HomeMy WebLinkAbout6-21-1990 P&Z MINUTES � ,.
�< `� PLANN � AND ZONING COMMISSION MI�ES
. i
June 2Z, 1990 '�
I
Tt�e regular meeting af the Caldwell Planning and Zoning
Commission was called to order by Chairman Bill Free at 7:30 p.m.
in tf�e City Hall Council Chambers. Members present were:
Chairman Bili Free, Terry Durbin, Tom Page, Chuck Randolph, Les
Car Wanda Anthony and Tom Ensley. Absent were Mary Nigdem
and Ron Myers.
Chairman Free began the meeting by asking the Commission for any
changes or additions to the agenda presented to them. As there
were no changes or additions offered, Chuck Randolph made a
motion to accept the agenda as distributed. Tom Ensley seconded
the motion. A vote was taken and the motion passed unanimously.
Chairman �ree made a presentation to Commission member Terry
D�=.:- ?er and his -Family have relocated outside the City
�i;�its a�d he will no longer be able to serve an the Planning and
ZaninC Commission. Ci�airman Free presented a�ramed cer�i�icate
to T�7'Y' signed b}� Mayor Dakan and publicaly t�anked him for his
time and service on �he Commission.
� ie first itern of business on ti�e agenda was that of a Special
Use Fermit to a21ow the operation of a truck sales and salvage
yard on property loc�ted on the south side of Garber Street
appro>;imately 500 feet east of Farmway Avenue, the Capps
Co��p:�ny, applicant. This item of business was co�tinued from
the May 10 meetirzg of tFre Commiss;on due to the absence of the
applicant. Dennis Crool;s stated that he had been in contact with
tl�e applicant and the applicant indicated he wished to withdraw
his apN?ication. Sir�ce there was no formal written request from
�he ap�lic�nt to withdraw his application, Les Carter made a
motian to deny the Special Use Permit. Wa�da seconded the
motion. With no further discussion a vote was taken and the
motion passed unanimously.
The next public hearing was for a Special Use Permit to allow
�he oper of an amusement center/video game arcade within a
fut�cre Iease space of a retail commercial facility located an the
east side of Spec�t Lane south of Franklin Road and west of
Z r�ter 84. Tom L�oerr, app 1 i cant .
Den�is e:;piained the request, location, and hour ot proposed
opet��tion.
Witt� no questions from the Commission the hearing was opened to
- r��eive public tes�imony. The only person to offer pubiic
testimany was Tom Doerr-, 2203 Jackson. Mr. Doerr explained the
purpcse cf the proposed request and location in connection to
o�her f�cilities in the area.
1
^ �
°� There was brief �cussion regarding other f�lites and uses
being proposed �or other lease spaces within the building and the
ger�eral overall theme of the complex of buildings oriented to the
tr�veling public.
W?th no futher discussion or correspondence ta staff the public
�earinr was closed. i
C�uck �an�olph �roposed a question concerning item #4, (adult I �'
��zeer is:.on) c� the �er and conditio^s af-Fer to the
C�m�is�ir� ry st�ff. i"lr Doerr resRanded that ti�ere wi11 always '
�� �d�_,lt S�INEY"J �r�t}�c'�e1 �t the -Facility.
' �ith no -rurther discussion ?om Ensley made a mation to approve
�i 5�:+2C1u Use °er with the terms and ccrditions out' ined by
S'�aff. Chuck R�ndolph seconded the motion. A vote was taken and
ti�e motion passed unanimous?y.
FINDINGS OF FACT/CORiCLUSIONS OF LAW
�� An application for a special use permit was properly -Filed
for the �roject,in accordance with the pravisians of Section
b-4-4 ot the f�lunicipal Code.
2. The legal requirements were done in accordance with the
�roc2dures autlined in Section b-4-4 (C) of the Municipal
���de. ;Voti�e o-F tre pubiic hearinG was given on the special
use �er�mit, pr owners withi� .500 -�eet of the subject
�� ap�f�ty wer na�i�ied and a public hea��ng was held.
3. T1 proposed use was deterrnined t�� be a special use in the
u � � O R 2.
4. � putalic !^earing was conducted by the Planning and Zoning
Ccmmissi�n under t�� rotice and heari^g procedures outlined
;.-f b-�-�: iC ��T the P'1t.i�i�.ip�I C�d�.
5. �`ublic Les�i,�nony was given in -Favor� of the request. There
�Nas na �u=:.imony yiven in opposition ta the � equest.
6. The Planning and Zcning Commission concluded that the
granting af the special use permit, as conditioned, would
not cause damage, hazard or detriment to persons or property
in the vicinity.
The next public nearing was a Special Use Permit to allow renewal
of a special use permit for the construction of the county jail
facili�y and a variance to allow a reCUCtion of front and street
side set�ack requirements aiong the Elevent!� Avenue and Twelfth
Avenue -Frontage to accomodate the placement of the Jail building
1oca�ed north o-F the exi=_ting Canyon Cour,ty Courthouse between
�levent� Avenue and Twel-Ft! Avenue. Canyon County, app? icant.
-,
, ' Dennis explained � request and location •f the proposed
•� facility.
With no questions from the Commission the hearing was opened to
receive public testimany. The first person ta offer public
testimony was Glen Koch. 23306 Little Freezeout Road, Caldwell,
Canyon County Commissioner. Commissioner Koch provided a brief
proJ�ct overview and then introduced Neal Kolba, 420 W. Edwards,
Nampa,a principal of the firm of architects far the proposed
pro�ect. Mr. K41bo presented the site plan and elevation for
the �r��ect an� s�me controlling factars for the des�gn and
layaut of the praposed buiiding. These included public access in
relation to traffic generation an Elev�nth and Twelfth Avenues,
access to the �ail from the Gourt area and constraining budget.
Mr. Koch returned to the podium ta continue testimony. �r. Koch
stated that a ma�or factar in designing this buidling was the
bu�get and any structural changes at this time would dramatically
in�ure that budget. �
Mr. koch indicated that the terms and conditions that are of
concern ta the Count� were numbers 4, 5 and 9. There was
�iscussion among the Cammissioners, Mr. Koch and Staff concerning
off-street parking facilities and the available spaces naw in
existance. Mr. Koch further indicated that the County has
attempted to maintain the existing parking lots in a manner that
is pleasing to the public and takes water drainage into
consideration.
Reference was made to condition #5 concerning redesign of the
Ioading/unloading �one and the qeneratian of truck traffic on
Elev�nth Avenue and Belmont Street. He stated that he has
concerizs about cr�ating any additional traffic �n the Twelfth
Avenue side of the facility and the preference of the County to
maintain the lvading/unloadin� on the Eleventh Avenue side.
Item #9 concerned the construction and design of the building in
r�gards to compatibilit� with the Gourthouse.
The next person to offer public testimany was Tom Doerr,
Caldwell. Mr. D�err stated that he teels tha C_ounty has put
farth a great effort in maintaing the present off-street parking
facilities.
With no additional correspondence there was brief discussion
concerning some af the terms and canditions discussed during
public testimony. Dennis indicated that the intention of Item #4
in the terms and conditions offered by staff in regards to off-
street parking is intended to rectify a zoning violation
concerning the use of the property and require filing of a
Special Use Permit before permit issuance. Existing parking lot
and the extent of improvements required would be evaluated at a
future public hearing by the Commissian.
3
�
-
. �
,'.� Chuck Randolph mac�a motion to approve the V�ance with Terms
• and Conditions recommended by Staff. However there was
dis�ussion concerning condition #2 and the need to include the
=ocation of the loading zone as �,�rt o-F the Variance. As a
result of this c�iscus�ion, Commissioner Randolph amended his
�r�otian to ra-Flect this chanc�e. Tom Page seconded the motion.
With no furtfi�er discussion a vote was taken and the motion passed
unanimausly with Tom Ensley abstaining from the vote.
�`INDINC�B OF FACT/C�NC�USION8 OF LAW
1. An application for a variance was properly filed for the
project in accordance with the provisions of Section 6-4-5
af the Municipal Code.
2. Tt�e legal requirements were done in accordance with the
pr outlined in Section b-4-5 (E) of the Municipal
Code. Notice to the public was given on the variance;
adjoining property owners were notified and a public hearing
was held.
3. The proposed var was determined to be appropriate for
processing and consideration since the request involved a
modification of the ordinance as to setbac4� a�d placement of
a str�uct�;; 2 on a Iot.
4. A public hearing was ccntiucted by the Planning ard Loning
Commission urF�er the notice and hearing procedures outlined
in Section 6-4-5 tC1 of t1�e flunicipal Code.
5. The ?lanning and Zoning Commission, in granting approval o-F
�F�e variance, concluded the -Follawing:
a> The granting of the variance will not be in conflict
with the intent of the Comprehensive Plan and will not
e-Ffect a ct�ange i n zoni ng.
b) Special circumstances characteri�e the property not
appZicable to other proper due to the street
configuration and tf�e established development pattern
of the County facilities complex.
c> Because o-F unique characteristics, a liter
application of the ordinance could be construed as a
h.�rdship.
d) The special circumstances did not resUlt from the
acti�n of the applicant and ti�us the granting o� the
variance cannot be consi der�ed a special pr lege.
4
. Chuck Randolph macTe a motion to approve the �ecial Use Permit
based upon the terms and conditions offered by staff but deleting
Condition #5 and #9 and condition #2 to include the wording
"reviewed annually if constr�uction is not started within one year
of the date af issuance of the permit in accordance with plans
approved by the Planning ancl Zoning Commission." Tom Pacte
seconded the motion. With no further discussion a vote was
ta)cen and the rnotion was passed ��nanimously with T�m Ensley
,�bstaining from the voting.
���t�z�r�� o� ��►c��ca�v��c������ �� ��w
1. An application for a special use permit was properly filed
far the project ir� accordance with the provisions of Section
6-4-4 af the Municipal C�d�.
2. The legal requirements were done in accardance with the
procedures outlined in Sectic�n 6-4-4 (C) af the Municipal
Code. Notice to the public was given on the special use
permit; property owners within 300 feet af the subject
property were notified and a public hearing was held. I
3. The proposed use was determined to bP a special use in the ,
R-3T �one. �
4. A public hearing was conducted by the Planning and Zoning ,
Commission under the notice and hearing procedures outlined ,
in Section 6-4-4 (C) of the Municipal Code. !
5. Public testimony was given in favor of the request. There I
was no opposing testimany given.
6. The Planning and 2aning Commission cancluded that tlze
granting of the special use permit, as canditioned, would
not cause damage, hazard or detriment to persons or property
in the vi�inity.
TY�e next public hearing was a Variance to allow develapment and
CGI� �truction .�ctivity upon an �xisting lc�t of r•erord which does
r►�t abut upon a public street on proper�ty lacated approximately
100 feet west of the ir�t�rsecti�n of J�liet Street and North 5th
Avenue. Washington Federal Savings and Laan, applicant.
Dennis explained the request and locatian of the subject propex�ty
and the intent of the City to acquire the additional right-of-way
to open �Toliet Street ta through traffic at sometime in the
future.
With na questions from the Commission the hearing was opened to
r•eceive public testimony. The fir�st person to offer public
testimony was Robert Carrow , 2900 Cleveland Boulevard, Caldwell.
Mr�. Carrow testified in favor of approving the Variance
indicating that this approval was in the best interest of both
the City and the applicants.
5
. • � •
�. � The next person to of-Fer testirnony was Jack Winte►'s, 604
Gaiveston, Caldwell., o�n�r of Winter's Enterpr 417 Ithac.�.
Mr. Winter's voiced sever concer in regards to the gr-anting
of the Variance such as the addres� o-F the pr�operty, the
platting and surveying of the pr�operty, sewer and water
conn�ctions, and the type o-f d�velopment bei.ng pl�red an the
pr�operrty.
Ther�e was no other- public te�timony o�fered and no correspondence
o-ff�r by Sta-F•F.
There was fur�ther discussian among the Cornmission and Sta-Ff in
r to iss��es o-F easement rights, plattin�, sewer and water
line services available, and zoning.
Ulith no fur�ther discussion Tom Ensley made a motion to a�prove
the Variance with the ter�ms and conditions offered by Staff.
Wanda Antl seconded the motion. With no further discussion a
vote was taken and the motion passed unanimously with Terry
Du.r�bin abstaining from the discussion and vote.
FINDINGS OF FACT/CONCLUSION OF LAW
1. An application �or a variance w�s properly -Filed for� the
pr~�ject in accordarice with the provisions of b-4-5 of the
Mianicipal Code.
2. The legal r�quirements were done in accordance with the
procedures a�.�tlined in Section 6-4-5 (E) of the I'lunicipal
Code. Notice to the public was given on the variance, '
acjjoining pr-oper�ty owner� were notified and a public hearing
was hel d.
3. The proposed var was determi.ned ta be appropriate for-
pr �nd consider�ation in accardance with SPCtion b--1-
�� (G) of the Zoning Ordinance.
4. A public hearing was cond�acted by the Planning and Zoning
Commis�ian under the notice and hearing pr�ocedures outlined
in 5ection 6-4-5 (C) of the Mu.nicipal Code.
5. The Planning and Zoning Commission, in �ranting approval of
tF�e variance, concluded the Following:
a) The gr�nting of the variance will not be i.n con-Flict
with the intent of the Comprehensive Plan and will not
effect a change in zoning.
b> Special circumstances char-acterize the property not
applicable to other properties due to the configuration
and lacation of the existing parcel away fr a public
str-eet.
6
� .
c) decause of the location, a liter�al a�plic�tion of the
ordinance could be constr-ued as a hardship.
d) The special circumstances did not r fr the
action of the applicant and thus the gr of the
var cannot be consider�ed a special pr�ivilege.
The last item for public hearing was a Variance to allow a
division of an �><isting par-cel into two parcels or lots o-F recor
whirh do not meet rninimum lot ar-ea and dimension r-equirements on
property located at the nor�theast corner� of Narr�ison Street and
south Sixth Avenue. Mack Kreizenbeck, applicant.
Dennis e>�plained the r�equest, location, par size of the
subject property and surrounding land use.
The only person to offer public testimony was the applicant, Macl;
{;'reizenbeck, 916 Teton, Caldwell. rlr. I:reizenbeck presented a
map and pictur of the subject pr�operty to the Commission and
testified that because of the special conditions with this
particular property due to the sui� rounding par property and
Har�rison Street closure, the Var�iance should be granted. (hr.
Kreizenbeck pr�esented letters o-F support from the surrounding
pr owners to the Commission.
After� -Further discussion on issues r-egarding setbacks, the
closur�e of Har-rision Street, o�ff--street parking s}�aces available
and squ.are -footage o-F the existing building on the subject
property, Tom Page made a motion to appr�ove the Var-iance subject
to maintaining a minimum 10 foot (10') setback to the new ►
pr-operty line. Also, if the existing single -Family dwelling is
eliminated in the -Future , the r�eplacment str-uctu.re would be
constructed no lar than what was previously ther�e. Ter�r
Durbin seconded the motion. With no fur�ther� discu.ssion a vote
was taken and the motion passed unanimously.
FINDINGS OF FACT/CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. !�n application for a var�iance was proper -Filed for the
pr�oject in accordance with the �r�ovisions of Section 6-4-5
of the Municipal Code.
2. The legal requirements wer�e done in accor�dance with the
pr�ocedures outlined in Section 6-4-5 (E) of the Municipal
Code. Notice to the �ublic was given on the variance;
adjoining properlty owner-s wer�e notified and a public
hearing was held.
3. The proposed variance was deter-mined to be appr�opriate -For
p►�ocessing and consideration since the r involved a
modi-Fic�tion of the or�dinance as to lot size and placement
of a structure on a lot.
4. A public hearing was condu.cted by the Planning �nd Zoning
Commission under� the notice and hearing pr-ncedures ou.tlined
in Section 6-4-5 (C) of the Municipal Code.
7
� .� � �
' S. The Planning and Zoning Cornmission, in gr��nting approv�l of
the variance, concluded the -Following:
a> The granting of the variance will not be in conflict
with the intent o-F the Compr-ehensive Plan and will not
effect a change in zoning.
b) Special circumstances characterize the property not
applicable to oth�r prc�perties due to the non-
con�or�ming develapment o� the pro�er�ty which ocu.rred
prior� to established cur�rent zoning regulataions.
c) Qecause of these unique character-istics, a liter-al
application of the ordinance could be construed as a
hardship.
d) The special circumstances did not result from the
action of the applicant and thus the gr o-F the
variance cannot be considered a special pi�ivilege.
These items concluded the public hearings and Dennis presented
miscellaneous items to be discussed and set for future public
hearings.
The �irst miscellaneous item was the initiation of the Zoning
Or�di nance arnendment r ng developrnent of e.xisti ng lots and
parcels. Dennis explained that an inconsistency in the Code has
been identified and the most appropriate way to clar�ify the
inconsistency is through an amendment to the Code. The section
o-F the Code that needs clar-ification has to do with a non-
conforming lot being a legal buildable lot. It was tt consensus
of the Commission to initiate a Code amendment and set the matter
for public hear at the next regular meeting,
The next miscellaneous item was initiation o-F Subdivision
Or amendment involving the de-Finition of subdivision.
Dennis explained that the Subdivision Ordinance w�s adopted in
1972. In 19a7 the Subdivision Ordinance was compre.hensively
updated. The action tatcen at that time was to rescind the old
Or�dinance and adopt a new Ordin�nce. This action created a
conflict of interpretation r�egarding an original p.�r�cel of land
and how many time� an oriyinal parcel can be divided without
requiriny a plat. The Commission also voted to initiate this
amendment to the Nlunicipal Code.
The next miscellaneou.s item was the amendment to the Zonin�
Ordinance in reference to the definition o-F Home Occupation. Th�
City Council has requested that the Planning and Zoning
Commission review the de-Finition o-F the types o-f goods and items
that can be sold from a r An objective o� this r
would also be to consider a per�mit process �For the home
occupation to include a possible -Fine for violations not in
accordance with the zoning provisions. It was the consensus of
the Commission to initi�te the Code amendment and to in�lude this
item on the agenda of the ner,t Commissions r-egular meeting.
8
•.',, � next miscella�us itern involved a chanc�e� the rnemtre►rship
' of the Commission from 9 members to 7 member t�ith 1 or L
alter Commission memberst�ip is add� speci-Fically in
the f�lunicipal Code. Such a change ���ould requir � for
initiation by the Commission to amend the Municipal Code. It was
the c�nsensu.s of the Commission to initiatP su.ch a pr and
hold a public heat-ing on this item at the next regular
Comrriission meeting.
Dennis listed several other miscell�n�o��s items that have beer�
presented fon possible future piablic hearings. It was the
conaensus o� the Commission that due to the number of items �et
-Far the agenda -For the Ju.ly meeting thiat the Subdivision
Ordinance Amendment could be heard at a later� date.
Ther was fur discussion concer the issue of child care
f�cilities being allowed in an R-1 zone. Tom Ensley made a
motio� to direct Staff to take necessar action to begin the
{�rac;ess o-F amendi ng the Zoni ng Or nance far the consi deration of
r child care facilities fr�om the R-1 zone. Wanda
Anthony s�conded the motion. With no further discussion a vote
was ta�en �nd tt motion passed unanimously. The Comrnission also
a�re�d that this item could be considered at a later date on a
less congested agenda.
Witt� na further business to cfiscus� the meeting adjourned at
1U.1p p.rn.
Respectfiully submitt�d,
�ue Mullen ��,
Recording Secretairy �
Approved by,
�
Bi 1 .l Free, Chair�man
Planning and Zoning Commission
i