HomeMy WebLinkAbout8-9-2011 P&Z MINUTES CALD`��L�, �I.AI�NING AND ��PdI1�TG �'O]'�M�SSIQN �
� , ��
IP�IINUTES . a,.,,,
........._.,___-�—��---.
.�PP6?GV��T '
August 9, 2011 � � - =L1....,_ �
I. Call to Orcier- Chairperson Scholz cailed the meeting to order for the puhlic hearing at
7:d0 p.m.
II. Rott Call -
Members Present: Ken Scholz, Ed Doty-Pomoransky, Dana Vance, David Clark and Arvid
Satisbury
Disclosures and Conflicts of lnterest:
Commissioner Clark noted for the record tl�at the appl'►cant for Item # B., SUP-345-11, was a
client of his when. he worked for Dex from 2007 to 2010 and there is a possibility of future
business with this client. He stated he spoke with staff and decided he could make a judgment on
this case without conflict.
Commissioner Salisbury noted for the record that one of the applicants for Ite�n # D.; ZON-76-1 I,
was someone with �vhom he had worked in real estate for a couple of years but decided he could
make a judament on this case without cont7ict.
Members Absent: None
Staff Present: Anne Marie Skinn.er (Sen.ior Planner/Development Team Leader),
Robb MacDonald (Assistant City Engineer); Brian Biliingsley (Planning and Zoning Director�,
April Cabello (Planuing Tecl�nician)
Staff Absent: None
Review of Proceeding - Chairperson Scholz annout�.ced tlte procedures for tl}e public hearin�. I I
I
__ _..__..___--------._...----_ .._ _.__._._.----...------.... -----__.. ..-----------------. .___._-----__------ i
III. Otd Business
A. Approve minutes of June 14, 2011 regular meeting
MOTION: Commissioner Clark SECOND: Commissioner poty-Pomoransky Passed:
iTnanimous roll call vote.
IV. New Business
A. Case Number ZON-75-11 a request by Your Real Estate Solutions LLC for a rezone
from R-3 High Density Residential and C-2 Community Commercial to T-N Traditional
1
P&Z Minutes
8/9/2411
Neighborhood and a comprehensive plan map change from Commercial to Traditional
Neighborhood on 0.34 acres addressed as 908 East Chicago and identified as Tax Parcel
,
#04806. (THIS CASE HAS �EEN CONTINUED TO OCTOBER 11, 2011)
B. Case Number SUP-345-11 a request by Inaki Lete and Josu Anuchastegui for special
use permit approval to operate a used car sales business at the already-existing site of All
In One Car Wash addressed as 402 Illinois Avenue and located easterly of Illinois
Avenue and northerly of I-84.
Testimony:
1} Anne Marie Skinner, 621 Cleveland Blvd., Caldwell, ID 83605,'Senior
Planner/Development Team Leader, presented the sta.ff report and gave the
name of the applicant/owner, location of the project, zoning and
comprehensive plan map designations of the project and surrounding uses
and zones.
2) Ms. Skinner further noted that applicable public agencies had been notified
of the request and the only public agency to respond was Idaho
Transportation Department with a response of no comment.
3) Ms. Skinner explained that because this is an existing site with an existing
business, all landscaping and parking requirements for the special use have
been met. Staff used the Special Use Permit Ordinance to evaluate the
application and is subject to conditions of approval and staff has listed
suggested conditions of approval. In staff's opinion the request does not
present any safety hazards to the general public and it is generally consistent
with the codes, ordinances and comprehensive plan.
4) Inaki Lete, applicant's representative, 117 N. King Road, Nampa, ID, 83687 '
testified in favor of the special use request. Mr. Lete stated he is the owner of
the property and the business All in One Dog and Car Wash and will not sell I
cars. His nephew is the applicant, Josu Anuchasategui, who will run the used I
car sales business, All in One Auto Brokers, from the property with no ',
change to the current business. Mr. Lete further stated having his nephew's
business on his property would help him because his nephew would attend to
the Car Wash and the U-haul Rentals and help keep the property nice and
clean.
5) Chairman Scholz wondered about auto repair.
6) Mr. Lete responded there will be no auto repair only auto sales.
7) Public testimony was closed.
MOTION TO CLOSE TESTIMONY: Chairperson Scholz SECOND: Commissioner Clark
Passed: Unanimous roll call vote.
Evidence List for Case Number SUP-345-11 - Consisted of the case file, the written and verbal
staff reports, the sign-up sheets ai�d Exllibit PZ-1000 (aerial photo of the site submitted by Anne
Marie Skinner). MOTION: Commissioner Vance SECOND: Chairperson Scholz Passed:
Unanimous roll call vote.
Finclings of Fact for Case Number SUP-345-11— MOTION: Commissioner poty-Pomoransky
SECOND: Commissioner Clark Passed: Unanimous roll call vote.
2
P&Z Minutes
8/9/2011
�onclusions of Law £c�r ��se Nuinber SUP-34�-11 — MOTIC)N: �ommissioner Vance
SECOND: Commissionet• Salisbuty Passed: Unatli���ous �•oll ca[1 voie.
Qrder of Decision on Case Num�ier SUP-345-11 — MOTIUN: Cammissioner Vance SECOND: I
Commissioner poty-Pomaransl:}�. The Commission voted una:nimously to Approve with tlie
follawing conditions:
• Itenzs 8.2 through 8.1 1 '
G Case Number SUP-346-11 a request by Omar Esparza for special use permit approval to
operate a night club/bar at 301 South 34` Street located at the southwest corner of 34`�' '
Avenue and Blaine Street. '
Testimony:
1) Anne Marie Skinner, 621 Cleveland Blvd., Caldwell, ID 83605, Senior
Planner/Development Team Leader, presented the staff report and gave the name
of the applicant, location of the project, zoning and comprehensive plan map ,,
designations of the project and surrounding uses and zones. I
2) Ms. Skinner further noted that applicable public agencies had been riotified of the
request. Comments were received from the building department, fire marshal,
city clerk's office and the engineering department.
3) Ms. Skinner explained because it is an existing site with landscaping' and parking
there are no landscaping requirements but the parking requirement is 45 spaces I
and the property has 39 parking spaces. Ms. Skinner further noted that the i
applicant stated that Meineke, which is the adjacent business, has given consent ',
for use of its parking lot for the remaining 6 required parking spaces: Staff used I
the Special Use Permit Ordinance to evaluate the application which is subject to �'
conditions of approval and staff has listed suggested conditions of approval. In
staff's opinion, the requested use does not present any safety hazards to the
general public and it is generally consistent with the codes, ordinances and
comprehensive plan.
4) Ms. Skinner noted that staff received an emailed letter from an adjacent property I
owner, labeled as PR-1, who is Bettie Pilote of Sundowner, Inc. Ms. Pilote
expressed her concerns with parking and security. The applicant submitted a I
written response to Bettie Pilote addressing the concerns. The letters are located
in the case file.
5) Commissioner Clark wondered about fencing and the location of Bettie Pilote's
property in relation to the project site.
6) Ms. Skinner stated that Ms. Pilote's properties are on the other side of Blaine and
barbed wire fencing sits along the property line. She also explained Blaine Street
is dedicated public right-of-way so anyone may park on Blaine Street.
7) Chairperson Scholz stated that essentially Ms. Pilote's concern was patrons
hopping and throwing items over the fencing into her property, thus causing I
damage to the fence and property. j
8} Commissioner Vance wondered how alcohol is legally serve if minors are also ',
present on the premises.
9) Ms. Skinner responded the State regulates alcohol not the City. The State has
certain requirements for hours of operation and separation of minors from the
area in which the alcohol is being served.
3
P&Z Minutes
8/9/2011
10) Chairperson Schalz wondered and stated his concern about a traffic device at I
Cleveland and Florida. I
11) Ms. Skinner responded she is not awaxe of any pla.ns of the City to place a traffic
signal at the intersection, nor is a traffic signal waxranted for this use.
12) Commissioner Salisbury concurred with all the commissioners concerns with
further emphasis on security and trash.
13) Ms. Skinner explained in detail that the commission could add or modify
conditions of approval over and above staffls suggestions. ',
14) Omar Esparza, applicant, 2452 W. Pier Pointe Ct., Nampa, ID 83651, testified in
favor of the special use request. Mr. Esparza stated because there are no ',
nightclubs for all ages in Caldwell he would like to open a nightclub for all ages '�
in Caldwell so families have a place to have fun. Additionally Caldwell lacks in '
large rental location for wedding receptions, baptisms, birthday parties and '
business promotions, which would bring guests from other towns and would help ',
generate other sales in the area and give a boost to the economy. '
15) Mr. Esparza stated rules for the nightclub include all customers not being I
allowed to exit and enter the building with alcohol to avoid consumption of �
alcohol outside the premises. The building will be non-smoking with a
designated outside smoking patio area. No fights are allowed. Anyone
participating in a fight will be asked to leave and not come back. No beverages
will be allowed outside the building to avoid littering. Everyone will be searched
for security purposes and minors will not be allowed in the bar area. Security will
be inside and outside the buildings. Security will check ID at the enirance and 21 '�
and older will be provided with a bracelet and black ink stamp on the hand "over
21" and minors will have a stamp in red ink on the hand "under 21"..
16) Mr. Esparza further explained parking will be clearly marked. Monitors, cameras
and 2 security guards will be placed outside the building, and the security guards
will help customers with parking to make sure customers are parking in the
appropriate spaces and not by the fence. The parking lot will be cleaned every
night after closing and will make. s�tre no damage has been done to any other
properties. If there were any damages, the nightclub would be responsible for the
damages.
17) Mr. Esparza pointed out that sound checks were preformed and no noise or inusic
could be heard coming out of the building.
18) Mr. Esparza explained the schedule for the club would be karaoke on
Wednesdays, DJ on Thursday and Fridays, local band on Saturdays and an
international band will perform once a month.
19) Commissioner poty-Pomoransky inquired about the number of security guards
and employees.
20) Mr. Esparza responded he will have 13 professional security guards and 11
employees.
21) Chairperson Scholz asked Mr. Esparza to relax and talk to tl�em as if they were
outside talking and wondered what the business is eaactly.
22) Mr. Esparza eYplained it wi(1 be a dance club, bar and restaurant. .
23) Chairperson Scholz questioned children being at the club and why.
24) Mr. Esparza stated it is a dance club, so there wiil be dancing for all ages as wel(
as dance classes.
25) Commissioner Clark compared it to places in England and Mexico that he had
visited and commented that he felti this special use �vould be more like a cutluraJ
center than a nightclub. i
4
P&Z Minutes
8/9/2011 �
�
,I
26) Cot�zjnissioner Va.��ce il�c�uired if there ��,�o«ld be a pef «�a11 betv✓een tl�e
, clance flaor and the bar.
27) Mr. Esparca replied a«all already e�ists that separates the clance floor and the
bar. This wall will keep the alcohol in the bar area ancl a�Nay from the dance
floor.
28) Commissioner Daty-Pomoransky wondered about beverages for the children.
29) Mr. L;sparza responded there ���ould be another area where the children or any
patron ca❑ purchase water oc soda.
30) Commissioner Salisbury i��quired about the c(osed-off back one-third of tlle
building aud access ta tl�e patio / pool area.
31) Mr. �sUarza pointed out at the back of the building tl�e two doors that will be
closed and Iocked at all times and will be monitored by security.
32) Coinmissioner Salisbury clarified tl�at the all doors and the back half of the
building will be sealed off or closed with the only access in and out of the
building thraugh the frant door. Security wiil patrol and secure the exterior area
and help patron.s with parking.
33) Mr. Esparza confirmed the accuracy of tl�ese statemer�ts.
34) Commissioner poty-Pomoransky wondered about draining and covering of the
pool.
35) Mr. Esparza responded the pool has been drained and locked but not covered.
36) Ms. Skinner stated that slle has walked through tliis building, and ifthe door
stays locked to the pool area, then there is no access to tl�e pool area so dle poo] ',
doesn't need to be covered. �
37) Chairperson Scholz wondered why so much discussion on security and why the I
applicant wants so much security. I
38) Mr. Csparza replied he wants a lot of security because of what is happening to
other nightclubs at this time and does not want that to happen at this site. Otl�er
nigl�tclubs have been shut down for �.�ot havin� enouah security. Mr. Esparza
fiirther explained that if there is a fight and not enough security tlien they liave to
call tl�e police and that becomes a problem.
39) Chairperson Scholz inquired about the type of security they ���ill use.
40) Mr. Esparza stated he would hire a licensed security company.
41) Commissioner poty-Pomoransky wondered about the occupancy load.
42) Ms. Skiiiner responded tl�e number of occupa.nts is based upon the building code
and th.e occupant load is based upon the square footage. Ms. Skinner�furtl�er
explained the building has a(arge area of open square footage and the maximum
number occupants fi the building code is probably going to be much greater
than what they will l.�ave on the site.
43) Ms. Skinner informed the commission if there is a concern about the occupant
load, the commission might place a condition of approval to limit the iwmber of
occupants to be less than the building code allows.
44) Chairperson Scholz questioned the relationship between the applicant and Las
Palmas.
45) Mr. �sparza responded tl�ere is iio relation between tl�e cfubs and does not know
who owns or runs I_,as Palmas.
46) Shawn Wardle, 950 E. Riverside Dr, Eagle, ID, 836 ] 6, testified in favor of the
special use rec}uest. Mr. Wardle stated he is representing the building ownership
5
P&Z Minutes
8/9/2011
and would like to give a brief history of the site. The current owner purchased the
. s�te in 1995 and converted it to a full athletic-club use faciliiy. In 2007 a week,
after they poured the foundation for their new facility, there was a fire at the
subject property and they had to fix the building and bring it up to fire and
building code to the extent of 1.5 million dollars.
47) Commissioner poty-Pomoransky wondered at the time of the building upgrade
what the maximum occupancy load was.
48) Mr. Wardle responded he was not sure and the best estimate of the maximum
people they had in the building at one time would be 250 people.
49} Commissioner poty-Pomoransky expressed his concern about not enough
parking.
50) Mr. Wardle addressed the question for the applicant and stated the applicant has a
spoken with Meineke who is willing to provide an additional 16 parking spaces.
Additionally, another adjacent property owner has an additional 20,000 square
feet which equals out to about 50 additional parking spaces to be utilized through
a cross-parking agreement.
51) Chairperson Scholz wondered if they have permission from Meineke and
Discount Building Supply for the cross-parking agreement.
52) Mr. Wardle stated it is his understanding Meineke and Discount Building Supply
have spoken with the applicant and given approval and they would have submit a
written agreement to the Planning and Zoning Department.
53) Commissioner Salisbury inquired about liability and maintenance of the building
and properiy.
54) Mr. Wardle replied they will continue to own the property and it is in their best
interest to make sure the building is well-maintained and respected and that the
proposed use will be good neighbors to surrounding properties.
55) Chairperson Scholz wondered about tenant improvements.
56) Mr. Wardle responded that there will be some rough tenant improvements, such
as plumbing. The biggest issue is furniture, fixtures and the need for security and
the separation between minors and those consuming alcohol.
57) Chairperson Scholz inquired who would pay for the tenant improvements.
58) Mr. Wardle stated the property/building owners are financing the tenant
improvements, but not the fixtures.
59) Chairperson Scholz asked for a motion to ciose public testimony.
60) Commissioner Salisbury made a motion ta close public testimony which was
seconded by Commissioner poty-Poinoransky and passed by imanimo�s roll call
vote.
61) Discussion followed amongst the commissioners regarding parking, professional
security and t11e building being vacant for a long time and this new business
bringing jobs to Caldwell. The commission further discussed adding conditions
of approval to include a permanei.}t wall divider that will meet buildin� and state
code; all patrons must be marked as to either younger or older than 21 years of
age; licensed security; cross-parking agreements and possibly a maximum
occupant load. The commission agreed to have all tl�e canditio�is added to the
order of decision except for the maximum occupant load.
62) Chairperson Scholz wanted to know if special use permits expire.
6
P&Z Minutes
8/9/2011
63} Ms. SI<ini�er eYplained tE�at once a special use pe�-�11it is in use it does not ha.ve an
, e;xpiration date b��t if the conditions of apUroval are violated thei� the special use
approval and permit will be rescirided.
64) The commission continued to discuss the positives and the negatives of the
special use.
MOTION TO CLOSE TESTIMONY: Chairperson Doty-Pomoransky SECOND:
Commissioner Salisbury Passed: Unai�imous roll call vote.
Evidence List f'or Case Number SUP-346-I1 - Cansisted of the case file, the written a»d verbal
staff reports, the sign-up sheets and Exl�ibit PZ-1000 (aeriat photo of the site submitted by Anne
Marie Skinner}. MOTION: Commissioner Vance SECOND: Commissionef• Cla�•k Passecl:
Unanimous roll call vote.
Findings of Fact for Case Number SUP-346-11— MOTION: Con.zin.issioner Vance SECOND:
Commissioner poty-Pomoransky Passed: Unanimous roll call vote.
Conelusions of Law for Case Number SUP-346-I1— MOTION: Commissioner Salisbury
SECOND: Commissioner Vance Passed: Unanimous roll call vote.
Order of Decision on Case Number SUP-346-11— MOTION: Commissioner poty-
Pomoransky SECOND: Commissioner Clark. The Commission voted unanimously to A�prove
with the following conditions:
• Items 8.2 through 8.16
• Added the following conditi.ons:
8.17 A permanent, separating wall between the bar and the dance floor shall be
installed and shall meet State codes and 2009 International Building Codes for
such a purpose.
8.18 All patrons shall be tagged with visible identification (i.e., bracelets and/or ink
stamps} indicating "21 and over" and "under 21".
8.19 Licensed security personnel shall be employed and on the premises during all ,
business hours. I
D. Case Number ZON-76-11/SUP-347-11 a request by Laura Reed-Crispin and Greg Sittig
for a rezone from R-2 Medium Density Residential to C-1 Neighborhood Commercial; a
comprehensive plan map change from Medium Density Residential to Commercial; and,
special use permit approval for a single-family dwelling in a commercial zone on two
parcels comprising a total of 1.07 acres addressed as 5105 S. 10` and 5107 S. 10"' located
on the east side of 10` Avenue approximately 2,537 feet north of Homedale Road
Testimony:
1} Anne Marie Skinner, 621 Cleveland Blvd., Caldwell, ID 83605, Senior
Planner/Development Team Leader, presented the staff report and gave the name
of the applicant, owner, (ocation of the project, zoning and comprehensive plan
map designations of the project and surrounding uses and zones. Ms. Skinner
7
P&Z Minutes
8/9/2011
explained the current uses are allowed in the R-2 zone and not the applicant's
,, type of business that comes under spa/salon so the property needs to be rezoned
to C-1. For the applicant to live in the house they need special use approval in a
C-1 zone.
2) Ms. Skinner further noted that applicable public agencies had been notified of the
request and the only public agency to respond was Idaho Transportation
Department with a response of no comment.
3) Ms. Skinner explained two separate motions needing to be made for the Rezone /
Comp Plan Map and for the Special Use.
4) Commissioner Vance wondered about the most outlandish use in a G1 zone.
5) Ms. Skinner responded a restaurant. The commercial zoning C-1 (Neighborhood
Commercial) is very restrictive and would be mostly professional o�ces,
medical and dental offices, hair salons, restaurants, but no drive through
restaurants or banks, no auto use of any kind.
6) Chairperson Scholz stated his understanding of the C-1 is restrictive commercial,
limited hours and small businesses.
7) Ms. Skinner responded there are no limitations on hours of operation. She
further explained the name of the zone says it all as "neighborhood commercial"
which are the type of uses a resident of a subdivision would want within walking
distance that a resident would use on a regular basis but isn't a real intensive use.
8) Chairperson Scholz wondered about the type of buildings on the site, confirmed
the current structures are single-story office suites and a home, and questioned if
the applicant will operate her business from one of the office suites.
9) Ms. Skinner confirmed affirmatively and stated the applicant will operate the ,
business from one of the office suites or from the home but could not say for
sure. '
10} David Anderson, applicant's representative, 1877 W. South Slope, Emmett, ID
83617, testified in favor of the rezone and special use request. Mr. Anderson �'
stated his clients reside in California and are in the process of purchasing the I
property. Mr. Anderson wanted to clarify what has been said and confirmed the
applicant will reside in the home and will operate the micro-
pigmentation/permanent make-up business out of the existing remodeled office
suite. Mr. Anderson further explained his client has been practicing in this field
since 2006 and is the only exempt certified cosmetic professional. The clientele
will be mostly referrals from doctors and doctors themselves and expects to have
2-3 clients per day with minimal traffic.
1 I) Public testimony was closed.
MOTION TO CLOSE TESTIMONY: Chairperson Schotz SECOND: Commissioner Salisbury
Passed: Unanimous roll ca(I vote.
Evidence L'est for Case Number ZON-76-11 & SUP-347-11 - Consisted of the case file, tl�e.
written and verbal staff reports, the sign-up sheets and Exhibit PZ-1000 (aeria) photo of the site
submitted by Aniie Marie Skinner). MOTION: Commissioner Vance SECOND: Commissioner
Doty-Pomoransky Passed: Unanimous rofl call vote.
Comprehensive Plan Anaiysis on Case Number ZON-76-I1 & SUP-347-11 — MOTION:
Commissioner Vance STCOND: Commissioi�er Saiisbury Passed: Ut�anii��ous roll call vote.
8
P&Z Minutes
8/9/2011
Findings of Fact for Case Number ZON-7b-11 and Map Change — MOTION: Commissioner
Salisbury,S�COND: Corrrmissioner Va�ICe:Passed: Unanimous roll call vote.
Conctusions of Law for Case Number ZON-'76-11 and Map Change — MOTION:
Commissioner Vance SECOND: Commissioner Salisbury Passed: Unanimous rol) call vote.
Recommendation on Case Number ZON-76-11 and Map Change — MOTION: Commissioner
Vance SECOND: Commi.ssioner Clark. The Commission voted unauimously to recommend
Approval with the following conititions:
• Items 8.2 through 8.5
Findings of Fact for Case Number SUP-347-11— MOTION: Commissioner Clark SECOND:
Commissioner Vance Passed: Unanimous roll call vote.
Conclusions of La�v for Case Number SUY-347-11— MOTION: Commissioner Clark
SECOND: Commissionei• Doty-Pomol•ansky Passed: Unanimous roll call vote.
Order of Decision on Case Number SUP-347-11— MOTION: Commissioner poty-
Pomoransky SECOND: Commissioner Clark. The Commission voted unanimously to Approve
with the following conditions: ',
• Item 11.2 I
VI. Planning Issues —
A. The next regularly scheduled Planning and Zoning Coinmission hearing is
October 1 l, 201 l.
VII. Acljournment
The meeting was adjourned at approximately 8:40 p.m.
MINUTES APPROVED AND SIGNED BY GHAIRPERSON KEN SCHOLZ ON THE DATE
NOTED B��.,OW:
; � -�y-`
L;
�- ;
Ken Schotz D t "� ���°°� l
''`.
.,
ATTEST: �
Ani�e a ie Slcinn r nior iner v. eam Leader
9
P&Z Minutes
8/9/2011