HomeMy WebLinkAbout8-23-2000 P&Z MINUTES ,
.
CALDWELL PUBLIC HEARINGS BEFORE HEARING EXAMINER
MINUTES OF AUGUST 23, 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, Adnunistrative Secretary.
II. Hearings
A. Mr. Mapp announced that the following cases had been withdrawn from the agenda: Case Nos. SUP-96-
00 and VAR-19-00, a request by Thomas R. Ensley & Associates for approval of a special use pernut to
construct a new 26,400 square foot Caldwell Police Department facility.
***�*********��***************�*�***�*******��**�*�******��*********�**********************
B. Case No. ANN-37-00, a request by the City of Caldwell to annex certain parcels more commonly lrnown
as the Tom Scott properties into the City as a C-3 (Service Commercial) zone. The legal description
incorporates the following parcels, as identified on the most recent copy of Canyon County Assessor's
Map of Section 6, Township 3 North, Range 2 West, Boise Meridian: R30918, R30917-010, R30917-
011, and R30916. The afarementioned parcels begin at the intersection corner of Midway Avenue and
NampaJCaldwell Boulevard, and continue southeasterly along the southerly side of the Boulevard.
Parcels R30918, R30917-010 and R30917-011 front the Boulevard; Parcel R30316 fronts Midway
Avenue.
Testimony —
Linda James presented the staff report.
No one testified in favor or opposition.
Public Testimony Closed — Mr. Mapp closed public testimony. I
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; Objective applicable to all Land Uses — Objective C; Area of City Impact —
Objective A and Policy 5; Objective applicable to Commercial Land Use — Objective A; Public Services, Utilities
and Facilities — Goal, Objective B and Policy 5; and Transportation — Goal.
Findings of Fact — Accept the general facts outlined in the staff report as Findings of Fact and include the fact that
the request is in compliance with applicable Comprehensive Plan components as outlined in the staff report.
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. ANN-37-00.
Public Hearing Closed — Mr. Mapp closed the public hearing.
****�********�*�********************�*******************�*************************�******�*
C. Case No. ANN-36-00, a request by Karen Roark to annex approximately 2.15 acres into the City as an R-
1(Single-Family Residential) zone. The property is described as Lots 1 through 3 and 6 through 8, Block
2, Hill-View Place Subdivision, as recorded in the Canyon County Recorder's Office on June 16, 1958 at
Book 5, Page 41. The subject properiy lies along the south side of undeveloped right-of-way of Morrison
Street and between the east side of Marsing Boulevard and the west side of Emerald Avenue,
approximately 130 feet north of W. Logan Street.
Testimony —
Linda James presented the staff report.
H rin Ex min r Minutes of Au st 23 2000
ea g a e gu ,
George Tallabus, Applicant's Representative testified in favor and stated that the six lots will be combined to
' make three residential lots with access from Emerald Avenue; the lots would be large enough to support individual
septic systems; combining the lots will be accomplished by lot line adjustments.
No one testified in opposition.
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; Economic Development — Goal; Land Use — Goal, Objective applicable to all Land Uses — Objecrive
C; Area of City Impact — Objective A and Policy 5; Public Services, Utilities and Facilities — Goal, Objective A,
and Policy 5; Transportarion — Goal and Policy 8; Housing — Goal and Objective C.
Findings of Fact— Accept the general facts outlined in the staff report as Findings of Fact and include the
following facts: the six lots will be combined through lot line adjushnents in arder to create three lots; the lots will
be large enough to support individual septic systems; access will be from Emerald Avenue; the request complies
with applicable Comprehensive Plan components as spelled out in the staff report.
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. ANN-36-00.
Public Hearing Closed — Mr. Mapp closed the public hearing.
******************************************************�******�******************************
D. Case No. SUP-98-00, a request by Bell Counseling, Inc., for approval of a special use permit to convert
an existing dwelling into a residential care facility to house between 8 and 12 residents recovering from
drug and alcohol problems. The facility will be staffed around-the clock with 2 to 6 staff inembers; other
staff would include social workers, counselors, office and management personnel. The site is zoned R-2
(Medium-Density Residential) and is located at 924 Fillmore Street.
Testimony — '
Linda James presented the staff report. ''
Testifying in favor were: Michelle Turner and Allan West. Mrs. Snyder stated the following: the name has
changed to Bell Institute, a non-profit organization; location is ideal; they will be concentrating on providing care
to 8 adult females; there will be 24-hour staffmg; there are 4 bedrooms, 3 full baths, a covered deck and patio area;
and parking for 6 employees.
Tesrifying as neutral was Clyde Davis.
Testifying in opposition were: Todd King, Montgomery Seal, and Robert Keck. Concerns were: unsupervised
clients walking in neighborhood; use will adversely effect the neighborhood; clients smoking outside in view of
children; traffic; parking; and students in charge of adults.
Michelle Turner, testified in rebuttal and stated the following: she understands the neighbors' concerns but
supervision of the residents will be ongoing; college students will not be left by themselves to supervise clients
and professional staff will always be with them; and the clients will be supervised as they walk to and from the
park.
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 Transportation — Goal
and Policy 1; Land Use — Goal, Residential — Policies 1 and 3; Public Services, Utilities and Facilities — Goal,
Objective A, and Policies 1, 2, 5, and 7; Transportation — Goal and Objective A; Housing — Goal and Objective C;
Community Design— Goal, Objectives A and E.
Hearing Examiner Minutes of August 23, 2000
Findings of Fact— Accept the general facts outlined in the staff report as Findings of Fact and include the
following facts: the Applicant testified that clients will have 24-hour supervision inside the house and outdoors;
there are four bedrooms, three bathrooms, and the house has three levels; there is an outdoor patio and deck that is
screened from public view; the available off-street parking meets the requirements of the Zoning Ordinance; the
request is in compliance with applicable Comprehensive Plan components as set out in the staff report; the
Applicant will be required to file a policy with the Community Development Departrnent regarding supervision,
visitors, outside hours and outside use; facilities such as this that house eight or fewer residents is considered to be
a single-family residing within a single-family dwelling.
Conclusions of Law— Mr. Mapp accepted the Conclusions of Law outlined in the staff report.
Order of Decision — Mr. Mapp approved Case No. SUP-98-00 with the standard conditions outlined in the staff
report and added the following conditions: the Applicant shall file written policies regarding supervision of clients
inside and outside the home, visitors, outside hours for clients and the use of the outdoor area. The written policies
shall be submitted to the Community Development Director and Hearing Examiner, who shall have the authority
to approve the policies. Said written policies shall be submitted at the time of applying for a change in use pernut
and the approved policies shall be an attachment to the pernut. And Condition No. 8.9 which states "Community
Development staff shall visit the facility within six months of the use commencing in order to deternune
compliance with the conditions of approval. A written review of the visit shall be prepared by the Director and
filed in the Case file."
Public Hearing Closed — Mr. Mapp closed the public hearing and noted anyone wishing to appeal his decision
should see the Director of Community Development.
*******�************************************************************�***************,�*******
E. Case No. SUP-95-00, a request by Sallie Palleria far a approval of a special use permit for a planned unit
development in order to construct a duplex on the same lot that currently houses a four-plex. The site is '�
located in an R-2 (Medium-Density Residential) zone and is more commonly lrnown as 1922 E. Linden. ;
Testimony — I 'I
Linda James presented the staff report.
Sallie Palleria, Applicant, testified in favor. �i,
No one testified in opposition. I �,
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, Objecrive 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, Objective A, and Policies 1, 2, and 7; Transportation — Goal and Objective
A; Housing — Goal, Objective C, and Policy 4.
Findings of Fact— Accept the general facts outlined in the staff report as Findings of Fact and include the
following facts: the request meets applicable Comprehensive Plan components; the Applicant testified that on-site
parking currently existing for the four-plex will be assisted because there will be a turn-around area; outdoor parios i
will be included for the duplex; the duplex will look similar to the four-plex. i
Conclusions of Law— Mr. Mapp accepted the Conclusions of Law outlined in the staff report.
Order of Decision — Mr. Mapp approved Case No. SUP-95-00 with the standard condirions outlined in the staff
report.
Public Hearing Closed — Mr. Mapp closed the public hearing and noted anyone wishing to appeal his decision
should see the Director of Community Development.
Hearing Examiner Minutes of August 23, 2000
*****************************************************�**************************************
� F. Case No. SUB-53P/F-00 (Stonegate Subdivision No. 3), a request by Stonegate Development, Inc., for
preliminary and fmal subdivision plat approval to replat Lot 14 of Block 3 of Stonegate Subdivision in
order to create one additional residential lot. Lot 14 is more commonly known as 3801 Stonegate Way.
Testimony —
Linda James presented the staff report.
Newell LaVoy, Applicant, testified in favor and stated that Lot 14 (as initially platted) was an over-size lot; the
splitting of the lot will provide an additional common area, which will be a convenience for property owners. Lot
2 will be the common lot.
Linda James stated that the plat did not identify either of the lots as being a common-area lot and that the fmal plat
would need to show the same.
Scott Stanf"ield, Applicant's Engineer, testified and stated that the lot split would not create an additional building
lot but that it would create an additional common-area lot. He also stated that the plat would be amended to show
Lot 2 as the common-area lot.
No one testified in opposition.
Public Testimony Closed — Mr. Mapp closed public testimony.
Findings of Fact— Accept the general facts outlined in the staff report as Findings of Fact and include the
following Findings: the Applicant stated that Lot 2 will be a common-area lot; the Applicant's engineer stated that
the plat will be amended to show Lot 2 as a common-area lot.
Conclusions of Law— Mr. Mapp accepted the Conclusions of Law outlined in the staff report.
Decision on Preliminary Plat and Recommendation on Final Plat to City Council — Mr. Mapp approved the
preliminary plat and recommended approval on fmal plat to City Council on Case No. SUB-53P/F-00 with the
conditions outlined in the staff report.
Public Hearing Closed — Mr. Mapp closed the public hearing. I
,
***�***************************�***�********�*�**��******************�************�********* �
G. Case No. ANN-38-00, a request by Crestline Development, LC and Heartland Development, LLC for
approval to annex approximately 98166 acres into the City of Caldwell. Approximately 11.648 acres of
the 98.166 acres is requested to be annexed as a G2 (Community Commercial) zone and the remainder is
requested to be annexed as an R-1 (Single-Family Residential) zone. The 98.166 acres abuts the east side
of an approved annexation and subdivision known as Colonial Heights (zoned R-1) and abuts the south
side of State Highway 20/26; the east boundary of the subject property is approximately 573 feet from the
west side of Middleton Road. The proposed C-2 zone abuts the south side of Highway 20/26 and runs
parallel to Highway 20/26 eastward approximately 2068 feet. The R-1 zone abuts the south side of the C-
2 zone.
Testimony —
Linda James presented the staff report.
Scott Stanfield, Applicant's Engineer, testified in favor.
Testifying in opposition: Jacquolyn Orcutt, Audra Coffelt, Erika McCloud. Concerns were: rezoning too much
agricultural land into residential properties; emergency services are not close enough; the airport is an issue as well
as density; the density will add to the traffic problems already existing at Exit 29.
Hearing Examiner Minutes of August 23, 2000
Scott Stanfield testified in rebuttal.
� 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: Properiy Rights — Goal, Objective B, and Policy 1; School Facilities and Transportation — Goal
and Policy 1; Economic Development — Goal; Land Use — Goal; Objectives applicable to all Land Uses —
Objective C; Area of City Impact — Objective A and Policy 5; Public Services, Utilities and Faciliries — Goal,
Objective B and Policy 5; and Transportation — Goal.
Findings of Fact — Accept the general facts outlined in the staff report as Findings of Fact and include the
following facts: areas of concern expressed by persons testifying are not concerns expressed by the City Engineer;
traffic on Highway 20/26, which is classified as an arterial, is designed to move large volumes of traffic; the
subject site is within the Urban Renewal Area and the Area of City Impact; the site is in the near vicinity of
existing commercially zoned properiy (southeast corner of the intersection of Highway 20/26 and Middleton
Road); public sewer and water are available and can be extended to serve the site; the Police Depariment and Fire
Department did not express concerns with this annexarion; the request is in compliance with applicable
components of the Comprehensive Plan as set out in the staff report.
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. ANN-38-00.
Public Hearing Closed — Mr. Mapp closed the public hearing.
**************************�*********************************************�*******************
H. Case No. SUP-97-00, a request by the Carrington Company for approval of a special use pernut for a
planned unit development to construct a retail center on approximately 12 acres located in a C-1
(Neighborhood Commercial) zone. The proposal includes plans for an anchor tenant, a gas
station/convenience store, future tenant lease spaces, an off-street parking layout, and
landscaping/lighting plans. The subject site is located at the southeast corner of the intersection of Usrick
Road and S. 10�' Avenue.
Testimony —
Linda James presented the staff report and E�ibits PR-3, a letter from Thomas Development, and PR-4, a letter
from Peggy Miller.
Ken Caron, Applicant, testified in favor and stated the following: the proposed project in Caldwell will be an
upper-end neighborhood strip center with a grocery store, gas /convenience station, and pad spaces; all
landscaping will be completed during phase one, which will be the anchor store and the gas station/convenience
store; outdoar seating and refuse receptacles will be available; he wants to work with the neighboring property
owners on the type of fencing to be installed. Mr. Caron presented Exhibits HE-1000, HE-1001 and HE-1002,
which were photographs of other commercial projects developed by the Carrington Company.
Scott Stanfield, Applicant's Engineer, testified in favor and noted that the memorandum from Gordon Law
appeared to be a"boiler plate" response that related to subdivision plats and not PUDs.
Testifying in favor were: Orville Collins, and Wes Bettis.
Greg Toolson signed up in favor but did not speak.
Ken Caron testified in rebuttal and stated that he has reviewed Gordon Law's memorandum and would like to
have the opportunity to discuss certain items with him.
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
Hearing Examiner Minutes of August 23, 2000
and Policy 1; Economic Development — Goal, Objective C, and Policy 1; Land Use — Goal, Commercial —
. Objective A, Policies 3, 4, and 6; Natural Resources — Goal and Policy 1;Public Services, Utilities and Facilities —
Goal, Objective A, and Policies 1, 2, 5, and 7; Transportation — Goal, Objective A, and Policy 8; Community
Design — Goal, Objectives A and E, and Policies 1 and 6.
Findings of Fact — Accept the general facts outlined in the staff report as Findings of Fact and include the
following facts: the request is applicable to the Comprehensive Plan components set forth in the staff report;
Exhibits PR-3, PR-4, HE-1000, HE-1001, and HE-1002 were submitted for the record; Gordon Law's
memorandum listed 12 conditions but many of them are not applicable to a Planned Unit Development and the
Applicant will discuss them with Mr. Law in order to deterxnine which are relevant; concerns regarding the time
for trucks to load and unload, on-site lighting, loud speakers and possible noise abatement were discussed; the
Applicant will work with neighbors on appropriate areas for pathways into the commercial complex; the Applicant
to re-evaluate the landscape buffer on the south side and will consider installing a 20-foot wide buffer, with as
berm and a fence on top of the berm; the Applicant will comply with the PUD requirements stated in the Zoning
Ordinance.
Conclusions of Law — Mr. Mapp accepted the Conclusions of Law outlined in the staff report.
Order of Decision — Mr. approved Case No. SUP-97-00 with the standard condirions outlined in the staff report
Public Hearing Closed — Mr. Mapp closed the public hearing and noted anyone wishing to appeal his decision
should see the Director of Community Development.
********************************************************�*************,�****************�****
I. Case No. SUB-52P/F-00, a request by Gem Star Properties for preliminary and fmal subdivision plat
approval of Creek Side Subdivision, a residential planned unit development consisting of 56 residential
lots, 6 common-area lots and 36 manufactured home spaces located on approximately 18.64 acres that are
zoned M-1 (Light Industrial). Creek Side was first approved in November, 1997 as a 108-space
manufactured home park and is more commonly known as 2515 E. Chicago.
Testimony —
Linda James presented the staff report and Eschibit HE-1000, a revised plat.
Rita Earl and Scott Stanfield testified in favor. Mr. Stanfield stated that there was a lack of space far a sidewalk
next to the bridge at Indian Creek and Pioneer Irrigarion will not take over manufactured home park irrigation
systems.
Testifying as neutral: Vicky De la Conception. Expressed concern with a power pole that supplies electricity to
this property is blocking an accessway.
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 Transportation — Goal
and Policy 1; Land Use — Goal; Objectives applicable to Residential Land Use — Objectives A and C, Policy 1;
Housing — Goal and Policy 2; and 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 facts: Exhibit HE-1000, a copy of the revised plat was submitted; CC&Rs are being prepared; the
ApplicanYs engineer stated that there may be problems with installing the sidewalk along the east side of Sparrow
Avenue in the vicinity of Indian Creek because of limitarions to space; the pressurized irrigation system was
installed several years ago but Pioneer Irrigation District indicated to the developer that they will not operate or
maintain the system; the Homeowners' Associarion will own and maintain the common areas, including the
private interior streets; some of the requirements placed on the plat by the Engineering Depariment may not apply
to this PUD but the ApplicanYs engineer stated that the developer will work with the Engineering Department.
Conclusions of Law — Mr. Mapp accepted the Conclusions of Law outlined in the staff report.
Hearing Examiner Minutes of August 23, 2000
Decision on Preliminary Plat and Recommendation on Final Plat to City Council — Mr. Mapp approved the
preliminary plat and recommended approval on final plat to City Council on Case No. SUB-52P/F-00 with the
condirions outlined in the staff report.
Public Hearing 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 10:05 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 August 23, 2000