Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning & Zoning - Hearing Examinerr� r PLANNING AND ZONING/HEARING EXAMINER ITEM DATE SUBMITTED BY P7,-1 AGENDA 1l �'(a �"�'Y�(4'd PZ-2 MINUTES PZ-3 SIGN-UP SHEET(S) rz- M J A Anne Marie. Skinner From: Anne Marie. Skinner Sent: Wednesday, November 28, 2012 10:50 AM To: 'Gene C. Ulmer'; 'Terry Bradshaw' Subject: Ustick LDS Annexation Attachments: ANN-188-12 Ustick LDS Annexation Recommendation.tif Hi Gene, Attached please find the Recommendation from the Hearing Examiner for the Ustick LDS annexation. Please note that the City Council will make the final decision and that hearing is scheduled for Monday, December 17, 2012 at 7:00 p.m. Thank you, Anne Marie Skinner Senior Planner City of Caldwell Planning and Zoning 621 Cleveland Blvd. Caldwell, ID 83605 Direct Line: (208) 455-4662 Fax: (208) 455-3050 amskinner(&ci.caldwell.id.us RECOMMENDATION BY THE HEARING EXAMINER CITY OF CALDWELL, IDAHO PUBLIC HEARING HELD NOVEMBER 13, 2012 Subject: Case No. ANN-188-12 (Ustick LDS Annexation) THE FOLLOWING LAND USE ACTION IS THE PRIMARY FEATURE OF THIS APPLICATION: • ANNEXATION OF APPROXIMATELY 4.69 ACRES INTO THE CITY OF CALDWELL WITH A REQUEST FOR C-2 (COMMUNITY COMMERCIAL) ZONING TABLE OF CONTENTS: I COURSE OF PROCEEDINGS II GENERAL FACTS III TESTIMONY IV APPLICABLE LEGAL STANDARDS V COMPREHENSIVE PLAN ANALYSIS ON ANNEXATION VI FINDINGS OF FACT ON ANNEXATION VII CONCLUSIONS OF LAW ON ANNEXATION VIII RECOMMENDATION ON ANNEXATION COURSE OF PROCEEDINGS 1.1 The Caldwell Planning and Zoning Department issued a notice of public hearing on application ANN-188-12 to be held before the Caldwell Planning and Zoning Commission on November 13, 2012. Public notice requirements set forth in Idaho Code, Chapter 65, Local Planning Act, have been met. On October 26, 2012 notice was mailed to all property owners within 300 feet of the project site and to all political subdivisions providing services to the site; on October 28, 2012 notice was published in the Idaho -Press Tribune; and, on November 1, 2012 notice was posted on the site. 1.2 On November 13, 2012, the Caldwell Hearing Examiner recommended approval of the request. 1.3 Files and exhibits relative to this application are available for review in the Planning and Zoning Department, 621 Cleveland, Caldwell and at applicable public hearings. 11 GENERAL FACTS 2.1 OWNER: The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter -Day Saints, Terry Bradshaw, 7770 Makayla Dr., Nampa, ID 83686 2.2 APPLICANT/DEVELOPER: The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter -Day Saints,Terry Bradshaw, 7770 Makayla Dr., Nampa, ID 83686. Case No. ANN-188-12 (Ustick LDS Annexation) Pagel o RECOMMENDATION by Hearing Examiner KE618'_ ARCHITECT: Gene Ulmer, 1506 S. Secretariat Wy., Nampa, ID 83686. 2.3 REQUEST: The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter -Day Saints and Gene Ulmer are requesting annexation of approximately 4.69 acres located at the southwest corner of Ustick Road and Florida Avenue. 2.4 BACKGROUND: The subject property was acquired from a trust upon the passing of both trustees, Floyd Christensen on February 6, 2012 and Eliza Jane Christensen on November 27, 1993. The property is currently utilized as a single-family residential dwelling and pasture. It has an address of 2806 East Ustick Road. 2.5 LEGAL DESCRIPTION: A legal description for the subject property was submitted with the annexation application and is contained within the case file. 2.6 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION: The Caldwell Comprehensive Plan Map designation for the site is Commercial. 2.7 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN COMPONENTS APPLICABLE TO THE REQUEST: 2.7.1 Land Use: The subject property is surrounded by the following: Direction Zone Comprehensive Plan Map Use North C-2 Commercial Commercial and house South County Med, Density Residential Pasture with house East County Commercial Pasture with house West County Med. Density Residential Business and house 2.7.2 Transportation/Connectivity: Right-of-way dedication along the subject property's Ustick Road and Florida Avenue frontages has not yet taken place. Street improvements and approach placement will take place concurrent with any building permits for new construction. 2.7.3 Public Services Utilities and Facilities: The engineering department, fire marshal, building department, police department, Caldwell School District, Vallivue School District, Pioneer Irrigation District, Caldwell Transportation, Brown Bus Company, Intermountain Gas, Idaho Power, and Canyon County Development Services were all sent a request for comment on October 9, 2012. Pioneer Irrigation District's response is noted as Exhibit PA-2 in the Case File. Intermountain Gas requested a copy of the annexation ordinance once passed. III TESTIMONY BEFORE THE HEARING EXAMINER, NOVEMBER 13, 2012 3.1 Anne Marie Skinner, Senior Planner/Development Team Leader, 621 Cleveland Blvd., Caldwell, 1D 83605, presented the staff report and stated the request was for annexation and tonight's decision was a recommendation only that would be forwarded to City Council for a final decision. The request is to annex approximately 4.69 acres into the City of Caldwell with a C-2 Community Commercial zone. Case No. ANN-188-12 (Ustick LDS Annexation) Page 2 of 5 RECOMMENDATION by Hearing Examiner 3.2 Ms. Skinner noted that the subject property is located at the southwest corner of Ustick and Florida and referred to an aerial photo of the site, labeled as Exhibit PZ-1000. Ms. Skinner identified surrounding uses as follows: east of the property is currently in the county and is a residence and pasture, west of the property is in the county with residences and a business, south is in the county and is residential in use, and north is in the city with a C-2 zone on the west side of Florida and a residential zone on the east side of Florida. 3.3 Ms. Skinner explained that the subject property has a designation of commercial on Caldwell's comprehensive plan map and is currently owned by The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter -Day Saints with Gene Ulmer being the architect who is representing the application. She further noted that right-of-way dedication has not yet taken place along Florida and Ustick. Street improvements, infrastructure improvements, and approach placement approval will all take place through the building permit process. 3A Ms. Skinner stated the applicable public agencies were notified of the request and the only two to respond were Pioneer Irrigation District, whose comments are identified as Case File Exhibit PA-2, and Intermountain Gas who requested a copy of the annexation ordinance if approved. Staff has reviewed the application and feels it is consistent with the comprehensive plan and recommends approval, with conditions as noted in the written staff report. 3.5 Mr. Mapp asked if a church was an allowed use in a C-2 zone without any special use or conditional use permits. 3.6 Ms. Skinner responded that a church is allowed outright in a C-2 zone and does not require any special use permits. 3.7 Gene Ulmer, applicant's representative, 1506 S. Secretariat Way, Nampa, ID 83686, testified in favor of the application and noted his client has identified the area of the subject property as an area for its next facility. 3.8 Mr. Ulmer further stated that, since the property was in the county, the proper procedure was to annex into the City of Caldwell and he is following the appropriate process for his client. He noted he was agreeable to the recommended conditions of approval. 3.9 Mr. Mapp wondered about approaches on Florida and Ustick. 3.10 Mr. Ulmer confirmed there would be one approach on Florida and one on Ustick. 3.11 Mr. Mapp asked staff about the status of a proposed round -about at the Florida-Ustick intersection. 3.12 Robb MacDonald, Assistant City Engineer, 621 Cleveland Blvd., Caldwell, ID 83605, responded that nothing had been decided as of yet, but that the City has proceeded with an investigation at the intersection to determine the best traffic flow devices. The property owner would be obligated to improve the frontage along Ustick and Florida in accordance with City standards and cooperate with the City with intersection improvements. 3.13 Mr. Ulmer confirmed the applicant was planning on completing all required frontage improvements as per City requirements, including dedication of any necessary right-of-way. 3.14 Faith Dawson, 2721 E. Ustick Rd., Caldwell, ID 83605, stated she attended the hearing to find out what was happening because she missed the neighborhood meeting. Ms. Dawson noted she lives on the north side of Ustick and several hundred feet west of Florida and is concerned about placement of the church and that it appears it will be right in front of her house. 3.15 Mr. Mapp responded that the hearing is for annexation into the City only, not placement of the building. Mr. Mapp further noted that the church is an allowed use and suggested that Ms. Dawson meet with Mr. Ulmer after the hearing to discuss the placement of the church building. 3.16 Mr. Ulmer noted that he did not have a problem meeting with Ms. Dawson after the hearing and was sorry that she had missed the neighborhood meeting. IV APPLICABLE LEGAL STANDARDS 4.1 City of Caldwell Zoning Ordinance No. 1451, as amended 4.2 City of Caldwell Comprehensive Plan, as amended 4.3 Idaho Code, Title 67, Chapter 65, Local Planning Act Case No. ANN-188-12 (Ustick LDS Annexation) Page 3 of 5 RECOMMENDATION by Hearing Examiner J V COMPREHENSIVE PLAN ANALYSIS ON ANNEXATION The Caldwell Hearing Examiner accepts the Comprehensive Plan Components as listed below. 5.1 The proposed project is consistent with the following Comprehensive Plan Components: GOALS AND POLICIES -- Property Rights Goal 1: Ensure that land use policies, restrictions, conditions and fees do not violate private property rights, adversely impact property values or create unnecessary technical limitations on the use of the property. Policy 1-2: Identify potential takings of private property prior to a regulatory or administrative action on specific property. Policy 1-4: Assure that development pays its fair share by establishing a rational, equitable basis for calculating the type of any exaction or the amount of any impact fee. GOALS AND POLICIES — Population Goal 1: Maintain a high quality of life and livability in the community. Policy 1-1: Plan for anticipated population and households that the community can support with adequate services and amenities. GOALS AND POLICIES — School Facilities & Transportation Goal 1: Provide on -going opportunity for school representatives of Caldwell and Vallivue School Districts to participate in the community planning process. Goal 2: Strive for better connectivity, safer access, and pedestrian friendly transportation options to schools. GOALS AND POLICIES - Economic Development Goal 3: Create neighborhoods where citizens can live, work and play. GOALS AND POLICIES - Land Use Goal 1: Establish land -use management policies that protect property rights and the environment, maintain a high quality of life, provide adequate land for all types of development, and adequately buffer non -compatible uses. Policy 1-6: Encourage non-residential special uses in residential areas where they can be appropriately integrated with the surrounding area and where the health, safety, and general welfare of the neighborhood would not be adversely impacted. GOALS AND POLICIES — Public Services, Utilities, & Facilities Goal 1: Ensure that there are adequate public services and infrastructure to meet the needs of the public. Case No. ANN-188-12 (Ustick LDS Annexation) Page 4 of 5 RECOMMENDATION by Hearing Examiner Policy 1-1: Enforce the policies and implement the recommendations of the Public Facilities Plan. Require land developers to discuss land acquisition needs with a public agency whenever a new facility is necessary. 5.2 The request was not found to be inconsistent with any portion of the Comprehensive Plan Components. It is the policy of the city to annex areas based upon the City's ability to orderly extend services to those areas contiguous to the City's municipal boundary. Staff recommends approval of the annexation request. VI FINDINGS OF FACT ON ANNEXATION 6.1 The Caldwell Hearing Examiner accepts the facts outlined in the staff report, public testimony and the evidence list. VII CONCLUSIONS OF LAW ON ANNEXATION 7.1 The Caldwell Hearing Examiner has the authority to hear this case and recommend that it be approved or denied. The public notice requirements were met and the hearing was conducted within the guidelines of applicable Idaho Code and City ordinances. VIII RECOMMENDATION ON ANNEXATION 8.1 Based on the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, the Caldwell Hearing Examiner hereby recommends to the Mayor and Caldwell City Council that Case No. ANN-188-12, a request by The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter -Day Saints and Gene Ulmer for annexation of approximately 4.69 acres into the City of Caldwell with C-2 Community Commercial zoning designation, located at the southwest corner of Ustick Road and Florida Avenue, be approved with the following conditions of approval: 8.2 Deeds, as prepared by the City of Caldwell, for applicable right-of-way dedication along the subject property's Ustick Road and Florida Avenue frontages shall be submitted to the City of Caldwell's Planning and Zoning Department for processing prior to the annexation ordinance being presented to City Council. 8.3 All adopted city codes, rules, and regulations shall be adhered to in the development of and new construction on the subject property. CASE NUMBER ANN-188-12 WAS HEARD BY THE CALDWELL HEARING EXAMINER AT A PUBLIC HEARING HELD NOVEMBER 13, 2012. THE FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW, AND RECOMMENDATION WERE ADMINISTRAT APPROVED AND SIGNED BY THE CALDWELL HEARING EXAMINER ON THE DA7106TEDIELOW. mine ner/Development Team Ldr. Case No. ANN-188-12 (Ustick LDS Annexation) Page 5 of 5 RECOMMENDATION by Hearing Examiner rL SIGN UP SHEET Please print the following required information and in the appropriate box check whether you wish to speak or do not wish to speak. CASE NAME: Ustick LDS Annexation CASE NUMBER: ANN-188-12 IN FAVOR Agplicant or Representative speak ❑ Do not speak Print Name SD S cvG �w Print Address city State, Zip NEUTRAL ❑speak ❑ Do not speak Print Name Print Address city State, Zip Mspeak ❑ Do not speak ❑speak ❑ Do not speak Print Name Print Name 6 . Ltj-+.L"K e Pr'pt Address �. Print Address State, Zip city State, Zip city ❑Speak ❑ Do not speak ❑speak ❑ Do not speak Print Name Print Name Print Address Print Address State, Zip city State, Zip city IN OPPOSITION ❑speak ❑ Do not speak Print Name Print Address city State, Zip ❑speak ❑ Do notspeak Print Name Print Address city State, Zip ❑speak ❑ Do not speak Print Name Print Address city State, Zip CALDWELL HEARING EXAMINER MINUTES November 13, 2012 I. Call to Order — Hearing Examiner, Mr. Jerome Mapp, opened the meeting for the public hearing at 7:00 p.m. II. Review of Proceedings — Mr. Jerome Mapp outlined the procedures for the public hearing. Members Present: Anne Marie Skinner (Senior Planner/Development Team Leader); April Cabello (Planning Technician); Robb MacDonald (Assistant City Engineer); Brian Billingsley (Planning Director) Members Absent: None. Ill. Old Business: A. Mr. Mapp approved the Minutes of the September 11, 2012 meeting as previously signed Hearing Examiner Mapp. IV. New Business: A. Case Number ANN-188-12 a request by The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter -Day Saints and Gene Ulmer for annexation of approximately 4.69 acres into the City of Caldwell with a C-2 Community Commercial zoning designation, located at the southwest corner of Ustick Road and Florida Avenue. Testimony: 1. Anne Marie Skinner, Senior Planner/Development Team Leader, 621 Cleveland Blvd., Caldwell, ID 83605, presented the staff report and stated the request was for annexation and tonight's decision was a recommendation only that would be forwarded to City Council for a final decision. The request is to annex approximately 4.69 acres into the City of Caldwell with a C-2 Community Commercial zone. 2. Ms. Skinner noted that the subject property is located at the southwest corner of Ustick and Florida and referred to an aerial photo of the site, labeled as Exhibit PZ-1000. Ms. Skinner identified surrounding uses as follows: east of the property is currently in the county and is a residence and pasture, west of the property is in the county with residences and a business, south is in the county and is residential in use, and north is in the city with a C-2 zone on the west side of Florida and a residential zone on the east side of Florida. 3. Ms. Skinner explained that the subject property has a designation of commercial on Caldwell's comprehensive plan map and is currently owned by The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter -Day Saints with Gene Ulmer being the architect who is representing the application. She further noted that right-of- way dedication has not yet taken place along Florida and Ustick. Street Hearing Examiner Minutes Hearing on November 13, 2012 � Page 1 1 SEED improvements, infrastructure improvements, and approach placement approval will all take place through the building permit process. 4. Ms. Skinner stated the applicable public agencies were notified of the request and the only two to respond were Pioneer Irrigation District, whose comments are identified as Case File Exhibit PA-2, and Intermountain Gas who requested a copy of the annexation ordinance if approved. Staff has reviewed the application and feels it is consistent with the comprehensive plan and recommends approval, with conditions as noted in the written staff report. 5. Mr. Mapp asked if a church was an allowed use in a C-2 zone without any special use or conditional use permits. 6. Ms. Skinner responded that a church is allowed outright in a C-2 zone and does not require any special use permits. 7. Gene Ulmer, applicant's representative, 1506 S. Secretariat Way, Nampa, ID 83686, testified in favor of the application and noted his client has identified the area of the subject property as an area for its next facility. 8. Mr. Ulmer further stated that, since the property was in the county, the proper procedure was to annex into the City of Caldwell and he is following the appropriate process for his client. He noted he was agreeable to the recommended conditions of approval. 9. Mr. Mapp wondered about approaches on Florida and Ustick. 10. Mr. Ulmer confirmed there would be one approach on Florida and one on Ustick. 11. Mr. Mapp asked staff about the status of a proposed round -about at the Florida-Ustick intersection. 12. Robb MacDonald, Assistant City Engineer, 621 Cleveland Blvd., Caldwell, ID 83605, responded that nothing had been decided as of yet, but that the City has proceeded with an investigation at the intersection to determine the best traffic flow devices. The property owner would be obligated to improve the frontage along Ustick and Florida in accordance with City standards and cooperate with the City with intersection improvements. 13. Mr. Ulmer confirmed the applicant was planning on completing all required frontage improvements as per City requirements, including dedication of any necessary right-of-way. 14. Faith Dawson, 2721 E. Ustick Rd., Caldwell, ID 83605, stated she attended the hearing to find out what was happening because she missed the neighborhood meeting. Ms. Dawson noted she lives on the north side of Ustick and several hundred feet west of Florida and is concerned about placement of the church and that it appears it will be right in front of her house. 15. Mr. Mapp responded that the hearing is for annexation into the City only, not placement of the building. Mr. Mapp further noted that the church is an allowed use and suggested that Ms. Dawson meet with Mr. Ulmer after the hearing to discuss the placement of the church building. 16. Mr. Ulmer noted that he did not have a problem meeting with Ms. Dawson after the hearing and was sorry that she had missed the neighborhood meeting. MR. MAPP CLOSED THE PUBLIC TESTIMONY. Hearing Examiner Minutes Hearing on !November 13, 2012 P a g e 12 r Comprehensive Plan Analysis for ANN-188-12: Mr. Mapp accepted the comprehensive plan analysis as listed in the staff report. Findings of Fact for ANN-188-12: The Hearing Examiner accepted the general facts as outlined in the staff report, public testimony, and the evidence list consisting of the written and verbal staff reports, the case file, PZ-1000 (aerial photo), and the sign-up sheet. All adopted city ordinances, standards, and codes were used in evaluating the application. Conclusions of Law for ANN-188-12: The Hearing Examiner accepted the Conclusions of Law as outlined in the staff report. RECOMMENDATION: The Hearing Examiner RECOMMENDED that Case Number ANN-188-12 BE APPROVED with conditions as outlined in the staff report. B. Case Number VAR-38-12 a request by Larry and Diana Jensen for a variance of the front/yard setback/allowance of a portable carport in the front yard setback area on property located at 922 Teton Avenue. 1. Anne Marie Skinner, Senior Planner/Development Team Leader, 621 Cleveland Blvd., Caldwell, ID 83605, presented the staff report and noted the variance is to place a portable carport in the front yard setback area. Ms. Skinner noted that the ordinance for accessory uses does not for placement of carports in the front yard setback area, thus the request to for a variance to the code. 2. Ms. Skinner stated the property owners are Larry and Diana Jensen, the property is located at 922 Teton Avenue in Caldwell, and noted from the staff report the five criteria that must be found to be true to grant a variance. Ms. Skinner noted that staffs analysis found all five criteria to be true. 3. Ms. Skinner explained that staff visited the site this morning and noted that the surrounding houses and properties are similar in size, shape, and placement/setback. Applicable agencies were notified and responses are noted in the written staff report. Ms. Skinner reminded the Hearing Examiner to make a finding for each of the five criteria. 4. Mr. Mapp wondered about the age of the subdivision. 5. Ms. Skinner noted that it was at least 50 years old, but didn't know for sure. 6. Diana Jensen, Applicant, 922 Teton Avenue, Caldwell, testified in favor of the application and noted the following details: the house is situated in the center of the block; the house was completed in 1970; the house itself is set back from the street, but the garage is more forward and there isn't much distance between the end of the garage and the street which is the basis for the hardship claim; the structure would be about two or three feet from the house and would be twenty-one feet long to cover vehicles adequately. 7. Ms. Jensen further noted that they are not in a financial situation to move to a larger house, the attached garage is currently being used for other purposes than vehicular coverage, there is not enough space on either side of the house to accommodate the carport. 8. Ms. Jensen stated the carport would not be a traffic hazard and would make it a matching color to the house so it wouldn't be an eyesore. She noted she went individually to each of the adjacent neighbors and explained the request Hearing Examiner Minutes Hearing on November 13, 2012 P a g e 13 r and received no opposition to the request. She stated they understand it's not a privilege to be automatically granted the request. 9. Ms. Jensen noted none of the public agencies were opposed to the request, and she doesn't see how it would be a detriment to the neighborhood since it will be as aesthetically -pleasing as possible. 10. Mr. Mapp confirmed whether or not a garage was present on the site. 11. Ms. Jensen affirmed that there is a garage on the property. 12. Mr. Mapp inquired as to why they didn't place their vehicles in the garage. 13. Ms. Jensen stated that, due to the small nature of the house, the garage is currently being utilized as a shop area and storage and the garage is only large enough for one vehicle anyway. The current space has been maximized and they don't have the financial resources to move somewhere bigger. 14. Mr. Mapp reminded Ms. Jensen that financial hardships were not a valid reason for approving a variance. 15. Ms. Jensen responded in the affirmative. 16. Larry Jensen, Applicant, 922 Teton Avenue, Caldwell, ID 83605, testified in favor of the application and agreed with everything previously stated by Diana Jensen, that they aren't trying to set a precedent. MR. MAPP CLOSED THE PUBLIC TESTIMONY. Comprehensive Plan Analysis for VAR-38-12: Mr. Mapp accepted the comprehensive plan analysis as listed in the staff report. Findings of Fact for VAR-38-12: The Hearing Examiner accepted the general facts as outlined in the staff report, public testimony, and the evidence list consisting of the written and verbal staff reports, the case file, and the sign-up sheet. All adopted city ordinances, standards, and codes were used in evaluating the application. Findings for the Variance Criteria were as follows: 1. FALSE: There has been a showing of undue hardship because of characteristics of the site which are size, location, configuration or dimensions of the site; or topographic or other physical site conditions which render the site unique from adjoining properties. Mr. Mapp stated, based upon testimony, the site is similar to other sites within that block and there aren't any topographical or physical conditions that would render the site unusable or unique from adjoining properties. It's not a hardship because the site is small. This criteria is false. 2. TRUE: Granting of the variance does not constitute a right or special privilege by the applicant. Mr. Mapp stated this could be seen in both ways. The applicant has identified she does have a garage, but it's being used for other functions within the home, and because of that, the garage can't be used for its designated purpose. The applicant's not asking for any special right or privilege, just to utilize the front yard setback area to cover their cars, so that one is true. 3. FALSE: Granting of the variance is not in conflict with the public interest. Mr. Mapp stated he can understand the applicant's viewpoint, but he also has to consider other homes in the area. There isn't a conflict at this time, but if others choose to utilize their garage for purposes other than car coverage and come to the planning and zoning commission to request relief, there is a conflict with public interest in regards to other individuals wanting to do the same thing. One may not be an issue, but several others may be. The ordinance calls for a garage and allows placement of a Hearing Examiner Minutes Hearing on November 13, 2012 P a g e 14 canopy in the side yard or in the front as long as it's behind the front yard setback area. There is a conflict with the public interest being the local zoning ordinance, so this criteria is false. 4. TRUE: Granting of the variance will not be injurious to the property or improvements of adjacent property owners or interfere with the enjoyment of such property or improvements thereon. Mr. Mapp stated the record shows the applicant talked to the neighbors and the neighbors had no conflict with the proposal, so one is true. 5. TRUE: Granting of the variance will not be materially detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare. Mr. Mapp stated that placement of a canopy would not bring the world to an end, so this one is true. Conclusions of Law for VAR-38-12: The Hearing Examiner accepted the Conclusions of Law as outlined in the staff report. ORDER OF DECISION: The Hearing Examiner ORDERED that Case Number VAR-38-12 IS DENIED, but the applicant can appeal this decision to the Caldwell City Council and try to convince Council that Items 1 and 3 are actually true. C. Case Number SUSPUD-209(P)-12 ZON-81-12 a request by Caldwell 260 LLC, 2006 Investment Fund LLC, MBI, Knife River, CK Engineering, and Tall Timber Consulting for approval of a comprehensive plan map change from Low Density Residential to Residential Estates; a rezone from R-1 Low Density Residential to R-S-1 Semi -Rural Residential 1 and a development agreement; a preliminary plat consisting of 72 residential lots and 11 common lots; and, a planned unit development which will include a gravel pit to be phased out, all on subject property consisting of approximately 262 acres located at the northeast corner of Lincoln Road and Midland Road, adjacent to the Boise River on the property's north boundary. 1. Anne Marie Skinner, Senior Planner/Development Team Leader, 621 Cleveland Blvd., Caldwell, ID 83605, presented the staff report and stated the request consists of four different items, each of which the Hearing Examiner will give a recommendation on which will then go to City Council for the decision. 2. Ms. Skinner showed an aerial photo of the subject property and labeled it as Exhibit PZ-1000 and noted the subject property outlined in blue at the northeast corner of Midland and Lincoln, with the Boise River on the north boundary of the subject property. She further stated the subject property consists of approximately 262 acres, has a Low Density Residential R-1 zoning with a Low Density Residential classification on the comprehensive plan map, and has preliminary plat approval, for Lakemont Subdivision with 507 residential lots, until 2019. 3. Mr. Mapp wanted to know if the final plats for Lakemont had to be started by 2019 or completely finished by 2019. 4. Ms. Skinner replied that all final plats had to be started, completed, and recorded by 2019, without any minimum date of commencement, as long as all final plats are recorded by 2019. 5. Ms. Skinner stated the subject property is currently owned by Caldwell 260 LLC, 2006 Investment Fund LLC, and Mutual Benefit Investments and the applicant/developer for this particular request is Knife River represented by Hearing Examiner Minutes Hearing on November 13, 2012 P a g e s Dave Turner, and the consultant for the project is Dave Turner with Tall Timber Consulting. 6. Ms. Skinner outlined the four different requests as follows: change the comprehensive plan map designation from Low Density Residential to Residential Estates; rezone the property from R-1 Low Density Residential to R- S-1 Semi -Rural Residential 1 with a development agreement; planned unit development approval for a temporary sand and gravel operation including concrete and asphalt plant operations with deviations from the zoning and subdivision ordinance requirements; and the fourth request is for preliminary plat approval for 72 rural residential lots. 7. Ms. Skinner read the residential estates definition as listed in Caldwell's Comprehensive Plan and then noted the surrounding land uses and zones as follows: north of the subject property is in the county and is the Boise River; northwest of the subject property is in the county and is a gravel pit; southwest of the subject property is agricultural in use in the county; south of the subject property is in the county and is agricultural in use; and east of the subject property is in the county and is agricultural in use. 8. Ms. Skinner noted the areas to the west and north of the subject property are not within the City's impact area and therefore do not have designations on the comprehensive plan map; however, the areas to the south and east are within the impact area and the area to the south is designated as Low Density Residential while the area to the east is designated as Residential Estates and Environmentally Sensitive along the Boise River. 9. Mr. Mapp wanted to know if the zoning classification of Semi -Rural Residential i being requested by the applicant would be new to the area. 10. Ms. Skinner confirmed that the zoning requested would be new, but the comprehensive plan map designation is consistent with the designation on the property to the east and that all of the property within the City's impact area from the subject property to the eastern -most boundary of the impact area is designated as Residential Estates on the Comprehensive Plan Map. 11. Ms. Skinner stated the site has access from Midland on the west, Lincoln on the south, and Knott on the east and that all of those streets are unimproved. The street improvements would take place at the time of development. The internal streets proposed are public with one approach on Lincoln and one on Midland and all of the lots fronting Knott Lane would take individual access to Knott Lane and that is one of the deviations requested. 12. Ms. Skinner noted that the internal streets, once constructed, would provide vehicular connectivity to the north, south, east, and west of the subject property. 13. Ms. Skinner stated that all of the public agencies were notified with the exception of Mason Creek Ditch Company because she forgot the property was within the Company's boundaries, but representatives from Mason Creek Ditch Company did find out about tonight's hearing and are in attendance. Ms. Skinner apologized for the lack of notification to Mason Creek Ditch Company. Pioneer Irrigation District (Case File Exhibit PA-1) and Idaho Fish and Game (Case File Exhibit PA-2) both sent comments which are in the case file and included in the Hearing Examiner's packet. Hearing Examiner Minutes Hearing on November 13, 2012 P a g e 16 r r 14. Ms. Skinner then stated she had received comments from three different agencies that afternoon, forwarded them to the applicant, identified them as Case File Exhibit PA-3 from Idaho Department of Lands, Case File Exhibit PA-4 from Boise River Flood Control District #10, and Case File Exhibit PA-5 from Idaho Rivers United and read them into the record. Ms. Skinner noted additional recommended conditions of approval based upon the late agency submittals, and submitted those conditions as Exhibit PZ-1001. 15. Ms. Skinner noted a landscaping plan was submitted with the application with portions of the ordinance being met and portions not being met. The portions not meeting the ordinance were requested as deviations and are all noted in the written staff report. 16. Ms. Skinner then noted supplemental regulations for Residential Estates as written in the staff report and further noted the conditions that must be met before a project can be approved as a planned unit development. Ms. Skinner reviewed the five conditions to qualify for a planned unit development, and reiterated that the project must meet at least one of those five conditions to qualify for planned unit development approval. If none of the five criteria can be found to be true, then the project cannot be approved as a planned unit development. 17. Mr. Mapp wondered if the ordinance identified any restrictions for the 30% of the ground that may be utilized for a use other than what is permitted in the underlying zone. 18. Ms. Skinner stated the ordinance does not provide any guidance for the 30% rule other than the limit on the amount of property utilized for the non - permitted use. 19. Ms. Skinner explained that the remainder of the staff report dealt with the deviations, and if the planned unit development can't be approved, then none of the deviations can be approved since the deviations are only allowed as part of the planned unit development. She further noted that, as submitted, the project exceeds the 30% of the ground that may be utilized for a non - permitted use and the recommended conditions of approval address that issue. 20. Mr. Mapp asked if the other part of the application was for a subdivision plat of 72 residential lots. 21. Ms. Skinner confirmed that was the final part of the application. 22. Mr. Mapp reiterated that the request involved a comprehensive plan map change, a rezone, a preliminary plat, and a planned unit development for a gravel and asphalt plant and residential lots. 23. David Yorgason, Applicant's Representative, 14254 W. Battenberg Dr., Boise, ID 83713 testified in favor of the application. Mr. Yorgason noted that staff recommended and encouraged the applicant to reduce the density of the site with more open area and the applicant agreed, so the applicant agrees with everything in the staff report related to the comprehensive plan map change and rezone. 24. Mr. Yorgason discussed some subdivisions that he has worked on and provided pictures labeled as Exhibit PZ-1002 (pictures of Castiebury); Exhibit PZ-1003 (pictures of 3 Rivers Ranches); and Exhibit PZ-1004 (pictures of another Hearing Examiner Minutes Hearing on November 1.1, 2012 P a g e 17 subdivision). He stated these exhibits show what is envisioned for the area with some nice landscaping and some real nice things. 25. Mr. Mapp asked if there was a market for estate lots still. 26. Mr. Yorgason responded that estate lots in Castlebury West today. 27. Mr. Mapp stated it wouldn't determine his decision, but he was just curious. 28. Mr. Yorgason explained that the effort of his discussion would now focus on the preliminary plat and planned unit development. He noted that the approved Lakemont Subdivision is for 507 lots and this proposal is only for 72 lots with quite a bit more open space. He stated the site proposes some unique challenges, as well as opportunities, such as the Boise River with delineated wetlands. The applicant plans to preserve all of the wetlands along the riverbank of the Boise River, and has employed Rob Tiedemann to help with that preservation. Mr. Yorgason also noted that fishing, wild life, and hunting takes place along the Boise River, even though hunting is not allowed within City limits. 29. Mr. Yorgason then addressed Fifteen Mile Creek and noted its location on the subject property. He stated Fifteen Mile Creek is dirty with a lot of sediments, nitrates, and pollutants. The goal of the project is to use the lake concept and work with the permitting process of the Army Corps of Engineers and EPA to settle out the sediment and clean the water. This would produce cleaner water to flow into the Boise River and would be part of the mitigation plan. Before construction can begin, a mitigation plan needs to be in place. He explained that he has worked with Army Corps, DEQ, Department of Water Resources, Fish and Game and others and appreciates all the letters that have been shared. He stated the applicant, Knife River, is a construction contractor and has done a lot of these types of activities throughout the valley and it's standard procedure working with all of those agencies and getting all of the appropriate permits in accordance with all rules and regulations, federal, state, and local. 30. Mr. Yorgason went on to discuss the planned unit development and noted that the site does qualify for a PUD and again stated they are trying to do what they can to work with Fifteen Mile Creek and improve the water quality in the area which would add to the qualification for a PUD. He then addressed the size of the lakes and talked about identifying subdivisions in the area with larger lakes. Mr. Yorgason referred to photos in Exhibit PZ-1003, which is 3 Rivers Subdivision and is off of Linder. He noted the lakes in this subdivision are beautiful with lots of birds and fish and other wildlife. He recognizes that some of the wildlife will be altered in the course of construction, but that is part of what the plan is all about is improving the area. 31. Mr. Yorgason continued by stating that the rest of this site is a sand and gravel pit. He noted that there are several sand and gravel pits west of this site. 32. Mr. Mapp wondered about the life of the existing gravel pits to the west as to when they began and when they would end. 33. Mr. Yorgason replied he did not have answers for those questions. He also stated they were all in Canyon County. 34. Mr. Mapp wondered if they were adjacent to any residential subdivisions. 35. Mr. Yorgason said as you went further west, they might be, but he didn't know for sure. Hearing Examiner Minutes Hearing on November 13, 2012 Pa g e IS r 36. Mr. Mapp wondered if the gravel pits came after the subdivisions, if there were any, or before. 37. Mr. Yorgason did not know the answer. He did re-emphasize that the approved Lakemont Subdivision has over 50 acres of lakes and over 500 houses. This subdivision, while it has more lakes, is trying to mirror an image of some of the developments in the Eagle area. One of the design criteria he utilized was having an adequate depth and separation so that when the home owners come in they have a sense of privacy and seclusion which is desired for this market. He has measured this as a minimum of 500 feet width and this is the design they have come up with. He further noted the lakes need to be deep enough so there isn't marshy area and algae. He believes the Lakemont lakes are 14 feet deep, and he stated there has been concern expressed about this depth. He stated their goal is not to make a channel, but to have deeper lakes so there won't be the moss and the target depth is 25 feet. 38. The sand and gravel pit material will be used for filling in the flood plain, adding to the landscaping berms, and utilized for the standard grading that takes place in a subdivision. The batch plant operations are on the property adjacent to the western boundary which has a gravel pit across the street. It will be an eyesore and that is a challenge. He wants this subdivision to be something he is proud of and referenced the pictures of lakes he submitted. 39. Mr. Yorgason then referred to Exhibit PZ-1001, the requested modifications to the conditions of approval listed in the staff report and reviewed each of the requests. 40. Mr. Mapp clarified about digging out Lake 1 and Lake 2 and being completely finished with the gravel extraction, but still operating the batch plant and gravel crushing operation. 41. Mr. Yorgason stated that they would continue to dig Lake 3 at the north. The lakes are large and it will take some time to dig them. They will be working on the third lake while introducing the subdivision. 42. Mr. Mapp wondered about 12.28 that reads "within twenty years, all gravel pit operations, extractions, mining, batch plant operations and everything similar there must cease and desist" and clarified that the operations would be starting around 2014, so in 2034, twenty-eight years later, the gravel pit would be completed. Mr. Mapp wondered how many residential units would be in place at that time out of the 72. 43. Mr. Yorgason stated there would be more than six, but he couldn't tell Mr. Mapp how many exactly because he didn't know what the market would do in the upcoming years and was worried about another recession. 44. Mr. Mapp's concern was that the timeframe given is a long time and what guarantee does the City have that the residential will be built within that period of time, other than the six Mr. Yorgason just mentioned. Mr. Mapp expressed concern that there hasn't been presented a residential phasing plan for the first twenty years, that the City has no guarantee of the residential ever happening. 45. Mr. Mapp wondered if Mr. Yorgason submitted drawings of housing types for his Castlebury project in Eagle. 46, Mr. Yorgason replied in the affirmative. Hearing Examiner Minutes Hearing on November 13, 2012 P a g e 19 47. Mr. Mapp reiterated that drawings were submitted because that's what Eagle requires and expressed concern over the lack of design, the length of the road, and the lack of planning for this planned unit development. 48. Mr. Mapp expressed concern with the length of time of the phasing plan before the residential was completed. Mr. Mapp expressed concern that the planning questions of the gravel pit operations weren't addressed regarding hours of operation, how many trucks will be in and out on a daily basis, and are there adequate roads to move the gravel from the site. 49. Mr. Mapp wondered about the aesthetic value of doing this gravel pit in this area, as well as the impact on birds, mammals, and wildlife. Mr. Mapp wondered why the applicant hadn't received approvals from any of the applicable agencies prior to the hearing. 50. Mr. Mapp wondered how a gravel pit is compatible to that area. He acknowledged there is a gravel pit nearby, but that has nothing to do with this application. The question is what is being done on this site, not on other sites already in existence. 51. Mr. Mapp voiced worry about the lack of pathways on the plan and the lack of amenities for younger people in the development. 52. Mr. Mapp stated he has dealt with gravel pit applications in the past and usually they are located in the outer reaches of the county, not in areas where residential is going to be built. He couldn't imagine estate homes in an area where gravel trucks would be running on a daily basis. 53. Mr. Yorgason responded that there is a mitigation plan in place for the I.akemont Subdivision and that there have been discussions with Rick Ward and pointed out that one of the conditions identified by staff is for a mitigation plan to be submitted and approved prior to submittal of construction drawings for the first phase. 54. Mr. Yorgason expressed that hours of operation on Saturday would only be for the batch plant, not for mining and extraction, because contractors utilize concrete on Saturdays. 55. Mr. Mapp clarified that the reason for not asking for the gravel pit right now is that it is not allowed by the current zone. 56. Mr. Yorgason replied in the affirmative, that they are asking to utilize the material that comes from the lakes. The batch plant will be contained within ten acres which is substantially less than the thirty percent allowed by the planned unit development. The lakes are larger than thirty percent, but those are for the subdivision. 57. Mr. Mapp clarified the comprehensive plan map change and rezone was necessary because re -platting the subdivision with larger lots wouldn't work. 58. Mr. Yorgason stated that was correct. 59. Mr. Mapp addressed the preliminary plat and stated it was totally inadequate and was not thought out. He is concerned about the length of the three roadways and that there are only three roadways. He also stated there should be more pathways and connectivity, especially around the lakes. 60. David Turner, Applicant, 5450 W. Gowen, Boise, ID 83709, testified in favor of the application and stated he is a representative of Knife River and has been personally involved as a developer of 5,000 lots in Ada County. Mr. Turner believes the long-term result will fit the surrounding areas and the short-term Hearing Examiner Minutes Hearing on November 13, 2012 P a g e 110 will provide materials for construction and gravel to outlying areas of the community. Mr. Turner noted other long-term benefits include a 200-foot buffer along the Boise River for fish and wild life and improvements to the water quality of Fifteen Mile Creek 61. Mr. Turner stated the gravel pit directly to the west was started in the early 1990s and is due for completion in a few years. It's about the same acreage, although they are taking everything as a gravel pit and he is only going to be taking half. The gravel pit on the west side of Middleton Road also began in the early 1990s. 62. Mr. Turner stated a 404 permit would be required and all requirements of Army Corp, DEQ, EPA, Water Resources, and Fish and Game would be adhered to, as well as requirements from Department of Lands for a reclamation plan which would include discharge of water. 63, Martin Galvin, P.O. Box 115, Middleton, ID 83644, testified in opposition of the application noting that, as a representative of Mason Creek Ditch Company, he was surprised that the ditch and dam are not shown on the maps. This ditch brings water down to about one-third of Mason Creek Ditch Company's ground. Mr. Galvin stated it looked like there were going to be houses right over his ditch, and pointed out on Exhibit PZ-1005 the approximate location of the ditch and dam. Mr. Galvin noted there are already existing gravel pits that used to be pasture ground, and there are constant battles with weeds on these gravel pits. 64. Dorothy Bicandi, 1905 Mason, Caldwell, ID 83605, testified in opposition to the application on behalf of Mason Creek Ditch Company. Ms. Bicandi noted the plan was to let Fifteen Mile Creek fill up the lakes and that this would require a water right which they do not have. 64. Leslie Jansen van Beek, 9613 Lincoln Rd., Caldwell, ID 83605, testified in opposition of the application and submitted her comments as Exhibit PZ-1006. 65. Harrison Jansen van Beek, 9613 Lincoln Rd., Caldwell, ID 83605, testified in opposition of the application for a gravel pit. He stated he suffers from allergies and is allergic to dust and it is difficult for him to breathe right now. His research indicates that dust from gravel mining operations can lead to serious respiratory problems because of scar tissue that develops around dust lodged in the lungs. He stated each member of his family, as well as their neighbors, will have long-term, life -threatening respiratory issues by the time the developer has completed the gravel pit. 66. Dale Jansen van Beek, 9613 Lincoln Rd., Caldwell, ID 83605, testified in opposition of the application and stated Mr. Turner has spoken of some gravel pits to the west. Those gravel pits are located in Canyon County. Mr. van Beek said he is not aware of any operating gravel pits, asphalt plants, or batch plants within the City and feels they would be inconsistent with the City's comprehensive plan. 67. Roger Rosdahl, 20485 Madison, Caldwell, ID 83607, testified in opposition of the application and stated the project is being misrepresented as a subdivision but that is not the end result that would be achieved. He stated he was told at the neighborhood meeting that 5 million yards of gravel would be extracted for off -site use and 1 million yards would be extracted for on -site use. Mr. Rosdahl's calculations indicate that for a 20-yard truck that equals 300,000 Hearing Examiner Minutes Hearing on November 13, 2012 P a g e 11 r r trucks and close to 500,000 trucks if ten -wheelers. Mr. Rosdahl emphasized it's currently approved as Lakemont Subdivision, and that subdivision will have to be adjusted for consideration of the new flood plain maps. Mr. Rosdahl commented that the timeframe of 34 years for operation of a gravel pit and then completion of a residential subdivision is too long. Mr. Rosdahl talked about the rural nature of the area and the length of stream bank that would be completely destroyed, as well as displacement of wildlife. Mr. Rosdahl said he was told at the neighborhood meeting that they would be installing sewer for the development and that it would be 20 years until the last house was built. He feels the information presented tonight is different, and that the project is a poorly planned gravel pit/development. The only thing of benefit is reducing homes from 507 homes to 72 homes. 68. Pam Peterson, 21250 N. Midland, Caldwell, ID 83605, testified in opposition of the application and agreed with all the previous opposing testimony. Ms. Peterson presented to Mr. Mapp a site plan of the Lakemont Subdivision labeled as Exhibit PZ-1007 to show how the approve plan differs from the proposed plan. Ms. Peterson stated the concerns about chemicals, safety, and water that have all been addressed very thoroughly by the previous opposing testimony. Ms. Peterson pointed to her property location on PZ-1005. 69. Sherri Jarvis, 9491 Lincoln Rd., Caldwell, ID 83605, testified in opposition to the application and stated her house is right across the street from the proposed gravel pit, pointing out the location on PZ-1000. Ms. Jarvis stated the housing project was one thing, but the gravel pit was something altogether different. Ms. Jarvis stated concerns about possibly selling her property in the future with a gravel pit right across the street. The thing that concerns Ms. Jarvis the most is the gravel pit. Ms. Jarvis reiterated that she agreed with all the previous opposing testimony. 70. Mr. Mapp mentioned that gravel pits are traditionally only allowed in industrial zones, but the subject property is a residential zone with an addition of a gravel pit. 71. Chad Kinkela, applicant's engineer, 860 Headwaters Dr., Eagle, ID 83616, testified in favor of the application and stated he lives in Two Rivers Subdivision and that subdivision has huge lots that back up to lakes similar to this project and it's very aesthetically -pleasing. 72. Mr. Kinkela noted that the depth of the lakes is very important to the health of the lake and stated the magic number of the lake to be dug is 25 feet. He further discussed the water quality of Fifteen Mile Creek by noting that the Army Corps of Engineers encouraged them to dump the water into the lakes to help clean up the water quality. Further, they are aware of the diversion in the irrigation ditch that was mentioned by representatives of Mason Creek Ditch Company and they have no plans to inhibit water delivery. 73. Mr. Mapp wondered why that wasn't figured out prior to site plan development. 74. Mr. Kinkela responded that this is more of a conceptual plan and that he wasn't aware he needed to place curb, gutter, sidewalk, and irrigation features on this plan. Hearing Examiner Minutes Hearing on November 13, 2012 Page 112 r 75. Mr. Mapp stated there is a canal that isn't even identified on the drawing as mentioned by Mr. Galvin. Mr. Mapp also wondered about the water right needed to bring water into the lake. 76. Mr. Kinkela responded that not showing the canal was an oversight on his part and the water right for Mason Creek Ditch Company will be maintained. He further stated that the property itself has a water right as well and that water right will be utilized for a pressurized irrigation system. 77. Mr. Mapp said the application stated there was going to be water pumped out of the lake which isn't allowed. 78. Mr. Kinkela stated he thought Water Resources did allow that as part of a mitigation plan and he has worked on plans like that before successfully. 79. Mr. Mapp said that there were so many different things that need to be done that haven't been done and the applicant is asking for approval on a project when there are at least 30 things that still need to be done. Mr. Mapp still has an issue with a gravel pit in a residential zone even if within the 30% allowed. It seems like the idea is the applicant wants three gravel pits, and is trying to figure out how to do that in a residential zone. It doesn't seem like this was completely thought-out except the end result of a gravel pit. 80. Mr. Kinkela disagreed and stated the whole idea behind a preliminary plat was to put together a concept plan and work with staff and get conditions of approval. 81. Mr. Mapp said yes, that is the case if you're just doing a sixty -lot subdivision. However, this application reduces lots from 507 to 72 and- brings a gravel pit into a residential area with all the mitigation issues regarding gravel pits, hours of operation, capacity for trucks, and how many trucks. There is still a big problem of a 20-year gravel pit and then 20 years later for residential, It doesn't fit. Anything could be done with regards to a lake, especially looking at the site plan for Lakemont. It doesn't seem like there has been any thought in this proposal, and it doesn't comply with the planned unit development ordinance. There are five items that must be met in the planned unit development ordinance and none of them have been touched upon. There is no imagination in the design with the long and straight roads. 82. Mr. Kinkela stated he tried to put in some curves and a roundabout to slow down traffic and mitigate the distance issues. 83. Mr. Yorgason, applicant's representative, spoke in rebuttal of opposing comments. He noted there is a check structure approximately 200 feet south of the house in the center of the project and they will work with the ditch company on their water right, canal, and check structure. 84. Mr. Mapp wondered if Mr. Yorgason needed gravel pits for this development. 85. Mr. Yorgason responded they are not hiding from the fact that there are gravel operations proposed. The lakes are sized for the project and the sand and gravel operation is necessary to utilize the material from the lakes. 86. Mr. Yorgason stated Mr. Rosdahl's figures on the amount of gravel to be hauled off should be at least half, with at least 40 trucks per day. 87. Mr. Mapp clarified that would be 40 trucks per day at 8 hours per day would be 5 trucks per hour every day for 20 years. 87, Mr. Yorgason replied in the affirmative and pointed out that residential housing produces about 10 trips per day. Hearing Examiner Minutes Hearing on November 13, 2012 P a g e 113 r 88. Mr. Mapp replied that car traffic from residential housing is quite a bit different than gravel trucks. 89. Mr. Yorgason stated the city is requiring the installation of Knott Lane, which is a long and straight stretch. MR. MAPP CLOSED THE PUBLIC TESTIMONY. Mr. Mapp continued the hearing for the purpose of rendering the comprehensive plan analysis, findings of fact, conclusions of law, and recommendation for each of the four items which are the comprehensive plan map change, the rezone, the preliminary plat, and the planned unit development for a gravel pit. The continued hearing will be held on Tuesday, December 11, 2012 at 7:00 p.m. to deliver the decisions for this case. V. Planning Issues —None. VI. Adjournment The Hearing Examiner adjourned the meeting at approximately 10:33 p.m. Anne nior Planner / Development Team Leader )ME MAPP, ON THE DATE NOTED ATTEST: ak - 0 Date Hearing Examiner Minutes Hearing on November 13, 2012 1' a 5 P 114 Ph: 208.455.3000 Fax: 208.455.3003 / www cityofcaldwelt.com Tlae Trea{lure of tlae Valley Caldwell Hearing Examiner agenda for Public Hearing on Tuesday, November 13, 2012 at 7:00 p.m., in the Community Room of the Caldwell Police Department at 110 South 5t' Avenue, Caldwell, Idaho. AGENDA Call to Order Review of Proceedings Old Business A. Approve the Minutes of the Hearing Examiner Mapp. x ausly signed by fi New Business 1::I A. B. C. Case No. ANN-188-12 a request by The Ghdro cfJesus, )Wst.pf Latter -Day Saints and Gene Ulmer for annexation of appro�lm�tefy 4,69 acres into the City of Caldwell with a C-2 Community Commercial zoning d744gn�jtion,.to+'at6d:afthe southwest s f corner of Ustick Road and Florida.Avenue, Case No. VAR-38-12 a request by Larry ari na Jenseil:�. dt 'variance of the _µ } front/yard setbacklallowance.of, a poha`bli'` IFT'ili! h tetbagk,area on property located at 922. Teton Avenue '`� .r���. �� r i ti • ' Case No,�SUB( Q 2t)9'{P) 2 ONr81 Jga reques tqy Caldinel }2 0 LLC, 2006 Investment FundC Mf 1, nif� River, 6K ��gi6AA(' ; i �Tal��mber-Consuiting for approval' ; r' f� � t� comprehye�sive plan`:map charige�rom. Low Density Residential to ' Residential Estates; "a ezzoria from R-1'Low Dansijy Rdsidentl[al to R-5-1 Semi -Rural Residential 1{and a develQpmerif agreerrteitt, a preliminary plat consisting of 72 residential'1ots;and 'l1�"rh-Q"n loti-' nd, a planne unit d&e1o6ment which will include a grauel'pit t plased out, all on subaeclroeYt�ns�sttr�g of approximately 262 acres located at the northeast.W' — df ktc, In Road and Midland Road, adjacent to the Boise River on the property's.• 6rth'b6u0 ry V. Next Hearing: Examiner Public Meeting Date: Tuesdiv, 4 $ty-_8jP13,. at 7:00 p.m. {xM'i .- �. 1J 4: �4N'41 ' .al ".•if �xi. S i'�LL i..- Gri, ti r VI. Adjourn - ... Y.. we Any person needing special accommodations to participate,f3eeting should contact the City Office at (208) 4564667 prior to the meet ;n Cualquier persona necesitando comodidades especiales para partldipar en la r debe contactar al las oficinas de la Ciudad o Ilame a (208) 455- 4667 antes de - cauanulam 1tMbwa m�. AMERICA +f�+:. n+►� 11QQ1Y Isr City Hall - 411 Blaine Street - P.O. Box 1179 - Caldwell, Idaho 83606 - 208.455.3000