OPENING Mayor Hellar called the special session of the city council to order at 5:30 p.m. on Monday, December 21, 2009, in the council chambers at City Hall, 1123 Lake.
ROLL CALL Council members Boge, Newton, Snedden, Logan, and Reuter were present. Councilman O’Hara arrived at 5:32 p.m.
Councilman Snedden moved to approve the amended agenda with the addition of the proposed ordinance and summary for Commercial “D” zoning sunset extension. Councilwoman Logan seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously by council present.
A. PUBLIC HEARING – PRELIMINARY AND PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT – REQUEST BY STEVE HARRIS AND GLORIA PETRONI
Mayor Hellar announced the purpose of the public hearing is for a preliminary and planned unit development request by Steve Harris and Gloria Petroni to allow a 21-unit residential development with common space on approximately 5.69 acres in the Residence “A” zone. The site is on the north side of Ontario Street adjacent to and east of Chuck Slough, and west of Northview Drive and the Creekside Estates Subdivision. The site is in the SE ¼ of the SW ¼ of Section 21, Township 57 North, Range 2 W.B.M., Bonner County, Idaho. The Planning Commission recommended approval with conditions. In accordance with Idaho Code, notice of this public hearing has been published in the Bonner County Daily Bee on December 5, 2009.
Senior Planner Joan Bramblee noted the western portion of the project was de-annexed from the City of Dover and annexed into the City of Sandpoint to allow the development in one jurisdiction. She received confirmation from the police chief and public works director that they have no objections to the changes in the staff report. She said city staff made changes to Condition No. 7 based on conversations from the urban forester for council’s consideration. She explained the planned unit development includes 5.69 acres with 4.8 acres less the right-of-way to allow a 21-unit residential development under the Residence “A” zone as a standalone subdivision. She said the planned unit development will allow for a 10% increase based on landscaping, 10% for siting, 10% for design features and an additional 10% if affordable housing is proposed. The applicants have not requested any additional increase of density than would be allowed for a subdivision. She explained to Councilwoman Logan the reason the proposed pedestrian crossing across Chuck Slough was not included in the conditions is because a portion of the bridge would be within the Dover city limits and was a condition for the de-annexation from the City of Dover. She said the bridge will not be constructed on city property or city right-of-way. The applicant will be removing some trees but wants to protect the historic trees including the one near the right-of-way with staff requesting that if there was any construction around the trees, that they show how they will protect the trees. She stated staff would not have any objection to include the requirement of dust control during construction.
Joan Bramblee explained to Councilman Snedden there are numerous properties that extend beyond the high water mark including Mountain Meadows to the north of this proposed subdivision. She said setbacks are determined based on the high water mark rather than the property line adjoining the water bodies which are included in the calculation. She stated the calculation is the total of the area of property less what’s done for the right of way. She said the developer would be taking advantage of the increased planned unit development density allowed by code without the area below the ordinary high water mark. The lot size of adjacent lots would be at least 10,000 square feet. Planning Director Jeremy Grimm added the calculations are applied based on the entire lot where property taxes are paid. Joan Bramblee noted the Planning and Zoning Commission had concern with narrowing the strip between the sidewalk and curb as it would impact the storm water design. The Planning and Zoning Commission didn’t feel they could recommend a dedicated path within the right of way. Public Works Director Kody Van Dyk added that ten feet is recommended.
Lisa Ailport, Land Use Planner of Ruen- Yeager and Associates, representing the applicant, requested a planned unit development versus a subdivision to allow flexibility for clustering homesites and to protect the Chuck Slough with a common open space. She noted the city has not adopted a standard that precludes the applicant from utilizing submerged lands but looked at what Bonner County recently adopted. She said they are looking at density to offset the costs for the infrastructure particularly the crossing on Chuck Slough. She said the goal is to maintain the underlying zoning district as discussed with city staff which allowed them to include the submerged property. She felt the applicants met the code requirements and this issue was addressed with city staff as reflected in the staff report. She requested to vary the exterior setback standards from 25 feet to allow 15 feet setbacks in order to accommodate modest size homes and duplexes. She said a certified forester reviewed the existing trees with some of the trees having a diameter of 30 to 36 inches and are up to 90 years old. They will be sensitive to the trees and try to avoid removing them but will have to remove some of the trees because of the requirements when building a road.
Ms. Ailport referred to goals and policies of the comprehensive plan which makes the project compatible to the plan. She explained to Councilwoman Newton the CC&Rs will address how the open space will be maintained. She said negotiations with adjacent property owners would need to be reached for crossing Chuck Slough.
Eric Olsen, civil engineer for Ruen-Yeager & Associates, said one of the options to cross Chuck Slough would be to install a pedestrian bridge that would be separated to the north on Ontario Street but felt it would be more feasible to widen Ontario Street without acquiring right of way. Councilwoman Newton referred to the traffic concerns of Barbara and Brent Leedle on Ontario Street as the street will not have the ability to support additional traffic from the proposed project. Ms. Ailport replied the road will be wider than required by the transportation plan. Mr. Olsen explained the preliminary construction plans demonstrate improvement of one-half of 34 feet curb to curb on a city road section. He said the reason for tapering the road width is to minimize the impacts of Chuck Slough with a five feet additional roadway for pedestrian crossing to connect to the sidewalk on the north side of Ontario Street. He stated the internal road will be a 30 foot curb to curb roadway with 50 feet right of way with a 90 feet diameter cul-de-sac at the end of the road. He said there would be 8 feet for storm water with the required plantings with grassy swale proposed along the right of way improvements on Ontario Street that will filter the storm water before it goes into natural drainage ways. Within the site, the storm water will be piped to a detention basin where it will filter through the ground that will discharge into Chuck Slough. He stated the location of fire hydrants were approved by the fire chief.
Mr. Olson replied to Councilwoman Logan there were curb cuts on the north side of Ontario to direct street water into the swale with tree plantings in the swales. He said there was no consideration for the use of pavers for the sidewalks because the soil is clay.
Councilwoman Logan pointed out a recent planned unit development utilized the pavers and learned at a workshop there is a potential of using pavers as pervious surface in Sandpoint.
Sean Fitzpatrick of CTA Architects Engineers said the property owner wants to use a mountain contemporary concept. He clarified the project will not be LEED (Leadership, Energy and Environmental Design) certified but will use LEED ideals. He said the homes will be clustered with less pavement. Councilwoman Logan raised concern that the current concept development team may not necessarily be the ones who conduct the project. Sean Fitzpatrick of CTA Architects Engineers responded that the CC&Rs dictate how the architectural portion of the development is built. Gloria Petroni, property owner, assured she would retain the spirit of the project. Mayor Hellar encouraged the developers to talk with a horticulturist so that all variety of trees in the development are considered.
Lisa Ailport assured Councilman Snedden that the common space would be deeded to the homeowner’s association. City Attorney Will Herrington explained the homeowner’s association would pay property taxes. Ms. Ailport said the City of Dover did not have a formal agreement with them but are going on their good faith that they will create the crossing across Chuck Slough. She said the current access to the water is through a trail system with an aged dock system with a proposed urban path to the water in the future. She said the dock was not a major feature and that the path would only provide safe access to the water. Mr. Fitzpatrick added there is steep terrain to the water and is unusable for water activity.
Joan Bramblee explained to Councilwoman Logan the open space above the high water mark exceeds the 10% required and believed the project meets the intent and spirit of city code. Lisa Ailport added there are 2.3 acres of dedicated common open space which includes submerged lands and exceeds the minimum requirement. She explained to Councilman O’Hara there will a minimum separation of ten feet between each building site. She explained “upland” is the area above the high water mark but was not defined as unusable. Eric Olsen stated the Public Works Director was content with the narrowing of the road width.
Councilwoman Newton raised concern the development won’t allow personal landscaping design from homeowners. Ms. Ailport replied they are currently dealing with this matter with an attorney. She said the homeowners would have flexibility depending on the CC&Rs and that people can travel through this area on the sidewalks. Joan Bramblee clarified to Councilwoman Logan that the request is for a final planned unit development and not preliminary as the Planning and Zoning Commission has jurisdiction in granting a preliminary planned unit development.
Planning Director Jeremy Grimm explained to Councilwoman Logan CC&Rs are developed based on the feedback and restrictions made during the process. Lisa Ailport added an attorney is drafting the CC&Rs that should be favorable with the conditions approved tonight. Mr. Grimm stated there were options to consider such as restrictions on irrigation for open spaces, a fence to be installed along Ontario to provide privacy and blocking interactions between homes with consideration of fence heights and that the average accumulative square footage from the entire planned unit development does not exceed 45,000 square feet or no home is to be greater than 2,500 square feet.
The mayor advised that the hearing would be conducted in compliance with the following rules of procedure: Before persons testify at public hearings, they are to fill out the sign up sheet available at the front of council chambers and hand deliver to staff. If you desire, you may note your objection or approval on the form provided; if you wish to comment during the public hearing, please come to the microphone and state your name and residence address for the record; if you do not wish to comment but have written comment that reflects your opposition or support, please provide to the city clerk and she can read your letter into the record; please limit your comments to no more than three minutes; testimony shall directly address the subject at hand and shall not be personally derogatory nor shall it be personally directed at any individual, organization or business; members of the council may ask questions of persons who testify. If they do so, it will be only for the purpose of clarifying information; once the public hearing portion of this meeting is closed, there will be no further opportunity for public input on the proposal; the council will then discuss among themselves the testimony they have heard and what, if anything, they may propose as a result of this hearing; those testifying should clearly indicate their name and address for the clerk.
The mayor opened the public hearing to accept testimony.
Mistie Kinney, 409 Creekside Lane, requested restrictions on vacation rental homes and asked if the current dock would be expanded for use by the homeowners. She raised concern with wildlife access to the slough and storm water drainage. She also was concerned that fertilizer used for the grass planted along the slough would seep into the slough. She requested that the natural vegetation along the slough be retained and the current trees be maintained for birds. She asked if there would be restrictions on motorized boats on the slough and if the CC&Rs would include restriction of firearms and hunting. She requested there be a limitation of recreational vehicles along the water. She noted that as an adjacent property owner her husband and she were not asked to participate concerning the sidewalk and bridge across the slough and didn’t know whether she and her husband would participate.
Mayor Hellar closed the public hearing.
Planning Director Jeremy Grimm noted that it is required that the entire project be submitted for site plan review with the road improvements prior to the completion of the planned unit development and could be added as a condition. He pointed out vacation rentals are not allowed in a Residence “A” zone. Councilwoman Newton raised concern with limited common space area and that it would preclude allowing homeowners to install a fence. She suggested there be a condition that there not be a limited common area surrounding the homes. City Attorney Will Herrington explained the property owner has an option of making a private unrestricted area of the building footprint or making it slightly larger to encompass a small outdoor area for a private area such as a patio. He said signage could require people to stay on the pedestrian path. He stated the property owner would only purchase space where the home is built. Jeremy Grimm referred to the staff report that reflected that no individual lots are proposed. Councilman O’Hara pointed out there is some design security because there will be designated building pads for the individual units.
Councilwoman Logan moved to table this matter until the regular city council meeting in January as she had ten conditions to add. Councilwoman Newton seconded the motion. Mayor Hellar mentioned this matter would be handled by the new council at the January 20th council meeting. Councilman Reuter asked for point of information. City Attorney Will Herrington said the expectation was that the new council members would need to review this matter in order to become familiar with the issue so they can legally participate when this matter is on the agenda. Both Council members Logan and Newton asked why this matter wouldn’t be under Old Business on the January 20, 2010, agenda. Mr. Herrington explained that the newly elected officials are sworn in at the beginning of the first meeting in January and have responsibility for decisions after they are sworn in. Councilwoman Logan withdrew her motion.
Councilman Snedden commented that he disliked cul-de-sacs and suggested there be two points of connectivity for vehicle transportation. He raised concern with the lack of pedestrian connectivity and suggested there be connections to the north or to the east.
Councilman Snedden moved that the Sandpoint City Council, after consideration of the criteria and relevant standards of Idaho Code and Sandpoint City Code, APPROVE the request by Steve Harris and Gloria Petroni for final Planned Unit Development approval to allow a 21-unit residential development with common open space on approximately 5.69 acres in the Residence “A” zone, subject to the conditions as recommended by Staff and the Planning Commission.
The reasons for this recommendation area;
1. Staff has followed the notice procedures applicable to planned unit developments in Sandpoint City Code Title 9 Chapter 9.
2. The application meets the zoning and planned unit development requirements of City Code.
3. The proposed planned unit development is in keeping with the goals and policies of the City’s Comprehensive Plan.
Councilman Reuter seconded the motion.
Councilman Snedden moved to amend to add condition No. 34 that no fence will be installed along Ontario Street. Councilman Reuter seconded the motion. The motion passed by a majority of council with Councilwoman Newton dissenting.
Councilman Reuter moved to amend to add a condition that the units along Ontario Street be required to have pedestrian connection to the sidewalk. Councilwoman Logan seconded the motion. The motion passed by a majority of council with Council members Newton and Snedden dissenting.
Councilwoman Logan moved to amend to add a condition that the CC&Rs include the building design elements included in the December 21, 2009, presentation to city council. Councilman O’Hara seconded the motion for discussion. Will Herrington explained that staff traditionally reviews CC&Rs to insure that it requires the homeowner’s association to maintain the improvements and make sure the drainage system is protected. He preferred there be a condition that the design of the buildings in the development is consistent with what was presented but the designs won’t necessarily be included in the CC&Rs.
Councilwoman Logan modified the motion to amend that the building design be consistent with what was presented at the December 21, 2009, special city council meeting. Councilman O’Hara seconded the motion. The motion passed by a majority of council with Councilman Snedden dissenting.
Councilwoman Newton moved to amend to add a condition that trees in the open common area be retained. Councilwoman Logan seconded the motion. Councilman Boge commented that sometimes it was necessary to remove trees so that it doesn’t inhibit growth for other trees. Councilman O’Hara stated it could impact the infrastructure of the project such as the swales and storm water management. Councilwoman Newton commented an alternative would be to conduct a study by an expert to show what trees are used by the birds but could add expense and delay for the project. Jeremy Grimm feared it would set precedenton future development because people are fearful that the trees could be an impediment to the development. He suggested there be a definition of a 20 to 30 feet buffer from the high water mark that the applicant is required to maintain. Ms. Bramblee noted Bonner County uses a 40 feet setback from the water. Councilman Reuter raised concern this would be the best forestry practice and that it could decrease property value. Councilman Snedden pointed out the applicant’s proposal addresses tree concerns as sidewalks are curved around trees in order to retain the trees. The motion failed with Council members Boge, Snedden, O’Hara and Reuter dissenting.
Councilwoman Logan moved to amend that the trees above the 40 foot high water mark be retained. Councilwoman Newton seconded the motion. The motion failed with Council members Boge, Snedden, O’Hara and Reuter dissenting. Will Herrington advised that the city can’t set precedent on whether motorized recreational vehicles are allowed as only the state has jurisdiction on waterways but that firearms can’t be fired within the city. He stated there are no restrictions for recreational vehicles but it could be a developer restriction. He stated there should be restrictions on recreational vehicle use in order to prevent erosion along the shoreline. He hesitated to encourage council to make rules that staff would have difficulty enforcing. He stated the city could pass a general regulation prohibiting the use of fertilizer but hesitated to apply it to property owners in the city. He advised city council that they shouldn’t deny a project because they didn’t like an element of the CC&Rs. Councilwoman Newton commented there were several references in the staff report that the development was consistent with the “charm and character” of Sandpoint. She stressed the proposal was not consistent with the “charm and character” of Sandpoint.
Councilman Snedden moved to amend to add a condition that any enlargement of the building footprints or change in building locations as depicted on the applicant’s constructive plans dated September 24, 2009, constitutes a material change. Councilwoman Logan seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously by council.
Councilman Snedden moved to amend to add a condition that the CC&Rs address in a manner as applicant sees fit for boats, firearms, riparian protection and the urban forest in the common area. Councilwoman Logan seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously by council.
Councilwoman Logan moved to amend to add a condition that before final planned unit development approval, the CC&Rs be submitted for approval by city council. Councilman Reuter seconded the motion. The motion passed by a majority of council with Councilman Snedden dissenting. Joan Bramblee reported that as part of the conditions, the developer is required to come back with a site plan review for the development and condominium plat with the city planning department and city attorney reviewing the covenants.
Councilwoman Logan moved to amend to add a condition that the final site plan review be reviewed by city council. Councilwoman Newton seconded the motion for purposes of discussion. Will Herrington said city council can require review of the CC&Rs but as long as they are consistent with what the developer has presented, council will not have the power to withhold approval of the project. Joan Bramblee said the site plan review requires the developer to submit detailed plans for building locations, building materials, building elevations and coverage and are reviewed by the public works department, fire chief, police chief and planning director. The motion failed with Council members Boge, Snedden, O’Hara, Reuter and Newton dissenting.
Councilwoman Logan moved to amend to delete the last sentence under Condition No. 1 “The Planning Commission may choose which of these 10 recommendations should be incorporated”. Councilwoman Newton seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously by council.
Councilwoman Logan moved to amend that Condition No. 7 read “The Developer shall be required to plant or retain a minimum of one tree every 25 feet within the planting strip between the sidewalk and street curb. The City Planning Department shall approve the type of tree used based on the recommendation of the Tree Committee. Trees must have a minimum of 1½-inch caliper at breast height when planted. A tree planting drawing will be required to identify the specific species proposed for each planting spot. An on-site inspection of the planting areas by the City’s Urban Forester will occur before approval of the street tree plan.” Councilwoman Newton seconded the motion. Councilman Snedden raised concern this would step over the line as to what a property owner could put on their own property. Councilman Boge felt the applicant is demonstrating their desire to preserve the trees which was adequate. Councilwoman Newton pointed out this pertained to trees on the planting strip which would be new trees along a new street. The motion failed with Council members Boge, Snedden, O’Hara and Reuter dissenting.
Councilwoman Logan moved to amend that Condition No. 7 as recommended by staff be in its entirety and omit the recommendation by the Planning Commission. Councilman Reuter seconded the motion. The motion passed by a majority of council with Council members Boge and Snedden dissenting.
Councilwoman Logan moved to amend to add a condition that the road improvements on Ontario Street be completed at the start or prior to the start of construction. Councilwoman Newton seconded the motion. Councilman Boge raised concern that road construction is expensive and suggested that the road improvements be implemented after five units were constructed. Will Herrington explained the city requires that any public improvements that are not completed to be bonded so there would be funds to complete Ontario Street. The motion failed with Council members Boge, Snedden, O’Hara and Reuter dissenting.
Councilwoman Logan moved to amend to add a condition that the properties may not be rented for less than 30 days. Councilwoman Newton seconded the motion. The motion passed by a roll call vote of council with Council members Snedden and O’Hara dissenting.
Joan Bramblee explained to Councilman O’Hara city code allows covered unenclosed front porches to extend further into the front yard setback. Public Works Director Kody Van Dyk pointed out staff originally required sidewalks on both sides but the applicant requested a variance from the Planning Commission so that every home had access to a public sidewalk. Will Herrington explained the CC&Rs affect the city only if it includes the infrastructure such as drainage and maintaining the common area. The city won’t enforce building material requirements in CC&Rs but can place conditions in the development agreement in relation to the public interest where the city can then enforce the conditions put onto the development. Jeremy Grimm stated the developers could either widen Ontario Street by five feet that crosses Chuck Slough with pedestrian connectivity extending the west side of Chuck Slough or they could install a separate pedestrian bridge that would connect to the Kinney property and Ontario Street. He said the developers would purchase the right of way for the pedestrian connectivity with no cost to the Kinneys.
Mayor Hellar left the meeting at 8:30 p.m.
Councilman Snedden moved to amend to add a condition that the applicant be required to provide some pedestrian access across Chuck Slough. Councilman Reuter seconded the motion. Councilman Snedden pointed out the applicant will provide pedestrian access across one-half of the slough but the City of Dover requires the developer to provide access on their side. Councilwoman Newton noted the City of Dover has much greater standards for roads than the City of Sandpoint in terms of costs.
Mayor Hellar returned to the meeting at 8:32 p.m.
The motion passed unanimously by roll call vote of council.
Councilman Reuter applauded the applicant for the proposal of higher density with diversity of homes, their attempts to preserve the natural surrounding areas, equal access to the natural settings, and Ontario Street pedestrian connectivity. He commented that the project complied with the comprehensive plan. Councilman Boge echoed Councilman Reuter’s sentiment and felt it was good use of existing land and appreciated their willingness to preserve the trees. He raised concern with no property lines and didn’t feel the project was family friendly. Councilman O’Hara noted the applicant tried to meet the needs of the Planning and Zoning Commission and council but had concern with the setbacks on Ontario Street.
The motion to approve the request by Steve Harris and Gloria Petroni for final planned unit development subject to the 41 conditions as added passed by a majority roll call vote of council with Councilwoman Newton dissenting.
Planning
1. Any covenants (CC&Rs) or similar declarations, such as a homeowners’ association agreement, shall include City requirements and note that those requirements cannot be changed without approval of the City. Such covenants shall be approved by the City Attorney. The CC&Rs for this project shall incorporate the 10 recommendations made by the Idaho Department of Fish and Game in their letter, dated October 26, 2009. (The Planning Commission may choose which of these 10 recommendations should be incorporated).
2. The developer will properly execute a development agreement to be recorded with the County Recorder. Such agreement shall identify all of the documents, permits, relevant laws, and agreements that constitute or relate to the development currently identified as the Ontario Street Cabins Planned Unit Development.
3. This PUD approval allows a front yard setback on Monticola Court of 20 feet for garages and 5 feet for covered, unenclosed front porches/houses; with the setback for rear terraces to be no less than 6 feet from the south (Ontario Street) property line, 13 feet from the east property line, and 21 feet from the north property line.
4. The Applicants shall be required to proceed through the City’s administrative process for condominium plats prior to recordation of any condominium declarations or documents. Dedication of any rights-of-way may occur in conjunction with the condominium plat or by separate document, but shall be required to occur prior to any improvements to the rights-of-way.
5. According to Sandpoint City Code 10-3-10.L, “All projects receiving a PUD permit, as a condition of said permit, shall be required to submit and receive design review approval for each structure to be constructed within the project in accordance with the approved final development plan and the supplementary conditions attached thereto prior to making application for a building permit irrespective of what zoning district or districts within which the project is located.” This design review shall be accomplished through the site plan review process as set for in Sandpoint City Code 9-1-4.D. Without a phasing schedule, the site plan review will be required for the project as a whole.
6. A landscape plan shall be reviewed and approved prior to any construction on the site. The plan shall include details on how the existing trees, including root systems, are to be protected during the construction process.
7. The Developer shall be required to plant (or retain) a minimum of one tree every 25 feet within the planting strip between the sidewalk and street curb. The City Planning Department shall approve the type of tree used. Trees must have a minimum of 1½-inch caliper at breast height when planted. A tree planting drawing will be required to identify the specific species proposed for each planting spot. An on-site inspection of the planting areas by the City’s Urban Forester will occur before approval of the street tree plan.
Public Works
8. The owner/developer shall attend a planning meeting with affected utilities prior to submittal of construction drawings. The developer’s engineer shall be required to attend the meeting. Utilities will not begin their design until drawings have been approved for this purpose by the Sandpoint Public Works Department.
9. Four copies of infrastructure drawings shall be submitted for review along with applicable fees. When approved, one copy will be returned to the owner and two copies will remain with the City; one copy will be sent to the Department of Environmental Quality. Digital drawings of the subdivision and infrastructure, in AutoCAD “.dwg” format shall be provided the City prior to acceptance of any infrastructure.
10. Each detached living unit is to have separate water and sewer service. Duplexes and attached condominiums may share a single water meter.
11. The sewer lift station is required to meet the City’s specifications, and may need to be relocated to allow surrounding properties the opportunity to connect to the sewer in the future. The design of the system layout is to take surrounding property owners into account. Approval of the pressure portion of the sewer system by the Division of Environmental Quality is required and must occur prior to the City’s approval of the system.
12. An Idaho licensed Civil Engineer shall prepare plans for any water and sewer main extensions. The water and sewer systems will be reviewed by the Public Works Department. Approval of the pressure portion of the sewer system by the Division of Environmental Quality is required and must occur prior to the City’s approval of the system.
13. An engineering review fee of $50 is required prior to review of water and sewer drawings. A $100/lot inspection fee will be required prior to approval of drawings for construction. Extension of the water main will require a deposit of $1000 per hot tap (towards the time and materials for the Public Works Department to perform the work).
14. Hydrants are to be supplied with a 5-inch Storz Adapter on the steamer port and a 72-inch NordicFlex-flag.
15. The Environmental Protection Agency requires a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System stormwater permit / stormwater pollution prevention plan for land disturbances of one acre or more. Possession of permit shall be required prior to approval of grading permit. The required grading permit will include a construction period erosion control plan and show planned methods for keeping tracked mud and dirt off streets.
16. A survey monument, meeting Sandpoint requirements, shall be installed at the intersection of Monticola Court and Ontario Street. The developer shall provide the state plane coordinates of the monument (NAD83).
17. All streets shall be paved with 3-inch asphalt, 4-inch type A3 aggregate, 18-inch Rock Cap (ITD specific), and non-woven road fabric (ITD specific).
18. The streets within this development shall have maximum curb radii of 15 feet. All street cuts shall be backfilled and patched according to city standards. All sidewalks, ramps, and drive aprons shall be constructed to City of Sandpoint standards.
19. Ontario Street is to ultimately be a 60-foot right-of-way and the Applicants will be required to dedicate 5 feet of right-of-way. Improvements required for Ontario Street will include installation of curb and gutter and a 5-foot-wide sidewalk at the edge of the right-of-way. The street is to be reconstructed as depicted in construction plans for Ontario Street Cabins.
20. Monticola Court is allowed a 50-foot right-of-way with a 30-foot curb-face-to-curb-face width. A 5-foot sidewalk will be required along the north side of the right-of-way, with a minimum 5-foot sidewalk connection between the cul-de-sac and Ontario Street as shown on the submitted drawings. An easement will be required where any sidewalk is proposed to extend beyond the right-of-way to preserve existing trees.
21. All drive aprons shall be concrete and sidewalks crossing drive aprons shall not exceed ADA maximum cross slope and slope in the direction of travel.
22. A storm water management plan meeting the requirement of Sandpoint’s Storm water Ordinance is required for the entire subdivision. Drawings shall be stamped by an Idaho licensed professional engineer and calculations shall be included.
23. A construction period erosion control plan shall be approved by the City before any site disturbance, and shall be followed during construction activities.
24. Regulatory and street name signs, mounting hardware and posts shall be purchased and installed by the developer. The Public Works Department shall be contacted for applicable standards prior to purchase of signs.
25. Initial striping of the streets and crosswalks are the responsibility of the developer.
26. Streetlights are required by City Code. All lighting shall be directed downward. All lighting shall be HPS (not MH). The developer shall coordinate with Avista as to whether the standard wood pole and cobra head fixture or decorative lights will be used.
27. A street light, signage, and a striping plan shall be included with the water, sewer, and street plan prior to construction.
Fire Department
28. International Fire Code standards will be applied upon building permit review.
29. One hydrant will be required to be installed at the entrance to the project, and one at the end of the cul-de-sac on Monticola Court. The system will need to be looped from the cul-de-sac to Ontario Street, with a minimum fire flow of 1,500 g.p.m. for 2 hours. A hydrant analysis paid for by the developer will be required.
30. Monticola Court shall be no less than 30 feet curb-to-curb width. “No Parking” signs will be required to be installed every 75 feet on one side of Monticola Court and around the cul-de-sac.
Police Department
31. Addressing for each dwelling constructed within the development shall comply with City Code and shall be posted to be visible from the street by Public Safety agencies.
32. Traffic regulatory signage shall be installed as necessary for the development.
33. After-hours contact information for the condominium homeowners’ association shall be provided to the Police Department.
34. No fence will be installed along Ontario Street.
35. Units along Ontario Street are to have pedestrian connection to the sidewalks.
36. The building design is to be consistent with what was presented at the December 21, 2009, city council meeting.
37. Any enlargement of the building footprints or change in building locations as depicted in the applicant’s construction plans dated September 24, 2009, constitutes a material change.
38. CC&Rs are to address in a manner as applicant sees fit regarding boats, firearms, riparian protection and the urban forest in the common area.
39. Before final planned unit development approval, CC&Rs are to be submitted for approval by city council.
40. The properties may not be rented for less than 30 days.
41. The applicant will provide pedestrian access across Chuck Slough.
Mayor Hellar called for a five minute break at 8:35 p.m. The meeting reconvened at 8:40 p.m.
B-1. PUBLIC HEARING – EXTENSION OF SUNSET CLAUSE ADOPTED WITHIN ORDINANCE NO. 1210
Mayor Hellar announced the purpose of this public hearing was to consider the extension of a sunset clause adopted within Ordinance No. 1210. The provisions within the ordinance are set to expire December 31, 2009. The Planning Commission recommends that the provisions be extended through June 30, 2010. Ordinance No. 1210 revised the provisions of the Commercial “D” zone to require a conditional use permit and sets standards for buildings with a footprint greater than twenty thousand square feet; it requires a Conditional Use Permit for drive-through uses located within 50 feet of a residential zone, and it sets a maximum building height of 35 feet for structures within one hundred feet of residential property. In accordance with Idaho Code, notice of this public hearing has been published in the Bonner County Daily Bee on December 5, 2009.
Planning Director Jeremy Grimm noted Ordinance No. 1210 has an expiration date of December 31, 2009, but the new replacement code was not ready at this time. He said city council could revert to the prior commercial code, could extend Ordinance No. 1210 for a specific period of time or make it a permanent ordinance until it’s replaced with the three commercial zones currently under consideration of the Planning Commission.
The mayor advised that the hearing would be conducted in compliance with the
rules previously read.
The mayor opened the public hearing to accept testimony. No one testified.
Mayor Hellar closed the public hearing.
Councilwoman Logan moved that Sandpoint City Council, after consideration of the criteria and relevant standards of Idaho Code and Sandpoint City Code, APPROVE modification to Ordinance 1210 governing the effective date as it applies to Commercial “D” Code provisions of Sandpoint City Code and set forth in Exhibit 1 with the effective date extended to June 30, 2010. Councilman Snedden seconded the motion.
Councilwoman Newton pointed out the Planning Commission reviewed the first drafts of the ordinances 11 months ago. She didn’t feel there was a reason why the new proposed ordinances shouldn’t have been presented to city council by now. She said she wouldn’t support the extended deadline. City Attorney Will Herrington preferred council extend the sunset clause as suggested by staff. Councilman Boge voiced his disappointment with the direction as he felt it was poor time management. Councilman Reuter felt the reason to expand the ordinance was justified. The motion passed by majority roll call vote of council with Council members Boge and Newton dissenting.
B-2. ORDINANCE NO. 1226 – COMMERCIAL “D” ZONING SUNSET EXTENSION
The city clerk read the proposed ordinance by title only. Councilwoman Logan moved that the proposed ordinance titled “An ordinance of the City of Sandpoint, Bonner County, Idaho, a municipal corporation of the State of Idaho; amending Title 9, Chapter 3, Commercial D Zone, Sandpoint municipal code; requiring a conditional use permit for drive-through uses, establishing the conditional use permit requirement for construction of buildings with greater than a twenty thousand square foot building footprint, establishing maximum height of 35’ feet for structures within 100’ feet of a residential zoning district, establishing section f, site and contextual planning standards governing structures with greater than a twenty thousand square foot building footprint; establishing section g, nonconforming facilities, and providing an exemption from conditional use permit requirement for a single expansion of existing structures having greater than a fifteen thousand square foot building footprint; providing that these provisions shall be deemed severable; providing for publication and an effective date” pass its first reading and, if applicable, the summary be approved. Councilman O’Hara seconded the motion.
A roll call vote of the council resulted as follows:
Councilman Boge No
Councilman O’Hara Yes
Councilwoman Logan Yes
Councilman Reuter Yes
Councilwoman Newton No
Councilman Snedden Yes
The motion passed by a majority of council present, and the proposed ordinance passed its first reading by title only.
Councilwoman Logan moved that the rules requiring three separate readings, once in the ordinance’s entirety, be suspended and that the ordinance pass its second and third reading under the suspension of the rules. Councilman Snedden seconded the motion.
A roll call vote of the council resulted as follows:
Councilman Boge No
Councilman O’Hara Yes
Councilwoman Logan Yes
Councilman Reuter Yes
Councilman Snedden Yes
Councilwoman Newton No
The motion passed by a majority of council and the rules requiring three separate readings, once in the ordinance’s entirety, be suspended and the proposed ordinance passed its second and third reading under suspension of the rules. The ordinance was considered read, passed and adopted. The ordinance is Number 1226.
C. PLANNING COMMISSION APPOINTMENTS
Councilwoman Newton moved for separation of appointments. Councilman Snedden seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously by council.
Councilwoman Logan moved to confirm the appointment of Cate Huisman to the Planning Commission for a three year term expiring January 2013. Councilman Snedden seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously by council.
Councilman Reuter moved to confirm the appointment of Aaron Qualls to the Planning Commission for a three year term expiring January 2013. Councilman O’Hara seconded the motion.
Councilwoman Newton pointed out that on the final report of a financial disclosure document, Aaron Qualls contributed $500.00 to Jamie Davis’ campaign. City Attorney Will Herrington advised that this was not an appropriate reason to not confirm Mr. Quall’s appointment because it discourages people from exercising their right in supporting a political candidate. Councilman Reuter noted the Supreme Court has ruled that contributions are an expression of free speech. Councilwoman Newton added that the potential council in one month will have no one with more than two years experience and a total of nine years of experience in the Planning and Zoning Commission. The motion passed by a majority of council with Council members Boge and Newton dissenting.
D. RESOLUTION NO. 09-78 AMERICANS WITH DISABILITIES ACT (ADA) ACTION PLAN
Councilwoman Logan moved that the proposed resolution “Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) Action Plan” be approved. Councilman Snedden seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously by roll call vote of council.
E. ORDINANCE NO. 1227 – HANDS FREE CELL PHONE USE
Councilman O’Hara moved to reconsider the proposed ordinance for the addition to Title 6, Chapter 1, Section 7 of city code. Councilman Boge seconded the motion. The motion passed by a majority roll call vote of council with Council members Snedden and Reuter dissenting.
Councilman O’Hara commented that at the December 16, 2009, meeting he had a few issues with the proposed amendment to city code Title 6, Chapter 1, Section 7, drafted by Councilwoman Newton, such as enforcement, jurisdiction and scope. It occurred to him after the meeting it wasn’t an “all or nothing” issue as there were safety concerns to consider. He felt it is in the public interest to restrict cell phone use for specific population such as school bus drivers and those learning to drive. He felt the issue would be better to be legislative at the state level but until such time the State legislators believe proper to do so, the citizens of Sandpoint deserve the best attempt to help maintain safe roadways within Sandpoint.
Councilman O’Hara moved to amend sub-section H-1 to read “No person shall use a mobile telephone or other electronic device for the purpose of sending or receiving a text, picture or e-mail message, or to access the internet while operating a moving motor vehicle or human powered vehicle in the City of Sandpoint” and that sub-section H-3 read “No person under the age of 18 or of any age who holds only a learners permit or is under instruction to learn how to drive shall use a mobile phone or other electronic device while operating a moving motor vehicle in the City of Sandpoint including those with a hands-free accessory whether or not a parent or other adult is driving with them and whether or not the hands-free device is built into the automobile.“ Councilwoman Logan seconded the motion. The motion passed by a majority of council with Councilman Snedden dissenting.
The city clerk read the proposed ordinance by title only.
Councilman O’Hara moved to amend to strike the last sentence under H-5: “A law enforcement officer may detain a driver or a motor vehicle or rider of a human powered vehicle when he observes a driver or rider using a mobile telephone or text messaging.” Councilman Reuter seconded the motion. The motion passed by a majority of council with Councilwoman Logan dissenting.
Councilwoman Newton pointed out Section 4 should be under Section 3 and Section 5 should be Section 4. Councilman Reuter suggested a brief delay so that council could review the ordinance before they proceed. City Attorney Will Herrington advised the motion to consider takes the council back to the motion to the December 16, 2009, meeting that failed. He stated based on the current amendments passed this evening, council will vote on whether the first reading passed.
[ Motion from December 16, 2009 meeting: Councilwoman Newton moved that the proposed ordinance titled “An ordinance of the City of Sandpoint, a municipal corporation of the State of Idaho, amending Title 6, Chapter 1, Section 7 by adding sub-section “H” limiting the use of wireless communications devices while operating a motor vehicle or riding/operating a human powered vehicle within the Sandpoint city limits; providing for exceptions; banning text messaging while operating a motor vehicle or riding/operating a human powered vehicle within the Sandpoint city limits; providing for this law to be primary; providing for severability; providing for penalties; and providing for publication and an effective date” pass its first reading and, if applicable, the summary be approved. Councilwoman Logan seconded the motion. ]
A roll call vote of the council resulted as follows to pass the first reading as amended:
Councilman Boge Yes
Councilman O’Hara Yes
Councilwoman Logan Yes
Councilman Reuter Yes
Councilwoman Newton Yes
Councilman Snedden No
The motion passed by a majority of council and the proposed ordinance passed its first reading by title only.
Councilwoman Logan moved that the rules requiring three separate readings, once in the ordinance’s entirety, be suspended and that the ordinance pass its second and third reading under the suspension of the rules. Councilman O’Hara seconded the motion.
Councilman Reuter agreed there should be a ban to text messaging but raised concern with those vehicles that have connection to GPS or the internet. He requested to separate the second and third readings.
A roll call vote of the council resulted as follows to pass the second reading:
Councilman Boge Yes
Councilman O’Hara Yes
Councilwoman Logan Yes
Councilman Reuter No
Councilman Snedden Yes
Councilwoman Newton Yes
Councilman Reuter commented that he will vote on the affirmative as he will have the ability to move to reconsider the motion at the next council meeting. Will Herrington advised Councilman Reuter he could make a motion to reconsider his vote on the first reading. He confirmed to Councilman Reuter he would have the ability to reconsider at the next council meeting if he opposed.
A roll call vote of the council resulted as follows to pass the third reading:
Councilman Boge Yes
Councilman Snedden No
Councilwoman Logan Yes
Councilman O’Hara Yes
Councilman Reuter No
Councilwoman Newton Yes
The motion passed by a majority of council and the rules requiring three separate readings, once in the ordinance’s entirety, be suspended and the proposed ordinance passed its second and third reading under suspension of the rules. The ordinance was considered read, passed and adopted. The ordinance is Number 1227. Mayor Hellar commented that she will decide pursuant to code as to whether or not she will veto the ordinance.
F. RESOLUTION NO. 09-79 - BROADBAND RIGHT OF WAY USE
Councilman Snedden moved that the proposed resolution “Broadband Right of Way Use” be approved. Councilman O’Hara seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously by council.
ADJOURNMENT The meeting adjourned at 9:20 p.m.
Gretchen A. Hellar, Mayor
ATTEST: Maree Peck, City Clerk
