HomeMy WebLinkAbout2001-10-15 Council Agenda
REGULAR MEETING OCTOBER 15,2001 7:00 P.M. The Meeting was called to order by Mayor Nancolas. Before beginning the meeting, the Mayor stated that he would like to comment with regard
to the Caldwell Firefighter, Anthony Barton and his Mother-in-Law, Diane King, who were injured in an accident over the weekend. They were both in very critical condition at St. Al's
in Boise. I-le would ask everyone to please remember them in their thoughts and prayers. 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: Wells, Gable, Callsen, Hopper, Ozuna, and Langan. Absent: none. ADDITIONS OR DELETIONS TO THE AGENDA. It was MOVED by
Wells, SECONDED by Gable to remove Items No. 4 and 8 under the Consent Calendar. Roll call vote. Those voting yes: Wells, Gable, Cailsen, Hopper, Ozuna, and Langan. Those voting no:
none. Absent and not voting: none. MOTION CARRlED SPECIAL PRESENTATION BY THE FIRE DEPARTMENT Bruce Allcott, the Fire Chief for the City of Caldwell was recognized by the Mayor and made
a presentation to the Mayor and Council with regard to a grant that was recently awarded to the City of Caldwell through the Fires Grant Program for the purchase of a fire safety training
trailer. This was a ten percent match type grant. They will provide over $60,000 and we need to come up with about $6,700. In Council's packet for their information was a memo from Assistant
Chief Wendelsdorf explaining the training prop. As he presented the information to the Council, hc showed them a video demonstrating how the trailer was a valuable tool for their Department.
Mr. Allcott stated that they were asking the City's approval to grant $9,012 as the matching funds in conjunction with the grant. After a brief discussion, it was MOVED by Langan, SECONDED
by Callsen to approve the matching funds in the amount of $9,012 as requested by the Fire Chief. Roll call vote. Those voting yes: Langan, Wells, Gable, Callsen, Hopper, and Ozuna. Those
voting no: none. Absent and not voting: none. MOTION CARRIED AUDIENCE PARTICIPATION. There was no one in the audience who cared to address the City Council on any item that was not on
the prepared Agenda. CONSENT CALENDAR: The Mayor presented the following items on the Consent Calendar for consideration by the City Council: 1. Dispense with the reading of the minutes
of the Regular Council Meeting held on October 14, 2001, and approve as written; 2. Approve acceptance of the minutes of the Caldwell Industrial Airport Commission Meeting held on September
17,2001; 3. Approve acceptance of revised copy of Ordinance No. 2386, Arroway Farms annexation; 4. Approve bid submitted by Curt and Hal Dodge in the amount of $24,427.00 for a one ton
service truck for the Water Department; 5. Approve Resolution authorizing the execution of Amendment 11 to Agreement for Operation and Maintenance Services with US FilterIPSG; 6. Approve
Order of Decisions for Marble Valley, Skyway Business Park, Windsong, and Gary Vezzoso. MOVED MOVED by Langan, SECONDED by Ozuna to approve the Consent Calendar as amended Roll call
vote. Those voting yes: Langan, Wells, Gable, Callsen, Hopper, and Ozuna. Those voting no: none. Absent and not voting: none. MOTION CARRIED OLD BUSINESS
Book 42 Page 194 (CONTINUATION OF PUBLIC HEARING (QUASI-JUDICIAL) 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-1
(SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL) ZONE AND APPROXIMATELY 107.58 ACRES AS A C-3 (SERVICE COMMERCIAL) ZONE) The Mayor explained that this was a continuation of a Public Hearing from the last
Coulicil Mecting. This was a request by the City of Caldwell to annex approxunately I1 5.02 acres and was continued from the last City Council Meeting. At that time, all persons signed
to lestiFy had done so and Council asked that Staff bring back some information to help them in the decision proccss. I-le asked Mr. Hasson to respond to Council's questions. The Council
would then be able to ask questiolls of any person who testified at the Public Testimony portion of the Public Nearing. This would also include Staff. Steve I-Iasson, the City's Community
Development Director, 621 Cleveland Blvd., was recognized and stated that he understood that he was still under oath. At the last meeting, there wcre several items that needed some consideration
and we were directed to go back and make soma cllanges. One was to qualify as to whether the notice process was conducted according to tile Statutes. In the Council's packet was a letter
from the City Attorney, Mark IIlilty, that advises us that his review of the Law would qualify that all of the actions we took with regard to the notification process were correct. With
regard to the second item, he was asked if this agency was going to entertain hardship, what would the criteria be for that process. I-Ie did come up with a list which he presented to
the Mayor and Council. For the record, the Mayor entitled the u~formationfrom Staff as CC-1001 and CC-1002. A thud item was that Council was going to determine wllether Mr. Salvi would
be removed and re-processed as a new annexation proposal under an M-I, Light Industrial Zone instead of a C-3 which was the zone entertained. Anticipating that Council might remove him,
we started the process of having him reapply. In the event you determine to leave him in, we will stop that process. The fouth item was that there was a lady named Nelda Roberts who
suggested that there was a hardship issue with her and asked to be removed from the annexation district and proposal. The fifth was another individual, Melissa McDaniel, and there was
a question as to whether she might have a hardship. Finally, Staff needs to be able I:O go back, redraw the legal description, provide for another map and bring back to the next meeting.
Mayor Nancolas stated that as he understood Mr. Hasson, if the annexation did go forward, the property spoken of by Mr. Salvi would be eliminated from lhe annexalion as it was and would
be brought back in as an M-I so that this was not annexed with a non-conforming use. The Mayor also noted lhat if Council determines to proceed, the issue of Mr. Salvi alone would require
that the Hearing be continued to another time and date certain when the map could be brougbt brougbt back appropriately and the legal dcscription could be corrcct. Councilman Gable statcd
thal the policies do apply to the Roberts property. Ile would agree with Mr. I-Iasson that Mr. Salvi's property should probably come in as a M-l Zone. I-lowever, he could not see anything
under the policies that would qualify thc McDaniels as a hardship. There was a short discussion by the Council Members. It was hen MOVED by Gablc Ulat this Hearing be continued tnilil
time and date certain, wbich would be the Regular Council Meeting on November 5,2001, so we could ascertain the correct legal description as well as moving forward on the manufacturing
designation for the Salvi property. The Mayor noted lhat there were two issues that Mr. Hasson asked for direction on. Onc was the Salvi property and the othcr one was the Roberts property.
Councilman Gable requested that the motion include that the Roberts be removed from this annexation due to a hardship criteria as expressed in the policy issue statement under No. 1
and No. 5 as reasons for the hardship. SECONDED by Callsen. Roll call vote. Those voting yes: .Gable, Callsen, Hopper, Ozuna, Langan, and Wells. Those voting no: none. Absent and not
voting: none. MOTION CARRIED (CONTINUATION OF PUBLIC HEARING (QUASI-JUDICIAL) ON AN APPEAL OF CONDITIONS OF THE SPECIAL USE PERMIT ON CASE NO. SUP-130-01 AS REQUESTD BY MATT BEEBE) The
Mayor explained that the next item was a continued Hearing on an appeal ofconditions of the Special Use Permit on Case No. SUP-130-01 as requested by Matt Beebe. The Special Use Permit
was granted to Mr. Beebe and was appealed by the City of Caldwell. This was the time and place set for the Public Hearing and notification was sent out. There were sign up sheets in
kont of the Clerk. He then explained the process for those who were not familiar with ihem. Councilman Wells and Councilman Gable indicated that they would abstain from participating
in tliis matter as they had a conflict of interest. The Mayor recognized their request and both Councilmen left the Council Table.
Page 195 The Mayor opened the Public Hearing and requested that the City Attorney, Mark Hilty, present the Staff Report for the City. Mr. Hilty, 621 Cleveland Blvd, was sworn in by the
Clerk and stated that he would provide the Staff Report this evening. He wanted to put the decision in context and would address some of the legal concerns that have been raised by Mr.
Wynkoop in some letters you have seen. He would leave the merits of the underlying decision to those witnesses who have signed to testify in favor or in opposition. This was an unusual
procedure. The City Staff, and specifically Mr. Hasson on behalf of the Community Development Department, has filed an appeal of the Planning and Zoning decision granting the Special
Use Permit to Mr. Beebe. The Special Use Permit was not at issue. What was at issue were the conditions that were placed upon the Special Use Permit by the Planning and Zoning Commission.
And even more specifically, the Planning and Zoning Commission imposed two conditions. The first first one was that a curb cut on Tenth Avenue not he used anymore. The second one was
for the imposition of some landscaping. The applicant, Mr. Beebe, was given one year within which to comply with these two conditions. That was what was being appealed by the City and
by Mr. Hasson. The question really was, specifically from the appellant's point of view, do we give Mr. Beehe a year in order to comply with these conditions or do we make him comply
with those conditions right up front. The way that we handle appeals and conditions on Special Use Permits was that because this was a de nova proceeding and because often times conditions
interrelate, you can consider all of the conditions even if they were not raised on the appeal by the appellant. It was not the grant of the Special Use Permit as that decision has been
decided and it has not been appealed. It was the conditions. There has been some legal questions raised regarding the procedure. 1 have been asked by Mr. I-lasson and the Mayor to review
those. I have read letters that Mr. Wynkoop has sent, have spoken with him on the phone and I want to provide some comments regarding the legality of this proceeding. The first question
raised was one of standing. Can the City appeal a decision of its own Planning and Zoning Commission and could Mr. Hasson do that on behalf of the City. 1 have reviewed this in some
detail and knew it was a controversial issues. It was my opinion that the procedures and the standing were all appropriate. There were no legal technicalities that would prohibit you
from making a decision on this decision. In order to have standing, our Code 10-3-4 subsection 7 indicates that following the grant or denial of a Special Use Permit, "the applicant
or any affected person having an interest in real property within a three hundred foot radius of the exterior boundaries of the subject property may appeal the decision of the Commission
provided that notice of such an appeal was filed with the City Clerk in accordance with Section 01-05-09 of the Caldwell Municipal Code. With respect to standing, the question was whether
the appeal was filed by a person with an interest in real property within three hundred feet. There was similar language in the Local Land Use Planning Act, Section 67-65-21 where it
talks about an affected person as one having an interest in real property which may adversely be affected by the issuance or denial of a Permit authorizing the development." Does the
City or does Mr. Hasson have an interest in real property within three hundred feet. Undisputed there was public right of way adjacent to the property clearly within three hundred feet.
Clearly, the City has an interest in it and there was case law to that effect. The City owns it and holds it in trust for the benefit of all the people. It controls the traffic on it
and it maintains that property. In the case of Burley vs McCaslin Lumber, the Court said; "although Idaho Code 67-52-15 does not specifically authorize municipalities the right to appeal
a decision of it's own zoning appeals hoard, a municipality or town may be deemed to be an aggrieved person within the meaning of that section. Clearly the City being interested in the
maintenance and development of the City and the property contained herein, has an interest in the real property that may be adversely affected." He thought it was clear that the Supreme
Court has said yes, the ownership of property for purposes of holding it for roads and so forth constitutes an interest in the property. There was a corollary question as to whether
Mr. Hasson, who filed the appeal, has an interest in the property. He read from some sections in the City Code; 03-23-05, subsection 1 which outlines hours and duties of the Planning
Administrator and that includes he was responsible for and recommends strategy policies for growth, management and land use. Section 10-03-02, subsection 1 states that chief among his
responsibilities was to interpret and administer our zoning ordinance which was where the SUP provisions were as well as the appeal provisions of a SUP decision. In terms of interrupting
and administering our zoning ordinance, he looked at the purposes of the zoning ordinance: 10-01-02, subsection 2A, Promote Interest of Health, Safety and General Welfare. When you read
Mr. Hasson's job description as outlined in our own City Ordinance, you begin to get the feeling that he has some responsibilities that bear on health and safety issues. He has some
responsibilities that bear on Special Use Permits, he has some responsibilities that bear on interpretation and application of that Ordinance and he has some responsibilities that bear
on development of City property. Mr. Hilty further said that it was opinion that all of that taken together indicates that Mr. Hasson, in his capacity as our Zoning Administrator has
an interest in the property sufficient to give him standing under the relevant provisions of our Ordinance to file this appeal on behalf of the City. He would throw in one caveat -there
was no question that this body was the ultimate authority in the City of Caldwell. I think you would be within your rights to make a determination tonight and should probably be done
for purposes of the record whether you ratify and agree with the filing of fhis appeal, separate and apart from the Merits from procedural standpoint or whether you don't think it was
a good idea and should never have been done. He believed this was the appropriate procedure in terms of the technical considerations that have been raised by Mr. Wynkoop. Finally, Idaho
Code, Section 5301, indicates that this body has all of the powers necessary to operate and maintain the City that were not expressly forbidden by other Statutes and I would suggest
that this Includes the right to ratify Mr. Hasson's conduct in filing this appeal.
Book 42 Page 196 MI. Hilly further stated that there was a concem raised that this appeal was not filed with the City Clerk. The Mayor and Clerk were advised that this was being filed.
The document that constitutes the appeal document itself remained in the Planning and Zoning Department. Our Code requires that it be filed with the City Clerk and that did not happen.
Typically, the procedure was that when these appeals come ul, they most always come into the Planning and Zoning Department because that was the Deparlment that deals with these land
use issues. I talked with Betty Jo and she said she does not re~nanberw ill1 the City ever having received an appeal that came directly to the Clerk's Office. The appeals we have recently
heard did not go to ,file Clerk's Office. I asked her what she would do if she got one and she said she would immediately take it right down to Steve and give it to him. Under Idaho
Law, substantial compliance with the notice provision was all that was required. The purposes of the notice were met and that the failure to deliver this to the City Clerk in writing
was not the sort of concem that they would look at in terms of overturning this on an appeal. When you consider the conditions that were proposed here, you need to look at two things
specifically. First of all look at this use of the property that was proposed by the applicant such as what was he going to be doing on this properly specifically, what size of U-hauls
and who would they be rented to. Bear in mind, when you thjnk .:%boutth ese conditions, why they were good or necessary to the City in light of the use being proposed. At the request
of the Mayor, Mr. Hilty stated that Special Use was a use that was allowed in a zone based only after specific review of that use. It was not a use that was outright permitted. In a
C-2 Zone by legislative action, this body has said that certain uses were f i e . There were other uses which were on the bubble but may not be appropriate. Those were special uses and
require the issuance of a permit because they may have some adverse impacts with respect to how they were operated in the zone they were in. Conditions may be placed upon a Special Use
Permit that will alleviate or mitigate any of those adverse impacts. The Special Use has been granted. The Commission said it was an appropriate use, but there were some potential problems.
One of those was a safety problem that had to do with the curb cut and the other one had TO do with beautification. As long as there was compliance with those conditions, the use would
be all right. This was what a special use was and how conditions work. Clearly, you could place conditions on a Special Use Permit to promote the health, safety and welfare of the City.
Steve Nasson, 621 Cleveland Blvd., Community Develop~nn~Dti rector, was sworn UI by the Clerk. Mr. Hasson reviewed a document entitled "Appeal" that was labeled as Exhibit CC-1000. These
exhibits were available for anyone to review if desired. In this document, he informed the Mayor and council that Staff was appealing the Planning and Zoning condition that afforded
the applicant one year to satisfy all of the conditions associated with the establishing of a U-I-Iaul enterprise on the parcel of land located at 521 North 10"' Avenue. Specifically,
Staff was appealing the determination that the applicant has one year to shut off and remove thz driveway entrances located in the vision triangle. Additionally, Staff was asking the
Council to review the landscaping conditions that do not include the installation of landscaping on the Elgin Street side of the business operation. Also asking that the applicant provide
a graphic depiction of how internal landscaping will be accomplished. Staff was appealing the timing condition because ofa believe that the driveway accesses being allowed to remain
open for upwards of a year creates a potential safety issue that could cause liability to both the applicant and this Agency in the event someone was injured while using these driveway
approaches in the interim. Additionally, the landscaping condition was being appealed because the Commission did not offer a factual basis for eliminating the placement of landscaping
along Elgin Street. It was very u~~portantot Caldwell's economic development future tllat the City require business operations, as they change their uses, to install an adequate amount
of landscaping and especially on 10"' Avenue where several businesses such as Carl Junior's, Wendy's and the Fiesta Guadalajara havc invested heavily in greenery to improve the success
of their business enterprise. These businesses need the support of adjoining businesses to protect their business investment strategy. Therefore, Staff was requesting that the Council
modify condition 8.7 of the Planning and Zoning Commission's Order of Decision that presently directs "A landscaping plan was required on the site's street frontage along 10" Avenue.
The site should be landscaped with a five foot buffer and that the hterior site possess some landscaping features that meet the requirements of Seclion 10-02-05. Staff would ask that
Council change the language as follows: "A landscaping plan was required for the Site's street frontages located on Tenth Avenue and Elgin Street. The site should be landscaped with
a minimum five foot buffer along both street frontages and that the interior site possess landscaping features that meet the requirements of Section 10-02-05." Staff was also requesting
that the Council modify condition 8.1 1 of the Planning and Zoning Commission's order of decision as follows: "The applicant will be required to relocate the existing approaches out
of the vision triangle at the intersection of North Tenth and Elgin Streets. Tne Engineering recommends having only one approach off of North Tenth Avenue at the alr~y. The applicant
will have 60 days f?om the signing of this order to close the existing approaches on Tenth Avenue and Elgin Street according to the City Engineer's specification and relocate the Tenth
Street driveway entrance to the south to encompass the the alleyway entrance. The commercial driveway approach constructed shall extend north of the power pole 30 feet along Tenth Avenue
and be designed to City Engineering standards. iwr. Hasson also entered a document entitled "Special Use Pcnnit -An Overview". The Mayor labeled this document as CC-1001. Mr. Nasson
explained that it outlines the purposes and provides a list of discretions that you have with regard to Special Use Permits. We fwrther stated that he did underline those he felt were
important in Council's determination process. Council has
Book 42 Page 197 the ability to approve, disapprove or modify the action of the Commission and Council may attach conditions. The Director also presented some pictures on an overhead
projector for the benefit of the Mayor, Council and those in attendance. He also presented another exhibit entitled CC-1002, Why was the Beebe application subject to a Special Use Permit.
This document was reviewed and was on record for anyone caring to review. Another document submitted was a copy of a page in the City Code pertaining to permitted uses and special uses.
This was labeled as CC-1003. Copies of yellow pages from phone books were also presented as an exhibit and labeled CC-1004. There was a short discussion pertaining to the vision triangle.
A letter from the Caldwell Chamber of Commerce was read by Mr. Hasson and entered into the record as CC-1005. The letter was as follows: The Beautification Committee, a committee of
the Caldwell Chamber of Commerce, would like to go on record as being in support of immediate compliance of all the development and landscaping requirements on the property located at
Tenth and Elgin owned by Mr. Glenn Koch. We believe that Tenth Street is an important gateway street into our community and as such, it is critical that the standards that the standards
that other property owners have complied with be maintained in this case as well. Sincerely, Anita L. Shore on behalf of the Caldwell Beautification Committee. Mayor Nancolas proceeded
with the sign up sheets by first calling on Bob Carpenter, 1102 Grant, who was sworn in by the Clerk and presented his comments. Me stated that he wanted to speak on behalf of the Community
Development's decision to appeal the Commission's decision and stated that conditions requested and granted by the Commission basically contribute to an erosion of a standard that has
been established on Tenth Avenue. He believed the gateway concept in this area should be maintained. Daren Fluke of J-U-B Engineers, Inc., 250 South Beechwood in Boise was recognized
and sworn in by the Clerk. Mr. Fluke stated that he prepared some written comments which he would enter into the record. This letter from J-U-B Engineers, dated October 15, 2001, was
labeled as CC-1006 by the Mayor. Mr. Fluke briefly testified stating that he was not in favor or in opposition to this application and was simply here to comment on the technical aspects
of the location of the driveway. His comments included that he was a land use planner with about ten years experience; the function of an arterial roadway was to move traffic long distances
and at hi&er rates of speed; and his final paragraph of his letter stated that it seems clear that the existing situation was somewhat unsafe and far from ideal for preserving the function
of Tenth Avenue, especially given the increase in trips that can be expected from the proposed land use. Elimination of the existing approach will increase roadway safety and help to
preserve the function of the arterial for all the citizens of the City. Rita Earl, 707 Chapano, was sworn in and commented regarding the following: her reason for being here was not
to dispute or agree with anyone; her concern was the impact and implication this appeal has on the citizens; only one person from the City Staff was present during the time this issue
was discussed before the Commission; she questioned the appropriateness of the Staff to file this appeal of the decision by the Commission; both the Commission and the Department were
extensions of this body and as such, they act on Council's behalf and now you were asked to find in favor of one against the other which puts Council in a difficult situation. She explained
briefly her reasons for this comment. Dave Wynkoop, 730 East First in Meridian, was recognized and sworn in by the Clerk and stated that he would like to make some legal arguments on
behalf of the Beebes and U-Haul of Idaho. He presented an outline of his comments that the Mayor labeled as CC-1007. Some of his comments included: the City Staff has taken a highly
unusual step by by appealing to the Planning and Zoning Commission; he respectfully disagreed with Mr. Hilty; because this was a judicial matter, Council was obligated to follow the
City's Ordinance; Staff did not follow City Code with respect to an appeal; Mr. Hasson was not the applicant and he has to be an affected person with an interest in property within a
300 foot radius -otherwise, he has no basis for an appeal; he would request that there be a finding by this Body that there was no basis for an appeal and if Council would make that
finding, he would not have to go forward; suggested that no Special Use Permit was required on this application at all; noted that auto sales, minor repair, storage and rental were a
permitted use within a C-2 zone; Staff interpreted this to be an equipment rental, but we suggest that what was being rented was primarily U-haul trucks and since there was no category
for rental trucks, the closest category in the City's chart was rental automobiles; no changes have been made to this property whatsoever and change in use was the only one which results
in a far less traffic generation than the prior use which was an allowed use with no Special Use Permit required; there was heavy traffic during the time the location was a 7-Eleven
Store, but no one suggested that it was a safety issue; discussed the triangle vision as stated in State Code; Staff was trying to impose a requirement which was not appropriate; the
takings issue was discussed. Mr. Wynkoop's concluding paragraph in his handout was as follows: This matter should not even be before you. Since you have decided to hear it, you should
rule that no Special Use Permit was required for Matt and Ann Beebe in this case. Even if you find that an SUP was required, you must conclude that the conditions Staff was attempting
to impose were unjust and illegal in this case. Finally, even if you hold against Matt and Ann Beebe on all of these other issues, you
0s op i,up!p pr~eI! xg 01 L~!unpoddo a 9p eq 'uralqold ayljo amme seM hr3 a q ' k!3 ay) isu!eSe apem aq ppo3 e aA!a3uoa pino:, aH .uo!isanb 11n3g!p e seM s!y) ~ e qpla laMsue qq arp
V!M sanss! Li!l!qe!l aq alaql plnom 'anss! ue rpns 13a*703 01 pa13alZau Iguno3 ay) pue iIaMple3 JO suaz!]p ayl JO qlleay 10 &a;res isalalu! a q q lou se panqsuo3 aq pp03 leq, uo!spap
e apeur uo!ss!muro3 ayl 3! ley) Lau~ouv aql payse lad do^ ueml!3uno3 .uo!s!3ap 1!aq1 loj ssaao~d[e adde UP, 103 a4en8uel u a l l ! ~al~aq i s e'a~po 3 Lsr3 aqi u) 'uo!lrppe ui q e m
p!p Lam 4qlnl aql ayem pue uo!geuruualap s!y$ ayem 01 h!loq1ne ail3 amq uo!ss!muro3
8 q u o p~u e 4quueld am J! LauIo~lvh !3 ay) pay= uaslIe3 ueur(!3uno3 .Luout!lsai ayljo lsal 34% maq 01 paau ou sem alarn 'uo!p!pspn[ q 4qpue)s aAeq lou p!p [pun03 leq) sew uo!s!aap
arll 31 .Xressaaau 3! dooyuLfi .qq 01 ro 4 1 1 ~'q q 01 suo!isanb luasard 01 I!auno3 ysa p(n0M 311 'uotpppe ul 'IOU 10 anss! s!yl maq 01 2qpwp seM axam J! uo!~eu!rma~ap e ayew 0% [!arm03
A113 103 acl plnoM auu* s!yl 1e uaddeq plnoqs reym pue Bqpueis aAcq saop lr3uno3 pana![aq O ~ LMau ~olivA 113 1n0 JO UO!~!SO~ am pmaq os[e aneq noL 'uo!i!sod ley) %?iqs SPCJ s!y paluasald
puc isanbar c apciu sey dooynLfi .qql eyl Lldcqs aq plnoM iuauraiels s!q ier(l plus 1 o L e a~q L .pmhuoj 4qo8 alojaq s!ill uo U0!6!33P e ayem ol 1!3uno3 payse pue awl s!yl $0 pa~uasald
anss! s!yl maq 01 4qpue]s aneq IOU p!p Lpoa s!q~ ilaj aq i e q iuamaleis e apeur dooyuLfi .qq leyl paleis s c l o ~ u1e o~L e ~ .oZ 01 LQMr 1 3 ~ qaq~u rlalap 01 Luour!lsai am may 01
paau am pue ayelsrur e apem Lap panagaq aq 'ayels!m mln3!rrcd s!rll u~ .iqZ!uol ieyljo auros pmay ay pue umop uroyl4u!~md aldoad moqe am3 Llmln3!md IOU p!p aM .[[ample3 30 Lq3 a q 103
w3 Laq) ?sag aql op 01 a w i r!ayl palaalunlon, aAeq o yai~doa d Le1 JO dnolZ iey$lo~pa dsal ]saq%!q ayl pcq aq pyl ~ o u 0y% aldoad palueM aFI .pa!uap alaM Lwur pw plaqdn aM asoq jo
L u e ~.L pog s!yl 02 am03 sleadde pcq aAcg Larn leg s a r q 30 laqurnu c a1aM axaw pue smaL 1q8la 103 1!3uno3 am uo uaaq uaaq mq aH .s.~aqura~l!(a nno3 laylo am op se urayl 103 padsal
jo $01 e aneq p!p aH ~uo!ss!uru103 Z q u o ~ pm Zu!uuel~ ay) Zu!pieZa~ yuamalels e ayem o) ay!l pinom aq letn paleis mBue7 nem[!3uno3 .pno3 03 @!ens I! aye$ pino3 Layl.10 :spmpws ap!no~d
01 papuame aq ol paau plnoM I! pue [eadde ue MoIIe ~ o usa op Lldm!s a~wqp10m ann:, ayl :a~amuo !ss!urmo3 amjo s l a q m a ~aq~l ~o qas~ooq a L11qam3 Lorp jeyl isa2Zns pln0M a~-1. I!3uno3
arll .IOJ uo!lsanb L3!lod e SUM $1 .s!ql 01 lamsue m aAeq IOU p!p aq lcrli palels dooyui(fi LPalPuerl aq s!y) 1sa:Zns aq ppoM moq 'anss! h a p s c se q$!m leap lou p ~ pUO !SS!UUIIO~
ayl [aaj Layl l e g 4~y)auros spug jjeis J! ieql dooyuLfi 4qyse seM a13 .4uo[e am03 Lay) uaqM sanss! asaqi JOJ $no yo01 01 s-[euo!ssajo.~da laM o yjj~eis sa.~!qL l~unmuro:, s!q& .IOU
JO 11.133~03h a p s s seM alSue!q uo!s!~ c 1aylaqM 01 se uo~qdojoa3 ualajj!p a SVM alaql 'ase3 s!q$ ul .uIaDrros hajes e seM asayl alarp anss! ue l3auo3 3~ op moq 10 readde w 30 anss!
aql pas!el Laql ieyl lnoqe paura3uo3 0s s ej 3~e i ~le yl 2u!ylauros VIM leap Lpoq 8u!wa~o4e pInom ~ o' uqa y ~' leadde alc!~doldde ue IOU sem jjels Lq [eaddc ue ieyl s~uaumroas!q q
paleis dooyuLfi .qq leyl palou JOL~JAaqJ L ,ly4!uol alaq uogsanb arp sem s!q~ .uaz!i!3 apn!~d auo uo $30 1eq3 ind Lp1~!~do~dder0r1! ldrrrauc am saop 10 spuq 3!1qnd y l ! ~3g auaq xgqnd
l e g op h ! ~ ay) S30Q :SBMu o!isanb aqL .sanss! h a p s 8u11laduro3 aq 01 smaap t! ~ essqalpp~e 01 uo!iei3[1qo ue sey 43 ay) asncaaq m!q moq pmaq aq iou p1no.u uo!lsa44ns s!yl leyl
palaMsue dooydfi 'qq jp SeM qo[ asoqM oar[$ 'h!murmoa s!yljo suaz!p arlijo Zu!aq pue hajes aql )aa$oJd 01 Lpon s!tp 30 qorayl iou sem %!JI ~ i u a m a ~looo4d pue ale~dolddeqs es!~q
l c q apem uaaq seq luaurareis a q m~s s! L~ajesp m rpIeat1 aia3uls e sc laqmam jjqs e Lq pamaap uaaq seq p y~3~arr o30 1 hr] 01 aqsap e lo uia3uo3 aAeq lou p[noqs Lpoa s!ql l e ~ pa
isa22ns uaaq seq 31 leyl pams 1oLely aqL
Book 42 Page 199 perpetuating a hazard. The question at that time would be whether we could fix it. That was really what we were discussing -do we have the authority to hear this appeal
and you have heard two conflicting opinions. There were some unknowns, but certainly it was possible that it could increase liability to the City. Mr. Wynkoop informed Council that his
client would be willing to accept the decision of the Commission as a compromise which would buy him some time to do the things requested by your Staff. If imposed as a requirement at
this time, he does object very strongly. After a short discussion, it was MOVED by Hopper, SECONDED by Langan that based on the testimony heard, this body does have the authority to
hear this appeal and that we were in standing for this hearing. Roll call vote. Those voting yes: Hopper, Ozuna, and Langan. Those voting no: Callsen. Abstain: Wells and Gable. Absent
and not voting: none. MOTION CARIUED Mayor Nancoles stated that they would continue forward and this body has found that there was standing in jurisdiction to hear this matter. The following
individuals signed to testify were recognized by the Mayor. Sonna Lynn Fernandez, 314 Badiola, was sworn in and presented an Exhibit labeled by the Mayor as CC-1008. She informed Council
that she was currently the land use and transportation planner for Earl and Associates. Prior to that, she was Executive Director of the Development Services Department for Canyon County.
Ms. Fernandez explained that she had been working with transportation for some time and was presenting data that would enable them to make a wise decision. She reviewed her handout which
was available for review by anyone requesting to do so. During her presentation, she noted that the number one issue here was not whether Mr. Beebe was going to put in an access point
or landscaping. The number one issue was reasonable time as he was asking for one year time period. Doug Mclntire, 8147 Chinden Blvd. in Boise, was sworn in and stated that he represented
represented U-Haul of Idaho. Mr. McIntire stated that they were not going to produce a lot of traffic out of this area right now. They were only renting ten to fifteen vehicles a week
right now. With regard to zoning, they were not a heavy equipment rental company and only have trucks and trailers at this time. He did not know where he was placed in the yellow pages
that were discussed earlier. Ann Beebe, 521 North Tenth, was sworn in and explained their intent with this property. She stated that they have owned the Postal Exchange for six years
and had recently determined that they needed to move to a more visible location; to afford the prime location on Tenth Street, they negotiated an agreement with U-Haul to be a part of
their business; they approached Planning and Zoning and they approved the Special Use Permit with conditions with twelve months to meet them; they then found the notice in their mail
that this decision was appealed; felt they were not treated in good faith and discussed the neighboring neighboring businesses around them on Tenth. At the conclusion of her comments,
she presented an Exhibit with signatures of citizens asking that the Council not require the Postal Exchange to close or alter the existing curb cuts at their location. The Mayor labeled
this document as CC-1009. Glenn O'Dell, 1553 Southside Blvd., in Melba was sworn in by the Clerk. Mr. O'Dell spoke briefly stating that he does a lot of business in Caldwell and has
lived in the County since 1946. He believed the right thing for Council to do was stand behind the Planning and Zoning Commission and uphold their decision and let the Beebe's get on
with making a viable business in the community. Glenn Koch, 23306 Sylvan, was sworn in by the Clerk and briefly testified in favor of the Beebe's new business venture and emphasized
how much better it would be if the City welcomed the Beebe's to their new facility and how much better it was than having a boarded up building. Matt Beebe, 521 North Tenth, was sworn
in and stated that he was coming before the City Council as Citizen Matt Beebe. He reminded the Council that he was a member of the Caldwell Planning and Zoning Commission for a year
and a half and considered it a great learning experience which prepared him for the position he currently holds. Mr. Beebe stated that contrary to what some people think, they did not
come here tonight to ask for any special treatment. All they were asking was that they be treated fairly and equally to other businesses in Caldwell. Much of the revenue for the City
of Caldwell rests in the ownership of private property and the enterprise generated with that property. The backbone of the City were the "Mom and Pop" businesses like theirs. It was
his believe that Caldwell was morally obligated in encouraging and assisting small businesses and not to throw arbitrary barriers in their way. Traffic accidents at their intersection
were not a serious concern as testified by Mr. Wynkoop and Ms. Hernandez and there was ample evidence of that with the Police Department. Additionally, very early when preparing the
application for the Special Use Permrt, we volunteered to the City to place planters on the property. Mr. Koch received verbal approval from Ms. Holmes of the Planning Department to
do so and sent her a letter verifying that confirmation. Due to the paving, the 7-Eleven opted to get out of the Caldwell Irrigation District so there cannot be access to irrigation
water. It was still their contention that
since there has been no new construction on this property and its revival from its boarded up years, we were not obligated to install landscaping as required for new development as defined
in City Code. However, we do desire to be good neighbors and would be willing to place some landscaping at the site as originally proposed. Mr. Hasson suggested during the Planning and
Zoning Commission meeting that they be given 12 months to do the landscaping and he also stated that it did not have to be colnpleted before they move in. We were happy to abido by that.
Jon Koch, 14050 Pioneer Road, McCall was sworn in and also testified in support of tile Becbe's as did Ralph Smeed, 1617 Idaho, who was also sworn in before testifying. Steve Nasson,
Community Development Director, commented that he just recently c;me to the City of Caldwell from Ada County Highway District and he saw a lot of things that needed to be addressed with
regard to transportation and when do you address those issues. In this instance, we had a Special Use Pennit and he would contend that when he looked at the land use schedule, the equipment
rental was the closest. It required a Special Use Permit. Mr. Hasson continued remarking wid] regard to transportation matters involved in this case; if we were aware of a traffic situation
and did not take prompt response time to remedy and someone gets hurt, the liability falls back on the Agency; because of working at the Ada County Highway District, he considered himself
fairly knowledgeable in accident management standards; and it was on this basis that he looked at this particular intersection and responded as he did. The Mayor stated that this concluded
the testimony and he would open it for questions and discussion. During the discussion, the City Attorney noted that the appeal was with regard to the twelve month time period for compliance
for the landscaping and the curb cut on Tenth. He further commented that the Elgin Street landscaping was not included. Mayor Nancolas stated that there were several issues that have
been raised tonight and he would like to briefly discuss those issues and perhaps give Council some guidance. Ne continued saying that he believed that the action brought forward this
evening has been with the best interest of the Community at heart. Nobody was intending to hurt or damage anyone. We have a Co~nmullity Development Director who saw an issue and tried
to be consistent and fair in his mind. There has been a statement made that this was not an appropriate hearing. The City Attorney has commented that it was appropriate and Council has
made that finding so we have moved forward and I do value our Attorney's opinion greatly. There was a sincere desire on behalf of this Community to beautify itself, upgrade the Community
and have better presentations of our entrances to the City and also be friendly to businesses and welcome them. From ark economic development standpoint, it has been mentioned that as
other businesses come in to look at our Community, they look at parks, beautification, and entrances to decide if they want to settle here. We were dealing with Codes and Ordinances
that were outdated and sometimes it was difficult for decisions to be made. I-ie did want to clarify that the City was trying to be consistent and was hying to be friendly to businesses
and make this a good place to do business. A direction was given from the Community Development Director to allow a year for these thi~~tgos h appen. This was again re-visited with good
intent. The Beebe's felt this was not appropriate and there was not good communication. The issues before us this evening were whether it was appropriate to require these things. in
all due respect, he believed public safety was of prime ilnportance to the City. Just because things haven't been caught in the past or appropriately done in the past, doesn't mean that
we proceed forward and ignore those things now or in the future. When the opportunity comes to make a correction, he believed we should to try to adjust for the future and build a better
foundation for the future. He believed this was one of the issues at stake tonight. Without respect to standing and those types of issues raised, I am not an attorney or a judge and
I'm trying to do the best I can. The Mayor further commented that they have had testimony with regard to landscaping, common sense with this includes whether there was water and if planted
now, it would probably die with winter coming. If we look at the time frame to put in landscaping, it was probably not going to happen until next spring which puts us within a few months
of when the original time frame was required. Do they create law suits and animosity over a few months when really the issue was to try to beautify an entrance to the City. The issue
of landscaping was not a health and safety issues, but it was an economic development issue and one of pride and community development. From this standpoint,it was appropriate to request
higher standards as we move forward so we can upgrade our community as a whole. The landscaping requirement was appropriate, but he also felt the under the circumstances and from he
bas heard tonight, the year time frame was probably appropriate. The Mayor continued stating that from a common sense standpoint, if a 24 foot U-Haul truck pulls up to an exit where
it was located right now, it would be blocking the vision from someone hying to pull out from Elgin onto Tenth Street. It only takes one serious accident and if we have known that there
was a situation there and have not taken the opportunity to correckit, he believed we would be negligent. To allow more reaction time for someone pulling out from Elgin onto Tenth Street
was a safety issue. He was not sure where it should be located, but hc did believe it should be as far away from the intersection as possible. This was a common sensc issue. We have
the responsibility and the authority to make sure we protect thc saliety of the citizens of Caldwell. He did not know how long it takes to pour concrete, but as long as it moves along
as quickly as possible so if there was an accident, we have taken the best interest of the citizens at heart. He did believe it was a safety issue.
The Council briefly discussed the issues. A short recess was called by the Mayor. After five minutes, the Mayor reconvened the Regular Meeting The City Attorney informed Council that
there was a joint request by City Staff and Mr. Beebe to ask the City Council to continue this matter after closing the public testimony portion of the hearing -to continue it until
November 5, 2001 Regular Council Meeting. He reminded Council with regard to ex pane communication among the Council Members and also wanted the record to be clear that the Beebe's,
the Koch's or anyone else who has an interest in this matter waiving any sort ofrights. We will come back on the jth for the decision portion of this hearing. MOVED by Callsen, SECONDED
by Ozuna to close the public testimony portion of the hearing and then continue the hearing to a time and date certain which would be at 7:00 p.m. on Monday, November 5,2001 in the Canyon
County Meeting Room. Roll call vote. Those voting yes: Callsen, Hopper, Ozuna, and Langan. Those voting no: none. Abstain: Wells and Gable. Absent and not voting: none. MOTION CARRIED
MOVED by Hopper, SECONDED by Langan to continue the Public Hearing until the Regular City Council Meeting on November 5,2001 at 7:00 p.m. at the Canyon County Meeting Room. Roll call
vote. Those voting yes: Hopper, Ozuna, Langan, and Callsen. Those voting no: none. Abstain: Wells and Gable. Absent and not voting: none. MOTION CARRIED (CONTINUATION OF A PORTION OF
THE REMAINING MEETING) Mayor Nancolas suggested that because of the late time, he would ask for a motion to only consider Item No. 4 under Old Business and ltems 1.2, and 9 under New
Business and to continue the remaining portion of the Agenda until Monday, October 22, 2001 in a Special Council Meeting at 7:00 p.m. in the County Meeting Room. MOVED by Hopper, SECONDED
by Gable to continue ltems No. 3 through 8 under New Business until a Special Council Meeting at 7:00 p.m. on October 22, 2001 in the County Meeting Room. Roll call vote. Those voting
yes: Hopper, Ozuna, Ozuna, Langan, Wells, Gable, and Callsen. Those voting no: none. Absent and not voting: none. MOTION CARRIED (CONSIDER BILL NO. 24 TO REZONE PROPERTY AS REQUESTED
BY GARY VEZZOSO WITH THE REQUEST TO WAIVE THE RULES REQUIRING THAT A BILL BE READ AT THREE SEPARATE TIMES AND READ IN FULL FOR ONE READING AND ALSO APPROVE THE SUMMARY FOR PUBLICATION
AND THE DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT) The Mayor read Bill No. 24 by title only as follows: AN ORDINANCE TO PROVIDE A C-1 (NEIGHBORHOOD COMMERCIAL) ZONE DESIGNATION FOR CERTAIN LANDS; DETERMINING
THAT SAID ZONING IS IN THE BEST INTEREST OF THE CITY OF CALDWELL, IDAHO; INSTRUCTING THE CITY ENGINEER AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR TO DESIGNATE SAID PROPERTY AS C-l ON THE OFFICIAL
ZONING MAP AND OTHER AREA MAPS OF THE CITY REPEALING ALL LAWS ORDINANCES AND RESOLUTIONS IN CONFLICT HEREWITH. MOVED by Gable, SECONDED by Hopper to waive the rules requiring that a
bill be read at three separate times and read in full for one reading. Roll call vote. Those voting yes: Gable, Callsen, Hopper, Ozuna, Langan, and Wells. Those voting no: none. Absent
and not voting: none. MO-TIO-~N CARRIED MOVED by Hopper, SECONDED by Gable that Bill No. 24 be passed and entitled Ordinance No. 2388 after the one reading by title only and approve
ine summary for publication. Roll call vote. Those voting yes: Hopper, Ozuna, Langan, Wells, Gable, and Callsen. Those voting no: none. Absent and not voting: none. MOTION CARRIED (APPROVE
RESOLUTION APPOINTING JUDGES AND CLERKS FOR THE GENERAL CITY ELECTION TO BE HELD ON NOVEMBER 6,2001)
The Mayor stated that the first item under New Business was to coilsidcr a Resolution authorizing the appointment oithe Judges and Clerks for the General City Election to be held on
November 6, 2001. He read the Resolution by title only as follows: RESOLUTION APPOINTING JUDGES AND CLERKS FOR THE GENERAL CITY ELECTION OF TI-IE CITY OF CALDWELL, IDAHO, TO BE IHELD
ON NOVEMBER 6,2001. MOVED by Ozuna, SECONDED by Hopper that the Resolution be passed authorizing the appointment of Judges and Clerks for the City Election to be held on November 6,2001.
Roll call vote. Those voting yes: Ozuna, Langan, Wells, Gable, Callsen, and I-lopper. Those voting no: none. Absent and not voting: none. MOTION CARRIED (APPROVE ACCEPTANCE OF THE ASSESSMENT
ROLL FOR L.I.D. 00-3 FOR THE I'URPOSE OF CONSTRUCTING STREET PAVLNG AND DRAINAGE AND SET A PUBLIC HEARING FOR LOCAL IMl'ROVEMENT DISTRICT 0 0 -3 FOR MONDAY, NOVEMBER 5,2001 AT 7:00 P.M.
AT THE REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING) MOVED by Langan, SECONDED by Callsen to accept the Assessment Roll for L.I.D. 00-3 for the purpose of constructing street paving and drainage and
set a Public Hearing for Local Iinprovement 00-3 for Monday, November 5, 2001 at 7:00 p.m. during the Regular City Couilcil Meeting. Roll call vote. Those voting yes: Langan, Wells,
Gable, Callsen, Hopper and Ozuna. Tbose voting no: none. Absent and no1 voting: none. MOTION CARlUED (FINANCIAL REPORT) Councilman Callsen reported that the Finance Committee has revicwed
current accounts payable in the amount of $922,373.44 for the period ended October 10, 2001 and a net payroll of $150,405.10 for the pay period ended October 6,2001. MOVED by Callsen,
SECONDED by Hopper that accounts payable in the amount of $922,373.44 represented by check numbers 76593 through 76751 and the total payroll for the amount of $150,405.10 represented
by check numbers 72719 through 72853 and direct deposit stub numbers 18141 through 18329 be accepted, payment approved, and vouchers filed in the Office of the City Clerk. Roll call
vote. Those voting yes: Callsen, Hopper, Ozuna, Langan, Wells, and GaUle. Those voting no: none. Absent and no1 voting: none. MOTION CARRlED (ADJOURNMENT) MOVED by Hopper, SECONDED by
Ozuna that because of the late hour, the meeting be adjourned and Council to meet in a Special Council Meeting on October 22,2001 to complete the Agenda of tonight. Roll call vote. Those
voting yes: Hoppcr, Ozuna, Langan, Wells, Gable, and Callsen. Those voting no: none. Absent and not voting: none. MOTION CARKIED