HomeMy WebLinkAbout2-7-1991 P&Z MINUTES .;
� � �NNING AND ZONING CONIlyIISSI�
MINUTES
Meeting of February 7, 1991
Prasent: Chairman Chuck Randolph, Tom Page, Mary Higdem, Rita
Earl, and Tom Ensley.
Absent: Wanda Anthony, Les Carter and George Hanta
The February 7, 1991 raeeting of the Planning and Zoning
Commission was called to order by Chairman Chuck Randloph in the
City Council Chambers at 7:00 p.m.
The first item of business was the approval of the m�nutes of the
Planning and Zoning Commission meeting of January 17, 1991.
With no additions or correction being of€ered by the Commission
Mary Higdem made a motion to approve the minutes as distributed.
Rita Earl seconded the motion. A vote was taken and the motion
passed unanimously.
The next item discussed was the proposed agenda. Regarding items
A and B on the agenda, Chairman Randolph requested the consent of
the Commission to open the hearings and take testimony on these
items concurrently. There were no objec�ions from the Commission
since the two applications involved the same property and
different aspects of the same request.
The first of the public hearings involved a Variance and Special
Use Permit. The Variance request was to allow a 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 of 20 feet in connection with the
installation of a sewer pump station located generally at the
northwest corner of College Avenue and Missoula Way, City of
Caldwell, applicant. This item was continued from the January
17, 1991 regular meeting of the Planning and Zoning Commission.
Associated with the Variance was a Special Use Permit application
for the installation of a new sewer lift station on the subject
property to serve the Montana Manor residential area.
Dennis explained both the Variance request and the Special Use
Permit. Dennis stated that the proposed lift station would
replace an existing, obsolete sewer lift station located on the
opposite side of College Avenue.
Chairman Randolph questioned Mr. Crooks regarding the proper
notification for this item. Dennis stated that all property
owners within 300 feet of the subject property were notified.
Dennis further stated that there was no written communication
regarding this matter and one phone call had been received by
Staff inquiring about the specific location of the lift station. ,
1
� There was no publi�estimony offered regardin�these requests.
Chairman Randolph then offered time for questions from the
Commission to staff.
Mary Higdem asked Dennis to clarify on the prepared exhibit the
exact location of the lift station and what would happen with the
residual property. Dennis so indicated on the exhibit.
Mary asked Dennis if lot #3 on the exhibit would be retained by
the City. Dennis stated that the City had dsclared the remaining
portion of the two lots as excess and intended to sell them at
public auction in the near future.
Mary questioned Dennis regarding the height of the lift station
above the ground. Dennis stated that preliminary plans prepared
by the Engineering Department indicated the lift station to be
� constructed at a maximum 30" above grade. ��
Mary asked Dennis if the City intends to landscape the area
surrounding the lift station. Dennis stated that at the present
time there were no plans for landscaping but that the Commission
could address the issue of landscaping further in the terms and
conditions associated with the Special Use Permit.
Rita Earl questioned Dennis regarding the continuation of street
improvements on College Avenue. She asked Dennis if the setback
of the lift station was adequate to provide for future street
improvements on the proposed property. Dennis indicated that
although street improvements were not indicated on the submitted
site plan, the question of acquiring these types of improvements
as a term and condition of the special use permit was
appropriate.
Tom Page questioned Dennis regarding the street improvements
existing on College Avenue. Dennis stated that the property does
not have full street improvements such as curb, gutter and
sidewalk along its two frontages.
Rita Earl stated a concern regarding the maintenance of the two
residual lots with respect to weeds. Dennis stated that there
are existing code regulations that require any property owner to
maintain property free of weeds, debris, etc. Rita suggested
that this issue could also be addressed in the terms and
conditions imposed by the Commission.
There was further discussion among the Commission members
regarding the future curb, gutter and sidewalk improvements,
particularly to the north along College Avenue.
With no further discussion Tom Ensley made a motion to approve
the Variance. There was further discussion to clarify that the
intent of the motion was to include the possibility that the
final lot size and final construction plans may be amended to
place the lift station back from the street to allow for future
street improvements. Tom Page seconded the motion. A vote was
taken and the motion passed unanimously.
2
_ , _ _.._. �...
-,._.. .,._ . � . . ... _ _
, . . :. .. . : . _. . ��. , . . � : -. � ..,,.: - ,.-
_ _ _--- -�-- ---,.
.•=; -. . . . � .�:rg
• Tam Pag� made a m�on to approve the Specia�se Permit sub�ect
tv the terms and conditions suggested by staff with the addition
of a condition regarding street improvements, with specific
wording at the discretion of Staff to include a flexibility
provision concerning the timing of installation. Tom Ensley
seconded the motion. There was further discussion to include
in the terms and conditions language addressing maintenance of
the residual lots. With no further discussion a vote was taken
and the motion passed unanimously.
The next public hearing was a Special Use Permit application to
allow the operation of a child care facility on property located
at 717 N. LaCresta Avenue. Pam Silveria, applicant.
Dennis explained the location of the property and specific
characteristics associated with the property.
Tom Page asked Dennis if there had been any �communication
regarding this request. Dennis stated that he received one phone
call from a property owner in the vicinity who had expressed
concerns regarding an increase in traffic flow.
� Mary Higdem asked Dennis to clarify the access street to LaCresta
Drive. Dennis indicated on the exhibit provided that Jackson
Street is not an improved street at this time and that access to
LaCresta Drive and the subject property is from Lincoln Street.
The first person to offer public testimony was Pam Silveria,
applicant. Ms. Silveria stated that the parents of the
children use her driveway to turn around and do not use the dead—
end portion of the street or other driveways on the block for
turn—around purposes.
Chuck Randolph asked Ms. Silveria about her state licensing. Ms.
; Silveria stated that she was licensed for 12 children and has no
intention of increasing that number.
Mary Higdem asked Ms. Silveria about the staggering of arrivals
and departures of the children. Ms. Silveria stated that the
children are delivered between 7:00 a.m. and 10:30 a.m. and are
picked up between 3:00 p.m. to 6:00 p.m. and rarely is more than
one car in the driveway at once.
Rita Earl asked Ms. Silveria if she considered the area to have a
parking problem. Ms. Silveria stated that most cars park in
driveways and not on the street and she does not consider there
to be a parking problem of any kind.
Chuck Randolph asked Ms. Silveria if the children were of school
age. Ms. Silveria stated that all of the children are pre—
school age.
The next person to offer public testimony was Hally DeBroeck.
Ms. DeBroeck stated that her boyfriend resides at 823 LaCresta.
She stated that to her knowledge and in speaking to surrounding
neighbors, there had not been any traffic generation or parking
problems associated with Ms. Silveria's day care facility.
3
. . ti ._ ._ . .....-_.... _,.�. __ .�._, .
.
,. _ _ , _; _. .. . . . ,... . _ . ., .
. , , . ..:.. ..r ,:
_ . , ,.._ .:. � ,..
• The next person �offer public testimony w� Tammy Hahn. Ms.
Hahn stated that her child attends the day care facility in
question. She further stated that she has not experienced any
problems with traffic or parking while taking her child to Ms.
Silveria's residence.
The next person to offer public testimony was Mr. Robert Lamb,
718 N. LaCresta which is directly across the street from the '
,a property of Ms. Silveria. Mr. Lamb stated that he has not
�w experienced any problems with the day care facility and supports
the request for the Special Use Permit.
The next person to offer public testimony was Richard Spath. Mr.
Spath stated that his son attends the day care facility at Ms.
Silveria's and he supports Ms. Silveria being granted the Special
Use Permit.
The next person to offer public testimony was Linda Patterson,
711 N. LaCresta. Ms. Patterson stated that she felt a cul-d-sac
on the end of that street would serve no purpose in this
instance. Ms. Patterson further stated that Ms. Silveria
provides quality day care and urged the Commission to approve her
;; Special Use Permit.
The next person to offer public testimony was Dawn Jensen,
residing next door to Ms. Silveria. Ms, Jensen stated that she
has never had a problem with traffic or parking associated with
the day care facility. She stated that the cars coming and going
from Ms. Silveria's use her driveway and have never been a
problem.
With no other public testimony to be offered, Chairman Randolph
closed the public hearing and opened for questions and discussion
among the Commission.
r With no further discussion Tom Ensley made a motion to approve
the Special Use Permit subject to the terms and conditions
suggested by Staff. Tom Page seconded the motion. A vote was
taken and the motion passed unanimously.
The next public hearing was an amendment to Section 6-2-1, Table
3, of the Caldwell Zoning Ordinance, pertaining to the
construction and development of parking lots and to consid,er the
addition of surfacing and landscaping requirements. City of
Caldwell, applicant.
, Chairman Randolph stated the document presented to the Commission
for revisw is a preliminary document in order to begin the
process of refinement and to consider and mane any changes and/or
additions to the Ordinance. Preferably this item should be
continued to at least one more meeting of the Commission, and
possibly more, to give all those agencies and individuals who
have an interest in this Ordinance a chance to submit both
written and/or oral testimony.
Dennis briefly explained the purpose and intent of the proposed
code amendment pertaining to off-street parking facilities and
then provided an overview of the various code sections proposed
4
• for amendment or a�tion. .
The first person to offer public testimony was Rena Offutt,
Caldwell Chamber of Commerce. Ms. Offutt stated that the Chamber
of Commerce is generally supportive of the code amendment concept
and will be submitting a written position paper on this code
amendment. '�
�
Rita Earl asked Dennis if consideration had been taken to the
surfacing of off—street parking facilities in relationship to
residentially zoned properties. Dennis stated that Staff will
attempt to research and possibly re—word this section of the code
amendment to reflect such a consideration. Dennis further
stated that it was quite probable that a C-3 or M-1 zone and thus
a parking facility would abut residential property.
After further discussion it was the consensus of the Commission
to continue this hearing to the regular meeting on March 21, 1991
in order to allow ample opportunity and time for interested
individuals and groups to review the proposed amendment and
documents.
The next item of business was miscellaneous items. The first
item was a variance and special use permit criteria presented to
the Commission. Dennis briefly explained the difference between
the two types of applications and the background material that
was provided. Dennis indicated he would attempt to consolidate
the information into a simplified work sheet for the Commission
at a later date.
The next miscellaneous item was a report on City Council action.
Dennis reported that the City Council heard the appeal of the
Golden Rule Dealership regarding the signs for the new automotive
dealership. Dennis further stated that the Council approved
the appeal in part with a reworded condition requiring removal of
the two signs in question and the option to consolidate them into
one sign up to approximately 150 square feet.
Chairman Randloph then questioned Dennis about the appeal process
in general. There was additional discussion among the
Commissioner's about the need for Staff to accurately convey the
Commission's recommendations and/or action to the City Council.
Additionally, there was concern expressed with the perception
that Council public hearings somehow take on a different
character, due to a variety of factors, such as different
individuals giving testimony, modified or new testimony being
given and new issues surfacing at the meeting. The Gommission
agreed that it might be helpful in the future to discuss these
concerns at a joint Commission/Council meeting or workshop.
5
_ �, _. ... _ ... , _ ...,_. . _ .. , ...
�,�_ �. _ . . _ � ._ _ , . _�_. : -� - . .
. -. , _ ., -..._. .E . _>� .:,x.
, ,,
•• � The next item o�usiness was the propo� agenda for the
February 21st meeting of the Commission. Dennis briefly
outlined the items set for public hearing and other items that
may be on the next agenda.
After further discussion the raeeting was ad�ourned at 9:25 p.m.
,� Respectfully Submitted,
r;�
Sue Mullen, Recording Secretary
Approved by,
;,
Chuck Randolph, Chairman
6