Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutHE Minutes 08-23-23Page 1 | 7 Hearing Examiner Minutes 08/23/2023 HEARING EXAMINER REGULAR MEETING MINUTES Wednesday, August 23, 2023 @ 1:30 pm Caldwell Police Department, Community Room, 110 S. 5th 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 PROCEEDINGS (OPENING STATEMENT) – Ms. Sabrina Durtschi outlined the procedures for the public hearing. MEMBERS PRESENT: Angelica Gomez (Administrative Assistant); Robb MacDonald (City Engineer); Alex Jones (Associate Planner); Morgan Bessaw (Deputy Director). CONSENT CALENDAR: ACTION ITEM: Approve the July 12, 2023 Hearing Examiner Meeting Minutes. OLD BUSINESS: None NEW BUSINESS: (ACTION ITEM: PUBLIC HEARING (QUASI-JUDICIAL): CASE NUMBER: SUP23-000005: HATCH DESIGN ARCHITECTURE, ON BEHALF OF VENUS DEVELOPMENT LLC, IS REQUESTING A SPECIAL USE PERMIT TO CONSTRUCT APPROXIMATELY 123,226 SQUARE FEET OF SELF- STORAGE FOR THE GUARDIAN BOAT AND RV STORAGE FACILITY, WHICH WILL CONSIST OF FIVE (5) STORAGE BUILDINGS AND AN OFFICE SPACE. THE PROPERTY IS ZONED C-3, SERVICE COMMERCIAL, WHICH PERMITS MINI-STORAGE FACILITIES WITH A SPECIAL USE PERMIT. THE SUBJECT PARCEL IS LOCATED ON THE WEST SIDE OF MIDDLETON ROAD APPROXIMATELY 425 FEET SOUTH OF THE INTERSECTION WITH USTICK ROAD, IN CALDWELL, IDAHO.) Alex Jones (Associate Planner) 621 Cleveland Blvd., provided the staff report by outlining its contents by use of a PowerPoint presentation. Mr. Jones presented a late exhibit of the updated landscape plan. He noted that, since all the landscaping requirements were up to code, the staff report would be updated. He also added that the application met all the standards and was approved by staff. Mr. Jones also stated that ITD submitted comments, noting there were no concerns with the development, and there were no public comments. In response to questions from the Hearing Examiner, Mr. MacDonald responded that the common access drive north of the parcel, with no development, was because it aligned with the access across the street, and that was the designated access point for it to be accepted. In response to questions from the Hearing Examiner, Mr. Jones stated that the first conditional staff report of the fire department, denoted this development did not meet fire access. After review of the Roundtable notes, and discussion with Mr. Perry with the Fire Department, he re-examined the notes and determined it was under the square footage requirements for the secondary access. Jeff Hatch (Applicant) 200 W. 36th St., signed in favor of the request and noted that this application was a modification of the previously approved Special Use Permit that remained active. He explained that the original Page 2 | 7 Hearing Examiner Minutes 08/23/2023 site plan had three sided canopies that had been setup for recreational storage, and would serve in a traditional mini-storage capacity. With the proposed amendments to the application, the current site plan was still setup for mini-storage; however, the canopies would now be enclosed, and were proposed to be condominium style. He reported they addressed the landscaping concerns mentioned in the staff report. He also wanted everyone to understand, there would be no landscaping within the site, since it was a storage facility. Mr. Hatch stated he communicated with Knife River and City staff to discuss coordination of infrastructure of needed improvements, especially on the northern access. He conveyed that since the road was under construction with improvements at the roundabout of Middleton and Ustick, Knife River and the City agreed to extend the water line. Mr. Hatch also discussed fire access. He indicated the original site plan had two access points, and they were both on the eastern side of the property along Middleton. They asked the fire department for leniency with those access points and on the revised site plan, they proposed to have a westerly access point for emergency access. In response to questions from the Hearing Examiner, Mr. Hatch responded as follows:  The intent for the remaining portion of the parcel would be for an industrial flex use or specialty storage use. That space was zoned industrial use only, no housing.  Safety - Mr. Hatch stated that the buildings for the recreational storage would be tall and that would work as security fencing. The westerly side of the property would have a rod iron fence. In addition, there would be internal lighting to the site, and cat finding lighting along Middleton, mostly for pedestrian safety.  The condominium style hangars would be under common ownership of the land, and condominium owners would own individual air space rights. He mentioned that the Condo Association would own the structures. Mr. Hatch asked if he could have an extension to 18-months, instead of 12 months, due to the current construction of the roundabout. In response to questions from the Hearing Examiner, Mr. Jones replied he did not see a problem with allowing the additional 6-month extension. In response to questions from the Hearing Examiner, Mr. MacDonald responded construction of the roundabout had started, and was scheduled to be completed in November. In response to questions from the Hearing Examiner, Mr. Hatch stated there was an office onsite intended for operations. He was not sure if it would be manned or unmanned. Morgan Bessaw (Deputy Director) 621 Cleveland Blvd., provided clarification of the timing for the SUP. She stated that the applicant would have one year from the date of approval to submit a building permit application. From the date of submitting the application, they have an additional two years to complete it. Since they had three years to complete the project, she did not believe an extension would be necessary. Ms. Durtschi closed the public hearing testimony at 1:51 pm. COMMENTS BY THE HEARING EXAMINER: FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSSIONS OF LAW FOR CASE NUMBER SUP23-000005: The Caldwell Hearing Examiner accepts the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law outlined in the staff report, the public testimony, and the evidence list. All adopted ordinances, standards and codes were used in Page 3 | 7 Hearing Examiner Minutes 08/23/2023 evaluating the application. The proposed use was conditionally permitted by the terms of the ordinance and such conditions of approval. ORDER OF DECISION FOR CASE NUMBER SUP23-000005: Based on the /findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, the Caldwell Hearing Examiner hereby orders that Case No. SUP23-000005: Hatch Design Architecture, on behalf of Venus Development LLC, is requesting a Special Use Permit to construct approximately 123,226 square feet of self-storage for the Guardian Boat and RV Storage facility, which would consist of five (5) storage buildings and an office space. The property is Zoned C-3, Service Commercial, which permits mini-storage facilities with a Special Use Permit. The subject parcel is located on the west side of Middleton Road approximately 425 feet south of the intersection with Ustick Road, in Caldwell, Idaho. The Caldwell Hearing Examiner approved the application with the conditions of approval outlined in the staff report. Staff report lists conditions 1 to 19, Ms. Durtschi did not add additional conditions. (ACTION ITEM: PUBLIC HEARING (QUASI-JUDICIAL): CASE NUMBER: SUB23-000019 / SUP23- 000008: THIS CASE WAS CONTINUED AND WOULD BE HEARD AT THE SEPTEMBER 13, 2023 HEARING EXAMINER MEETING. LEAVITT & ASSOCIATES ENGINEERS INC., ON BEHALF OF SILVESTRE CASTANEDA, IS REQUESTING APPROVAL OF A PRELIMINARY PLAT APPLICATION FOR 3MS SUBDIVISION AS WELL AS A SPECIAL USE PERMIT FOR ELEVEN (11) FOUR-PLEX UNITS AND ONE DUPLEX UNIT, FOR A TOTAL OF 46 DWELLING UNITS. THE PARCEL IS 4.03 ACRES BRINGING THE PROPOSED DENSITY TO 11.41 UNITS PER ACRE; THE SITE IS CURRENTLY ZONED T-N (TRADITIONAL NEIGHBORHOOD). THE PARCEL IS LOCATED ON THE NORTHEAST SIDE OF EAST ELGIN ST., APPROXIMATELY 650 FEET SOUTHEAST OF THE INTERSECTION WITH NORTH 10TH AVE., IN CALDWELL, ID.) (ACTION ITEM: PUBLIC HEARING (QUASI-JUDICIAL): CASE NUMBER: SUP23-000010: KIMLEY-HORN, ON BEHALF OF AUSTON COX AND STEVE SATTERLEE, IS REQUESTING A SPECIAL USE PERMIT FOR A MULTI-FAMILY DEVELOPMENT IN EXCESS OF 25 FEET IN HEIGHT ADJACENT TO SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT. THE KAHARI APARTMENTS ARE PROPOSED TO CONSIST OF FOUR 3-STORY MULTIFAMILY BUILDINGS, EACH CONTAINING 12 UNITS, FOR A TOTAL OF 48 UNITS. THE PROPOSED DENSITY IS 20.42 UNITS PER ACRE. AN EXISTING SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL HOME IS ALSO PROPOSED TO REMAIN ON SITE. THE PARCEL IS ZONED R-3 (HIGH DENSITY RESIDENTIAL). THE SUBJECT PARCELS ARE LOCATED ON THE EAST SIDE OF N ILLINOIS AVENUE, JUST SOUTH OF THE INTERSECTION WITH E MADISON ST, IN CALDWELL, IDAHO.) Alex Jones (Associate Planner) 621 Cleveland Blvd., provided the staff report by outlining its contents by use of a PowerPoint presentation. He presented two late exhibits, the first one was the updated site plan, showing the approved access; second exhibit was the new landscape plan and renderings. ITD submitted comments and had no concerns, and there were no public comments. Mr. Jones stated that the site-specific concerns were the height waiver for buildings over 25’ adjacent to other 25’ dwellings. In addition, they need a Cross Access Agreement for the new access, with the parcel owner to the south. At the request of the Hearing Examiner, Mr. MacDonald explained that the initial proposal had an access point that was immediately adjacent to the neighbor’s access point, and could create confusion. They informed the applicant the property had to connect with the adjacent property, and they had to combine both access points. He understood that would present a concern with maintenance, but it could be negotiated. He stated that combined access was the only option that would work at that location, and said they have templates and examples for Access Easements. He added that the Access Agreement would be required during Plan Review. Page 4 | 7 Hearing Examiner Minutes 08/23/2023 Nicolette Womack (Applicant) 1100 West Idaho Street., spoke in favor of the request and provided a description of the application by use of a PowerPoint presentation. She stated they received staff’s comments concerning cross access, and were actively working with the neighbor to obtain a Cross Access Agreement. She added there was plenty of openness between the two properties. She also indicated that their property would have parking enforcement, to make sure their residents and theirs guests were the ones using the parking associated with their project. Ms. Womack reported that in order to make sure they were respectful to their neighbors, they removed all the balconies, and the buildings were three-stories high. The closest neighbor was the manufactured home community to the south and that was 50’ away. In response to questions from the Hearing Examiner, Ms. Womack stated they were in communication with the man that owned the mobile home property. She noted there was not a formal agreement, and that they were still working out the details as to which owner would pay for the improvements. They also hosted a neighborhood meeting and there were not many questions, it was a short meeting. Gabriel O’Reilley 1100 W Idaho St., signed in favor of the request but did not give testimony. Charles Pike 920 N Illinois Ave., signed in opposition of the request and expressed concerns with privacy. He also stated the development would block his view of the hillside. He mentioned there was an artesian well that ran from the east to the west and tied into the storm drain. He asked if there were studies done on how it would affect ground water. He observed that by the design, one of those buildings would be on top of it. He did not understand why they need this development when there were already approved developments in the area. Mr. Pike also mentioned that Black Canyon Irrigation owned the ditch at the top of Canyon Hill, and in the last ten years, they lost control of the ditch twice, and once in the last six months. He asked if the development had taken any steps to mitigate the situation and make sure, it did not continue happening. In response to questions from the Hearing Examiner, Mr. MacDonald stated that according to policy, private artesian wells had to be abandoned properly. He was not sure if that would affect the ground level; however, that could be a possibility. It was the developer’s obligation and responsibility to investigate that, and make sure they were not negatively affecting a neighbor by abandoning the well. He also added that the City had no jurisdiction over Black Canyon Irrigation. They had to assume they were doing necessary maintenance, and were observing and taking care of the ditch. If the ditch had problems, it could affect residents who live down the hill. Ultimately, that would be Black Canyon’s responsibility, and the City had no jurisdiction over it. Dan Goodman 5700 E. Franklin Rd., signed in opposition of the request and stated he represented David Witt, who lived at 1000 Illinois Avenue, the property to the east of the proposed development. Mr. Goodman wanted to make everyone aware of a pre-existing boundary line dispute, not mentioned in the staff report. He noted there was a current dispute as to where the boundary property line was exactly. The developers procured a survey that indicated their boundary line extended beyond the pre-existing fence. Whereas, they have a separate survey that noted the boundary line was exactly on the other side of the fence. His understanding was the difference in the boundary line could be as much as 9’. He mentioned there were several other issues with this application. First, it was the height restriction imposed by the Caldwell City Code, which prohibits building heights over 25’ when they were adjacent to a single family home. He noted the Caldwell Comprehensive Plan developed the ordinance to prohibit obstruction to people’s views; second, the corner lot setback in the north eastern portion was only a 10’ setback, and was supposed to be 15’. Mr. Goodman mentioned he did not see the landscape buffer between the different land uses on the landscape plan. He also indicated he was unclear if there would be a fence in the property. Page 5 | 7 Hearing Examiner Minutes 08/23/2023 Finally, he commented it was unclear from the maps if the requirements for the inside turn radius of no less than 28’ were met. If not, it would create a safety hazard. Ultimately, he noted that the boundary dispute was not resolved, and the application process could not go forward until the boundary dispute was resolved. Nancy Curry 918 N. Illinois Ave., signed in opposition of the request and expressed traffic and safety concerns. She mentioned that since the Maverick gas station extended into a truck stop, their street had constant heavy traffic. She added that the proposed development would add 85 additional, or more vehicles to the already heavy traffic congestion on North Illinois. She asked when the last traffic study was conducted. She also mentioned that crime statistically increased with multifamily developments. In closing, she indicated they want their well- established neighborhood to remain single story homes only. Mr. MacDonald reported that a traffic impact study for the intersection of North Illinois and Marble Front Road was completed in 2022. The level of service at the intersection was level service B for am and pm, which was acceptable. In 2030, the level of service at the intersection would still be level of service B in the am and pm. The main impacts they saw during the transportation study was that in 2030 there would be issues with Indiana and Marble Front intersection. They were aware of it, and understood there would need to be changes made at that location, at some point in the future. They continue to monitor to see how future developments affect the area. Gerald Curry 918 N. Illinois Ave., signed in opposition of the request and expressed concerns with the City sewer capacity, since there were already existing problems with the sewer. He noted that the City water volume and pressure would be reduced significantly. In addition, the City power grid would be drained, especially during the summer months. Storm drains would not be able to handle the additional runoff from the proposed development. He also expressed concern with flooding. At the Hearing Examiner’s request, Mr. MacDonald explained that it was the developer’s responsibility to retain all of the storm water onsite. A City Storm Water Manual outlined the size and scope of a retention basin. Per State Code, developments were not permitted to let their water discharge to adjacent properties; however, they were permitted to allow discharge, in circumstances where there was already a historic discharge, although, it could not increase. Jacob Brown 912 N. Illinois Ave., did not sign in but provided testimony in opposition of the request. He express concerns with sewage, flooding, noise and privacy. He said they have to deal with flooding every winter. He also mentioned they propose to put parking along his fence line with trees and they expect him to maintain those trees. In response to questions from the Hearing Examiner, Mr. Jones replied as follow:  Boundary Property Line Dispute - County would be in charge of the property lines and the surveyors would need to figure it out. If there were confirmation that the lot line was 9’ inward, then the site plan would not work, and would void the application.  Rear Setback – Rear setback was set at 15’ and it did meet code; however, if the property line dispute was correct, then they would not meet the 15’ setback.  Not Adequate Buffering - After reviewing the plan, they could be required to put more trees. He believed the language was to have one tree every 35’; however, the language was also vague on where those trees would need to be.  Height Requirement - An SUP application was required with multifamily dwellings in the R3 Zone. In rebuttal, Ms. Womack addressed the concerns and stated they would be amenable to add more trees and fencing where it was required by code. She mentioned they could not tear down existing fences; however, they could double up fences. Page 6 | 7 Hearing Examiner Minutes 08/23/2023  Artesian Well - They would comply with all the codes and make sure to move the artesian well in a safe manner.  Ditch Overrunning – They could do additional research to see if there was anything more they could do.  Boundary Dispute – They were common in the Valley, where surveyors usually do not agree; however, there was a legal process to make sure everyone complied with the law.  Lighting – The lighting was adequate to keep everyone safe. They did not want lighting spilling on to the neighbors. The focus of the lighting would be in pathway areas and internal sidewalks.  Increased Crime – Background checks were standard in most multifamily projects.  Impact To Adjacent Neighbors – They were compliant with the code, and would be happy to do more in terms of fencing and landscaping.  Storm Drain Ground Water Monitoring – There would be a geotechnical reporting and would be compliant with the recommendations. In response to questions from the Hearing Examiner, Ms. Womack responded that only one couple attended the neighborhood meeting. The surveyor contacted the neighbor but did not speak with his attorney; however, they anticipate having a more detailed conversation with his attorney. Gabriel O’Reilley 1100 W. Idaho St., spoke in favor of the request and stated they were proposing permeable pavers for the storm water, and all the water would be retained onsite. They would be using permeable pavers, since there was no room for slippage beds or other surface retention for the water. They have a geotechnical report from the area and the ground water was very high. As far as other issues with sewage and water pressure, they have not heard anything from the City engineers. They would do more research on the artesian well and comply with IDWR to deal with it properly. They would also make sure there was no flooding to their site or the neighbors. Ms. Durtschi mentioned she was hesitant to give a rendering. She would like to see the property boundary issue resolved, an updated landscape plan, and updated elevation showing the windows reduced. She asked if all of those issues could be resolved before the next hearing. Ms. Bessaw responded the elevation and landscaping plans could be completed, although, her concern was with the property line dispute. It could be delayed for months if it was determined to be a civil matter. Ms. Durtschi reopened the public hearing. Mr. Goodman presented copies of the two competing surveys showing the discrepancy. He mentioned that in addition to the boundary dispute, there was a pre-existing setback violation in the northern boundary of the property. The proposed unit at the northeastern corner of the development had a backyard setback that wrapped around the corner. One side was 15’; however, the other portion of that wrap around was only 10’. Ms. Durtschi asked Mr. Goodman if he had been in touch with the applicant to discuss the boundary dispute. Mr. Goodman concurred, and indicated he had a letter from their surveyor to his client. He spoke with his client’s surveyor before the hearing, and was able to get details as to his understanding of the survey vs. the applicant’s survey. Based on the conversation, he did not think this issue could be resolved before September 13. He also noted that in the event this issue went unresolved, and the City decided to move forward with the process, they would file an injunction to stop that from happening. Ms. Womack noted that boundary disputes were common across the Treasure Valley, and there were processes to help resolve the dispute. She stated that their project should not be delayed, based on an item that was not the purview of the City. She mentioned they would continue good faith communication with the involved parties and were eager to move forward.