HomeMy WebLinkAbout05 Hearing Examiner PLANNING AND ZONING dfaria `,
ITEM DATE SUBMIT'1'E r BY
Pa- ( Ov-62Ank- crL
tvD - c)c) -Exp
M,u2hs t�-f
BEFORE THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
CITY OF CALDWELL,IDAHO
IN THE MATTER OF THE APPLICATION OF ) CASE NOS. VAR-17-99 AND
BRYAN KISER FOR A VARIANCE FROM ) SUP-72-99, COURSE OF
THE MINIMUM LOT SIZE AND A SPECIAL ) PROCEEDINGS,TESTIMONY,
USE PERMIT TO CONSTRUCT A DUPLEX IN ) APPLICABLE LEGAL STANDARDS,
AN M-1 ZONE ) VARIANCE PROCEDURE,
) FINDINGS OF FACT,
) CONCLUSIONS OF LAW,AND
) ORDER OF DECISION
I COURSE OF PROCEEDINGS
1.1 The Caldwell Community Development Depai intent issued a notice of Public Hearing on
applications VAR-17-99 and SUP-72-99 to be held on January 13, 1000 before the Planning and
Zoning Commission. Public notice requirements set forth in Idaho Code, Chapter 65, Local
Planning Act,were met. On December 29, 1999 notice was published in the Idaho Press Tribune;
on December23, 1999 notice was mailed to all property owners within 300 feet of the project site;
and on January 6, 2000 notice was posted on the site.
1.2 Files and exhibits relative to this application are available for review in the Community
Development Department and were available for review at the hearing.
II GENERAL FACTS
2.1 APPLICANT(S): Brian Kiser, 710 Paynter Avenue, Caldwell, ID., 83605
2.2 OWNER(S): Same as Applicant.
2.1 REQUEST: Approval of a variance from the required lot size of 6000 square feet to 4500 square
feet and a special use permit to construct a duplex in an M-1 (Light Industrial) zone. The
Applicant notes in his narrative that the lot was not a standard lot when he purchased it and that
the existing house is in very poor condition. He also noted that it does not meet the City's
setback requirements as the house sits almost on the west property line. The Applicant wants to
replace the existing house with a duplex.
2.3.1 Section 10-02-02, Land Use Schedule, Zoning Ordinance No. 1451, permits a duplex in an M-1
zone with approval of a special use permit. Section 10-02-03, Height, Setback and Lot
Dimension Schedule, sets forth the minimum lot size for an interior lot at 6000 square feet. In
order for the Applicant to construct a duplex on the parcel, both a variance and special use permit
are required to be approved.
2.3.2 The Applicant indicates in his narrative that the duplex would be 64 x 24 feet and would meet the
City's setback requirements. Setback requirements are: front yard = 20 feet; rear yard = 15 feet;
side yards are 6 feet and 6 feet or 5 feet and 7 feet,but no side yard can be less than 5 feet.
2.4 LOCATION: 111 Holly Street.
2.5 NATURAL RESOURCES AND HAZARDOUS AREAS: The home is not within the vicinity of
the Boise River or Indian Creek and is not within a floodplain. 011/ -`
2.6 LAND USE: The parcel is zoned M-1 (Light Industrial) and is surrounded by M-1 zoning. The
Applicant indicates in his narrative that the property used to be zoned residential; however,this is
inaccurate. This entire area was zoned M-1 in 1977 when the City adopted its first zoning map.
The area has remained residential.
2.7 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION: Light Industrial.
2.7.1 Light Industrial is defined as "suitable for less intense manufacturing, assembly and warehousing,
which are not associated with excessive noise, dust, odor, vibration or smoke. Rail access, open
storage, loading and truck traffic would be characteristic of such areas. May also be appropriate
for limited commercial activities involving large areas for storage or display and limited
residential uses such as mobile home parks."
2.8 AREA OF CITY IMPACT: The site is within the City and therefore is not within the Area of
City Impact.
2.9 PUBLIC FACILITIES:
2.9.1 Schools—Notice of the request was sent to Caldwell and Vallivue School Districts on December
23, 1999.
2.9.2 Water/Sewer — The home is served by the City's water system. In a memorandum dated
December 29, 1999 the Engineering Department requests the property to be connected to the City
sewer. (NOTE: If approved, the Applicant will be required to obtain a demolition permit to tear
down the existing house and a building permit to build the duplex. Connection fees to the sewer
will be included in the building permitting process)
2.10 TRANSPORTATION: The parcel is accessed from Holly Street. The Engineering Department
will require a deferral agreement for curb, gutter and sidewalk to be entered into at the time of the
building permitting process.
2.10.1 Section 10-02-05, Off-Street Parking, requires one parking space for each dwelling unit if the
square footage for each unit is less than 1100 square feet. The Applicant proposes each unit to be
24 x 32, which equals 768 square feet.
2.11 PARKS, RECREATION AND OPEN SPACE: The Applicant does not propose providing parks,
recreation or open spaces.
2.12 HISTORIC AREAS: The parcel is not within the City's Area of Historic Significance.
2.13 HOUSING: The Applicant is requesting approval of a variance and a special use permit in order
to construct a duplex on a sub-standard lot within an M-1 zone.
III TESTIMONY
3.1 Linda James presented the staff report and stated that the lot was a legal non-conforming lot and
could have a new single-family home constructed on the site because the existing single-family
home was "grandfatherd" in. The variance is required because the Applicant wants to build a
two-family dwelling and the lot does not meet the required 6000 square feet. She also noted that
there are numerous small, non-conforming lots in the City that were legally created prior to
adoption of the Zoning Ordinance.
woe
3.2 Brian Kiser, Applicant, testified in favor and stated that the existing house is not in very good
condition and that a new duplex would be an improvement to the neighborhood. The standard
setback requirements can be met even though the lot is small.
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 VARIANCE PROCEDURE
5.1 Planning and Zoning Commission members found that the following five variance criteria are
true:
A. That there are exceptional or extraordinary circumstances or conditions, applicable to the
property involved, which do not apply generally to other properties within the same
zoning district.
B. That the exceptional or extraordinary circumstances in conjunction with a literal
interpretation and application of the regulation would result in undue hardship by
depriving the applicant of reasonable use and enjoyment of the property or of privileges
enjoyed by the owners of other properties located in the same zoning district.
C. That the granting of the variance will not constitute a grant of special privilege.
D. That the granting of such relief will not be materially detrimental to the public health,
safety or welfare, or interest, or injurious to the property or improvements of other
property owners, or the quiet enjoyment of such property or improvement.
E. That the granting of the variance will not be in conflict with the spirit and intent of the
Comprehensive Plan and will not effect a change in zoning.
VI FINDINGS OF FACT
6.1 Accept the General Facts outlined in the staff report as Findings of Fact and include the fact that
all five of the variance criteria were found to be true.
VII CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
7.1 The Planning and Zoning Commission 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
Idaho Code and City ordinances.
VIII ORDER OF DECISION
8.1 Based upon the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, the Planning and Zoning Commission
hereby orders that Case Nos. VAR-17-99 and SUP-72-99, a request by Brian Kiser for a variance
from the required lot size of 6000 square feet to 4500 square feet, and a special use permit to
construct a duplex on the lot is approved with the following conditions of approval:
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 may be revoked,
become invalid, amended, or replaced with another approved use.
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 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 permit.
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.
8.4 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.
8.5 Prior to any demolition or construction 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 Engineering Department shall be met
CASE NO. VAR-17-99 AND SUP-72-99 WAS HEARD BY PLANNING AND ZONING
COMMISSION MEMBERS AT A PUBLIC HEARING HELD JANUARY 13, 2000.
WRITTEN FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW, AND THE ORDER OF DECISION
WAS ADMINISTRATIVELY APPROVED AND SIGNED BY CHAIRMAN BLACKER ON THE
DATE NOTED BELOW.
ATTEST:
Cliair;�nan Jim Blacker Date
Community D pment Director
PUBLIC HEARING COMMENT SHEET
(PLEASE PRINT CLEARLY)
NAME:
STREET ADDRESS: 7 FA Li L4 ' -
CITY/STATE/ZIP: c-Av (2ft , &,
-
NAME OF CASE BEING HEARD: "--S( -12 - (9( 1
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.
120-foot tall advertising sign in a C-2 zone.
Testimony—
Linda James presented the staff report.
Clayton Jones, Applicant, testified in favor and stated the following: the sign will be placed on the site in
compliance with the Engineering Depaituient's requirements;the 75-foot variance is necessary in order to install a
sign that can be seen from persons traveling I-84; approximately 30-to 50%of the restaurant's business will come
from persons traveling I-84;he is requesting the same visibility as other businesses along 10`h; as far as the line-of-
sight goes,the sign will not be any higher than the other business signs in the neighborhood.
Public Testimony Closed—Chairman Blacker closed public testimony.
Findings of Fact—Motion: Commissioner Beebe. Second: Commissioner Teraberry. Accept the general facts
outlined in the staff report as Findings of Fact and include the following Facts: all five of the variance criteria are
true; the Applicant testified that he will comply with the requirements of the Engineering Depaitnient and that the
variance is necessary in order to provide the same advertising visibility as the other businesses along 10th already
have. Passed: Unanimous roll call vote.
Conclusions of Law— Motion: Commissioner Teraberry. Second: Commissioner Archuleta. The Commission
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 Idaho Code and City ordinances. Passed: Unanimous roll call vote.
Order of Decision—Motion: Commissioner Teraberry. Second: Commissioner Beebe. Approve Case No. VAR-
16-99,with the standard conditions outlined in the staff report. Passed: Unanimous roll call vote.
Public Hearing Closed—Chairman Blacker closed the public hearing and noted anyone wishing to appeal their
decision should see the Director of Community Development.
D. Case No. SUP-71-99,a request by Karen Ryals for a special use permit to conduct driver training classes
in her home. The site is within an R-1 zone and is located at 204 E.Spruce.
Testimony—
Linda James presented the staff report and Exhibit PR-1,which was a letter from Earl and Avis Martin who live at
223 E. Spruce. Mr.and Mrs.Martin expressed their support of the Applicant's request.
Karen Ryals,Applicant,testified in favor and stated the following: the driver training school is only one of two in
the State of Idaho that offers classes out of the home; the home is in compliance with ADA; there are usually 24
students that come together at any one time.
Public Testimony Closed—Chairman Blacker closed public testimony.
Findings of Fact— Motion: Commissioner Beebe. Second: Commissioner Teraberry. Accept the general facts
outlined in the staff report as Findings of Fact and include exhibit PR-1,the letter of support. Passed: Unanimous
roll call vote.
Conclusions of Law —Motion: Commissioner Teraberry. Second: Commissioner Archuleta. The Commission
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 Idaho Code and City ordinances. Passed: Unanimous roll call vote.
Order of Decision—Motion: Commissioner Beebe. Second: Commissioner Teraberry. Approve Case No. SUP-
71-99,with the standard conditions outlined in the staff report. Passed: Unanimous roll call vote.
Public Hearing Closed —Chairman Blacker closed the public hearing and noted anyone wishing to appeal their
decision should see the Director of Community Development.
**********************************************************************************
E. To hear concurrently Case Nos. SUP-72-99 and VAR-17-99, a request by Bryan Kiser for variance from
Minutes of January 13,2000 •��
the required lot size of 6000 square feet to 4500 square feet and a special use permit to construct a duplex
in an M-1 (Light Industrial) zone. The two-family dwelling would replace an existing single-family
dwelling.
Testimony—
Linda James presented the staff report and stated that the lot was a legal non-conforming lot and could have a new
single-family home constructed on the site because the existing single-family home was "grandfathered" in. The
variance is required because the Applicant wants to build a two-family dwelling and the lot does not meet the
required 6000 square feet. She also noted that there are numerous small,non-conforming lots in the City that were
legally created prior to adoption of the Zoning Ordinance.
Brian Kiser,Applicant,testified in favor and stated that the existing house is not in very good condition and that a
new duplex would be an improvement to the neighborhood. The standard setback requirements can be met even
though the lot is small.
Public Testimony Closed—Chairman Blacker closed public testimony.
Findings of Fact— Motion: Commissioner Beebe. Second: Commissioner Archuleta. Accept the general facts
outlined in the staff report as Findings of Fact and include the fact that all five of the variance criteria were found
to be true. Passed: Unanimous roll call vote.
Conclusions of Law— Motion: Commissioner Archuleta. Second: Commissioner Teraberry. The Commission
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 Idaho Code and City ordinances. Passed: Unanimous roll call vote.
Order of Decision—Motion: Commissioner Beebe. Second: Commissioner Teraberry.Approve Case Nos. SUP-
72-99 and VAR-17-99, with the standard conditions outlined in the staff report. Passed: Unanimous roll call
vote.
Public Hearing Closed —Chairman Blacker closed the public hearing and noted anyone wishing to appeal their
decision should see the Director of Community Development.
VII. Planning Issues-There were no planning issues brought forward.
VIII. Adjournment—Chairman Blacker adjourned the meeting at approximately 8:30 p.m.
MINUTES APPROVED BY COMMISSION MEMBERS, AND SIGNED BY CHAIRMAN BLACKER, AT A
REGULARLY SCHEDULED MEETING HELD EBRUART 0,2000.
N."\ZS--
Chirman Jim Blacker
ATTEST: clIAL
Community Develo iales r Director
Minutes of January 13,2000