Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout3-4-1993 P&Z MINUTES . � 0 PLANNIIVG AND ZONING COMMISSION MINUTES Meeting of March 4, 1993 Present: Chairman Tom Ensley, Wanda Anthony, Rita Earl, Phil Frye, Mary Higdem, Texry McConnell and Rick Wells. Staff: Dennis Crooks and Liz Yeary Dennis advised the Commission of the meeting of the Board of Realtors and their comments concerning the Development Agreement Ordinance which is an agenda item for this meeting. The regular meeting of the Planning and Zoning Commission was then called to order by Tom Ensley, Chairman, at 7:15 p.m. in the City Hall Council Chambers. The Minutes of the Plarming and Zoning Commission workshop of February 10, 1993 were approved as submitted. The Mi.nutes of the Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting of February 18, 1993 were approved as submitted. The meeting then proceeded to the public hearing portion of the agenda. Chairman Ensley explained the purpose of hearings and the procedure to be followed. The first item on the agenda was consideration of an Ordinance defining and establishing an Area of City Impact for the City of Caldwell, the Comprehensive Plan, the Subdivision and Zoni.ng Ordinances to apply within the Area of City Impact, and methods for administration of the Plan and, Ordinances to apply within the Area of City Impact. Dennis gave the background to the request, saying that there are three basic components to the ordinance: 1. A map of the proposed area of City Impact and proposed land use designations. 2. Mi.nor adjustment to the Area of Impact text of the Land Use Component. 3. Ordinance which defines the Area of Impact. Dennis asked the Commission to receive testimony and have discussion but suggested not making any final derisions until March 18 when there is a third public hearing on this item. Dick Winder testified, stating that this proposal is important to the orderly grow[h of the community, with the probability that development in the Area of Impact may eventually become the responsibility of the City, or will certainly affect the quality of life of the City residents. MINUTES P&Z 03/04/93 Page 1 ti Sylvia Robison, Planning and Zoning Director for the City of Middleton, spoke agai.nst the proposed Area of Impact and indicated their desire was to have this area along Highway 44 remain under the jurisdiction of the County until Middleton decides a course of action. Ms. Robison advised the Comrriission that the Middleton Treatment Plant had been expanded and could serve a large portion of the northern edge of Caldwell's proposed Area of Impact and so should rightly become part of Middleton's Area of Impact. Rural fire, mail and school districts vary in this area. Middleton Planning and Zoning Commission are considering permitting industrial uses closer to the Treatment Plant because Highway 44 provides good transportation to the Interstate. In response to a question from Mary Higdem, Ms. Robison said that Middleton sees the north side of Highway 44 as residential and are looking at industrial uses along the south side. There are already some light industrial uses in that area. Commissioner Higdem then asked Dennis if Middleton could legally annex land within Caldwell's Area of City Impact. Dennis responded that such a step would not be feasible without renegotiation of any established Area of Lmpact t�eement. In many areas, different jurisdictions compete for impact area in anucipation of future annexations and future tax base. If there is conflict, the State Code sets down procedures for resolving any disagreement. i One of the reasons Caldwell chose Highway 44 as a boundary is so that input might be provided to Canyon County on potential zone changes and development requests in that area. Recent requests for commercial uses, such as auto salvage and used car lots have been presented to the County. One of the reasons for including that area in the Area of Impact is that it is a major entry area into Caldwell. Another reason is that uses in this area will affect the Caldwell trade area. The long range goal is to discourage strip commercial development along Highway 44. The City is also concerned about protecting its interest in Cuitis Park and the surrounding area in addition to the Boise River and Canyon Hill escarpment. � There was further discussion between members of the Commission and Ms. Robison concerning uses and potential boundaries. The next person to offer testimony was Margie Huddleston, a Middleton Planning and Zoning Comrnissioner and a member of the Middleton Fire Department. She presented a map to the Commission, attached as Exhibit A, indicating the area she thought should not be part of Caldwell's Area of Impact. This included areas already in the Cit�s Area of Impact and involved both sides of Highway 44 west to and across Interstate 84- to the Farmway V'illage Area. She agreed with Ms. Robison that it would be prudent to have the area remain under County jurisdiction until Middleton assesses the situation. She added that it makes sense to have the lines drawn to coincide with the Fire Department and the School District boundaries but since these are different there will have to be negotiation. In response to a question from Terry McConnell, Dennis commented that Caldwell staff could work with the Middleton staff. If agreement could not be reached, it would be in MWUTES P&Z 03/04/93 Page 2 order for Middleton to make a formal counter proposal with a map indicating their suggestions. This would be submitted in time for review prior to the Planning and Zoning Commission of March 18. Rita Earl said that it was important to consider who can best serve the general welfare with sewer and water services. At this point it is difficult to see how Caldwell can provide those services to that area. Dennis replied that while the City may not be able to provide services to those areas, it will still have a major impact on the City of Caldwell. Rick Wells said that in view of the time frame and the information provided by Middleton, staff should meeting with Middleton and then present all necessary information to the Planning and Zoning Commission at the March 18 hearing. Provision of water and sewer service, fire district and school district boundaries and Middleton subdivision requirements need to be taken into consideration. Rita Earl was not comfortable leaving any of the area in the jurisdiction of Canyon County. During the Land Use Committee's preliminary discussions the direction recommended was agricultural and residential development and no industrial apart from the Interstate. The feeling was that there was enough industrial land in Caldwell without creating more. Teny McConnell then offered a motion to table the item to the next meeting and have Middleton and Caldwell staff discuss options and bring back a report to the ne� meeting. Rick Wells seconded the motion, with a stipulation that the item should be tabled until agreement could be reached. However, Dennis emphasized the importance of coming to an agreement with Canyon County, particularly in the southwest, and that he believed all the necessary information would be available by the 18th. The motion passed with all in favor. The second item on the agenda was consideration of an Amendment to the Caldwell Zoning Ordinance pertaining to admi.nistrative approvaLs and interior side yard setback requirements. Dennis reported that the first portion of the request was initiated by the Commission in 1992 in an effort to try and economize the Commission's agenda and cut down time and cost to City staff and the public in general. The second part of the proposal is to adjust the maximum side yard setback to conform with local practice of providing 5' wide utiliry easements in subdivisions. Dick Winder testified on behalf of the Board of Realtors stating that this will free up the Commission's time to work on more important planning issues, and will also provide a faster response time to citizens' needs. In response to a question from Rick Wells, Dennis explained that the administrative �'� approval would pertai.n only to setbacks and buildi.ng height, and that a fence is not MINUTES P&Z 03/04/93 Page 3 considered a building, but is addressed separately in the ordinance. Rick Wells commented that he would like a verbal report on any administrative approvals at Commission meetings. After further discussion, Wanda Anthony offered a motion to forward the proposal to Council with a recommendation of approval. Rita Earl seconded the motion which passed unanimously. The third public hearing was a proposed amendment to the Caldwell Zoning Ordinance pertaining to development agreements. This case had been continued from a previous meeting in order to obtain input from the Board of Realtors. Deiuus reported that Duane Kane, President of the Board of Realtors, had presented the item to the Board where it was discussed in great detail. The final outcome of that meeting was that the Board felt unable to support the request finding it excessively regulatory and thus not necessary. Mr. Kane had expressed to Dennis that the Board felt the Commission should more closely follow the Comprehensive Plan and use that as a tool when evaluating zone change requests. Dennis also pointed out that there were some minor inguage changes since the previous hearing. Phil Frye questioned whether item 4a could be deleted, but the consensus of the Commission, after discussion was that without the item the request was a spot zone device. In response to a question from Tom Ensley, Dennis answered that this is a tool for developers to use in �ansitional areas. In discussions with Duane Kane, his comtnents were supportive of the Commission in following the Plan more stringently in making recommendations on zone change requests. Where there is undue risk, the Commission should use the Comprehensive Plan and deny the request. Dennis went on to say that the development agreement tool is optional on the part of the developer and that the Staff or Commission may encourage but would not require a development agreement. Dick Winder then testified on behalf of the Board of Realtors, stating that the Board does not support this amendment for a variety of reasons. The City has a Comprehensive Plan which was developed after a great deal of study. The Commission should use the Comprehensive Plan to assist them in reviewing zone change requests. As long as a use is permitted in the zone, a developer sho��ld be allowed to pursue such a use. If there are problems in approving zone changes, a system of buffer zones could be set up. Mr. Winder was concerned about who decides what is a compatible use. Rather than use this amendment, the Commission should if necessary modify the Plan and Zoning Ordinance. He felt the tool would take away properry rights. There are many people who want confidentiality in their processing. This type of an ordinance will drive away developers. Mr. Frye responded that this is a tool to help developers and not designed as a restrictive measure. After further general discussion along the same lines, the public hearing portion of the meeting was closed. Wanda Anthony asked Dennis how a buffer zone could be instituted. MINUTES P&Z 03/04/93 Page 4 V Dennis responded that the City already has a zoning tool, the SA (Special Areas Overlay) zone. There could be a general provision that every converging or abutting zone within so many feet of common boundary would fall in a SA zone. Deveopment withuz this area could require some kind of a special review such as a Special Use Permit. The Cominission always needs to use the Comprehensive Plan and the Zoning Ordinance. It is impossible to take discrerion out of decisions. One tries to be as objective as possible, but planning decisions in many cases involve interpretation and the exercise of judgment when taking into consideration a wide range of testimony and evidence. There does need to be more discrimination in the land use schedule but that presents legal problems with "takings". ' People who have purchased property in a given zone have expectations of how their property can be used and to make zoning districts more limiting would in effect be depriving owners of their development rights. In response to a question from Tom Ensley, Dennis stated that if the Commission is comfortable with the concept it could be a successful planning tool. Rick Wells spoke supporting the document, adding that it gives the Commission a short term solution. Dennis commented that it is important to note that this is an agreement, which implies mutual consent, and which both parties (i.e. the City and a developer) come to a consensus as to what is best for all concerned. The intent of this type of document is not to place a ' series of limiting conditions on a property. Commissioner Higdem stated that in reality it is very difficult to approve a zone change in a transitional area simply based on a request. Wanda Anthony asked if a person signed a development agreement then constructed something differendy than that stated in the agreement would this be a violation. Mr. Crooks agreed that this would most likely represent a violation. Commission Ensley commented that it is a good tool if used wisely. In response to a question from Rita Earl, Dennis said that the agreement could be prepared in concept prior to the Commission hearing between the developer and the City. Rita wondered if this tool could start a whole area zone change. Dennis replied that there is always a potential but that this may not necessarily be a problem. This could be used in a transitional area to upgrade and set a positive precedent for change. Phil Frye offered a motion to forward the proposal to City Council with recommendation for approval based on finding that the Commission sees this as a tool the applicant will use to give him or her more leeway on potential use of the land and that it is not a restriction on the use of land. Mary Higdem seconded the motion, agreeing with the proposer as to the value of the document as a tool. The motion passed unanimously. The Chairman stressed the fact that this is an agreement on both sides, not imposed without the consent of the applicant, a platting process where conditions and terms can be imposed without necessarily having the full support or approval of the applicant. Mr. Crooks added that this is a mutual consent item, unlike the Special Use permit. The whole concept is one of agreement. MINUTES P&Z 03/04/93 Page 5 .� This conciuded the public hearing portion of the agenda. Under Miscellaneous Items, the Director explained that the Special Use Permit granted to Jim Taylor to operate a Boarding House at 2416 Alder had been withdrawn at Mr. Taylo�'s request. The interesting fact about this case was that the applicant was unable to comply with conditions placed on the pernut and after several code enforcement enquiries, Mr. Taylor decided to withdraw his request. Tom Ensley questioned the Director about the effectiveness of conditioning pernuts and whether it is possible to enforce what we request. Dennis felt confident with current staff and stated that we are in a better position to see that conditions are met. Dennis then reported on action taken by City Council with regard to Planning and Zoning. Rita Earl asked staff what if anything was happening with Like-Nu Car Wash and signs. Dennis explained that the whole situation is under review by the Traffic Commission and is being monitored by Code Enforcement. Rita suggested that the Land Use Committee attend the next Commission meeting when the Area of Impact is discussed. Deru�is felt that another meeting in April would be required, because of an urgent item presented by the Idaho Department of Law Enforcement. The meeting was scheduled for 12 noon on Thursday, April 1, 1993. I Dennis then asked the Commission to include the Child Care Ordinance as a discussion , item at a future meeting so that minor amendments necessary can be made before it comes I into effect on June 1, 1993. There was no other business and the meeting was adjourned at 10:30 p.m. � `�� " } 't.. Rec ding Secretary� Chairman, � Liz Yeary Tom Ensley MINUTES P&Z 03/04/93 Page 6