Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout4-6-1995 P&Z MINUTES PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION ' MINUTES Meeting of April 6, 1995 I Present: Dorothy Davidson, Sonia Huyck, Terry McConnell, Rick Wells ', Absent: Madeline Buckendorf, Bettie Pilote Staff: Dennis Crooks, Liz Yeary The regular meeting of the Planning and Zoning Commission was called to order by Chairman, Rick Wells, at 7:15 p.m. in the City Hall Council Chaxnbers. The first item of business was approval of the minutes for the meeting of March 16, 1995. Terry McConnell made a motion to approve the minutes. The motion was seconded by Sonia Huyck and passed unanimously. The ne�ct item was approval of the minutes for the special meeting of March 28, 1995. Since the Recording Secretary had been notified by Commissioner Buckendorf that certain items may have been omitted from the Minutes, it was agreed to consider them for approval at the next regular meeting on April 20, 1995. Before the public hearing section of the agenda, the Chairman outlined the procedure for those present. The first item of public hearing concerned an item continued from the January 16, 1995 meeting agenda involving a proposed Amendment to the Caldwell Zoning Ordinance concerning farm animals and their offspring, and household pets within the incorporated limits of the City. Dennis reviewed what had taken place at the previous hearing, and stated that a preliminary draft ordinance had been prepared for the consideration of the Commission. All those who testified previously also received a copy of the draft ordinance. Prior to the meeting, a list of definitions or terms had been prepared which was circulated to the Commission and other interested parties. Dennis commented that an area of difficulty was differentiating between items which were more appropriate for the Zoning Ordinance and those issues covered by the Animal Control Ordinance, and he asked the Commission to include in their consideration whether the animal Control Ordinance should be amended concurrently. In response to a query from Rick, Dennis said that there had been several reports of chickens being kept on property within city limits. Public testimony was provided by the following individuals. John Tegge opposed any farm animals within City limits, including goats, chickens and any kind of pigs. Dee Burkhart, of Sandhollow, is a potbellied pig breeder and testified to their intelligence and suitability as domestic pets. In her opinion, the pigs do not get much more than 85 lbs. if they are MINUTES P&Z 4-6-95 Page 1 properly cared for. She also stated that there is a registration program for the pigs which would be a useful tool in controlling cross breeding, and finding owners of enant pigs. She felt the proposed ordinance was fair. Dan Erskine testified in opposition to restricting farm animals and asked that a fraction of land could be included in the measure. He suggested item "J" be amended to allow for sma11 commercial enterprises. He suggested a"K" section, in the case of uses prior to this amendment the continued use will be allowed as a use provided it does not lapse for a period not to exceed 12 months. In response to a question, Dennis stated that a person selling puppies or kittens from a litter is not considered a commercial breeding operation. Grandfather rights for nonconfornung uses is addressed in a separate section of the Zoning Ordinance but a clause could be inserted in this section if appropriate. Jan Zimmerman, Director of Animal Control for Canyon County, testified in support of the ordinance. She particularly agreed with the restriction on numbers of animals in city limits in view of the difficulty for people to take care of different types of animals in addition to busy lives. In response to a question from Dennis, Ms. Zimmerman said that to include potbellied pigs in the registration program would require an amendment to the Animal Control Ordinance but she did not think it would be a major fiscal burden. She felt it was appropriate to register the pigs with the shelter. She agreed that the Animal Control Ordinance should be amended at the same time. Nancy and Gerald Curry testified in opposition to any change in current zoning regulations concerning farm animals and in favor of more enforcement against farm animals in city limits. Mr. Curry stated that grandfathered rights should apply to specific animals and once the animals are reduced through attrition they should not be replaced by more animals. Bill Uhl spoke on behalf of potbellied pigs describing their habits and their disposition as household pets. He had no problem with the proposed ordinance. There is a national registry for potbellied pigs. The public testimony portion of the hearing was then closed. Rick commented that he feels there needs to be more information, particularly with regard to wild animals and he welcomed suggested definitions. Sonia agreed with Rick, stating that we need to work with Animal Control to avoid any enforcement problems and also address chickens and other fowl. After some further discussion, Terry McConnell offered a Motion to continue the item to a future date to enable the City to work with the Animal Control to produce a satiable ordinance. All people who testified and others who have expressed interest will be notified when it is set for future public hearing. Staff will also seek approval from Council to initiate amendment to the Animal Control ordinance. Dorothy Davidson seconded the Motion. MINUTES P&Z 4-6-95 Page 2 ROLL CALL VOTE. Those voting yes: McConnell, Davidson, Huyck. Those voting no: None. Absent and not voting: Buckendorf, Pilote. None. MOTION CARRIED The next public hearing involved a request to allow the installation of a 48 sq.ft. illuminated sign which exceeds the 32 sq.ft. pernutted maximum, on property located at the northeast corner of Taft Street and N. Illinois Avenue (Sacajawea School) in the R-1 (Single Family Residential) zoning district. The applicant was Gary Vance of Superior Signs on behalf of Sacajawea School. Dennis explained that the School District had received a Special Use Permit to construct and operate a school at the location in 1989. He identified the site and site plan on the overhead. Gary Vance appeared on behalf of the applicant explaining that the larger sign is requested to be able to address the aesthetics of the sign and still have reasonable area to display events etc. He explained the sign was proposed to be placed a considerable distance from the property line. In response to a question from Rick, Mr. Vance said that if the sign area were reduced the capacity on the readerboard portion of the sign would be reduced which would make it ineffective. The illumination of the sign would be extinguished at 10:00 p.m. when the school lights are e�inguished. In response to a question from Dorothy, NIr. Vance said that if the sign were flush mounted on the building it would be 75' to 100' from the street and virtually unreadable. Don Roblyer stated that he lives directly opposite the sign on N. Illinois and asked for clarification of the request. Dennis said that a non-illuminated 32 sq.ft. sign 10' from the property line is permitted without any kind of hearing. In answer to a question from Rick, Mr. Roblyer said that the proposed setback of 45' is better than a 10' setback. Dennis explained the nature of internal illumination and the opaque nature of the proposal. Mr. Vance said that the sign will not face the residences but will be perpendicular to the road. The public testimony portion of the hearing was then closed. Terry commented that with the information provided by the applicant, he felt the sign would be appropriate, particularly in view of the increased setback and the placement in relation to the right-of- way. Dorothy offered a Motion to approve the Special Use Pernut according to the terms and conditions suggested by Staff, finding that there will be no damage, nuisance or detriment because of the increased setback. Sonia seconded the Motion. ROLL CALL VOTE. Those voting yes: Davidson, Huyck, McConnell. Those voting no: None. Absent and not voting: Buckendorf, Pilote. None. MOTION CARRIED MINUTES PSZ 46-95 Page 3 The next hearing was a request for a Special Use Permit to extend the temporary operation of the golf driving range at the northeast corner of 21 st Avenue and Chicago Street. The applicant is Jim Wallace who is proposing to manage the facility instead of Brad Anselmo. Dennis explained that this permit is reviewed annually and as long as there are no major changes in the area, it has been permitted to continue. The new owner is requesting the extension to evaluate the economics of the project. Jim Wallace testified that he has been in the golfing business for 20 years and plans to get the range into good shape and make it an economic success. In response to a question from Terry McConnell, Mr. Wallace said that he had no problems with the suggested terms and conditions. Vicki de la Concepcion an adjacent property owner was concerned about liability insurance for potential injury from errant golf balls, that she had discussed this with the applicant and was satisfied. The public testimony portion of the hearing was closed. Terry discussed the potential for street improvements in the area, and expressed the hope, along with Rick, that something more permanent might eventually be installed. In response to a question from Dorothy, Dennis said that one of the reasons for the temporary use is because of needed infrastructure improvements, sewer and water, landscaping and curb and gutter. The area is in a transitional state and there may be a higher or better use for this property. The temporary nature of the permit was to allow the owner of the property to make use of it on a year to year interim basis. The City needs to make sure that infrastructure improvements are not bypassed for this property. There are signs of development on other neighboring properties. As activity levels increase, permanent infrastructure improvements will have to be addressed. Terry offered Motion to grant the Special Use Permit to extend the temporary operation of the golf driving range subject to terms and conditions suggested. Sonia Huyck seconded the Motion. ROLL CALL VOTE. Those voting yes: McConnell, Davidson, Huyck. Those voting no: None. Absent and not voting: BuckendorF, Pilote. None. MOTION CARRIED The final public hearing was a Special Use Permit request to a11ow an additional freestanding, externally illuminated sign on property located at the southwest corner of lOth Avenue and Elm Street. The applicant was Dr. W.T. Black. Dennis stated that Dr. Black occupies a two-tenant office building and the other tenant, Idaho Physical Therapy, has a sign. Dr. Black is requesting a sign to advertise his own business. The Code allows one sign per building, and does not allow illumination, although a Code Amendment has been initiated to amend the illumination aspect to permit internal illumination in the R-3 zone. The request seeks to place a sign on the Elm Street frontage, a local street. The proposed location faces office buildings for the hospital, not residences. MINUTES P8Z 4-6-95 Page 4 Dr. Black said that his intent in seeking the permit is to discover exactly what he is allowed to do and what will best suit the property. The unique situation with the building is that the entry way for each of�ice is separated. His original intent was to have a sign designed like the Idaho Physical Therapy sign on Elm Street. Another option he will consider is changing the e�sting sign to accommodate both businesses. Many offices in the surrounding neighborhood have illuminated signs. In response to a question from Sonia, Dr. Black said that the sign presently in place received temporary approval from the Planning and Zoning Department and once the request for an additional sign is approved the temporary sign will be transferred to be a flush mounted sign on the building. Dennis stated, in reply to Rick that the request is still a deviation from the proposed amended Code, since it is a second sign on the same property. The sign ordinance allows one sign 32 sq.ft. in size. Illumination would also be an issue. David Kemck of 2005 S. lOth spoke objecting to the deviation from Code. He described the first sign placed at the property which was about 4' in height from the ground and about 6' square, of wooden material. He considered it fitted in with the residential nature of the surrounding neighborhood. The eacisting sign is too bright and intrusive. He would prefer one professional sign advertising both businesses. His objection is to two signs and the light intensity generated. In response to a question from Sonia, Mr. Kerrick said that he would not object to one opaque sign such as that at West Valley Medical Center. Ken Stringfield, a property owner south of the property spoke in opposition to the two signs. He objected stating that the property borders the R-3 zone and the sign would have an adverse effect on the residential properties. He disagreed with Staffs opinion on the former wood sign with the spotlights and said they were less intrusive than the present illuminated sign. He agreed with Mr. Kerrick that one sign could advertise both businesses. He also asked that illumination be allowed at certain times of the day only. His preference, however, was for a non-illuminated sign. In response to a question Dennis said that the existing sign was granted as a remodelled sign to replace the former externally illuminated sign, and therefore was not required to obtain a Special Use Permit. Dr. Black returned to the podium and indicated that while his first preference is for two signs he would consider replacing the existing sign with an opaque illumination advertising both businesses. The public testimony portion of the hearing was then closed. The Commission further discussed the difference between one and two signs and the effect of illumination from two signs. Rick said that the Commission could simply deny the pernut, and have the applicant return to request another option or the Permit could be modified but granted subject to certain conditions. Terry offered a Motion to approve a Special Use Pernut for one freestanding sign at the corner of lOth and Elm Street not to exceed 32 sq.ft. with opaque internal illumination, in order to decrease glare, and have Staff prepare terms and conditions consistent with the Commission's action to satisfy MINUTES P8Z 46-95 Page 5 I � � Y Staff and Dr. Black. Dorothy Davidson seconded the Motion. Sonia Huyck commented that this option meets the Code for keeping the sign on a collector roadway and she was very much in favor of cutting down the glare. ROLL CALL VOTE. Those voting yes: McConnell, Davidson, Huyck. Those voting no: None. Absent and not voting: Buckendorf, Pilote. None. MOTION CARRIED Dennis commented on items acted on by Council and potential items for forthcoming Planning and Zoning Commission agendas. He reminded the Commission that there is a joint CounciUPlanning and Zoning Commission workshop on Apri124 concerning the Sign ordinance. There being no further business the meeting adjourned at 11:15 p.m. Respectfully Submitted, � �- G2 ? �%<,` � ' � � —�� Liz Yeary, Rick Wells Recording Secretary Chairman MINUTES P&Z 4-6-95 Page 6