HomeMy WebLinkAbout1998-01-22city council minutesBook 39
Page 23
SPECIAL MEETING
JANUARY 22, 1998
1:00 P.M.
The Special Meeting was called to order by Mayor Nancolas,
The Mayor requested that everyone stand for the Pledge of Allegiance.
The Roll of the City Council was called with the following members present:
Earl, Ozuna, Langan, Wells, Houchins, and Evans. Absent: none.
(CONSIDERATION OF DECLARING A HOLD ON ACCEPTING ANY NEW
APPLICATIONS FOR MOBILE HOME PARK DEVELOPMENT UNTIL THE
1977 ORDINANCE CAN BE REVIEWED AND UPDATED)
Mayor Nancolas explained that this was a Special Meeting called to consider
declaring a hold on accepting any new applications for mobile home park
developments until the 1977 Ordinance could be reviewed and updated. Today's
meeting was a discussion primarily to consider all of the options. The
presentation would be made by Linda James, the Community Development
Director, which would consist of facts and options to the City Council for their
consideration. Council could then make any judgment they feel appropriate after
this presentation.
Before beginning the discussion, the Mayor asked the City Attorney if it would be
appropriate to receive comments from the audience even though this was not a
Public Hearing. Mr. Harris stated that it was his understanding that the purpose
of the meeting was simply for the City Council to make a determination as to
what procedure should be implemented after hearing the presentation. Mrs.
James has submitted a memo to the Council and the Mayor indicating reasons
why the Council should consider imposing such a hold. With his input, they
reviewed the statutes that discuss a moratorium in this kind of situation. As her
memo indicates, she was recommending that the Council request, through the
Community Development Office, that the Planning and Zoning Commission
conduct a public hearing on this issue for the purpose of making a
recommendation to the City Council. The purpose of the meeting was simply for
Council to determine what action to take upon the request of the Community
Development Office. It was not a public hearing and was not scheduled as one.
The public hearing process would occur in two instances: before the Planning
and Zoning Commission and then before the City Council if the Planning and
Zoning Commission recommends that action. In answer to the question, the
Mayor and Council could entertain input from the community in making that
decision although it was not necessary. It was not a legal requirement that they do
so in making the determination as to whether to ask the Community Development
Office to present this matter to the Planning and Zoning Commission for their
input and recommendation.
Mrs. James informed the City Council that the Planning and Zoning Commission
directed her about two months ago to begin looking at the process of amending
this 1977 zoning ordinance regarding manufactured home parks. As a part of that
process, she believed in going out and visiting with the experts on what their role
-- - was regarding mobile home parks. Without their input, the City couldn't prepare
an adequate ordinance. She began by going to five manufactured home dealers
and found they were positive. They explained that they have a very fine product
that many people were not aware of that. Having development standards in a
manufactured home park would show the quality of their product. She intended
to speak with developers, engineers and etc. with regard to preparing a good
ordinance.
Mrs. James then reviewed the memo given to the Council Members as follows:
Article 5 of the Zoning Ordinance was adopted as a part of Chapter 10, Zoning
Regulations in December, 1977. During the twenty year time span, the Article on
mobile home park development has been amended two times: 1989 and 1997.
Book 39 Page 24
Only two of the 1989 amendments applied to development standards of the park
(the addition of patios and fenced storage space); the remainder of the
amendments were administrative, e.g., violations and penalties, repealing clause.
The 1997 amendment merely changed the requirement of 2 acres for mobile home
park development to 10 acres. In essence, the development standards that were
applied to a mobile home park locating in Caldwell today has not been
substantially changed from the standards require 20 years ago. More importantly,
the City has not undertaken an in -depth review of the mobile home park
ordinance and its attendant standards since its adoption 1977.
While the "mobile home Park" standards have not changed substantially for a
period of 20 years, the same cannot be said about the changes in growth the City
has experienced during a similar time period. In 1980, the census identified a
population of 18,032; in 1990, the census set the population at 18,400; and
population for the year 1997 was estimated at 27,485. The population from 1980
to 1990 increased at the rate of 2.04 %; the estimated increase from 1980 to 1997
was 52.36 %.
The number of applications submitted for the development of mobile home parks
since adoption of the 1977 Zoning Ordinance were as follows:
1978 — one (no name, unknown as to whether it was approved)
1980 — one (Paradise Estates on Plymouth)
1981 — one (no naive, unknown as to whether it was approved)
1984 — three (Indian Creek on Ustick, phased; Stardust; Aven, uraorown
as to approval.
1985 — one (phase of Indian Creek as approved in 1984)
1987 — one (Hess on Ustick, phased)
The 1989 amendment to the "Mobile Home Park Development Standards . ."
came at a time when the City was experiencing insignificant population growth
(1980 to 1990 = 2.4% increase) and very little activity in mobile home park
development. It was reasonable to believe that the 1977 ordinance received minor
amendments due to the slow development activity.
The following applications have been approved since the 1989 amendment:
1992 — two (phases of Indian Creek, as approved in 1984)
1994 — two (Indian Creek on Linden, and a phase of Hess park approved
in 1987)
1996 — one (phase of Indian Creek on Linden, as approved in 1994)
1997 — four (Country Village, Creckside, Windstone, and Timberland
Estates)
It was reasonable to believe that the increase in mobile home park development
activity during the past year was due to the significant population growth of the
City; it was also reasonable to believe that this growth trend will continue.
It should be noted here that the mobile home park developments that have been
approved, met, and in many instances, exceeded the requirements set forth in the
1977 ordinance. The questions the Council must address at this point in time are:
1) Do the 1977 development standards (access ways /water /sewer /lot size/
parking/ setbacks/ density) provide the highest and best standards for residential,
manufactured home communities of 1998 and beyond? 2) Do the 1977
development standards provide procedures and assurances that privately owned
infrastructure systems for large scale developments will be continually
maintained? 3) Does the outdated terminology of the ordinance (mobile home
park) and standards give credence to the image that this type of housing option is
less than desirable? 4) Can Council members answer with ho hesitation that 20
year old development standards (for any type of development in the City)
adequately meet the following two specific purposes set forth in Article 1, Section
10- 01 -02, Subsection 2 of the Zoning Ordinance: "Promote the interest of health,
safety and general welfare "" and, "Stabilize expectations regarding the future
development of the City, thereby providing a basis for wise decisions with respect
to such development."
Book 39
Page 25
There should be no question that Article 5, Mobile Home Park Development
Standards and Procedures, needs to be reviewed in -depth and revised accordingly.
There were two ways that this can be accomplished:
Option A: Continue accepting and processing new applications (under the 1977
development standards) concurrent with the Planning and Zoning Commission
reviewing and drafting amendments to the ordinance. This option would take a
minimum of two workshops and two public hearings before a revised ordinance
could be in place, approximately four months. This option was not recommended
because it woad be very difficult for an applicant to receive a fair and impartial
hearing while the P & Z was also working on revising an ordinance. It would not
be in the best interests of the City to place itself in a long term position of using
the requirements set out in a 20 year old ordinance.
Option E: Declare a moratorium on accepting any new applications until the
ordinance has been reviewed and revised accordingly. In consultation with
Richard Harris, it was my understanding that a moratorium can be approved in
one of the two following ways:
1. The City Council, upon any abbreviated notice of hearing it finds
practical, can approve an emergency moratorium upon the issuance of
selected classes of permits, if it finds that an "imminent peril" to the
public health, safety, or welfare exists. If this was the finding, the
Council can proceed without recommendation of the P & Z, and the
moratorium would be immediately effective for a period of 120 days.
The Council shall state in writing the reasons for their finding
(paraphrased from Idaho Code, Section 67- 6523).
2. If the City Council finds that an emergency does not exist because
there was no "imminent peril" to the public health, safety, and welfare,
or if 120 days was not sufficient time to prepare the new ordinance, the
Council can declare a moratorium upon recommendation of the P & Z
Commission, following the public hearing process of two hearings
(paraphrased from Idaho Code, Section 67- 6524). The time frame if
this was the procedure approved by the Council would be:
• February 10` Planning and Zoning holds a Special Hearing, makes
recommendation to the City Council;
• City Council hears the recommendation on March 2 and approves or
disapproves.
I discussed my concerns of the inadequacy of the 1977 ordinance with Mayor
Nancolas and recommended to him that a moratorium be declared on accepting
any new applications for mobile home park development until the ordinance can
be reviewed and revised accordingly. My primary reason for recommending that
a moratorium be approved while the ordinance was reviewed and revised was
"timing." At the present time, there are no pending applications; the last pre -
application/application conference was for Timberland Estates, which received
approval by the P & Z Commission on January 8` no one has discussed a
proposed development with me in the last few months; and the developments
approved in 1997 (631 lots) will fulfill any needs for lot space that might occur
during the time the ordinance was being reviewed and revised. In other words,
declaring a moratorium at this point in time appears to be the fairest way to allow
sufficient time to review and revise a 20 year old ordinance; it should also be the
way that should have the least impact on anyone that might be affected.
If City Council members agree that it would be in the best interests of the City to
declare a moratorium, the decision has to be made on which procedure to follow.
The critical question was: "Was there an imminent peril to the public health,
safety, or welfare ?" It was my understanding that "imminent peril" under Idaho
Code relates to immediate health issues associated with land concerns and is not
intended to be used as a substitute for the deliberative process. Careful
consideration should always be given if "imminent peril" used to declare a
moratorium. Defining the term "peril" might be of assistance to the Council in
Book 39
Page 26
making a decision. Webster's New Universal Unabridged Dictionary defines
"peril" as: 1. Exposure to injury, loss, or destruction; risk; jeopardy; danger.
Merriam Webster's Collegiate Dictionary. Tenth Edition, 1. Exposure to the risk
of being injured, destroyed, or lost. 2. Something that imperils.
It should be noted here that the mobile home park developments that have been
approve, met, and in many instances, exceeded the requirements set forth in the
1977 ordinance. Any change to the 1977 requirements will not affect approval of
these developments, as long as they comply with the conditions placed on their
respective special use permits.
At the conclusion of her review of the memo, the City Council and the Mayor
discussed this matter at some length. The Mayor stated that this was an attempt of
the City to manage the growth we were experiencing in an orderly fashion. We
were forced to operate under the guidelines set forth by a ordinance that was 20
years old. Obviously, things do change which makes it necessary to look at what
was required now and in the future. We agree that the Ordinance needs to be
updated. The question was whether we want to put a hold on applications today
or do we refer it back to the Planning and Zoning Commission and lei: the public
hearing process take place. In the meantime, if any applications come forward,
they would be subject to the existing ordinance.
During the discussion, Councilman Langan suggested that a random selection of
people in the community be contacted to receive their input regarding this matter.
The City Attorney also talked at some length with regard to the meaning of
imminent peril to the public health, safety or welfare.
Mrs. James also informed Council that if they determine that this matter should go
back to the Commission for a hearing and then on to the City Council, she would
continue to do her interviews to receive input and information from many
factions. The Ordinance still has to be changed regardless as to the options
determined at this time.
After continued discussion, it was MOVED by Wells, SECONDED by Langan
that the City Council remand this issue to the Planning and Zoning Commission
for a Public Hearing to be held on February 10, 1998, that it be properly noticed,
the Commission will accept input and then the City Council will act pending the
Commission's recommendation.
Roll call vote. Those voting yes: Wells, Houchins, Evans, Earl, Ozuna, and
Langan. Those voting no: none. Absent and not voting: none.
MOTION CARRIED
MOVED by Earl, SECONDED by Evans that since there was no further business,
the Special City Council Meeting be adjourned at 2:00 p.m.
APPROVED AS Written
ATTEST:
THIS 2nd DAY p ; February ' 1998,
d I
Mayor
icilperson
City Clerk