HomeMy WebLinkAbout6-13-1991 P&Z MINUTES J �
. ' • '
PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
MINUTES
Meeting of June 13, 1991
Present: Chairman Chuck Randoiph, Rita E�rl, Tom Ensley, and
Wanda Anthony.
Absent: Mary Higdem, George Banta, Tom Page and Las Carter.
The regular meeting of the Caldwell Planning and Zoning
Commission was called to order by Chairman Ghuck Randolph at 7:00
p.m. in the City Hall t;ouncil Chambers,
The first item of business was the approval of the minutes from
the regular meeting or the Planning and Zoning Commission of May
16, 199"l. With no corrections or additions offered by the
Commission members, Rita Earl made a motion to approve the
minutes as distributed. Wand� Anthony seconded the motion. A
vote was taken and the motion passed unanimousl_y. '
The first public hearing was a Special LTse Permit application to �,
ailow the construction of a two-family dwelling unit cn praper�y !,
located at the northeast rorner of Linden Street and Suns�t ',
Avenue. James Cannan, applicant.
Dennis Crooks, Planning and Zoning Director, explained the
request and the location of the sub�ect property.
The first person to offar public testimony was James Cannon, 2316
Airport, Caldwell, applicant. Mr. Cannon stated that this
facility will be owner occupied. Mr. Cannon stated that he feels
this project will be compatible with the surrounding area. Mr.
Cannon presented a letter of ��upport to the Commission that
exhibited signatures of property owners in the vicinity of
sub�ect property.
The next person to offar public testimony w�� Robert Vzrtx
2320 Sunset. Mr. Vertrees stated that he is in opposition to the
request because he purchased his home with the understanding that
it was zoned R-1 and strictly single family residential. Mr.
Vertrees further stated that he does not feel this pro�ect will
be compatible with the neighborhood and there would be additional
traffic generated with a multi-family dwelling.
The next person to offer public testimony was Keith Randall. Mr.
Randall stated that his pr�perty is directly across the street
from the subJect property. Mr. Randall also stated that he is in
e,ppdsition to the request.
Rita Earl asked Mr. Randall if he was aware of the zoning his
home is located in when he �urchased trie home. Mr. Randail
.= t' ,Z t,� ,�i 1- ?7 ,� t �1 n r,.�, c �;^ �,'� rml F? r3 ��'l a t i' h F? !l n IP P W� S i n 3._, ' rl �� P—* a rf17. ��/
residential zoninc� district and that there were no l�ts for
muiti-family d*aelling !�ni�s in the Sy?`✓an i`?c�nor subdivision.
,
. ! �
The next person to offer public testimony was Todd Marshall, 2326
Sunset. Mr. Marshall stated that he is also opposed to the
granting of this request. He stated that he purchased his home
with the assurance of the realtor that the zoning district was
single—family residential and there were no additional multi—
family dwelling units planned for the area. Mr. Marshall further
stated that he feels multi—family dwelling units change the
character of the neighborhood and generate more traffic.
The next person to offer public testimony was Tina Christensen.
Ms. Christensen stated that she lives directly across the street
from the subject property. She further stated that she purchased
her home in September of 1990 with the understanding that it was
zoned single family residential. She stated that she had
recently moved from an area with multi—family development in the
vicinity and her choice to move to a single—family residential
area was a deliberate decision.
The next person to offer public testimony was Gene Graves. Mr.
Graves identified himself as the original developer of the Sylvan
Manor subdivision and stated that he does not fe�? that a duplex
in this subdivision will be a detriment to surrounding
properties. He further stated that the existing duplex in the
subdivision is well maintained and th�t this dupl�x will also be
maintained in a manner that makes it compatible with the
surrounding neighborhood.
The next person to offer public testimony was Harold Marsh. Mr.
Marsh stated that his prc�perty is dix east of the subject
property. He further stated that the �ubJect property hzs been a
location for weeds and trash and he feels that a duplex on the
property will enhance the area and not be a detriment to the ,
neighborhood. ',
Ghairman Randalph recognized Tina Christensen to return for I
public testimony. Ms. Christensen stated that she did not I
receive notification of the public nearing. She further stated
that she feels a duplex lowers the value of surrounding property
and generates more traffic.
Dennis stated that all property owners within 300 feet of the
subject proper�ty were notified by mail of the public hearing.
The next person to offer public testimony was Mrs. Marsh. Mrs.
Marsh stated that she has not experienced a problem with the
residents in the existing duplex and feels that this duplex will
not be a detriment to the neighborhood.
Wanda Anthony asked Mrs. Marsh if she received notification of
the public hearing. Mrs. Marsh indicated that she did receive
public hearing notific�tion.
�
,
I
.� !
' � •
The next person to offer public testimony was Jaine Demond, 2323
Sylvan. Ms. Demond stated that she received notificatioc� of the
public hearing and also stated that the lot in question was
posted for public hearing. Ms. Demon� stated that she is opposed
to the request because she purchased her property with the
intention of living in a residential area that did not contain
multi—family dwellings.
T'he next person to offer public testimony was Kathy Bird, 2408
Sunset. Ms. Bird stated that she has lived in her residence for
1 1/2 �ears and that she is opposed to the granting of the
special use permit.
Chairman Randolph recognized Mr. Cannon, the applicant, to return
for further rebuttal testimony. Mr. Cannon stated that the
reason the facility is being proposed as a three bedroom is
because the rentai unit would be approximately $600 to $650 a
month. Mr. Carinon stated that he intends to maintain the ground
himselt at all times.
Rita Earl asked Mr. Cannon if the site plans could be revised to
indicate one residence facing one street and one residence facing
the other street to give the appearance of maintaining a single
fami?y residential neighborhood. Mr. Cannon stated that he is
willing to redesign the structure in that manner.
Chairman Randolph referred to the petition presented by Mr.
Cannon and asked him where the signatories of the petition lived
in relation to the subject property. Mr. Cannon stated that
approximately S to 10 are in the immediate area with the
remainder in Sylvan Manor Subdivision.
The next person to offer public testimony was Wanda Isom, 2404
Sunset. Ms. Isom stated that she is opposed to the granting vf
this special use permit. She further stated that her neighbors
livinq on the same block have presented public testimony in
opposition to the request. She questioned the c�rigin oi the
signatures that were gathered on the petition submitted by Mr.
Cannon.
Chairman Randolph closed the public hearing and asked the
Planning and Zoning Director if there was any additional input on
the item.
Dennis stated that there was no other correspondence received c�n
this request.
Tom Ensley began Commission �iscussion by stating that a duplex
is identified as a special use in the zoning Ordinance and that
in ordex to grant a special use, the Commission must find that
the proposal conforms to the Comprehensive Plan. The increased
rlensity associated with the project exceeded residential density
standards provided for a Low Density Residential neighborhood in
the Plan.
'� �. r C � Cl r� 1 d 1'. :'J .; t'..�, t. N r_i r i-� d r �::_ ���' �J. :`�� rl �_-� i_ _' i,i t' � r_' Y` �: 1 E' . r r� �.: i i1 i _: �i F'- .
permit request since *he project does not com�ply with the City or
Caidwell's C�mprei�ensive Pian. 3
., , • •
Rita Earl asked Dennis if the lot in question could be subdivided '�
or if there were any other options that the developer could 'i
consider on that property. Dennis stated that if the lot was
subdivided the lots would be non-conforming in size. Dennis
further stated that an option for the developer to consider is a
single family, detached residence.
With no further discussion Tom Ensley made a motion to deny the
request for a special use permit. Wanda Anthony seconded the
motion. A vote was taken and the motion passed unanimously.
� Chairman Randolph advised Mr. Cannon of his right to appeal the
decision of the Planning and Zoning Commission to the City
Council.
The next public hearing was a special use permit to allow the
placement of a car impound and storage facility on t�he southeast
corner of 10th and Albany Streets. Canyon County, applicant.
Dennis stated that Canyon County has requested that this item be
continued to the next regular meeting of the Planning and Zoning
Commission on July 18, 1991.
With no further discussion it was the consensus of the Commission
that this item be continued to the next regular meeting.
The next public hearing was an amendment to Section 6-1-4 (G) of
the Caldwell Zoning Urdinance regarding the deletion or
moc�ification of the maximum residential setback from any right-
of-way line of fifty-five t55) feet. City of Caldwell,
applicant.
Dennis explained the request stating that the purpose of the
amendment is tc� evaluate the current residential setback of
fifty-five (55) feet. He further stated that the two main
abjectives of this section of the Ordinance are for providing
emergency vehicle access and utility service.
The first person to offer public testimony was Harlan Dil�ey,
Fire i�Iarshall for the Gity of Caldwell. Mr. Dillef stated that
the draft Ordinance prepared was a joint effort with the Fire
Department and the P?anning and Zoning staff and tne language
used wi11 enable provisions or requirements for adequate
emergency vehicle access if � setback larger than fifty-rive (55)
feet is requested from a developer.
Rita Earl asked Dennis if the requests for a setback greater than
fifty-five (55} feet is usual on larger lots. Dennis stated that
the larger lots have the capacity of a greater setback and many
times wish to create a circular drive area, park like setting, or
comparable features. He stated that without amending the
Ordinance it would be necessary for prospective developers to
request a Vari�nce. Under the Variance regulations applicants
would need to prove hardship to enable a setback in excess of 55
fEet from the str�et. RathPr than encourage variances of this
type which are time consuminq and may be difficult to j��.stify, it
would seem more aopropriate t� re-evaluate the specific
� i �1 _:L�i�_ .
n
Y
. . • •
Rita Earl dsked Dennis if there were specific standards in
regards to the �riveway.
Dennis stated that it would be necessary to widen the driveway to
approximately twenty (20} feet to allow emergency vehicle access.
Chairman Randolph asked Dennis what the notification procedure �,
was for this item. I
Dennis stated that no p�rticular property owners were notified.
However, notice of the public hearing was published in the local
newspaper on two separate occasions.
Tom Ensley made a motion to recommend approval of the amendment
using option #4 to the City Council. Rita Earl seconded the
motion. A vote was taken and the motion passed unanimously.
The next public hearing was a variance application to allow a
waiver �f the City's Subdivision Ordinance and the 400 foot
maximum cul-de-sac length and to permit a 600 foot long cul-de-
sac in connection with a request for a preliminary plat. Art
Solis, applicant.
Dennis explained the request and l�cation or tne subject
property. Dennis stated that this item was coniinued from the
Planning and Zoning Commission meeting of May 16, 1991. The
continuance was Qranted to allow the applicant additional time to
tile a Variance request addressing the length of the cul-de-sac
an� also to receive input rrom the School District and Parks and
Recreation concerning the location of the pedestrian access and
greenbelt plan.
The first person to affer public testimony was Art Solis, 1717
Linden, applicant. Mr. Solis stated that in working with
Planning and Zoning, Engineering and the Fire Department, he
teels that the �reliminary plat proposed ad�resses all the issues
that were �f concern �t the last meeting of the Commission.
Rita Earl asked Mr. Solis if there was an intention of puttinq in
another road to the east for access to adjoining property. Mr.
Solis stated that there was no an additional road planne� other
than the �ne indicated on the plat presented for Commission
review.
Rita Earl asked Mr. Solis to explain the concept of the
pedestrian/greenbelt planned. Mr. Solis presented a letter from
the School District indicating their intent to accept development
of the greenbelt area on the school side of the drain.
Rita Earl asked Mr. Solis why this Variance should be granted
when plans have previously been submitted for this piece of
property that did not require a Variance. Mr. Solis stated that
the other pr�eliminary plans submitted created difficuities that
made the project financially more expensive. Also the vther
preliminary plats submitted had very unusual lots sizes.
5
. ' • •
The next person to offer public testimony was Jeff Jensen. Mr.
Jensen stated that he feels this preliminary plat is the most
efficient and economical use of the property. Mr. Jensen stated
that the increased size of the turn—around area at the end of the
cul—de—sac justifies the increased total length of the cul—de—
sac.
The next person to offer public testimony was Harlan Dilley,
Assistant Fire Chief of the Caldwell Fire Department. Mr.
Dilley stated that the project in question has met requirements
for emergency vehicle access.
Ritd Earl asked Dennis if the property owners to the west and
south of the sub�ect property were notified of the re—design of
the plat to require a Variance. Dennis stated that all adjacent
property owners were notified by mail of the public hearing but
that there was n� contact with �ny of these property:owners.
Rita Earl made a motion to recommend to the City Council approval
of tne Variance , based on the unusual shape and size of the
property, subject to the terms and conditions offered by Stdff.
Tom Ensley seconded the motion. A vote was taken and the motion
passed unanimously.
The next item o" business was a preliminary plat involving re—
design of Willowbrook Estates Subdivision. Art Solis, applicant.
Dennis stated that the issues and concerns discussed at the
previous meeting ot the Commission have been addressed by the
applic�nt and are reflected in the Terms and Conditions offered
by Staff. Dennis further stated that Pioneer Irrigation District
has responded in correspondence and the issues of irriaation
water delivery have been satisfied by the applicant. Contact
with Idaho Power was made and all utilities to the subdivision
are planned to be under_qround.
Tom Ensley asked if the applicant was in agreement wit.h the terms
and conditions offered by Staft. Art Solis stated that they are
in agreement with all of the terms and conditions.
Tom Ensley made a motion t� approve the preliminary plat sub�ect
to the terms and conditions atfered by Staff. Wanda seconded the
motion.
Rita Earl asked whose responsibility it would be to keep the
Dixie Drain free of weeds and debris. Dennis stated tnat Pioneer
Irrigation District would be responsible for the Drain
maintenance. He further stated that there will be a joint
effort involving the Pioneer Irrigation District, the City of
Caldwell and the developer to clean out the Drain prior to
completion of the subdivision. After that initial cleaning the
Pioneer Irrigation District will be responsible for maintaining
the Drain.
Rita Earl asked Dennis if fencing along the Dixie Drain was
discussed with the developer. Dennis stated that the issue of
fencing will be C�1SGL1SSPd and determined between the applicant
dl':r + �U2"'�dU .. � t'�' � dl;:d± i�_ .
5
. �� � !
Rita Earl asked Mr. Solis if he was going to participate in the
greer.belt/pathway development on the Caldwell School District's
side or the Dixie Drain. Mr. Solis stated that they are going to
install sidewalks on both sides of the greenbelt area and a
bridge to cross the Drain.
There *�as further discussion in regards to the development of the
greenbelt/pedestrian way along Dixie Drain and where the
financi�l responsibility will fall.
Chairman Randolph asked Dennis if a 2_year time limit imposed on
the c�evelaper tv insurE the greenbelt area was completed was
appropriate. Dennis stated that the developer is required to
bond for the improvements and execute a development agreement
with the City. If for some reason the developer is unable to
se11 the property the subdivision could be dissolved and the
bonds released.
With no further discussion a vote was taken and the motion passed
unanimously.
The next item of business was a preliminary plat involving
property located on the south side of West Ash Street at the
intersection of Ash Stre�t and Sunset Drive (Sunnburst '
Subdivision). Gene Graves, applicant.
Dennis explained the request and the location of the sub�ect �
property. Dennis stated tnat the property is approximately 2 I
acres and the proposal seeks to subdivide the property into
approximately 8 residentia� lots.
Rita Earl stated that she is abstainincx from discussion and the l
voting process on this item. '
Chairman Randolph asked Dennis if the site plan had been I
presented for review by the City Street Department. Dennis ',
stated that the Street Department and the City Engineer have ;
reviewed and approved the site plan. '�
Chairman Randolph asked ilennis if there were any issues invc�lvinq I I
the drain located adjacent to this property. I7ennis stated that �
the agencies affected by this project have been notified and the ;
applicant is working with them to complzte the project to their
satisfaction.
T�m Ensley made a motion to approve the preliminary plat subject
to the terms and conditions recommended by.Staff. Wanda Anthony
seconded the motion. A vote was taKen and the motion passed
unanimously with Rita Earl abstaining frc�m the voting process.
The next item of business w3s a report on City Council action.
Dennis reported that the City Counci? approved the Comprehensive
Plan amendment and the Zone Change for property at the southeast
corner or Lake and Ustick Road. Also the City Council had the
7
.• � . � �
second public hearing on the parking amendment involving
landscaping and surfacing requiraments. The Council passed the
first reading of the Ordinance. The second readin_q of the
Ordinance will be held on June 17, 1991 and the third reading on
July 1.
The next item of business was the tentative agenda for the
Planning and Zoning Commission meeting on July 18, 1991. Dennis
briefly outlined the tentative items scheduled for the July
meeting.
With no furthar businsss the meeting was adJourned at 9:30 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Su� Mullen,
Recording Secretary ,
Approved by,
Chuck Randolph,
Chairm�n
�