Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout95-04-CA Expansion of Non Conforming Single Family DwellingsProcedure for Code Amendments Process of Hearings Date Complete Official request received tJ A Review form to departments if applicable N A Legal Publication 15 days prior Staff report for P&Z Meeting Packets P&Z Commission Hearing q n21 Action report filed within ten days to Council Minutes filed showing action NlA Legal publication re City Council hearing i0 //& City Council hearing set for date ri & Staff Report for City Council ,0 I Ordinance for City Council �o Minutes of Council & copy of signed ordinance filed IIN WIN BE 10-02-08 10-02-08 Any single lot or parcel of land which was of record in the office of the recorder of Canyon County, Idaho, at the time of the adoption of this Chapter, but does not meet the requirements of the zoning district in which it is located for minimum lot width, frontage and area, as specified in Section 10-02-03 of this Chapter, may be utilized if all other requirements of this Chapter are met. (9) In group residential developments, each dwelling structure shall front upon a public right of way, or upon a court or similar type of arrangement which has been approved by the City following the planned unit development procedure'. It shall be a violation of this Chapter to divide ownership of individual residential units having common party walls unless approval has been given by the City. (10) No building shall be constructed upon a lot or parcel of land which does not abut a public street unless a variance of this provision is granted following the variance procedure 2. The maximum residential setback from any right-of-way line shall be fifty-five feet (55'), unless the property has an emergency vehicle accessway, a source of water and legible house numbers visible from the right-of-way, all of which must be in conformance with the Uniform Fire Code and in conformance with the City of Caldwell Fire Department Uniform Fire Code policies. All of which must be inspected by the Fire Chief or his duly authorized agent for compliance. (11) A second residential dwelling unit, to include a manufactured or mobile dwelling unit, may be constructed or placed upon a residentially -zoned original parcel of record with a minimum lot area of two (2) acres only upon the granting of a Special Use Permit by the Planning and Zoning Commission. Such permits shall address and take into account public safety, future development constraints, access, siting of the structure, aesthetics and other considerations deemed pertinent by the Commission and shall fully comply with all other requirements of this Chapter. (Ord. 1451, 12-13-77; Ord. 1570, 8-19-80; Ord. 1887, 11-19-90; Ord. 1907, 6-17-91; Ord. 1919, 10-7-91) 1. See section 10-03-07 of this chapter. 2. See section 10-03-05 of this chapter. 3. See chapter 8, article 13 of this code. C;r-v of Caldure:' A City or Caldwell memorandum TO: Mayor Winder and Members of City Council FROM: Nancy Huff, Planning and Zoning Director tel: 455-3021 SUBJECT: Proposed amendment to the Caldwell Zoning Ordinance allowing expansion of nonconforming single family homes. MEETING DATE: November 6, 1995 On September 7, 1995, the Planning and Zoning Commission considered a proposed Code amendment to the Caldwell Zoning Ordinance which would allow the Planning and Zoning Director, under certain conditions, to allow the expansion of nonconforming single family residences. The reason for the proposal was that a request was received to upgrade an older home in an industrial zone, which would improve its appearance, and bring it up to modern safety standards. This item was initiated by Staff. With the suggested criteria, it is considered a reasonable amendment. A proposed Ordinance is attached. 54CA.MEM 1 r r BILL NO. ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND A PORTION OF CHAPTER 10, ARTICLE 2, SECTION 8 SUBSECTION (2) OF THE MUNICIPAL CODE OF THE CITY OF CALDWELL, COUNTY OF CANYON, STATE OF IDAHO, PERTAINING TO THE EXPANSION OF NONCONFORMING SINGLE FAMILY DWELLINGS: REPEALING ALL ORDINANCES, RESOLUTIONS, ORDERS AND PARTS THEREOF IN CONFLICT HEREWITH. BE IT ORDAINED, BY THE MAYOR AND THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CALDWELL, IDAHO, COUNTY OF CANYON, STATE OF IDAHO: Section 1. That Chapter 2, Article 2, Section 8, Subsection (2) of the Municipal code of the City of Caldwell, County of Canyon, State of Idaho, shall be amended by adding certain language as follows: Section 10-02-08(2): A nonconforming building may be enlarged or extended only if thereafter the entire building is devoted to a conforming use. An exception shall be permitted upon confirmation blithe Planning Director that all of the following criteria are met: (a)The nonconformingbuilding uildin is a single family„ dwelling and is used and will be,used exclusively as a single family dwelling_ (b) The total of all enlargements since the building became nonconforming does not exceed 50% of the floor area of the nonconforming building. (.o) Flodplain regulations, setback requirements and all other locational requirements are met for the enlargement. Section 2. All ordinances or parts of ordinances inconsistent are hereby repealed. Section 3. This ordinance shall be in full force and effect from and after its passage, approval and publication according to law. 54CA.ORD c PASSED BY THE CITY COUNCIL of the City of Caldwell this day of 1995. APPROVED BY THE MAYOR of the City of Caldwell this day of .1995. Mayor ATTEST: City Clerk 54CA.ORD 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-1 (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 Conunission 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 CARRIED 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 r improve their properties. The amendment will be at the discretion of the Planning and Zoning Director and will follow certain criteria identified in the Staff Report, The Chairman was concerned that one expansion after another could be requested, but Commissioner McConnell said that as long as the criteria are met, the amendment should work and he thought this was an appropriate amendment. If there is a problem, the property owner has recourse to approach the Planning and Zoning Commission. Commissioner Huyck agreed stating that if approvals become confusing the Director can approach the Commission and the amendment can be reviewed. Commissioner Huyck then offered a Motion to recommend approval of the proposed amendment finding that the amendment conforms with the Comprehensive Plan Housing Component and will serve to provide an incentive for property owners to upgrade non -conforming buildings to a safer and more attractive situation. Commissioner Nachtigall seconded the Motion. ROLL CALL VOTE. Those voting yes: Huyck, McConnell, Buckendorf, Pilote, Nachtigall. Those voting no: None. Absent and not voting: Davidson. MOTION CARRIED 4f. A proposed Code Amendment to the Zoning Ordinance of the City of Caldwell which would permit the Planning and Zoning Director to review and where appropriate grant administrative approval for the placement of a Security Residence in industrial and commercial zones. Applicant: City of Caldwell. Staff explained that this item was initiated by the Commission after several Special Use Permit requests were processed by the Planning and Zoning Commission for security units in commercial and industrial zones. The intent of the amendment is to allow the Planning and Zoning Director, under the Administrative Approvals rules, approve placement of a security unit subject to regular setback, parking and other applicable criteria. After some discussion Commissioner Buckendorf offered a Motion to recommend to City Council approval of the proposed amendment finding that it was in conformance with the Comprehensive Plan. Commissioner Huyck seconded the Motion. ROLL CALL VOTE. Those voting yes: Buckendorf, Pilote, Nachtigall, Huyck, McConnell. Those voting no: None. Absent and not voting: Davidson. MOTION CARRIED Ms. Hull' commented on items acted on by Council. Commissioner McConnell was concerned that the City Council denied the recommendations of the Planning and Zoning Commission in allowing development directly next to the City which will encourage developers to build outside MINUTES P8Z 9-21-95 Page 6 r City of Caldwell HafflAfflo �21 ��@Mdmg) memorandum TO: Planning and Zoning Commission FROM: Carla Olson, Planning Consultant tef : 455-302 SUBJECT: Proposed amendment to the Caldwell Zoning Ordinance allowing expansion of nonconforming single family homes. DATE: September 7, 1995 A few weeks ago, the Commission discussed this issue in a work session. The Commission felt that a nonconforming single-family home, such as one located in an industrial zone or one with no frontage on a public street, should have a limited ability to expand. The Commission asked me to propose language for a Zoning Ordinance amendment to accomplish that change. Following is the proposed language. There is no urgency in amending the Ordinance. If the Commission is uncomfortable with any part of the concept or the proposed language, this issue could be deferred to a later time. Section 10-01-08(2). A nonconforming building may be enlarged or extended only if thereafter the entire building is devoted to a conforming use. An exception shall be permitted upon confirmation by the Planning Director that all of the following criteria are met (a) The nonconforming building is a single family dwelling and is used and will be used exclusively as a single family dwelling_ (b) The total of all enlargements since the building became nonconforming does not exceed 50% of the floor area of the nonconforming building. c Flood lain regulations, setback re uirements and all other locational requirements are met for the enlargement. r r City of Caldwell �@Amg tel: 455-302 memorandum TO: Mayor's Office, Engineering, Water, Fire, Building FROM: Liz Yeary, Administrative Secretary SUBJECT: Proposed Code Amendment re Expansion of nonconforming uses DATE: July 18, 1995 The Planning and Zoning Commission initiated a Code Amendment to the Zoning Ordinance which would permit expansion of nonconforming single family dwellings under certain conditions. This request was generated by a Building Permit request to place a second dwelling on one parcel of land in order to accommodate a family member. A copy of the proposed is outlined below. Please submit any comments or concerns prior to August 24 in order to include them in the Commission's review on September 7, 1995. 10-02-08 - Nonconforming Uses (1) No change (2) A nonconforming building may be enlarged or extended only if thereafter the entire building is devoted to a conforming use. An exception to this regulation shall be approved by the Planning Director when all of the following criteria are met: (a) The nonconforming building is a detached single family dwelling; (b) The enlargement (or total of all enlargements since becoming a nonconforming building) does not exceed 50% of the gross floor area of the existing dwelling; AND, (c) Setback regulations, flood plain regulations, and all other locational and dimensional regulations are met. (3) and remainder of Section (no change) �s- Pre -Commission Agenda July 6, 1995 Bettie Pilote and Madeline Buckendorf will not be present at meeting. 2. Item 4a. Nishitani annexation - Mr. Nishitani is unable to be present at the hearing. He is requesting the annexation so that he will be able to market the property with City services available. Memo from Fire Marshall attached indicating requirements for development. Mr. Nishitani requested this information and has received it. It would be a requirement of a building permit not the annexation, zoning and comp. plan designation. Item 4c. Aviation Way Annexation, zoning and comp. plan requests are contingent on the approval of the special use permit for the auction business. 4. Item 4d. Hilldrop area - Planning staff have received no calls. 5. West Valley Estates - Don Brandt will be representing the applicants. City Engineer will be present to answer questions on the West Valley Estates Subdivision. d yg�SC 6. Staff a received a que t for a B it 'ng Pe o p ace a se d mobil oe on a 10+ acre arcel we of Cen nnial ay 'n the -, zo so o Chica o. The d wback is that ere is no p b ' right- - y frontage for this pro y beca of the acement C tennial Way. Staff are suggesting a possible Zoning Ordinance amendment to allow expansion of a legal nonconforming single family dwelling when "T, b W (1) expansion ( or total of all expansion) is 3&/o or less of the floor area of the existing house, and (2) floodplain requirements, setbacks and all other locational requirements are met. The a is is othe option is to appl or resi ential d a v ance tot a str frontage fo a second lina. se Permit 7. Several people have called asking if there is a public hearing tonight on the Bushnell Community Center. There is not. However, we have found a letter from Dennis Crooks (attached) to the 4-C Committee saying there is a hearing. We need to announce at the beginning of the meeting that the scheduled hearing will be August 10.