Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning & ZoningPLANNING AND ZONING ITEM DATE SUBMITTED BY i a CASE NO. VAR-24-02 RENNY WYLIE BEFORE THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION CITY OF CALDWELL, IDAHO APRIL 25, 2002 A VARIANCE REQUEST BY JAMES WYLIE TO INSTALL A SECOND STAND ALONE SIGN AT 5210 CLEVELAND BOULEVARD AND CONTRARY TO ZONING ORDINANCE NO. 1451 REGULATIONS GOVERNING SIGNAGE PLACEMENT IN A C-3 ZONE. TABLE OF CONTENTS: I. COURSE OF PROCEEDINGS, II. GENERAL FACTS, III. TESTIMONY, IV. APPLICABLE LEGAL ANALYSIS, V. VARIANCE PROCEDURE, VI. FINDINGS OF FACT, VII. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW, Vill. ORDER OF DECISION, COURSE OF PROCEEDINGS 1.1.1 The Caldwell Community Development Department issued a notice of Public Hearing on application VAR-24-02, to be held before the Planning and Zoning Commission on April 25, 2002. Public notice requirements set forth in Idaho Code, Chapter 65, Local Planning Act, were met. On April 10, 2002 notice was published in the Idaho Press Tribune, and on April 5, 2002 notice was mailed to all property owners within 300 feet of the project site; and, on April 18, 2002 notice was posted on the site. 1.2 Files and exhibits relative to this application will be available for review in the Community Development Department, Caldwell City Hall, as well as all public hearings. II GENERAL FACTS 2.1 APPLICANT (S): James R. Wylie, 1676 North Clarendon, Eagle, Idaho. 83713 2.2 OWNER (S): Same 2.3 REQUEST: The request is for the placement of a stand-alone sign along Cleveland Avenue on a land parcel that already has a commercial sign on it. 2.4 BACKGROUND: Section 10-02-06 of the Caldwell Zoning Ordinance entitled "sign schedule" states that only one sign per street frontage is permitted in a C-3 zone, provided that property has street access. Consistent with that prescription, Wal-Mart installed a stand-alone sign on its Cleveland street frontage. The installation of that sign eliminated consideration for the installation of another sign there unless it is attached to the existing sign or the sign is removed to make way for another one. Meantime, Wal— Mart has sold off a portion of their land abutting Cleveland Avenue, in proximity to the existing sign. Now, the new business enterprise, Hollywood Video, is seeking the ability to install a sign. The Community Development Department staff has advised Mr. Wylie, the business owner, that the ordinance does not allow a second sign. In response he has requested a variance to allow for the placement of a second sign. 2.4.1 VARIANCE PROCEDURE: Section 10-03-05, Zoning Ordinance No. 1451 sets forth procedures for granting a variance. A variance can only be granted by Commission members finding that all five listed criteria (A through E of subsection 1) are "true." (see variance criteria listed below) 2.5 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN COMPONENTS: 2.5.1 School Facilities and Transportation: The Caldwell and Vallivue School Districts were notified of the request through mailing of the public hearing notification on April 12, 2002. 2.6 Land Use: The property is zoned C-3 (Service Commercial) and is being constructed as a retail mini mall. 2.7 Public Services, Utilities and Facilities, Transportation: 2.8 Planning Department: The Caldwell Zoning Ordinance Section 10-03-05 provides the following variance instruction: A variance may only be granted to an applicant upon a showing of an undue hardship. Additionally, hardships shall not be self-imposed. Based on these criteria, staff does not believe that the variance request has a valid hardship basis. Staff's view is that the applicant has other options, for example, the new building's alignment has full exposure to motorists driving on Cleveland Boulevard, a roadway, which generates several thousand transportation trips per day. The applicant could place signage on the building that would identify the business from the street in lieu of a stand-alone sign. Moreover, Hollywood Video is a national chain and their buildings are designed so that they are instantly recognizable as a Hollywood Video Store Outlet so the lack of a street sign should minimally impact the motorist's visual awareness. Mr. Wylie could also approach Wal-Mart about placing another sign on theirs. At present, Cleveland Boulevard is relatively free of signage. Staff believes that keeping signage sparse along this roadway is consistent with the spirit and intent of the zoning ordinance, and improves this area's quality of life. By comparison, arterials laden with signs produce a visual pollution that detracts from quality of life. 2.9 Public Services. Utilities and Facilities: rr III TESTIMONY 3.1 Steve Hasson, Community Development Director, presented the staff report and outlined the facts as stated. Mr. Hasson noted that the Walmart Corporation had retained their option for signage on the parcel that was sold to Mr. Wylie. Mr. Hasson reported that a variance is granted only upon proof of undo hardship. Mr. Hasson read through the options that Mr. Wylie could pursue as stated in the staff report. 3.2 Renny Wylie, Applicant, stated that he is constructing a multi -tenant building and will be leasing out space. When he purchased the property he signed an access maintenance easement agreement with Walmart for their sign. He stated that he was not aware of the City's sign ordinance at that time. Mr. Wylie described the building as L-shaped with a portion facing Cleveland Boulevard and the remainder running parallel with the Walmart entrance. He reported Hollywood Viedo will front Cleveland Boulevard with their signage directly on the building, however, the remaining businesses would be at a disadvantage since they cannot be seen from Cleveland Boulevard. 3.3 Commissioner Blacker inquired of Mr. Wylie what type and size of signage would he be interested in? 3.4 Mr. Wylie reported that the sign ordinance makes allowance for a 170' sign with the amount of street frontage for this parcel, however, he would not be interested in that large of a sign. The sign would be located out of the vision triangle with a planter at the base. 3.5 Commissioner Blacker asked Mr. Wylie if he had contacted Walmart concerning placing his sign under the Walmart sign? 3.6 Mr. Wylie replied that he had not suggested that to Walmart since he felt that it would be an unusual request. 3.7 Commission Robison indicated that she did not see the "hardship" factor within the request which would qualify the variance procedure. 3.7.1 Steve Hasson said that since the Applicant was seeking to acquire the 19-acre parcel adjacent to this parcel, possibly Mr. Wylie should consider placing the sign on the adjacent parcel. 3.8 Mr. Wylie confirmed that he was looking to develop the adjacent acreage and subdivide the property into four parcels. Mr. Wylie questioned if he might have inadequate sign footage since this parcel has little frontage on Cleveland Boulevard. 3.9 Steve Hasson suggested that possibly staff look at combining the street frontage from both parcels being developed by Mr. Wylie to allow for a larger sign through the process of a variance. r IV APPLICABLE LEGAL STANDARDS 4.1 City of Caldwell 1977 Comprehensive Plan, as amended. 4.2 City of Caldwell Zoning Ordinance No. 1451, as amended. 4.3 Idaho Code, Title 67, Chapter 65, Local Planning Act V VARIANCE PROCEDURE 5.1 Planning and Zoning Commission members must answer true to the following five criteria. A. That there are exceptional or extraordinary circumstances or conditions, applicable to the property involved, which do not apply generally to other properties within the same zoning district. False B. That the exceptional or extraordinary circumstances in conjunction with a literal interpretation and application of the regulation would result in undue hardship by depriving the applicant of reasonable use and enjoyment of the property or of privileges enjoyed by the owners of other properties located in the same zoning district. False C. That the granting of the variance will not constitute a grant of special privilege. False D. That the granting of such relief will not be materially detrimental to the public health, safety or welfare, or interest, or injurious to the property or improvements of other property owners, or the quiet enjoyment of such property or improvement. True E. That the granting of the variance will not be in conflict with the spirit and intent of the Comprehensive Plan and will not effect a change in zoning. True VI FINDINGS OF FACT 6.1 The Planning and Zoning Commission accepted the general facts outlined in the staff report and the facts brought forward during public testimony as the findings of fact. VII CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 7.1 The Planning and Zoning Commission has the authority to hear variance requests and to approve or deny; public hearing notification requirements were met, and the hearing was held within the guidelines of applicable codes and ordinances. VIII ORDER OF DECISION 8.1 Based on the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, Planning and Zoning Commission members find that Case No. VAR-24-02, a request by James Wylie for a zoning variance to place a second sign on a parcel of land fronting on Cleveland Boulevard in a C-3 zone is denied. r 2 CASE NO. VAR-24-02 WAS HEARD BY PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEMBERS AT A PUBLIC HEARING HELD APRIL 25, 2002. WRITTEN FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND RECOMMENDATION WAS ADMINISTRATIVELY APPROVED AND SIGNED BY CHAIRMAN JIM BLACKER ON THE DATE NOTED BELOW. ATTEST: C La' an Jim Blacker Date Co ity Development Director PUELIC l-izARIN0 C ;; NINF3'4T (PLEASE PRA13117 CLEARLY) NAME:- �+a . .�. J t STREET ADDRESS: CITY/STATEMP: t a.k I {. r V116 NAME OF CASE BEING HEARD:_ �� 57L uVIk Y�A,� e- Check the appropriate line: Applicant or Representative I Neutral/ wish to speak do not wish to speak In favor/ wish to speak do not wish to speak I I Opposed/ I wish to speak I do not wish to speak I Written comments may be attached to this form or you may write them in below.