Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout12-26-2007 HE MINUTES , ' CALDWELL HEARING EXAMINER MINUTES C PPE�O � � December 26, 2007 I. Call to Order — Hearing Examiner, Mr. Jerome Mapp, opened the meeting for the pubiic hearing at 7:06 p.m. II. Review of Proceedings — Mr. Jerome Mapp outlined the procedures for the public hearing. Members Present: Anne Marie-Skinner (Senior Planner), April Cabello (Planning Technician) III.OId Business Mr. Mapp approved the minutes of the November 27, 2007 meeting. IV.New Business . A. Case Number ANN-166-07 a request by Miguel Tamayo for annexation of 5.5 acres with C-2 Community Commercial zoning, a Comprehensive Plan Map amendment from Low Density Residential to Commercial and a development agreement. The site is located on the east side of Indiana Avenue approximately 1,300 feet south of Homedale Road. �m n : Testi o Y a) Anne Marie Skinner, Senior Planner, presented the staff report and submitted exhibit PZ-1000, an aerial photo of the subject property. Ms. Skinner stated she added a clause restricting use to just the indoor soccer recreational facility as item number 47 to the Development Agreement. Ms. Skinner read item number 47 into the record. b) Mr. Mapp, Hearing Examiner, stated this application is for the rezone from County Agriculture to City zoning of C-2 with a Developmenf Agreement for a soccer/recreational facility. c) Jose Tamayo Jr., applicant's representative, signed in favor of the application and provided supporting testimony. d) Mr. Mapp asked Mr. Tamayo Jr. if there will be any outdoor activities. e) Mr. Tamayo Jr. stated that ail activities will be indoors. f) Mr. Mapp asked Mr. Tamayo Jr. if the inside will be used for anything other than soccer. g) Mr. Tamayo Jr. replied that it will only be used for soccer. h) Mr. Mapp asked Mr. Tamayo Jr. about the hours of operation and days of the week this facility will be open. i) Mr. Tamayo Jr. stated the hours of operation at first will probab�y be weekends and will be from 4-5 pm for the young people and 7-8 pm for the adult leagues and hope to extend into the weeknights. Mr. Tamayo Jr. also stated there will be p{enty of room on the property to meet all the building, landscaping and parking requirements. j) Miguel Tamayo, appiicant, signed in favor of the appiication and did not wish to speak. k) Carmen E. Tamayo signed in favor of the application and did not wish to speak. I) Ralph Naverar signed in favor of the application and did not wish to speak. m) Dennis Adams signed in neutral for the application and stated his lot abuts the property and he came to the hearing to find out what the zoning would be and what the applicant was proposing to do with the property and if there would be professional soccer teams or amateur teams. n) Mr. Mapp explained to Mr. Adams his questions will be answered by the applicant in the rebuttal. o) Kris Randall signed in neutral of the applieation and stated he came to the hearing ta find out what the applicant was building and the hours of operation and his questions have been answered. p) in rebuttal, Mr. Tamayo Jr. stated this facility wili be for amateur games, no professional, and would like to give the people that signed in opposition/neutral his phone number so they may contact him directly if they have further questions. Mr. Tamayo Jr. also stated he has read the Develapment Agreement and agrees with the conditions. MR. MAPP CLOSED THE PUBLIC TESTIMONY. Comprehensive Plan Analysis: Mr. Mapp found that the request was applicable to the Comprehensive Plan components listed in Section 5.1.1 through 5.1.2 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 recommended that Gase Number ANN-166-07 be approved with the following conditions • 8.2 — 8.5 • 8.6 — Development Agreement to state property is to be used only for an indoor soccer and recreational facility. B. Case Number ZON-54-07 a request by Bennett Forest industries for a rezone of 1.90 acres from R-1 Single Family Residential zoning to C-2 Community Commercial zoning and a development agreement. The site is located south of Ustick Road approximately 1,100 feet west of 10' Avenue. Testimony: a) Anne Marie Skinner, Senior Planner, presented the staff report and submitted exhibit PZ- 1000, an aerial photo of this subject property. b) John Evans, Applicant's Representative, signed in favor of the application and stated the re-zane is to ciean up the zoning lines and has no specific plans for this area. Mr. Evans said he agrees with the Development Agreement but wanted to point out and state on record that there are some issues in the staff report in section 8.4 requiring the applicant to adhere to the comments made by Pioneer Irrigation District. Mr. Evans then stated that Pioneer Irrigation's system does not abut this specific area. Mr. Evans stated that he does not agree with the comments made by Pioneer Irrigation in regards to the following: • requirement of a 20' top of bank prescriptive easement on both sides of their facilities • blanket prohibition for pathways within a prescriptive easement �I � • placement of materials within a prescriptive easement ', • required the recording of easements on the plat c) Mr. Mapp confirmed with Ms. Skinner that if this is not in the Pioneer Irrigation District boundaries or along the canal that he could recommend to the Council to strike the requirements. d) Ms. Skinner confirmed that was the case. e) Dean Strange signed in neutral to th� application and stated that his property is next to the subject property. Mr. Strange wanted to know about the road that comes into this property and where the entrances and exits will be located. f} Mr. Mapp explained to Mr. Strange that today's hearing is in regards to the re-zoning of the prope�ty, not the roads, and suggested Mr. Strange speak with Mr. Evans. g) Sheila Dines, signed in neutral to the application and stated that she is here on her father, Dean Strange's, behalf. Ms. Dines stated her father identified his property incorrectly and it is to the west of the subject property. Ms. Dines stated that they have concerns regarding the kind of uses that will be used for the subject property and is concerned that the wrong use would upset the cattle and not allow her father to enjoy his livelihood. h) Mr. Mapp explained to Ms. Dines that everything around this property is already zoned C- 2 and this re-zone is to square up the line of the zone i) Ms. Dines asked if there is any indication of what wili be put on this property. j) Mr. Mapp stated that Mr. Evans has stated that they do not have a plan for this property and the application is only a request to re-zone. k) Mr. Maqq asked Ms. Skinner to respond to Ms. Dines' concerns. I) Ms. Skinner explained to Ms. Dines the spacing requirements and approaches from the intersection of 10`" and Ustick. Ms. Skinner then stated that access will take place in the interior through cross access easements. m} Mr. Mapp asked Ms. Dines if she understood what cross access means. n) Mr. Mapp explained to Ms. Dines what cross access is and suggested she contact the Engineering Department to get the details on how they ailow access onto right-of-ways. M.R. MAPP CLOSED THE PUBLIC TESTIMONY Comprehensive Plan Analysis: Mr. Mapp found that the request was applicable to the Comprehensive Plan components listed in Sectians 5.1.1 in the staff report. Findings of Fact on Re-Zone: 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 Re-Zone: The Hearing Examiner accepted the Conclusions of Law as outlined in the staff report. Order of Decision: The Hearing Examiner recommended that Gase Number ZON-54-07 be approved with the following conditions: • 8.2 through 8.5 • Any reference to Pioneer Irrigation District requirements being followed should be stricken since the subject property is not within the districYs boundaries. C. Case Number SUB-186P-07 a request by 20/26 Property Partners LLC and Elk Mountain Engineering for preliminary piat approval of White Pine Station Subdivision consisting of 395 residential lots and 26 common lots in an R-1 Single Family Residential zone. The site is located at 19465 Midland Blvd.. Testmony: a) Anne Marie Skinner, Senior Planner, presented the staff report and submitted exhibit PZ-1000, an aeriai photo of the subject property. b) Mr. Mapp confirmed with Ms. Skinner the lot count was reduced from 395 residential lots to 340 residential lots. c) Ms. Skinner confirmed. d) Mr. Mapp verified with Ms. Skinner the City of Caldwell setback and lot width requirements and confirmed the applicant had met these requirements. e) Ms. Skinner confirmed. f) Jeremy Ogden, applicant's representative, signed in favor of the application, submitted exhibit PZ-1001 (a calored preliminary plat) and provided supporting testimony. Mr. Ogden stated this development will have large lots, the smallest lot being 7900 sq. ft., and stated that this will not be a starter home development. He also stated the development will have pathways along the canal and along Mason Creek. g) Mr. Mapp asked Mr. Ogden to meet with the Engineering Department if he has any issues with the conditions. h) Mr. Ogden stated he would like to be on the record regarding one of the comments made by the Engineering Department which stated water on the site will be suppiied from two separate water sources excluding an on site lot. Mr. Ogden stated they would like to leave open the possibility of providing from one adjacent water system and having an on site well. i) Mr. Mapp suggested to Mr. Ogden to tell staff this information before the City Council meeting. j) Mr. Mapp stated his concerns with the street names being too similar and the roads starting, stopping and starting up again. k) Ms. Skinner stated that Dennis Wilson in the Building Department was not able to look at the plans before the hearing and he will call out any similar or duplicate names. The applicant will then have to change the street names during the time of the construction plan. I) Mr. Ogden agreed that changing the street names will not be a problem. m) Warren Stewart, applicanYs representa#ive, signed in favor of the application and stated he had nothing additional to add but wanted to reserve the right for rebuttal. n) Kyle Caldwell signed in opposition to the application and stated that he lives in the subdivision east of this proposed White Pine Station Subdivision and is concerned with the lot sizes not being compatible with the 1 to 2 acre lots in his subdivision. Mr. Caldwell also stated his concern regarding the railroad tracks and peaple cutting through his subdivision to avoid sitting at the tracks. o) Chuck Steffensen signed in opposition to the application and stated his concerns for increased traffic and the range of property values. p) Mr. Mapp replied that he cannot tell the applicant what level of quality of homes to build. q) Mr. Steffensen asked if there was any provision made for increased traffic. r) Ms. Skinner stated that traffic mitigation is addressed in the Development Agreement, which was signed upon annexation a year ago and further addressed it in the comments from the Engineering Department on page 4, which were read into the record. s) Mr. Mapp addressed Mr. Steffensen and informed him that Idaho law, local ', planning act, under property rights, states that manufactured homes can be located anywhere a single family dwelling unit can be located and cannot discriminate against them. Mr. Mapp explained he cannot dictate the size or cost for any residential dwelling unit in the state of Idaho. t) Eric Peterson signed in opposition to the appfication and stated his concerns regarding acreage, number of lots and wouid like to know if there will be one builder or multiple builders. Mr. Peterson stated his concerns as to the compatibility with his subdivision. u) Mr. Mapp addressed Mr. Peterson's concerns regarding lot size and stated that there is no policy at this time in regards to any matching of lot sizes to adjacent property's. Mr. Mapp spoke of right-of-way and setbacks and suggested to Mr. Peterson to bring this concern of lot size up when it goes to City Council. v) Lowell Dale signed in opposition to the application and had one question regarding the common lots. Mr. Lowell stated he was confused regarding the number of common lots and wants to see more common lots. w) Eric Peterson signed in opposition to the applicatian and did not wish to speak. x) Alice Steffensen signed in opposition to the application and did not wish to speak. y) James Hatmaker signed in opposition to the application and did not wish to speak. z) In rebuttal, Mr. Ogden responded to the opposition's issues and questions. Mr. Ogden stated that each lot in their development is larger than most subdivisions and the type af home wili be larger, nicer homes and it will not be a starter subdivision. Mr. Ogden stated he cannot put words in his developer's mouth but all the things the applicant has told them lead him to believe this. aa) Mr. Mapp asked Mr. Ogden if they thought about putting larger lots in alang Midland. � bb) Mr. Ogden replied there is a 100 ft width separating the larger homes from the lots along Midland. cc) Mr. Mapp asked Mr. Ogden if the railroad is an active line. dd) Mr. Ogden stated per the Engineering comments they are expecting 2 trains per month along that line. ee) Mr. �gden addressed the traffic issues and stated that it was addressed by the City and the developer will participate in 57% of an intersection improvement. Mr. Ogden then stated that there are laws against discrimination but CC&R's can be written to make a certain type of home more conducive than others to be built by the buiider. ' ff) Mr. Mapp noted for the record that CC&R's are a private matter and the City does and will not enforce CC&R's. gg) Mr. Mapp asked Mr. Ogden a question he had not answered regarding the builder. hh) Mr. Ogden stated they do not know at this time how many builders there will be. ii) Mr. Mapp suggested to those in opposition to meet with Mr, Ogden and Mr. Stewart after the meeting and exchange numbers to get a dialogue regarding the issue. MR. MAPP CLOSED THE PUBLIC TESTIMONY Mr. Mapp stated he wanted to make the correction on page 5 of the staff report 2.7.4 to identify Midland Bivd with a 20' wide landscape buffer and Skyway Drive will have a 15' wide landscape buffer. . 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. Findings of Fact on SUB-186P-07: The Hearing Examiner accepted the general facts as outlined in the staff report, public testimony, Exhibits PZ-1000 and PZ-1001 and the evidence list as a part of the Findings Conclusions of Law for SUB-186P-07: The Hearing Examiner accepted the Conclusions of Law as outlined in the staff report. Order of Decisian: The Hearing Examiner recommended that Case Number SUB-186P- 07 be approved with the following conditions: • 8.2 through 8.12 • 8.4 with the change to strike Pioneer Irrigation District because the subject property is not within the district. • 9.1 will be added to change the street names as recommended by the Engineering, Building and Fire Departments. V. Planning Issues VI. Adjournment The Hearing Examiner adjourned the meeting at approximately 8:45 p.m. MINUTES APPROVED AND SIGNED BY THE HEARING EXAMINER, M. JEROME MAPP, ON TNE DRTE NOTED BELOW: -�i'"� - r , '" ` .-� " � f � ATTEST: / M. Jerome Mapp, Date � f " Planning and Zoning Director