HomeMy WebLinkAbout05 Hearing Examiner PLANNING AND ZONING '
ITEM DATE SUBMITTED BY
•1 �hry P b- - N Da.r i v% Cce,
Pub\:c- E4e rivui z(V)-0? sl,ecs a - 1 - 6 \ P.-Z CA/0 k,;,r,g
P4-3 Ca 0Vp iktvtla nlph
P Z. - l -. 0z0.-ii,,,:i3r-.. - Z- 0 i p -, 7._.
Off. 0.6
??- 2 Y01.n44,16 8- 1 - o ! ? i 2_.
PUBLIC HEARING COMMENT SHEET
(PLEASE PRINT CLEARLY)
NAME: 1 v ( zJ4\
STREET ADDRESS: c3/7 sa-CIMEL/A
CITY/STATE/ZIP: I 4/wfa. I g c�3�to , 687��
NAME OF CASE BEING HEARD: �.r�1Iv)dJ A64-1., a 610„e it 641 P-rz&¢
********************************************************************************************
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: r
STREET ADDRESS: 9.e2 4 ,-1.,-to") tie
CITY/STATE/ZIP: a L
NAME OF CASE BEING HEARD: Sub . 31, Q !
********************************************************************************************
Check the appropriate line:
Applicant or Representative I Neutral/
wish to speak K
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.
()VZ
CALDWELL PUBLIC HEARINGS BEFORE HEARING EXAMINER
MINUTES OF AUGUST 1, 2001
Call to Order— Hearing Examiner M. Jerome Mapp opened the meeting for the public hearings at 7:00
p.m. and outlined the public hearing procedures. City staff in attendance were: Steve Hasson,
Community Development Director, and Joan Holmes, Planning Technician.
II. Hearings
A. Case No. SUP-129-01, a request by Richard Rockrohr for a special use permit to construct a
Harley Davidson Dealership in a C-4(Freeway Commercial) zone at 721 Hannibal Street. The
site is located on the southwest corner of Ithaca Street and N. Kimball Avenue.
Testimony—
Steve Hasson presented the staff report.
Richard Rockrohr Applicant, testified in favor and presented Exhibit PZ-1000.
Public Testimony Closed —Mr. Mapp closed public testimony.
Comprehensive Plan Analysis — Mr. Mapp found that the request was applicable to the following
Comprehensive Plan components set forth in the staff report: Property Rights — Goal, Objective B, and
Policy 1; Land Use — Goal; Objectives Applicable to All Land Uses — C; Public Services, Utilities and
Facilities — Goal and Objective B; Transportation — Goal and Objective A; Community Design — Goal,
and Objectives A and E.
Findings of Fact— Mr. Mapp accepted the general facts outlined in the staff report as Findings of Fact
and included the following: public testimony, Exhibits, and that a site plan had been offered for review
identifying that the business would have three accesses. He also noted that the zone was compatible
for the use (C-4). Additionally, the adjoining uses were compatible with this operation and finally, the
Applicant had a similar business in Garden City.
Conclusions of Law —Mr. Mapp accepted the Conclusions of Law outlined in the staff report.
Order of Decision —Mr. Mapp approved Case No. SUP-129-01 with the standard conditions outlined in
the staff report and with the addition of conditions 8.7 through 8.9 as outlined in the Order of Decision.
Public Hearing Closed — Mr. Mapp closed the public hearing and noted anyone wishing to appeal his
decision should see the Director of Community Development.
B. Case No. ANN-57-01, a request by Archie and Marlene Yamamoto to annex a 144.98-acre
parcel into the City as a M-1 (Light Industrial) zone. This site is located on the south side of
Linden Street and the east side of KCID Road and is legally described as follows: all of Lots
One and Two and the E %2 NW 1/4 all in Section 31, T4N R2W of the Boise Meridian in Canyon
County Idaho.
Testimony—
Steve Hasson presented the staff report.
Bill Fonshill, Applicant's Representative, testified in favor.
Public Testimony Closed —Mr. Mapp closed public testimony.
Comprehensive Plan Analysis— Mr. Mapp found that the request was applicable to the
Comprehensive Plan components set forth in the staff report: Property Rights — Goal, Objective B, and
?Z- Z
Policy 1; School Facilities and Transportation — Goal and Policy 1; Land Use — Goal, Objectives
Applicable to All Land Uses — C; Area of City Impact — Objective A and Policy 5; Public Services,
Utilities and Facilities — Goal, Objective B, and Policy 5; Public Services, Utilities and Facilities — Goal,
Objective B, and Policy 5.
Findings of Fact—Accept the general facts outlined in the staff report as Findings of Fact.
Conclusions of Law—Mr. Mapp accepted the Conclusions of Law outlined in the staff report.
Recommendation to City Council—Mr. Mapp recommended approval on Case No.ANN-57-01.
Public Hearing Closed—Mr. Mapp closed the public hearing.
C. Case No. SUP-128-01, a request by Caldwell Ashton Place Associates to construct 48
apartment units on 3.94 acres located on the south side of Ustick Road between Eaton Avenue
on the west and Ashton Avenue on the east. The parcel is zoned R-3 (High Density
Residential).
Testimony—
Steve Hasson, Community Development Director, presented the staff report.
Darin Cook,Applicant, testified in favor.
Mr. C. King testified as neutral.
Caroline Randolph, testified in opposition.
Darin Cook, testified in rebuttal.
Public Testimony Closed —Mr. Mapp closed the testimony.
Comprehensive Plan Analysis: Mr. Mapp found that the request was applicable to the following
Comprehensive Plan components: Property Rights — Goal, Objective B, and Policy 1; School Facilities
and Transportation — Goal and Policy 1; Economic Development — Goal, Objective D, and Policy 1;
Land Use — Goal; Objectives Applicable to Residential Land Use — A, Policies 1, 4, and 7; Natural
Resources — Goal and Policy 1; Transportation — Goal, Objective A, and Policies 3 and 5; Community
Design—Goal, Objectives A and E, Policy 6.
Findings of Fact: The Hearing Examiner accepted the general facts outlined in the staff report as well
as the information provided by the applicant and the general public during public testimony.
Conclusions of Law: Mr. Mapp accepted the Conclusions of Law outlined in the staff report.
Order of Decision: Mr. Mapp approved SUP-128-01 with the conditions as outlined in the staff report
with the addition of conditions 9.1 through 9.6 as outlined in the Order of Decision.
Public Hearing Closed — Mr. Mapp closed the public hearing and noted anyone wishing to appeal his
decision should see the Community Development Director.
**** *** *** * *** * * ** ******* ** * * *** **** ** ********* ** * ** * * ***
III. Planning Issues -There were no planning issues brought forward.
IV. Adjournment— Mr. Mapp adjourned the meeting at approximately 9:20 p.m.
Hearing Examiner Minutes of August 1,2001
SUP-128-4)1
CALDWELL ASHTON PLACE ASSOC.
BEFORE THE CALDWELL HEARING EXAMINER
CITY OF CALDWELL, IDAHO
IN THE MATTER OF AN APPLICATION FROM CALDWELL ASHTON PLACE ASSOCIATES TO
CONSTRUCT A 48 UNIT APARTMENT COMPLEX ON 4 ACRES THROUGH THE PLANNED UNIT
DEVELOPMENT PROCESS
TABLE OF CONTENTS:
I COURSE OF PROCEEDINGS,
II GENERAL FACTS,
III TESTIMONY,
IV APPLICABLE LEGAL STANDARDS,
V COMPREHENSIVE PLAN ANALYSIS,
VI FINDINGS OF FACT,
VII CONCLUSIONS OF LAW,
VIII ORDER OF DECISION
COURSE OF PROCEEDINGS
1.1 The Caldwell Community Development Department issued a notice of Public Hearing on application SUP-
128-01, to be held before the Hearing Examiner on July 25, 2001. Public notice requirements set forth in
Idaho Code, Chapter 65, Local Planning Act, were met. On July 10, 2001 notice was published in the
Idaho Press Tribune, on July 10, 2001 notice was mailed to all property owners within 300 feet of the
project site; and, on July 18, 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: Caleb Roope/ Darin Cook 13- 12th Avenue South, Nampa, Idaho 83651
2.2 OWNER (S): Same.
2.3 REQUEST: For approval of a special use permit for a planned unit development in order to construct 16
two bedroom units, 16 three bedroom units, 8 three bedroom townhouses and 8 four bedroom
townhouses for a total of 48 units. Additionally, to construct a 2200 square foot community building
consisting of an office, kitchen, laundry facilities, a full maintenance room, exercise room and an
education/computer room. This development is contemplated for construction on a 4-acre parcel in an
area zoned R-3 (Multifamily High Density Residential). According to Caldwell's Comprehensive Plan
2000, a High Density Residential venture (R-3) is anticipated to support 10 to 30 dwelling units per acre.
This development has a density of 12 units per acre, which would place it on the low end of the density
scale.
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.
2.4 LOCATION: The subject site is located at the South West corner of Ustick Road and Ashton 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 and none of the criteria was answered in the
affirmative.
SCPINED
2.5.2 School Facilities anu-Transportation: The Caldwell and Vallivue School Districts were notified of the
request through mailing of the public hearing notification on July 10, 2001.
2.5.3 Economic Development: According to the applicant's narrative, the project is viewed as affording
modestly priced housing in Caldwell. If approved, the Applicant will be required to apply for and
obtain a building permit. Construction plans will be reviewed by the City's engineering
department, fire department, Community Development and Building services. Plans will also be
reviewed by Pioneer Irrigation District.
2.5.4 Land Use:
Commercial — The site is zoned R-3 (High Density Residential). According to the Caldwell Zoning
Ordinance, Section 10-01-03, subsection C, the purpose of this zone, "is intended to provide transition or
buffer areas between commercial uses and less intense activities and to provide for higher density uses
in selected places of the City's neighborhoods and communities." Thus the land use density envisioned
for this land parcel is compatible with the underlying land use goal as enumerated in the Comprehensive
plan and Zoning ordinance. Additionally this land use is a buffer between a C-3 zone to the north and a R-
1 zone to the south. This project is adjacent to an abandoned drive — in theatre to the north, single-family
dwellings to the south and east and a vacant parcel to the west. This proposal would appear to be in
keeping with the underlying land use density goals as enumerated in the Comprehensive plan and the
Zoning ordinance.
2.5.5 Public Services, Utilities and Facilities; Natural Resources; Transportation: The site will be served by the
City's public water/sewer systems.
The Engineering Department provides the following comments on the above referenced special use
permit:
1. 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 (5-foot width collectors/arterials, and 4-foot width on other streets);
c. Sanitary sewer (per City and DEQ requirements);
d. Potable water (per City and DEQ requirements);
e. Stormwater facilities (per City Policy);
f. Irrigation system (per Pioneer Irrigation District requirements);
g. Street signage (per City and MUTCD requirements);
h. Street lighting
Within Public Rights-of-Way:
• 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);
Private Property:
• Street lights are recommended for safety within parking lots and common areas
2. 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.
3. 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 corp-action, pressure and coliform, etc.) and given opportunity to be present during
conduct of the testing. 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.
4. 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. For any off-site discharge, written approval from the agency
responsible for the receiving water body is required before final plat approval.
5. 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 Pioneer Irrigation District and a letter obtained indicating
their approval of the design. This letter of approval must be completed and submitted to the City.
6. Ustick Road (a principal arterial) should have a minimum one-half right-of-way width of 40 feet dedicated to
the City of Caldwell adjacent to the applicant's property.
7. During the design phase of this project, the developer or his engineer is to contact Pioneer 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.
8. Significant offsite sewer or water construction will be required to be constructed to City standards, dedicated
to the City, and located within permanent easements or rights-of-way (20 feet in width) dedicated to the City
of Caldwell.
9. If this development will be owned by multiple parties, the Engineering Department recommends the
construction of sewer and water main lines (by the owners) to City standards and dedicated to the City of
Caldwell. Any easements for sewer or water main lines should be at least 20 feet in width.
10. Construction of dedicated facilities is to be performed by an appropriately licensed public works contractor.
11. As stated previously, the developer will be required to provide frontage improvements in accordance with the
City's Infrastructure Improvement Policy adjacent to public rights-of-way that meet City requirements. In
doing this, culverts and/or bridges may have to be extended and/or replaced to allow proper roadway widths.
Similarly, the applicant should be aware that any utilities and/or structures in the way of said improvements
would be required to be relocated at the applicant's expense. The applicant will be responsible to obtain any
and all necessary permits from the appropriate governing entity. The applicant will be required to pay sewer
and water connection fees in conjunction with the building permit process.
The property has frontage along Eaton Avenue to the west, Ashton Avenue to the east and Ustick Avenue to the
north. The driveway entrances will be off of Ashton and Eaton at the rear of the property. The engineer's will be
asked to evaluate the roadways relative to the development for sight distance, response time, driveway access
management, LOS, right — of — way dedication, signage, traffic volume and other transportation related issues
associated with two driveways servicing 48 units. The fire department will also review the site to insure the design
accommodates emergency service apparatus. The engineer's will be asked to evaluate the roadway for sight
distance response time, driveway access management, LOS, right — of— way dedication, signage, traffic volume
impact and other transportation related issues associated with an apartment complex served by two driveway
accesses servicing 48 units.
2.5.6 Irrigation: see attached (PA-2)
2.5.7 Community Design: The site plan identifies landscaping areas and types of vegetation that will be
installed, as well as fencing along the property perimeter. A note made on the plan indicates that 48.09
percent of the site will be dedicated to grass, plants and greenery. According to the applicant's narrative
the project is viewed as affording modestly priced housing in Caldwell. 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 language found on
the site plan, the apartment complex intends to provide 74 parking spaces when 72 spaces are required
based upon the zoning ordinance apartment standard of 1.5 parking spaces per unit. The parking lot
area will be reviewed by our engineering staff to determine if the stormwater runoff associated with
impervious surface is contained and has the potential to be pretreated onsite via the landscaping. The
parking area will be reviewed for handicap accessibility.
2.5.9 Fire Protection: The CFD has received preliminary plans regarding this subdivision within the past few
days. Upon review of these tentative submissions, we offer the following comments:
• Access as shown on the preliminary plans appears adequate. There are public streets on three sides of
this project. We would want to designate the entire length of driveway on the south side as a Fire Lane
and prohibit any parking along it and mark it accordingly.
• A fire department key box would be required for emergency access to all buildings.
• There are currently three (3) existing fire hydrants on the perimeter of this project. These fire hydrants
should meet or exceed the minimum required fire flow. (The required minimum fire flow will be determined
upon submission of plans for plan review.)
• One additional fire hydrant will be required about mid-point along the driveway on the south side of the
apartments.
• Because there are six (6) dwelling units proposed in each building, Section 8-13-13 (5)of the Caldwell
Municipal Code requires that each building be protected with an approved automatic fire sprinkler system.
An NFPA Std. 13R system would be the type required for this project.
• Provisions relating to exiting, fire extinguishers and other related measures will be addressed upon plan
review and will have to comply with the provisions of the 1997 Uniform Fire Code as adopted by Caldwell
Municipal Code.
The CFD looks forward to working with the Applicant should their project proceed.
III TESTIMONY
3.1 Steve Hasson provided an overview of this multifamily project noting that the R-3 zone afforded densities
of 10 to 30 units per acre and the developer was requesting the opportunity to develop at 12 units per
acre, which was on the low-density side of the zone.
3.2 Darin Cook, Applicant's Representative, provided an overview of the project. He said that the business
had conducted a marketing analysis and a traffic study in determining to develop this site. They also
looked at the land parcel's proximity to schools, common amenities (like Wal-Mart), and zoning. Mr. Cook
stated that the present R-3 zoning had been in place since the parcel was annexed into the City. He
noted that his development was similar to a 60-unit multi family apartment they had constructed in Nampa
and a 37 unit they had developed in Emmett. In response to an inquiry from Mr. Mapp the applicant noted
that the distance between the apartments was 22 feet. Mr. Cook called attention to the fact that the
carport displayed in the site drawing had been removed from the design because the housing authority
had eliminated that line item from the budget. Mr. Mapp said that the six-foot landscaping buffer was not
sufficient and that he intended to impose a condition to expand that to a suitable width. Mr. Mapp also
expressed concern about the rear driveway that went a distance of more than 600 feet unimpeded
between roadways. Mr. Mapp said that the applicant would have to install traffic calming devices to
mitigate this issue. Mr. Mapp asked about recreational facilities suggesting that a basketball hoop be
placed in the common area as to provide more recreational outlet. Mr. Cook said that providing for that
feature might be difficult because the geography may not allow it without terracing the development. In
response to an inquiry from Mr. Mapp about the landscaping plan Mr. Cook said that the landscape areas
were mostly sod, that landscaping had been incorporated into the retention pond on Ustick, that they
intended to place some good size boulders out in front of the site as well as place flower beds around the
site and install shrubs through out. Mr. Mapp asked about trees. Mr. Cook replied that 15-gallon trees
would be scattered through out the site (11/2 inch caliper). He also noted that the landscape plan would
have to be approved by the City forester.
3.3 Carl King spoke next— stating that his testimony was to be considered neutral. Mr. King said that he had
purchased a house nearby 8 months ago and at that time he had received a packet from the realtor
leaving him with the impression that apartment complexes were not allowed in this zone. He asked if this
development was part of the Ashton Hills subdivision? He was also concerned about the nature of Idaho
Housing. Mr. Mapp explained that it was a financial institution working with tax credits.
3.4 Caroline Randolph was the next speaker. Ms Randolph said that she was changing her testimony from
neutral to negative based upon what she was hearing about this proposal. She said that her property
backed up against this proposed development and she felt it was intrusive. Ms. Randolph said that she
had worked hard to improve her property and was concerned about property value impact. Additionally,
she did not want people looking in on her and noting that the apartments were going to be two stories
high.
3.5 Darin Cook in rebuttal noted that Ashton Place Associates was purchasing the property from Gemstar
Properties and therefore they had not legally closed on the property. Mr. Cook concluded his comments
by explaining the difference between low-income programs and affordable housing programs and
declaring that this project was an affordable income housing pursuit and very compatible with the
surrounding land uses.
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 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN ANALYSIS - The Hearing Examiner accepted the comprehensive plan
analysis 5.1 through 5.8
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 July 10, 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 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.
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 FINDINGS OF FACT
6.1 The Hearing Examiner 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.
VII CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
8.4 Mr. Mapp declared that he has the authority to hear this case and to approve or deny; public notice
requirements were met and the hearing was conducted within the guidelines of applicable Idaho Code
and City ordinances.
VIII ORDER OF DECISION
8.1 Based on the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, the Hearing Examiner orders that Case No. SUP-
128-01, a request by Caldwell Ashton Place Associates to construct an apartment complex on 4 acres
through the planned unit development process in a R-3 (High Density Residential) is approved with the
following conditions:
8.2 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.
8.3 The Applicant, or future assigns having an interest in the subject property, shall fully comply with all
conditions placed upon the Special Use Permits.
8.4 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.
8.5 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.
8.6 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.
8.7 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, and all signage currently on the property shall be removed.
8.8 Speed bumps or other traffic calming devices will need to be installed along the 649-foot driveway stretch
to mitigate excessive vehicle speeds there. The traffic calming devices and their placement are subject to
City Engineering review.
8.9 The 6-foot landscaping buffer needs to be increased to 10 feet. Trees and/or shrubs required in order to
screen this site from adjacent properties and the buffer shall comply the City's forester's specifications
relating to number, type, placement and caliper.
8.10 A concrete slab, sufficient in size, and a basketball hoop placed central to the facility for recreation
purpose.
8.11 An activity center needs to be located between the parallel buildings that will provide an opportunity for
greater interaction among the apartment dwellers. This condition can be met by placement of sidewalks,
pathways, benches, tables and other devices that encourage neighbor interaction.
8.12 The recreation center needs to be the first facility constructed on the premises.
8.13 The placement of the trash receptacles needs City planning approval.
CASE NO. SUP-128-01 WAS HEARD BY CALDWELL HEARING EXAMINER M. JEROME MAPP AT A PUBLIC
HEARING HELD ON WEDNESDAY AUGUST 1, 2001.
WRITTEN FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND THE ORDER OF DECISION WAS APPROVED
AND SIGNED ON THE DATE NOTED BELOW.
M. Jerome Ma Dat
/
ATTEST: ,
-
Commu i ►.evelopment rector
PUBLIC HEARING COMMENT SHEET
(PLEASE PRINT CLEARLY)
r
NAME: Cu,ok t , ,
STREET ADDRESS: '` \'', k t't) ,e"`.
CITY/STATE/ZIP: \`. „ -0 r ` _3 . a*
e
NAME OF CASE BEING HEARD:4 ,b � k s Skb p `r, 1,' :
********************************************************************************************
Check the appropriate line:
Applicant or Representative I Neutral/
I wish to speak*---c
I do not wish to speak
I
In favor/ I Opposed/ `,,
wish to speak I wish to speak /'N
do not wish to speak I do not wish to speak
I
Written comments may be attached to this form or you may write them in below.
t