: PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING COUNCIL CHAMBERS JANUARY … · PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING COUNCIL CHAMBERS JANUARY 13, 2015 12:00 P.M. CALL TO ORDER: ... ADMINISTRATIVE: 1. Applicant:

planning | landscape architecture

Memo

To: City of Coeur d’Alene Planning Commissioners

Hilary Anderson, Community Planning Director

Sean Holm, Planner

From: Sandy Young

President/Principal Land Use Planner

Date: December 22, 2014

Re: Active West Development; Setback Clarification for

The Circuit at Seltice and Riviera Walk Subdivision/Planned Unit Development

On February 11, 2014, the Planning Commission granted approval of The Circuit at Seltice

Subdivision and Planned Unit Development, S-2-14 and PUD-1-14.

The intent of this PUD request was to reduce the City’s minimum setback requirements from:

Front Yard Requirement – a reduction from 20 feet from the front property line to a

minimum of 10 feet to the front of the structure. Garages were proposed to meet the

standard 20 foot setback from the structure to the property line.

Rear Yard Requirement – a reduction from 25 feet from the rear property line to a

minimum of 10 feet to the rear of the structure.

Side Yard Requirement – a reduction from 10 feet on one side and 5 feet on the other

side to a minimum of 5 feet on one side and a minimum of 0 feet on the other side, as

measured from property line to the sides of the structure. Within each 5 foot setback

a maintenance easement for the adjoining lot (to serve the 0 foot setback side on that

lot) has been recorded on the plat. It is the intent of the PUD request that eaves,

cornices, chimneys, landscaping improvements and patios may encroach into the

maintenance easement.

311 e. coeur d’alene avenue p. o. box 580

coeur d' alene, idaho 83816 tel.208.667.1214 fax.208 765.2516

www.verdisnw.com

Page 7: PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING COUNCIL CHAMBERS JANUARY … · PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING COUNCIL CHAMBERS JANUARY 13, 2015 12:00 P.M. CALL TO ORDER: ... ADMINISTRATIVE: 1. Applicant:

planning | landscape architecture

In addition to property line setback reductions the request included flexibility in lot size from:

5500 square feet to a minimum lot size of 2880 square feet.

And a reduction in the minimum lot frontage requirement from 50 feet to a minimum

of 40 feet.

A month later, on March 11, 2014, the Planning Commission granted approval of Riviera Walk

Subdivision and Planned Unit Development, S-4-14 and PUD-2-14.

The intent of this PUD request was to reduce the City’s minimum setback requirements from:

Front Yard Requirement – a reduction from 20 feet from the front property line to a

minimum of 10 feet to the front of the structure. Garages were proposed to meet the

standard 20 foot setback from the structure to the property line.

Rear Yard Requirement – a reduction from 25 feet from the rear property line to a

minimum of 10 feet to the rear of the structure.

Side Yard Requirement – a reduction from 10 feet on one side and 5 feet on the other

side to a minimum of 5 feet on one side and a minimum of 0 feet on the other side, as

measured from property line to the sides of the structure. Within each 5 foot setback

a maintenance easement for the adjoining lot (to serve the 0 foot setback side on that

lot) has been recorded on the plat. It is the intent of the PUD request that eaves may

encroach into the maintenance easement.

In addition to property line setback reductions the request included flexibility in lot size from:

5500 square feet to a minimum lot size of 3600 square feet.

And a reduction in the minimum lot frontage requirement from 50 feet to a minimum

of 40 feet.

The purpose of this memo is to more clearly define the original requested setback, lot size and

frontage variations.

Thank you for your consideration.