HomeMy WebLinkAbout6-28-1989 P&Z MINUTES ,' � •
PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MINUTES
June 28, 1989 I
The special meeting of the Caldwell Planning and Zoning '!
Commission was called to order by Chairman Bill Free at 12:fd0
(noon), Wednesday, June 28, 1989. Members present were Ron
Myers, Les Carter, Wanda Anthony, Chuck Randolph, Jr. and Terry
Durbin. Tom Ensley and Garret Nancolas were absent.
The purpose of the special meeting was to hold public hearings on
three items. These items were for a requested rezone, a request
for a special use permit to allow mini-warehouse storage units
in conjunction with the zone change, and a request for a special
use permit for a child-care facility at 1323 Oak Street. The
procedure for giving public testimony was explained by the
Chairman and those wishing to speak were asked to sign the sign-
up sheet provided for each item.
The first item on the agenda was for the rezone request. The
Staff report was presented by Sylvia, Planning and Zoning
Director. She said the r2zone request was for the northerly half
of Tract U, Mountain View Sub., which is presently zoned R-3
(multi-family high density residential). The requested zone is
C-3 (service commercial). The northeasterly 260 feet of the
entire tract is already zoned C-3 (service commercial) with about
80 feet of frontage on Cleveland Boulevard. The purpose of the
rezone request is to accommodate construction of a five unit
mini-warehouse complex for which a special use permit is also
being requested. The proposed site plan shows the relationship
of the project to the present zoning on the property. The
granting of the special use permit would be subject to a
favorable recommendation on the rezoning to the City Council and
approval by them. A Comprehensive Plan change is not being
recommended for this request as it represents a minor expansion
of zoning boundaries. In this particular case the zoning request
is to provide additional area on an irregular-shaped parcel of
land to allow for more efficient use of the property. The C-3
zone is a service commercial zone, the purpose of which is to
provide areas by zoning procedures and in accordance with the
Comprehensive Plan for activities of a service nature which are
more intensive in character than in other commercial zones and
which may be semi-industrial. Mini-warehouse storage is
considered under the category of warehousing-wholesaling in the
Land Use Schedule. In the M-1, M-2 and I-P zones, mini-storage
units would be a permitted use; but in the C-2 and C-3 zones a
special use permit is required. The legal requirements of
Section 6-4-4, Chapter 4 of the zoning requirements were complied
with. In amending the zoning title text or map, the amendment
may be done whenever the Council deems the amendment is required
for public convenience, necessity, or general welfare, and the
recommendation from the Commission will be based on those things.
1
_.
.• � . •
- The Chairman . op�ened the public hearing and requestzd
participation from the audience.
Robert E. Weygandt - 25�6 Cherry. Weygant said his testimony
would be the same for both the first and second items on the
agenda. Living in the area, he feels that there have been
certain developments that have harmed it. The mobile home park
(Mountain View Mobile Estates), which required a special use
permit, was built many years ago; and even though some of the
land owners were not against it, the majority of the people
living in the area were. An eight-foot ornamental fence was
promised to be put around the park, but all they have is an old
rickety wooden fence. This certainly detracts from the
residental area. The mobile home park does not have an opening
on Cherry Street and they are not interested in getting an L.I.D.
to pave the street. There is sufficient industrial property
already zoned industrial in town for these mini-wa�ehouses. He
feels that any more commercial building in the area could do
nothing but detract from the residential area, and this is
basically his objection.
Bill Van Sickle, 34H5 Starlight. Mr. VanSickle has no major
objections to this minor change where it would square off the
property. He believes that it should be fznced and the type of
fencing stipulated and curbs and gutters installed. As
referenced before, the mobile home parks do absolutely nothing
after they get their permit and he feels there should be more
enforcement for compliance.
Rita Earl, 2704 Beech. Ms. Earl lives directly south of the
property in question. She opposes the rezoning of the property
based on the following:
First, the request does not comply with the City's adopted
Comprehensive Plan text and map, the City's adopted zoning
ordinance, or the Idaho Local Planning Act of 1975. On page 22
of the Caldwell Comprehensive Plan it states under commercial
categories frame and service to be suitable for a wide range of
retail, service and professional uses including those which would
not be appropriate in neighborhoods or central commercial areas.
Page 6 of the Comprehensive Plan states that the Plan is designed
to bring about the greatest good for the greatest number and is
not intended as a way of furthering the interest of any special
group at the expense of others. The property under consideration
is suitable for multi-family, high density residential use
designated under the plan map. The City's zoning ordinance 6-1-
5(C) states areas are to be classified according to the
established zoning districts and shall give due consideration to
the need to conform with the adopted Comprehensive Plan. In
establishing minimum standards, Idaho's Local Planning Act of
1975 states in Section 67-6511 that zoning districts shall be in
accordance with the adopted Plan and if the request for rezoning
is not in accordance with the adopted plan, it shall be submitted
to the Planning and Zoning Commission with the recommendation.
2
_ _ _ _ __
� . I
, I
� - P n �
The governing board may adopt or reject an amendment to the la ,
under the Notice and Hearing Procedure provided in the Idaho I
Code. Justification for the decision will be set forth in the 'I
Comprehensive Plan and zoning ordinances or other appropriate ',
ordinances. Mrs. Earl said she doesn't believe the request for '
rezoning should be considered until the City's Comprehensive
Plan, text and map are amended to accommodate the change.
Secondly, the intensity of the uses allowed in the C- 3 zone
should not be approved for the property under consideration
because:
1. The City's zoning ordinance Section 6-1-3 states that its
purpose is to promote the interest of health, safety and general
welfare and to conserve, stabilize property use and to promote
the implementation of the Comprehensive Plan. To change the
zoning on this property from R-3 to C-3 would not promote the
interest of health, safety, and general welfare, `nor would it
conserve and stabilize property use in the area. Since it is not
in compliance with the Comprehensive Plan, it would not serve to
promote its implementation. In fact, the health safety and
general welfare of the area would be jeopardized by this change
in zoning. Caldwell has adequate land available for development
which is already zoned C-3,; however, this particular parcel
under consideration for rezone and the remaining five acres of
the original tract is the only developable property in Caldwell
zoned R-3. Rezoning would only serve to promote the financial
gain of the property owner and would not promote the general
welfare of Caldwell. The purpose of zoning is to serve the
public benefit. This request serves no public purpose and should
be denied.
Gary Lasher, owns 10 acres south of the property that they want
to put the mini-warehouse storage units on. Mr. Lasher said he
has tried to get R-3 zoning on his parcel of land as more R-3
zoning is needed in Caldwell. Now they are wanting to to change
the R-3 zoning to C-3. He said he had some questions about
combining the 2 1/2 acres that is now C-3 and the 2 1/2 acres
that is R-3. Who owns the five acres south of the property and
what is going to happen to that parcel? If it is rezoned to C-3
then someday will the remainder of the property be C-3? Who is
responsible for street improvements on Florida and Cherry? In
the R-3 zone, the developer is responsible for street
improvements such as paving and curb and gutter. Also, it was
mentioned that land was available on the other side of Cleveland
Boulevard that was zoned for mini-warehouses. Is this not
adequate ground? Lasher said these are some of his concerns and
he is opposed to the request.
Bob Madden, 19P�7 Flamingo Road. Mr. Madden said he sympathizes
with those people who have spoken, but he said this was going to
be a first-class storage with a six foot cyclone fence around it
and landscaping. Also, they plan to have an electric gate,
adequate lighting, paving, and a tenant on premise. Mr. Madden
3
'' • .
' said he could't"see where it would be a disadvantage to anybody
or adjoining properties.
Jack Doan, 3103 S. Florida Avenue. Mr. Doan said they have been
through many meetings with Lasher wanting to have his property
rezoned. It is a residential area and they have come forward to
the Zoning Commission to keep the property from being rezoned.
The reason for not rezoning is that the present zoning is a good
buffer between zones and it should stay that way; otherwise, it
will all be rezoned and the people with investments in their
residences will go by the wayside. He said there is plenty of
property for what they want to do and he feels there is no reason
to change the zoning.
Esther Taylor - 3206 Starlight. Ms. Taylor said she is against
the rezone for the same reasons that have been already stated.
;
That concluded the list of those on the sign-up sheet and the
Chairman asked if there were any questions.
After much discussion, the public hearing was closed.
Sylvia explained the configuration of the present commercial
land use and zoning along Cleveland. She said it has existed
since the Comprehensive Plan and Zoning were adopted in 1977, but
the part of Tract U directly southwest was originally shown as
medium density residential and R-2. Many years ago Green Acres
Property was interested in purchasing all of Tract U to put a
mobile home park on the property. Mobile home parks are allowed
in the C-3 and the R-3 zones. The Commission and the Council at
that time agreed to change the zoning to R-3 and a mobile home
park was planned. The split zoning at that time would have
accommodated it. Plans for the proposed park did not
materialize.
After a lengthy discussion, the Commission felt that they didn't
have enough information regarding the legal questions that were
brought up and that a ruling should be obtained from the City
Attorney. They were also interested in what, if any,
requirements there would be for street improvements.
Chuck Randolph made the motion to defer action on the request
until such time as more information was received on the
responsibility of street improvements and on the legal concerns
stated in the public testimony. Les Carter seconded the motion.
Motion carried.
The next item on the agenda was in conjunction with Item �1. The
Commission felt they could not continue with the special use
permit request until such time as action has been taken on the
requested rezone.
Chuck Randolph moved that the request for the special use permit
be deferred until subsequent continuation of the rezone request
4
.• , . •
.' is held at the next meeting. Everyone who has signed to speak on
both requests will be notified of the time and place on the
continuation on these hearings. Wanda seconded the motion.
Motion carried.
The last item of business was a request by Michael and Donna
Driskell for a special use permit to convert the existing
residence at 1323 Oak into a child care facility for 27 children
and 3 adults. This residence is located on the northwest corner
of Oak Street and Colorado Avenue.
The property in question is on the corner of Oak and Colorado and
it contains 5352 sq. ft. (approx.). The applicant has indicated
about 27 children with 3 staff inembers. They have discussed the
square footage requirements with the fire marshal for the amount
of children at that location. They would be required to have an
off-street parking space for each employee. There i's a driveway
but they might have to piggy-back cars for parking. It is a
small yard with not a lot of outside play area. They are also
requesting a sign and that would have to meet the requirements of
the special use permit: thirty-two square feet unlighted and set
back 10 feet from the property line. Sylvia said she has
contacted 'dealth and Welfare and i�r. and Mrs. Driskell have been
in touch with them to meet State requirements on the day care
facilities. Notices have been mailed out to all of the property
owners within 3�0 feet and the notice of public hearing has been
published in the newspaper.
Chuck Randolph, Jr. asked to abstain from any discussion or
voting on the request as he stated he was a property owner in
this vicinity.
Chairman Free explained the procedure for giving public
testimony. He stated that the code under special use permit
procedures states every use that requires the granting of a
special use permit requires declared characteristics such as
review and appraisal by the Commission to determine whether or
not the use would cause any damage, hazard, nuisance, or other
detriment to persons or property in the vicinity. The Commission
may require higher standards of site development than listed
specifically in this title in order to correlate the proposed use
to other property and uses. The Commission may revoke or modify
the approval of a special permit in accordance with procedures
set forth in this section and under specific conditions when it
is not in conflict with the Comprehensive Plan. The phrase in
this that was mentioned is that the Commission is charged whether
or not the use would cause any damage, hazard, nuisance, or other
detriment to persons or property in the vicinity. The Commission
may decide either to issue or not to issue the permit. The
Commission will make a decision, but you have the right to appeal
your decision to the City Council.
The floor was opened to take public testimony from those in the
audience who wished to testify.
5
.' , • •
Jean Bower, 2203 Colorado. Bower said she lives straight
across, and the only objection she has is the accidents at the
corner. Also, the high school kids that drive to school seem to
think this street is a race track. She said it is a very busy
street and if more people come and go leaving their children, it
is going to make it that much busier, and that would be her
objection to it.
Chuck Hagler lives in Meridian and owns the property at 1309 Oak,
the adjacent property, and he said he was really surprised when
the application came through. This is a very small lot for a
child care center. This lot that the house is on is three
(3) 25 foot lots. Several years ago they took the lot and cut it
in half and built two houses on it. Now we are talking about a
lot that is 75 feet by 50 feet with a house on it. Where the
garage should be if they had one, they couldn't 'put one in
because it would be too far on the property, it backs right to my
property line so when they get in and out on the driveway they
get on to my property. There is no way they could have off
street parking for three cars and there is just no way that they
could have 3� children there. It would be like putting 30
children into a very small area. The pathroom facilities are not
adequate. The noise would be greatly increased in the
neighborhood. The way the roads are, without stop signs, the
traffic is bad. He said he personally witnessed two serious
accidents there and he doesn't live in the neighborhood now,
although he did live there several years ago. He feels that it
would be inviting serious accidents with small children. There
are no fences around the house and no play area. There are no
parks in the vicinity. Also, three people cannot watch 3�
children with safety in that neighborhood. Maybe someone is
being misled; the people that are putting in this application do
not live there. They have just taken over the house and the
first thing they want to do is to put in a child care center.
They will, if they put it in, find out that it is not practical.
There is no way that you can put 30 children into that 50 by 75
foot area. That is an area of mixed houses. There are some very
nice houses in the area and some very poor houses, but the
biggest majority of the people in the neighborhood are retired
people. After talking to some of them, they do not want the
additional noise of the coming and going of cars and noise of the
children. It is my understanding that the people who put the
application in do not intend to live there; they are going to
hire the help. I don't think it is something that we are
depriving somebody of as a livelihood. I think the people are
employed somewhere else.
Becky Blake rents the house at 1309 Oak from Charles Hagler.
Mrs. Blake said that her husband (Clint) who is not able to be
there, and she, feel that it is too small and their driveway is
right next to this property. There is not adequate parking space
available. One of their worries is the traffic as there are
children that live in the area. They have three children who
6
�' � .
� ride their bikes a lot and they do not want the extra traffic
coming in and out. Also, they are worried about the noise.
There is no fencing around the yard and the yard is too small -
not large enough for a day care center.
Agnes Haler, 2119 S. Montana, said she feels the same way as
Charles Hagler and Mrs. Blake. They covered just about
everything that she wanted to say and the only other is noise.
For two years they have had a lot of noise and when this day care
center came along, they just can't have so much noise. The roads
are not a safe place for children at all.
Glenn Schmidt, 2116 Colorado Avenue. Schmidt said his property
borders the Driskell property; in fact, he got the other half of
his lots. His main objection, although he doesn't want to have
any bad feelings with the neighbors, is that they already have 20
apartments on that one block and with all the traffic and extra
noise, every person who borders that is retired and the place
just isn't right.
Michael Driskell, Rt. 6 Box 349, West Logan in Caldwell. He said
he was the owner of the property that was left to him by his
father. He applied for the day care center permit and to answer
some of the questions that have been brought up as far as the
size of the property and its intended use for the number of
children, they have gone strictly by what the application was for
and it is less than what Idaho State Code allows for as far as
the licensing per sguare footage. He would like the Commission to
know that they do plan on operating this and maintaining it in a
way that is conducive to the neighborhood. The activity of the
day care center will be confined strictly to weekdays with
business hours. They will try to limit the amount of noise and
troubles that might be distracting to the neighbors. The
children will make noise and there will be increased traffic.
Montana Avenue carries the flow of the traffic to this area.
There are several apartments and rental properties and he feels
this use will not be a detriment to the rest of the neighborhood
The property will be fenced for those concerned about the safety
of the children and they will try to limit the amount of noise
and stay in compliance with the rest of the neighborhood.
With no further testimony andd no written correspondence, the
public hearing portion was closed.
After a short discussion, Les Carter expressed concern about the
size of the facility, then made the motion, seconded by Wanda
Anthony, to deny the special use permit to allow a child care
facility at 1323 Oak Street. Motion carried with one abstaining
vote cast by Chuck Randolph.
Chairman Free advised the applicant that this decisiion for
denial of the request could be appealed to the City Council.
7
_ __ _
4' � •
Findings of Fact.`
1. An application for a special use permit was properly filed
for the request in accordance with the provisions of 6-4-4,
zoning regulations. Public notification and advertising were
done and a public hearing held.
2. Based on the testimony given, there were concerns about the
size of the property, increased traffic, potential traffic
hazards, and the allowable number of children for a day care
facility.
3. Parking spaces are limited and with three employees there
were concerns if there would be adequate parking.
4. The noise factor associated with a day care center was a
concern of nearby elderly residents. �
5. For a day care facility use, the total size of the property
was inadequate.
Conclusions of Law:
As the application is in compliance with the building and zoning
codes, the law does require the Commission to make a decision
based upon its determination as to damage, hazard, nuisance, or
other detriment to persons or property in the vicinity. In its
best judgment, the Commission finds that said use of the property
could cause damage, hazard, nuisance or detriment to the
neighboring properties because of increased traffic, noise, size
of lot and inadequate off-street parking.
With no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 1:30 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Leona Nix ,
Secretary pro tem I,
I
�.
8