Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1-27-2000 P&Z MINUTES • CALDWELL PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MINUTES OF JANUARY 27, 2000 � I. Call to Order — Hearing Examiner M. Jerome Mapp opened the meeting for the public hearings at 7:00 p.m. and outlined the public hearing procedures. City staff in attendance were: Mark Hilty, City Attomey, Linda James, Community Development Director, and Joan Holmes, Adnunistrative Secretary. II. Hearings A. Case No. SUP-74-2000, a request by Calvary Chapel of Caldwell for a special use pernut to conduct church services in a building located in a C-2 zone. The building is more commoniy known as 803 Main 'j Street. Testimony — Linda James presented the staff report and outlined the facts in the report. She presented Exhibit PR-1, a letter received from Brent and Peggy Houchins. The Houchins expressed their concern with the church locating within � 300 feet of their restaurant and the possibility of the use adversely impacting the restaurant being able to serve alcoholic beverages at some point in time. She also presented Exlubit PA-1, a memorandum from Gordon Law dated January 24, 2000 in which Mr. Law noted the church use might increase flow and waste load to the treatment plant and if so there would be addirional fees required by the City. i Bob Larson, Applicant, testified in favor and stated the following: the plan is to purchase the building and to eventually build a new church and sell the downtown building; the intent is to stay in the building several years and would not object to coming back to the City to review the use after a period of five years; there are currently 30 to 40 adults in the congregation. � Scott Johnson, Youth Pastor, testified in favor and stated he currently has 30-35 junior/senior high students that are served through youth activities conducted by the church. � Stephanie Heimbigner, Christine Heimbigner, Steve Heimbigner, Susan Zandi, Ian Heimbigner, David Begley, ! Deanna Lane, Robert Armenta, and Lisa Poston signed up in favor but did not testify. f Bob Larson, in response to a question asked by the Hearing Examiner, stated that the intent is for the church to . paint the building and fix it up and sell it to a commercial-type business. Pubiic Testimony Closed —Mr. Mapp closed public testimony. I Findings of Fact — Jerome Mapp accepted the general facts outlined in the staff report as Findings of Fact and i included the following comments: services will be held on Sundays and after 6:00 p.m. on Wednesday, which ! means that the parking spaces in back of the building and on Kimball and Main are available to persons attending church; if the church hours were to change and the church had services or acrivities between the hours of 9:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m., Monday through Saturday, the Applicant would have to seek an amendment to the special use ; permit regarding off-street parking; there are advantages to having a vacant building filled even on a temporary basis and the church use should not affect the downtown adversely; any business wanring to serve alcoholic beverages in the future, and within 300 feet of the church, has the opportunity to go before City Council and seek approval. ; Conclusions of Law — The Hearing Examiner has the authority to hear this case and to approve or deny; public ;; norice requirements were met, and the hearing was conducted within the guidelines of Idaho Code and City ' ordinances. Order of Decision — Mr. Mapp stated that the request is approved with the standard condirions outlined in the I staff report except amend condition 8.2 to include a time period of four years at which time the church will have to � apply for an extension, and if the church vacates the building within the four years, the pernut is null and void. Public Hearing Closed —Jerome Mapp closed the public hearing and noted anyone wishing to appeal his decision should see the Director of Community Development. I � . *�**********************�**�*******************�*,�*******�**�********************* B. To hear concurrently Case Nos. SUP-73-99 and VAR-18-99, a request by Pastor Ambrocio Cruz (Spanish Pentecostal Church) for a special use pemut to add a 6000 square foot addition to the existing church and to have off-street parking located on secondary lots, and a variance from the number of off- street parking spaces required for a church. The church is located on Third Avenue between Ithaca and Joliet Streets. The proposed secondary off-street parking lots are more commonly laiown as 221, 223, and 323 Ithaca Street, and 219 Hannibal Street. Testimony — Linda James presented the staff report and noted that the three proposed lots located on Ithaca Street, to be used as secondary parking lots, cannot meet the Ordinance requirements because they are within an R-2 zone, which does not permit parking facilities. The proposed lot on Hannibal meets Ordinance requirements because it is zoned C-2. She also noted that it was unclear as to how many parking spaces are required but that the ApplicanYs representarive and architect were in attendance and could clarify that point. She presented Exhibit PA-1, a copy of a memorandum from Bruce Allcott, Fire Chief, in which he noted that fire flow might be a problem Mrs. James noted that if approved the Applicant will be required to apply for a building permit and that the Applicant will be required to meet the Engineering and Fi�e Departmer.ts sgecific :equi:�ments befcrz a permit will be issued. Danny Ayala, Applicant's representative, testified in favor and stated the following: the church is growing and there is a need for the addition to the building; there are approximately 220 persons that attend the church at this time; the church will comply with the requirements of the Engineering and Fire Departments; he understands that the parking lot on Hannibal will have to be paved and landscaped as per City Codes but would like to only apply a road mix until there is a real need to use it for the overflow parking. Tom Collins, Architect, tesrified in favor and stated the following: the plans for the proposed building does include meering the requirements of the fire department; the current site has 67 parking spaces and an addiriona135 will be added thereby making 102 parking spaces on the same site as the church. Carol Moore testified in opposition of the parking lot on Hannibal because she owns a business that is located on Hannibal adjacent to the proposed parking lot. She questioned why the church would not have to pave the parking lot like she had to when she located her business on Hannibal. A1 Moore testified in opposition and reiterated Carol Moore's concern with paving the parking lot on Hannibal. He also stated that the pazking lot on Hannibal is almost two blocks away from the church. People will take the shortest route from the parking lot to the church, which will be through private yards. Danny Ayala tesrified in rebuttal and stated that the church is a good neighbor and will continue to be one, but that they are requesting that the parking lot not have to be paved until the church actually needs to begin using it. Tom Collins was called back to the podium by the Hearing Examiner and responded that the church is designed to provide seating canacity for 990 people. In response to the Hearing Examiner, Linda James read into the record the requirements for parking lot standards outlined in Section 10-02-05, Subsecrion (10) A, Zoning Ordinance No. 1451. This Secrion requires parking facilities to be paved unless they are located within an M-1 and/or M-2 zone. Public Testimony Closed — Mr. Mapp closed public testimony. Findings of Fact — NIr. Mapp accepted the general facts outlined in the staff report as Findings of Fact and included the following: all five of the variance criteria are not true; there will be 102 parking spaces on the same lot as the church, which �ill provide for a congregarion of 408; a variance to reduce the number of off-street parking spaces at this time is a moot point. Conclusions of Law — The Hearing Examiner has the authority to hear this case and approve or deny; the hearing was legally noticed and conducted within the guidelines of applicable codes and ordinances. Order of Decision — Mr. Nlapp stated that the variance from the required number of parking spaces for a church is Minutes of January 27, 2000 , . - denied, and a special use permit to use a secondary lot for church parking facilities is denied, and the request to construct a 6000 square foot addirion onto the existing church is approved with the standard condirions outlined in the staff report and include a condition that when the congregarion reaches 409 persons the church must seek addirional off-street parking. Public Hearing Closed — Mr. Mapp closed the public hearing and noted anyone wishing to appeal his decision should see the Director of Community Development. ****************************************************�*****�********�************** C. Case No. ZON-07-2000, a request by Schyler and Lou Ann Enochs to rezone approximately 4.39 acres from R-1 (Single-Family Residenrial) to C-2 (Community Commercial). Included in the request is a development agreement applicable to commercial use of the parcel. The site currently houses a small animal hospital and is located at the northeast comer of the intersection of S. 10`� Avenue and Ustick Road and is more commonly lrnown as 4023 S. 10� Avenue. Testimony — Linda James presented the staff report and discussed the general facts as outlined in the staff report. She also noted that the Applicant had applied for a rezone in 1999 and at a public hearing held by Planning and Zoning Conunission members on i�1ay 1 fi, 1999 the request was recommended to Council for approval. The C:ty Council, at a public hearing held June 7, 1999 denied the request because of the lack of the opportunity to provide provisions to protect the residential neighborhood. Mr. Enochs was reapplying at this time and was including a Development Agreement. Susan Wildwood, Attorney representing the Applicant, testified in favor and presented Exhibit HE-1, a copy of the Assessor's map showing the subject site and surrounding zoning and cturent uses. Ms. Wildwood noted for the record that there is an existing church immediately west of the subject parcel and across S. 10�' Avenue; two subdivisions on the north and east sides of the parcel, and a 10-acre site immediately south of the subject parcel and across Ustick Road that is currently zoned C-1. Ms. Wildwood stated the following: the small animal hospital is currently considered a non-complying use, which is a concern because it restricts any expansion and could not be rebuilt if it should burn or be destroyed; Council's major concern in June, 1999 was that there was no Development Agreement attached to the request; Mr. Law's request for right-of-way along 10�', Brian and Ustick is normally requested at the time of development and not at the time of a rezone request; Mr. Law's other comments are covered under the Owner's Commitments of the Development Agreement; no additional access, other than that akeady on Ustick and 10`� will be permitted; there is only one building permit for the parcel at this time; if Mr. Enochs wants to put more than one use on this site he would be required to apply for a subdivision or Planned Unit Development and either one would require a public hearing; Mr. Enochs is planning to put a landscape buffer along the east side of the property in the near future; the property has been used as a small animal hospital for 32 years and has been taxed during this period as commercial. Schuyler Enochs, Applicant, testified in favor and stated the following: plats for McCarthy and Rosewood Subdivisions were recorded on January 7, 1963 and April 24, 1964 respectively; he purchased his property on January 23, 1963 and there were no buildings on any of the surrounding properties when he built the animal hospital; he intends to plant black cherry trees every 20 feet all along the eastem boundary of his parcel and adjacent to Brian Avenue. Brent Bauscher testified in favor and stated that he currently leases the property and runs the small animal hospital. If the practice continues to grow, he would like to be able to add on to the existing building, and if the present building were to burn down or be destroyed he would have a great deal to lose. Lou Ann Enochs signed up in favor but did not testify. Melissa Huyck, Sonia Huyck, E.F. Jensen, Deania Favillo, John Favillo, and Peggy Miller tesrified in opposition. Concems included the following: commercial zoning will downgrade/devalue their properties; traffic will be increased and there are children playing in the area; the Enochs parcel was zoned residential by the County in 1963 and should remain as residential; the neighborhood would not oppose Mr. Enochs seeking a special use pernut for the hospital but outright zoning the properiy as commercial is not appropriate because it opens up the area to too many commercial uses. Susan Wildwood testified in rebuttal and stated the following: there was no zoning in the County unril 1979; Mr. Minutes of January 27, 2000 . „ Enochs cannot seek a special use permit because a small animal hospital is not permitted even by special use in an R-1 zone; the existing road right-of-way and drainage ditch along the northem part of the parcel provides a natural buffer; there currently is no access from Brian to the property and the Development Agreement does not provide for one. Public Testimony Closed — Mr. Mapp closed public testimony. Findings of Fact — Jerome Mapp accepted the general facts outlined in the staff report as Findings of Fact and included the following comments: the small animal hospital was in existence prior to any residential uses in the area being constructed; there have been changes in property ownership over the years within the area but the small animal hospital and parcel have remained under the same ownership since 1963; traffic on Brian Avenue will not be affected by the Enochs parcel because there is no access to or from Brian and the Applicant agrees that there will be no future access on/off Brian to the parcel; there were no facts offered that would support whether property values in the area will go up or down; the reason why Mr. Enochs did not protest the annexarion into the City as an R-1 zone is not known but that issue is in the past and when considering issues one needs to look to the future. ' Conclusions of Law — The Hearing Examiner has the authority to hear this request and to make a recommendation to the Mayor and City Council. Public hearing notification requirements were met, and the hearing was conducted within the guidelines of applicable codes and ordinances. Recommendation to City Council — Mr. Mapp recommended that Case No. ZON-07-2000 is approved. Public Hearing Closed — Mr. Mapp closed the public hearing. *�*�*************************************************************************:��*** D. Case No. OA-27-2000, a request by the Community Development Director to amend Zoning Ordinance No. 1451, by deleting Subsection (4)C of Section 10-03-07, Planned Unit Developments. Testimony — Linda James presented the staff report and outlined the various components in the report that relate to the need far the amendment. Public Testimony Ctosed — Mr. Mapp closed public testimony. Findings of Fact — Jerome Mapp accepted the facts outlined in the staff report and included the following: 1) seeking a variance from the 20% rule is not appropriate because a variance is not a right or a privilege and using it to alleviate a rule to the ordinance is wrong; 2) when a requirement in an ordinance is causing problems it is time to evaluate the requirement and consider an amendment to the ordinance. Conclusions of Law — The Hearing Examiner has the authority to hear this case and to recommend to the Mayor and City Council approval or denial; public notice requirements were met, and the hearing was conducted within the guidelines of Idaho Code and City ordinances. Recommendation to Cauncil — Mr. Mapp recommended that Case No. OA-27-2000 is approved. Public Aearing Closed — Mr. Mapp closed the public hearing. ***�******�**�************�*********************************�****************�**** VII. Planning Issues- There were no planning issues brought forward. VIII. Adjournment — Mr. Mapp adjourned the meeting at approximately 9:20 p.m. MINUTES APPR ED AND SIGNED BY HEARING EXAMINER JEROME MAPP ON THE DATE NOT�D BE�F7W. '� r, � � ATTEST: � • J�T D te Community Devel nt Director Minutes of January 27, 2000