Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout4-20-1995 P&Z MINUTES � � PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MINUTES Meeting of Apri120, 1995 Present: Madeline Buckendorf, Dorothy Davidson, Sonia Huyck, Terry McConnell, Bettie Pilote, Rick Wells Absent: None 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 Chambers. The first item of business was approval of the minutes for the special meeting of March 28, 1995. Madeline Buckendorf asked that a comment be added that she was concerned that a meeting held at 12 noon rather than the regular meeting time prevented some of the neighbors from attending the meeting. Sonia Huyck offered a Motion to approved the Minutes as corrected. The motion was seconded by Dorothy Davidson and passed unanimously. The next item was approval of the minutes for the meeting of April 6, 1995. Terry McConnell offered a motion to approve the Minutes as distributed. The motion was seconded by Madeline Buckendorf and passed unanimously. Before the public hearing section of the agenda, the Chairman outlined the procedure for those present. The first item of public hearing concerned a request for a change in zoning from R-1 (Single Family Residential) to R-3 (Multi Family High Density Residential) for 4.5 acres of property located generally at the northwest corner of Hillcrest Lane and N.Indiana Avenue. The applicant was Gary Vance. Dennis described the property and location and explained that the area had been designated high density residential in the Comprehensive Plan and an adjacent area had been rezoned to R-3-15 recently. Staffrecommend that an R-3-15 zone which places some limitation on the density within the property would be appropriate. There was also a draft development agreement with terms and stipulations which would run with the zone change. Staff is hopeful of being able to obtain additional right-of-way from N. Michigan south then east to Indiana Avenue to provide a second outlet to improve circulation and emergency vehicle access. Gary Vance spoke as the owner of the property. He wants to build multi-family dwellings on the front portion of the property, as a family investment. He does not envision any development on the remainder of the property at this time. In response to a question from Madeline, Mr. Vance agreed with the terms of the development agreement and the R-3-15 recommended sub-zone category. Reba DeMond, 120 S.Indiana, expressed opposition to multi-family dwellings on the property. She questioned the feasibility of bringing the sewer to the property. Dennis confirmed that sewer and water service are available on Indiana Avenue. It is commonly understood that sewer and water MINUTES P8Z 420-95 Page i , hookup would be required with any development. Irrigation services are not generally evaluated at the time a zone change is requested but at the time property is developed. State Law requires no interruption of irrigation service by new development. Sewer and water service receive initial evaluation at this stage but actual construction of those services are part of development rather than a zone change. One of the findings for zone changes is that accessibility to utilities is evaluated so that density is not increased to a point that the utility service for the area is overloaded. Max Weaver of 209 S. Indiana expressed opposition to the zone change citing the requirement for other developments in the area to be single family residential and that he did not think such a change was appropriate at this time. He also cited questions of traffic and other safety issues. He had no opposition to single family development. Mr. Vance, in rebuttal, responded that he understood the concerns, the change from agricultural land to urban land. He repeated his intention to develop the land for his family's future. Dennis explained the sunounding zoning and the mixed use medium density residential development on Michigan Avenue. The public testimony portion of the hearing was closed. Terry commented that the area is designated as High Density Residential in the Comprehensive Plan and that the applicant is not seeking the fullest scope of High Density Residential. Indiana Avenue, as a collector, provides a buffer with the single family developments on the eastern side. He was in favor of the zone change. Bettie agreed with Terry, supporting a concept of increased quality of rental units. Madeline sympathized with the neighbors but cited the Comprehensive Plan in supporting the request. Terry McConnell offered a Motion to recommend approval of the requested zone change for the subject property to City Council from R-1 to R-3-15 at the northwest corner of Indiana Avenue and Hillcrest Lane in conjunction with the proposed Development Agreement. Madeline Buckendorf seconded the Motion. ROLL CALL VOTE. Those voting yes: McConnell, BuckendorF, Pilote, Davidson, Huyck. Those voting no: None. Absent and not voting: None. MOTION CARRIED The second public hearing was a request for a Variance from the W.D. Seed Co to reduce the street ri n 20 feet to zero 0 feet to accommodate a buildin side setback from the presc bed twe ty () () g expansion. The reduction affects the Laurel Street frontage. The representative of the applicant was Dan Swindell. Mr. Swindell explained that the facility is used as a packaging and shipping facility and the proposed addition will provide additional storage. MINUTES P8Z 420-95 Page 2 , In response to a question from Bettie, Mr. Swindell said that the boxes presently in the parking lot will be transfened inside the building except for high volume times which are seasonal. Answering a question from Madeline, he stated that while a 5' setback is not a problem, 20' would make the addition impossible. Dennis responded to the question of safety and sight distance for trucks and other vehicles exiting onto Laurel Street. It was pointed out that the width of the drive approach (45 feet) provided added viewing distance. Also, removal of the broken sidewalk on Laurel should discourage pedestrian traffic in an area where it perhaps doesn't belong. The public testimony portion of the hearing was closed. Terry stated that he thought the building would be more presentable if it were lined up with the existing building at the zero setback line. Madeline was more supportive of a 4/5 foot setback citing concerns of safety, children using the road to get to the park and the proximity to the ditch. Sonia agreed with Terry, supporting a business in the location and citing the ditch and the industrial street as physical barriers to pedestrians. Bettie Pilote offered a Motion to grant the Variance subject to suggested terms and conditions. Dorothy Davidson seconded the Motion. ROLL CALL VOTE. Those voting yes: Pilote, Davidson, Huyck, McConnell. Those voting no: Buckendorf. Absent and not voting: None. MOTION CARRIED The third public hearing was to consider a request for a Special Use Permit to replace two existing non-conforming billboard type signs with one billboard type sign which exceeds the maximum square footage permitted by Code. Dennis indicated that a letter supporting this request from Thomas Development was received and distributed to the Commission. Thomas Development is involved in the construction of the apartment complex across 34th Avenue. Rick Eardley for ldaho Outdoor Advertising testified that they are attempting to contact businesses �� statewide and persuade them to replace old signs with new signs and modernize the structures. Terry supported the proposal, particularly in view of current efforts to improve Cleveland Blvd. Bettie agreed with Terry. Madeline commented that since the structure's proposed location is further removed from the right-of-way, and the intersection with 34th Avenue, the visual impact is lessened. Bettie offered a Motion to approve the Special Use Permit subject to suggested terms and conditions. Madeline seconded the Motion. MINUTES P8Z 420.95 Page 3 ROLL CALL VOTE. Those voting yes: Pilote, Davidson, Huyck, McConnell, BuckendorF. Those voting no: None. Absent and not voting: None. MOTION CARRIED The final public hearing was a request for a Zone Change from R-1 to R-3 for property on the west side of lOth Avenue between Elm Street and Ash Street and the applicant was West Valley Medical Center. Mark Adams, Administrator, was their representative. Wanen Hollenbeck was the realtor involved in the property transaction. Dennis explained that the property consists of three parcels, two vacant parcels in one ownership and one parcel as a single family residence, giving a total of 2.25 acres. The property had been the subject of a rezone request in 1984 which had been denied. The Comprehensive Plan designates the area as transitional between High Density Residential and Low Density Residential. Also, there are some policy objectives within the Plan which support a systematic expansion of the Hospital and support services. A number of items were identified in the report submitted. Staff is encouraging a residential theme for any office building to be constructed on the site in order to blend with the residential development along l Oth Avenue. Staff is also concerned about traffic and access which can be addressed as part of ' a Development Agreement. Also noted in the report is that there is unimproved right-of-way for Fairview Avenue along the west side of the property. When the earlier zone change request was received there was no tool like the Development Agreement to limit the type of use to a medical office type use which would be ancillary to West Valley Medical Center. The Development Agreement would also require the applicant to submit a detailed development proposal as part of the Special Use Permit where final design issues could be evaluated and where neighbors concerns could be addressed. Dennis also reported that a petition objecting to the proposal had been received and distributed to the Commission. Terry expressed concern about the people who signed the petition. Mark Adams said that the West Valley Medical Center wishes to develop the property as a medical office complex for physicians and ancillary senrices. There is a definite need to provide quality health service to the community and in order to fulfill that need the hospital has to expand. Included in this attempt is an active recruitment of new physicians to Caldwell. He cited the Comprehensive Plan as recognizing the vital benefit of the hospital to the community. Currently the facility is understaffed and in addition it is envisioned that at least five physicians per year, plus ancillary staff, will be needed to meet the growing medical needs of the community. West Va11ey Medical Center has options to buy both parcels and would develop one medical office complex. Exa.ct details have not yet been developed. The intent is that traf�ic should have one exit on l Oth Avenue and one on Elm Street. In response to a question from Madeline, Mr. Adams said that they are willing to meet with the neighbors and discuss their concerns. In response to a question from Sonia, Mr. Adams said that the Medical Arts Building currently houses 11 physicians. MINUTES P8Z 420-95 Page 4 t Barbara Rankin expressed opposition to any multi-family residential development on the property and supported the need for facilities for doctors. She was opposed to access onto Fairview Avenue which is currently a gravel road, and which has a storm water retention problem. In response to a question from the Commission, Mrs. Rankin said that she understood the Development Agreement concept and was opposed to multi-family housing development but did not object to medical offices being constructed on the property. David Kerrick stated that his residence is located directly opposite the subject property. He explained, in response to Terry's concerns, that the petition had been circulated to property owners within the 300' radius. Those who signed the petition also had an opportunity to review the Staff Report. He said that the narrative statement by the applicant was misleading, that the Staff Recommendation was not based on any criteria, nor were any restrictions imposed on the hospital. He said that the application appeared to be requesting additional space for office personnel, whereas the applicant is now referring to doctors' offices. He criticized the applicant's desire to go through the rezone prior to incurring expense in designing a development. He also demonstrated that the Development Agreement while requiring compliance with conditions, did not spell out any conditions. NIr. Kerrick indicated on the map the expanse of R-3 zoning adjacent to the hospital and the very large campus already existing for the hospital which is used for parking. The Staff Report cites the Comprehensive Plan concerning the orderly expansion of the hospital. Mr. Kerrick felt there should be occupancy reports, staff numbers, hiring practices, hospital ownership. He felt there was no evidence to support the expansion. At this point the Chair raised the question of time. Bettie Pilote offered a Motion to allow NIr. Kerrick to take more time to give testimony since he was representing other property owners in the area. Sonia seconded the Motion which passed unanimously. Mr. Kerrick discussed access and Staf�s recommendation from both streets. He felt the whole proposal had to be addressed as one item. The neighborhood do not have enough information on which the Commission might base their decision. Terry asked Mr. Kemck if he would oppose a proposal if it were buffered with a berm or similar device to separate the use. Mr. Kemck said he was opposed because the area is R-1 and the area on the l Oth Avenue frontage of the property should be single family residential separated by a hedge from the property to the west. Sonia commented that this is the beginning of the process and Staff is limited in what they can require. Mr. Kemck commented on the lack of information provided and his confusion over what is being proposed. In response to a question from the Chairman, Mr. Kerrick said that he had not spoken to anyone who was in support of the proposed zone change. Mrs. Rankin had indicated to him that she would be at the hearing. In further questioning, Mr. Kemck said it would be devastating to the quality of life, not solely in terms of financial impact but also the single family lifestyle which they cunently enjoy. In response to a question from Sonia, Mr. Kerrick said that he would be less opposed if the proposal indicated the buildings would be single story. MINUTES P8Z 420-95 Page 5 , The next person to testify was Juneal Kerrick who described the lifestyle of the residents of the neighborhood, the children playing in the front yards, and the gracious older homes which are unique in style and construction materials. She also expressed concern about more access onto lOth Avenue which is always busy. She questioned the wisdom of making a decision based on no information as to the development plans. Sara Stringfield testified in opposition to the proposal citing the impact on the neighborhood and increased traffic. Warren Hollenbeck then spoke in support of the request. He stated that he had been approached by the hospital two years previously to find property suitable for development. The subject property was offered and he had approached the City who had advised him that the first step would be to have the zoning changed and then obtain a Special Use Permit. Ten properties were considered. Five were not close enough to the hospital. Two were already sold and scheduled for medical office buildings and two were not available to the hospital. He understood that it was not necessary to provide development plans for the zone change. The hospital want the neighbors' input and will design their facility keeping in mind those concerns. In response to a question from Rick, Mr. Hollenbeck said that he had been advised by Staff that a two-story building would not be viewed positively unless it could be designed in such a way that the roof line would give an appearance of a one story building. Dorothy asked Mr. Hollenbeck if he had been involved in other projects of this kind. NIr. Hollenbeck replied that he had not but that he hoped the hospital and the neighbors could achieve a compromise. Ken Stringfield spoke in opposition, stating that his family had lived there for three generations and read excerpts from the 1984 meeting minutes of the attempted zone change. At the meeting when the Special Use Permit had been granted to the northern properties, the Commission had sated that the zoning would not go any further south. On that basis, the 1984 zone change was rejected. Mr. Stringfield described vacant properties which he felt might be more suitable for the development. He then presented a letter from his mother and two pages of minutes from the 1984 meeting. Mr. Adams responded to the testimony, expressing a need to make a decision quickly as health care is changing dramatically and the hospital has to expand. He appreciates the quality of life in Caldwell but part of the quality of life is the availability of inedical services. He was in support of obtaining the Adams property but was unable to do so. Dennis said in response to comments from Madeline and Terry that the Commission has to prepare and forward some recommendation to the City Council. This would be in the form of a recommendation of an approval or a denial. In making that decision, the Commission must find they have enough information to make a qualified, informed decision. Staff could do an inventory of R-3 properry in the area, looking at land use patterns and what is and is not available. We could also do a more intensive tra.i�c study of lOth Avenue and traffic patterns in the general area and evaluate alternative means of access to the property including Fairview Avenue on the west. The developer is not required to bring definite proposals for development with a zone change. In this instance, the Development Agreement obligates a detailed review as part of a Special Use Permit MINUTES P8Z 420-95 Page 6 � before any development can take place. If a use pernut is not obtained, then the zoning would revert back to R-1. Madeline stated that she did not feel she had enough information. Sonia questioned if the Zone Change were approved, and the Special Use Pernut were denied would the hospital not be in a worse position. Dennis responded by saying not necessarily so. Development Agreements usually are for a specific time frame, say, 2 years. If for some reason the use permit were denied, they would have the option of going back to the drawing board to make changes to the design and present a different proposal under a new permit request. If no permit is obtained within the prescribed time frame, then the zoning would revert back to R-1. The public testimony portion of the hearing was then closed. Madeline reiterated that she felt she did not have sufficient information. She did not want an inventory of R-3 property, but would like a traffic analysis and potential points of access for the development. She wanted to see a compromise between the two parties. Terry agreed saying that he would like them to try and meet and come to a satisfactory conclusion. Dorothy commented that it was important to keep in mind the next twenty years. The hospital is an employment base we need to support. She agreed that there is encroachment in the R-1 zone but that change happens and Caldwell has changed and grown. Bettie commented that she would like to see some additional information. However, she stated that she did not feel the proposal was compatible with the residential neighborhood and would destroy the integrity of the neighborhood. Sonia sa.id she felt the hospital and neighbors could work together to come up with a compromise but that she would like some kind of proposal to consider. Rick commented that he did not want to see the item tabled if the request is not going to succeed anyway. He added that if they felt with more information they could approve the zone change he would have no objection. A$er some further discussion, Madeline offered a motion to continue the hearing on an open basis to the May 4 meeting requesting additional information from the applicant such as building footprint, and conceptual sketch, to have staff evaluate development options in the area, to do a traffic analysis on lOth Avenue especially with traffic access to the property, and land use patterns. Terry McConnell seconded the Motion. ROLL CALL VOTE. Those voting yes: Buckendorf, Davidson, Huyck, McConnell. Those voting no: Pilote. Absent and not voting: None. MOTION CARRIED MINUTES P8Z 420-95 Page 7 � . 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, , �� � Liz Yeary, Rick Wells Recording Secretary Chairman MINUTES P8Z 420-95 Page 8