Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2023-01-11 Hearing Examiner MinutesCaldwell Hearing Examiner Minutes Wednesday, January 11, 2023, 1:30 p.m. Community Room, Caldwell Police Department 110 South 51h Avenue, Caldwell, Idaho Call to Order - Hearing Examiner, Ms. Sabrina Durtschi opened the meeting for the public hearing at 1:30 p.m. Review of Proceedinas: Ms. Sabrina Durtschi outlined the procedures for the public hearing. Members Present: Angelica Gomez (Administrative Assistant); Robb MacDonald (City Engineer); Elizabeth AIlen (Senior Planner); Steve Fultz (Planning & Zoning Director). Members Absent: CONSENT CALENDAR: (All Consent Calendar items are considered Action Items). The Hearing Examiner approved the Hearing Examiner minutes from the November 30, 2022, Meeting as printed. OLD BUSINESS: (ACTION ITEM) None. NEW BUSINESS: (ACTION ITEM) CASE NUMBER SUP22-000028- HATCH DESIGN ARCHITECTURE IS REQUESTING APPROVAL OF .A SPECIAL USE PERMIT FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF AN APPROXIMATELY 8.64-ACRE SELF -STORAGE FACILITY CONSISTING OF THIRTEEN STRUCTURES TO ,BE CONSTRUCTED IN THREE PHASES. THE PARCEL, R3086701500, IS LOCATED ON THE WEST -SIDE OF MIDLAND BOULEVARD, APPROXIMATELY 2,000 FEET SOUTH OF USTICK ROAD AND MIDLAND BOULEVARD ROUND -ABOUT, CALDWELL, IDAHO. THE SUBJECT PROPERTY IS ZONED C-2 (COMMUNITY COMMERCIAL). Elizabeth Allen (Senior Planner) 621 Cleveland Blvd., presented the staff report and outlined the facts within the report. She stated that the requested Special Use Permit is to construct a self -storage facility on the parcel. The facility would be constructed in three phases, with a total of 1 I buildings. Ten one story and one two story. There would be one handicap parking, and six standard parking stalls. There would also be a sidewalk along Midland Blvd. For the 2040 Comprehensive Plan, the future land use is Commercial Service and Medium Density Residential. Ms. Allen indicated that the Caldwell Fire Department provided conditions. Nampa Highway District responded with no concerns. COMPASS provided general comments, and Caldwell Engineering Department provided conditions. The city limits of Nampa are adjacent to the property, however, they were not notified, and consequently, there were no comments from them. She noted that staff recommend approval with the suggested conditions of approval noted in the staff report. The Hearing Examiner expressed concern regarding the conditions of approval in the staff report versus the Development -Agreement. She also indicated that it was unusual to have a Development Agreement in this type of application. Ms. Allen noted that the Hearing Examiner had a different staff report, and that was causing the confusion. The Hearing Examiner asked stall' if they are required by state code to notify the City of Nampa. Ms. Allen concurred. Ms. Allen stated since it was staff error not to notify the City of Nampa, her recommendation is to be compliant with the state statute, and re -schedule the hearing to provide the proper notifications. Page I 1 Hearing Examiner Minutes 1/11/2023 Tl:c. Hearing Examiner asked if they should open the public testimony and leave it open until the next hearing. Ms. Allen concurred. Jeff Hatch (Applicant) 200 W. 36' St., spoke in favor of the request and stated the property is located next to the Adam's Ridge Subdivision, and is part of the master plan of the subdivision. He said the intent was to make it look like a commercial presence along Midland and are using a fortress style design. Some modifications were made to the landscaping plan along Midland, and would provide a nice buffering for the residences. The Hearing Examinerasked the applicant if he reviewed the conditions of approval, and if he agreed with them? The applicant stated they are in agreement with the conditions of approval received in his staff report. He also wanted to confirm this request will not require a Development Agreement. The Hearing Examiner concurred. In response to questions from the Hearing Examiner, the applicant stated the use is the same as the expired SUP, The aesthetic appeal was changed to less industrial and more commercial presence along the street. The Hearing Examiner noted this request would be constructed in three phases. She asked the applicant to provide a break down for each phase. The applicant stated the owner who was present could respond to that question more accurately. In response to questions from the Hearing_ Examiner, the applicant responded that for phase three, there would be a centrally located culvert bridge for fire trucks and vehicular access. If needed, there was an opportunity for a secondary access to the south. However, at this time the proposed square footage would justify the requirement of only one access point. The Hearing Examiner asked if the parking was going to be for RVs or a regular parking lot. The applicant responded that currently, there are two taller structured canopies that create the fortress screening effect. They are proposing open parking for larger odd shaped vehicles inside the structure. In response to questions from the Hearing Examiner, the applicant indicated that the operations of the facility would be proposed at 24 hours. .i:n response to questions from the Hearing Examiner, the applicant stated that the buildings themselves create a perimeter fence for the actual property. The rod iron fence would serve as additional security. Mr. Hatch noted he understands the formality to notify the city of Nampa, and asked if it would be possible to deliver the decision today, with the condition of Nampa's feedback. Ms. Allen stated the requirement to notify other agencies is to give them the opportunity to provide comments before the hearing, therefore, they would not be able to condition it. Patrick Connor 701 S Allen St., spoke in favor of the request and asked for an explanation of the need to notify Nampa. Ms. Allen explained that per state statute, municipalities are required to notify property owners within 300' and any adjacent municipalities or jurisdictions. Since the City of Nampa is adjacent on the east and on the south, they are required to notify the City. Mr. Connor asked if they have flexibility within the Special Use Permit, if later on they decide to build phase three before phase two, or build everything at once or change the phasing lines. Ms. Allen stated depending on the changes, the plans would need to be modified. Mr. Connor stated the facility would operate twenty-four hours. The operating hours for the office would be normal business hours. He asked if once Nampa is notified, testimony would stay open. Ms. Allen concurred. In response to questions from the Hearing Examiner, Ms. Allen replied that after Nampa is notified, they would have 15 days to give comments. This case would need to be put back on the agenda as new business. Page 12 Hearing Examiner Minutes 1/11/2023 Mr. Connor asked if it's a code rule to have the twelve-month window to get the building permit application submitted. He also asked if there is any flexibilityjust in case there is a market change or shift. Ms. Allen responded that is the code. She said they can only get one administrative extension through the Planning and Zoning Director and it only allows for an additional six months. In rebuttal, Mr. Hatch stated that on previous subdivisions they requested an anticipated timeline for phasing. He indicated that would be a question they can address with staff, over the next month while they wait on the hearing. He added that the consideration of condition of approval of the projected timeline may lengthen it, and provide more adequate phasing based on what they anticipate. Mr. Durtschi expressed concern about condition number seven, it says "no clients shall be admitted after 8:00 pm and the property shall be cleared of people by 9:00 pm". That does not mean it is open 24/7. She asked staff to strike out that condition. Mr. Durtschi asked staff which is the procedure to continue the hearing. Ms. Allen responded staffs recommendation is to close the public testimony and re -open it at the next hearing. The hearing was continued to February 15, 2023. Ms. Durtschi closed the public hearing testimony. 2:01 PM. COMMENTS BY THE HEARING EXAMINER: The hearing was continued to February 15, 2023 Planning Issues: None The next regularly scheduled Hearing Examiner meeting is scheduled for Wednesday, February 22, 2023 at 1:30 p.m. The Hearing Examiner adjourned the meeting at approximately 2:01 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: a .rina Durtschi Date — TT S Date A digital recording of the public hearing is available upon request. Page 13 Hearing Examiner Minutes 1/11/2023