HomeMy WebLinkAbout12-19-1991 P&Z MINUTES �
^ . �
�LA��tNING Al'Vti� ��I�I�tG Ct�I�iI�IISS�ON
Mll�t�1�S
i�✓ieeting of Dec�mber 19, 199�
Present Chairman Chuck Randolph, Wanda Anthony, Rita Earl, Tom Ensley, Mary
Higdem, and Carlos Ferreira.
Absent George Banta
The meeting was called to order by Chairman Chuck Randolph at 7:15 p.m. in the City Hall
Council Chambers.
Auuroval of Minutes
The first item of business was the approval of the minutes of the regular meeting of the
Planning and Zoning Commission of November 21, 1991. With no additions or corrections
being offered by Commission members, Rita Earl made a motion to approve the minutes
as distributed. Wanda Anthony seconded the motion. A vote was taken and the motion ,
passed unanimously. '
Membership I
The next item of business involved the membership of the Planning and Zoning Commission.
It was agreed to recommend to Council the reappointment of Commissioners Rita Earl, �
Tom Ensley and Mary Higdem and request recommendation for replacement of George . 1
Banta and Bob Carpenter.
Public Hearing - Special Use Permit - 3701 Lake Avenue
The first public hearing on the agenda involved an application for a Special Use Permit to
allow the operation of a Drive-in Movie Theater on property located at the intersection of
Lake Avenue and Ustick Road (3701 Lake Avenue). Dave Cornwell, applicant.
Liz e�lained the request and location of the subject property. She stated that this request
for a Special Use Permit was brought to the attention of the Planning and Zoning
Department when the theater reopened during the summer. In researching the operation
of the theater it was discovered that the use had in fact lapsed for more than two years, and
therefore according to the Caldwell Zoning Ordinance the use has to be approved by Special
Use Permit. The land is currently zoned C-3 (Community Commercial) and a drive-in movie
theater is considered a Special Use in the C-3 zone.
1
„ • �
Dave Cornwell, applicant, of 1021 Teton, Caldwell, then addressed the Commission,
referring to his letter of application, and asked for any questions.
Rita Earl asked Mr. Cornwell what renovation plans he might have for the site. 1�1r.
Cornwell stated it was his intention to continually upgrade the facility, ultimately changing
over to the bigger screen near the entrance, which faces the east, and making associated
repairs to that equipment. Currently, movies are projected onto the screen which sits along
Ustick Road. He further e�lained that he is the lessor of the property, and that although
he is not planning to use all three screens, he is not intending to dismantle those not in use.
Rita then asked about fencing of the facility. The applicant stated that some si�c foot cedar
fencing was installed to eliminate light interference to the theater from surrounding
properties and traffic on the east and south boundary of the theater site and this would
continue to be upgraded. The site had originally been fenced but over the years had been
vandalized or fallen into disrepair. Mr. Cornwell indicated on the site plan the area that his
operation intended eventually to fence. This would not mean the whole property would be
fenced but mainly the area used by the theater operation, which would assist the owner in
making suitable use of the remaining land portion.
Rita then asked the applicant about security lighting at the entrance. He responded that
there are four floodlights which flood the field, in addition to entrance lights at the box
office area. There is no other perimeter lighting in the area.
Carlos Ferreira e�cpressed concern about traffic ingress and egress and its effect on the I
sunounding neighborhood. The applicant said that there have been no accidents at this
location related to the theater operation and traffic does not appear to be a problem. In
response to a further question, Mr. Comwell stated that the facility is geared to hold
between 175 and 200 vehicles, and the theater will generally operate from 10:00 p.m. to 2:00 -
a.m.-2:30 a.m. four nights a week, depending on daylight situation, increasing the nights to
seven during the long summer days. He further commented that he has a similar facility in
Parma and vehicles take approximately five minutes in total to clear the site.
Carlos then referred to a need for landscaping the outside of the facility and the applicant
agreed to provide fencing, lighting and landscape plans to the Planning and Zoning
Department within sixty days.
Rita Earl then queried the rating of the movies to be exhibited. The applicant said only
"family oriented”, i.e. "PG", "PG13" and some "R" rated movies will be shown, but not movies
rated "NC17", and in response to a question from Chuck Randolph would agree to such a
rating limitation being included in the conditional use.
2
„ • �
Rita raised the question of security for crowd control or other disturbances. �1r. Cornwell
said there has never been a reason for such security but if it appeared there was, then off-
duty deputy sheriffs would be hired. Rita went on to ask about signage advertising the
theater. The applicant stated that they plan to put small signs on the premises and that a
site has been leased at the corner opposite Blackers to advertise the facility, on county zoned
land.
Mary Higdem referred to the possible limit of a five year term for the pernut and questioned
whether this would be a problem considering the applicant's 10 year property lease. The
applicant did not see any problem with this.
Carlos raised the possibility of the development directly to the south and how much of a
buffer the proposed commercial portion of that development would be. Staff clarified that
a portion of the property on the comer of Lake Avenue and Ustick Road is zoned C-3 and
the remainder of the Ustick Road frontage is zoned R-3.
In response to a query from Chuck Randolph, Gary Sorensen, previous theater operator,
then offered testimony in support of the theater. He stated that traffic had never been a
problem and that the entrance was moved to its present location after consultation with the
City Engineer. ,
The public hearing was then closed. �
The owner of the property, Alice Estrada Crofts, was invited to the podium to comment on I �
future plans for the whole property but particularly the area outside the proposed fenced
area for the theater. Ms. Crofts said at this time there are no plans to change the use. She
operates a swap meet on the property during the downtown of the theater and there has
been very little demand for other uses for the property. `
Rita asked Ms. Crofts if there had been any discussion with the Engineering Department
concerning street improvements. There had not. Carlos asked the owner if she would be
prepared to cooperate with an LID if necessary in the future and she agreed that she would.
There was discussion among Commission members concerning long term plans for Lake
Avenue and Ustick Road, including road design and improvements.
Chuck asked Liz what fencing design, if any, was requested in the 1982 application. Liz
quoted from the file, indicating there was no fencing requirement at that time.
I
In response to a request from Carlos, Teri explained the procedure for LIDs. i
I
i
�'�
I
3
.. � •
Tom Ensley confirmed with Liz that there are currentiv no street design plans for Ustick I
Road at this time and that plans for a Ustic.{ Road freeway interchange is in the very early
stages.
Carlos made a motion to approve the Special Use Permit with condition #1, #2, #3 in
addition to an agreement by the property owner to cooperate with an LID for street '
improvements, and adding item #4 that approval be granted subject to applicant submitting '
landscape, and access plans to the drive-in within sixty (60) days. Tom seconded the motion.
Rita referred to condition #3 that the City Engineer should provide input on plans for
Ustick Road. There was considerable discussion among the commissioners over the
requirement for an agreement to provide street improvements, particularly when it is difficult
to estimate costs so far ahead of improvement date. Teri confirmed that there is a standard
letter of intent to guarantee such improvements.
Chuck clarified the wording of the motion. Namely, item #1 which is for a five year period,
item #2 which is that the Special Use Permit would be evaluated on an annual basis to
determine impact on sunounding properties, item #3 that the owner would sign an
agreement with the City not to oppose improvements for curb, gutter and sidewalk when
that becomes appropriate for that piece of property. Item #4 that landscape and entrance
ingress and egress site plan be submitted for staff's approval within 60 days.
Rita asked for clarification of the requirements for street improvements for the Hickman
Subdivision since this does impact the Ustick Road area of the subject property. It was
submitted that the Subdivision developer had agreed to improve the area along Ustick Road
as the development is constructed.
At this point the motion did not pass. Chuck asked for further discussion. Rita said she did `
not disapprove the Special Use Permit but is concerned about item #3 and would like to
see some wording to protect the city but still allow the Permit.
Mary made the point that one of the conditions of the pernut is that it is issued for five
years, at which point the applicant would reapply, and then the issue of street improvements
etc could be more effectively addressed. Item #3 should, therefore, be eliminated. The
Chairman, in response to a question from Rita, made the point that if during annual review
of the permit it was found necessary to address street improvements, the Planning and
Zoning staff could deal with it at that time.
Carlos made a motion to approve the permit subject to the following terms and conditions:
Item #1 - The Special Use Permit is approved for a period of five years, at which time
local improvements, changing neighborhoods and immediacy of freeway
interchange could further be evaluated. A new application would have to be i
filed at that time.
4
'. • .
Item #Z - The Special Use Permit is evaluated on an annual basis to determine its
impact on the surrounding properties, including need tor sidewalks, curb,
gutter and street improvements.
Item #3 - The applicant will provide the Planning and Zoning Department for their
approval, within 60 days, with a complete site plan outlinin� proposed
landscaping, fencing, lighting and traffic ingress and egress.
Item #4 - The applicant agrees, as stated in his application, to limit the availability of
movies to family oriented movies, and exclude the provision of NG17 movies.
The motion was seconded by Wanda Anthony and passed unanimously.
Public Hearing - Special Use Permit - 2404 Rav Avenue
The next item of business on the agenda was an application for a Special Use Permit to
operate a child care facility in an R-1 zone at 2404 Ray Avenue. Sherri Ballard, applicant.
Liz outlined the reasons for the application, that the applicant is in process of purchasing
this property contingent on a child care Special Use Permit being issued, that the area is
zoned Low Density Residential and that a child care facility requires a Special Use Permit
in an R-1 zone.
i
Mary Higdem recalled the meeting and proposed ordinance discussed by the Commission I I
in the fall of 1991 which had been forwarded to Council, which would limit child care
facilities caring for more than 6 children to be located outside of R-1 zones. Chuck
reminded Commissioners that this ordinance was tabled until the update of the
Comprehensive Plan was finalized.
Ms. Ballard, applicant, of 1920 S. Montana, addressed the Commission outlining her reasons
for her application.
Rita Earl questioned the parking spaces available to parents and disagreed with the
projected four driveway spaces. The applicant responded that the time involved in picking
up or dropping off a child is around three minutes and therefore parking is not seen as a
problem at all. Rita then queried projected improvements. Fencing will be installed in the
back yard to provide security and a noise barrier. Rita felt a sidewalk might be advisable
in order for children not to be discharged into the street. The applicant plans to have the
children discharge into the driveway and enter the house through the carport, but if it
appeared to be necessary consideration would be �iven to construction of a sidewalk.
Carlos then commented that if the house is large enough for a day care would it have a
positive impact on the neighborhood. The applicant felt that with a new subdivision going
in, plus the ongoing lack of day care facilities in Caldwell, and the proximity of schools, it
would be a very positive contribution to the neighborhood.
5
'` � •
Chuck questioned the applicant concerning number of children. She was unable to give a
definite figure since she has not yet established a clientele. She is projecting nine (9) a day
on average. Mary asked if there were other day care facilities in that neighborhood and it
was stated that as far as is known the nearest one is on Willow, an R-2 zone. Carlos asked
if the applicant had researched other zones and was informed that she has looked all over
Caldwell and really likes the subject property.
The ne� person to offer testimony was Jean Lujack, 2418 Ray. Ms. Lujack stated that she
resides on the neighboring property to the south, and pointed out on the plat the types of
property surrounding the subject. She also commented that several neighbors advised her
that they had not been informed of the hearing. She felt that the proposed day care had '
an immediate impact on Ray but there was also some impact on Linden. She presented a '
petition of 32 signatures from the neighborhood showing 96% opposition to the proposed
facility, which was attached to the record as F.�chibit "A".
Ms. Lujack continued with her testimony stating that as a parent and grandparent she is
aware of the importance of child care, but that as a realtor she is also aware of the
uniqueness of this area, the relatively low turnover of ownerships (2 in five years), the fact
that many of the residents are retired and/or elderly and that the R-1 zone is simply not
suitable for child care facilities. The property has irrigation ditches, water boxes, barbed
wire fences, large animals and neighboring swimming pools. She asked the Commission to
deny the request, taking into consideration the strong opposition.
Rita Earl then asked her for an opinion as to the impact on the sale price of a property
based on the neighborhood. Ms. Lujack reported that an early question always asked is who
or what is next door. She felt that there are many properties in Caldwell suitable for day
care facilities.
.
Carlos then asked what the legal requirement is regarding the ratio of children to caregiver.
Karen Taylor, a day care provider, approached the podium and informed the commissioners
that currently the state has mandatory licensing which requires one caregiver for twelve
children, regardless of age of children. Cunently, a study is being undertaken on the whole
issue of day care licensing which is attempting to tighten this ratio but the report has not yet
been produced.
Bev Larsen, 2403 S.lOth, approached the podium. She agreed with the testimony of Ms.
Lujack and added that she sees no need for such a facility, even with the new subdivision.
She felt very strongly that the open ditches and pools in the area presented a real danger
to children and an intrusion to the residents of the neiQhborhood and asked the Commission
to deny the request. V
6
�I
, .. s •
Jim Taylor, 2�1� Ray, then came to the podium. He also presented testimony against the
permit citing the Zoning Ordinance 6-1-4(a) that the facility would neither preserve nor
enhance the neighborhood. He felt that a day care facility is a commercial establishment
which would cause traffic problems, in addition to the danger to the children from the pools
and ditches. As an insurance person he felt pool owners would have to pay increased
premiums if such a facility were permitted. He added that a 93-year old man livin� on his
property had signed the petition and should be allowed to enjoy his property in peace. Mr.
Taylor also quoted from the Home Occupation definition that an occupation cannot take
up more than one fourth the total area of a house, and therefore a child care facility could
not be included in this category. He requested that the Commission deny the request.
The next person to offer testimony was Karen Taylor, of Pat Lane which is in Canyon
County jurisdiction. Ms. Taylor stated that she has been a day care provider for thirteen
years and that day care providers are fighting a stigma of being poor neighbors. She stated
that everyone agrees day care is a necessity but no-one wants them in their locale. She felt
that day care providers are as professional as realtors and able to control children. In
response to a question from Chuck Randolph, Ms. Taylor said that 12 children may come
and go during a day at her facility but are not generally there the whole time. She added
that since the school rezoning day care provision in certain locations had become a problem
because of schooi bus routes. Ms. Ballard had been coming to see her about starting a day
care facility since July and seemed very well prepared.
Sara Denney, 605 E. Linden, then came to the podium. She stated that her rear property
line meets the subject property's pasture. She felt that such a facility would cause traffic
problems, particularly on Linden which is already heavily burdened and often backs up to
Robert Avenue and Bushnell Street. She questioned the number of children projected and
whether or not this number included Ms. Ballard's children. She added that there is a dance
studio operating on Linden which generates a lot of traffic and a child care facility would just •
bring more traffic. She asked the Commission to deny the request.
Sharon Kelly, 622 E. Linden, was the next person to give testimony. She cited the traffic
problem on Linden, the traffic caused by the dance studio and the long traffic lines making
it difficult to exit her own property to get onto Linden. She felt that the integrity of the R-1
zone was important and she requested the Commission deny the request.
The public hearing section was then closed. Ms. Ballard responded to some of the
questions: the property has a large pasture area that the children would not be permitted
to play in. The children would not be outside much at all. The back yard would not be
tlood irrigated. Children do not make much noise, compared to animals. There are
alternative routes to the property such as Ash Street and Bushnell Drive which would avoid
using Linden. In addition, all property gates would have childproof locks which would be
secured at all times.
7
. . • , ' . .
Carlos asked the applicant how many children she anticipated at any one time, but she said
this is hard to predict. Rita then said if ten was made a stipulation would this be difficult
to abide by. The applicant felt she could live with this. She does not plan on taking more
than one infant at any one time.
Carlos asked if the state regulation regarding the number of children included the children
of the caregiver and was advised that the number did not include caregiver's children or any
children related by blood. Ms. Ballard then asked if her realtor who had arrived late could
testify on her behal£ The Commission agreed.
Sheryl McNab, 1126 E.Lewis Lane, Nampa, approached the podium. She stated that as a
realtor she is not permitted by law to discriminate against anyone because of race, sex or
religion, or because of the number of children a person might have or the age of the
children, or because of any home occupation a person nught be involved in. She also
questioned the safety aspect of pools and stated that security of pools is an owner liability
and not the neighboring properry.
Chuck Randolph asked Ms McNab about the impact of day care facilities on property
values. Ms McNab responded that she felt there was no adverse impact, that it was up to
the realtor to make the sale. Wanda supported this.
Mary confirmed that a facility caring for five or less children did not require a permit to
operate. Chuck added that we only assess situations which are requesting permission to care I
for six or more children. �
Tom Ensley then moved that in light of the near unanimous testimony in opposition to the
facility and the inappropriateness of the R-1 zone the permit be denied. Mary Higdem
seconded the motion. �
Carlos added that he was concerned about the ratio of caregiver to children, the safety of
children, traffic problems, that in essence a day care facility is a commercial facility from
6:30am to 6:OOpm, that there are other suitable facilities in Caldwell, that we need to
maintain the integrity of the R-1 zone, and that there is overwhelming opposition from the
neighborhood, at a time when the Commission is attempting to bring harmony to Caldwell.
Rita added that these are difficult issues but that neighbors do have a right to enjoy their
property. Quoting from the Caldwell Zoning Ordinance, "The purpose of the R-1 (Single-
Family Residential) Zone is to have land area set aside by zoning procedures and in
accordance with the Comprehensive Plan to preserve and enhance predominantly single-
family living areas at a low density standard...", she further stated that introducing a
commercial use goes against the intent of the ordinance. There is a need to protect the
integrity of R-1 zones.
8
..� • i
With no further discussion Chuc.� asked for a vote on the motion, which was unanimously
supported to deny the request for a Special Use Permit.
Chuck then advised the applicant of their right to appeal within 15 days and that they would
receive a copy of the Findings of the Commission within the next few days.
Mary added that as a Commission they are not opposed to day care facilities, but that they
are not appropriate in R-1 zones and there are other areas of town where they are more
appropriate.
Miscellaneous
The ne�ct item of business was miscellaneous items on the agenda.
The first miscellaneous item was a report on City Council action. Liz reported that City ,
Council had the second reading of Bill No. 39 pertaining to a zone change for property
located at the airport between Aviation Way on the North, I-84 on the South and the City
limits on the East and West, and the second reading of Bill No.40 regarding proposed
amendment to Section 6-4-4 (G&H) and Section 6-4-5 (E&F) of the Zoning Ordinance
regarding appeal process.
Council also held public hearings concerning the annexation and zone change for the
Wampler property on lOth Avenue, and the annexation and zone change for the McDonnell
property at Marshall and Ash.
Tentative A�enda
The ne�ct miscellaneous item was the tentative agenda for January 16, 1992. Liz briefly
outlined the applications that have been received by Staff for the next regular meeting. Liz -
stated that there are other items tentatively scheduled for the next meeting but those
applications have not been received at this time. In view of these anticipated items it was
decided to hold a second meeting on January 30, 1992.
' With no further business the meeting was adjourned at 10:25 p.m.
Respectfully, Approved by,
,�, � y�,�
� �
� �
Liz Yeary, -" Chuck Randolph,
Recording Secretary Chairman
9