Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout6-14-2005 P&Z MINUTES CALDWELL PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION MINUTES � June 14, 2005 I. Call to Order — Chairman Alidredge called the meeting to order for the public hearing at 7:10 p.m. 11. Roll Call — Members Present: Paul Alldredge, Jack Teraberry, Joyce Griffith, Gene Shaffer, and Dennis Callsen. Members Absent: Michael Jakobson. Staff Present: Wendy Kirkpatrick (Planner) Debbie Geyer (Specialist), and Ben Weymouth (City Assistant Engineer). III. Review of Proceeding — Chairman Paul Alldredge reviewed the procedures for public hearing. IV. Old business A. MOTION/Approve minutes of May 10, 2005. Unanimous roll call vote. V. New Business A. Case No. SUP-244-05, a request by Littlejohn Engineering Associates for special use approval to construct an addition and renovation to the West Valley Medical Center. The proposed plan involves a one-story, 9229 sq. ft. addition to the emergency department. The site is located at 1717 Arlington Avenue. Wendy Kirkpatrick, Planner, presented the staff report. Brad Lipsey, Applicant's Representative, testified in favor. David McFadyen, Applicant's Representative, signed in favor but chose not to speak. Wayne Tuckness, ApplicanYs Representative, signed in favor but chose not to speak. Testimony closed. Note: See Order of Decision for complete testimony or contact Community Development Department for audio tapes of the hearing. Comprehensive Plan Analysis - MOTION: Commissioner Callsen, SECOND: Commissioner Teraberry. The request was applicable to the following Comprehensive Plan Components as outlined in the staff report: Property 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 — A and C; Naturai Resources — Objectives A, C and Policy 1; Public Services, Utilities and Facilities — Goal and Objective B; Transportation — Goal and Objective A. Findings of Fact on Case No SUP-244-05 - MOTION: Commissioner Griffith SECOND: Commissioner Shaffer. Accepted the general facts .outlined in the staff report, and public testimony. Passed: Unanimous roll call vote. Conclusions of Law on Case No. SUP-244-05 - MOTION: Commissioner Callsen SECOND: Commissioner Teraberry. The Planning & Zoning Commission has the authority to hear this case and to approve or deny it. The public notice requirements were met and the hearing was conducted within the guidelines of applicable Idaho Code and City ordinances. Passed: Unanimous roll call vote. Order of Decision on Case No. SUP-244-05 — MOTION: Commissioner Callsen SECOND: Commissioner Teraberry. The Commission approved Case No. SUP-244-05 with the conditions outlined in the staff report. Passed: Unanimous roll call vote. ................................................................ . B. Case No. SUB-117P(A)-05, a request by Oakwood Development, LLC to appeal the City of Caldwell's decision that the Aviation Plaza Subdivision application was incomplete and could therefore not be accepted by City Staff and scheduled for public hearing. P. Allredege: P. Alldredge opened hearing and asked for staff to correct the Commission if there were any procedural errors were being made. P. Alldredge also stated that they would be using a clock to time testimony. P. , Alldredge polled Commission to see if they had a chance to read all of the '� material submitted for the application. M. Hilty: Made recommendations on procedures for hearing regarding order of testimony and time limits. M. Hilty also said that at the hearing the Commission would be making a decision on the appeal and that M. Hilty would then prepare findings and conclusions of law for the Commission and bring findings back to the Commission for their review. Final decision will be made when written decision is made. M. Hilty then presented staff report on appeal and explained why original application was rejected by city staff. M. Hilty also explained that the broad reaching constitutional challenges brought up in the applicanYs appeal are unusual issues for a planning and zoning commission to deal with. M. Hilty told the Commission that the essential question for them to answer was whether city staff was wrong when they rejected the application for Aviation Plaza. M. Hilty explained some of the legal issues associated with the appeal and what the decision to be made by the Commission regarding the appeal would entail. J. Griffith asked if ordinance in question was in effect when application was submitted. Planning & Zoning Commission Minutes — June 14, 2005 Page 2 of 9 M. Hility responded that ordinance in question was in effect when application was submitted. Applicant has disputed that ordinance is infirm for various legal reasons. Callsen: Asked M. Hilty is traffic studies were a standard practice in other communities. � M. Hilty: Responeded that he thinks that it is. J. Griffith: Asked if it was appropriate for Commission to discuss constitutionality. M. Hilty: M. Hilty again stated that the real question was whether ordinance was applicable. Ed Guerricabetia, Attorney for applicant: G. made presentation for applicant. G. asked commission to instruct staff to accept applicant's application. G. discussed why City's traffic study requirement was not valid. G. also noted that Pat Dobie had applied to be on the City of Caldwell's list of�approved engineers for traffic studies. Callsen: Asked G. to explain difference befinreen impact fees and capital improvement fees. Guerricabetia: Tafked about impact fees and capital improvement fees. Callsen: Talked about developers' assumption that services would be brought to them and about impact fees. Guerricabetia: Talked about impact fees. ' I Callsen: Again discussed impact fees. Guerricabetia: Stated that he believed that the traffic study was an impact fee. Alldredge: Talked about analogy regarding traffic studies and home appraisals for mortgage lenders. Guerricabetia: Responded that traffic study fee is not covered under local land use act. Alldredge: Disputed that traffic study is not really an impact fee. Guerricabetia: Disagreed with Paul's statement. Alldredge: Stated that applicant had been told previously by the' City that the traffic study had to be completed prior to submitting application. � Guerricabetia: Stated that he couldn't comment because he wasn't involved when application was submitted. � Planning & Zoning Commission Minutes — June 14, 2005 Page 3 of 9 . Griffith: Asked what source applicant was quoting when he referred to what "should" be happening. Guerricabetia: Stated that this comes from Chapter 82, Title 67. Guerricabetia: Stated that these minimum standards must be met. Allredege: Stated again that this is not an impact fee; this is a traffic study. Griifith: Made comments regarding intent of traffic study Schaffer: Many other communities require traffic studies but these communities commission the studies differently. Alldredge: Mentioned that Pat Dobie has been to Commission before regarding a previous traffic study. Callsen: Said that he was not familiar with previous incidence. Shaffer: Question about appeal process Callsen: Stated that decision tonight was rather to enforce or deny staff's actions. Griffith: Reiterated what Callsen had just mentioned. Callsen: Reiterated again what was just mentioned regarding staff's decision. Had question about why city should subsidize traffic study. Guerricabetia: Had comments on how traffic study is commissioned. Alldredege: Comments on how studies are commissioned. Callsen: Question about why applicant disregarded city ordinance. Guerricabetia: Stated that he did not know why his client had used Mr. Dobie rather than another engineer on their list. Alldredge: Stated that applicant had ignored City requirements on a previous traffic study. Boris Goodrum: Expert witness regarding Idaho Development Impact Fee Act. Stated that City ordinance regarding traffic studies did not meet procedures required by law. Griffith: Asked for definition of an impact fee and how traffic study is an impact fee. Goodrum: Stated that the purpose of the ordinance is to impose an impact fee. Griffith: Asked for clarification. Planning & Zoning Commission Minutes — June 14, 2005 Page 4 of 9 Goodrum: Discussed impact fee Griffith: Made comment on impact fee. ' Goodrum: Discussed impact fee act and formula for fee and how City ordinance violates statute. Alldredge: Stated that purpose of appeal was to determine whether city staff was correct in rejecting application. Reiterated that applicant had ignored direction of staff on how to do traffic study. Goodrum: Made comments on traffic study and city ordinance regarding traffic study. Alldredge: Had question regarding City's right to request a traffic study. Goodrum: Discussed traffic study areas and relation to capital improvement plan. Said that request for traffic study was extraordinary. Alldredge: Discussed park impact fees. Goodrum: Traffic study does not follow statutes that park fees follow. Callsen: Agreed with Goodrum but said that study is not an impact fee. Goodrum: Stated that an impact fee is being required. Callsen: Stated that traffic study is not an impact fee. Goodrum: More discussion on intent of impact fee ordinance and how to best do traffic studies. Griffith: Asked why City's traffic study is different from traffic study commissioned by applicant. Alldredge: Asked about difference in cost between studies. Goodrum: Stated that he could not address cost issue. Stated again that traffic study does not comply with state statute. Alldredge: Told Goodrum that he had already heard this argument before. Goodrum: Again discussed traffic studies and process. Shaffer: Asked about traffic studies. Goodrum: Stated that scope and purpose of traffic studies is what differentiates traffic studies. Griffith: Asked if results of traffic study were why applicant wanted to commission their own study. Planning & Zoning Commission Minutes — June 14, 2005 Page 5 of 9 Goodrum: Responded that this was absolutely not true. Goodrum: Stated that our ordinance is a subterfuge to avoid a capital improvement plan. Joe Canning: Expert witness, engineer with B&A Engineers. Stated that City ordinance was very unusual in that the applicant does not commission their own study. Check and balance system is not there with City's system for traffic studies. Applicant does not have opportunity to review and provide impact. Callsen: Stated that staff would address comments by Canning. Alldredge: Called for 5 minute break. Patrick Dobie: Traffic Engineer. Stated that City's traffic study ordinance does not deal with site impacts — access and circulation on site. City focuses on impact on system not site. Piece-meal approach of ordinance is problematic. Callsen: Asked shouldn't have the right to look at the impact that a development is going to have on the community and to have infbrmation on these impacts. Alldredge: Talked about site vs. system requirements. Callsen: Stated that City needs information required by traffic study. Dobie: Agreed that a traffic study needs to look at on-site and off-site needs. Alldredge: Stated that City does not sponsor studies they just commission study. Dobie: Disagreed with Alldredge. Alldredge: Asked how developer could understand requirements of city better than city engineering department. Dobie: Said that there are standard practices for traffic studies. Shaffer: Issue is city sponsored study vs. study with input from applicant. Believes that developer should have some input into study — stated that Caldwell has not complied with Idaho impact act. Alldredege: Stated again that question at hand is whether staff acted appropriately in rejecting application. Shaffer: Said that he believed that staff had acted appropriately but that there may be a need for improvement in our ordinance at a later date. Planning & Zoning Commission Minutes — June 14, 2005 Page 6 of 9 Griffith: Forum for making changes to ordinance is City Council. Shaffer: Agreed with Griffith. Alldredge: Asked Dobie why he would do another study when previous study had been rejected. Referred to Blackhawk. Dobie: Said that he had talked with Steve Hasson previously and let him know that he was working on study. Said that he was never notified that his engineering study had been rejected. John Anderson: Expert Witness, Certified Public Accountant. He was asked to review the accounting practices associated with the traffic study and State impact fees ordinance. Alldredge: Read affidavit from Efjay Waite, City Finance Director regarding City's accounting practices in regards to traffic studies. Stated th'at City does I not accumulate funds from traffic strudy. Callsen: Question for Mark Hilty; asked if City has auditor. Hilty: Said, that yes, the City has an auditor. Dave Szplettt: Engineer with Washington Group International. Stated that his firm was on the City's list of approved engineers. Testified that firm did not object to form or content of ordinance. Said that City of Nampa is planning a traffic study ordinance similar to Caldwell's ordinance. Alldredge: Asked for Szplett to talk about how other cities have similar traffic study ordinances. Szplett: Said that Caldwell's traffic study ordinance is pretty typical and that ' most cities require a prequalification for engineers. Ben Weymouth, Assistant City Engineer. Read from memo that he had submitted regarding appeal. Traffic Study ordinance is in place because City is proactively addressing growth. Purpose of traffic study is to look at system and site impacts and to look at impacts of new developments. Also noted that people involved with appeal had received a letter regarding City's traffic study requirements. Weymouth also talked about how traffic studies work and criteria for consultants. Alldredge: Asked if there were any questions for Weymouth. Callsen: Asked if there were any important questions from testimony that needed to be clarified. Weymouth: Ben talked about how scope of project is determined. Callsen: asked who had received letter regarding traffic study questions. Griffith: Asked if appellant had responded earlier that ordinance was unfair. Planning & Zoning Commission Minutes — June 14, 2005 Page 7 of 9 � Weymouth: Appeal application was first indication that that applicant objected to traffic study requirement. Noted that Dobie had previously expressed dissatisfaction with how City does business. Hilty: Provided rebuttal to testimony. Wanted to remind Commission that the decision for the commission to make is whether City staff had acted accordingly when they rejected application. Hilty stated that this is the first time that the City has had any resistance to the City's traffic study ordinance. � Hilty talked about concept of development impact fees. Commented on �' Garikebeda's testimony and Goodrum's testimony. Shaffer: Asked if there was a threshold that site must reach before traffic study was required. Hilty: Said that 1,000 trips per day was threshold. Griffith: Asked how we can avoid this type of application going to commission again. Hilty: Said that Commission is not best forum for this type of appeal and said that it was not anticipated that this type of purely legal issue would go to the Commission. Griffith: Said that the system is good but that the Commission is out of its element with this type of appeal. Shaffer: Asked if there were any issues that the commission needed to deal with in the future. Hilty: Made further comments on traffic study and impact fees. , Alldredge: Called for 5 minute break. Guerricabetia: Rebuttal. Provided a definition of an impact fee. Talked about when cities can impose fees on applications. Said that he disputed whether City had the authority to institute these impact fees. Alldredge: Closed public testimony. Callsen: Said that he did not think that there was an argument to reverse decision. Alldredge: Said that real issue is staff's decision to reject application. Also noted that Dobie had previously worked on a traffic study in the City and knew standards. Callsen: Said that staff was working in the best interest of the c'ity. Alldredge: Stated that traffic study requirements were reasonable. Terraberry: Staff had no choice but to follow ordinance. Staff did the right thing. Planning & Zoning Commission Minutes — June 14, 2005 Page 8 of 9 . � Shaffer: Staff did the correct thing and acted as we would have wanted them to. Also noted that the ordinance needs to be looked at in the future. Griffith: Made a motion to deny the appeal and uphold the decision of staff Terraberry: Seconded motion. Roll call: Terraberry, Callsen. Shaffer, Alldredge all voted to deny appeal. MOTION: Commissioner Griffith, SECOND: Commissioner Teraberry. Affirm the action of Wendy Kirkpatrick to deny the appeal. Carried. VI. Planning Issues: A. Next P&Z Public Hearing Date: June 14, 2005. VII. Adjournment: Paul Alldredge adjourned the meeting at approximately 10:30 p.m. MINUTES APPROVED AND SIGNED BY CHAIRMAN PAUL ALLDREDGE ON THE ATE N TED B L � �'Z 6 � Attest: Pa edge Date ��/ � Community Development Director Planning & Zoning Commission Minutes — June 14, 2005 Page 9 of 9