Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1982-08-17city council minutesBook 23 Page 227 REGULAR MEETING August 17, 1982 7:30 p.m. The Meeting was called to order by Mayor McCloskey. The Mayor requested that everyone stand and give the Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag. The Roll of the City Council was called with the following members present: Raymond, L. Carter, J. Carter, Mallea, Betts, and Cowles. Absent: none. (APPROVAL OF MINUTES) It was MOVED by Cowles, SECONDED by L. Carter to dispense with the reading of the minutes of the Regular City Council Meeting of August 3, 1982, the Regular City Council Meeting of August 10, 1982, and the Executive Session of August 17, 1982, and approve them as written. MOTION CARRIED (AUDIENCE PARTICIPATION) The Mayor asked if there was anyone in the audience who cared to bring any item before the City Council that was not on the prepared Agenda. Mr. Floyd Tracy was recognized and questioned the City Council if there was any intent to pave Kearney Street. The City Engineer explained to Mr. Tracy that the City had intended to include the paving of Kearney Street in this year's Rehab Grant but ran out of monies before it could be accomplished. The initial two blocks of Kearney Street will be included in next's years Block Grant proposal. Mr. Redmond further stated that Kearney Street would become a predominate street and the City was planning to pave Kearney as the funds were available. Mr. Harold Martin of 1420 Belmont was recognized and stated that his area by the Courthouse was marked, blue and wondered if it was the intent of the City to pave this area. Mr. Redmond informed him that those areas marked were the recommendations of the Engineering Department for paving and they hoped to do this work next summer. Mr. Bill Brown was recognized and asked if the 1600 block of North 11th was included. The Mayor stated that this would be discussed during the hearing later on in the meeting. (EXPLANATION OF PUBLIC HEARING PROCEDURES) The Mayor explained to the audience that the City was required to follow a set of rules with regard to public hearings. A sheet of paper would be passed out to the members of the audience for them to sign requesting that they be allowed to speak during the hearing specified at the top of the sheet. OLD BUSINESS (THIRD READING OF BILL #15 - PUBLIC HEARING PROCEDURES) The Mayor stated that the first item under Old Business was the third reading of Bill 415. The Mayor read the Bill by title only as follows: AN ORDINANCE ESTABLISHING AND FIXING RULES OF PROCEDURE FOR PUBLIC HEARINGS BEFORE THE CITY COUNCIL; AND PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE HEREOF It was then MOVED by Mallea, SECONDED by L. Carter to dispense with the rule requiring the reading of a Bill in full. Book 23 Page 228 Roll call vote. Those voting yes: Mallea, Betts, Cowles, Raymond, L. Carter and J. Carter. Those voting no: none. Absent and not voting: none. MOTION CARRIED It was then MOVED by Mallea, SECONDED by L. Carter that Bill No. 15 be passed and entitled Ordinance No. 1627. Roll call vote. Those voting yes: Mallea, Betts, Cowles, Raymond, L. Carter and J. Carter. Those voting no: none. Absent and not voting: none. MOTION CARRIED (STADIUM LEASE) The Mayor explained that this item on the Agenda would be delayed until next week. NEW BUSINESS (REQUEST FOR A CHANGE IN THE AGENDA) The Mayor informed the City Council that he would like to request that Item No. 5, presentation of Certificate of Appointment, be moved up to the top of the: Agenda so that Mr. Clark would not have to stay for the public hearings. It was MOVED by L. Carter, SECONDED 'by Raymond that permission be given to the Mayor to change the Agenda as requested. MOTIO'.N CARRIED (CERTIFICATE OF APPOINTMENT TO Y.A.A.C.) The Mayor requested that Mr. Dave Clark come forward to be presented a Certificate of Appointment to the Young Adult Advisory Commission. The Mayor explained to the audience the purpose of this commission before presenting the Certificate to Mr. Clark. The Mayor offered his congratulations to Mr. Clark and stated how delighted he was to see Mr. Clark become involved in City Government. (PUBLIC HEARING ON WITHER ° S APPEAL) The Mayor stated that he would like to read the rules that were required for a public hearing before opening the meeting for the hearing. The rules were as follows: 1. No person shall be permitted to testify or speak before the City Council at a Public Hearing, unless such person has signed his name and written his residential address thereafter on sign -up sheets to 'be provided by the City. This rule shall not apply to staff or technical witnesses directed by the Mayor to give evidence or information -to the City Council. 2. No person shall be permitted to speak before the City Council at a Public Hearing until such person has been recognized by the Mayor. 3. All Public Hearing proceedings shall be .recorded electronically or stenographically and all persons speaking at such Public Hearings shall speak before a microphone in such a manner as will assure that the recorded testimony or remarks will be accurate and trustworthy. 4. At the commencement of the Public Hearing, the City Council shall establish a time limit to be observed by all speakers. The time limit shall be established, depending on the number of speakers who sign up for each Public Hearing and shall apply only to the speaker's comments. Book 23 Page 229 5. The speaker shall not be interrupted by members of the City Council until his time limit has been expended or until he has finished his statement. 6. At the conclusion of a speaker's comments, each City Councilman, when recognized by the Mayor, shall be allowed to question the speaker and the speaker shall be limited to answers to the questions asked. The question and answer period shall not be included in the speaker's time limit, as established. 7. When the Public Hearing is quasi - judicial in nature or one after which the City Council is required by law to make Findings of Act, each speaker must swear or affirm that his testimony will be true and correct. 8. Any person not conforming to any of the above rules may be prohibited from speaking during the Public Hearing. Should any person refuse to comply with such prohibition, he may be removed from the room by order of the Mayor. 9. The City Council may suspend or amend any one or more of these rules by vote of one -half plus one of the full City Council. 10. The Mayor shall have the authority to interpret and apply the foregoing rules, subject to an appeal to the City Council, whose decision shall be determined by a majority vote of the council members present. The Mayor then requested that the sign -up sheet be submitted to the City Clerk for the Wither's appeal. After the sheet was presented, the Mayor and City Council established a time limit of five minutes for those desiring to speak. Mrs. Withers was then recognized and explained that her husband was unable to attend as he was scheduled for surgery. He did ask that she mention that there was 142 signatures on a petition in support of their appeal. They had talked with a number of the neighbors who stated that it was a practical request since it did not take up half of the driveway. There was a need for this protective - covering. The Idaho Code states that if there was an undue hardship it was permissable and Mrs. Withers explained at some length the hardships they were faced with. It was Mrs. Wither's feeling that this type of request should be judged indivdually. A tape of the testimony given by Mrs. Withers is on file with the Office of the City Clerk as well as the remainder of the testimony during this City Council Meeting. The Mayor then asked if there was any questions from the City Council to Mrs. Withers. Several members of the City Council asked Mrs. Withers questions with regard to this appeal. The Mayor then called on Mrs. Robison, the Planning and Zoning Director, for an explanation as to what the sequence of events consisted of. Mrs. Robison stated that she would like to submit some documents as Exhibits which are on file in the office of the Planning and Zoning Director. These documents consisted of Exhibit A, Building permit issued July 25, 1980, to enclose existing carport and make a family room; Exhibit B, Information from Building Inspector; Exhibit C, August. 20, 1981, Planning and Zoning minutes where Commission upheld decision of Building Inspector to remove carport; Exhibit D, Planning and Zoning minutes. Letter from John Pilote to Withers stating Commission had adequately reviewed their request; Exhibit E, Council minutes of 11/81. Council referred Withers back to Planning and Zoning with a request to consider a variance to allow carport to remain; Exhibit F, Planning and Zoning minutes of 12/17/81. Decision to review setback regulations and schedule public hearing for Withers after review; Exhibit G, Planning and Zoning of 7/15/82. Public Hearing held. Request for variance denied; Exhibit H, Report to Council on Planning and Zoning decision; Exhibit. I, Council minutes 7/20/82. Appeal from Withers. Book 23 Page 230 The Mayor then called on Dennis Davis, the Building Inspector, to state what occurred with regard to his office and Mrs. Withers. Mr. Davis stated that basically his testimony was that he had no knowledge that the carport was going to be constructed or he would have informed Mrs. Withers that - there was an Ordinance prohibiting these structures in the front setback. The time period between when - they originally got the permit to enclose their garage and when he noticed that the carport was up was actually a year. He did not believe that there was any intent to commit an illegal act in the construction of the carport. Mr. Davis did feel that there probably should have been some responsibility shown by the contractor as he was in the business of constructing carports. it was not only a violation of Caldwell's ordinance, but all of the surrounding communities as well. After further discussion, the Mayor closed the Public Hearing. The Mayor then stated that he would like to comment with regard to this issue. There was a number of offending carports in the City of Caldwell and have been built without a permit. There has been some philosophical diffierences in - the Planning and Zoning Commission that has caused some problems in that it was bounced back and forth between them and the City Council. His recommendation would be to declare this situation On the Grandfather's clause to leave the carport in existence plus all of the carports that are presently built beyond the setback line and then any future carports would come under jurisdiction of law until the law was repealed. His two reasons being; fairness and lawsuits. Councilman Raymond was recognized and stated that as far as he was concerned the culprit here was the professional contractor who has been in the business of constructing carports for many years. His feeling was that this was a matter to be handled in court between the contractor and the person contracting for the carport to be built. He could find nothing in the present law after reading over all of the material and hearing the testimony to allow the carport to remain. Therefore, his position would be to uphold the Planning and Zoning Commission's decision. Councilwoman Mallea was recognized and stated that the Wither's case was a difficult case and everyone would like to be compassionate. The problemm with the Grandfather's clause is that the Comprehensive Plan establishes the cut off time from which time forward these things would be allowed. She had great compassion for Mr. and Mrs. Withers, but her position would also be to uphold the Planning and Zoning Commission. Councilman Betts stated that Councilman Raymond covered the points that he wanted to discuss. He also had compassion for the Withers, but the Ordinance was tested, to change the ordinance failed, and at this point the Ordinance says no and he would have to also uphold the Commission. Councilman L. Carter stated that he felt there was a misunderstanding on this from the start on both sides. Mrs. Withers was under the assumption that there was a permit for the carport along with the other permit. Councilman Carter said that he would be in favor of granting the variance for this. It was then MOVED by Raymond, SECONDED by J. Carter that the decision of the Planning and Zoning Commission be upheld. The Mayor requested a roll call vote.. Those voting yes: Raymond, J. Carter, Mallea, Betts, and Cowles„ Those voting no: L. Carter. Absent and not voting: none. 1 MOTION CARRIED (PUBLIC HEARING ON PROPOSED USES FOR REVENUE SHARING) The Mayor stated that the next item of business was a Public Hearing on proposed uses for Revenue Sharing monies_ The Mayor then called on Councilman Betts to explain what the City Council Book 23 Page 231 was proposing for Revenue Sharing monies. Councilman Betts passed out the following list of "wants" submitted by the City Council for Revenue Sharing monies: Telephone Conversion Library books Sidewalk repair Building Remodel Rodeo (matching) Street light purchase Fire truck Airport right away 21st and Franklin intersection North side street improvement North side street improvement Rose garden intersection Vehicles and heavy equipment Centennial Rose Garden sprinkler Stadium (matching) Golf sprinkler Mic- a- -light Contingency Councilman Betts further commented that the City Council was trying to decide what priorities to establish with regard to items to be purchased with Revenue Sharing monies for this year. It appeared that there was about $643,000 going into next year of Revenue Sharing monies. Part of this money was money that was not spent during this fiscal year and would be carried over. For the last few years, it has been Council policy to spend approximately half of what was available in each budget year. Therefore, somewhere around $300,000 will be spent for Revenue Sharing projects. - The Mayor then stated that he would open the Meeting for a Public Hearing to get input from the audience as to how they would like to have Revenue Sharing monies spent. The Mayor further informed the City Council that he had four signatures on the sign up sheet. The Council then determined that each one of them would be allowed three minutes to speak. Elaine Carpenter was recognized and said that she was present to represent the Board of Trustees for the Caldwell Public Library. Also present at the Meeting was Alta Williams, Phil Eldredge and Warren Taylor and also the Director of the Library, Susan Gilroy. Mrs. Carpenter continued by stating that the Board wanted them to know how much they appreciated last year's Revenue Sharing monies. It allowed them to add to the Library collection and build some areas of the reference section. They were finding themselves in a budget crunch and in order to help alleviate this condition, they were applying for grants from outside sources, planning fund raising activities and greatly increasing the use of volunteers at the Library. It was the desire of the Library Board to increase the amount of services offered, rather then decrease them. It will take a lot of effort to keep the funding coming in and also to encourage and utilize more volunteer activity. The Council's consideration of Revenue Sharing monies to help augment their book budget for the coming year would be most appreciated. Lurene Thurston was recognized and stated that she was there to represent the Historic Commission which was handling the Centennial Commission. They have been working very hard for some time to get the Commission working. The Centennial was coming up and Caldwell will be celebrating. The Historical Commission was not funded so they were in need of funds to run the mechanics to put the celebration together. Mr. Ensley asked that she read the following statement: As you know, the Historical commission has been working diligently on the coming Centennial Celebration. The Council generously provided $2,000 from last year's Revenue Sharing fund and is loaning the funds to print the Centennial calendar to Book 23 Page 232 go on sale later this Fall. We remain in need of ongoing funds to maintain the Centennail office and provide assistance in program planning. We are asking for $5,000, but would be most appreciative of any amount you could give us. Alta Williams was recognized and asked several questions of the City Council with regard to their items on the list. One of the questions was what heavy equipment they were planning to purchase. Councilman Betts pointed out that t:he amount in the paper included all of the equipment submitted in the budget. Mrs. Williams then requested that consideration be given to finding monies to spray for the mosquitoes. The Mayor explained that he checked into this as there had been a number of complaints. It would cost $5,000 for the chemicals to spray and to spray would cost $7,200 which would be $12,200 and would be good for a maximum of ten days. Mrs. Williams further said that she would like to commend the City Council for the list of things they planned to do. Floyd Tracy was recognized and stated that he was here to ask for monies to pave Kearney Street. He was told by the City Engineer that they did not plan to pave Kearney from Third to Fifth. The Mayor pointed out that the City Council will never use Revenue Sharing funds to pave residential streets. Kearney Street would possibly fit in the Rehab Program which would be discussed later on in the meeting. The Mayor then informed the City Council that he had a letter submitted by Joe Frost with regard to the Revenue Sharing monies. The letter stated; I propose that ninety to one hundred thousand dollars to drill a new hot water well in the park (need to go to around 2,300 feet to hit 165 degree water) To fit the pool with a head exchanger. This piece of equipment would be paid for in one season. Also, form a local heating district and sell excess hot water to the hospital, which has already indicated a desire to buy this water. Also furnish heat to the Library, Senior Citizen Cneter, National Guard Arm.ony and the new City Hall. The City Engineer gave a brief resume of a meeting held recently with the State and were getting assistance from the Oregon Insitute of Technology to run a feasibility study for just what Mr. Frost was referring to. The Mayor then closed the Public Hearing and Councilman Betts informed the City Council that they would meet - the next day at 4:00 p.m. to decide what uses to plan for. (PUBLIC HEARING ON APPLICATION FOR COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT) Mayor McCloskey opened a Public Hearing for participant input concerning an application for Idaho Community Block Development Block Grant funds. The City Engineer explained the application and the various projects, including street, water lines, irrigation and etc. Several people were recognized to comment with regard to the Grant including Mr. Harold Martin of 1420 Belmont and Mr. Brown of 1510 Cleveland. No one appeared in opposition to the application. Since there was no one else who cared to speak to this item, the Mayor declared the Public Hearing closed. (APPROVE EXECUTION OF APPLICATION) The Mayor then asked for a motion to aprove the execution of the application. MOVED by L. Carter, SECONDED by Cowles to authorize the Mayor to executive the application for the Community Block Grant. MOTION CARRIED Book 23 Page 233 (PUBLIC HEARING ON PLAN AND ZONE CHANGE FROM R -3T TO C4 -T, BLOCKS 59 AND 68 DEVERS, BY LUBY PARK) Mrs. Robison explained that first under consideration was to change the Comprehensive Plan for Blocks 59 and 68 Devers. About six months ago, the zoning was changed in two blocks which included Williams Animal Hospital and several residences. The property owners expressed a desire at that. time to go along with the rezoning to a freeway interchange commercial. It was necessary to hold off on this two blocks as a plan change was required. Part was owned by the City and some of the property by Ralph Corn and Claude Brumfield. The first hearing ; would be on the Comprehensive Plan Change to change it from high, density residential to general commercial and there would be a Resolution to be considered. Then, would be a public hearing to change the zoning from R3 -T to C4 -T on the two blocks. The Mayor opened the meeting open for a Public Hearing on the Plan Change. Dr. Williams submitted his name on the sheet to speak to this change. Dr. Williams spoke briefly in support of the change as he felt it was an advantage to everyone. Since there was no one else who cared to speak with regard to this change, the Mayor declared the Public: Hearing closed and read the Resolution in full as follows: RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE APPROVAL OF CHANGES ON THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN BE IT RESOLVED That the City Council of the City of Caldwell be authorized to approve a change in the Comprehensive Plan from High Density and Professional Offices to General Commercial for Block 59 and 68, Devers Addition to Caldwell, Idaho, as shown on the map attached as Exhibit A. It was MOVED By L. Carter, SECONDED by J. Carter that the Resolution authorizing the Plan Change be passed. Roll call vote. Those voting yes: L. Carter, Mallea, Betts, Cowles, Raymond, and J. Carter, Those voting no: none. Absent and not voting: none. MOTION CARRIED (BILL NO. 17, ORDINANCE NO. 1629 - ORDINANCE FOR ZONE CHANGE) The Mayor then read Bill No. 17 by title only as follows: AN ORDINANCE CHANGING THE ZONING OF CERTAIN PROPERTY WITHIN THE CITY OF CALDWELL, IDAHO, FROM R -3T HIGH DENSITY RESIDENTIAL (MOBILE HOME INDIVIDUAL OVERLAY) TO C -4T INTERCHANGE OR FREEWAY COMMERCIAL (MOBILE HOME INDIVIDUAL OVERLAY) AND DETERMINING THAT SAID CHANGE IN ZONING IS IN THE BEST INTEREST OF THE CITY OF CALDWELL, IDAHO; REPEALING ALL LAWS, ORDINANCES AND RESOLUTIONS • IN CONFLICT HEREWITH. MOVED by L. Carter, SECONDED by Cowles to suspend the rule requiring the reading of the Bill at three separate readings and to pass it on the first reading by title only. Roll call vote. Those voting yes: L. Carter, J. Carter, Mallea, Betts, Cowles, and Raymond. Those voting no: none. Absent and not voting: none. MOTION CARRIED MOVED by L. Carter, SECONDED by Cowles that Bill No. 17 be passed and entitled Ordinance No. 1629. Roll call vote. Those voting yes: L. Carter, Mallea, Betts, Cowles, Raymond, and L. Carter. Those voting no: none. Absent and not voting: none. Book 23 Page 234 MOTION CARRIED (CONSIDERATION OF NEW DOG ORDINANCE) The Mayor explained that there was an extensive disussion at noon with regard to consideration of a new dog ordinance. He would request from the City Council that he discuss this with the City Attorney to see if the County Ordinance applies or whether the City will have to adopt their own Ordinance. (FINANCIAL REPORT) Councilman Betts reported that there was bills in the amount of $346,099.26 and a payroll of $222,980.22 of which $42,198.82 was fringe benefits. This made a total for the month of $569,079.48. MOVED By Betts, SECONDED by Mallea that approval be given for the Requests for Payment pending observation of the requests by the Finance Committee. MOTION CARRIED (COMMITTEE REPORTS) Councilwoman Mallea stated that she would like to commend the Finance Chairman on his typed revenue sharing want list. Councilman L. Carter reported that he attended the Golf Board Meeting and the revenue was up. He also wanted the City Council to know that the City received a $500.00 check from the Golf Angels for one day use of the course. ' Councilman Betts reported that the Finance Committee was still working on the budget. At 4:00 tomorrow they would meet to discuss Revenue Sharing monies and at the next Tuesday Council Meeting they would adopt the tentative budget. There being no further business, the Meeting was adjourned at 9:30 p.m. ATTEST: y C l YIn� cit