Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1988-05-23city council minutesBook 29 SPECIAL MEETING May 23, 1988 7:30 p.m. Page 119 The meeting was called to order by Mayor Peter B. Cowles. The Mayor requested that everyone stand for the Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag. The roll of the City Council was called with the following members present: Raymond, Winder, Mallea, and Straight. Absent: Houchins and Jarboe. (DETERMINATION BY CITY COUNCIL ON AN APPEAL ON A DECISION BY THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION TO APPROVE A SPECIAL USE PERMIT TO USE THE RESIDENCE AT 1507 CLEVELAND BOULEVARD AS A ROOMING /BOARDING HOUSE, REQUESTED BY THE MARANATHA HOUSE ORGANIZATION) Mayor Cowles asked that the Planning and Zoning Director, Mrs. Robison, explain briefly what has happened so far with this request and what the City Council was attempting to accomplish at this time. Mrs. Robison explained that when the City Council hears an appeal on a decision from the Planning and Zoning Commission, the Council holds its own hearing. In reviewing their information for their decision, they include the record from the Planning and Zoning and also the testimony received at their public hearing. Basically, the Council must find in a special use situation that the proposed use will cause detriment, hazard, damage, or nuisance to persons or property in the vicinity. Also in compiling their findings, they must cite the standards or the ordinance used which basically is the Zoning Ordinance, 6 -2 -1 Table I of the land use schedule and .including the special use permit procedures, the reasons for the approval or the denial, and the actions, if any, the applicant can take to obtain the special permit. All of this information is found under 6 -4 -4 (H and F) in the Zoning Ordinance. Mrs. Robison continued by saying that it also states in the Code that when an action is considered by the Council to either uphold or reverse a decision by the Planning and Zoning Commission, it takes one -half plus one majority of the full number of Council members. Therefore, a vote of four would be necessary. The Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law prepared by the Commission have been forwarded to the Council members. The first part of the findings deal with filing of the application and relations to the City Code. It is a permitted use by special permit under the land use schedule and it is in conformance with the zoning regulations for the combined medium density residential zone subject to the findings the Council will make as to whether it does cause damage, hazard, nuisance, or detriment to other property in the vicinity. Mayor Cowles further commented with reference to the previous meeting where this issue was discussed. During the last meeting, a motion was made by the Council to not accept any more testimony information to be given to them. At the public hearing, Mrs. Robison explained that they were waiting for a letter to come from the City Attorney. That particular letter arrived the day after and she brought the letter to him and asked for direction. The Mayor further said that he did not want to jeopardize the position of the Council or the motion that was made. Therefore, the information did not go any further than his desk. Mayor Cowles stated that he did read the letter and felt that it would make no difference either way to the Council's determination on this appeal. The information was requested by the Council and he would distribute a copy to them as soon as a decision is made. Book 29 Page 120 The Mayor then turned 'the time over to the City Council for their action on this appeal to the granting of a special use permit. Councilman Raymond was recognized. and expressed his concern regarding the absence of Councilman Jarboe due to an unexpected business trip and the absence of Councilman Houchins due to a serious illness in his immediate family. Should the Council not reach the plurality of four as required, would the item be continued to a future meeting. What would the proper procedure be? Mrs. Robison stated that she thought the meeting would have to be continued in order to meet the terms of the Code regarding this particular type of action. Councilwoman Mallea also commented that they would only have to wait for Councilman Jarboe as Councilman Houchins was not present at the former meeting when the testimony was given. She did not see how Councilman Houchins could vote. Councilman Raymond said that this question was clarified. Councilman Houchins could vote if he would listen to the tapes of the public hearing and familiarize himself with the testimony and information. All of this may not occur, but he did want it discuss before the Council proceeded. Councilman Winder was recognized and stated that because two Council members are absent, it does not disqualify them from participating as long as they are familiar with all of the information. Councilman Winder MOVED and it was SECONDED by Raymond that the City Council deny the request of the Maranantha House for a special use permit and uphold the appeal from the appellant. Councilman Winder commented that the basic reasons for the denial of the request are: That a Special Use Permit has to be issued in those cases where you can clearly demonstrate that no damage, hazard, nuisance or other detriment may result from or be caused by that land use. I think it is clear that most of the residents in that area believe that damage, hazard, nuisance, or other detriment is going to occur. As a direct result of that, it is my opinion that no matter what anyone else does, property values and other factors will enter into the thinking of the people up there and like it or not, the value will decline. The appellants had the burden of proof when they appeared before this Council. That is, they had to establish in a positive manner that persons or property in the vicinity would be adversely impacted. Testimony established that most of the residents in that vicinity believe that granting the special use permit would not be in the best interest of their neighborhood. There was an underlying fear that: the possibility of bodily or physical damage would be increased by having those residents in that neighborhood. There was a testimony from an appraiser that indicated that land values decline when land uses are not common, compatible and balanced. I believe that evidence was introduced in the Planning and Zoning Commission's hearing that indicated that in the past, the City Council and the ]Planning and Zoning Commission have generally upheld the position of the neighborhood in these matters and have not allowed those types of uses into this zone that the neighbors felt would be detrimental. In fact, I believe there was a promise on the part of a Mayor and Council several years ago that as long as those people were alive, nothing like that would ever occur. That may be a little stronger than what the actual case was. The study of the Ada County Homeless presented to the Council was the only data given to us which indicated the background of the homeless. We were simply told loy the people who want the Home that there is a need for it. I certainly don't deny that need. Testimony of the Director, Mrs. Phelps, indicated Book 29 Page 121 that other locations would be acceptable to her so this is not the only neighborhood in town. Councilman Winder completed his comments as follows: The appellants referred to Special Use Permits as spot zoning. Let it be clearly established in everyone's minds, including members of the Council, that the courts have long established that the issuance of Special Use or Conditional Use Permits, .......... whatever their name may be, is legal so long as the zoning ordinance under which the Special Use Permit is granted or denied clearly spells out the provisions under which that permit may be granted or denied. I have served as a member and Chairman of the Canyon County Planning and Zoning Commission which provided me with several years of experience on hearing these requests for Special Use Permits and I can tell you that the courts will continue to hold them to be legal. Councilwoman Mallea stated that she also believed that there would be damage to this neighborhood. She believed it would act as a precedent for other decisions which will affect this neighborhood; it will affect property values and that it is not compatible with this neighborhood. She also found that there is a high chance for hazard, of increased traffic and that a great number of strangers will be in and out of this neighborhood and that the young adults of today are fearful for their children and their families. I believe that there will be nuisance in that there will be loitering, unusual parking and trafficing in this neighborhood and a necessity for people to wander when not in the house. I also contend that there is a difference in the numbers and of the figures brought forth which makes it very difficult to know the total extent of transient and itinerant people in this neighborhood. I think that the Planning and Zoning Commission acted in good faith, but I do not believe that they checked thoroughly with regard to damage, hazard, and nuisance. I also believe that the zoning of a boarding house is not what this is; I believe it is, in fact, a shelter. Mrs. Phelps said that it was a guest home and I do not find that it fits boarding house. I find that both a boarding house and a multiple family require more parking which is not available at this site. I think one thing that the Council needs to do in the future is to prepare and deliver to Planning and Zoning better instructions on how to go about and what constitutes a proper Special Use Permit. Councilwoman Straight asked to make the following comments: I went to Nampa on Friday night to try to find the Maranantha House which I did find after about a half hour of looking around. This was just so I could[ see what the House looked like and what the surrounding area looked like.The House looked perfectly fine. I was going to try to go back on Saturday and ask to go into the house and look at the books, but was unable to do so. I also looked at the house at 1507 Cleveland. There was broken windows in the back. I do not see how the parking could be adequate; there is a very small back yard and if used for parking, there would not be enough room for anyone to go outside. Personally speaking, I wish there had been a place like that twenty years ago as I needed one. I think it is a very good cause. On the other hand, if I lived in that neighborhood, I too would think that my property value would go down in value. I think that both sides had good arguments. I do not think that there would be derelicts found at this house and other things mentioned that I thought were kind of stupid last Monday night. I think with so many people living there throughout a year would cause more problems than if there was just one family there. Therefore, I too would vote that the Maranantha House not be able to reside at 1507 Cleveland and would hope that they find another place in Caldwell. Councilman Raymond made the following statement: I will vote to reverse the Planning and Zoning decision to grant a Special Use Permit at 1507 Cleveland Boulevard. It seems as Book 29 Page 122 if I was at two different hearings at last Monday night. One was on zoning and the impact on properties by the decisions we make on zoning and the other was on the need for a facility for the homeless. I found merit in both presentations. Residential zoning is designed to make variations between single family and multiple family occupancies. Our land use schedule provides for certain areas for both circumstances to to accommodated and yes, it does provide for Special Use Permits. It seems to me that the intended use as requested could adversely affect the neighborhood status; Above average (as now applies to the area), occupancy for a single dwelling, above average change of occupancy (neighborhoods by their definition have a tendency to be somewhat stable by the occupants); I believe a valid point is made that by definition, hearings on zoning variations (special use permits) are held to get a pulse of the neighborhood as to an unpermitted use. I think we heard the pulse of the neighborhood. While it is pointed out in testimony that other areas properly zoned were investigated and none were found, it would seem that some alteration of facilities must be expected to provide for shelters of this type and of the amount of area zoned R -3, a suitable location could be obtained without resulting in special use applications. Again, I would vote to uphold the appeal and deny the usage on Cleveland Boulevard. As the Council indicated that there discussion was completed, the Mayor requested - that Councilman Winder restate his motion. Mr. Winder stated that his motion was to deny the request from the Maranantha House for a special use permit. Roll call vote. Those voting yes: Winder, Mallea, Straight, and Raymond. Those voting no: none. Absent and not voting: Jarboe and Houchins. MOTION CARRIED Councilwoman Mallea asked if the Planning and Zoning Director would be able to form the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of law from the testimony. Mrs. Robison stated that she would do so. Councilman Raymond discussed briefly the reason for the sign - up sheets at the public hearings. During this hearing on the Maranantha House, some of those signed up to speak gave their time to others. In reality, the time limit set for each person to speak simply got out of hand. As a result, he felt that the hearing continued too long. Mrs. Robison replied that she felt some steps should be taken to make some changes in the hearing process. Councilwoman Mallea stated that she thought the Council could address this at a workshop. The Mayor asked for a short recess at 7:50 p.m. The Meeting was then reconvened at 8:00 p.m. (PIONEER IRRIGATION REQUEST TO DISCUSS WITH THE CITY COUNCIL THEIR CONCERNS WITH REGARD TO WITHDRAWALS FROM THE CALDWELL MUNICIPAL, IRRIGATION DISTRICT) The Mayor introduced 'Mr. Lawerance Gray, a member of the Board of Directors for the Pioneer. Irrigation District, Mr. Gray addressed the Council stating that the withdrawals have become a concern to them as well as to the City of Caldwell. The problems were not: going away and they could see a continuing complexity in that concern. From their standpoint, they have some legal ramifications which they apparently cannot overcome. Pioneer delivers water to the City of Caldwell; about 915 acres delivered as a lot and the City distributes as an irrigation system within the boundaries of the 915 acres. For those people petitioning to withdraw from the Caldwell Municipal Irrigation System, the Book 29 Page 123 State requires Pioneer Irrigation District to be the hearing agent. One of the things that make it difficult for them is that they are not familiar with all of the distribution lines, boxes, downstream users of the City's system. The State requires that they spell out: exactly why Pioneer is not approving the request. Therefore, they are having trouble stating why the City has denied the application. The State will not accept a fiscal reason. Mr. Gray further said that they have taken three different; ones to court; they are expensive and they have lost all three. we have problems justifying spending two to three hundred dollars to save twelve dollars. When we don't have all the facts, the reason for the denial, or where the location is from the distribution box, we have trouble! defending the request and our record shows this. Their request at this time was to try to work with the City's legal counsel to try to remedy some of the problems. The exodus was hurting Pioneer as well as the City of Caldwell. Under the complex water rights, the water of those people who have withdrawn and continue to withdraw will be taken away from Pioneer and will go back to the Boise River. Mr. Gray stated that he was sure this would happen when the total number of acres was assessed. Neither Pioneer Irrigation District's or the City's costs decrease by the number of people getting out of the District. The costs stay the same or they increase. When the last request was sent to them, the City spelled out some reasons why they felt that particular person should not get out of the District. This request prompted them to ask to speak to the City Council. Once the water is lost, it is gone forever and this was of great concern to them. Mr. Gray questioned as to whether it would be possible for the residents of Caldwell to sprinkle their lawns with their drinking water. There was some discussion between Mr. Gray and the City Council members. The Mayor asked if it would be possible for the Pioneer Irrigation Board to compile a list of various reasons for a request to be submitted for withdrawal. Mr. Gray stated that he would consult with their legal counsel with regard to this possibility. Council also agreed to talk to the City Attorney pertaining to the problems as presented by Mr. Gray. Councilman Raymond asked if there was any way that water could be sold to another user in the District. Mr. Gray answered that within the Pioneer Irrigation District, the water right belongs to the property and cannot be transferred or sold. Once it is cancelled, it goes back to the river as it is pertinent to the land. The Mayor and Council thanked Mr. Gray for discussing the problems with the City Council and agreed to work together to try to resolve the concerns. Mayor Cowles noted that Richard Harris, the Prosecuting Attorney, planned to be present at this time to discuss some matters with the City Council. Mr. Harris did not arrive; therefore, the Mayor stated that since there was no further business, the meeting would be adjourned at 8:10 p.m. APPROVED AS a Pproved THIS 6t DAY OF June 1988. _ ^- - - - - - -- Mayor ncilperson �Co 'ci pc son T i f- 1 — :5 , - - i Cou 1 ouncilpe son ^--- 6,2bun 1p re,bn Councilperson ATTES '`_ -City Clerk