The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About10-23-2007 HE MINUTES ,. w i • CALDWELL HEARING EXAMINER MINUTES , .�...-.,.,r.._...... October 23, 2007 ��PAQ C�=-O, r � i. Cail to Order — Hearing Examiner, Mr. Jerome Mapp, opened the meeting for the public hearing at 7:00 p.m. II. Review of Proceedings — Mr. Jerome Mapp outlined the procedures for the public hearing. Members Present: Anne Marie Skinner (Senior Planner), Savanna Davis (Secretary), Brent Orton (Engineering Department). III.OId Business Mr. Mapp approved the minutes of the August 28, 2007 meeting. IV.New Business � A. Case Number Case Number ANN-164-07, a request made by the City of Caldwell for Category B annexation of 22.85 acres into the City with R-1 Single-Family Residential zoning, C-1 Neighborhood Commerciaf zoning, and C-2 Community Commercial zoning and designations on the Caldwell Comprehensive Plan Map as Low Density Residential and Commercial. The sites are located as follows: 4522 Lake Ave. 2808 Marble Front Rd. 2816 Marble Front Rd. 1120 W. Logan St. 1106 W. Logan St. 3904 S. Indiana Ave. 4024 S. Florida Ave. 3912 S. Florida Ave. 104 Amber St. 1409 E. Ustick Rd. 5023 Hwy 20-26 5205 Hwy 20-26 715 Borchers Ln. 723 Borchers Ln. 5017 Hwy 20-26 4114 Nelson Ln. • 712 Borchers Ln. ... ' . Testimony: a) Anne Marie Skinner, Senior Planner, presented the staff report. Ms Skinner read state statute Title 50, Municipal Corporations, Chapter 2, General Provisions— Government and submitted a map of the city labeled as exhibit PZ-1000. b) David Sauvageau signed in opposition of the application and asked how he would benefit by being annexed into the city. . c) Brent Orton, Associate City Engineer, stated that after being annexed Mr. Sauvageau would be eligible to hook up to other city services and if Mr. Sauvageau did not annex into the city until a later date he would then be responsible far the fees to do so. d) Mr. Sauvageau asked if he would still be able to burn the tree limbs left from maintaining his property after being annexed into the city. Mr. Sauvageau questioned why adjacent property owners weren't also being annexed. e) Ms. Skinner stated that she thought that a burn permit would be required and she was unsure as to why adjacent property owners weren't also being annexed. f} Joy Bull signed in opposition to the application and stated her concerns for being ' able to burn within the city limits, whether she wouid be able to hook up to city services or not and whether or not she would have to pay city taxes. g) Mr. Mapp asked Ms. Bull if she was aware that her property was in the impact area. h) Ms. Bull stated that she was aware and did know what the city's impact area is. � i) Mr. Mapp asked Mr. Sauvageau if he was aware that he was in the impact area. j) Mr. Sauvageau stated that he was aware. k) Ms. Skinner stated that she just finished speaking with Mr. Sauvageau about the properties near him and whether or not they too were eligible to be annexed into the city as Category B annexations. She then stated that 4 of the properties described by Mr. Sauvageau would be eligible and one of them was simply missed and will be annexed in the next batch of Category B annexations. I) Mr. Mapp asked the location of the parcel that had been missed. m) Ms. Skinner stated that it was the south and west boundary to Marble Heights subdivision. n) Ken Basket signed in neutral to the application but did not wish to speak. Comprehensive Plan Analysis: Mr. Mapp found that the request was applicable to the Comprehensive Plan components listed in Sections 5.1 through 5.4 in the staff report. Findings of Fact on Annexation: The Hearing Examiner accepted the general facts as outlined in the staff report, public testimony, and the evidence list as a part of the Findings. Conclusions of Law for Annexation: The Hearing Examiner accepted the Conclusions of Law as outlined in the staff report. • � Order of Decision: The Hearing Examiner ordered that Case Number ANN-164-07 is approved with the fo{lowing conditions: . 8.2 . 9.1states that the two parcels on Marble Front Road currently included in the annexation request not be annexed into the city limits at this time and instead be annexed into city limits when the next round of Category B annexations are done with the other overlooked property. B. Case Number SUB-184P-07 a request by Donna Caskey; Gregg Lovan; 10"' Street Park Avenue LLC and Toothman-Orton Engineering Co. for preliminary plat approval of 10 Street Cottages Subdivision consisting of 7 residential lots and 4 common lots in an R-1 Single Family Residential zone. The site is located at 2315 10 Avenue. Testmony: a) Anne Marie Skinner,. Senior Planner, presented the staff report and presented exhibit PZ- 1000 which was a letter from Darin Taylor summarizing the second neighborhood meeting. b) Darin Taylor, applicanYs representative, signed in favor of the application and stated that • he would like to add on the staff report, page 5 item number 3- water that `each residential lot shall be supplied with potable water' — and a second addition on the same page in item number 1-sanitary sewer should read `the existing homes shall be connected to city sewer and all residential lots...'. Mr. Tayor then stated that the subdivision name will be 90 Avenue Cottages. c} Mr. Mapp asked why the ditches haven't been maintained and when those ditches would be taken care of. d) Mr. Taylor stated that only one of the ditches is on the subject properkies. The others are on neighboring properties. e) Mr. Mapp asked which lots are common lots. f� Mr. Taylor stated that lot numbers 1, 11, 3& 9 are common lots. g} Mr. Mapp stated that there are 7 lots adjacent to the subject properties and asked for the widths of #hese properties. h) Mr. Taylor provided Mr. Mapp with PZ-1002, a map, and stated he didn't know the widths. i) Mr. Mapp inquired about the lot widths inside the subdivision. j) Troy Behunin signed in favor of the application and stated that the applicant plans to keep the two existing homes and add five new homes. Mr. Behunin stated that the two livestock pens will be removed. Mr. Behunin stated that the applicant has met all of building, planning & zoning, fire and engineering department requirements. k) Mr. Mapp asked why lot 3 is a common lot. I) Mr. Behunin stated that the existing sewer line was near that lot and it's unusable space. • He then stated that it will be a garden with trees, shrubs, flowers and park benches. m) Mr. Mapp asked when the park would be completed. . n � nn,-_ gPn��n�r, �tatPr� tnat tnP ann�ir_.an# will fnllow all the reauirements in reaards to when the park needs to be completed. o) Mr. Mapp inquired about the easements on the south side of the property. p) Mr. Behunin stated that those will be open space or another pocket park. q) Mr. Mapp asked who will rnaintain pocket parks. r) Mr. Behunin stated that the home owners association would. s} Mr. Mapp expressed concerns for the sight visibility triangle. , t) Mr. Behunin stated that there would be no trees in the vision triangle. t e fact that if the u) Susan Wildwood signed in opposition and stated her concerns for h applicant retains ownership of the parcels and rents them to people over 55 who is going to take care of the property? She then asked if the Homeowners Association would be responsible for maintenance. Ms. Wildwood then submitted exhibit PZ-1003, project management language. v) Mr. Mapp stated that this is a request for a subdivision, not a 55 and over subdivision. w) Mr. Mapp stated that he cannot require a homeowners association to take care of the common areas. x) Ms. Wildwood then expressed her concerns for the drainage of the ditch, the applicant meeting the requirements of Pioneer Irrigation District, lot 8 being non-conforming, & fencing. y) Amy Gipson signed in opposition to the application but did not wish to speak z) Kathy Gipson signed in opposition to the application but did not wish to speak. aa) David Whitney spoke in opposition and stated his concerns as to whether or nat the • development would be a 55 and older community, fencing, the lack of seeing any CC&Rs and maintenance of the properties. bb) David and Mary Jeffries signed in opposition to the application but did not wish to speak. cc) Gina Lujack signed in opposition to the application and stated her concerns for the size af the homes, whether or not they will be rented out and if the owner would retain ownership. dd) Ms. Skinner pointed out that in the staff report on page number 14, item 8.4 it states that all requirements of all the agencies will be met. ee) Mr. Mapp suggested that the applicant answer the neighbor's questions. t� Mr. Taylor stated that Ms. Caskey would like to build single family dwellings on lots, the plat that was prepared complies with city ordinances and requirements, Ms. Caskey has the intent to �ent the homes out to people age 55 and older, there will be a fence around the property, professional companies will be hired to maintain all lots and common lots, & that the east ditch will be filled in and not used. Mr. Taylor then submitted exhibit PZ- 1004, a hand drawn house on Lot 8 of the plat and stated that on the staff report page 14, item # 7 in general it states that ` property shall be owned and maintained by the home owners association'. Comprehensive Plan Analysis: Mr. Mapp found that the request was applicable to the Comprehensive Plan components listed in Sections 5.1.1 through 5.1.10 in the staff report. • � , • Findinps of Fact on Annexation: The Hearing Examiner accepted the general facts as outlined in the staff report, public testimony, and the evidence list as a part of the Findings. Conclusions of Law for Annexation: The Hearing Examiner accepted the Conclusions of Law as outlined in the staff report. Order of Decision: The Hearing Examiner recommended that Case Number SUB-184P- 07 be approved with the following conditions: • 8.2 through 8.11 , • 9.3-No variance application shall be submitted on lot 8 due to the applicant is creating her own hardship. • 9.2-A 6-foot high solid fence shall be required on the north, south and east boundary. • 9.4-Changes Mr. Taylor made regarding the word RESIDENTIAL lots. • 9.1-If this development becomes a senior housing development the applicant shall meet the federal fair housing requirements. . V. Planning Issues ._ _--- _�_ � –..� __�..�._�� __ _�_.� _— --._.t.T_� _–� —._ _ ,- __ VL Adjournment The Hearing Examiner adjourned the meeting at approximately 9:10 p.m. MINUTES APPROVED AND SIGNED BY THE HEARING EXAMINER, M. JEROME MAPP, ON THE DATE NOTED BELOW: ' %7 )�, � ,' .�` ` � ¢ Y� �• � �� ;�" � �� '�� ATTEST: , d �_ _. _. I; . �; , r M. Jerome Ma� ate: 0 � . Planning nd Zonin ��,oP �I r�►�n�e.�