Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout4-15-1993 P&Z MINUTES � � PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MINUTES Meeting of April 15, 1993 present: Chairman Tom Ensley, Rita Earl, Phil Frye, Mary Higdem, Terry YIcConnell, Rick Wells Staff: Dennis Crooks and Liz Yeary Absent: Wanda Anthony The regular meeting of the Planning and Zoning Commission was called to order by Chairman Tom Ensiey, at 7:15 p.m. in the City Hall Council Chambers. The Mi.nutes of the Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting of March 18, 1993 were approved as submitted with motion submitted by Rita Earl and seconded by Terry McConnell. The Minutes of the special Planning and Zoning Corrunission Meeting of Apri11,1993 were approved as submitted with motion submitted by Mary Higdem and seconded by Terry McConnell. The first item on the agenda was an application for a Variance to allow a lot split for the creation of three parceLs of record which do not satisfy the minimum lot area of 7,500 square feet for a corner lot and 6,000 square feet for an interior lot on properry located at the northeast corner of Brookside Drive and Ash Street (721, 803 and 811 E. Ash). Dennis e�lained the request adding that part of the drive approach on proposed Lot 3 is physically located on property owned by Pioneer Irrigation District and the Bureau of Reclamation. Other items of concern inciude the need for improvement of Ash Street, the nature of the drive approach to Lot 1 from Ash Street which is perceived as being dangerous. According to City records two of the hQUSes were built in 1953 and one in 1947. Cheryl Wells, representative for the applicant, testified that upon investigation it appeared to be in everyone's interest to sell the property as three lots and obtain homeawner occupancy rather than rental and thus improve the chances of upgrading theit appearance. Surrounding properties consist almost exclusively of modem single family residences at the higher end of assessment values. Rental properties are not consistent with the neighborhood. There is an offer on the comer properry, and if necessary this will be split off and the remainder would be dealt with if the seller comes to an agreement over the access easement from the Bureau of Reclamation and the Irrigation District for Lot 3. A MII•(UTES P&Z 04/15/93 Page 1 i letter was entered into the record from Pioneer Imgation indicating their intent to find a solution to the problem. A letter was also received from Mr. and Mrs. Baumann, whose property is located diagonally across the Dixie Drain at 910 E. Ash, conveying a qualified support to split the property. This letter was also entered into the record. The letter requested the Commission approve the lot split but retai.n right of way along the Drai.n for future greenbelt use, and suggested redesigning driveways so that there is no access onto Ash direcdy from the three properties. Bill ZimmPrrr testified, saying that he has owned the property for about six years and that he has tried to sell them as rental units without success. Due to their need for repair, he is unable financially to carry this out. He indicated he has put substantial financial investment into the properry and needs to see a profitable return. He also stated that he was not willing to split one lot off and sell it on its own. Mrs. L. Paasch, the neighbor to the north, testified citing a history of poor properry maintenance and a wish to see the properry either removed or upgraded and that when they purchased their property twenty seven years previously, the adjacent three houses were being considered for condemnation. Kerry Pagenkopf of 2107 Brookside cited several discussions with the properry owner concerning disturbances at the property and its appearance. He felt that because of the size and state of repair it was not feasible to sell the property as one parcel and remove the houses, because of the poor return on the investment. The houses are in serious need of repair and will fall down if they are not upgraded. He cited a serious concem with the access on Ash by the corner lot, which he felt was dangerous because of topography and restrictions on visibility. He expressed support of the applicant to split the parcel as requested. In response to a question from Rick Wells, Cheryl Wells stated that statistics show 80% of owners take care of property as opposed to 80% of renters who do not. There was no further public testimony. Dennis Crooks reported on a contact from Chuck Karn, a neighbor, who did not feel the properry should be divided as requested since he felt it would perpetuate the longevity of the houses. Mr. Kam, however, did indicate support for an alternative form of variance that would create two rather than three lots. In response to a question from Mary Higdem, the owner said he did not want to sell the property as one parcel or two, but as three separate parcels. Phil Frye commented that the Municipal Code requires that the granting of a variance be based on a characterisric of the land rather than because of an ownership situation. He questioned the possibility of rebuilding, should the older structure be destroyed, on lots which are so small. Phil also indicated that just because the units are individually owned does not prevent them from being rental units. Rita Earl commented that a defuute answer MINUTES P&Z 04/15/93 Page 2 �� regarding the easement should be obtained from the Bureau of Reclamation/Pioneer Imgation before any action is taken. Mary Higdem agreed, adding that the neighborhood would be better with two oversized lots rather than three undersized lots. After further discussion, Mazy Higdem offered a motion to deny the request citing that she failed to find the necessary overriding special circumstances to justify granting a variance. The motion was seconded by Phil Frye and subsequently failed. After further discussion concerning possible conditioning of the variance regarding the driveway approaches, Piul Frye offered a motion to deny the request based on finding that the special circumstances presented are not a characteristic of the land. Ownership will not necessarily improve the properties. Mary Higdem seconded the Motion. The Motion passed unanimously. The second public hearing concerned an application for a Special Use Permit by Life.line Ministiies to modi�y a buildi.ng to accommodate a ciiurch and church related facilities at 2503 S. Georgia. Dennis explained the background to the application, adding that condition �4 was intended to inciude a requirement for one handicapped parking space in accordance with the ADAAG standards. He also asked that Condition #8 require that the drive approach be shifted siighdy to the north to align with the accessway. He also requested that parking spaces on the south property line be realigned so that the parking is at a 15° angle to improve circulation and allow for some frontage landscaping. The applicant, Benje Graves testified that he felt the use was an enhancement to the neighborhood and that he had no problem with the conditions suggested by Staff. In response to a question from Rita Earl, Mr. Graves said that they have plans for youth meetings, and children's programs primarily in the afternoons. There are no evening functions planned apart from Friday night services at this point. The applicant felt there was sufficient area between surrounding properties for noise not to be a problem. Mary Higdem brought up the item in State Law conceming the location of a church and the necessity for keeping vendors of alcoholic beverages at least 300' from a church. Mr. Graves did not see this being a problem, since the bar and grocery store are pre-existent. Teny McConnell questioned potential growrth. The applicant did not foresee any problems associated with growth at this point. If they do have additional o owth, there is a verbal agreement with Century Square to use some of their parking. It was also indicated that the main assembly area is limited by the Building Code to an occupancy load of 80. This figures translates into a pariang requirement of 20 spaces which is provided on site. MINUTES P&Z 04/15/93 Page 3 . The next witness was Robert Harris, of Ichabod's Bar, and on behalf of his landlord H. Eismann. Mr. Harris opposed the request, stating that a church should not be permitted to locate in a neighborhood in conflict with a bar use. Tom Edmark had called the Staff to enquire about the request. He had not expressed any major concern with the location of the church on the site. Rita Earl was concerned about the application of the State Code regarding sales and consumption of alcoholic beverages, the concept of "taking" and the potential constraints placed on vacant property because of the location of the Church. Mary Higdem expressed a desire toward continuing the item until an opinion could be obtained from the City Attorney. The concern was not so much with the existing bar or the convenience store, which would pre-exist the location of the church, but on vacant commercial properties and the limitations a church might have on future use of those properties. Rita Eari offered a motion to continue the item to Apri129, 1993 at 7:15 p.m. in order to obtain an opinion from the attorney concerning potential "taking" of development rights from vacant commercial sites. Mary Higdem seconded the motion which passed unanimousiy. Following the public hearing section, an application for a Variance to the Subdivision Ordinance submitted by Dave Marrs was considered. Dennis explained the reason for the request and reminded Commissioners of the March 18 meeting when Mr. Marrs submitted a Record of Survey for approval. He introduced Gene Enebo, Engineering Supervisor, who was present to answer any questions from the Commission. Mr. Marrs then spoke, saying that he had purchased the properry with the intent to develop in a rural setting. He had contacted the County and the City and attempted to gain the right information to proceed. There are no improvements in the suirounding developments inciuding Stahlridge Subdivision directly across Dorman Avenue to the west. He also referred to a memo from Larry Bledsoe, former interim City Engineer, and his recommendations for a rural development. Mr. Marrs said that he was willing to develop the properry according to the conditions listed on the Staff Report except for the requirement for the city street. He is finanrially unable to comply with the improvement requirement. He plans to make a development that will preserve the rural integrity of the area by establishing covenants, 1700+ sq.ft. houses. Mr. Mans questioned the need to access the properry to the east, and construct curbs and gutters and a drainage system. He indicated there is no master drainage plan and asked the Commission to consider his special circumstances. He relied on officials to give appropriate information and now the City wants City s�eets in a rural subdivision and it does not make sense. Frank Buturla was also present as the applicant's Engineer. MINUTES PBcZ 04/15/93 Page 4 a' In response to a question from Rita Eari, Mr. Marrs said that he is ready to submit plans to Canyon Highway District and that they conform to the Highway District restrictions. He simply is requesting a variance from the curb, gutter and sidewalk requirement. Dennis had some comments regarding traffic circulation. The proposed cul-de-sac is in direct alignment with Beech Street. The City is interested in reserving right-of-way for a future connection to the east. Dennis commented that Manchester Park Subdivision has applied for preliminary approval. There is a good chance Airport Avenue will be a logical north/south collector-type roadway with a potential school site in the area. There is also a likelihood that Beech Street will serve as an east-west collector. The location of the school influences where streets will go, their function and design. The Highway District will have no problem accepting roads constructed to the City standards. Rita Earl then asked Staff what would be entailed in bringing a County road up to City standards if an area is annexed. Gene Enebo responded that if the development were to go in, a Local Improvement District (LID) would have to be formed and the properry owners in this area would be required to pay for the improvements. Road base proposed for the 26 foot wide section is approximately the same base as the city section would be. The only difference is it is narrower. If it were brought in and had to be curbed and guttered this affects drainage which would mean the road would have to be torn up to accommodate this. Fran.k Buturla said that the road standard the County has meets the City standard. Curbs and gurters can cause a major problem in development. Curbs and gutters concentrate runoff and force runoff into the city infrastructure. Natural drainage ways, i.e. borrow pits, allow for percolation and water quality improvement. In a rural setting the absence of curbs and gutters improves the drainage situation. Canyon County Planning and Zoning and the Board of Commissioners are approving and recommending rural subdivisions without curbs and gutters and sidewalks based on this information. Frank went on to say that there are two major areas where costs get to be excessive . If he puts in curbs and gutters he has to put in a drainage system to control runoff. He cannot dump it down Dorman. Even if he could all that's doing is putting it into the ciry and putting the stress on the city infrastructure. These costs are excessive. There is not a master drainage plan for Manchester Park nor a master transportation plan for Manchester Park. These are future projects. His intent is to have a rural subdivision. Rita asked Frank if the applicant were required to provide curb and gutter now, would it still function and be acceptable at a future time. Gene responded that such systems should last 20 years and would not have to be removed. Frank added that any drainage system would have to be replaced since it would be designed for only 8 lots. MINUTES P&Z 04/15/93 Page 5 . � . ► Mary asked how a borrow pit works and its environmental effect on groundwater. Frank responded that any runoff goes directly into the borrow pit and immediately into the groundwater. There would be no other runoff. Under the cit�s plan the water would collect on the asphalt, flow into the gutters and it would be carried to a french drain system on the properry. Terry McConnell said that with Manchester Park we have no idea which way the road will go or how the drainage will be handled and if it will affect this development. Mary Higdem asserted that she felt the "Record of Survey" approved at the previous meeting was a big concession and questioned why the applicant would now be requesting a variance. When a motion to approve the Record of Survey was made, it was on the understanding that the Subdivision Ordinance would be adhered to. Frank Buturla understood that when the previous morion was made he understood that there was a provision that anything that was different had to be brought back to the Commission. He referred to the Staff Report and the terms and conditions listed there. Those conditions are those that were agreed to at the previous meeting. While it appears that this is a request for a lot more, the only thing requested here is the waiver on the road. The road kicks in other factors. Dave Marrs said that arrangements have been made with the power company for an easement. It was agreed that a 60' right of way meets Idaho Power standards. Dennis commented that when utility requirements and waivers are requested we are only referring to sewer and water. Regarding easements for other utilities, those are to be identified and recorded. Gene added that as long as the easements are written up as if they are on a plat they would be acceptable. Easements will be written as deeds with a title company and also with a revised Record of Survey to protect the interest of future owners. In response to a question from Phil Frye, Mr. Buturla confirmed that this is an 8-lot development, Mr. Marrs owns one lot and one other lot has been sold, leaving six unsold lots. Those su� lots would ultimately have to split the projected $35,000 to develop the wider road with curb and gutter, thus making them in the opinion of the developer too expensive. Steve Bennett, a potential properry owner, spoke saying that there are no local improvements in adjacent development. Easy Street has no improvements. It is a rural subdivision. Larry Bledsoe approved this design and LIDs are an acceptable method of addressing long term needs. Gene commented that LIDs are a cost to the City. In an urbanized setting and for intensive development, improvements are mandatory. This is an area right now that is rural but in some years may not be rural at all. Traditionally, there is a difference between the Area of City Impact and the City. MINUTES P&Z 04/15/93 Page 6 � l . V Rita Earl asked if stafPs terms and conditions were acceptable. The applicant agreed except for the road section, curb gutter and drainage. She then commented that since we are not requiring platting if the future right-of-way is being shown properly. If Canyon Highway District will accept the road, she would support the project with the conditions listed. Dennis commented that waivers on street improvements do not include Dorman. The Commission agreed to the Record of Survey because there was an agreement to accomplish the same standards through either process. Rita Earl suggested allowing the Highway District standards to be used and require that properry owners agree to participate in a LID at a future time to bring the road to City standards. Prospective property owners have to be aware of future LID requirements. Rita then itemized the terms and conditions as suggested and amended by discussion making them a part of her ultimate motion to recommend approval of the Variance. A key factor in considering a reduced street standard was the possibility of the street becoming , a through street or the one acre lots being further subdivided by Future property owners which would increase density and change the rural character of the development. The intent of the motion was to allow a rural road section which would be required to be improved to Ciry standards through an LID if the stre�t is to go through or residential density is increased. Item 2 was added to to reflect that if the interior street becomes a through street, an LID should be initiated to provide street improvements for curb, gutter and sidewalk. Item S was amended so that easements are subject to the review and the approval of the affected utility companies and the City Engineer. Item 6 was amended to state that any LID participation shall also be reflected in a deed restriction. Item 10 was amended to state that a document/deed restriction shall be recorded and filed which is to preclude the future split of any lot without prior approval of the City of Caldwell and this restxiction will be annotated on the amended Record of Survey. Rita Eari then offered a motion to recommend forwarding approval of the Variance to the Subdivision Ordinance to City Council based on the fact that this is a rural area, the intent is to maintain a rural character and the developer has worked with the City in tiying to make it a transition into the city an equitable and fair one for all parties. Phil Frye seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously. Under miscellaneous items, the Planning and Zoning Commission were reminded that the child care ordinance goes into effect on June 1. MINUTES P&Z 04/15/93 Page 7 r � � R i City Council acfiion was discussed. On Apri126 at 5.15 p.m. there is a workshop session with the City Council on the Area of Impart Agreement. Commissioners are welcome to attend if they so choose. Ftick Wells asked that a reminder be sent out concerning this. The tentative agenda for May 20 was outlined. , The Commission also agreed to meet at 3:00 p.m. on May 6 for a workshop. (Workshop will be held on May 6 at the Comfort Inn, Indian Creek Room) . With no further business the meeting adjourned at 11:00 p.m. � ��, C-��� ��_ 1/ Recording Secretary, Chaixman, Liz Yeary Tom Ensley MINUTES P&Z 04/15/93 Page 8