Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2022-10-27 Hearing Examiner MinutesCaldwell Hearing Examiner Minutes Thursday, October 27, 2022, 1:30 p.m. Community Room, Caldwell Police Departs 110 South S" Avenue, Caldwell, Idaho Call to Order - Hearing Examiner, Mr, Bruce Eggleston opened the meeting for the Review of Proceedings: Mr. Bruce Eggleston outlined the procedures for the public hearing. Members Present: Robin Collins (Deputy Director); April Cabello (Planning Tech); Angelica Gomez (Administrative Assistant); Alex Jones (Associate Planner); Rob MacDonald (City Engineer). Members Absent: CONSENT CALENDAR: (All Consent Calendar items are considered Action Items). The Hearing Examiner approved the Hearing Examiner minutes from the September 28, 2022 Meeting as printed. OLD BUSINESS: (ACTION ITEM) CONTINUED FROM 9/13/2022 CASE NUMBER SUP22-000012: A REQUEST BY DOUG ADAMS, REPRESENTING GRAND TETON ATTRACTIONS, LLC IS REQUESTING A SPECIAL USE PERMIT FOR PARCEL R0308722100, .23 ACRES, LOCATED AT 0 N. IST AVE., CALDWELL, ID. THE PROPOSED PROJECT WILL BE A 4-PLEX NAMED NOGALES COURT APARTMENTS. THE SUBJECT PARCEL IS TONED R-2 AND IS A PART OF THE MADISON ESTATES SUBDIVISION. Robin Collins (Deputy Director) 621 Cleveland Blvd., presented the staff report and outlined the facts within the report. She indicated that this case was initially before the Hearing Examiner on 09/13/2022, and was continued with a request for the applicant to provide updated elevation renderings; to clarify if the request was for a 4-plex or a 3-plex; to add a tot -lot amenity as part of the site plan; and to provide documentation of a recorded Water Agreement and Parking Easement Agreement, Ms. Collins noted those recorded documents were provided. She clarified the request is for a 4-plex unit, and would review the elevation renderings as she goes over the presentation. Ms. Collins provided an overview of the case summary and case updates since the last meeting. She stated that the project location is part of the Madison Estates Subdivision. It is on a 0.23 acre parcel located on the corner of North 1st Avenue in Nogales Court. The Subdivision was approved by the City in 1995. However, due to difficulties, it was never fully developed. Nonetheless, it still had the entitlements for future 4-plexes on the lot as shown on the site map. Ms. Collins went over the contents of the PowerPoint presentation. She noted that the subject property is surrounded by a mix of land uses. She described the different type of buildings and homes surrounding the subject property. She also said that the subject property is in front of an existing 4-plex building. She pointed out that the property is presently vacant. It is part of the Madison Estates Subdivision, and is proposed to have future 4-plexes. Ms. Collins indicated that the updated site plan, and landscape plan that was submitted, did not show a tot -lot area; however, the setbacks and landscaping are in compliance with zoning ordinances for the land use type, in an R-2 Zone. She noted that the parking spaces are within the code requirements. Ms. Collins discussed public services and utilities. She said there is connection to water and sewer, and is located immediately adjacent to the parcel. Pressurized irrigation would also be provided to serve the site. There is a nearby fire hydrant approximately 55' from the subject parcel. The roads provide adequate access for emergency response teams, and storm water is to be retained on -site per City code. She indicated that according to the 2019 1'EMA maps, the subject property is not located within the flood zone or flood way. She stated that political subdivisions and public agencies providing services were notified about the request. The only agency that responded was the City Engineering Department. They indicated there were no issues with the request; however, they provided certain conditions that are shown in Section 7 of the staff report. Property owners Page 11 Hearing Examiner Minutes 10/27/2022 within 300' of the boundary of the property were notified. Public testimony was taken at the 9'11,2022 meeting. On 14?25;`2022 they received a sign-up for Ryan Hawkins to testify online at today's hearing. On 10/26.122 received email correspondence with signatures addressing concerns related to irrigation and parking. She presented the email correspondence to the Hearing Examiner and entered it into evidence. Ms. Collins explained that the proposed land use, for a 4-plex is an allowed use with the approval of the Special Use Permit. She indicated the proposed design would meet all the required setbacks, parking, landscaping and building height requirements. She also added that the proposed project is in harmony and consistent with the seven goals and nine policies of the Caldwell 20.?40 Comprehensive Plan; it is compatible with the surrounding land uses of multi -family and single family residential; provides an acceptable transition from single family to the commercial land uses behind the Madison Estates Subdivision. Ms. Collins read into the record some sections of the staff report. She stated that staff recommend approval, subject to the 16 Conditions as specified in Section 8 of the staff report. In response to questions from the Hearing Examiner, Ms. Collins stated she is unaware of the location of the tot - lot. She indicated the applicant's representative might be able to answer the question. Mr. Eggleston asked if the landscape was constructed in the manner shown, with the renderings and the decorative features. He asked staff if it would be sufficient as a site plan or as a landscape plan. Ms. Collins concurred. Mr. Eggleston mentioned that the Cross -Access Agreement seemed adequate to the purpose. He would note it as a condition of approval being fulfilled. Louis Spyker (Applicant's Representative) 199 N Capital Blvd., he stated that since this is a continued hearing, he would focus on the requested items from the previous hearing. First thing off the list are the recorded parking and cross -access easements, and the pressure irrigation easement. He clarified the application is for a 4-plex development. Mr. Spyker noted that at the last hearing, one concern was with regard to the elevation that was facing the public streets; the second concern was the use of the elevation and site plan as the landscape plan. With regard to the elevation showing the front of the building, he said there is parking that would need to be there for a portion and there are trees on the side. He also added that based on the layout renderings, they would be unable to put a sidewalk. In response to questions from the Hearing Examiner, Mr. Spyker pointed out on the Power Point presentation, the location of the front of the 4-plex development. Mr. Spyker then moved on to speak about the tot -lot. He stated there is sufficient open area to place a tot -lot on the 4-plex development. He asked if the landscape plan could be listed as a condition of approval, as the landscape plan is subject to staff approval, and asked if that would be sufficient to move the project forward. Mr. Eggleston responded he would like to see a landscape plan with the amenities depicted on them. He also requested to make it clear for the record where those amenities would be located. He noted that the landscaping plan is a very important part of the application. Mr. Spyker replied that his client's preference is to move forward with what has been presented, with a condition of approval that a tot -lot be placed within the site. He said that an additional review would be needed to ensure it follows through with the requirements of the Landscape Ordinance. Mr. Eggleston clarified that in this particular case, he specifically asked for that information be presented at this hearing. Mr. Eggleston stated he does not feel comfortable with the condition and having it fulfilled by staff. Mr. Eggleston felt it was a straight forward request for a landscape plan. He needed those specifics to make a decision. Mr. Spyker inquired if Mr. Eggleston would prefer to see a new site plan showing the location of the tot -lot. His client thought a tot -lot was discussed as an option not as a requirement to move forward. He said there are two feasible options where to place it and would like to move forward with the request. Mr. Eggleston replied that the hearing could move forward, if the applicant provides a specific location for the tot -lot. Page 12 Hearing Examiner Minutes 10/27/2022 Mr. Spyker responded that based on staff comments, he would like to provide two alternative locations. The first alternative is to place it on the northwest corner of the building, within the setbacks. The second alternative would be to move the building backward to the north western side. He believed that would be a better alternative for a tot -lot, given it is on the interior of the site and not adjacent to a street, which would be a safety concern. Mr. Eggleson responded that would be acceptable, and this issue has been resolved. He asked staff to note those locations in the landscape plan. Mr. Spyker noted that his client has no issues with the proposed conditions within the engineering report, and would be happy to comply with the listed conditions. Ryan Hawkins (Via Zoom) 109 E. Omaha St., signed in opposition of the request and stated only single family homes or 3-plex should be built at the site. He believed Centennial Way and North 151 Avenue are already a High Population Density area. He posted this project for friends and neighbors on social media, and most of them had not heard about it. Most of the reactions were not positive, and they were not happy to hear that more apartments were being added. He finds it interesting to build a 4-plex building in a .23 acre area. His house is 1100 sq. ft., and he only has .27 acres. Kathleen Vogt 224 E. Plymouth St., testified in opposition of the request and stated she was not notified of the request. She expressed concern with irrigation and City water. She mentioned that water pressure has gone down in the last few months. Another one of her concerns was traffic. She believed there would be too many people in a small area. She also questioned how schools would handle the extra children. Sharon Hensen 219 E. Omaha, testified in opposition of the request and stated there is already a lot of traffic in that area, and stated her concern with excess traffic issues. She also mentioned problems with the irrigation water, and added, with more people living in that section, the water pressure would go down. Mr. Eggleston asked staff if the City was aware of the water pressure fluctuation in the neighborhood for City water, and irrigation water through Golden Gate Irrigation. Rob MacDonald (City Engineer) 621 Cleveland BIvd., responded he was not aware of any water fluctuation in the City water system at the location. It does not mean that there may not have been something noticed or perceived by the local residents. Oftentimes, the City repairs well sites, and thus, the wells are shut down and off- line for a certain amount of time. He indicated he would check with the water department for any noticeable water pressure difference. He noted that a development this small would not have any noticeable or significant impact on the water system. He reported that Golden Gate Irrigation was their own district, the City has no control or oversight on their operations. Mr. Spyker in rebuttal addressed a few points: • A part of a Condition of Approval would be the removal of the existing sidewalks and replace them with sidewalks, and the ADA compliant access ramp. This would alleviate some issues with regard to the existing sidewalks. • This particular site was previously approved by the City for a 4-plex. • They are not asking for a rezone, they are asking for a Conditional Use Permit. • With regard to the Golden Gate Irrigation District, they are not asking to be annexed to it, they are already there and they have a right to use the water they currently have. In response to questions from the Hearing Examiner, Mr. Spyker indicated they would be taking the curb out and replacing it with current standards. Mr. Eggleston closed the public hearing testimony. COMMENTS BY THE HEARING EXAMINER: COMPREHENSIVE PLAN ANALYSIS FOR CASE NUMBER SUP22-000012: The Caldwell Hearing Examiner accepts the facts outlined in the staff report, public testimony and the evidence list. All adopted city ordinances, standards and codes were used in evaluating the application. The proposed use was conditionally permitted by the terms of the ordinance and such conditions of approval. Page 13 Hearing Examiner Minutes 10/27/2022 FINDINGS OF FACT FOR CASE NUMBER SUP22-000012: The Caldwell Hearing Examiner accepts the facts outlined in the staff report, public testimony and the evidence list. All adopted city ordinances, standards and codes were used in evaluating the application. The proposed use was conditionally permitted by the terms of the ordinance and such conditions of approval. CONCLUSSIONS OF LAW FOR CASE NUMBER SUP22-000012: The Hearing Examiner accepted the Conclusions of Law as outlined in the staff report. ORDER OF DECISION FOR CASE NUMBER SUP22-000012 (SPECIAL USE PERMIT): Based on the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, the Caldwell Hearing Examiner hereby orders that Case Number SUP22-000012: A request by Doug Adams, representing Grand Teton Attractions, LLC is requesting a Special Use Permit for parcel R0308722100, .23 acres, located on the corner of 1st Ave and Nogales Court., Caldwell, ID. The proposed project would be a 4-plex named Nogales Court Apartments. The subject parcel is zoned R-2 and is a part of the Madison Estates Subdivision is approved with the following conditions of approval: Staff report lists conditions 8.2 to 8.17, Mr. Eggleston added the following amendments: • On Condition 8.3 would like to add at the end of that sentence "dated 9128/2022". • On Condition 8.4 Item d - Staff will determine placement of the tot -lot in the landscaping plan to be submitted before the application is executed. • Add Condition 8.18 as follows: "The applicant shall comply with the Cross Access and Parking Easement Agreement, Exhibit A-1 I recorded 4120/2022 as instrument 2022-021380. • Add Condition 8.19 "applicant shall remove existing encroach on North First Avenue in place with vertical curb gutter and sidewalk". Mr. Eggleston closed the public hearing. NEW BUSINESS: (ACTION ITEM) ACTION ITEM: SUP22-000017: A REQUEST BY JEFF SWANSON TO CHANGE THE LAND USE FROM ASSISTED LIVING TO A ROOMING / BOARDING HOUSE. THE BUILDING WILL INCLUDE NINE BEDROOMS. SEVEN OF THE BEDROOMS WILL HAVE ATTACHED FULL ENSUITE BATHROOMS, AND THE REMAINING THREE BEDROOMS WILL HAVE ATTACHED HALF -BATHS. APPLICANT IS PROPOSING TO RENT EACH ROOM OUT ON A SINGLE -OCCUPANCY BASIS. THE DEVELOPMENT SITE IS LOCATED IN AN R-2 (MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIAL) ZONE. THE PROPOSED LOCATION IS ON RICE AVENUE ON PARCEL R0444300000 IN CALDWELL, IDAHO. Alex Jones (Associate Planner) 621 Cleveland Blvd. Mr. Jones presented the staff report and outlined the facts within the report. He noted that this proposal would be used as a room and board house for working professionals. The example given was for travelling nurses. He gave a short history on the property. He added that the rental period would be from 3 to 12 months for the bedrooms. The property is completely surrounded by R-1 Low Density Residential Homes. This is the only location zoned R-2 with a Low Density Residential Comp Plan. The applicant has provided six parking spots with their driveway. With a room and board home they only need minimum .25 per bedroom, which ranges three parking spaces, they are providing six; therefore, there would be adequate parking. Their argument with parking is that these would be daytimetnighttime nurses that would be renting these bedrooms and the traffic would be split up. In response to questions from the Hearing Examiner, Mr. Jones responded since his employment of almost the year, this is the first room and boarding house application submittal. Mr. Eggleston commented that parking seems adequate and it would be sufficient to the use; however, he wanted to clarify that although the application mentions on -street parking, the applicant needs to meet the parking requirements onsite. Mr. Eggleston noted that he would like to see striping for the parking and has added that as a Condition of Approval. Mr. Eggleston asked if the interior of the structure meet the current code. Mr. Jones replied that would need to be through the building department when they do their inspection. This would be a commercial permit. If is not approved by the inspectors, they would need to update any outdated issues. Mr. Eggleston asked staff to date the Exhibits in case they are amended at a later date. Page 14 Hearing Examiner Minutes 10/27/2022 Jeff Swanson (Applicant) 2075 Picket Ln., spoke in favor of the request and stated that to his knowledge, the development site dild operate as an Assisted Living Facility for the past five years, and it was closed due to Covid. Other options for the property were, fraternity house, correctional facility, half -way house, recovery homes, which did not seem as a great option for the neighborhood. The Rooming and Boarding House seemed to be the best use for the existing property, as well as for maintaining the integrity of the neighborhood. Mr. Swanson stated there were some aesthetic changes made to the interior of the house. The paint was updated, the kitchen cabinets were all removed and replaced. Before he took ownership of the property, the previous owner had joined two parcels as part of the property. He had obtained approval from the City to do a large construction project and to join the two homes and expand the Assisted Living Facility. For the past year all the conversations with the building department were to separate the two properties and to fix some permitting errors. Now the final step is the approved use as a Boarding House. The leases are better than a short term Air B & B style rental that has vacation traffic in and out. The proposal would have mid -tern rental with mostly travelling nurses, travelling professional that would work mix of shifts therefore parking and traffic in the neighborhood would be fairly limited. Mr. Swanson mentioned that it was important to them that this proposal would be of single occupancy. He said some neighbors at the community meeting showed up and were concerned about having too many people living at the site. Mr. Swanson stated this site would be of single occupancy and that is part of the Conditional Use Permit. Mr. Eggleston commented that the City is not in a position to regulate these type of facilities. He said, the City has to rely on the property owner to stay within the parameters of the Special Use Permit, Mr. Swanson responded that his understanding of the Rooming and Boarding Special Use is that it is a single room, single occupancy. Mr. Eggleston informed the applicant that once the building inspectors look at the property, there might be changes that would need to be made, for health and safety, and to bring to current standards of the building code. Ron Ranza (Representative) 6600 W. Emerald., signed in favor of the request but did not give testimony. Rachel Swanson (Applicant) 2075 Picket LN., signed in favor of the request and stated that she owns a property management company. She handles the leases for this site. It is clear that it is for single occupancy only. They do follow property management regulations, and make sure the leases are complaint with Idaho Standards of rental laws. In response to questions from the Hearing Examiner, Ms. Swanzon stated that there is fencing on the southside towards the back of the property; however, some of the fence was taken down by the previous owner, since he was going to connect both properties. Mr. Eggleston asked staff if they consider the fencing as an advantage to this application, and if they see a need for any amenities. Mr. Jones replied with the type of use, he did not see a fence as a requirement. If this was a use that would have children, then a fence would be required. He also said that he did not see a need for amenities. Mr. Eggleston closed the public testimony portion of the hearing. COMMENTS BY THE HEARING EXAMINER: COMPREHENSIVE PLAN ANALYSIS FOR CASE NUMBER SUP22-000017: The Caldwell Hearing Examiner accepts the facts outlined in the staff report, public testimony and the evidence Iist, All adopted city ordinances, standards and codes were used in evaluating the application. The proposed use was conditionally permitted by the terms of the ordinance and such conditions of approval. FINDINGS OF FACT FOR CASE NUMBER SUP22-000017: The Caldwell Hearing Examiner accepts the facts outlined in the staff report, public testimony and the evidence list. All adopted city ordinances, standards and codes were used in evaluating the application. The proposed use was conditionally permitted by the terms of the ordinance and such conditions of approval. CONCLUSSIONS OF LAW FOR CASE NUMBER SUP22-000017: Page 15 Hearing Examiner Minutes 10/27/2022 The Hearing Examiner accepted the Conclusions of Law as outlined in the staff report. ORDER OF DECISION FOR CASE NUMBER SUP22-000017 (SPECIAL USE PERMIT): Based on the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, the Caldwell Hearing Examiner hereby orders that Case Number SUP22-000017: A request by Jeff Swanson to change the land use from assisted living to a rooming ! boarding house. The building would include nine bedrooms. Seven of the bedrooms would have attached full ensuite bathrooms, and the remaining three bedrooms would have attached half -baths. Applicant is proposing to rent each room out on a single -occupancy basis. The development site is located in an R-2 (Medium Density Residential) zone. The proposed location is on Rice Avenue on parcel R0444300000 in Caldwell, Idaho is approved with the following conditions of approval. Staff report lists conditions 8.2 to 8.8, Mr. Eggleston concurred with those conditions of approval, and added the following amendments: • Condition 8.7 would like to add at the end of that sentence provided in Exhibit A-3 "dated 7/26/2022 and Exhibit A-8 dated 712$r'2022." • Condition 8.8 add at the end of the sentence ", to include striping for parking stalls." Mr. Eggleston closed the public hearing. ACTION ITEM: SUP22-000020: A REQUEST BY CLINT WALKER TO BUILD A TRADITIONAL MINI STORAGE FACILITY. THE FACILITY WILL INCLUDE APPROXIMATELY 419 UNITS AND THE SINGLE FAMILY HOME WILL BE USED FOR ONSITE PROPERTY MANAGEMENT. THE DEVELOPMENT SITE IS LOCATED IN A C- 2 (COMMUNITY COMMERCIAL) ZONE. THE PROPOSED LOCATION IS ON S INDIANA AVE ON PARCEL R04041 AT 2813 S INDIANA AVE W CALDWELL, IDAHO. Alex Jones (Associate Planner) 621 Cleveland Blvd., presented the staff report and outlined the facts within the report. He said this property received an SUP in 2006 to be a mini storage and was never developed; therefore the SUP has expired. The applicant would like to build a traditional mini storage with approximately 419 units. This property is surrounded by single family homes and the developer has agreed to put a solid vinyl fence around the entire property. Mr. Jones noted there is an existing residence on the parcel. The residence would be converted into a residence for the Office Manager to live onsite, and would take care of the premises. In response to questions from the Hearing Examiner, Mr. Jones responded that signage would require a sign permit application. If they were to request anything outside of the permitted signage in that zone, then they would need to apply for a Special Use Permit. Mr. Eggleston expressed concern about this development being in the middle of a residential neighborhood, and said signage would need to be subtle. He asked if there is a proposal for the fence and if a 6' fence would be sufficient or if it needed to be higher. Mr. Jones stated it would be a 6' solid white vinyl fence, and it would enclose around the perimeter, surrounding the single family homes. He also added that a 6' fence would be adequate, since the site is not located in an industrial zone. In response to questions from the Hearing Examiner, Mr. Jones responded that by code, all exterior lighting would not point outward, it would need to point inward. In response to questions from the Hearing Examiner, Mr. Jones responded in order to limit as much light pollution to the neighbors as possible, staff would recommend making a condition of having the lighting being internal, not external at the development. Mr. Eggleston asked if the lighting code sufficiently addresses the potential for intrusion on the surrounding neighbors. Mr. Jones concurred. Mr. Eggleston asked about the hours of operation, and if there are typical hours of operation for this use. Or, if it is specified on the code. Page 16 Hearing Examiner Minutes 10/27/2022 Mr. Jones replied the applicant would be able to answer the question about the hours of operation. He noted that for their business permit, they would need to provide the hours of operation. He also added the code would only indicate that is not intrusive to the neighbors. In response to questions from the Hearing Examiner, Mr. Jones stated that the code does have noise policies. He also said by having the privacy fence, and the buildings in front of the fence, it would help with the noise buffer. In response to questions from the Hearing Examiner, Mr. Jones stated that would be something that can be worked out with the applicant. Especially, along with their business permit, hours of operation and noise levels. Mr. Jones also added the loudest noise would probably be moving trucks going in and out. Although, most of the time moving trucks go in and out during the early morning or mid -day. Mr. Eggleston expressed concern about the history of these uses being converted to other uses. He asked if it's possible to regulate;'restrict the use to storage only. No other uses such as occupancy, construction, manufacturing, and auto repair, etc. He also asked if the code sufficiently address this use, and if is enforceable so that these storage units don't become a public hazard. Mr. Jones stated that a condition could be made that businesses could not be run out of the storage units, and they can only be used for storage. Clint Walker (Applicant) 8701 Kingston Way., He spoke in favor of the request and stated that the application is for a traditional mini storage unit. He noted that some of the concerns have already been addressed as part of the contracts, and added the following: • There would be no business use. • Operation hours are from 6:00 am to 10:00 pm. This is not a 24 hour business. • Exterior lighting There were concerns at the community meeting and discussed about moving the lights in quite a distance. The lights would be pointing inside not out towards the neighbors. Discussion followed concerning the proposed lights and light poles to be installed at the development. • Noise -the hours of operation would be from 6:00 am to 10:00 pm. These hours were implemented to keep the noise level down, and it would also be part of the contract. • As far as uses - There would be no power at any of the storage units; therefore, it would limit the uses. • On Exhibit A-3 the Site Plan shows an office at the front that would be manned, and also a Kiosk so people can sign-up. There are also three offices that would have bathrooms and a man door that can be used for business, only during operating hours. In response to questions from the Hearing Examiner about signage, Mr. Walker responded he would follow the City guidelines as far as the size of the sign. He said in order to help customers identify the entrance to the site, it would be something subtle and placed in the front yard of the property, away from the sidewalk. Mr. Eggleston asked the applicant if he would be comfortable with having lighting no higher than the structures, right at the edge of the roof or below. The applicant concurred and said the maximum height would be 10'. Discussion followed concerning the hours of operation. Mr. Eggleston indicated that 6:00 am is too early and 10:00 pm is too late. Staff recommended that possibly an agreement could be reached for the business to open from 8:00 am to 9:00 pm. Mr. Eggleston stated he would make a decision at the end. Mr. Eggleston emphasized that the application is for storage use only. Mr. Walker responded they have three office buildings available if someone wants to conduct business. The hours of operation would be from 8:00 am to 5:00 pm, and believed that would be an explicit way to limit the use. Jeanne Joiner 2812 Morning Mist., signed in favor of the request but did not give testimony. Greg Strikwerda 16770 Boehner Rd., spoke in favor of the request and stated that he had applied for the Special Use Permit in 2006, but then moved on to other business opportunities. He is now supporting the applicant. He Page 1 7 Hearing Examiner Minutes 10/27/2022 talked about the offices on the site. He said, they would be some type of headquarters, only for someone to be there answering phones. He added it would not be a manufacturing facility. Mr. Strikwerda talked about the lighting on the eves, he said they would be approximately 8' to 10'. The lighting would be on the eves pointing in and down. It would be a straight lease and would only be used for storage. He believed it would be Iow impact on traffic. Discussion followed about the hours of operation, and what part of the day has the most traffic. Virginia A. Esparza 2118 E Locust St., signed as neutral for the request and stated that her main concern is fire. Children and elderly people live around the facility. If there was a fire in front of their house, they would not be able to go to the back, if the storage unit development is there. She explained that instead of building a storage unit, to build something the community can use, for example, something like a vegetable garden. She added that it would also create more traffic. They already have a lot of traffic during school hours. She concluded by saying she would not like to see a self -storage facility in her back yard. Domingo Esparza, Jr. 218 E. Locust St., signed as neutral for the request but did not give testimony. Mr. Walker, in rebuttal, he stated that he looked at other scenarios. He also noticed the close proximity to apartments, 4-plexes and other buildings. He originally thought about building 4-plexes or apartment buildings at the site; however, that would create more traffic. Subsequently, this site had already been approved for this use a few years ago, therefore, he decided to continue with the same use since there is a need for storage units. He noted it would create opportunities for storage since most of the storage units around Caldwell are full. He added they would follow the City guidelines as to fire. The structure would have metal buildings and that would help with the fire issue. He said their goal in mind is to make sure they take care of the people around the site, to make sure the noise is down, and that it looks decent. In response to questions from the Hearing Examiner, Mr. Walker responded that currently, the site has a large entry way and the gate would be located behind the existing house. The gate would operate by punching a programmable code, then the gate slides back behind the fence. The customer would have access to the office without going through the gate. Once the customer has the code, there would be no need for interaction with the personnel onsite. Mr. Eggleston discussed the turnaround radius of 26' and he believed that meets the fire code, as well as there is only one way in and one way out of the facility. He added that there is also mention of a requirement for fire hydrants. He then asked about the color of the perimeter vinyl fencing. Mr. Walker replied they were going to do white vinyl fencing, since white is very neutral; however, they are open to suggestions. Mr. Eggleston noted that some of the concerns that were discussed are not part of the application. He also said there are a lot of issues he would like to address in the conditions. He indicated he would like to work on some of the details and postpone to a second hearing. One outstanding issue is the proposal for three office spaces. He expressed the need to have a discussion with staff. In response to questions from the Hearing Examiner, Mr. Jones answered that the application is only for the storage units. The narrative only refers to the storage units. The main office where the employee would be working as the onsite property management, and the home. The other three offices that were for other businesses were not mentioned and those would be a different use. Mr. Eggleston asked the applicant if he discussed the office uses at the neighborhood meeting. Mr. Walker concurred, and said they discussed the storage unit, the gate and the office being connected to three other offices that were larger units. Mr. Eggleston explained that this is a huge detail as far as the process and notification to the public. He indicated that use was not stipulated in the application as one of the desired uses, and it was not advertised for the public as such. He said he would not entertain that without another hearing. He asked staff if to allow the office use would require notification and go through the process. Mr. Jones concurred. Page 18 Hearing Examiner Minutes 10/27/2022 Mr. Eggleston asked Mr. Walker how committed was he to the office use, and if that is a necessary part of the . busindss plan. Mr. Walker responded that he was trying to give people the opportunity to use something outside the storage unit. Robin Collins (Deputy Director) 621 Cleveland Blvd., recommended to get the project moving forward. She said to allow the applicant to continue with the Special Use Permit, and keep the office that would serve for property management. Then, the applicant could return at a later date for a modification or an expansion to the Special Use Permit. That way this hearing would not need to be re -noticed. Mr. Eggleston indicated he would like to see the details on the lighting, fencing and hours of operation modified in the strict definition of the use. Mr. Eggleston also asked staff if the application has all the sufficient information for the public, and for the Hearing Examiner to make a decision. Mr. Jones concurred. He said there is some information that could be added later in time through the P & Z Business Permit Department. Mr. Eggleston asked the applicant if he would like to return on a later date with a separate application for the office use, or start over the existing application and re -notice with the office use included. Mr. Walker responded he did not want to start over. He said he would return with a separate application for the three offices. He indicated he would like to proceed with the current Special Use Permit. Mr. Eggleston closed the public hearing testimony. COMMENTS BY THE HEARING EXAMINER: COMPREHENSIVE PLAN ANALYSIS FOR CASE NUMBER SUP22-000020: The Caldwell Hearing Examiner accepts the facts outlined in the staff report, public testimony and the evidence list. All adopted city ordinances, standards and codes were used in evaluating the application. The proposed use was conditionally permitted by the terms of the ordinance and such conditions of approval. FINDINGS OF FACT FOR CASE NUMBER SUP22-000020: The Caldwell Hearing Examiner accepts the facts outlined in the staff report, public testimony and the evidence list. All adopted city ordinances, standards and codes were used in evaluating the application. The proposed use was conditionally permitted by the terms of the ordinance and such conditions of approval. CONCLUSSIONS OF LAW FOR CASE NUMBER SUP22-000020: The Hearing Examiner accepted the Conclusions of Law as outlined in the staff report. ORDER OF DECISION FOR CASE NUMBER SUP22-000020 (SPECIAL USE PERMIT): Based on the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, the Caldwell Hearing Examiner hereby orders that Case Number SUP22-000020: A request by Clint Walker for a Special Use Permit to build a traditional mini -storage facility located at 2813 S. Indiana Avenue, ;In Parcels R04041 & R0403 in a C-2 Community Commercial Zone is approved with the following conditions of approval. Staff report lists conditions 8.2 to 8.7, Mr. Eggleston concurred with the conditions of approval, and added the following amendments: • On Condition 8.3, add at the end of the sentence ", as stated in Exhibit PA-2, dated 912912022." • On Condition 8.5, add at the end of the sentence ", dated 10/13/2022." • Add Condition 8.8, the exterior lighting shall not exceed the height of the eves of the structure, and measures should be taken so it does not shine on the neighboring properties. • Add Condition 8.9, hours of operation shall be limited from 6:00 am., to 8:00 pm to allow clientele to enter the site and the property should be clear of clientele at 9:00 pm. • Add Condition 8.10, this development must follow Caldwell's noise ordinance. • Add Condition 8.11, the use is strictly for storage only. Other uses such as occupancy, construction, offices, manufacturing, auto repair, etc., shall be prohibited. • Add Condition 8.12, the approved site plan is Exhibit A-3, dated 3/12/2022. Page j 9 Hearing Examiner Minutes 10/27/2022 Mr. Eggleston closed the public hearing. ACTION ITEM: PUD22-000006 SUB22-000034: A REQUEST BY BOB UNGER OF UNGER ENTERPRISES, ON BEHALF OF MEADOWDALE INVESTMENTS LLC, FOR A PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT (MONUMENT VALLEY TOWNHOMES) AND PRELIMINARY PLAT LOCATED ON PARCEL R3491600000, R3491700000, AND R3491800000, 4.55 ACRES. THE DEVELOPMENT WILL CONSIST OF 39 RESIDENTIAL TOWNHOME LOTS WITH 9 FOUR -FLEX BUILDINGS AND I TRI-PLEX BUILDING. THE SUBJECT PROPERTY IS ZONED R-3 (HIGH DENSITY RESIDENTIAL) AND FRONTS N. ILLINOIS AVENUE. Alex Jones (Associate Planner) 621 Cleveland Blvd., stated that due to a communication error between staff and the applicant, the applicant is not present. In addition, he indicated that a new site plan was received today; therefore, Mr. Jones requested to continue this application to the next meeting. Mr. Eggleston continued PUD22-000006 SUB22-000034 to November 9, 2022 at 1:30 pm. A re -notice would be sent to the property owners within 300' of the subject parcel of the new hearing date and time. Ms. Collins stated for the record that the notices would not be in compliance with Idaho State Statute, being 15 days ahead of the notice. The notice would be sent out as a courtesy, and not to meet compliance with the statutes. Since the compliance notice has already been met. Planning Issues: None The next regularly scheduled Hearing Examiner meeting is scheduled for November 9, 2022 at 1:30pm. The Hearing Examiner adjourned the meeting at approximately 3:44 p.m. Respectfully submitted by Ellen Miller, Meeting and Records Clerk MINUTES APPROVED AND SIGNED BY THE HEARING EXAMINER, BRUCE EGGLESTON, ON THE DATE NOTED BELOW: Do Bruce ggle on ATT i Steve Fultz, Planning and Zoning Director A digital recording of the public hearing is available upon request. Page 110 Hearing Examiner Minutes 10/27/2022 30 262'a Date 1 l 30 L 2'Z Date