Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2001-10-01 Council Agenda REGULAR MEETING OCTOBER 1,2001 7:00 P.M. The Meeting was called to order by Mayor Nancolas The Mayor asked everyone to stand for the Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag The roll of the City Council was called with the following members present: Wells, Langan, Ozuna, Hopper, Callsen, and Gable. Absent: none. ADDITIONS OR DELETIONS TO THE AGENDA. There were no additions or deletions to the Agenda MOVED by Ozuna, SECONDED by Hopper to approve the Agenda as printed Roll call vote. Those voting yes: Ozuna, Langan, Wells, Gable, Callsen, and Hopper. Those voting no: none. Absent and not voting: none. MOTION CARRIED APPOINTMENTS TO THE MAYOR'S ADVISORY COUNCIL. Mayor Nancolas announced that there was a special group of individuals in attendance this evening. He stated that he would like to take a moment to present them. A couple of years ago through the community assessment process, it was determined that many of the youth in the community were very interested in having a say in their future and how things would be planned. A Mayor's Youth Advisory Council was established and five students from Vallivue Nigh School and five from the Caldwell High School to join the Mayor's Youth Advisory Council. They were allowed to participate in the processes before the City. Last year the group had a very boring task which was to write the bylaws. They were establishing a program that would carry forward in the future and they did an outstanding job. They were also involved in other issues. The Mayor further informed Council that he would like to present to the City Council for appointment to the Mayor's Advisory Council for the year 2001-2002 the following names: From Vallivue Nigh School: Abbi Brooks, Creed Knee, Jessie Dorn, Chris Beale, and Erik Funkhouser. From Caldwell High School: Brooke Osgood, KJ Shankweiler, Ashleigh Wilbur, Alicia Yee, and Zach Marmon. MOVED by Langan, SECONDED by Hopper to approve the appointment of these students to the Mayor's Youth Advisory Council as presented for the year 2001-2002. Roll call vote. Those voting yes: Langan, Wells, Gable, Callsen, Hopper, and Ozuna. Those voting no: none. Absent and not voting: none. MOTION CARRIED The Mayor presented them with certificates and welcomed them to the Council. SPEClAL PRESENTATIONS -KELLl FAIRLESS -UPDATE ON VIATRANS. The Mayor recognized Kelli Fairless, Executive Director of VlATrans which was an organization dealing with public transportation in the Treasure Valley. Ms. Fairless informed Council tl~ast he was here tonight mainly to introduce herself to the Caldwell City Council. She proceeded with a brief report on the projects underway and the funding available. AUDIENCE PARTICIPATION. Mayor Nancolas asked if there was anyone in the audience who cared to address the City Council on any item that was not included on the prepared Agenda. Since there was no one, the Mayor declared that the meeting would continue as outlined. CONSENT CALENDAR: The Mayor presented the following items on the Consent Calendar for consideration by the Council: 1. Dispense with the reading of the minutes of the Regular Council Meeting held on September 17,2001 and approve as written; 2. Approve acceptance of the minutes from the Caldwell Golf Board held on August 15,2001; 3. Approve acceptance of a warranty deed from Alpha Houston (Grantor) in connection with right of way for Smeed Parkway; 4. Approve Order of Decision on Case No. ANN-56-01 (Hunter); 5. Approve an Airport Lease Agreement between the City of Caldwell and Leo Gilbride. It was MOVED by Gable, SECONDED by Ozuna to approve the Consent Calendar was presented. Roll call vote. Those votin-s -y es: Gable, Callsen, I-Iopper, Ozuna, Langan, and Wells. Those voting no: none. Absent and not voting: none. MOTION CAWED The Mayor noted that as an agreement for Item No. 6, which was a quasi judicial pubiic hearing on an appeal of conditions, the applicant has been made aware of the time frame and requested that ihis issue bc continued to the Regular Meeting on October 15,2001. OLD BUSINESS (CONTINUATION OF PUBLIC HEARING (QUASI-JUDICIAL) ON CASE NO. ZON-12-01, A REQUEST BY GARY VEZZOSO TO REZONE SIX LAND PARCELS FROM A R-2 ZONE (MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIAL) TO A C-1 (NEIGHBORHOOD COMMERCIAL) ZONE) Mayor Nancolas stated that this was a continuation of a Public Hearing (quasi-judicial) on Case No. ZON-12-01, a request by Gary Vezzoso to rezone six land parcels from a R-2 zone (Medium Density Residential) to a C-1 (Neighborhood Commercial) zone. This I-learing was opened at the last City Council Meeting and those signed up to speak were given that opportunity. We will continue this public bearing by picking up at the place we left off. Tl~eC ity Council has the ability to ask questions of anyone who testified at the last public hearing or any member of Staff. Council will be asked to proceed forward in that manner and the next step would be to have questions or discussion, close the public testimony and render Comprehensive Pla; Analysis, Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, and Order of Decision based upon the information presented during the public testimony portion ofthat hearing. The City Attorney reminded Council that at the end of the hearing last time, there was some discussion about a development agreement to address some of the concerns that were brought out by the opposition. It was his understanding that there bas bcen some movement in that regard so you might question both the applicant and Mr. Ilasson about the status of a development agreement. The Mayor declared the public hearing open. He asked Council if they had any questions or discussion with regard to this matter and also that they did need to address the development agreement with Mr. Hasson. The Community Development Director, Steve I-lasson, was recognized by the Mayor and asked to bring Council up to date with regard to the development agreement and to note that he was still under oath before speaking. Mr. Hasson informed Council that he had the opportunity over the last couple of weeks to meet with the Historical Preservation members and gain some perspective about their concerns regarding this development. I-le also talked with Mr. Vezzoso and they crafted a development agreement that he believed reflects both pasties concerns and the intent. Ile called attention to page 2 of the agreement under Article II,2.1. There were three pasties involved in this development agreement and they are Gary and Carol Vezzoso, Robert and Linda Stephens, and Zora Barbour. This developmei~t agreement would hold then1 accountable to certain conditions. He felt it was important to note the conditions and to see if tiley were sufficient for Council. The block was an R-2 which was a medium density residential and they were requesting that it be a C-1 which was a neighborhood commercial zone. The fxst condition wo~llds ay that only those uses that were outright permitted in the C-I zone would be uses that they could use in the hture. Anytiling within the C-l zone that would require a special use permit would be prohibited by the terms of this development agreement. This precludes an awful lot of items that migl~ftm d their way into the C-1 zone. They were willing to forgo anything that would require a special use permit to get them there. The second item was that they would maintain the residential character of the subject property and in this instance there was six of them until it changes to an allowable commercial use. Until such time that some other land use, other than residential, should take effect on a portion or all of' the property, it it would maintain this residential character. The third item was tllat the participants would agree to pay their proportionate share of any neighborhood development. The four(h was that they would agree to participate and pay any proportionate share of any corridor improvement plan adopted by the City. There were some specific conditions that would apply directly to the Vezzosos and that would be that they would pave the portion of alleyways that front on the rear ofthe property located at South 302 20" Street and 2006 Blaine Avenue. They would Furnish the City of Caldwell a letter or permit from the Idaho Department oFTransportatio~l confming that the two driveway entsances located on Blaine Avenue meet State driveway approach standards. They would agree not to incorporate the use of gravel as a landscaping feature in the parking strip area along Blaine. They would agree to replace the sidewalks for all of the properties they have in their possession within certain time frames listed in the agreement. It should be noted that in two properties they have already replaced the sidewalks and it was done according to City standards so those two would not require any additional sidewalk obligations. They would restore a ~mdai ntain all of the landscaping within the parking strip and according to the City Forester's approval. In addition, they would accommodate the Forester's landscape requests relative to the area fronting on Blaine Avenue located between the curb and the sidewalk. Also, they would agree to place only two signs on Blaine Avenue sized and placed according to the Caldwell C-1 zoning ordinance signage standards. They have agreed Book 42 Page 180 to abide by all of these conditions. Council would need to determine if these conditions were sufficient conditions to accommodate this kind of rezone request. Mayor Nancolas labeled the Development Agreement presented by Mr. Hasson as CC-1003 The Council discussed this matter including the paving of the alleyway and rear parking; the plans for landscaping; corridor improvement plan; Mr. Vezzoso has agreed to participate in any and all things formulated as long as everyone else agrees to participate and they only be obligated to pay their share; Mr. Veuoso has stated he will participate in any kind of landscaping between the sidewalk and curb and will also participate in long term vision of the Historical Commission; Mr. Vezzoso did state that he participated in developing the agreement and agreed with it; and both Mr. Feuoso and Mrs. Carpenter were asked questions and contributed to the discussion. It was then MOVED by Gable, SECONDED by Callsen to close the public testimony portion of the the public hearing. Roll call vote. Those voting yes: Gable, Callsen, Hopper, Ozuna, Langan, and Wells. Those voting no: none. Absent and not voting: none. MOTION CARRIED EVIDENCE LIST: The Mayor presented the following evidence: The power point presentation materials, Staff Report, sign up sheets, CC-1000 which was a letter from Mr. Miyauchi; CC-1001 which was entitled a rezone of six parcels; CC-1003 which was the Development Agreement presented by Staff. MOVED by Ozuna, SECONDED by Gable to approve the Evidence List Roll call vote. Those voting yes: Ozuna, Langan, Wells, Gable, Callsen, and Hopper. Those voting no: none. Absent and not voting: none. MOTION CARRIED COMPREHENSIVE PLAN ANALYSIS: MOVED by Wells, SECONDED by Gable to adopt the Comprehensive Plan Analysis as outlined in the Staff Report. Roll call vote. Those voting yes: Wells, Gable, Callsen, Hopper, Ozuna, and Langan. Those voting no: none. Absent and not voting: none. MOTION CARRIED FINDINGS OF FACT: Councilman Wells stated that Findings of of Fact would include the information in the Staff Report; testimony received and documents provided as evidence which would include the Development Agreement which has been negotiated and all parties to that agreement appear to be in concurrence. MOVED by Langan, SECONDED by Hopper to accept the Findings of Fact as presented. Roll call vote. Those voting yes: Langan, Wells, Gable, Callsen, Hopper, and Ozuna. Those voting no: none. Absent and not voting: none. MOTION CARRIED CONCLUSIONS OF LAW: MOVED by Wells, SECONDED by Ozuna that the City Council has the authority to hear this request and to approve or deny; the Public Hearing was legally noticed and posted and was heard within the guidelines of applicable ordinances and codes. Roll call vote. Those voting yes: Wells, Gable, Callsen, Hopper, Ozuna, and Langan. Those voting no: none. Absent and not voting: none. MOTION CARRIED ORDER OF DECISION: MOVED by Gable, SECONDED by Wells that based on the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, the Caldwell City Council hereby orders that Case No. ZON-12-00, a request by Gary Vezzoso and others to rezone certain property (303 South 20" Ave., 2021 Cleveland Blvd, 2006 Blaine, 2010 Blaine, 2016 Blaine and 2020 Blaine Street from R-2 (Medium Density Residential) to C-1 (Neighborhood Commercial) zone be approved. Councilman Wells stated that he would second this motion, but it was his understanding that part of the approval was to include execution of a Development Agreement. The Mayor agreed that this should be part of the motion. Mr. Hilty, the City Attorney, added that the Development Agreement would be consistent with clarification or discussion that was brought out tonight to the extent that we might need to clarify or tinker with some language that the key was that you were approving It subject to the development agreement as discussed tonight; not subject to the development llecessarjly in its current form as an exhibit. Both Councilman Gable and Wells agreed with Mr. Ililty's comments. The Mayor staled that the motion would include the language as presented by the City Attorney. Roll call vote. Those voting yes: Gable, Callsen, voting no: none. Absent and not voting: none. Hopper, Omna, Langan, and Wells. Those MOTION CARRIED MOVED by Ozuna, SECONDED by Langan to close the Public Hearing. Roll call vote. Those voting yes: Ozuna, Langan, voting no: none. Absent and not voting: none. Wells, Gable, Callsen, and Hopper. Those MOTION CARRIED (CONSIDER BILL NO. 24 TO REZONE ABOVE PROPERTY WITH A REQUEST TO WAlVE THE RULES REQUIRING THAT A BILL BE RED AT THREE SEPARATE TIMES AND READ IN FULL FOR ONE READING AND ALSO APPROVE THE SUNIMARY FOR PUBLICATION) The next item on the Agenda was to consider Bill No. 24 to rezone the above property with request to waive the rules and pass at tbis time. In addition, there was also the request to approve the summary. The Mayor stated that he would read the Bill by title only as follows: AN ORDINANCE DETERMINING THAT CERTAIN LAND LAYS CONTIGUOUS TO TI-IE CITY LIMITS OF THE CITY OF CALDWELL, COUNTY OF CANYON, STATE OF IDAHO, AND THAT SAlD LANDS SHOULD BE ANNEXED TO THE CITY OF CRLDWELL, IDAI-10, AS PART OF THE R-2 (MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIAL) ZONE DISTRICT; AND DECLARING SAID LANDS BY PROPER LEGAL DESCRIPTION AS DESCRIBED BELOW TO BE A PART OF TELE CITY OF CALDWELL, CANYON COUNTY, IDAHO; REPEALNG ALL ORDINANCES, RESOLUTIONS, ORDERS OR PARTS THEREOF IN CONFLICT HEREWITH; AND DIRECTING THE CITY ENGINEER AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR TO ADD SAlD PROPERTY TO THE OFFICIAL MAPS OF THE CITY OF CALDWELL, IDAHO; AND DIRECTING THE CLERK OF TI4E CITY OF CALDWELL TO FILE A CERTIFIED COPY OF TIE ORDINANCE AND MAP OF THE AREA TO BE ANNEXED WITI-I CANYON COUNTY, STATE OF IDAI-IO AND THE IDAHO STATE TAX COMMISSION, PURSUANT TO IDAI-IO CODE, SECTION 63-2219. MOVED by Gable, SECONDED by Callsen to waive the rules requiring that a bill be read at three separate times and read in full for one reading. The Mayor noted that tl~ela nguage of this Bill was not appropriatc. The City Attorney stated that this Bill was not sufficient. They would have to move passage of this Bill to the Agenda for October 15,2001 under Old Business. (CONTINUATION OF PUBLIC HEARING (QUASI-JUDICIAL) ON CASE NOS. ANN-58-01 AND SUB-63-01 (WINDSONG SUBDIVISION), A REQUEST BY SAGEWOOD DEVE1,OPMENT CORP. FOR APPROVAL TO ANNEX APPROXIMATELY 4.64 ACRES INTO THE ClTY AS AN R-1 (SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL) ZONE AND TO DEVELOP WINDSONG SUBDIVISION, A 18 RESiDENTIAL AND 2 COMMON AREA LOT SUBDIVISION) Mayor Nancolas stated that the next item under Old Business was to continue the Public Ilearing on request by Sagewood Development Corp for an annexation and request to develop Windsong Subdivision. Testimony was heard for both of these requests at the last Council Meeting. I-lowever, they were separate items to be voted on. The testimony was completed at the previous meeting and everyone signed to speak were heard. At this point, Council Members w r e allowed to ask questions of any person who testified at the last public hearing including staff members. City Council will then be asked to close the public testimony of tl~ehe aring and continue with the process. The Mayor then opened the Pubic Hearing to continue with this matter. Several questions were presented to the Community Development Director and the City Engineer particularly with regard to sewer and water availability. It was then MOVED by Gable, SECONDED by ~alisento close the public testinroily of tbis hearing. Roll call vote. Those voting yes: Gable, Callsen, Hopper, Ozuna, Langan, and Wells. n ~ o s e voting no: none. Absent and not voting: none. MOTION CAIUZIED EVIDENCE LIST: The evidence was listed by the Mayor as follows: Staff report, power point presentation, sign up sheets, CC-1000 a small map presented by Mr. Boyle, CC-1001 a rep017 from Mr. Lanim. MOVED by Langan, SECONDED by Hopper to accept the evidence as presented. Roll call vote. Those voting yes: Langan, Wells, Gable, Callsen, Hopper, and Ozuna. Those voting no: none. Absent and not voting: none. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN ANALYSIS: MOTION CARRIED MOVED by Gable, SECONDED by Hopper to accept the comprehensive plan analysis as submitted in the Staff Report and any components added during this testimony. Roll call vote. Those voting yes: Gable, Callsen, Hopper, Ozuna, Langan, and Wells. Those voting no: none. Absent and not voting: none. MOTION CARRIED The Mayor noted that this present action was with regard to the annexation FINDINGS OF FACT: MOVED by Gable, SECONDED by Hopper to accept the Findings of Fact outlined in the staff report and any facts brought forward under the public testimony portion on this annexation. Roll call vote. Those voting yes: Gable, Callsen, Hopper, Ozuna, Langan, and Wells. Those voting no: none. Absent and not voting: none. MOTION CARRIED CONCLUSIONS OF LAW: MOVED by Gable, SECONDED by Langan that the City Council has the authority to hear this request and to approve or deny; the public hearing was legally noticed and posted and was heard within the guidelines of applicable codes and ordinances. Roll call vote. Those voting. y es: Gable, Callsen, Hopper, Ozuna, Langan, and Wells. Those ~ voting no: none. Absent and not voting: none. MOTION CARRIED ORDER OF DECISION: MOVED Gable, SECONDED by Callsen that based on the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, the Council hereby orders that Case No. ANN-58-01, a request by Sagewood Development for annexation of approximately 4.64 acres of land into the City as an R-l Single Family Residential be approved. Roll call vote. Those voting yes: Gable, Callsen, Hopper, Ozuna, Langan, and Wells. Those voting no: none. Absent and not voting: none. MOTION CARRIED The Mayor stated that the next business would be to consider the preliminary plat approval COMPREHENSIVE PLAN ANALYSIS: MOVED by Gable, SECONDED by Langan to accept the Comprehensive Plan Analysis as outlined by the Hearing Examiner in the Staff Report regarding Case No. SUB-63-01, Windsong Subdivision. Roll call vote. Those voting yes: Gable, Callsen, I-lopper, Ozuna, Langan, and Wells. Those voting no: none. Absent and not voting: none. MOTION CARRIED FINDINGS OF FACT: MOVED by Gable, SECONDED by Callsen to accept the general facts as outlined in the Staff Report and any facts that were brought forward in the public testimony portion of our hearing. Roll call vote. Those voting yes: Gable, Callsen, Hopper, Ozuna, Langan, and Wells. Those voting no: none. Absent and not voting: none. MOTION CARRIED CONCLUSIONS OF LAW: MOVED by Gable, SECONDED by Langan that the City Council has the authority to hear this request and to approve or deny; the public hearing was legally noticed and posted and was heard within the guidelines of applicable codes and ordinances. Roll call vote. Those voting yes: Gable, Callsen, Hopper, Ozuna, Langan, and Wells. Those voting no: none. Absent and not voting: none. MOTION CARRIED ORDER OF DECISION: MOVED by Gable, SECONDED Callsen that based on the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, the Caldwell City Council hereby orders that Case No. SUB-63-01, arequest for preliminary plat approval of Windsong Subdivision, which consists of 18 residential and 2 common area lots is approved with conditions as set forth in the Staff Report, Findings of Fact, and Conclusions of Law including those listed under 12.1 through 12.14 in the Staff Report. Roll call vote. Those voting yes: Gable, Callsen, Hopper, Ozuna, Langan, and Wells. Thosc voting no: none. Absent and not voting: none. MOTION CARRIED MOVED by Ozuna, SECONDED by Cdlsen lo close the Public Hearing. Roll call vote. Those voting yes: Ozuna, Langan, Wells, Gable, Callscn, and Hopper. Those voting no: none. Absent and not voting: none. MOTION CARRIED (CONSIDER BILL NO. 25 TO ANNEX TIlE ABOVE PROPERTY WITH THE REQIUEST TO WANE THE RULES REQUURlNG THAT A BILL BE READ AT THREE SEPARATE TIMES AND READ IN FULL FOR ONE READING AND APPROVE THE SUMMARY FOR PUBLICATION) Mayor Nancolas stated that the next item would be to consider Bill No. 25 for the annexation of the above property. I-Ie read Bill No. 25 by title only as follows: AN ORDINANCE DETERMINING Tl-lAT CERTAIN LAND LAYS CONTIGUOUS TO TI-lE CITY LIMITS OF TEE CITY OF CALDWELL, COUNTY OF CANYON, STATE OF IDAHO, AND THAT SAID LANDS SIIOULD BE ANNEXED TO TI-lE CITY OF CALDWELL, IDAHO, AS PART OF THE R-I (SINGLE-FAMILY) ZONE DISTRICT; AND DECLARING SAID LANDS BY PROPER LEGAL DESCRIPTION AS DESCRIBED BELOW TO BE A PART OF THE CITY OF CALDWELL, CANYON COUNTY, IDAHO; REPEALING ALL ORDINANCES, RESOLUTIONS, ORDERS OR PARTS TI-lEREOF rS CONFLICT HEREWITI-I; AND DIRECTING THE CITY ENGINEER AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR TO ADD SAID PROPERTY TO THE OFFICIAL MAPS OF THE CITY OF CALDWELL, IDAHO; AND DlRECTlNG THE CLERK OF TFIE CITY OF CALDWELL TO FILE A CERTIFIED COPY OF THE ORDINANCE AND MAP OF TI-IE AREA TO BE ANNEXED WIT13 CANYON COUNTY, STATE OF IDAHO AND THE IDAHO STATE TAX COMMISSION, PURSUANT TO IDAHO CODE, SECTION 63-2219. MOVED by Gable, SECONDED by Callsell to waive the rules requiring that a bill be read at three separate times and read in full for one reading and pass Bill No. 25 on its first reading. Roll call vole. Those voting yes: Gable, Callsen, Hoppcr, Ozuna, Langan, and Wells. Those voting no: none. Absent and not voting: none. MOTION CARRIED MOVED by Gable, SECONDED by Langan that Bill No. 25 be passed and entitled Ordinance No. 2389 after the one reading by title only and approve the summary for publication. Roll cail vote. Those voting yes: Gable, Callsen, I-lopper, Ozuna, Langan, and Wells. Those voting no: none. Absent and not voting: none. MOTION CARRIED The Mayor noted lhat the decision of City Council could be appealed to District Court wilhin twenty-eight days i~omth e Order of Decision. The Order of Decision will be rendered in writing at the Council Meeting on the 15" oioctober, 2001. NEW BUSINESS (QUASI-JUDICIAL PUBLIC HEARING ON CASE NO. SUB-45F(2)-00 (MARBLE VALLEY UNIT NO. 2), A REQUEST REQUEST BY CAPITAL DEVELOPMENT FOR FINAL PLAT APPROVAL OF 37 RESIDENTIAL LOTS AND ONE COMMON AREA LOT ON APPROXIMATELY 9.33 ACRES IN AN R-1 ZONE) Mayor Nancolas staled that the next item of business was a Public Hearing on Case No. SUB-45F(2)-00, a request by Capital Development for final plat approval for Marble Valley Unit No. 2. The Mayor explained that this matter was also quasi judicial and again reviewed the procedure for public hearings. He then opened the Public Hearing and stated that Joan l-lolmes, Planner %om the Community Development Department would be presenting the background inlormaltion. Joan Holmes, Community Development Planner, was recognized and sworn in by ?he City Clerk. Ms. FIolmes noted that public notice requirements were met pursuant to Idaho Code; 'The request was for Marble Valley No. 2 for 37 residential lots and one common area Pot on approximately 9.33 acres in an R-l zone. She pointed out the location on the map for the Council Members. Pioneer Irrigation District and William Mason's memo cites some items specifically needed to be replaced or repaired which were included in tbe Staff Report. The developer was responsible for providing a functional system that fol'iows the intent of the District's standards. Under 2.7.3, the Book 42 Page 184 applicant has now submitted a form of bonding and approved by the City Engineer. This document was submitted as evidence and labeled CC-1000. Mayor Nancolas informed Council that only one person was signed to testify to this item. He recognized David Yorgason, 6200 North Meeker Place in Boise was sworn in by the Clerk and stated that they were continuing to work with Pioneer Irrigation District and other than that, he was here to answer any questions Council might have. Council briefly discussed this request particularly with regard to fencing. The Mayor then asked for a motion to close the public hearing. MOVED by Langan, SECONDED by Ozuna to close the public hearing Roll call vote. Those voting yes: Langan, Wells, Gable, Callsen, Hopper and Ozuna. Those voting no: none. Absent and not voting: none. MOTION CARRIED EVIDENCE LIST: The Mayor presented the following evidence: Staff Report, sign up sheets, CC-1000 which was a document from J.J. Howard Consulting Engineer, and the power point presentation. MOVED by Gable, SECONDED by Hopper to approve the evidence list as presented Roll call vote. Those voting yes: Gable, Callsen, Hopper, Ozuna, Langan, and Wells. Those voting no: none. Absent and not voting: none. MOTION CARRIED FINDINGS OF FACT: MOVED by Gable, SECONDED by Callsen to accept the general facts as outlined in the Staff Report as well as the public testimony this evening. Roll call vote. Those voting yes: Gable, Callsen, Hopper, Ozuna, Langan, and Wells. Those voting no: none. Absent and not voting: none. MOTION CARRIED CONCLUSIONS OF LAW: MOVED by Langan, SECONDED by Ozuna that the Caldwell City Council has the authority to hear requests on final plats and to make the decision to approve or deny; the public hearing was noticed and heard within the guidelines of applicable state codes and local ordinances. Roll call vote. Those voting yes: Langan, Wells, Gable, Callsen, Hopper, and Ozuna. Those voting no: none. Absent and not voting: none. MOTION CARRIED ORDER OF DECISION: MOVED by Langan, SECONDED by Ozuna that based upon the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, the Caldwell City Council orders that Case No. SUB-045F(2)-00, Marble Valley No. 2, a request by Capital Development for final plat approval to develop 37 residential lots and one common area lot on approximately 9.33 acres located within an R-1 zone was approved with conditions as outlined in the Staff Report. Roll call vote. Those voting yes: Langan, Wells, Gable, Callsen, Hopper, and Ozuna. Those voting no: none. Absent and not voting: none. MOTION CARRIED MOVED by Ozuna, SECONDED by Langan to close the Public Hearing. Roll call vote. Those voting yes: Ozuna, Langan, Wells, Gable, Callsen, and Hopper. Those voting no: none. Absent and not voting: none. MOTION CARRIED The Mayor asked for a short recess. (QUASI-JUDICIAL PUBLIC HEARING ON CASE NO. SUB-54F-00 (SKYWAY BUSINESS PARK), A REQUEST BY CALDWELL UNLIMITED AND THE CITY OF CALDWELL FOR FINAL PLAT APPROVAL OF 18 COMMERCIAL LOTS AND THREE COMMON AREA LOTS ON APPROXIMATELY 40 ACRES IN AN M-1 ZONE) The Mayor reviewed the process for public hearings for the audience and noted that Mrs. Holmes will be making this presentation. He then opened the public hearing and recognized Joan Holmes. Joan Holmes, Planner for the Community Development Department, noted that she was still under oath and proceeded with her review of the Staff Report. She stated that public notice requirements were met as it was published and posted as required in State Code. The request was for tinal plat approval of 18 commercial lots and 3 common area lots located on approximately 40 acres within an M-l (Light industrial) zone. As noted under Item 2.7, Mr. Law's memo was outlined and he would answer any questions Council might have; ltem 2.7.7 addresses the fire protection; ltem 2.7.9 concerns the construction completiolll financial guarantee. The Engineering Department has stated that the facilities contemplated in the approved plans were not yet complete and a punch list of items to be corrected has been issued. It was necessary that all the remaining punch list items either be completed or an appropriate construction security provided in accordance with City Subdivision Ordinance before the final plat could be signed. A method for calculating said construction security has not yet been submitted for approval. David Marston, 621 Cleveland Blvd from the Engineering Staff was recognized and sworn in by the Clerk. Mr. Marston indicated that he was here representing the Staff lo answer any questions they might have. He did note that there were three items to be colnpleted outside of the current contract to complete the rest of the items. Those included pressure irrigation, sidewalks inside the park and landscaping inside the park between back of the sidewalk and the property line. They would be meeting with the representatives ofCaldwel1 Unlimited to discuss the bond amount. I-Ie also stated that the contractor was preparing the ground for curb and gutter and sidewalk. This should be completed within three weeks and paving to follow. This would be about the third week in November. Glenn Koch, 23306 Freezeout Road was recognized and sworn in by the City Clerk. Mr. Koch also indicated that he was present to answer any questions. He would urge the Comlcil to approve this project which they have been working on for four or five years. Councilman Gable thanked Mr. Koch and other members of Caldwell Unlimited for their effort sin this Business Park. MOVED by Ozuna, SECONDED by Hopper to close the public testimony Roll call vote. Those voting yes: Ozuna, Langan, Wells, Gable, Callsen, and Hopper. Those voting no: none. Absent and not voting: none. MOTION CARRIED EVIDENCE LIST: The Mayor presented the following evidence: Staff Report, Sign up sheets and the power poult presentation. MOVED by Gahle, SECONDED by Callsen to accept the Evidence List as preserted by the Mayor. Roll call vote. Those voting yes: Gable, Callsen, Hopper, Ozuna, Langan, and Wells. Those voting no: none. Absent and not voting: none. MOTION CARRIED FINDINGS OF FACT: MOVED by Gable, SECONDED by Callsen to accept the general facts outlined in the staff repoll and all relevant testimony considered this evening to be the Findings of Fact. Roll call vote. Those voting yes: Gable, Callsen, Hopper, Ozuna, Langan, and Wells. Those voting no: none. Absent and not voting: none. MOTlON CARRIED CONCLUSIONS OF LAW: MOVED by Gable, SECONDED by Callsen that the City Council has the authority to hear requests on final plats and to make the decision to approve or deny; the public hearing was noticed and heard within the guidelines of applicable state codes and local ordinances. Roll call vote. Those voting yes: Gable, Callsen, I-Iopper, Ozuna, Langan, and Wells. Those voting no: none. Absent and not voting: none. MOTION CARRIED ORDER OF DECISION: MOVED by Gable, SECONDED by Callsen that based upon the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, the Caldwell City Council orders that Case No. SUB-54F-00, a request by Caldwell Unlimited, Inc. and the City of Caldwell for final subdivision plat approval of Skywa.y Business Park, which consists of 18 commercial and 3 common eea lots located on approximately 40 acres in an M-l (Light Industrial) zone was approved with conditions as set forth in the Staff Report. Roll call vote. Those voting yes: Gable, Callsen, Hopper, Ozuna, Langan, and Wells. Those voting no: none. Absent and not voting: none. MOTlON CARRIED MOVED by Hopper, SECONDED by Ozuna to close the Public I-learing. Roll call vote. Those voting yes: Hopper, Ozuna, Langan, Wells, Gable, and Callsen. Those voting no: none. Absent and not voting: none. MOTlON CARRIED (QUASI-JUDICIAL PUBLIC HEARING ON CASE NO. ANN-47-00, A REQUEST BY THE CITY OF CALDWELL TO ANNEX APPROXIMATELY 115.02 ACRES INTO THE CITY AS AN R-B (SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL) ZONE AND APPROXIMATELY 107.58 ACRES AS A C-3 (SERVICE COMMERCIAL) ZONE) Mayor Nancolas stated that the next item on the Agenda was a quasi-judicial public hearing on a request by the City of Caldwell to annex approximately 115.02 acres into the City as an R-l Zone and approximately 107.58 acres as a C-3 Zone. This Hearing would be conducted with the same format as the previous hearings. Those in favor would be heard first and those who have questions would be second and those opposed would be third. This was the time and place posted for a Hearing on Case No. ANN-47-00. He then opened the Public Hearing and requested that Staff present the background on tbis request. Steve Kasson, City of Caldwell, 621 Cleveland Blvd., was sworn in by the Clerk. Mr. Hasson pointed out the boundaries pertaining to this request on a map for Council's benefit. I-Ie presented the following to be a part of the record: A substantial amount of effort has gone into the research associated with bringing forward this annexation proposal for the Council's consideration. An initial determination was made as to who should be brought into the City by way of a resolution process. One consideration, in this annexation assessment process, was the need for the City to plan and predict for the eventual providing of services within its area of impact and recognizing these built up properties that are located in this impact area. Another consideration was the request by some property owners to have their property annexed into the City that was not contiguous to the City. Once a determination was made as to the general area to be annexed, JUB, a consulting engineering firm was hired through a professional services contract to determine each properties eligibility for annex consideration. This eligibility was an important consideration in a forced annexation because the ldaho Supreme Court has indicated, forced annexations typically deal with parcels of five acres or less. Once there has been a single sale of five acres or less from a tract whether subdivided, platted, laid off or not, then the entire track may be ripe for annexation, even through the remainder was greater than five acres. Thus, it was important for Caldwell to determine eligibility; legal counsel participated in the determination of eligibility. After the eligible properties were distinguished from the ineligible property, then the owner of each ineligible property was approached about their desire to participate in this annexation pursuit. JUB was also given the assignment of distinguishing the residential properties from the nonresidential properties and writing a legal description describing each of these. They also developed a map of the annexation boundaries. Additionally, the previous Director sent a courtesy letter to all affected property owners in October of 2000 advising them of this intended pursuit. As we look to the area, you will note that there were some areas that have been excluded because they were an original parcel and larger than five acres of land. They were contacted to see if they were receptive and seven of the fifteen were and were included. There were eight who cannot be annexed until they choose to do so. Mr. Hasson indicated that he might have other comments after hearing the testimony. Several questions were asked with regard to the boundaries of this proposed annexation. The Mayor then indicated that there were two people signed with questions and discussion. Mary Brethauer, 5120 Shoshoni Road, was recognized and sworn in by the Clerk. Ms. Brethauer stated that she had three wells in Owyhee Village and they did have some questions concerning them. Would they he allowed to keep them, lose them or did the City have a time table for taking them over. What was going to happen to their wells. The City Engineer, Gordon Law, stated that they had received some questions with regard to the wells in Owyhee Village and what the City would do with them. At the present time, the City was not interested in taking over those wells. They were property and could not take them over without just compensation. Furthermore, we were not sure if they were constructed in accordance with the normal standards for City wells. He thought the residents were more interested in what the City would force them to do. Quite frankly, we probably wouldn't force them to do anything. Most of the time when a City takes over a system or takes over properties that were on another system, was because that system requests that we take it over primarily because d ~ oeb ligations that arise if they have a failing system, if contamination was getting in or contaminants such as heavy metals or nitrates. At the present time, the City's closest water line was in the boulevard itself. Any type of inclusion would require extension of main lines from that main line and would have to be examined under budgeting procedures. Mrs. Brethauer also expressed concern with regard to the sewers and whether the City had <he capacity for taking them over. The Mayor answered that the City did have the capacity. They were in the process now of conducting a study in the area she was describing to assess capacity. The City recently reconstructed the Treatment Plant to the tune of about thirteen million dollars which greatly enhanced its capacity. It was operating very efficiently. We also know that as we continue to grow over the next ten to fifteen years, we will have to constantly monitor its capacity and make sure we were keeping pace. Mr. Law stated that with regard to water, they have a project budgeted for this coming year to extend water down Homedale to connect with line on the Boulevard and a line at Lake Avenue. This provides the capability for fire protection when facilities were in the area. With regard to Book 42 Page 187 sewer, the Mayor answered that adequately. There was a study budgeted for this year and the results would be available later in the year. With regard to irrigation, the advice would be that they keep their wells to provide irrigation water. Ed Salvi, 6521 Cleveland Blvd., was sworn in by the Clerk. The property hc was involved with was commonly known as Dillon Auto Recycling. He was in favor of annexation of this property; they do have a parcel of property that depends on zoning; a second parcel was in excess of five acres; he was looking for a better understanding as to what this request really meant; they have been on the Boulevard for years and have never objected to any business moving out there or any homes and have tried to be good neighbors and have maintained their property. We were not one of the people who asked to be annexed; however, it appears that we were going to be. If the City does annex them, he would simply ask that they take them as they were which was auto recyclers and and plan to continue that way. They work long hours, were not quiet, some would say we were unsightly, the fences were built to protect their assets and not there to beautify, they were heavy industrial in all sense of the word and a C-3 classification would hamper them significantly not only from how we operate, but also as to what their future would be. He was not here to fight annexation. Elowever, when the annexation goes through, he would ask that they consider zoning that meets their needs. He would assume that the change would be from a C-3 to a M-l or 2. If he was told tonight that this would not happen, he would strongly object the annexation. With some cooperative effort, he believed they could make it work for everyone. The Mayor informed Mr. Salvi that the City was in the process and it was budgeted for pan in inept11 study for sewer in the area where he was located. Mr. Hasson responded to his concerns stating that obviously if this gentleman comes into the City with an auto recycling yard, he will come in as a non-conforming use. This does impose constraints on him which he was legitimately concerned about. I-Ie has discussed this with Mr. Salvi and with the City Attorney as to what might be the possible cure for his particular situation. We believe that bringing him back in later through a rezoning application process and rezoning hi to an M-1 which affords him an opportunity to have a salvage yard through a Special Use Permit. This was probably the best remedy available for him. I-le would be outright permitted within the M-2, but then we start having conflicts with spot zoning. When vwe look at Comprehensive Land Use Plan which also helps direct and guide what colors we paint the different areas, the Comp Plan speaks to this corridor on both sides of Cleveland Blv'd. as being Commercial in intent. M-l with special use strays a little bit away from that and M-2 poses an issue of spot zoning. Mr. Salvi did understand the concept, but they preferred to be taken in as what they were which was heavy industrial entity. They were prepared to give a little. We asked that if we would go along with the M-2 if they could be permitted to hook up to the sewer. We were told that it doesn't work that way. We can't accept a C-3 and if that was where this was headed, hr: nceded to re-sign up on the list as being opposed. 1-Ie realizcd it took time and wondered if there was any way to leave them out of this right now in order to go through this. Mr. Hilly, the City Attorney, stated that he did believe thc property could be left out tonight. This would create a non-conforming use. The two realistic options would be to annex it and U~en consider a rezone to another zone where we could get rid of the nou-conforming use status and make it a conforming use or could exclude this property from annexation. We would not be able to go forward with ihe bill because they would have to anend the legislation that we have. If it was brought in as a C-3, the proccss for rezone could be started immediately. The property would not be in the City until after the ordinance annexing it has been fu~allyp assed and approved by the City. They would be looking at a number of weeks rather than a number of months. Mr. Salvi indicated that this would be fine. If anyone was violently opposed to this, let's leave it out. If it was something that makes sense, he would like to go forward. Councilman Gable asked Mr. I-Iasson if it would he the position of the City to allow waiving fees in this situation so the property owner would not be subjected to cost involved in this forced situation. Mr. Hasson stated &at StaCf discussed this issue and they would certainly support the waiving of fees in this matter. This was a hvo way streel; obviously we gain by having Mr. Salvi and his business enterprise and his properties in the City. Pn return for that, there was no reason that we shouldn't offer some help to h i by setting aside the fee?. The Mayor commented that since this was brougl~t forward by the City, there were no fees associatcd with this annexation. It would just mean that the City would start over again to accommodate Mr. Salvi. Both the Mayor and Mr. Masson discussed at some length the process and why it couldn't just be done right now. The Mayor stated that the reason it could not be rczoned this eveni~lgw as bccause of the notification requirements and a substantial change withim those notification requiremcnts. The option for Council would be to decide whether to approve or deny the annexation in its entirely or if this particular request was valid, they could remove That particular parcel of properly from the annexation and then turn around and start an annexation process to Book 42 Page 188 bring it in as an M-1 or whatever was appropriate. It either has to be annexed as a C-3 and start a rezone or not annex and brought in as a different zone. The Mayor recognized and the Clerk swore in the following individuals signed to testify in opposition to this request: Clyde Beougher, 5505 East Homedale Road; James McDaniel, 5505 Midway, who did not testify, but indicated that he was opposed; Melissa McDaniel, 5505 Midway; Anita Stradley, 5210 Shoshoni; Bill Pfeifer, 5415 Silver Place, and Rod Rhoades, 5005 East Homedale Road. Staff answered several of the questions presented by those testifying particularly with regard to hooking up to water and sewer. There were no plans to have the property owners hook up as long as their systems were working. Also, discussed the possibility of an L.I.D. when they chose to use the system, grandfather rights, annexation would not affect the school district they were presently in, benefits of being in the City Limits were noted. Mr. Hasson stated that that one of the things they tried to do in this annexation process was to inform those who were in the area being discussed for annexation. They sent out notices in a question and answer format and a lot of the questions asked and answered this evening were in the notice. His concern was whether everyone received this notice. During this process, they try to note if there was anything special or unique that might indicate compassion to an individual in this area under consideration. They did hear such a request from one lady where there was a medical issue involved. From a Staff perspective, they would support removal of this particular property from the annexation request on the basis of compassion. He believed it was important to call attention to this. If these two parcels were eliminated because of compassion purposes, the City Attorney stated that this would not constitute substantial change, He believed they could be removed from the annexation and they could move forward with the balance of the annexation. Mayor Nancolas stated that Council could continue the public hearing to a time and date certain leaving the public testimony portion of the hearing open, asking for comment from the Attorney and from Staff members regarding the issues; they could close the public testimony portion of the hearing and deny the annexation or approve the annexation; they could remove those properties and move forward. Councilman Gable said he would like a lot number to describe the properties more specifically and have Mr. Hasson come back and formally show them the exact property they were going to take out so he could make a better decision. Mr. Hasson stated they do have parcel numbers for every one of the properties and proceeded to point the properties out on the map. The site map was labeled as CC-1000. There was further discussion with regard to the notice process. Mr. Hilty stated that he understood that there was notice by regular mail and that there was posting at the property. He believed the notification required by statute has been met. The tapes were available for anyone caring to remove them. The Council continued their discussion after which it was MOVED by Wells, SECONDED by Gable that Council have a continuation of this Case ANN-47-00 until a time certain which would be the next Regular Council Meeting to be held on October 15,2001 at 7:00 p.m. Councilman Callsen stated that he would like to direct staff to provide Council with information regarding the mailings. The reason was to remove all doubt. Councilman Wells stated that he would add that the continuation that he was proposing was more than the potential annexation issue, it was an opportunity to try to sort out what was appropriate as far as bringing some in and some out. It would give Staff an opportunity to look at the bill for this particular piece of property annexation. Roll call vote. Those voting yes: Wells, Gable, Callsen, Hopper, and Ozuna. Those voting no: Langan. Absent and not voting: none. MOTION CARRIED The Mayor explained that the testimony has been given this evening and we have recognized all those signed to testify. This was a continuation of the hearing until October 15'~. We will not recall anyone hack up to testify; there will he no new evidence allowed; staff has been asked to check on the notification process; at the next hearing, Council has the ability to ask anyone who testified a question and the same with the staff. In the meantime, Council cannot discuss this matter. The Mayor asked for a short recess. (QUASI-JUDICIAL PUBLIC HEARING ON AN APPEAL OF CONDITIONS OF THE SPECIAL USE PERMIT ON CASE NO. SUP-137-01 -KLUB KOKONUTS) Mayor Nancolas stated that the next item on the Agenda was an appeal of conditions of the Special Use Permit with regard to Klub Kokonuts. The Mayor opened the Public Hearing and asked the City Attorney to present some background information at this item. Mark Hilty, Attorney at Law, 621 Cleveland Blvd, informed Council that this was an appeal of the conditions that were placed on a grant of a Special Use Permit by the Caldwell Planning and Zoning Commission. The Laras were before the Planning and Zoning Commission seeking a Special Use Permit to open a bar in a C-2 zone. The Special Use Permit was granted. The issue before the Council was not whether the grant of the Special Use Permit was appropriate. That decision has been made because it was in the final jurisdiction of the Planning and Zoning Commission. The problem the Laras have was the conditions placed on that Special Use Permit. What was before Council tonight was a very narrow question. Specifically, whether or not they should he granted some period of time after they reopen within which to install f i e alarm system and a fue suppressing sprinkler system. They will be testifying tbattbis was a fu~anciahl ardship for them. On the other band, you are going to hear testimony k o n ~re presentatives of our Fire Deparhnent that this was a fairly straight forward application of the Uniform Fire Code and that was where tbis condition was drawn from. It was a health and safety issue and invo1v;:s concern the health and safety of the persons who may be in the facility. You will hear testimony that this was a very important condition and needs to be place prior to Kokonuts reopening. lle did not think that the Laras were saying that the condition was inappropriate; they were just saying that they want to put it in at a later time. Iu that condition, I have reviewed some materials that were received from their prior attorney who no longer represents them. In those materials, they were complaining about the fact that there was another facility, the El Rey Dance Club that was allowed some time within which to put in some fue upgrades. Members of the Fire Department were prepared to discuss the distinctions there. The issue that was raised by the Lara's previous attorney was the one of equal protection. Council needs to remember about an equal protection claim was something he has mentioned before; in order for it to be a legitimate equal protection claim, the applicant or complainer must prove tllat they were similarly situated to whoever was treated differently. The testimony tonight was going to be potentially in conflict. 1-le knew that the representatives from the Fire Department were going to be indicating that these two building were certainly not similarly situated and they will be letting you know why they reached a differe~~cot nclusion with respect to health and safety concerns at KoKonuts that did not exist at EIRey. The hearing tonight focuses in on the timing of the installation of the sprinklers and the fire alarm and whether or not that should he a condition in place prior to opening or whether they should have some period of time within which to meet that condition. Steve l-lasson, Community Development Director, stated that Mr. l-lilly has spoken to all of the land use components. 13e would add two elements. First of all, Council should have in their packet the appeal that was provided by Givens Pursley which gives a nice background to the Laras concerns and issues. Mr. Hasson also noted another incident where a permit was requested and there were some fire concerns. They were told that he would have to provide all !he similar conditions as unposed on the Laras and all of them had to be met before opening of the business. His point was that his belief that any one who strolls in tlie door was treatcd the same way and with the same standards. Barbara Lara, 509 Denver was sworn in by the Clerk. Mrs. Lara stated that they were here tonight to ask the Council to reverse the decision of the Planning and Zoning fire code requirements because they were being discriminated against because they were in downtown Caldwell. We know this because there was a similar establishment being allowed to operate -El Rey Ballroom. They were granted a Special Use Permit and were given three years lo install a sprinkler system and can remain open. There is a big difference because they have twice the capacity of i<oKonuts, no fue hydrants. Why didn't the City of Caldwell work with them and why was KoKonuts being treated unfairly. The fact that similar flexibility was not given to us demonstrates that the City was treating Kol<onuts differently and subject to a higher standard. We have lost a tremendous amount of income by not being allowed to operate. We have a family to feed, property tax to pay and insurance and payment on the building. We have bills that need to be paid like everyone else. We have paid thousands of dollars in Attorney fees trying to get this resolved. If it was not one thing, it was another. We need KoKonuts open and operating and were asking to be treated like everyone else. In the last four or five appeals, nothing was mentioned about a lire alarm or a sprinkler system. When the other appeal was reversed, they brought tl~isu p. Please reverse the decision of the Planning and Zoning Commission and allow KoKonuts to open and operate and allow KoKonuts the same time kame to install this sprinkler system and f i e alarm -three years. We also need time to replace the sidewalks. The City's requirement that all upgrades be completed prior to opening was equivalent to shutting down KoKonuts since we can't afford such improvements without operating KoKonuts and generating revenue. We are going on Len months that we have been closed. Efrain Lara, 509 Denver was sworn in by the City Clerk and expressed his concern as well. The tape was available for anyone caring to review. ]Bruce Allcott, Fire Chief for the City of Caldwell, 310 South 7" Avenue was,sworn in by ihe Clerk. Mr. Allcott stated that he was here to answer specifically the challenges that were raised. I-le had reviewed the brief that was filed by their previous attorney with respect to the part being repealed tonight This was the requirement for the fire sprinkler system and the timing of that. Mr. Allcott informed Council that he prepared a presentation which he would distribute to the Council and a copy provided to Planning and Zoning so it was a part of the record. These documents were labeled as CC-1000. There was also a written response prepared by the Fire Marshal that he would also submit for the record. The Mayor labeled this as CC-1001. As was explained by Mr. Hilly in his introduction, one of the key issues was whether they wmcre dealing with similar properties. In order to help Council visualize what we were taking abs~ut, he did have photographs wl~ichh e reproduced and will be shown on the screen. At this point, with the Book 42 Page 190 help of the pictures, he noted the difference between the El Rey Ballroom and KoKonuts. Copies ofthese photos were available to anyone caring to review in the Planning and Zoning Department. At the conclusion of the pictures, it was his opinion that you could see a distinct difference between the two facilities. There were some things that need to be looked at. With regard to El Rey, they probably should have had the same requirements for lire sprinkler in original construction. Under the Uniform Fire Code, there was an area that states if it was in a rural and isolated area where it was not feasible to generate the proper fire flows that an exception could be ganted. I can't speak to that being a factual assumption, but that was likely what happened because at the time that it was developed, there would not have been municipal water available in that area so they would not have had the ability to provide fire hydrants, sprinkler systems and etc. Looking at the El Rey, there was wide open space, numerous exits out of the building located on essentially three different corner out of the four comers of the building. There were some requirements that El Rey was under as a result of their Special Use Permit process which was the same process the Laras started through with Planning and Zoning. There were some of those they have not met and therefore, they were not able to function according to that Special Use Permit as a dance hall. The Fire Chief reviewed some of the Uniform Fire Code for Council's information particularly the requirements for this establishment. In conclusion, he noted that this building where Kokonuts was located was about 95 years old and built in time when there were no codes in place to be sure it was fire resistant. If there was a fire at El Rey Ballroom, we believe there was adequate exiting to probably get them out and it also doesn't affect any one else. Kokonuts has apartments upstairs and other buildings close by and they felt there was a very distinct difference in the circumstances. We believe that there was an appropriate reason why these conditions should be met before puttmg over 300 people in that facility. The conditions should stand. After a discussion between Council and the Fire Chief, Doug Brown, Assistant ChieWFire Marshal, 310 South 7" Avenue was recognized and sworn in by the Clerk. Mr. Brown stated that the memo does state their position on this matter. They do need to install the sprinkler system right away; we review each project on its own individual merits and its own basis, but with the same set of codes. This building presents a much greater hazard because of its proximity to the adjoining buildings. We also have a life safety hazard next door. Parking would compromise access to the front of the building and there would be people trying to exist the building rather rapidly. In the back, a fence would have to be tom out to get to the people. Additionally, there were residents living next door to the business and it would not take long in a building this old before the floor would give way and everyone ending up in the basement and people lost. The fire would be difficult to control and a whole block could be lost. Their first priority was safety. Joan Seidenstucker, 103 South Kimball and Keith Harness, 281 1 Morning Mist Lane, were sworn in and opposed this appeal. During the following discussion, the City Attorney was asked that if the City was to grant this extension, would that put the liability on the City. Mr. Hilty stated that yes, the City would be liable from a legal perspective. Councilman Wells also asked the Attorney if it would start a precedent. Mr. Hilty said he would have to refer to Doug Brown's testimony in that regard. He was the one charged with these responsibilities by the City. The City would have to look at each situation on its own merits and make an individualized assessment as to what the fire risk were and how the Uniform Fire Code applies. His response was that he did not believe it set a precedent other than for similarly situated structures. Mr. Hilty further stated that from Council's perspective, this was a special use permit and conditions attached to it. This also would be a case by case determination. The Mayor noted that he was not sure it set a precedent, hut it certainly place the City in a very awkward position if there was similarly situated issue and we tried to enforce the Uniform Fire Code. If you make an exception for one, you better be prepared to make an exception for everybody. This was the reason they needed to listen to the professionals. MOVED by Wells, SECONDED by Ozuna to close the public testimony portion of this hearing Roll call vote. Those voting yes: Wells, Gable, Callsen, Hopper, Ozuna, and Langan. Those voting no: none. Absent and not voting: none. MOTION CARRIED EVIDENCE: Mayor Nancolas presented the following evidence: Staff Report, sign up sheets, power point presentation, CC-1000 which was tne packet of pictures, CC-1001 which was the letter from the Fire Marshal, Doug Brown. MOVED by Callsen, SECONDED by Hopper to approve the Evidence List as presented by the Mayor. Roll call vote. Those voting yes: Callsen, Hopper, Ozuna, Langan, Wells, and Gable. Those voting no: none. Absent and not voting: none. MOTION CARRIED FINDINGS OF FACT: Councilman Wells stated that the Findings would include the Staff Report and the testimony with the provided material and emphasize in the Findings Mr. Hilty's comment that it would add liability to the City if this appeal were overturned. Councilman Gable further added that due to the fact that there was no separation of this building and the difficulty in accessing residents in case of a fire, he did not see any similarity between this and the El Rey building. Another Finding oEFact was that the construction material used such as the wood framing in this building and age contributes to the possible fue hazard and also the lack of exits. Councihnan Callsen also provided in their packet were copies of licenses from Southwest Health District and the State for beer and wine licenses. These licenses were all made out for a restaurant. The Laras came forward this year with a change in the application to make this a dance hall and that was part of the reason they were here today. The Mayor also also stated that another fact was that the det~:rmination was based directly on the Uniform Fire Code which was to protect life and safety issues for the citizens of Caldwell which was where the requirements came from. Councilman Gable stated that during the testimony tonight and subsequent to the hearing f~omPl anning and Zoning, he had not heard any substantial facts stated that would change 'my facts that were stated at the Commission Meeting by the Laras. He had not heard testimony from them that they had agreed at that point to install and to provide and adhere to all of the special conditions. He could see no reason why the time frame should be modified at this point. MOVED by I-lopper, SECONDED by Callsen to approve the Findings as outlined by Council Roll call vole. Those voting yes: Hopper, Ozuna, Langan, Wells, Gable, and Callsen. Tilose voting no: none. Absent and not voting: none. MOTION CARRIED CONCLUSIONS OF LAW: MOVED by Wells, SECONDED by Ozuna that the City Council has the authority to hear hear this appeal and to affrm or to not affrm, it was properly noticed and posted and adhered withim the guidelines of applicable Codes and Ordinances. Roll call vole. Those voting yes: Wells, Gable, Callsen, Hopper, Ozuna, and Langan. Those voting no: none. Absent and not voting: none. MOTION CARXED ORDER OF DECISION: MOVED by Wells, SECONDED by Callsen that the City Council amrm the Planning and Zoning Commission's decision. Roll call vote. Those voting ycs: Wells, Gable, Callsen, Hopper, Ozuna, and Lalgan. Those voting no: none. Absent and not voting: none. MOTION CANED MOVED by Ozuna, SECONDED by llopper to close the Public Hearing Roll call vote. Those voting yes: Ozuna, Langan, Wells, Gable, Callsen, and 1-lopper. Those voting no: none. Absent and not voting: none. MOTION CARRIED (QUASI-JUDICIAL PUBLIC HEARING ON AN APPEAL OF CONDITIONS OF THE SPECIAL USE PERMIT ON CASE NO. SUP-130-01 -MATT BEEBE) Mayor Nancolas stated that there was a request to continue this matler to a time and date certain which would October 15, 2001. He then opened the Public llearing and asked for a motion by Council to continue this until October 15,2001. MOVED by Hopper, SECONDED by Langan to continue this Public Hearing until October 15, 2001. Councilman Gable stated tl~abt efore opening this I-baring, he would have to excuse himself from participating in testimony or hearing this matter. He consulted with the City Attorney and he did have discussions regarding this matter that could possibly prevent him from giving a fair and equitable judgment on this matter. Councilman Wells said that he would declare a conflicl of interest and would not be taking part as well. Roll call vote. Those voting yes: Hopper, Ozuna, Langan, Wells, and Callsen. Those voting no: none. Absent and not voling: none. Abstain: Gahle. MOTION CARRIED (PURSUANT TO IDAHO STATE CODE, SECTION 67-2345, AN EXECUTIVE SESSION HAS BEEN CALLED BY OUR CITY ATTORNEY FOR THE PURPOSE OF DISCUSSING PROPERTY ACQUISITION) MOVED by Callsen, SECONDED by Ozuna that the City Council convene Into an Executive Session pursuant to Idaho State Code Section 67-2345 for the purpose of discussing property acquisition. Roll call vote. Those voting yes: Callsen, Hopper, Ozuna, Langan, Wells, and Gable. Those voting no: none. Absent and not voting: none. MOTION CARRIED (FINANCIAL REPORT) Councilman Callsen reported that the Finance Committee has reviewed current accounts payable in the amount of $1,018,082.96 for the period ended September 27, 2001 and a net payroll of $145,975.72 for the pay period ended September 22,2001. MOVED by Callsen, SECONDED by Hopper that accounts payable in the amount of $1,018,082.96 represented by check numbers 76278 through 76591 and the total payroll for tlie amount of $145,975.72 represented by check numbers 72601 through 72718 and directed deposit stub numbers 18020 through 18140 be accepted, payment approved, and vouchers filed in the Office of the City Clerk. Roll call vote. Those voting yes: Calisen, Hopper, Ozuna, Langan, Wells, and Gable. Those voting no: none. Absent and not voting: none. MOTION CARRIED (ADJOURNMENT) MOVED by Callsen, SECONDED by Hopper that since there was no further business, the Council Meeting be adjourned at 1150 p.m. Roll call vote. Those voting yes: Callsen, Hopper, Ozuna, Langan, Wells, and Gable. Those voting no: none. Absent and not voting: none. MOTION CARRIED APPROVED AS w r i t t e n THIS-DAY OF O c t o b e r ,2001 i&ouncilperso$j/Councilperson --Garret L. Nancolas, Mayor ATTEST: " ~n t -^ " " "