Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout3-3-1994 P&Z MINUTES � PLANNING AND ZOIYING COMNIISSIOIY ' MiNUTES Meeting of March 3, 1994 ', Present: Chairman Tom Ensley, Madeline Buckendorf, Mary Higdem, Terry McConnell, ' Bettie Pilote � Absent: Rick Wells Staff: Dennis Crooks, Liz Yeary S The regulaz meeting of the Planning and Zoning Commission was called to order by Chairman Tom Ensley, at 7:15 p.m. in the City Hall Council Chambers. Minutes of the Plaruung and Zoning Commission meeting of February 17, 1994, were approved ', as distributed with motion by Terry McConnell and seconded by Mary Higdem. The next item for review was a prelinunary plat to create two additional parceLs of record. Dennis stated that the City Engineer had reviewed the plat and found that it complied with the City Subdivision Ordinance. In response to a question from Mary Higdem, Dennis stated that ' City services are available and will be provided to the property. Mary said that she had viewed !, the property and found it surrounded by various residential uses, and thought it suitable for infill !, development. , I Mary then offered a Motion to approve the Preliminary Plat, subject to recommended temis and I conditions. Terry McConnell seconded the Motion. � ROLL CALL VOTE. Those voting yes: Higdem, Buckendorf, Filote, McConnell. Those I voting no: None. Absent and not voting: Wells. MOTION CARR�D � The Commission then moved to the public hearing section of the agenda. The first public hearing scheduled was a Special Use Pemut to allow the operation of a�oup child care facility I at 1310 Arthur, applicant was Kathleen Stewart. I Dennis explained the background to the request, the location and description of the property and its surroundings and commented that suggested condition #3 allowing transfer of the permit from one owner to another is not in compliance with the present ordinance and should be deleted. He also stated that the City Engineer would like a condition requiring installation of sidewalk on Arthur Street. Dennis presented a letter in opposition from a Mrs. Solomon, citing a wish to remain residential � rather than commercial for this neighborhood. ', Madeline Buckendorf asked Dennis if traffic flow in the area would be likely to increase. Dennis �I responded that generally trips generated from a day care vary greatly from facility to facility. The Transportation and Land Development publication estimates that such a facility would MIA(CJTES P&Z 3-3-94 Page 1 • generate approximately 22 vehicle trips per day. By comparison a single family residence would generate 9.5 trips per day. Most of the traffic generated by the day caze would be in the early afternoon and evening. In response to a question from Madeline, Dennis responded that traffic counts had not been done on Arthur although they have been done on Cleveland and Blaine. In response to a question from Bettie, Dennis said that the property was formerly developed with single family residences which were demolished and Ms. Stewart has moved a house onto it and is in process of obtaining occupancy. Madeline asked Dennis for clarification of the subordina.te use cited in the Staff Report. Dennis explained that group day care facilities are usually run out of a person's home by the homeowner and the use is subordinate to a residence. However, Ms. Stewart plans to develop this property exclusively as a group day care. Madeline questioned how many family day care homes aze in the neighborhood of the subject property and was advised that the City has no way of ascertaining this since there is virtually no control of such facilities unless they are state licensed which is optional. Kathleen Stewart, applicant, then testified, citing a need for child care for very young children and her desire to provide a facility for this as a service to the community. The prospective director is a licensed teacher with two young children who are included in those being provided care. She plans to landscape the lot, and, since the proposed facility is residential in character, will blend in with the neighborhood. Evenings and weekends will be quiet since the center will only operate Monday through Friday. Madeline Buckendorf asked how she had ascertained the need she spoke of. Ms. Stewart stated that she had called every day care in Caldwell, and WICAP and obtained their list for young child day care. When she called she could not find any which would take infants. 'The proposed facility will comply with new state guidelines on ratio of caregiver to child and in fact will provide a higher ratio. It would also provide full tune employment for three Caldwell residents. Leo Holmes testified, stating that initially he had a lot of concerns but the applicant had answered them. He cited concern about unsighdy properties close to the facility and this should be an improvement. In response to a question from Mary Higdem, he agreed that there is quite a lot of traffic on Arthur but did not think it would be a problem for the day care. Jack Raymond testified stating that he felt this projected development would be an improvement to the neighborhood. He felt that any problems associated with junk and weeds were enhanced with undeveloped property and this would make one less. He agreed that day cares belong more in residential neighborhoods as long as they are well managed, which this appears to be. He refuted Mr. Holmes assertion, stating that in his opinion recent new development in the azea has unproved the neighborhood. He also felt that it was better to have one day care facility on the lots than two separate dwellings. Mr. V McKenzie testified in support of the facility stating it is an appropriate use for a property that has been vacant for years. Kathleen Stewart thanked those who supported her proposal and in response to a question from Madeline stated that she did not intend to sell the property in the near future. MINU'i'ES P&Z 3-3-94 Page 2 The public hearing was then closed. Terry McConnell said that he agreed with the supporting testimony, that it will upgrade the neighborhood and will provide others with incentive to improve their own properties. Bettie Pilote also agreed, stating that it will provide a need for Caldwell and is a well thought out project. In response to a question from Mary, Dennis stated that the difference between the proposed use and a group day care which is also a single family residence, is that this proposed facility will in ` fact generate less traffic since there will be no residential traffic generation. Technically what is being proposed here is a commercial use, but this use, because of its nature and characteristics, is pemussible in the R-2 zone, subject to a special use permit. Special Use Pemuts are not supposed to set precedents and have to be evaluated individually on their own merits. Mary agreed with the other commissioners who expressed support of the proposal, that it would be a desirable addition to the neighborhood even though traffic might be slightly increased, but that the age of the children would be a mitigating factor. Terry McConnell offered a Motion to approve the Special Use Pernut with the stated conditions, amending condition #3 to read: "3. That the Special Use Permit shall temunate upon any transfer of title involving a portion of the subject property or upon expansion of residential development. �e „ and adding condition #10 to read: "10. That a new sidewalk shall be installed along the Arthur Street frontage to CitX standazds Bettie Pilot seconded the Motion. ROLL CALL VOTE. Those voting yes: Higdem, Filote, McConnell. Those voting no: Buckendorf. Absent and not voting: Wells. MOTION CARRIED The second public hearing was to take testimony on the Resolution of Interpretation of the Caldwell Sign Ordinance. Dennis explained that the purpose of the hearing was to continue the investigation into the Sign Ordinance and regulations. The main objectives include safety related to both location and installation and also community appearance and aesthetics. Ultimately the goal is to adopt a Resolution of Interpretation which is not a new ordinance, revised or amended, but simply a document which helps us to clarify and interpret ambiguities in the current Sign Ordinance. bIIMITES P&Z 3-3-94 Page 3 � All of the material was presented to Council in workshop format late last year. Staff has attempted to obtain additional input from the Chamber of Commerce, and now that there is a Townsite Committee, we would like them to evaluate it as well. Dennis stated that Gary Vance has some concerns with the Sign Permit procedure, which is also part of the materials being considered. The Plannuig Department has also received some comment from the Board of Realtors. StafPs recommendation is that the Commission initiate the public hearing process and leave it open until the April 17 meeting and any public hearings deemed necessary beyond that. After the April 17 meeting we can consider taking action if that seems to be the way to proceed. Madeline asked what Mr. Vance's concerns were and Dennis explained that in the past there has been very little regulation of signs including lack of permit procedure to review signs which in part could explain the numerous sign code violations. Gary's concern is that the permit procedure be reasonable and not too onerous. After some fiuther discussion and clarification Mary Higdem moved to continue the public hearing for the Resolution of Interpretation to April 17, 1994. Madeline Buckendorf seconded the motion. ROLL CALL V4TE. Those voting yes: Higdem, Buckendorf, Pilote, McConnell. Those voting no: None. Absent and not voting: Wells. MOTION CARRIED At this point the Commission moved to Miscellaneous items on the agenda. Dennis explained that the Planned Unit Development material was for the information of the Commission and it was the general consensus that this might be included for discussion at a workshop later in the y�. The next miscellaneous item was discussion of a proposed subcommittee to evaluate possible changes to the Subdivision Ordinance. The fomiation and membership of the Committee was acceptable to the Conunission. Dennis then reviewed items acted on by Council and discussed projected agendas for March 17 and April 7. He also brought up a possible Code Amendment concerning Variances and Mary Higdem offered a Motion to initiate such an amendment. Terry McConnell seconded the motion. ROLL CALL VOTE. Those voting yes: Higdem, Buckendorf, Filote, McConnell. Those voting no: None. Absent and not voting: Wells. MOTION CARR�D MIPJUTES P&Z 3-3-94 Page 4 � With no further business the meeting adjourned at 8:45 p.m. / � ,. ., ,�.�, (,•c. Recor` mg Secretary, C'hairman, Liz Yeary Tom Ensley MINUTES P&Z 3-3-94 Page 5