Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout10-17-1991 P&Z MINUTES ,� • �ANNTNG AND ZONING COMMI�N , MINUTES Meeting of October 17, 1991 Pre�ent: Chairman Chuck Randolph, Rita Earl, Mary Hiqdem, Wanda Anthony, B�b C�rpenter and Carlcs Ferreira. Absent: Tom Ensley and George Banta ' The regular meeting of the Planning and Zoning Commission was called to order by Chairman Chuck Randolph at 7:15 p.m. in the City Hall Council Chambers. The first item of business was the approval of the minutes for the Planning and Zoning Commission meeting of September 19, 1991. With no changes or additions offered by Commission members, Rita Earl made a mation to accept the minutes as distributed. Wanda Anthony seconded the motion. A vote was taken and the motion passed unanimously. The first public hearing encompassed two parts. The first was a Comprehensive Plan land use designation of property undar consideration far annexation located at the southwest corner af Marshall Street and Ash Street. Also, a Zone Change from County R-1 to City of Caldwell R-1 (Single Family Resiclential) or other zaning classification deemed appropriate was considered for same property location. This property is contiguous to the City boundary on the south and east. Ron McConnell, applicant�. Dennis explained the request and location of the subJect property. Dennis stated that on October 7, 1991 the City Council accepted the application from the applicant for annexation of the subject property and directsd staff to begin the annexation process. Dennis further stated that state law and the City of Caldwell Zoning Ordinance mandates that prior to annexation of an unincorporated area the Council is to receive a recornmendation from the Planning and Zoning Commission regarding the proposed Plan designation and the proposed zoning district classification. Dennis indicated that this piece of property is contiguous to City boundaries and therafore qualifies far annexation. The subJect property consists of 10 acres and is currently predominantly vacant and baing used for agricultural purposes. The subject property currently has a City's Gomprehensive Plan designation af low density residential because it falls in the City's impact area. The property currently has a County zoning designation of R-1 (Low Density Residential) and the consideration for the Commission is to retain the Comprehensive Plan designation and to recommend a City R-1 zoning classification upon annexation. 1 " Th� first person � offer public testimony w� the applicant, Ron . McCannell, 16093 Marsin� Street, Caldwell. Mr. McConnell stated that the annexatian of this praperty, s}lould it be further �evelo�ed with a sub�ivision, would enhanG� the City and the subject property due ta the ability ta connect to City servic�s and higher standards af subdivision regulations. Mr, Mcconnell turther stated that it is not the intent to change the zoning of the property but move the same zoning classification from the County to the City. He further stated that future pl�ns include a two phase� project which would include 5 acres for each phase with a total of 18 residential building lot;s. He stated that all improvements and standards required by the City would be adhered to, such as landscaping, street improvements, and undergrnund utilities. He further stated that City sewer is not available to this property at this time and a septic tank system will be used until such time as Gity sewer is available. The next person to offer public testimony was Charlotte McLaughlin, 1103 W. Ash Street, Caldwell. Ms. McLaughlin stated that her property is to the west of the subject property. She further stated that she opposes the requests before the Cammission because she fears that septic tanks and drain fields may create problems, the traffic that those new residences will generate and the irrigation problems that may arise. The next person to offer public testimony was Craig Jeffs, 2323 Marshall, Caldwell . Mr. Jeffs stated that he is representing 14 home owners on Marshall Avenue and presented a petition signed by those residents. Mr. Marshall read the contents of the petition stating that the residents signing the petition are in opposition to the requests because Marshall Avenue is not adequately developed to support the development of the proposed subdivision. Some of the reasons _qiven for this opposition were: Marshall Avenue is a gravel street. Ash Street is relatively narrow and does not easily sustain a two way traffic flow, current regulations wauld only require paving of one-half of Marshall Avenue, the construction of new homes would significantly increase traffic on Marshall Avenue, particularly from the subdivision to Linden Street, and increased traffic flow would increase traffic dust along Marshall Street. The signed petition was presented to the Commission as part of the permanent record. The next person to offer public testimony was Jess Purcell, 2405 Marshall Street. Mr. Purcell stated that he also is opposed to the approval of the requests before the Commission because Marshall Street is unimproved. The residents have tried to maintain the street with some kind of dust deterrent but the additional traffic would cause an increase in the dust level. He stated that the pavin� of Marshall Avenue wauld eliminate this problem. 2 � The next persan t�vffer� public testirnony w� Brian Ruehl. 2123 , Marshall Avenue. Mr. Ruehl stated that he also owns property on ' Ash Street, directly across the street fram the subject property. He further stated that he has concerns regardinq the irrigation distribution in the area. Chairman Randolph asked Dennis to address the issue of the entire annexation process. Dennis stated that the decision for annexation of the property rests with the City Council, The role of the Planning and Zoning Commission is to forward a recommendation to the Council regarding a specific designation on the Comprehensive Plan and a specific zoning classification that would occur in the event the Council would elect to annex the property. Dennis further stated that this property could be developed under the Courity jurisdiction without annexation into the City. Dennis stated that a benefit the City would have in annexation of this property would be a higher devel.opment standard. Carlos asked Dennis if the City had any plans for improvements on Marshall Avenue. Dennis stated that the future of Marshall Avenue is uncertain but the residents have file a petition to investigate the possibility of an LID to facilitate street improvements an Marshall Avenue. Chairman Randolph asked Mr. McConnell to explain the developers' plans regarding septic tanks. Mr. McConnell stated that the permit process through Southwest District Health Department will be strictly adhered to and their inspection will be necessary to receive permission to develop this area. Chairman Randolph asked Mr. McGonnell to explain any future plans for irrigation to the subject property. Mr. McConnell stated that the subdivision will comply with any regulations regarding instaliation of an irrigation system. Chairman Randolph asked Mr. McConnell to explain any future street improvement plans in the area. Mr. McConnell stated that the intent of the developer is to make street improvements in accordance with subdivision regulations but cannot economically make additional street improvements beyond the subdivision limits. He also stated that he encourages the surrounding residents to continue the investigation of an LID in the area to enhance the neighborhood even further. Carlos asked Mr. McConnell what benefits the annexation would be to the proposed subdivision. Mr. McConnell stated that the main benefit to the future property owners in being annexed into the Gity would be the availability of City water at a lower cost to the property owner. Another benefit to the developer would be the ability to deal with just one agency as opposed to several agencies thraugh the development af the proJect. 3 " Wati�a Anth�ny as�;�f ��nnis why the City sewe�is not avai lable to � the su}��ect property. Dennis stated that the connection to City sewer is beinq cansiciered but there are some topographic constraints that prevent cannecting the property with the City sewer system. Chairman Randolph reCOgnized Mr. Jeffs to make further comment. He stated that the cost figures regarding a po,sible LID have not been returned from the City departments but the concern of the residents in that area is that an LID will be too expensive for the current property owners. There was no other public testimony offered. Bob Carpenter made a motion to recommend to the City Council a zone change from County R-1 to City R-1. Mary Higdem seconded the motion. Commission discussion ensued which raised the issue of the Comprehensive Plan designation which is ta precede the action on the recommended zone change. Hob Carpenter amended his motion to state the intent af the motion was that t}�e zone change be cantingent upon a r�ecommendatian and accept.ance of a plan designation of law density residential for the p.roperty. The seconder of the mot.ion agreeci with the change of the motion. A vote was taken and the motion passed una.nimously. Rita Earl abstaineci fram discussi�r� anci t.he voting process. Dennis stated that notification will be given tc� all surrouriding praperty owners of the scheciuled date before the City Council to c�ns i der the annexat i or�� . The next public hearing was a Zane Change from M-1AP (Light Industrial; Airport Overlay) to I—P; A—P (Industrial Park; Airport Overlay) for property located between Aviation Way on the north, Interstate 84 c�n the south and existing Caldwell City limits boundary on the east and west. City of Caldwell, applicant. Dannis explained the request and the location of the subject property. Dennis stated that the Airport Commission has forwarded a recommendation of Industrial Park Zoning for the subject property and it is consistent with tY�e land use component on the Comprehensive Plan. There was c�iscussion regarding the difference between the current zoning classification and the requested zoning classification. Dennis stated that Industrial Park zoning classification has more stringent development standards and is more appropriate along freeway corridors ar�d areas that have a high profile c�f visibility. 4 �. Carlos asked Denn� if this change in zoning�ill have any affect � in regards t� the proposed R/UDAT recommendation for a freeway interchange in that area. Dennis stated that this zoning �lassificdtion will nat affect that recommendatic�n should it be implemented in the future and further that I-P zoning would be cam��lementary t.a additic�n of an interchange in the area. There was no public testimony presented either in favor of or in appc�sition to this request. Dennis stated that there has been no correspondence received on this item. With no further discussion Wanda Anthany macie a motion to make a recarrunendation of approval to the City Council. Carlos seconded the motion. Rita Earl commented that she felt this change is in compliance with the Comprehensive Plan. A vote was taken and the motion passed unanimously. The next public hearinq was an amendment to the Calclwell Zoning Ordinance pertaining to the appeal process to City Council of a Planning and 2oning decision for special use permits and variance permits. City of Caldwell, applicant. Dennis explained that the City Council is in the process of adopting a"Contested Hearing Procedures Ordinance" which adopts uniforrn policies for handling appeals from various Commissions and organizations. The Ordinance, when adopted, will affect the 2oning Ordinance time frame for making an appeal to the City Council. The current �oning Ordinance gives the applicant five (5) days to file an appeal. The amendment will give the applicant fourteen (14) days to file an appeal, There was no public testimony offered either in favor of or in opposition to this amendment request. Rita Earl commented that she felt fourteen days afforded the applicant a reasonable length of time to do research and make a decision if they would like to appeal a decision. Rita made � motion to forward a recommendation of approval to the City Council. Mary Higdem seconded the motion. A vote w�s taken and the motion passed unanimously. The next item of business was the miscellaneous items on the agenda. The first miscellaneous item was a report on City Council action. Denni� reported that there have been several annexation requests presented to the City Council and those items will come before the Planning and Zoning Commission at future meetings. Dennis reported that the appeal by Ann Faulconer was denied by the City Council and the Planning and Zaning decision was upheld. There have been no follaw-up requests on that item. 5 . .� There was discus�an regarding an agenda � the Flanning and Zaniny workshop. It was the consensus of the Comrnission members to have a wc�rkshap on Navember 6, 1991 at Trolley Square from 12:00 noc�n to 5: 00 ��.rn. Lunch and afternoon sr�acks wi 11 be provided. Dennis autlined the tentative agenda for the Planning and Zoning Commission meeting of November 21, 1991. Dennis distributecl a letter to the Gommission members as an informational item on day care facilities. It was the consensus of the Comrnission members that this letter be distributed to the City Council for information. There was discussion regarding the need for more Commission workshops with various topics. With no further discussian the meeting was adjourned at 9:00 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Sue Mullen Recording Secretary Approved by, Chuck Randolph, Chairman 6