The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About7-27-2000 P&Z MINUTES v t " t CALDWELL PUBLIC HEARINGS BEFORE HEARING EXAMINER MINUTES OF JULY 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: Linda James, Community Development Director, and Joan Holmes, Administrative Secretary. II. Hearings A. Case No. SUB-S1P-00 a request by Crestline Development, LC for preliminary subdivision plat approval of South Park Subdivision No. 2, which consists of 483 residential and 9 common-area lots located on approximately 118 acres within an R-1 (Single Family Residential) zone. South Park Subdivision No. 2 includes a replat of a portion of the preliminary plat of South Park Subdivision. Testimony — Linda James presented the staff report and stated that the Applicant proposed 12 phases but there was no development schedule submitted. Scott Stanfield, Applicant's engineer, tesrified in favor and stated the following: the plat does show a lot discrepancy and the City's finding of 484 residential lots, 9 common-area lots and 1 well lot is correct; the proposed 12 phases is not unusual when large properties are master planned for subdivision development, and a development schedule would be for one phase per year for a 12 year build out; the Applicant will meet all the requirements of the City. The Applicant does not agree with Gordon Law's requirement to abandon the irrigation well located on the southem boundary of the site and would like to leave this open because Pioneer may want to use the we1L William Kelly, 16899 S. Indiana, signed in in opposition at the July 17, 2000 hearing but did not attend the hearing of July 27, 2000. Public Testimony Closed — Mr. Mapp closed public testimony. Comprehensive Plan Analysis — Mr. Mapp found that the request was applicable to the following Comprehensive Plan components: Property Rights — Goal, Objecrives B and D, and Policy 1; School Faciliries and Transportation — Goal and Policy 1; Economic Development — Goal; Land Use — Goal, Objectives applicable to all land uses: Objectives A, B, and C; Residential — Policy 3; Natural Resources — Objective A, Policy 1; Public Services, �Jtilities and Faciliries — Goal, Objectives A and B, Policies 1, 6, and 7; Transportarion — Goal, Objective A, Policies 1, 5, and 8; Recrearion — Goal, Objective C, and Policy 1; Housing — Goal, Objective C, and Policy 3; Community Design Goal, Objective E, and Policies 2 and 11. Findings of Fact — Mr. Mapp accepted the facts outlined in the staff report as Findings of Fact and include the following fmdings: the Applicant is in the process of de-anne�ng from the Wilder Irrigation District; no development schedule was submitted; the Applicant will landscape all of the common-area lots and has agreed to fence the area along the prescriptive easement for the Phyllis Canal; the Fire Marshal listed 11 condirions, some with more emphasis and the Applicant intends to meet with him in the near future; secondary accesses, whether permanent or temporary, will be provided for each phase. Conclusions of Law — Mr. Mapp accepted the Conclusions of Law outlined in the staff report. Recommendation to City Council— Mr. Mapp recommended approval on Case No. SUB-S 1P-00. Public Hearing Closed — Mr. Mapp closed the public hearing. ��************�*��*��*******��******�*�*******�******�**�***��**************�*********** B. Case No. SUP-93-00, a request by The Millenium Corporarion for approval of a special use perxnit to place a manufactured home on a lot for use as an office for a used car dealership. The site is zoned C-3 (Service Commercial) and is more commonly lrnown as 3308 E. Cleveland Blvd. . � � Testimony — Linda James presented the staff report. Testifying in favor: A1 Phillips, ApplicanYs Representative. Preston Nichols, Applicant, was signed up in favor but did not speak. Mr. Phillips stated that the Architectural plans should be finished within the week; the two exiting buildings will be torn down once the mobile home office can be occupied; the mobile home office will be temporary until a permanent office can be built, and the Applicant is working with other developers to bring other uses on the site. Linda James, in response to a quesrion from the Hearing Examiner, stated that the office did not have to be placed on a permanent foundation if the intent was to remove it in the near future. Public Testimony Closed — Mr. Mapp closed public testimony. Comprehensive Plan Analysis — Mr. Mapp found that the request was applicable to the following Comprehensive Plan components: Property Rights — Goal, Objective B, and Policy 1; School Facilities and Transportarion — Goal and Policy 1; Land Use — Goal, Commercial Policies 3 and 4; Natural Resources — Goal and Policy 1; Public Services, Utilities and Facilities — Goal, Objective A, Policies 1, 2, 5, and 7; Transportation — Goal and Objective A; Community Design - Goal, Objectives A and E. Findings of Fact — Accept the general facts outlined in the staff report as Findings of Fact and include the following Findings: the Applicant was in violation by bringing the mobile home on the site without a pernut but he is here today to correct the violation; the mobile home does not have to be placed on a permanent foundation if the intent is to use it only temporarily; the Applicant has hired an engineering firm to prepare plans for storm drainage, and has hired an architect to prepare landscape plans; the property is adjacent to an R-2 residential one and a 6-foot tall fence will be installed along the portion of the property that abuts the residenrial zone. Conclusions of Law — Mr. Mapp accepted the Conclusions of Law outlined in the staff report. Order of Decision — Mr. Mapp approved Case No. SUP-93-00 with the standard conditions outlined in the staff report and included the following conditions: The mobile home shall be skirted, and a 6-foot tall sight-obscuring fence shall be installed along the property line that abuts the residential property. *******:�***��********�****�*�*��**��***********�:��***�*�****�******�*****��*�*******�** C. Case No. SUP-94-00, a request by Kevin J. Everson for approval of a special use permit to add one additional dwelling unit onto an existing tri-plex located at 2416 Alder. The property is approximately 14,000 square feet and is within an R-2 (Medium-Density Residential) zone. Testimony — Linda James presented the staff report and Exhibit PA-3 a copy of a letter dated July 7, 2000 from John Baldazo, Code Enforcement Officer. Kevin Everson, Applicant, testified in favor and stated the following: he owned the property last year but the new owner is Randle, LLC; the new owners have done some improvements such as interior/exterior painting; if the request is approved, the driveway and parking area will be paved, which will eliminate the dust issue; in order to have the cash flow to pave the driveway and parking area and to install landscaping the fourth dwelling unit is necessary. In opposition were: Shirley Martin, Terry Dye, Nancy Ensley, Mashelle Moore, Michael Moore, and Darlene McCart. Concerns stated were: high tra�c and speeding, noise, dust, inadequate parking, excessive trash, and the property is not maintained. Kevin Everson returned to the podium at the request of the Hearing Examiner and stated that he was the owner of the property between 1997 and 1999. He also stated that if the request is approved the new owners would be able to pave the driveway and parking area because there would be the necessary cash flow. Hearing Examiner Minutes of July 27, 2000 ` � r 1 . ' Linda James, in response to the Hearing Examiner's question regarding the paving of driveways in Caldwell stated that this is not a requirement for existing developments. Public Testimony Closed — Mr. Mapp ciosed public testimony. Comprehensive Plan Analysis — Mr. Mapp found that the request was applicable to the following Comprehensive Plan components: Properiy Rights — Goal, Objective B, and Policy 1; School Facilities and Transportation — Goal and Policy 1; Land Use — Goal, Residential Policies 1 and 3; Natural Resources — Goal and Policy 1; Public Services, Utilities and Facilities — Goal, Objecrive A, Policies 1, 2, 5, and 7; Transportation — Goal and Objecrive A; Community Design - Goal, Objectives A and E. Findin s of g Fact— Accept the general facts outlmed in the staff report as Findings of Fact and include the following Findings: the Applicant did not provide any testimony that would show how the additional unit would enhance the subject lot or the neighborhood; the Applicant stated that if the request is granted the property owner would pave the driveway and parking area, otherwise the City does not require him to do this; reducing the open- space axea by adding an addirional unit would be detrimental to persons already living in the existing units and to the neighborhood in general; the adjoining property owners have stated they want good neighbors but adding the addirional unit will not ensure that this will happen; more than the required 1.5 off-site parking spaces per unit is needed because of the number of people that live in the units or visit; the track record of the property owner over the last four years does not support the ApplicanYs statement that the site will be maintained; the maintenance of the property should be the responsibility of the property owner and not the tenants; even though the City cannot require the driveway and parking area to be paved, it would make better sense to be a good neighbor by doing it. Conclusions of Law— Mr. Mapp accepted the Conclusions of Law outlined in the staff report. Order of Decision — Mr. Mapp denied Case No. SUP-94-00 with the suggesrion that the owner of the property show that he is willing to be a good neighbor by maintanung the property, and a meeting between the property owners and the neighborhood to address their concerns would be helpful. If the properry owner can establish a track record on maintaining the property, then coming back in a year with a request to add the additional dwelling unit would have a better chance of being viewed favorably. 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 9:10 p.m. MINUTES APPROVED AND SIGNED BY HEARING EXAMINER M. JEROME MAPP ON THE DATE NOTED BELOW. ATTEST: M. Jerome Mapp Date Community Development Director Hearing Examiner Minutes of July 27, 2000