Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout11-11-2014 HE MINUTES ALDI ELL HEARING EXAMINER MINUTE ;t � _' , November 11, 2014 I. Cavil to order— Hearing Examiner, Mr. Jerome Mapp., opened the meeting for the public bearing at 7:00 p.m. tl. Review r of Proceedings—Mr.Jerome Mapp outlined the procedures for the public hearing. Members Present: Jarorn wagoner(Senior Planner Development Team Leader); April Cabello (Planning Technician). Members Absent: Brian Billingsley (Planning Director); Robb MacDonald (Assistant City Engineer). III, Old Business: A. Mr. Mapp approved the Minutes of the July 8, 2014 meeting as previously signed by Hearing Examiner Mapp. Ill, New Business: A. Case Number SUP-08-14: A request by Bile Nordberg for a special-use permit to operate a , Vehicle Sales Lot, located within the - (City Center) Zoning District. The subject property is located at 410 S. 1"Avenue, in Caldwell, Idaho. Testimony: 1. Jarorn wagoner, Senior Planner Development Team Leader, 621 Cleveland Blvd., Caldwell, ID 83605 explained to the Hearing Examiner that the applicants potential tenant has not continued with the request to rent this parcel of land for a used car lot and the applicant was wondering if they should proceed with the hearing to re eive approval for the special use of a used auto sales lot. 2. Mr. wagoner explained to the applicant that they could withdraw their � application but recommended mended that the applicant proceed with the special use hearing in the went that another car lot wanted to open for business at this location. 3. Mr. Mapp asked ed the applicants representative to explain what the applicant would like to d . 4. Tracy Kasper, Applicant Representative, 30141 S. whitepo t Way,,, Eagle, Idaho, 83616, explained that they had a tenant that wanted to go into the building at 410 S. 1't Avenue, and conduct a used auto dealership but when the tenant tried to get his vehicle license permit they found out that the zoning was incorrect for a used car lot. 5. Mx. Kasper further explained the property is currently for sale and has been vacant since 2006, Nis. Kasper Mated that she is the listing agent for the property. 6. Mr. Mapp wondered ghat kind of use the property owner wants to sell it as. Hearing Examiner Minutes Hearing on November 11,2014 P a g e � � 7. Ms. Kasper responded that they would like to sell the property to some other user and let the buyer decide what type of use that they would hare, and being in City Center it would give the potential buyer a lot of options. S. Mr. Mapp confirmed that the applicant is aware of the City Center zoning classification and the land uses. 9. Ms. Kasper responded yes and stated that as they are advertizing the property and are making prospective buyers aware of the City Center zoning classification but the prospective buyers have been few and far between so in the mean time they need to be able to rent the property. 10. Ibis. Kasper explained that the potential tenant wanted to open a used car lot which is why the owner submitted and paid for the special use application and held the neighborhood meeting which no one attended. 11. Mr. Mapp confirmed that the applicant was aware this special use approval would only be for a used car lot and if they choose a different use that is contrary to the zoning classification they would have to come back for another special use permit. 12. Mr. Mapp stated that in 2003 when the first car lot went into business the property owner was required to do certain work and wondered if that work from 2003 had been completed. � 13. Ms. Kasper responded part of the work was completed. The landscaping plan and the sprinklers that were required had been started. There was a deferral agreement put in place for the landscaping plan but that phase one, the sprinklers had been installed. 14. Mr. Mapp wondered about the interior landscaping and sidewalk improvements. 1 . X111 . Kasper responded that the asphalt for the interior has not been laid. The landscaping plan does not show sidewalks on Paynter or 1st Avenue, only on Cleveland but all the language that is described on the report describes the sidewalks so there is a discrepancy. 16. Ms. Kasper confirmed with Mr. Mapp that the improvements gill only have to be done prior to occupancy and wondered when the special use permit would expire. 17. Mr. Wagoner responded the special use permit approval is good for 12 months. 18. Mr. Mapp reiterated they cannot occupy the building or the property until all the improvements are complete. 19. Ms. Kasper wondered if it was an allowed use if they would still have to meet all the requirements. 20. Mr. wagoner responded that with an allowed use they would still reed to comply with the same sidewalk, asphalt and landscaping requirements. 21. Ms. Kasper asked to have a few minutes to speak with her client. 22, Ms. Kasper asked Mr. Mapp and staff if them are any extensions allowed for the special use process if this special use permit is approved. 23. Mr.wagoner responded there is a onetime 6 month extension allowed. 24. Ms. Kasper per stated that her ciient would like to proceed and seek approval for the special use permit. 25. Ms. Kasper requested that they come to a conclusion about the discrepancy on the landscaping plan and the sidewalks. 2 . Ms. Kasper submitted an approved landscape plan labeled as P -5. Hearing Examiner Minutes Hearing on November 11,2014 P a 27. Ms. Kasper stated that there was an engineering report that was filed in Juno of 2003 and it references that they need a different site plan but needed a plan done by a landscape architect. The plans were submitted by an architect and it does not have idewalk on Paynter or on 1't Avenue. Ms. Kasper explained the engineering report conflicts with the landscape plan and would like to request that the engineers report be revised to remove the sidewalks along 1"Avenue and Paynter and only be required along Cleveland. Nis. Kasper further pointed out the landscape plan was tamped approved. 28. Nor. i lapp confirmed with staff that the engineering department has not reviewed the landscape plan. 29. Mr. Kapp explained to Nis. Kasper that the plan needs to go to staff to nfirm It meets code; if it does not meet code then he will not allow it. 0. Ms. Kasper asked if there was a way to have the approval contingent upon the staff review. 1. Mr. Wagoner stated that his recommendation would be that the sidewalk would be required as stated in the letter unless deemed not necessary by the engineering department. 2. Mr. Kapp stated he would have it read to meet the requirements as designated by the engineering department. 33. Mr. 11 app wondered about the chain link fence around the property and why. 4. Rik Nordberg, appli ant,2 22 Hill re t Lane, Caldwell, 1D responded that along where the alley used to be there is a 6 foot chain link fence with slats, it is existing. 35. Mr. Klapp wonde re d if there wi ll be any kind of interior light for the ear lot. 36. Mr. Nordberg responded no,just the lights that are on the building. 7. Mr. Klapp mentioned that all sidewalks rust meet ADA requirements. 38. Mr. Nordberg responded the ADA ramp along 1't Avenue and Cleveland was put in a couple of years ago by the city. 39. Mr. Mapp asked staff to confirm the ADA ramp is in compliance with the ADA code. 40. Mr. Klapp asked Mr. Nordberg that if this special use is approved tonight that they cannot occupy the site until all requirements are met. if the special use permit is violated the special use permit will be withdrawn. 41. Mr. Map asked Mr. Nordberg if he anticipated any outdoor storage on this site. 42. Mr. Nordberg responded no there is no outdoor storage. MR. MAPP CLOSED THE PUBLIC TESTIMONY. Comprehensive ive Plan Analysis for SUP-08-14 (Special Use): The Hearing Examiner accepted the comprehensive plan analysis as listed in the staff report. Findings of Fact for SUP-08-14 (Special Use): The Hearing Examiner accepted the general facts as outlined in the staff report, public testimony, and the evidence list. Conclusions of Later for SUP-08-14 {Special Use}: The Hearing Examiner accepted the Conclusions of Later as outlined in the staff report. Hearing Examiner Minutes Nearing on November 11,2014 P a 1 ORDER ESE DECISION FOR SLIP-08-14 (Special Use Permit): The Hearing Examiner ORDERED that Case Number SUP-08-14 IS APPROVED with conditions: 8.2 -8.7 as written 8.8 add to this condition the wording "'or amended by the engineering department" 8.9-8-10 a mitten Add 8.11 no outdoor storage shall be allowed on the site V. Planning Issues—None. VI. Adjournment The Hearing Examiner adjourned the meeting at approximately 7:50 p.m. MINUTES APPROVED ED AND SIGNED BY THE HEARING EXAMINER, I I. JEROME MAPP, ON THE DATE NOTED BELOW: /Y ATTEST: V'i'e' r o M 67 de Jarorn 1l agoner, Se n15 r Planner Deve lo pment Team Leader Date i For detailed minutes, please request copy of the digital recording. Hearing Examiner Minutes Hearing on November 11,2014 10 a a e 14