HomeMy WebLinkAbout1-20-1994 P&Z MINUTES .
PLANNING AND ZONING COMNIISSION
MINUTES
Meeting of January 20, 1994
Present: Chairman Tom Ensley, Phil Frye, Mary Higdem, Teny McConnell, Rick Wells
Absent: Madeline Buckendorf, Bettie Pilote
Staff: Dennis Crooks, Liz Yeary
At the pre-Cominission meeting Dennis circulated copies of the Use Feasibility Study prepared
for the Marjorie Bushnell Community Center on behalf of the 4-C Committee.
The regular meeting of the Planning and Zoning Commission was called to order by Chanman
Tom Ensley, at 7:15 p.m. in the City Hall Council Chambers.
The first agenda item was the approval of the Minutes of the Planning and Zoning Commission
meeting of December 21, 1993. Mary Higdem moved and Teny McConnell seconded a motion
to approve the Minutes as distributed. The motion passed unanimously.
The Commission then moved to the public hearing section of the agenda. The first public
hearing scheduled was a Special Use Pernut requested by the City of Caldwell to operate a
gymnasium in an abandoned high school facility.
Dennis advised the Commission that at the January 18, 1994, City Council Meeting, it was
requested that the item be tabled for an indefinite period of time pending completion of a
building survey of the facility by a structural engineer. The hearing will be re-advertised in the
future.
The second public hearing was a request for a Special Use Pemut for a Planned Unit
Development together with a companion request for a preliminary plat of Sunridge Subdivision
on property located at the southwest corner of Kimball Avenue and Beech Street. The applicant
is Northwest Development, Inc., agents Bettie Pilote and Art Solis, Engineer Jerry Earl.
Dennis explained that the property is approximately 17.5 acres and it is planned to subdivide the
property into 77 residential lots, 5 open space lots and 28 units of attached townhouse-type units,
in the R-1 (Single Family Residential) zoning district. The property has an unusual configuration
in that the property fronts on two collector streets and a minor arterial. This requires a large
obligation in terms of street improvements on the part of the developer and lends itself to a
Planned Unit Development (PUD) concept in temis of economic viability.
A major feature of the development is the network of open space and a pathway system which �
also provides a buffer to some surrounding property owners.
Dennis quoted from the Ordinance concerning guidelines for PUDs and from the Comprehensive
Plan. Concerns identified by City staff, including Fire and Engineering Departments, were
project density, the location of the intersection of Sunridge and Beech, and its proximity to
Kimball Avenue, and presentation of the project particularly to Kimball Avenue.
ivmvtrrES r&z i-za9a
Page 1
Jerry Earl, Project Engineer, on behalf of the applicant then spoke reading from a memo which
was read into the record. Copies were circulated to the Commission. Essentially, the memo was
the applicant's response to Staff's suggested conditions. �
The developer agreed with all conditions except the following:
2. Developer requested right to request extensions of the approval for the various phases.
4. Developer agrees to comply with the Uniform Fire Code and changes requested by Fire
Marshall regarding street names and fire hydrant locations.
5. Developer requested that City Engineer review and approve final design of emergency
vehicle turnarounds rather than the Fire Department.
13. Developer requested that 13b be amended to require 15 foot street side setbacks for all
street side lots. Developer requested that 13d be amended to delete an additional 5 foot
setback from Kimball since there is an access restriction to Kimball and a solid fence.
14. Developer disagreed with density requirement.
15. Developer requested compliance with the zoning ordinance requiring 25' height in R-1
zones rather than a restriction to single story.
17. Developer disagreed with requested intersection adjustment.
20. Developer disagreed with requirement for garages.
Mr. Earl stated that when he met with City officials the week prior to the hearing, the City
Engineer requested that they should try to design as much sewer to intercept the Marshall
Interceptor as possible which would require them to reverse the phasing which would assist the
City in recovering some of the costs of the Interceptor. He considered the density issue was a
major concern. The development had been well thought out and to take away five lots is
pointless. There are high costs involved with fencing and landscaping. He felt the developer
was meeting his part of the bargai.n in providing the city with amenities to City needs.
Mary Higdem asked Mr. Earl what kind of design the A and B lots would look like. He
responded that they would be single family or townhouse lots. In response to the concern of cazs
stacking at the entrance to Kimball from Beech, he responded that he did not anticipate a
problem. He anticipated more problems when the proposed school is developed which will
generate traffic on Beech.
Phil Frye asked Mr. Earl if the townhouse lots would be rental units. He responded that the
developer is building lots for sale and will retain some for sale and some for rental.
Rick Wells asked about condition #15 requesting restriction to two story, to which the developer
has expressed opposition. Mr. Earl explained that elevations have not yet been drawn but will be
in the very near future. A condition before final plat approval is that the elevations will be
�vv�rES P&z i-Za9a
Page 2
resented and the Director will have the discretion to resent them informall to the C mmi '
P p y o ssion.
Rick then questioned Page 4 of the Staff report which mentioned the dedication of right of way.
Mr. Earl explained that the north side of Beech is not in the City and that right of way is
therefore not available. The Manchester Park development is proposing to put down a mat to
satisfy concerns in the interim until this developer constructs the required improvements.
Mary Higdem commented that among the list of things to be provided to the Commission is an
elevation plan. She expressed concern about how the project presents to Kimball and what the
single family residences opposite will see. Mr. Earl agreed that it was a concern but stated that if `
it were an ordinary subdivision, there would be no concern since R-1 zoning pernuts 25' height
limits. In response to a question from Rick Wells, Mr. Earl stated that after construction the
street lights will be turned over to the City. Mr. Earl stated that the townhouse lot buildings will
be approximately 1100 square feet and the individual dwellings would be about 1300 square feet.
Bettie Pilote then spoke as one of the partners in the proposed development. She cited her
history of being a Caldwell native and her wide range of interests in the City. She stated that the
developer is being required to do several extra items including fencing, landscaping on Airport,
Kimball and Beech, which will enhance the property, common area paths walking paths and a
garden area. She feels they are providing a major unprovement to the area as well as to the
development and to take away the density will put a financial burden on the project. She did not
want to lose sight of the purpose of the project which is to provide afforda.ble housing in
Caldwell.
The �nim�m size of the buildings will be 1100 square feet. The intent is that all lots will be
for sale. If a person were to buy a whole townhouse, live in one side and rent out the other side,
that is their prerogative.
Mary Higdem questioned Bettie Pilote about her Enginee�s dissatisfaction with the requirement
to provide garages to each unit and the size of the lots where the single fanuly units would be.
Ms. Pilote indicated that those lots would be 6,000 square feet and that the parking could be
accommodated on the slreet. But she felt that the requirement affected the affordability of the
project. In response to a question from Mary as to whether she could accept the single car
garage, she stated that she felt it was not the Cornmission's role to issue such a restriction.
In response to a question from Phil Frye and Mary Higdem, Ms. Pilote stated that one could view
townhouses and duplexes the same aesthetically, although usually the townhouse looks more like
an individual home that is attached to another individual home, than does a duplex. She also
stated that the portion of the development which is described as townhouses will not be duplexes
but townhouses.
Ferd Monte then testified, stating that he had a petition to present to the Commission in
opposition which he gave to the Chairman and asserted that the neighborhood dces not want
anything other than single family dwellings, since there has been no zone change and the R-1
zone only allows single fanuly dwellings.
�rrES Patz i-za9a
Page 3
In response to a question from Rick Wells, Mr. Monte stated that the main objection is to the
townhouse development versus the single family development, since all sutrounding houses are
single family homes.
Marlene Pebler then testified. She stated that she lives directly north of the proposed project on
Beech Street and that the area is mainly agricultural and single family development. Airport
Avenue is not much more than a driveway. Manchester Park is being developed with 240 units.
Beech Street will be the main connection between Kimball Avenue and Airport Avenue which
will generate a tremendous amount of traffic`as opposed to the 25t people living in the area who
currently use it. The proposed development is directly opposite her farm gate through which she
pulls horse trailers and tractors. She does not want fences and feels this development will detract
from the area's quality of life. She asked the Commission to strongly consider limiting the
development to single family residences.
Phil Frye asked Ms. Pebler to clarify the types of residences. She confumed that she wants
single family houses, not townhouses nor duplexes. Two story single family dwellings would be
preferable to townhouses or duplexes.
In response to a question from Mary Higdem, Dennis explained that a townhouse is built on an
individual lot, whereas a duplex is two units on a single lot.
Dennis stated that if one of the contingencies is to present elevation plans, a condition could be
placed on the prelimuiary plat to have the elevation brought back to be reviewed by the
Commission on an informal basis. People present at the hearing could be notified when the
concepts aze received so that they could come down to the Planning o�ce to review them. The
intent of the condition is that the concept elevations would need to be approved by the Planning
Department and the Commission before final plat approval.
Gary Marcus who lives on the southeast corner directly opposite the project expressed concem
about the number of people entering Kunball from Beech Street. In his opinion Kimball is not a
safe street.
Henry Moody then test�ed citing the Comprehensive Plan as a guide, and that the Municipal
Code talks about preventing the overcrowding of the land. He felt that this Planned Unit
Development was a ploy to get the zone changed from Rl to R2 or higher.
Dennis Crooks then gave the defuution and guidelines of a Planned Unit Development from the
Zoning Ordinance. The Special Use Permit is for a Planned Unit Development not for a zone
change. The zoning is R-1 and a Planned Unit Development is a concept that can be presented
to the Commission in any zoning district or classification. The PUD concept is to recognize a
unique piece of property which could be difficult to develop because of certain characteristics. It
gives the developer the ability to reduce lot size or setbacks without going through a variance
procedure. The project is evaluated as a total. The PUD is not a vehicle or license to change the
zoni.ng or simply to lower development standards but it does allow a mix of other types of uses
to be allowed to be developed. In addition to the zoning classification there is a Comprehensive
Plan which addresses density. This property is designated for low density residential
development and a density range of 4/6 dwelling units per net acre. This project is proposed at
�v�s P&z i-2a9a
Page 4
6.5 units per net acre. The Planniiig DepartmenYs recommendation is that the project density
should be reduced to conform with the Comprehensive Plan.
Steve Nisula then spoke stating that he lives direcdy across the street from the project. He
expressed concern about the location of the townhouses on Kimball and the six foot fencing
requirement. He said that when it is not maintained regulazly it becomes an eyesore very
quickly. He said that he would be looking across at a blank wall. There is a sidewalk on the
east side of Kimball but not on the west. Everything in the area is single family housing and it
' is a nice quality neighborhood. He would like to see more of a compromise on lot size. Single
family houses provide more variety, and he was not in favor of townhouses.
Rolf Bitsch spoke in opposition citing a wish that the area rernain single family and that lower
income housing would be better located closer to industry. Kunball carries too much traffic
travelling at high speeds and it is not safe.
Barbara Marcus spoke in opposition. She agreed with all her neighbors. There have been
several accidents on Ki.mball and this attached housing will increase traffic.
Bettie Pilote then spoke saying that she appreciated the neighbors concern. She was a Caldwell
person and everyone in the project is from Caldwell. Kimball Avenue already has the Health and
Welfare Department and a church, and there are duplexes on Rudolph. They have requested 28
townhouse lots. There will also be townhouses in Manchester Park. Airport Avenue will be
developed. There aze new businesses coming into the area and people need a home and this
development is affordable housing for middle class working people. There will be a homeowners
association to maintain fencing and landscaping.
The public hearing was then closed.
Tom Ensley asked Dennis Crooks the status of Kimball Avenue. Dennis stated that it is
designated as a minor arterial on the transportation planning map and intended to be built to
certain standards to accommodate certain levels of traffic. The City does not have all of the right
of way needed on Kimball, and in some instances it is a prescriptive right of access. As new
development occurs, the developer is required to improve frontages along the property. The issue
of Kimball is a long term engineering issue, planning issue and transportation issue. Each project
does make a contribution to widening and unproving that road. The long term objective is to get
it up to the prescribed standard.
The question of density was discussed. Mary Higdem stated that this may make them go back to
the drawing board, but when redesigning to meet the density requirement, perhaps something
could be done about the intersection of Sunridge and Beech.
Phil Frye agreed with the density requirement of the Plan and the R-1 zone. A PUD is not a
vehicle to change the zone and he did not agree with offsetting provisions to increase the density.
He was in favor of single family townhouse development, since that type of housing is a trend.
Everyone would like privacy but cannot afford to buy their own five acres parcels. He suggested
staggering of the townhouses could give some open spaces to the people across the street.
Nm�v�rES P&z i-za9a
Page 5
Phil went on to say that he is not in favor of any of this being developed as a rental development
but there is nothing to stop someone buying a house and then renting it out.
Mary Higdem stated that she understands the concern of the people across the street in relation to
building height. There will be gaps between the townhouses. The Commission does have the
right to put a height limitation as a condition or they can reserve the right to not approve the
elevation. This is not possible until the elevation plans are available.
Terry McConnell stated that the elevation gives us an idea. of what is planned. Condominiums
aze the best way for young people to achieve being homeowners.
Mary Higdem added that affordable housing has been one of the major concerns identified for ,
Caldwell. We need a greater mix of the type of housing and affordable housing is a huge need. '
A lot of people do not want a house on a large lot with the associated work
Rick Wells stated that the petition is not in favor of the project. He agreed that this project is
very different from the existing neighborhood but not necessarily inconsistent. It will add traffic.
Concerning the appearance of the townhouses, he stated that he had seen some complexes
designed with each unit separated by the garages and it was difficult to see that they were
townhouses. He did not feel there is much of a trade off with the addition of the open azeas and
landscaping versus density and questioned whether it was an acceptable trade off. He did not
think there was enough inforniation to address the traffic in that area taking into consideration the
potential future elementary school.
Dennis indicated he did have information on trip generation factors. He informed the
Commission that attached housing or condominium housing generates less traffic than a single
farnily dwelling. This mixed project might see 550 vehicle trips per day. If it were a single
family development, we would expect approximately 600 vehicle trips per day. The City will
have to address Kimball and lOth and the other substandard collector and arterial streets at some
point in time. There is no indication when that is going to happen.
Rick Wells asked Dennis whether the subdivision improvements to roads could be expected to
improve the flow of traffic. Dennis agreed that one could make an azgument that the street
improvements to the three main streets is going to help offset the traffic generated by the project
and help alleviate some of the current problems. Long range improvements to Kimball and other
streets still have to be dealt with.
Also, there appears to be an increase in industrial activity in the northwest portion of the City
which should encourage traffic movement in that direction and ma.ke more efficient use of
Farmway Road which in turn should take some of the pressure off Kimball and lOth Avenues.
In response to a question from Rick concerning density, Dennis said that it has been the practice
of the City to require compliance with the density standard of the Comprehensive Plan. The
zoning ordinance states that PUDs shall conform with the general purposes and objectives of the
Plan. It is recognized that the Plan is a guideline and a policy document but in the Zoning
Ordinance it states that the Plan is to be followed when evaluating PUDs. It is not the intent of a
PUD to raise the density which tums the property into a different zoning classification.
Nmv�s r&z i-za9a
Page 6
However, that decision rests with the Commission. While 5 more units may not be a significant '
increase in density there may be an effect on surrounding properties, the aesthetics of the project �
and the intersection of Sunridge and Beech.
Rick commented that he did not feel comfortable in adjusting density until he had seen elevation
I
plans. He would like to see a berm along the Kimball frontage. He did feel that the intersection ��
of Sunridge and Beech should be adjusted as conditioned. '
In response to a question from Mary Higdem, Rick said that the design of the berm and fence I !,
should be left to the creativity of the developer. He did feel people should be able to look at I
elevation plans and be able to comment on them and he was concerned about ha.ving two story '
homes on Kimball. I
�
In answer to a question from Mary, Phil said that the inclusion of the five units is not a major �
concern as long as there is some give and take on both sides. He reiterated that he wanted to see
conceptual drawings of the whole complex.
At this point, Mr. Earl said that the applicant was not interested in continuing the matter and
that they wanted either a motion to approve or a motion to deny the permit.
At a request from a member of the audience, there was a unanimous vote to re-open the public
hearing. Concern was expressed about the roof line appearance on Kimball, and the fact that
there was no green area planned for the Kimball frontage, which impacts the residents on the e�.��
side.
There was discussion concerning allowing the developer creativity with the houses fronting on
Kimball but restricting development to one story. Terry commented that varying roof lines make
a project look more attractive.
There was general consensus among the Cornmission that the intersection of Sunridge and Beech
should be adjusted to give the potential for more stacking of vehicles.
In regazd to the one and two car garage requirement, the Commission agreed that the option of
one or two enclosed garage spaces was sufficient for the developer, particularly since the intent is
to provide an additional parking space to offset increased density on the interior. In response t�
a question from Terry, Dennis stated that in a PUD associated with reduced lot sizes and setb�.�k�
everything becomes more crowded and close together. By having a garage one vehicle is mo�v�:d
off the street and there is less visual clutter.
The Chairman commented that there appeared to be a consensus on the conditions. Mary
Higdem asked Phil if he could approve action lrnowing there is veto power when the elevations
are submitted, but Phil sta.ted that since this is a Planned Unit Development, conceptual drawings
aze required to demonstrate just exactly what is planned.
Mary Higdem stated that she felt people now have a much better idea of wha.t a Planned Unit
Development is. The developer is trying to provide a mix of affordable housing and it is in
keeping with the Comprehensive Plan. She then offered a Motion to approve the Preliminary
ivm�tv�rES P&z i-2a9a
Page 7
. i
• Plat and the Special Use Permit for a Residential Planned Unit Develo ment sub'ect to amended II
P J
terms and conditions. Phil Frye seconded the Motion.
ROLL CALL VOTE. Those voting yes: Higdem, McConnell. Those voting no: Wells, Frye.
Absent and not voting: None. Due to the fact that there was a tied vote, the Chairman cast a
deciding vote in favor of the Motion.
' MOTION CARRIED
Fhil Frye and Rick Wells expressed reservations about the project, particularly in relation to
density and other concerns.
Dennis stated that when the elevations and concept drawings are available, people who testified
will be advised and will be able to come to the Planning Department to view them and they will
also be brought back to the Commission informally to review and approve.
The next item on the agenda was correspondence from Kathleen Stewart concerning the
restriction on child care centers in the R-2 zoning district. Dennis explained the Code
Amendment in 1993 and the update to that in November, and the amount of time spent on
evaluating the Ordinance before its final adoption.
Ms. Stewart stated that she has property in the R-2 zoning district, which she felt was very
suitable for a preschool/child caze center for 15-20 children age under 5. She saw a great lack of
good preschool facilities for young children in Caldwell and would like to be able to provide a
place for such a facility.
After some further discussion, the Commission agreed that this could be included in the work
session for February 3.
Dennis reviewed items dealt with by City Council. He advised the Commission that the Mayor
appointed two new members to the Planning and Zoning Commission at the January 18 Council
Meeting, namely Bettie Pilote and Madeline Buckendorf. He also reviewed agendas for
upcoming Commission meetings.
The Commission expressed concern about the infrastructure and its ability to handle the project�d
growth, particularly in terms of sewer capacity and street standards. Dennis said that the City
Engineer is aware of the problems.
With no fiirther business the meeting adjourned at 11:15 p.m.
Recording Secretary, Chairinan,
Liz Yeary Tom Ensley
ivm�rv�rES P&z i-aa9a
Page 8