Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutesk ok 36 FO-1 Wage 281 Earl, Nancoles, Langan, and Carpenter. none. Absent and not voting: none. Those voting no: MOTION CARRIED The Public Hearing was closed by the Mayor. NEW BUSINESS (ACCEPT ASSESSMENT ROLL FOR LOCAL IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT 95-1 - TERRACE L.I.D. AND SET PUBLIC HEARING FOR DECEMBER 4, 1995) Mayor Winder explained that the Council's action with regard to this item was to simply accept the Assessment Roll for Local Improvement District 95-1 and set the Public Hearing. MOVED by Nancolas, SECONDED by Earl that the Assessment Roll be accepted for Local Improvement District 95-1 and a Public Hearing be scheduled for December 4, 1995. Roll call vote. Those voting yes: Nancolas, Langan, Carpenter, Houchins, Raymond, and Earl. Those voting no: none. Absent and not voting: none. MOTION CARRIED (PUBLIC HEARING ON ANNEXATION OF PROPERTIES ALONG CLEVELAND BOULEVARD BETWEEN USTICK AND MIDWAY) l\ 1 201Q 5 C (a -- Mayor winder informed Council that this item was a Public Hearing on the proposed annexation of properties along Cleveland Boulevard. He asked if there were any documents to be entered into the record other than the Staff. Report. Richard Eismann, Attorney at Law, presented three documents for the record: Letter from Eismann Law Offices to Nancy Huff; and two Warranty Deeds; one relating to the Morroney property and the other a transfer of property. The Clerk noted these documents as I, II, and III. Staff Report was to be included as IV. The Mayor further stated that the purpose of the Hearing was to consider the annexation of property located in the area between Ustick and Midway Roads along Cleveland Boulevard. Along with the annexation would be a zoning change from County zoning to City zoning which was basically the same: Service Commercial and Light Industrial. Also, Council. would be asked to confirm the Comprehensive Plan Land Use which the City already has in place. The applicant was the City of Caldwell. The applicable sections of the Code were Idaho Code, Section 50-222 and the City Zoning Ordinance, 10-01-07 and 10-03- 03. He further explained the procedure for the Hearing after which the Public Hearing was opened and the City Clerk swore in those requesting to testify. Councilman Nancolas stated that he would ask to be excused during this item since it was a conflict of interest and he would be abstaining on the next three items. The Mayor agreed to his request. The Planning and Zoning Director presented the background information stating that the conditions for annexation were that the territory to be annexed be contiguous or adjacent to the City, contiguous or adjacent territory must be in the Area of City Impact; the territory can reasonably be assumed to be used for orderly development of the City; further, the territory be subdivided into lots or blocks of five acres or less or the owner has sold or begun to sell parcels within the territory in tracts not exceeding five acres or the owner requests r", Page 282 • Buok '36 �i annexation in writing or the territory was entirely surrounded by properties already within the City Boundaries. Ms. Huff continued stating that based on the existing Plan designation, surrounding zoning and surrounding land use, the Planning and Zoning Commission forward the following recommendation to the City Council: 1. Confirm a Comprehensive Plan use designation of Industrial for the properties north of Arthur Street extended; 2. Adopt a Zoning District classification of M-1 (Light Industrial) for the properties north of Arthur Street extended; 3. Cori irm a Comprehensive Plan .land use designation of Commercial for the remaining properties; 4. Adopt a Zoning District classi fi.cal.ion of C-3 (Service Commercial) for the remaining properties. The law used for testing reasonableness of annexation for orderly development defined by the Idaho Supreme Court was Boise City v. Boise City Development Co. (1925) . The findings concluded were: 1. It provides advantages to the City; 2. It makes the City limits more symmetrical; 3. It is needed in order for the City to provide uniform grade and street alignment; 4. It protects public health and convenience; 5. The services that the City provides are needed in the area to be annexed. Testimony was then heard in favor of the annexation. Karen Hagen, who owned the property at 6122 Cleveland Boulevard and home address was 9326 Cherry Lane in Nampa. Ms. Hagen stated that she was basically there to ask questions with regard to taxes, water and sewer and if she would have a say in whether she had to connect to services and how it would effect her business. The Mayor informed her that the Staff would be happy to respond to her questions regarding costs or tax rate and would suggest she stop by City Hall and discuss her concerns with them. The only person signed to testify against this annexation was Richard B. Eismann, Attorney at Law, 3016 Cleveland Boulevard, who was present on behalf of Farwell Auto Body, Inc. Mr. Eismann presented a history on the Farwell business and explained their objections to the annexation. The tape will be retained in the Office of the City Clerk for six months and available to anyone desiring to review it. At the conclusion of the testimony, the Mayor requested a review of the documents to be included with the record. The Clerk noted as follows: I. Letter from Mr. Eismann to the Planning and Zoning Director; II. Warranty Deed; III. Warranty Deed; and IV. Staff Report. It was then MOVED by Earl, SECONDED by Carpenter to accept the documents to be entered into the record. Roll call vote. Those voting yes: Earl, Langan, Carpenter, Houchins, and Raymond. Those voting no: none. Abstain: Nancolas. Absent and not voting: none. MOTION CARRIED Mayor Winder then asked for comments and questions from the Members of the City Council. The discussion included conditions existing when Happy Day Ford was annexed and the present conditions regarding Farwell property; Book 36 Page 283 legalities to be determined by the City Attorney and Council's recommendation that an opinion be requested from him; propose that this item be tabled until the last meeting in December and move forward with the Bill in an amended state dropping the two pieces of property owned by Farwell and continue with the annexation; addition of two others to the annexation process and the increase of costs in contracting the legal description; whether a hearing would have to be held for the two added properties and the fact that Chey should be included in Bill No. 59. MOVf,D by Houchins, SECONDED by Earl 1.o close the Public Hearing. Roll call vote. 'Those voting yes: Houchins, Raymond, Ear]., Langan, and Carpenter. Those voting no: none. Abstain: Nancolas. Absent and not voting: none. MOTION CARRIED The Mayor officially closed the Public Hearing. He stated that it appeared that Council was not prepared to make a decision on this matter at this time. The suggestion was that Council postpone action to allow an opportunity to review the legalities with the Staff. The Planning and Zoning Director stated that it was important to get an expedient answer from the Attorney so the recommendation could be made to the surveyor since they were already contracted. Councilman Houchins commented that he spoke with the Attorney who indicated that he would be at the meeting later on as he had a previous engagement. It was his desire that Council not drop the entire action on Bill No. 59 and move forward on those properties that were not being contested. The third reading would not be until the second meeting in December which would give both Attorneys time to complete their research. Mayor Winder read Bill No. 59 by title only as follows: AN ORDTNANCR DRTERMINING THAT CRRTAIN LANDS LAY CONTIGUOUS OR ADJACENT TO THE CITY LIMITS OF THE CITY OF CALDWELL, COUNTY OF CANYON, STATE OF IDAHO; AND THAT SAID LANDS BE ANNEXED TO THE CITY OF CALDWELL, IDAHO, AS PART OF THE C - 3 (SERVICE COMMERCIAL) AND M-1 (LIGHT INDUS'I RIAI..) 70N.f NV I. ISIIZ].0 AND DrCbARING SATD LANDS BY PROPER LEGAL DESCRIPTION AS DESCRIBED BELOW TO BE A PART 011' '1'111? CITY O [--A1-DW1.1+h, CANYON COUNTY, IDA110, 1ZRP1'A1P1N(... ALL ORDINANCES, RESOLUTIONS, ORDERS OR PARTS THEREOF IN CONFLICT 111,3R)! WITH; AND DIRECTING THE CITY ENGINEER AND PLANNING AND ZONING DIRECTOR TO ADD SAID PROPERTY TO THE OFFICIAL MAPS OF THE CITY OF CALDWELL, IDAHO; AND DIRECTING THE CLERK OF THE CITY OF CALDWELL TO FILE A CERTIFIED COPY OF THE ORDINANCE AND MAP OF THE AREAS TO BE ANNEXED WITH CANYON COUNTY, STATE OF IDAHO AND THE STATE TAX COMMISSION OF THE STATE OF IDAHO, PURSUANT TO IDAHO CODE, SECTION 63-2219. The Mayor pointed out that the Bill indicates that the legal description was to be provided at a later date. Councilwoman Earl stated that because there was not a legal description, she felt a little uncomfortable. At the very beginning, the Bill indicates the property described below and she thought that information should be provided. She wondered why the City Attorney felt the Council should continue on with it tonight and hold back on part of it. r}l9uuk. 36 � k'aya Lts4 Councilman fouchins commented the City Engineer and did not pointed out that there would Bill and it could be amended readings. that lie only talked with speak with Mr. Harris. He be three readings of this or changed at one of those Councilwoman Carpenter pointed out that by the third reading, they would have to have a complete legal description. Therefore, a decision would have to be made before that time. Councilman Raymond reminded Council that they were talking about a forced annexation and lie had not been shown that there was any kind of am emergency. There were people who had concerns about this annexation and he felt that the City should wait until everything was in good order before proceeding. Council has the option to waive the rules and pass at one meeting. Mr. Raymond stated that he would prefer allowing Staff time to get all of the factors put together. MOVED by Houchins, SECONDED by Raymond to suspend any action on Bill No. 59 until the next scheduled Regular City Council Meeting, December 4, 1995, and at that time have a legal description and a complete list of properties included and not included available and have a legal opinion from Lite City Attorney. (toll call vote. Those voLi.ng yes: [louchins, Raymond, Earl, Langan, and Carpenter. Those voting no: none. Abstain: Nancolas. Absent and not voting: none. MOTION CARRIED It was then MOVED by Houchins, SECONDED by Raymond that the same action, to table until the next Regular City Council Meeting on December 4, 1995, apply to Bill No. 60. Roll call vote. Those voting yes: Houchins, Raymond, Earl, Langan, and Carpenter. Those voting no: none. Abstain: Nancolas. Absent and not voting: none. MOTION CARRIED (RESOLUTION FOR VACATION OF UTILITY EASEMENT IN THE NICOL-FARWELL ADDITION) The Planning and Zoning Director presented the background information stating that the petition to vacate the easement between Lots 1, 2, 3, 4, and Lots 8, 9, 10, 11, Block 3, Nicol Farwell Addition, was received on October 6, 1995. The applicant, Thomas Edmark, owns the lots adjacent to said easement. He wishes to construct a large building in the center of the block. The existing easement splits the block in half. The applicant wants to utilize the block for a large building. It has been determined that this easement has not been utilized because services were located in the adjacent streets. Notification of said requested vacation was sent by Staff to utility companies and affected City Departments. Positive responses were received since utilities had been established elsewhere. Staff's recommendation was to approve based on the fact that utilities were established within street rights -of -way rendering this easement unnecessary. Mayor Winder read the Resolution by title only as follows: THAT A RESOLUTION RECITING PETITION FOR VACATION AND RECITING APPROPRIATE NOTICE WAS GIVEN; DETERMINING THAT Book 36 F, A^ Page 203 Roll call vote. Those voting yes: Earl, Nancolas, and Langan. Those Absent and not voting: none. Carpenter, Houchins, voting no: Raymond. MOTION CARRIED (CONSIDERATION OF BILL NO. 35 FOR ZONE CHANGE OF PROPERTIES IN AND AROUND HILLDROP SUBDIVISION) Mayor Winder read Bill No. 35 by title only as follows: AN ORDINANCE CHANGING THE ZONING OF CERTAIN PROPERTIES WITHIN THE CITY OF CALDWELL, IDAHO FROM COUNTY R-1 TO R-1. (SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL); DETERMINING THAT SAID CHANGE IN ZONING IS IN THE BEST INTEREST OF THE CITY OF CALDWELL, IDAHO; INSTRUCTING THE PLANNING AND ZONING DIRECTOR TO DESIGNATE SAID PROPERTY AS R-1 ON THE OFFICIAL ZONING MAP AND REPEALING ALL LAWS, ORDINANCES AND RESOLUTIONS IN CONFLICT HEREWITH. MOVED by Carpenter, SECONDED by Earl that this be considered the first reading of Bill No. 35. Roll call vote. Those voting yes: Carpenter, Houchins, Earl, Nancolas, and Langan. Those voting no: Raymond. Absent and not voting: none. MOTION CARRIED The Mayor declared a brief recess at 10:05 p.m. with the meeting reconvening at 10:15 p.m. (REQUEST FOR ANNEXATION ALONG CLEVELAND BOULEVARD BETWEEN USTICK AND CASTER LANE) , /S/, t /015 The Mayor informed Council that the next item on the Agenda was a request to consider annexation along Cleveland Boulevard. Liz Yeary, the Administrative Secretary for Planning and Zoning, noted that the Planning and Zoning Department has been asked to investigate the possibility of annexation involving various properties located along Cleveland Boulevard between Ustick Road and Laster Lane. There were approximately twenty-two properties in the area, most of which appear to qualify for annexation. The subject property consists of approximately sixty acres excluding a further seventy-eight acres which would not qualify because of size. A letter explaining the City's intent to seek annexation has been sent to all the property owners, both those eligible and ineligible. City water and sewer utilities are being extended along Cleveland Boulevard to serve the area. MOVED by Nancolas, SECONDED by Earl to direct Staff to initiate the annexation process and schedule hearings before the Planning and Zoning Commission. Roll call vote. Those voting yes: Nancolas, Langan, Carpenter, Houchins, Raymond, and Earl. Those voting no: none. Absent and not voting: none. MOTION CARRIED (DISCUSSION WITH REGARD TO THE BUSHNELL CENTER) G c_. g"12. `/J'E The Mayor reviewed this issue stating that the Council gave direction to the 4-C Committee last December asking that they respond to all areas that had been discussed during the hearing process and report on how they intended to resolve those issues. Since there was no response from the Committee back in April, he asked that 4b. A request for annexation to the City of Caldwell, Comprehensive Plan Designation of a mixture of Commercial and Light Industrial and an Amendment to the official zoning map from County to C-3 (Service Commercial) and M-I (Light Industrial) for property located generally on both sides of Cleveland Blvd. (also known as Caldwell Blvd.) between Ustick Road and Laster Lane. Applicant: City of Caldwell. Ms. Huff explained that this review was initiated by City Council since City utilities are being extended along the Boulevard and the State is constructing improvements for the same area. Staff had received a phone message concerning the financial aspect of annexation and two letters expressing opposition to this annexation. The Chairman explained to the public that the Planning and Zoning Commission do not act on the annexation but simply recommend a zoning and Comprehensive Plan designation. Wayne Farwell expressed opposition to his own property being annexed since it was larger than five acres. The Chairman reminded him that the Planning and Zoning Commission do not take action on the annexation. An excerpt from the State Code §50-222 concerning annexation of parcels was read. Mr. Farwell said that while the annexation is supposed to eliminate jurisdictional problems this will simply move jurisdictional problems further along the Boulevard. After some further discussion on the ability of the Commission to rule on annexations, and the qualifications of property under which they can be annexed, Commissioner McConnell offered a Motion to recommend that City Council adopt a Comprehensive Plan land use designation of Industrial for the properties north of Arthur Street extended, adopt a Zoning District classification of M-1 (Light Industrial) for the properties north of Arthur Street extended, adopt a Comprehensive Plan land use designation of Commercial for the remaining properties, and adopt a Zoning District classification of C-3 (Service Commercial) for the remaining properties. This recommendation is based on the fact that the subject properties qualify for annexation in that they are of 5 acres in size or less or have been subdivided since 1972, have the potential to be served by City water and sewer, and provide for the orderly growth of the City. Bettie Pilote seconded the Motion. ROLL CALL VOTE. Those voting yes: McConnell, Buckendorf, Pilote, Nachtigall, Huyck. Those voting no: None. Absent and not voting: Davidson. MOTION CARRLED 4e. A proposed Code Amendment to the Zoning Ordinance of the City of Caldwell which would permit expansion of nonconforming single family dwellings under certain conditions. Applicant: City of Caldwell. Ms. Huff explained that this item had been initiated by the Commission at the request of Staff to assist property owners with non -conforming residences in industrial and commercial zones to MINUTES P&Z 9-21-95 Page 5