Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout05 Hearing Examiner PLANNING AND ZONING 1.4 earl • e}canG A ITEM DATE SUBMITTED BY 0,Dhnnnen-L 3ne.24_, - II- o 1 j 4 Pz- `3 CI,Dvy SI1wL q- tI -o 15k - Ccrnme -11-01 Veron i e_a tvinn-L� P z -.5 Cor o :4- . g - I- o l L-c. nn kf e a L P4.Z Con►. o n —R ce-o M m e o> oft r2- to -to Couune< ( 9 -t R- o t mre aclt. .inou Pz.- 4 coo p(i 0A-tI -o1 a c .2 -afloat __RA PUBLIC HEARING COMMENT SHEET (PLEASE PRINT CLEARLY) NAME: 114 -S i / 2i?Z 2gA !�� .Y l STREET ADDRESS: 56 5) He L.54- s-km. CITY/STATE/ZIP: NAME OF CASE BEING HEARD: MIL)" 114 DI .5 Df °/ 1/e6/ ****************************************************************:*************************** Check the appropriate line: Applicant or Representative /. I Neutral/ wish to speak i do not wish to speak In favor/ 1 Opposed/ wish to speak I wish to speak do not wish to speak I do not wish to speak Written comments may be attached to this form or you may write them in below. PZ- PUBLIC HEARING COMMENT SHEET (PLEASE PRINT CLEARLY) NAME: LIA,Irtaic STREET ADDRESS: 0/-i-{/7 64 CITY/STATE/ZIP: 01,1 (A) E L-Lv NAME OF CASE BEING HEARD: -.OA/- K( -O 1 SLtp- Check the appropriate ling: Applicant or Representative I eutral/ I wish to speak 176� do not wish to speak In favor/ 1 Opposed/ wish to speak 1 ' wish to speak do not wish to speak 1 do not wish to speak 1 Written comments may be attached to this form or you may write them in below. P2-z PUBLIC HEARING COMMENT SHEET (PLEASE PRINT CLEARLY) NAME: STREET ADDRESS: 02,1 ( - CITY/STATE/ZIP: NAME OF CASE BEING HEARD: N - ***************************************** 711 -**************** *****:********* Check the appropriate line: Applicant or Representative I Neutral/ wish to speak do not wish to speak In favor/ i Opposed/ wish to speak I wish to speak do not wish to speak I do not wish to speak Written comments may be attached to this form or you may write them in below. PUBLIC HEARING COMMENT SHEET (PLEASE PRINT CLEARLY) NAME: f , �4 \,...: / 4417 / 2 //.STREET AD©LESS: �f�( �--- CITY/STATE/ZIP: 7 7) f3t )5 NAME OF CASE BEING HEARD: 4 o 1 0 P-154-11-of *******************************************************************************.********* Check the appropriate line: Applicant or Representative I Neutral/ wish to speak do not wish to speak In favor/ I Opposed/ wish to speak I wish to speak do not wish to speak I do not wish to speak Written comments may be attached to this form or you may write them in below. 1 Z-L-1 PUBLIC HEARING COMMENT SHEET (PLEASE PRINT CLEARLY) NAME: Y`t✓ 62-tC.tia-- 01-.•4 STREET ADDRESS: _J\ Q?4 r 01T1/44),s42.,„ CITY/STATE/ZIP: NAME OF CASE BEING HEARD: _/ - °1 0 f Check the appropriate line: Applicant or Representative I Neutral/ wish to speak do not wish to speak In favor/ i Opposed/ wish to speak I wish to speak do not wish to speak I do not wish to speak Written comments may be attached to this form or you may write them in below. Pz -5 SUP-13731 &ZON-14-01 ALBERTSON COLLEGE OF IDAHO BEFORE THE CALDWELL PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION CITY OF CALDWELL, IDAHO IN THE MATTER OF RECEIVING AN APPLICATION FROM ALBERTSON COLLEGE OF IDAHO TO REZONE A PARCEL OF LAND FROM R-2 TO R-3 FOR PURPOSE OF CONSTRUCTING A PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT CONSISTING OF MULTIPLE BUILDINGS FOR STUDENT HOUSING PURPOSE, AND A REQUEST TO ALLOW BUILDING HEIGHTS OF 55 FEET. TABLE OF CONTENTS: I COURSE OF PROCEEDINGS, II GENERAL FACTS, III TESTIMONY, IV APPLICABLE LEGAL STANDARDS, V COMPREHENSIVE PLAN ANALYSIS SUP-134-01, VI FINDINGS OF FACT SUP-134-01, VII CONCLUSIONS OF LAW SUP-134 -01, VIII COMPREHENSIVE PLAN ANALYSIS ZON-14-01, IX FINDINGS OF FACT ZON —14-01, X CONCLUSIONS OF LAW ZON-14-01, XI ORDER OF DECISION SUP-134-01, XII RECOMMENDATION ZON-14-01, XIII OTHER CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL COURSE OF PROCEEDINGS The Caldwell Community Development Department issued a notice of public hearing on application SUP- 134- 01 and ZON —14-01 to be held before the Caldwell Planning and Zoning Commission on Sept 11, 2001. Public notice requirements set forth in Idaho Code, Chapter 65, Local Planning Act, were met. On August 27, 2001 notice was published in the Idaho-Press Tribune; on August 24, 2001 notice was mailed to all property owners within 300 feet of the project site and to all political subdivisions providing services to the City of Caldwell; and, on September 4, 2001 notice was posted on the site. 1.2 Files and exhibits relative to this application were available for review in the Community Development Department and at the public hearing. II GENERAL FACTS 2.1 APPLICANT: Michael G. Simmons, AIA—ZGA Architects and Planners, Charted, 565 West Myrtle Street, Suite 225— Boise Idaho 2.2 OWNER (S): Albertson College of Idaho 2112 Cleveland Boulevard, Caldwell Idaho 2.3 REQUEST: A request to rezone the current R-2 (Medium Density Residential) zoning to a R-3 (Multi Family Residential) zoning. Additionally, for approval of a special use permit for a planned unit development in order to construct 4 buildings with a total of 96 bedroom units on 3.5 acres (143,490 square feet). As part of the special use permit the applicant is also asking for relief from the 45-foot R-3 height restriction as to afford the development of structures to a height of 55 feet. (The College has acquired a number of residential properties and intends, to construct overtime, 13 buildings with a total of 240 bedrooms — thus the present request is for the first phase of a much larger land use consideration,which will require additional public hearings) 2.3.1 Zoning Ordinance No. 1451, Section 10-03-06, Planned Unit Developments, allows for "unified and planned development of a site in individual or corporate ownership" to be approved through the special use permit process. T✓ > k ED pi-6 2.4 LOCATION: The sject site is located as follows: property islT�unded by Ash Street, Wisconsin, Oak and the alley between Iowa and College Avenue. 2.5 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN COMPONENTS: 2.5.1 Property Rights: The five checklist criteria set forth by the Attorney General in the "Idaho Regulatory Takings Act Guidelines"was reviewed by planning staff the criteria is as follows: 1. Does the regulation or action result in a permanent or temporary physical occupation of the land? No 2. Does the regulation or action require a property owner to dedicate a portion of property or to grant an easement? No 3. Does the regulation deprive the owner of all economically viable uses of the property? No 4. Does the regulation have a significant impact on the landowner's economic interest? No 5. Does the regulation deny a fundamental attribute of ownership? No 2.5.2 School Facilities and Transportation: The Caldwell and Vallivue School Districts were notified of the request through mailing of the public hearing notification on August 24th, 2001. 2.5.3 Economic Development: The College is expanding its facilities to accommodate an increase in student enrollment from 800 at the present time to 1300. The attraction of more students to this enterprise will create a variety of economic opportunities that should benefit the community in terms of revenue enhancement and reputation. 2.5.4 Land Use: Residential — the site is presently zoned R-2 (Medium Density Residential). According to the Caldwell Zoning Ordinance, Section 10-01-03, subsection B, the purpose of this zone, is to provide medium density residential development areas located primarily in older urban neighborhoods and adjacent to shopping, recreation and cultural facilities. Medium —density development concentrations should have a full range of community services and facilities available or projected for establishment. The request is to change the R-2 zone to R-3, the Multi-Family High Density Residential zone. The purpose of the R-3 zone is to provide areas for medium to high-density development. This type of zoning pattern is intended to provide transition or buffer areas between commercial uses and less intense activities and to provide places for higher density uses in selected places of the City's neighborhoods and communities. Adjacent properties have the following land uses: North—College South— Residential East—College/Residential West—residential Given the intended use (College housing) and the uses of the adjoining properties the rezone request appears reasonable and has staff's support. The College has acquired a number of residential properties and intends, overtime, to construct 13 buildings with a total of 240 bedrooms — thus the present request is for the first phase of a much larger land use consideration. Staff intends to work with the College to create a new zone within the Caldwell Zoning Ordinance known as an institutional zone that will aid in expediting the College's future development plans. This zone will be constructed similar to the University District Zone found in Boise's Municipal Code section 11-04-11.01. 2.5.5 Public Services, Utilities and Facilities; Natural Resources; Transportation: The Engineering Department provides the following comments concerning Albertson's College request to rezone a parcel of land from R-2 to R-3 to construct a planned unit development; also, a special use permit to allow building heights of 55 feet: 1. The Engineering Department does not oppose the proposed rezone of this property. 2. The proposed building heights are below the aircraft glide path for the Caldwell Industrial Airport, therefore the Engineering Department has no objections to the proposed building heights. 3. Development Plans — Prior to commencing construction, plans must be prepared by the developer's engineer and approved by the City Engineering Department which include the following items: a. Street section and alignment (including curb and gutter); b. Sidewalk (4-foot width on all streets); c. Sanitary sewer(per City and DEQ requirements); d. Potable water (per City and DEQ requirements); e. Stormwater facilities (per City Policy); f. Street lighting (maximum spacing of 350 feet and must meet Idaho Power design standards plus conform identically to the lamp, ballast, and sensor switching equipment used by Idaho Power); g. Street signage (per City and MUTCD requirements); h. Irrigation system (per Caldwell Irrigation Lateral District requirements). 4. The developer is to employ a responsible design professional, preferably the engineer of record, to oversee and inspect construction, to perform and/or observe all requisite testing of completed facilities, and to certify that improvements have been constructed according to approved plans and in compliance with applicable City, State, and Federal standards. 5. Prior to commencement of construction in any dedicated right-of-way, or construction of any improvement intended for dedication to the City or connected to a City facility, the City Engineering staff is to be notified. This preferably will take place in a pre-construction conference scheduled by the engineer of record in which all appropriate personnel and utilities are present. Appropriate City personnel are to be notified in advance of all testing (including compaction, pressure and coliform, etc.) and given opportunity to be present during conduct of the test. The engineer of record or his designated representative is to witness all tests and a log of inspection visits and testing results is to be kept by the engineer of record or his representative. 6. As noted previously, provision is to be made for the disposal of stormwater drainage in accordance with the City Stormwater Management Policy. A copy of this policy is available upon request. The engineer of record is to provide calculations, which indicate that the assumptions in his stormwater drainage plan comply with the requirements of the stormwater policy. 7. During the design phase of this project, the developer or his engineer is to contact Caldwell Lateral Irrigation District to ascertain all existing upstream drainage rights and downstream irrigation rights that need to be maintained across the property. Appropriate facilities should be provided to convey irrigation and drainage water across the property to take care of these offsite needs. There is to be no discharge of irrigation return water into the subdivision storm water system. A letter is to be obtained from Caldwell Lateral Irrigation District indicating their concurrence with the design and facilities that preserve these existing rights. 8. The development is to include a non-potable water pressure irrigation system. The design of this pressure irrigation system is to be reviewed and approved by Caldwell Lateral Irrigation District and a letter obtained indicating their approval of the design. This letter of approval must be completed and submitted to the City before construction begins. 9. All street, sewer, water, and street light facilities must be dedicated to the City. Some conveyance facilities for stormwater drainage may be eligible for dedication to the City. 10. Construction of dedicated facilities is to be by an appropriately licensed public works contractor. 11. Provisions are to be made for the disposal of stormwater drainage in accordance with the City's Stormwater Management Policy. A copy of this policy is available upon request. The engineer of record is to provide calculations, which indicate that the assumptions in his storm drainage plan comply with the storm drainage policy. 12. As the proposed development occurs, the applicant will be required to adhere to the City of Caldwell Infrastructure Improvement Policy governing street improvements, such as curb, gutter, and sidewalk. 13. The portions of Iowa Avenue and Illinois Avenue from Ash Street to Oak Street and Ash Street between College Avenue and Wisconsin Avenue that are designated for abandonment will have to be vacated in accordance with City and State requirements. 14. The remaining portions of Ash Street not vacated above may need to provide additional right-of-way or easements for Fire Department turn-around purposes. 15. All existing utilities within those portions of City right-of-way designated for abandonment will have to be relocated within other rights-of-way or protected by easements. 16. Although the existing homes were connected to City sewer and water, the proposed apartment buildings may be subject to additional connection fees if the proposed use increases the demand on City sewer and water services. 2.5.6 Irrigation: Pioneer Irrigation District was notified of the request through mailing of the public hearing notification on August 24th, 2001, but did not offer a response. 2.5.7 Community Design: The site plan identifies landscaping areas and types of vegetation that will be installed. The narrative states that 58 percent of the area will be devoted to grass, plants trees and greenery. The City Forester will review the detail landscaping plans that are submitted during the building permitting process to insure that they are consistent with the City's landscaping policy. 2.5.8 Parking: Section 10-02-05 sets forth requirements for parking spaces: According to the applicant's narrative the parking area designed for the project will provide parking which exceeds the ordinance requirement. Specifically, the applicant proposes 5 handicapped spaces, 100 parking spaces, as well as 96 bicycle storage areas within the buildings. The applicant also notes that no on street parking is planned. The Community Development Director will review the detailed parking plans that are submitted during the building permitting process to insure that they are consistent with the City's ordinance. 2.5.9 Fire Protection: The applicant advises that public water is available to the property, that hydrants in the vicinity have been shown to yield 1100 gpm each. The CFD does not have any problems with the height variance based on the installation requirement for automatic fire sprinklers, fire alarm system and adequate access. These items will all be noted during the plan review process. III TESTIMONY AT THE P &Z MEETING SEPTEMBER 11TH 3.1 Steve Hasson, Community Development Director, provided an overview of the development request and stated that the applicant was asking that this 3. 5-acre land parcel be rezoned from an R-2 to an R-3 zone. Mr. Hasson noted that the applicant was pursuing a planned unit development in order to construct 96 units for student dormitory purpose. The special use permit was necessary in order to increase the height in a R-3 from the maximum 45 feet to 55 feet so that the college could construct 3 story buildings. Mr. Hasson noted that the College intended to expand its student population base from 800 students to 1300 over the next few years, which would entail the construction of 13 buildings with a total of 240 bedrooms. The present request was the first phase of that proposal. The City's long term planning strategy was to develop an institutional zone around ACI so they would not have to continue bringing portions of their development proposal to the City legislative authority a' la carte. In response to a question by Commissioner Blacker, Mark Hilty, City Attorney advised the Commission that there were two land use items before them. The Commission would be the final decision makers on the special use permit but would only recommend a course of action to the Council with respect to the zoning request. Accordingly, these actions would require separate motions. 3.2 Mike Simmons, Applicant's Representative, testified in favor and stated that the college continues to grow and that increase serves as the genesis for this action. He said that the college could have developed 2 story buildings instead of 3 story but wanted to keep the building footprints separated for purpose of preserving open space. In response to a question about parking spaces, he noted that they intended to handle all parking off the City streets and according to the City's requirements. In response to a question from Commissioner Archuleta about the future plans for Ash Street, Mr. Simmons responded the college intended to vacate Ash Street for campus use and for accessibility to the student union building. 3.3 Jean Lujack, who testified as neutral, asked how her apartment complex tenants were going to access the apartment under this proposal? 3.4 Shirley Crowley testified as both neutral and in opposition to this proposal. She said that she lived across from the development and implied that the reason that there was not more concern about this proposal is that many of those who might have prompted concerns had their property purchased by the college. She also noted that the college had already leveled properties and started development prior to seeking approval. She wanted to know why they didn't come in for the rezone first so as not to leave the impression it was a done deal? Mr. Crowley held up a map that she said reflected on the college's development intent. She said that she had received the map in March and that it was stated at that time the college intendecu ro build 2 story buildings. She wanted to kn'Qw why they were now proposing 3 story buildings? She noted that she owned a historical building built in 1895 that would be impacted by this development proposal. She also wanted to know what distinguished an R-3 zone from an R-2 zone? 3.5 Lynn Sabajo, testified in opposition to the building being three stories high — she echoed Mrs. Crowley's complaint that they were seeking development permission after the fact. 3.6 Mike Simmons, in rebuttal responded to Mrs. Crowley's map stating that was not a true rendition of the development proposal, rather a conceptual site plan developed as a marketing tool by the college for student consumption. This map was to portray a long-term view of the college's development plans over the next 20 to 30 years. He said that the college was sensitive to the neighborhood needs and the necessity to construct buildings that were design compatible with the surrounding environment. Mr. Simmons also noted that they were only seeking preliminary approval at this time rather than final plan and design review. He said that they were just clearing the property and that action was independent of the development request. He also noted that 45 feet was the current allowable height in the R-3 zone. Mr. Simmons noted that the historical house in question had been moved to that property from another site and to his knowledge that moving negated the house's inclusion on the national historical register. He said that the visual intrusiveness of three stories would be mitigated by the setback requirements. In response to a question from Commissioner Archuleta regarding the development of two story buildings as opposed to three stories, Mr. Simmons noted that two story buildings could be accomplished on the lots but they would detract from the design because the building would be so close together. Commissioner Robison said she was familiar with historical house noting that the parking lot would be to the back of this historical feature. She inquired whether landscaping be positioned as a buffer between the parking lot and the historical house? Mr. Simmons said that they had not developed site plans for that area but landscaping there for mitigation was certainly plausible. 3.7 Veronica Montiel advised the Commission that her daycare was impacted by the college's expansion and she was in opposition to this proposal. 3.8 Mr. Hilty said that because Ms. Montiel had not signed up prior to the public hearing that Mr. Simmons would have to be afforded another opportunity for rebut (he having provided for rebuttal). He cautioned the Commission about receiving testimony from those who sign up after the fact. 3.9 In response to Ms. Montiel's comments, Mr. Simmons said that issue would hold true with any development built there. Commissioner Blacker said that the objections to this proposal could have been cured by better communication between the college and the citizens affected by this proposal. Mr. Hasson was asked by the Commission to distinguish the differences between the R-2 zone and the R-3, which he provided. IV APPLICABLE LEGAL STANDARDS 4.1 City of Caldwell 1977 Comprehensive Plan, as amended. 4.2 City of Caldwell Zoning Ordinance No. 1451, as amended. 4.3 Idaho Code, Chapter 65, Local Planning Act V PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION'S COMPREHENSIVE PLAN ANALYSIS RELATING TO THE REZONE REQUEST ZON-14-01 The Planning and Zoning Commission accepted the analysis as outlined below: 5.1 Property Rights— GOAL: To ensure that land use policies, restrictions, conditions and fees do not violate property rights, adversely impact property values or create unnecessary technical limitations on the use of the property. OBJECTIVE B: To identify potential takings of private property prior to a regulatory or administrative action on specific property. POLICY 1: Require staff to follow the Attorney General's Checklist Criteria outlined in the Idaho Regulatory Takings Act Guidelines prior to any proposed regulatory or administrative action on specific property, and to request legal counsel's review if any one of the criteria is answered in the affirmative. Staff reviewed the five criteria outlined in the Takings Act Guidelines and did not answer yes to any of the criteria. 5.2 School Facilities and Transportation — GOAL: To provide the on-going opportunity for school representatives of Caldwell and Vallivue School Districts to participate in the community planning process. POLICY 1: Include the school districts in the review process when considering land-use proposals. At a minimum, notice of the hearing for each proposal should be provided to the districts and any additional information that the districts might request. The Caldwell and Vallivue School Districts were notified by mailing of the public hearing on August 24, 2001. 5.3 Economic Development— GOAL: To continue to work toward providing the residents of Caldwell with adequate levels of all of the components of economic development, such as housing, business, jobs, schools, recreational opportunities, infrastructure systems, public utilities and facilities, and public services. OBJECTIVE D. To promote unique economic development projects that are designed to include integrated uses such as housing, recreation, office complexes, restaurants and shopping areas. POLICY 1: Encourage the use of special use permits and/or PUD's that will provide for mixed use developments. 5.4 Land Use— GOAL: To establish land-use management policies that protect property rights and the environment, maintain a high quality of life, provide adequate land for all types of development, and adequately buffer non-compatible uses. OBJECTIVES APPLICABLE TO RESIDENTIAL LAND USE: OBJECTIVE A: To maximize the use of land by encouraging high density development in areas that have adequate services and can act as a buffer between lesser density residential and commercial uses. POLICY 1. Encourage special uses in areas where they can be appropriately integrated with the surrounding area and where the health, safety and general welfare of the neighborhood will not be adversely impacted. POLICY 4. Encourage PUD's in areas that have access to essential services and facilities but have limited land space and therefore need to pursue a unique design layout. PUD's could include clustering on the lots that do not meet the minimum lot sizes and the use of zero lot lines. POLICY 7. Encourage medium density residential as a transitional use between single family and high density residential uses. 5.5 Natural Resources— GOAL: Preserve, protect, and enhance the water quality and quantity of the Boise River, Indian Creek and their natural environments. POLICY 1: Prevent the collection and conveyance of untreated stormwater, created by new development, into surface bodies of water by requiring developers to comply with local, state and federal stormwater policies. 5.6 Public Services, Utilities and Facilities— GOAL: To ensure that there are adequate police, fire, emergency services, and public utilities to meet the needs of the public. OBJECTIVE A: To protect the safety of people and their property. POLICY 1: Require adequate water supply for fire flow when approving development. POLICY 2: Include emergency service providers, such as police and fire departments and EMS, in the development review process. POLICY 5: Ensure—mat there are adequate water/sewer systeTtis by planning for short- and long-term water and sewer expansion projects. POLICY 7: Require new developments to meet design standard policies, as adopted by the City, and any other applicable public entity's adopted policies for public infrastructure improvements. 5.7 Transportation — GOAL: To provide for the efficient, safe, and cost effective movement of people and goods. OBJECTIVE A: To protect public safety and the environment. POLICY 3: Encourage new residential developments to incorporate bicycle and pedestrian ways into their planning efforts. Policy 5:require that the construction of roads meets the City's adopted public road standards. 5.8 Community Design — GOAL: Foster growth in a manner than will enhance and improve the visual image of the city. OBJECTIVE A: To promote, encourage and maintain an aesthetically pleasing city. OBJECTIVE E: To ensure that new development enhances rather than distracts from the visual image of surrounding areas. POLICY 6: Include the City's forester/horticulturist in the review process for all new or expanding developments that include landscaping requirements. VI PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION'S FINDINGS OF FACT RELATING TO THE REZONE REQUEST ZON-14-01 6.1 The Planning and Zoning Commission accept the general facts outlined in the staff report as well as the information provided by the applicant and the general public as the Findings of Fact. VII PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION'S CONCLUSIONS OF LAW RELATING TO THE REZONE REQUEST ZON-14-01 7.1 The Planning and Zoning Commission stated that they have the authority to hear this case and to recommend to the Mayor and City Council regarding its approval or denial; public notice requirements were met and the hearing was conducted within the guidelines of applicable Idaho Code and City ordinances. VIII PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION ON THE REZONE REQUEST ZON-14- 01 8.1 Based on the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, the Planning and Zoning Commission hereby recommend that Case No. ZON-14-01, a request by Albertson's College of Idaho to rezone the present R-2 (Medium Density Residential)zone to a R-3 (Multifamily Residential) zone is approved. IX PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION'S COMPREHENSIVE PLAN ANALYSIS RELATING TO THE SPECIAL USE PERMIT (CASE SUP-134-01) FOR THE PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT AND RELIEF FROM THE RESIDENTIAL HEIGTH RESTRICTION — The Planning and Zoning Commission accepted the analysis as outlined below: 9.1 Property Rights— GOAL: To ensure that land use policies, restrictions, conditions and fees do not violate property rights, adversely impact property values or create unnecessary technical limitations on the use of the property. OBJECTIVE B: To identify potential takings of private property prior to a regulatory or administrative action on specific property. POLICY 1: Requim staff to follow the Attorney General's t;necklist Criteria outlined in the Idaho Regulatory Takings Act Guidelines prior to any proposed regulatory or administrative action on specific property, and to request legal counsel's review if any one of the criteria is answered in the affirmative. Staff reviewed the five criteria outlined in the Takings Act Guidelines and did not answer yes to any of the criteria. 9.2 School Facilities and Transportation — GOAL: To provide the on-going opportunity for school representatives of Caldwell and Vallivue School Districts to participate in the community planning process. POLICY 1: Include the school districts in the review process when considering land-use proposals. At a minimum, notice of the hearing for each proposal should be provided to the districts and any additional information that the districts might request. The Caldwell and Vallivue School Districts were notified by mailing of the public hearing on August 24, 2001. 9.3 Economic Development— GOAL: To continue to work toward providing the residents of Caldwell with adequate levels of all of the components of economic development, such as housing, business, jobs, schools, recreational opportunities, infrastructure systems, public utilities and facilities, and public services. OBJECTIVE D. To promote unique economic development projects that are designed to include integrated uses such as housing, recreation, office complexes, restaurants and shopping areas. POLICY 1: Encourage the use of special use permits and/or PUD's that will provide for mixed use developments. 9.4 Land Use— GOAL: To establish land-use management policies that protect property rights and the environment, maintain a high quality of life, provide adequate land for all types of development, and adequately buffer non-compatible uses. OBJECTIVES APPLICABLE TO RESIDENTIAL LAND USE: OBJECTIVE A: To maximize the use of land by encouraging high density development in areas that have adequate services and can act as a buffer between lesser density residential and commercial uses. POLICY 1. Encourage special uses in areas where they can be appropriately integrated with the surrounding area and where the health, safety and general welfare of the neighborhood will not be adversely impacted. POLICY 4. Encourage PUD's in areas that have access to essential services and facilities but have limited land space and therefore need to pursue a unique design layout. PUD's could include clustering on the lots that do not meet the minimum lot sizes and the use of zero lot lines. POLICY 7. Encourage medium density residential as a transitional use between single family and high density residential uses. 9.5 Natural Resources— GOAL: Preserve, protect, and enhance the water quality and quantity of the Boise River, Indian Creek and their natural environments. POLICY 1: Prevent the collection and conveyance of untreated stormwater, created by new development, into surface bodies of water by requiring developers to comply with local, state and federal stormwater policies. 9.6 Public Services, Utilities and Facilities— GOAL: To ensure mat there are adequate police, fire, emergency services, and public utilities to meet the needs of the public. OBJECTIVE A: To protect the safety of people and their property. POLICY 1: Require adequate water supply for fire flow when approving development. POLICY 2: Include emergency service providers, such as police and fire departments and EMS, in the development review process. POLICY 5: Ensure that there are adequate water/sewer systems by planning for short- and long-term water and sewer expansion projects. POLICY 7: Require new developments to meet design standard policies, as adopted by the City, and any other applicable public entity's adopted policies for public infrastructure improvements. 9.7 Transportation — GOAL: To provide for the efficient, safe, and cost effective movement of people and goods. OBJECTIVE A: To protect public safety and the environment. POLICY 3: Encourage new residential developments to incorporate bicycle and pedestrian ways into their planning efforts. Policy 5:require that the construction of roads meets the City's adopted public road standards. 9.8 Community Design — GOAL: Foster growth in a manner than will enhance and improve the visual image of the city. OBJECTIVE A: To promote, encourage and maintain an aesthetically pleasing city. OBJECTIVE E: To ensure that new development enhances rather than distracts from the visual image of surrounding areas. POLICY 6: Include the City's forester/horticulturist in the review process for all new or expanding developments that include landscaping requirements. X PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION'S FINDINGS OF FACT RELATING TO THE SPECIAL USE PERMIT FOR THE PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT AND RELIEF FROM THE RESIDENTIAL HEIGHT RESTRICTION SUP-134-01 10.1 The Planning and Zoning Commission accepted the general facts outlined in the staff report as well as the information provided by the applicant and the general public as the Findings of Fact. XI PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION'S CONCLUSIONS OF LAW RELATING TO THE SPECIAL USE PERMIT FOR THE PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT AND RELIEF FROM THE RESIDENTIAL HEIGHT RESTRICTION SUP-134-01 11.1 The Planning and Zoning Commission stated that they have the authority to hear this case and to approve or deny the proposal; public notice requirements were met and the hearing was conducted within the guidelines of applicable Idaho Code and City ordinances. XII PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION'S ORDER OF DECISION (SUP-134-01) RELATING TO THE SPECIAL USE PERMIT FOR THE PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT AND RELIEF FROM THE RESIDENTIAL HEIGHT RESTRICTION 12.1 Based on the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, the Planning and Zoning Commission orders that Case No. SUP-134-01, a request by Albertson's College of Idaho to construct phase one (4 buildings with a total of 96 bedroom units) of a planned unit development on 3.5 acres (143,490 square feet), as well as relief from the 45 foot residential height restriction to afford the development of structures to a height of 55 feet is approved w;-in the following conditions contingent oiT City Council approving the rezone request: 12.2 The specific terms and conditions placed on the Special Use Permit shall run with the land and remain valid upon a change of ownership, or until such time that the Permit(s) may be revoked, become invalid, amended, or replaced with another approved use. 12.3 The Applicant, or future assigns having an interest in the subject property, shall fully comply with all conditions placed upon the Special Use Permit. 12.4 No changes in the conditions and terms of the Special Use Permit, as approved, shall be undertaken by the Applicant, or future assigns having an interest in the subject property, until the Community Development Director has reviewed the proposed changes. If the Director determines that the proposed change(s) is significant, an amendment for change shall only be approved through the public hearing process. 12.5 Any violation of the terms and conditions of the Special Use Permit by the Applicant, or future assigns having an interest in the subject property, will be deemed a misdemeanor and subject to the provisions set forth in Idaho Code, 18-113. Each day's continued violation will be deemed a separate offense. 12.6 The Applicant shall, within one year following approval of the Special Use Permit, apply for a building permit. Prior to any construction commencing, or any use of the parking facility commencing, the Applicant, or future assigns having an interest in the subject property, shall apply for and obtain the applicable permits. All requirements placed on the building permit by the City Engineer, Fire Marshal, and any other agencies having approval authority, shall be met. 12.7 The Applicant, or future assigns having an interest in the subject property, shall obtain a sign permit prior to placing any new sign at the site. 12.8 The present request is for the first phase of a much larger land use consideration, which will require additional public hearings. CASE NOS. SUP-134-01 AND ZON-14--01 WERE HEARD BY PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEMBERS AT A PUBLIC HEARING HELD SEPTEMBER 11, 2001. WRITTEN FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND ORDER OF DECISION WAS ADMINISTRATIVELY APPROVED AND SIGNED BY CHAIRMAN JIM BLACKER ON THE DATE NOTED BELOW. A t\ g I ATTEST: h. rman Jim Blacker D e ' 7/ 7 Com Cry Development Director '`' ;. r O 1 .. et) 0 r• d, cc M C3 .. Z Q W• u O 11111 I a r I O 1. , zc. 0 Z x N O Y ° ' • � ' la W Cn 02 � r ti ' sr •■••o..- ,41114;11 '-•-.:" *9., ' '- • -'•-- - -4,.:,:-.'''-: I. — _ .„...,„ . "' 1 ,C, . _. - — . '•,:-.-. .. ..... • '. '.,:i-'.,,, , •, . . .,. . . h,-- -- _. . . 1,,f-Cs. .41 . --, -4-,.. , ..... • ... _ .... , ..,,,.., ;:7) . . , . , ,. . . • -:.:-.1 ''-' 'T. -.'":-'4,-' '-''''4-.,,i':-..,-,:::,, . ':-.-.'::::4Z?.;3.W.;'''!'.,,rAg'1":,,,ii.-,. 0 .. . Z . — '' "5, -i. •."-,-•.-4'it,, -","w-s.",-,",!"--.-. '" '--"';:e;.„5,st,41:!.,4...*:, - :' ,•=i„ "-:`,"„:"'"-, -",4''''i,'""," , 7---:11,..",;1!„,",:„.;","'": mo 0 0 cn ... .: .,1 m „. ,„:„...,_,,z,..:__, :,,,--:-- ,. ,1::::.,',..,_,,,,,,,,,,,,„_i,4,1:5,,,,;;; .•:-,,,,,,:w. w i,,,, I. „,,,Iii 1.. ' el) Ilrf,.. I= 0 ',4.': ---' -1.' ' .'•..- V.Y” '..;i:ii-,!-t7'..•,-. rOZI ....„_, ,..,' imill ..i'. .A 1:3 Z fri i 1: l. ' '..'4*,...-.,-• ''-' W° 0, 11,1 1111 ' _... , . ... ,..„. c"-..;•;.,",—.,,, Z W Z „. I.: - -1- • k,-,- ,,, , ,,,,,,,,,--'"' Egg 0 4-4 11•• .... ..., la -I cn ' '.i.,-. --;„.-!, r:','-',---' - ''',-..-.,,.,. :- .-.;,1.„-.1.:;•. , . .. ,-, - '.--... Z z 4 I- - ' , ,'11` , -:.:: :-_-. :1.:;:--,---:',:.::::::::',:i3:'.:7i-•:-..'!':0,,,i-,.--:..., . -•,:-.,: , . .;;. N •A Z Ill a a .. ' li '' -• ''..1:'-2,1.:%,,, .,,,,, _,-y.,..,...i.:,::::,-=.,-;:.77.'--''--- :::::: 0 NQ. a .,',1. '','-,-- ' l'--C,''.j.':',1';'• --,.**,r-li: ',i. Z ILI la 0 . - "41-'- :,•- - ' '''''g--'1.",,,..7-",,":*,..-1,,-,'--,..,-:--':. -,., . . ._ .... ..._ ,. . ti . _ . . , . .. ,,... ....., ,,,.. . .... . . a . ,.... . ,i, _ .:,,-,t-i',.--,4*'"'Y,:4=1-; :;;;:',•1.:-- --*,-- . - , - '-,1, '-.,. 0..7,!''..'`,.,-N.--,., tfi:311,-1.;!'-:,,, -,.•::',:,-......,N, -.,';,--- -%,--, -,,,, a '''.- -I-A,' .--;,;gw-`..,•-,-•: ..: .t.',;,,..„,-,:,;,',I., ,,._•54'.',-,„.ti lt,...",;,.-_-:$;,..,',,,,,...1,..;,=-.-. :ti, ip it a -. ...._„,.. ..-•- -., -,0 ,!.,-,::',--' ,-::.:•:_••:,,Y-';3-.':--7.-.-=;.M•••-k"-••'-..e.,,'",-:..";:'''''ti '''''- i: 4119 .,4,tr,-,,-4,...,. - .•..f-, ,-, , --,:,.. ._ ... _. I ‘^ - ....,. ..._... successor. Passed: Unanimous roll call vote. Public Hearing Closed — Chairman Blacker closed the public hearing and noted anyone wishing to appeal the Commission's decision should see the Director of Community Development. *************************************************************************************** B. Case Nos. ZON-14-01 and SUP-134-01, a request by Albertson College of Idaho to rezone certain parcels from R-2 zoning to R-3 zoning. Additionally, for approval of a planned unit development in order to construct 4 buildings with a total of 96 bedroom units on 3.5 acres, and an increase building height to 55 feet. The site is located between Ash Street, Wisconsin, Oak and the alley between Iowa and College Avenue. Testimony— Steve Hasson, Community Development Director, presented the staff report. Mark Hilty, City Legal Counsel, advised the Commission that there were two land uses before them. The Commission would make t he final decision on the special use permit, however, the zoning request would be recommended on to City Council. Mike Simmons, Representative for the Applicant—testified in favor. Gene Lujack, -testified as neutral. The following testified in opposition: Shirley Crowley, Lynn Sauvageau, and Veronica Montiel. Public Testimony Closed—Chairman Blacker closed public testimony. Comprehensive Plan Analysis on ZON-14-01: Motion: Commission Coller. Second: Commissioner Archuleta. The request was applicable to the following Comprehensive Plan components set forth in the staff report: Property Rights — Goal, Objective B, Policy 1; School Facilities and Transportation — Goal, Policy 1; Economic Development— Goal, Objective D, Policy 1; Land Use — Goal; Objectives Applicable to Residential Land Use — Objective A, Policy 1, Policy 4, Policy 7; Natural Resources — Goal, Policy 1; Public Services, Utilities and Facilities — Goal, Objective A, Policy 1, Policy 2, Policy 5, Policy 7; Transportation — Goal, Objective A, Policy 3, Policy 5; Community Design — Goal, Objective A& E, Policy 6. Findings of Fact on ZON-14-01: Motion: Commissioner Coller. Second: Commissioner Archuleta. Accept the general facts outlines in the staff report as well as the information provided by the applicant and the general public as the Findings of Fact. Passed: Unanimous roll call vote. Conclusions of Law — Motion: Commissioner Coller. Second: Commissioner Archuleta. The Commission has the authority to hear this case and recommend to the Mayor and City Council regarding its approval or denial; public notice requirements were met; and the hearing was conducted within the guidelines of Idaho Code and City ordinances. Passed: Unanimous roll call vote. Recommendation to City Council: — Motion: Commissioner Coller. Second: Commissioner Archuleta. The Commission members recommended approval of Case No. ZON-14-01. Passed: Unanimous roll call vote. Comprehensive Plan Analysis on SUP-134-01: Motion: Commissioner Robison. Second: Commissioner Coller. The request was applicable to the following Comprehensive Plan components set forth in the staff report: Property Rights — Goal, Objective B, and Policy 1; School Facilities and Transportation — Goal and Policy 1; Economic Development — Goal, Objective D, Policy 1; Land Use — Goal; Objectives Applicable to Residential Land Use — Objective A, Policy 1, Policy 4, Policy 7; Natural Resources — Goal and Policy 1; Public Services, Utilities and Facilities — Goal, Objective A, Policy 1, Policy 2, Policy 5, Policy 7; Transportation — Goal, Objective A, Policy 3, Policy 5; Community Design — Goal, Objective A, Objective E, and Policy 6. Passed: Unanimous roll call vote. P&Z Minutes of September 11,2001 I Findings of Fact — Motion: Commissioner Coller. Second: Commissioner Robison. Accept the general facts outlined in the staff report as Findings of Fact. Passed: Unanimous roll call vote. Conclusions of Law — Motion: Commissioner Robison. Second: Commissioner Coller. The Commission has the authority to hear this case and approve or deny; public notice requirements were met; and the hearing was conducted within the guidelines of Idaho Code and City ordinances. Passed: Unanimous roll call vote. Order of Decision — Motion: Commissioner Archuleta. Second: Commissioner CoIler. The Commission approved Case No. SUP 134-01 with the standard conditions outlined in the staff report is contingent on the rezone. Passed: Unanimous roll call vote. Public Hearing Closed — Chairman Blacker closed the public hearing and noted anyone wishing to appeal the Commission's decision should see the Director of Community Development. ******************************************************************************************** C. Case No. ANN-47-00, a request by the City of Caldwell to annex approximately 107.58 acres into the City as an R-1 (Single Family Residential) zone and approximately 115.02 acres as a C-3 (Service Commercial) zone. The area is located generally between the south side of Laster Lane and the north side of Homedale Road, and between the east side of the Elijah Drain and the southwest side of the Oregon Short Line. The parcels are contiguous to the City and within the City's Impact Area. Testimony— Steve Hasson presented the staff report regarding the forced annexation. Mark Hilty, City Attorney, advised the Commission concerning testimony. The following testified in opposition: Frank Stafford, Glenda Crum, Bill Pfeifer, and Melissa McDaniel. Pat Lineberry, signed in but chose not to testify. Public Testimony Closed—Chairman Blacker closed public testimony. Comprehensive Plan Analysis — Motion: Commissioner Robison Second: Commissioner Archuleta. The request was applicable to the following Comprehensive Plan components set forth in the staff report:, School Facilities and Transportation — Goal and Policy 1; Land Use — Goal; Objectives Applicable to All Land Uses — Objective C; Area of City Impact— Objective A, Policy 5; Public Services, Utilities and Facilities—Goal. Passed: Unanimous roll call vote. Findings of Fact — Motion: Commissioner Archuleta. Second: Commissioner Robison. Accept the general facts outlined in the staff report as Findings of Fact as well as the facts brought forward during the public testimony. Passed: Unanimous roll call vote. Conclusions of Law — Motion: Commissioner Robison. Second: Commissioner Archuleta. The Commission has the authority to hear this case and recommend to the Mayor and City Council that it is approved or denied; the hearing was legally noticed and posted, and was held under the requirements of Idaho Code and City ordinances. Passed: Unanimous roll call vote. Recommendation to City Council — Motion: Commissioner Archuleta. Second: Commissioner Robison. Commission members recommended approval of Case No. ANN-47-00. Passed: Unanimous roll call vote. Public Hearing Closed—Chairman Blacker closed the public hearing. *************************************************************************************** D. Case No. OA-38-01, a request by the Community Development Director to amend Zoning P&Z Minutes of September 11,2001 ... Ordinance No. 1451 by adding in Section 10-06-02, a definition for "Outdoor Storage"; and to amend Section 10-02-02, Land Use Schedule by adding outdoor storage as a special use in C- 1, C-2 zones, and as a permitted use in C-3, C-4, M-1, M-2, and I-P zones. Testimony— Steve Hasson presented the staff report. Public Testimony Closed—Chairman Blacker closed public testimony. Findings of Fact — Motion: Commissioner Robison Second: Commissioner Teraberry. Accept the general facts outlined in the staff report as Findings of Fact. Passed: Unanimous roll call vote. Conclusions of Law — Motion: Commissioner Teraberry. Second: Commissioner Robison. The Commission has the authority to hear this case and recommend to the Mayor and City Council that it is approved or denied; public notice requirements were met; and the hearing was conducted within the guidelines of Idaho Code and City ordinances. Passed: Unanimous roll call vote. Recommendation to City Council — Motion: Commissioner Robison. Second: Commissioner Terraberry. Commission members recommended approval of Case No. OA-38-01. Passed: Unanimous roll call vote. Public Hearing Closed—Chairman Blacker closed the public hearing. V. Planning Issues —Joan Holmes reported to the Commission that a Planning & Zoning Workshop date has been set with the City Council members for October 1, 2001 at 6:00 p.m. She encouraged all P&Z commissioners to attend. Also, the next Planning & Zoning Public Hearing date of October 9 was announced. VIII. Adjournment—Chairman Blacker adjourned the meeting at approximately 9:05 p.m. MINUTES APPROVED AND SIGNED BY CHAIRMAN BLACKER AT A REGULARLY SCHEDULED MEETING HELD OCTOBER 9, 2001: Signed: Attest: 7 c. Ch man Jim Blacker C Mm t ity Development Director P &Z Minutes of September 11,2001