HomeMy WebLinkAbout1-17-1991 P&Z MINUTES �� , �� • �
MINUTES
- PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
Meeting of January 17, 1991
Present: Chuck Randolph, Chairman Pro-tem, Rita Earl, Mary
Higdem, Les Carter, Tom Ensley and George Banta.
Absent: Wanda Anthony and Tom Page
The meeting was called to order by Chairman Pro-tem, Chuck
Randolph at 7:00 p.m. in the City Hall Council Chambers.
The first item of business was the approval of the minutes from
the Planning and Zoning Commission mesting of December 6, 1990.
With no additions or corrections, Mary Higdem made a motion to
approve the minutes as distributed. Les Carter seconded the
motion. A vote was taken and the motion passed unanimously.
The next item of business was the organization of the Planning
and Zoning Commission. Chairman Pro-tem Randolph announced that
the City Council reappointed Wanda Anthony to serve on the
Planning and Zoning Commission for another three year term. He
further announced that Les Carter was appointed as an alternate
for the Commission. Chairman Randolph introduced and welcomed
George Hanta, a new member of the Commission appointed by the
City Council to serv.e the remaining one year of the term vacated
by Bill Free.
The next item of business was the election of officers for the
Planning and Zoning Commission. Chuck Randolph opened the floor
for nominations for the office of Chairman of the Planning and
Zoning Commission for 1991. Tom Ensley nominated Chuck Randolph
for the office of Chairman . Les Carter seconded the nomination.
With no further nominations, a vote was taken and the motion
� passed unanimously.
Chairman Randolph opened the floor for nominations for the
office of Vice-Chairman for the Planning and Zoning Commission
for 1991. Mary Higdem nominated Tom Ensley for the office of
Vice-Chairman. Les Carter seconded the nomination. With no
further nominations, a vote was taken and the motion was passed
unanimously.
Chairman Randolph opened the floor for nominations for the office
of Secretary for the Planning and Zoning Commission for 1991.
Mary Higdem nominated Wanda Anthony for the office of Secretary.
Les Carter seconded the nomination. With no further nominations,
- a vote was taken and the motion passed unanimously.
The next item of business was the scheduled public hearings. The
first public hearing was a proposed code amendment to the
Caldwell Zoning Ordinance for consideration of a change in land
use classification for child care facilities in residential
zones. City of Caldwell, applicant. (Continued from the agenda
of December 6, 1990.)
1
� � � �
Chairman Randolph began by re-opening the public hearing and
• stating as a point of clarification that the focus of the
amendment is a review of child care facilities in the R-1 zone
and it was not the intent of the Commission to make changes in
any of the other zoning classifications.
Dennis then outlined the request and the draft amendment
presented to the Commission for consideration. He further stated
that this draft amendment was structured in a manner similar to
the State Code.
Dennis stated that contact was made with Real Estate
representatives and correspondence was sent to the Caldwell Board
of Realtors, as requested by the Commission. lfiere was response
received from the Board President that written correspondence
and comments would be forth coming.
Les Carter questioned Mr. Crooks whether child care facilities
that are in existence at the present time will be affected by
this amendment. Dennis stated that those child care facilities
legally operational with a special use permit prior to the
to o erate
adoption of the Code amendment, can continue p
�: indefinitely until such time as the use discontinues.
,7
There was brief discussion initiated by Chairman Randolph
regarding the 3 main classifications of definitions of a day care
facility. Dennis further explained the concept proposed for
setting a threshold number of children that would distinguish a
residence from being considered a day care home and a day care
center.
Rita Earl raised the question regarding the number of children
that the Code currently allows without requiring a special use
permit (other than the residents own children). Dennis exp2ained
� that the Code states four (4) children may attend a day care
�� facility at one time (in an R-1 zone) without a requirement of
obtaining a special use permit.
The first person to offer public testimony was Camillo Lopez.
Mr. Lopez questioned the focus of the amendment and encouraged
the commission to exclude the day care facility as a permitted or
special use in the R-1 zone because the single family residence
and the day care use conflict with each other.
Dennis then re-stated the parameters of the public hearing and
the broad range of issues that were discussed at the December 6,
2990 meeting. Chairman Randolph then re-stated the direction
given to Staff at that time, which was to prepare a more specific
a draft amendment and that an examination of a proposed Land Use
Schedule appeared consistant with that request.
Mr. Lopez then re-stated his concern that if the threshold number
is in�reased without restriction of more intensive day care in
the R-1 zone and even in other zones, the City will have a worse
problem than it already has and homeowners in these areas will be
affected..
2
. ,, . �
The next person to offer public testimony was Pam Silveria, 717
• N. LaCresta Avenue, Caldwell. Ms. Silveria stated that she felt
each request for a day care should be dealt with on an individual
basis regardless of the zone that the home is located or the
nwnber of children.
The next person to offer public testimony was Pat Howell, Child
Care Resource and Referral Coordinator at WICAP (Western Idaho
�" Community Action Program), 521 S. Kit Ave., Caldwell. Ms. Howell
stated that she supports changing the threshold number to 6 which
coincides with the State Code. !
With no further testimony, Tom Ensley made a motion to recommend
to the City Council the adoption of the Code amendment as
presented by Staff. Les Carter seconded the motion. Commission
discussion concerning the matter ensued.
;
Rita Earl stated that she has a concern regarding exclusion of
day care facilities from the R-1 zone particularly in the areas
like Canyon Hill where the R-1 zone is the predominate zone. She
stated that she sees the need for limiting day care facilities in
certain areas but feels the land use in existance in these areas
'� must be considered.
Chairman Randolph requested that the Planning and Zoning Director
. identify on a map for the benefit of the audience the R-1 zoned
areas in the community that may be affected by the Code
amendment. Dennis identified the R-1 zoned areas on the map and,
in response to a question by Commissioner Carter indicated the R-
1 zoning map shou2dn't be construed as a map of existing land
uses. In the R-1 zone, single-family residences are the
predominate use. However, there can be other uses in the R-1
zone other than single-family residences which predated the
-= establishment of the zone. In other words, the land use of a
given piece of property does not always match up with the zone
classifications.
Dennis indicated that the update of the Comprehensive Plan,
particularly the land use component, is currently in progress.
One of the things to be explored are the existing and established
land use patterns in the City and the question of whether the
Comprehensive Plan and the City Zoning Map should more closely
reflect the established pattern of development.
Canyon Hill, for example, is almost exclusively zoned R-1.
However, there are some areas developed with medium to high
density residential uses and perhaps the PZan and zoning
�; designation should reflect that. On the other hand, there are
areas within other portions of the City that are almost
exclusively single-family in character with medium to high
density zoning classifications.
3
,
• � �
There was further discussion, initiated by Commissioner Higdem,
• about the mixture of business and residential land use. While
day care is a recognized need, it is still a business and thus
there should be some means to protect residential areas,
particularly the R-1 zone which is the prime residential area in
the community.
Much of the testimony we have received identifies the need and
� preference for home type day care service. This type of day care
service will still be allowed in the R-1 zone and perhaps this is
the proper vehicle for providing that need while at the same time
protecting those property owners who wish to maintain the
residential character of their neighborhoods.
Commissioner Ensley also cited the residential property owner
who, through the permit. process, is forced into an awkward
position of opposing a neighbor who wishes to pursue,a child care
use.
,
Chairman Randolph cited the case by case approach used in the
past and a need for a more consistent, standardized method for ',
evaluating such requests. ,
There was also some discussion about day care facilities that
might be associated with public/semi-public uses such as
churches, schools and hospitals.
Chairman Randolph then posed a question to the Planning and
Zoning Director about the current Land Use Table and the types of
uses permitted in the R-1 zone. Dennis indicated that the R-1
zane was exclusively residential and that the only possible types
of commercial activities would be the day care facility as a
special use. Permitted uses include a single-family residence,
agricultural uses and home occupations. The home day care
4$ concept with the limited number of children, in the context of
the ordinance, would be considered a home occupation.
Commissioner Banta then asked how the code amendment might affect
Pam Silveria, the day care provider in the R-1 zone with
approximately 12 children. Dennis indicated that Ms. Silveria
had already applied for a special use permit and the code
amendment would not affect the consideration of that application.
There was no further discussion among the Commissioners.
Chairman Randolph reviewed and re-stated the motion before the
Commission. A vote was taken the motion passed unanimously.
The next public hearing was a variance application to allow a
x subdivision of property to create a lot less than the minimum lot
area standard of 6,000 square feet and to allow a waiver of the
street side setback requirement for a sewer pump station located
generally at the northwest corner of College Avenue and Missoula
Way. City of Caldwell, applicant.
4
� . Dennis indicated t�t the Staff has been in a�ised by the City
Attorney that an application for a special use permit to address
the use of the land should accompany the Variance request.
Consequently, it was being recommended that the Variance be
continued to the Commission's next meeting date.
With no further discussion Mary Higdem made a motion to continue
this item to the February 7th meeting of the Planning and Zoning
Commission. George Banta seconded the motion. A vote was taken
and the motion passed unanimously.
The next public hearing was a Special Use Permit to allow a
modification of a planned unit development in connection with a
preliminary plat application to allow a replat of approximately
two (2) acres of property located on the east and west side of
Brookside Drive, approximately 250 feet south of Ash Street. ,
George and Phyllis Haxter, applicant.
,-
Rita Earl stated that she was abstaining from discussion and
voting on this item due to a conflict of interest.
Dennis explained the request and. location of the property.
Dennis further indicated that Staff received correspondence from
the Bureau of Reclamation stating that they have concerns
regarding storm water run—off into the Dixie Drain. In view of
this correspondence, Staff is recommending an addition to the
Terms and Conditions offered for the consideration of the
Commission to include installation of a detention pond and sand
and grease trap in the event run—off into the Dixie Drain does
occur.
The first person to offer public testimony was Jerry Earl,
Skinner and Associates, 1002 Blaine Street, Caldwsll. Mr. Earl
stated that the property has been landscaped and presents an
improvement in the area. He further stated that the property has
existing roads with proper drainage, water and sewer, power,
telephone and the intent of the developer is to modify lot lines
and to reduce the existing number of lots. Mr. Earl also
questioned the application of the items contained in the Bureau
of Reclamation's correspondence.
The next person to offer public testimony was Tim Riley, 2223
Brookside Drive. Mr. Riley had a question regarding the
easements and setbacks on the property in question and the
relationship of the future development to his property. There
was brief discussion and explanation to Mr. Riley regarding
the front and rear yard orientation of the lots and that a 20
foot structural setback would be maintained.
Dennis stated that the question of drainage into the Dixie Drain
is between the developer and the Bureau of Reclamation. He
further stated that the Bureau af Reclamation has the right to
review the plat and to accept or re�ect water being drained off
the property into the Dixie Drain since the project is associated
5
. with a private st�et rather than a public st�et. However, they
, do not have jurisdiction to approve or disapprove a plat. That
authority rests with the Planning and Zoning Commission and the
City Council. Commissioner Ensley offered a modified version of
the Staff's suggested conditions concerning storm water run-off.
After further discussion Les Carter made a motion to approve the
preliminary plat subject to the terms and conditions offered by
Staff with the addition of a third condition to state that "The
� Bureau of Reclamation shall have the opportunity to review the
storm water run-off plan associated with the final plat." Tom
Ensley seconded the motion. A vote was taken and the motion
passed unanimously with Rita Earl abstaining from the vote.
Mary Higdem made a motion to approve the Special Use Permit
subject to the terms and conditions recommended by Staff. Tom
Ensley seconded the motion. A vote was taken and the motion
passed unanimously with Rita Earl abstaining from the vote.
The next item of business was a Special Use Permit to allow the
construction of a warehouse facility located on the southeast
� corner of Fourth Avenue and Arthur Street. Caxton Printers,
;;�� appl icant . •
�.a
Dennis explained ths request for the Special Use Permit to
construct a warehouse and additionally a request to reduce the
number of parking spaces from 28 to 0. Dennis distributed a
V revised site plan presented by the applicant that provided 6
parking spaces, a revised loading/unloading area and a revised
circulation system.
The first person to offer public testimony was James Gipson,
project Architect. Mr. Gipson stated that the applicant requests
a reduction in the number of parking spaces due to the fact that
there will be no additional employees for this facility and the
existing smployees will continue to park in the currently
provided spaces. He indicated that the applicant has revised the
site plan to include 6 parking spaces. Mr. Gipson also indicated
that the applicant has attempted to landscape the project to the
best interest of the neighborhood.
Dennis indicated that telephone correspondence had been received
by staff. Mr. Orville Collins indicated to Staff the he was in
support of this project as it has been designed and presented to
the Commission.
Because of the revised site plan, Dennis presented some changes
to the terms and conditions recommended by Staff as follows:
Item #3 - should indicate the extent of the parking space
-, reduction; Item #4 - could be deleted due to the revised site
plan presented; Item #5 - in connection with street improvements
should be revised to read "subject to the review and approval of
the City Engineer"; Item #5 - in regards to the landscaping -
Staff suggested that consideration be given to include the option
of using decorative "hardscape" material such as a gravel in
order to give the applicant some design flexibility.
6
� Mary Higdem sugges�d that phrasing be used s�h as landscaping
, shall be installed within the right-of-way and adjacent to the
bui2ding subject to the review and approval of the City Forester
and Planning and Zoning Director." After further discussion it
was determined to include the phrase "landscaping/hardscaping"
to allow the applicant the option to use other materials in
combination with plant material.
There was further discussion regarding the amount of parking
spaces required by the Code and the number of parking spaces
being provided by the applicant. Mary Higdem asked Staff if the
number of parking spaces currently being provided for staff ineets !
the Code requirement. Dennis indicated that there are '�
approximately b0 current employees and over 50 off-street parking ���
spaces provided at this time. Many of these spaces were within '�
300 feet of the proposed building which is considered within
close proximity for a shared parking arrangement. Dennis also
indicated that warehousing facilities, depending' upon their
operation, can be somewhat labor intensive or associated with few
employees. Some other city's parking codes recognize such
characteristics and have a parking requirement based, in part, on
the number of employees.
With no further discussion Tom Ensley made a motion to approve
the Special Use Permit subject to the revised terms and
conditions offered by Staff. Les Carter seconded the motion.
A vote was taken and the motion passed unanimously.
The next item on the agenda was the miscellaneous items presented
by Staff. The first item was an initiation of a Code Amendment
to Section 6-3-1 (D} (3) of the Caldwell Zoning Ordinance
pertaining to installation and maintenance of fences, walks and
hedges. Dennis stated that the objective is to work with City's
Building Official to review and possibly amend this section of
., the Code. George Banta made a motion for Staff to initiate a
review of this Code section. Les Carter seconded the motion. A
vote was taken and the motion passed unanimously.
The next miscellaneous item was a Comprehensive Plan update;
historic component subcommittee, transportation component
subcommittee and the formation of a downtown component
subcommittee. There was brief discussion regarding these
subcommittess and their progress. Dennis indicatsd that the
downtown component subcommittee is in the process of being
formed. A list of people contacted and willing to serve on this
subcammittee was distributed to the Commission for approval.
It was the consensus of the Commission to accept these people for
membership on this sub�ommittee. Rita Earl indicated that she
will be willing to serve on this subcommittee as a representative
of the Planning and Zoning Commission.
The next miscellaneous item was a report of the City Council
action. Dennis indicated that the appeal of the Variance
application from the Golden Rule Dealership for additional signs
has been continued to the next Council meeting in January.
7
' ..
Dennis also indic2!!'ed that the Counci 1 ini1.*5.ated a study to
,' review the Comprehensive Plan and Zoning designation for the
Holly/Anderson Street area, west of Payntsr Avenue.
Dennis briefly outlined the agenda for February 7th. Items
include: A Code amendment, a Variance and Special Use Permit for
the pump station on Missoula Way and a Special Use Permit
application for a day care facility on LaCresta Street.
With no further business the meeting ad�ourned at 9:20 p.m.
;
Respectfully submitted,
4
i
I
Sue Mullen,
Recording Secretary
�
�
a
Approved by,
Chuck Randolph, Chairman
�
�
n
S