Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPublic ResponseA,,�jN-b2-o! r PUBLIC RESPONSE ITEM DATE SUBMITTED BY - } b t p9- 5 7- V7� ?f -S ?6 kcsT lb j5ka mnC lf�L �'J0-O 5 REn rTO7r 'FR -'1 e "i sk 4 Cmm;r2 e- k- ItA Ay len G V4 #vt s-I" D A R-8 A .ramme kles S A-P(- W-1 RRc tsl "ihe hl)IGS -0 S S 'At" �� �� r C REQUEST TO EXAMINE FILES on l 2003, I visited the Caldwell Community Development Department and examined the case file for Case No. Aj;� - 02'-- o I . I requested copies of the following documents taken from the file: I understand that this request to examine files will be made a part of the permanent file regarding this case. Q ��+e c �� ba Print 14ame Signatur ple- 9 REQUEST TO EXAMINE FILES On ,�c,6 ZC , 2003, I visited the Caldwell Community Development Department and examined the case file for Case No. On - )z -o 1 . I requested copies of the following documents taken from the file: I understand that this request to examine files will be made a part of the permanent file regarding this case. Print N e Staff Sign ture L- W On if 2001, I visited the Caldavell Community Development Department and examined the case file for Case No. _ . ::h9 requested copies of the following documents taken from the files: n I understand that this request toe amine files will be made a part of the permanent file ragarding this case. Print name staff Signature 00 -r REQUEST TO EXAMINE FILES deb 27, zL)oa On , 2003, I visited the Caldwell Community Development Department and examined the case file for Case No. kDA - o - a . I requested copies of the following documents taken from the file: I understand that this request to examine files will be made a part of the permanent file regarding this case. r? 11 r�ar� Print Name U Staff REQUEST TO EXAMINE FILES On �bfgar-LI I. (' , 20031 I visited the Caldwell Community Development Department and examined the case file for Case No. A=_D2--o_ . I requested copies of the following documents taken from the file: TZ"I9 Droffr D� �2CiSr D n Z FZ- X M,-4-v-�o 5.7 A - S7 I understand that this request to examine files will be made a part of the permanent file regarding this case. Print blame Sig ature u.! 1.. �E/lhA:�. tal REQUEST TO EXAMINE FILES on i-aAn ,, , Z �—, 2002, I visited the Caldwell Community Development Department and examined the case file for Case No. N'V\ - . I requested copies of the following documents taken from the file: (�5jie r C- /J / 0�-j jo C, }n C� ]ofl I understand that this request to examine files will be made a part of the permanent file regarding this case. Print -Name Signature Staff r February 21, 2002 To Whom It May Concern: FEB 25 2002 My name is Chris Yamamoto and I reside at 818 Suncrest Lane, Caldwell, Idaho. A business trip precludes me from attending the March 4, 2001 — Case No. ADA-01-01, an appeal by Ron Ames of the Planning and Zoning Commission's decision to uphold an administrative determination concerning the storage of concession vehicles as part of a business operation in an R-1 zone. The property is located at 723 Suncrest Lane. I am sole proprietor of two area businesses and a partner of a third company. I am pro business. I am a staunch defender of property rights. I also contend that Planning & Zoning should play a role in intelligent planning as to the zoning of commercial, schools, churches, residential etc., to provide for a quality of life for all entities. A common occurrence in zoning issues are opponents complaining simply because they do not like change or they do not want a new neighbor. Let me assure you, neither I nor any of the other concerned neighbors assume that stance. If the Ames's want a residential dwelling in our neighborhood, we welcome them. A commercial building, we do not embrace. Please consider the following points: 1. We believe the Ames's received a permit for the detached garage/shop by deceptive means. It is apparent to me, after conversing with all the parties involved, that Darwin Ames (builder and Ron's brother) and Ron Ames played a shell game to appropriate this permit. Contrary to normal standards, a permit was issued without accurate or complete plans. City personnel wouldn't think much of this, in that they would assume Darwin, as an established builder, would know what he is doing. They convinced city planners that this was a detached garage with a house to follow. The city should not have granted the permit. In their defense, I contend this shell game engineered by Darwin & Ron Ames mislead the city planners, who became aware of the problem after construction had commenced. 2. Was a house ever actually planned or did Ron just acquire a cheap commercial lot? The city heard (did not see plans) about a 2-bedroom house. At the meeting Ames had us attend (after the structure was erected and after the city had informed him that garaging of commercial vehicles in this shop/garage as a feature of his business operation, constituted a land use that is prohibited in a R-I Zone) he showed us a 3-bedroom house with plans dated one day prior to our meeting. It was obvious; little thought was put into this, in that the placement of the house and shop leave a lot to be desired. The house would basically block one of the overhead doors of the shop. Furthermore, the plans we were shown did not comply with set back regulation. His house on Rim View Drive was never on the market. p3 l 3. The Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) suggests the permit be revoked due to the application being "incomplete, inaccurate or misleading" 4. Ron Ames claimed that little or no washing of the trailers would occur at the Suncrest site. However, the city engineer saw red flags when Darwin inquired about a commercial water meter — or if the residential meter would be adequate for washing Ron's trailer's. 5. We do have safety concerns with commercial trailer traffic and children in the neighborhood. Caldwell Fire Department claims the water supply on Suncrest is inadequate for a commercial structure housing commercial vehicles with gasoline and propane tanks. Ron's attorney points out the propane tanks would be empty, which is worse than full in that an empty or near empty gas tank is much more likely to explode than a full tank. b. The main issue is that the structure is a commercial building. It is not a garage that will fit the aesthetics of a house. It is a steel commercial type building that is too tall for the area with three large commercial type doors. Whether or not the Ames's do business directly out of this location is not the issue. The fact of the matter is, they will park, clean and maintain vehicles and trailers of a business nature, for personal gain, is a commercial looking structure. We can argue about what constitutes a commercial building for sometime, but simply put, this monstrosity looks like a commercial shop and it sits right in the middle of a quiet residential street. 7. Ames's attorney may argue that two other shed type structures are in the area. The structures, Ross's boat garage and the city pump station, are not on Suncrest and not germane to these proceedings. 8. Ms. Garrity (Ames' attorney" has taken issue with Ms. Archuleta's comment, that she looked at the building and "would not want it in her neighborhood." Ms. Garrity in a letter to Mr. Hassen also stated that Archuleta's statement along with the neighbors complaining has only "confused" the issue. The only confusion that exists is the Ames's attempt to manipulate city code. I have to wonder if Ms. Garrity would like this structure next to her home. 9. The neighborhood is without question "adversely impacted" by this commercial structure. Any and all realtors and appraisers will attest to this fact. (See Steven Hall, appraiser exhibit). A Caldwell builder said, "Darwin knows better than that." Friends and relatives who have visited my residence, look across the street and ask, "What the hell is that?" Removal of the offending structure will cost the Ames. However, I own the two view lots across from the Ames structure as well as my home. The devaluation of my home and lots would likely exceed the Ames' loss. Not only will this commercial building devalue my home, but also diminish the salability of my two lots. I purchased these lots to have control over what would happen next to me. I never dreamed I should be concerned about a commercial shop across the street. 10. The development director had little difficulty in his determination to revoke the Ames permit. The Caldwell P & Z was unanimous with one abstention to uphold this decision. If the city of Caldwell intends to abide by its own rules, this body must uphold these decisions_ r In conclusion, there is no option but to remove the Ames building from Suncrest Lane. If the Ames built a commercial building here out of complete ignorance, I would feel some compassion. However, I contend the Ames purposely hood winked all of us and I have no sympathy. Let it be known, I will seek remedy to this situation one way or another. Thank you for your time and patience. Sincerely, Chris and ArleneYamamoto FEB 25 2002 D To Whom It May Concern: 24 February, 2002 I have just moved into 809 Suncrest, in Caldwell and have just been informed of the proceedings of Mr. Ames and his large shed. I have seen the many trucks he has on the other side of Canyon Hill and it is quite an eye sore, to have all those trucks parked in the neighborhood. Plus the safety of children when moving them to and from the area would not be very good. No matter how careful of a driver a person is, backing and moving large vehicles, around children is dangerous. You can not tell what they will do. I have 7 children age 13 on down and they have bikes and balls and are children and having commercial trucks going up and down our street is a concern. I moved here because it is a quiet and fairly safe street and I feel it would be a danger to allow trucks like that in the neighborhood. I have heard that they will be kept in the shed, but I know and 1 am sure that you know that the trucks when in use in the season, will not be kept put away and will become an attraction to children and thieves to the neighborhood. I do not feel that vehicles like that should be kept in neighborhoods. Surely he could rent a spot at a storage place. That would be much more appropriate place for such vehicles. Please do not allow our neighborhood to be compromised in such a way. Than u, Angela C is REQUEST TO EXAMINE FILES On ' f -ZAD , 2002, I visited the Caldwell Community Development Department and examined the case file for Case No. MA- I requested copies of the following documents taken from the file: �-? 1. Aj, -z- � ) 0jr I understand that this request to examine files will be made a part of the permanent file regarding this case. Print Name )& "/- Lnu-Z�2 s a" Si nature 0 0 r Pia-ot-bl PUBLIC RESPONSE ITEM DATE SUBMITTED BY fI� i 1 i-i PILE No.612 11/15 '01 10:32 ID:SPINK BUTLER CLAPP, LLP FAX:208 388 1001 � r REQUEST TO EXAMINE FILES PAGE 2/ 2 On November 13, 200 1, 1 attended the CaldwalI planning and Zoning Commission Hearing and requested copies of the case file for Case No. ADA 01.01. I am requesting copies of the following documents from the files: Including, but not limited to: All records, documents, photographs and reports; amring tapes; Pz all Exhibits presented at/for the hearing; all notes and correspondence, including a -mail, relating the property at 723 Suncrest Lane, Rory and Mary Ames, and/or Case No. ADA 01-01; a,` -��� and, all internal, external, and interdepartmental manoranda. dLQ s{ • I5—ok O-OPt clb ?z Nuv. , i S a,oat I understand that this request for copies/to examine files will be made a part of the permanent file regarding this case, Print name Signature 0 r bp ' : ►IC• . r J � • / f P;:� - 3+� , tL� aLUll ot ib , f I 1 Y ;� r � r . � : 7 ' � 1 � 1 I � � � � r �� . ► �. � � � ;, i - ' r �� - r + • � � � _ + � J ` � �1 � � • � � Novi1D 13 zaot I am Norman Rutxen, living at 802 Suncrest, directly across the street from the Imes property. I would first like to basically express my disappointment and frustration in the wzj me :pro hmtiY proceeded with the development of this nice view building site. We regret having to take action to� prevent this type of use for this site. We do not wish to create problems or difficulty for the Ames but it is important for us to protect our interests in our own homes. It is difficult to understand the thinking of anyone who would try to make this type of development and use of this sight, being very obvious that it would be strongly resented by the neighbors. If they did intend to live there they could not help but realize the feeling of their neighbors with such an unsightly building and the financial impact it would have on surrounding property. This is the kind of action that prompts pressure to pass more restrictive building regulations which then often deprives others of their proper use of their property and infringes on property rights. The public then resents the governing agencies because of the loss of their property rights when actually it was brought on by the inconsiderate people doing improper things that caused the restrictions to be made. If the Ames wanted to have their commercial operation base to be located at their home site they could have purchased a site outside the city in an area that would not negatively effect the neighbors. It seems apparent that they purposely tried to conceal the true purpose of developing this lot in a number of ways, one being constructing this storage shed on the ground in sections and then setting it up in a few hours with a crane. We came home in the afternoon after leaving in the morning and returning to see the shocking sight of this huge shed fully erected. We had no idea it would be such a tall unsightly building or we would have objected sooner. We often entertain friends and members of our church and a question now we have to be ready to answer when they first arrive is "What is that thing across the street?" It is so totally out of place and character for this little street of view property houses. Our points of concern are: 1. Zoning violation: It is totally obvious this building was designed and constructed to house commercial vehicles and equipment. It has absolutely no residential appearance or design. At the time the building permit was granted no house plans were presented. Now after problems have developed Ames wanted to meet with the neighbors and presented house plans dated 10/29/01, the day before we met with them. These plans reveal some serious problems and appear to not have been part of an original plot plan for the following reasons: a. less than one half the lot frontage is taken up by the house. Almost 60 feet of the 100 foot frontage is used for driveway and parking. Bear in mind this is a beautiful view building site. Any person considering using this lot for residence would have taken advantage of the spectacular view and used the frontage for a house design to add value and enjoyment of the view. b. It is a single story house which elevation will be lower than the storage shed. This might be appropriate on a farm but not in a residential zone. c. The plans include a garage as a part of the house so the shed is apparently intended for the commercial purpose only. d. It seems to us that the house plans were an afterthought and were not part of a reasonable consideration of the use of this lot as a house sight. e. It appears to us that they were able to buy this lot at a lower price than they would have had to pay for a commercial sight or parcel outside the city and drill a well etc. The price of this lot was set knowing that the drain field to the house setting on the west half of this lot was located where it would be a problem to build on. 2. Safety: These big trailers will have to be pulled up close to the curb in front of our house and backed into the shed. We feel this is safety hazard for our grandchildren and neighborhood children. We resent the thought of them coming in during the night returning from an event, and shining the head lights into our house and the sound of the trucks maneuvering them back into the shed. 3. These trailers apparently carry substantial sized propane tanks to be able to cook and bake pies for several days run. To have them stored in a shed, which is 15 feet from children playing in the adjacent yard of a day care, seems to be ridiculous. We don't like the idea of it even living across the street. The possibility of leaks developing in these tanks or lines is increased by the fact they are in a vehicle that is hauled substantial distances with vibration and movement. 4. Infringing on neighbors privacy: Two electrical boxes were wired into the front of the shed over the tall doors to apparently have floodlights to light the drive and parking area. These lights would shine into the front of our house creating a very undesirable situation for us. These boxes were covered by vents after the city came to look at the property but are still wired in so they could still be used to mount floodlights. 5. Loss of property value: If this building and its use for this commercial operation is allowed it would substantially reduce the value of our property. It would hurt the sale potential greatly and require a reduction in price possibly as much as $40,000.00. 1 received that estimate from a realtor and can get an actual appraisal figure if it becomes necessary. We will suffer more loss of value to our property than the Ames paid for this lot. 6. Improper parking: Mr. Ames has other support vehicles, which are parked by his present home. These would have to be parked outside as the trailers are using the two hall doors. This is unsightly and totally undesirable in a nice neighborhood like this. I have a dump truck and a backhoe. Like Mr. Ames uses his trailers in other places, I use this equipment on other sites as well, but I wouldn't think of parking and storing them by my house. They are commercial equipment and have no place in a residential zone. My neighbor is a farmer, but he wouldn't park his combines or spud equipment between his and our house. Our other neighbor is a car dealer and sells cars at another site, but he doesn't store cars here at his house, as that would violate the residential principle. 7. Mr. Ames has cited the fact there are other similar buildings in the area. That is true but they are much different than his structure. The Canyon Hill Irrigation building is not on a street, nor is it anywhere near as tall. It is a basically municipal operation and has to be located there to be able to pump the irrigation water for Canyon Hill. Spauldings building was built to keep their camper in, which is perfectly normal for residential use. His property fronts on Georgia and the building is not visible from Georgia. His shop building is in the back of his property, which has no street frontage. He does not have huge tall doors and is not commercial in appearance. There are many factors to be considered which seem to make it clear that this building was designed and built to house a business. Even though the Ames may not sell products from this site it constitutes a base of operations and is the only site they have from which to base their operation. We don't care if they negotiate contracts from their home and do phone calling, bookkeeping etc. in the house, as these things would not negatively effect the neighborhood; but we very firmly object to them erecting a building to house and store the business equipment, clean and maintain it and use it for a parking area for vehicles that have no place in a residential zone. This is definitely a commercial business operation and a building to facilitate it. We kind) •gnv as� building project. ems- �� L� f1 ID NOV 13 2001 �' H Norman & Ru Rut n Hf [ r BURRITT FAMILY TRUST 17427 VIA CARMEN SAN LORENZO, CA 94580 October 30, 2001 City of Caldwell Mr. Steve Hasson Community Development Director 1115 Albany Caldwell, ID 83605 Ref.: Case No. ADA-01-01, Ron Ames Dear Mr. Hasson: NOV -7 2001 D We do NOT approve any changes in the R-1 zone under consideration to permit Mr. Ames to store any concession vehicles, as part of a business operation on property located at 723 Sun Crest Lane. The Caldwell Planning and Zoning Commission have designated R-1 zone for this area as protection to the home owners. If a variance is passed, many others living there will choose to do the same thing. This will remove what the Zoning Commission has achieved. . The vehicles should be stored at the place of business or other facility in an approved zone. Sincerely, ltl George Burritt Eleanor Burritt Trustees