HomeMy WebLinkAbout05 Hearing Examiner PLANNING AND ZONING [- -° l r!n clkAmt►
ITEM DATE
SUBMITTED BY
ate-d(cr, dulrup RD, 1991 ANAJAJI.
Srtbre �� �G� �G�� VA- r1c„
upsv-leets � � 1 , 6G'?
\j
BEFORE THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
CITY OF CALDWELL, IDAHO
IN THE MATTER OF THE APPLICATION OF ) CASE NOs. SUP-09-97 AND
ROY HARDY FOR A SPECIAL USE PERMIT ) VAR-01 -97, COURSE OF
FOR A PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT, AND ) PROCEEDINGS, FINDINGS OF
A VARIANCE ) FACT, COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
ANALYSIS, CONCLUSIONS OF
LAW, AND ORDER OF DECISION
I COURSE OF PROCEEDINGS
1.1 The Caldwell Community Development Department issued a notice of Public Hearing on
application SUP-09-97 and VAR-01-97, to be held on May 15, 1997. Public notice
requirements set forth in Idaho Code, Chapter 65, Local Planning Act, have been met. On
April 23, 1997, notice was published in the Idaho Press Tribune; on April 30, 1997, notice
was mailed to all property owners within 300 feet of the project site; and on May 7, 1997,
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 will also be available for review at the hearing.
II FINDINGS OF FACT
2.1 APPLICANT(S): Roy Hardy, 3421 S. Kimball Avenue, Caldwell, ID, 83605.
2.2 OWNER(S): Same as Applicant.
2.3 REQUEST: The Applicant requests approval of a Special Use Permit for a Planned Unit
Development to construct two, 3-family dwellings and two, 4-family dwellings on
approximately 1.36 acres located in the R-2 zone, and approval of a variance from the 2-
acre requirement for Planned Unit Developments.
2.3.1 The Applicant's narrative noted that"the site is presently an unsightly piece of ground with
a hill side on the north side that is covered with sagebrush, rocks, dead trees, and scattered
debris. The design of the proposed structures cut back into the hillside will add distinctive
beauty and will complement the area and neighborhood in general. The conversion of this
`junky hillside'to much needed multi-family dwellings will be a benefit to the community. The
targeted tenant is of medium income, with 2-bedrooms, 1-bath units renting in the range of
$550 to $600."
2.3.2 A two-family dwelling or a three-family dwelling is permitted on a single lot in an R-2 zone;
a four-family dwelling is only permitted in an R-2 zone as a special use. The only provision
in the Zoning Ordinance to develop this type of multi-family complex, under single ownership
and on a single parcel, is through consideration of a request for a Special Use Permit for a
Planned Unit Development.
2.3.3 Planned Unit Developments, Section 10-03-07, subsection (6) of the Zoning Ordinance
states "No Application for a Planned Unit Development shall be considered for approval
unless a minimum of two (2) acres of land is contained in any proposal." As noted under
Section 2.3 of this report, this parcel is approximately 1.36 acres.
SUP-09-97 VAR-01-97
PAGE 2
2.3.4 Variance Procedures. Section 10-03-05 of the Zoning Ordinance sets forth provisions for
the Commission to consider a modification of the requirements for lot size, lot coverage,
width, depth, setbacks, or any dimensional requirement. Five criteria outlined in the Zoning
Ordinance regarding variances must be found to be true in order for a variance to be
granted.
2.4 LOCATION: The northwest intersection of North First Avenue and Plymouth Street.
2.5 LEGAL DESCRIPTION: The property is described as a part of Block 89, Golden Gate
Addition to Caldwell.
2.6 SITE PLAN: The Applicant's site plan shows the four structures to be built within the
southwestern half of the property that faces Plymouth Street. The northeastern half of the
site is unbuildable due to the steep slope abutting Canyon Hill. An engineered retaining
wall, approved by the City Engineer, has been constructed along the entire length of the
parcel and adjacent to the patio areas.
2.6.1 The site plan shows 29 parking spaces between Plymouth Street and the structures.
Section 10-02-05 of the Zoning Ordinance requires 1.5 parking spaces per each dwelling
unit. There are 14 proposed dwelling units (14 x 1.5 = 21). Landscaping is proposed
between structures as well as along the side yards. A cement patio is shown along the back
side of each structure.
2.7 NATURAL RESOURCES AND HAZARDOUS AREAS: The project site is located
approximately 0.25 miles southeast of the Boise River, but is not within the floodplain
overlay. The back portion of the project site is very steep; Notus Canal is located at the
northeastern rim. An engineered retaining wall, as approved by the City Engineer, has been
constructed to provide stability to this slope and to eliminate potential slides.
2.8 LAND USE: The project site is zoned R-2, Combined Medium Density Residential. The
parcel across Plymouth Street on the southwest is zoned R-2 and has a dwelling on site; the
parcel located at the northwestern boundary of the site is an open area zoned R-2; the
parcel adjacent to the southeastern boundary is developed with a single-family residence
and is zoned R-2; and the parcels to the northeast, across Notus Canal are zoned R-1 and
are developed as single-family residential. The hillside portion of the project site eliminates
any view of the northeastern R-1 properties. A parcel located to the southeast, and within
300' of the southeast border of the project site is Matterhorn Ice Cream Company and is
zoned M-1.
2.9 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION: Medium Density Residential.
2.9.1 Medium Density Residential is defined as an area "suitable primarily for single-family
residences as well as two and three family dwellings. Other uses characteristic of medium
density residential areas such as churches, schools, group day care facilities, public facilities
and limited neighborhood commercial uses are appropriate. Mobile home parks and mobile
home subdivisions may be located in designated and selected medium density areas. The
residential density will be from 7 to 9 dwelling units per net acre."
2.10 AREA OF CITY IMPACT: The project site is not within the Area of City Impact.
SUP-09-97,VAR-01-97
PAGE 3
2.11 PUBLIC FACILITIES:
2.11.1 Schools- The nearest school (Sacajawea Elementary School) is located north of Plymouth
Street at 1710 N. Illinois Avenue.
2.11.2 Fire Protection -The City's Fire Marshall, in a memorandum dated April 24, 1997, requested
the following: 1) a fire-flow rate of 1,500 gallons per minute be provided to this site with a
fire hydrant within 250 feet of the parking stall for a given unit; and, 2) that address numbers
are posted on the buildings using a minimum of 6" high lettering.
2.11.3 Utilities - Water/Sewer - City water is available at the site. In a memorandum dated May
2, 1997, the City Engineer requested the following: 1) curb, gutter, and a 5-foot wide
sidewalk be provided along Plymouth Avenue; and, 2) plans for storm water retention on the
site must be submitted and approved. The City Engineer also noted that irrigation plans
must be approved by the applicable irrigation district, and that approval has been granted
to the Applicant to construct a sewer line to serve the site.
2.11.4 Stormwater - The Applicant is required by the City Engineer to submit plans and receive
approval for storm water retention on the site
2.11.5 Irrigation - Contact was made to Golden Gate Irrigation District, Black Canyon Irrigation
District and Canyon Hill Irrigation District to determine the applicable irrigation district for this
site. None of these districts include this site. The Applicant has also informed staff that this
site has never been accepted by a district.
2.12 TRANSPORTATION: The section of W. Plymouth Street along the boundary of this site
is classified as a collector roadway. As noted under section 2.11.3 of this report, the
Applicant is to provide curb, gutter and a 5-foot wide sidewalk along Plymouth Avenue.
2.13 PARKS, RECREATION AND OPEN SPACE: The Applicant is not proposing a common
area.
2.14 HISTORIC AREAS: This property is not within the City's Area of Historic Significance.
2.15 HOUSING: The proposal is to construct 4-residential structures that will provide a total of
14 residential units on a single parcel.
2.16 COMMUNITY DESIGN: There is no vegetation or landscaping on the site. The site plan
identifies landscaped areas; no landscaping plan was submitted.
III APPLICABLE LEGAL STANDARDS
3.1 City of Caldwell 1977 Comprehensive Plan, as amended.
3.2 City of Caldwell Zoning Ordinance No. 1451, as amended.
SUP-09-97,VAR-01-97
PAGE 4
IV COMPREHENSIVE PLAN ANALYSIS
The proposed project is in compliance with the Comprehensive Plan because:
4.1 Natural Resources and Hazardous Areas- Policies 2 and 5. The development is not located
in a floodpiain; the retaining wall, constructed to engineered standards, will stabilize the that
portion of the site that is steeply sloped.
4.2 Residential Categories - Policies 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, and 10. The site is vacant and the steep
hillside creates problems in usability. An engineered retaining wall has been constructed
on the site, which will stabilize the hillside. The Comprehensive Plan designation is Medium
Density, which supports 2 and 3-family dwellings.
4.3 Public Facilities- Utilities. Policies 1 and 2. Extension of the city's public sewer system has
been approved by the City Engineer. The site is not located within any irrigation district.
4.4 Public Facilities- Urban Storm Runoff- Policies 1 and 2. Conditions of approval ensure that
the Applicant will provide a stormwater run-off plan to the City Engineer for approval.
4.5 Housing - Policies 1, 2, 3 and 5. The project will provide a diversity of housing in this area,
and is fully integrated with existing transportation and public facilities.
4.6 Special Areas - Boise River- Policy 3. The project will provide quality development within
the vicinity of the Boise River.
4.7 Community Design - Policies 1, 2, 3, 4, 8 and 9. Development of this site will improve the
visual image of the City. The granting of the variance provides a modification to the strict
standards and regulations of development. The site fronts on Plymouth Street, a collector
street, and conditions of approval will ensure that appropriate landscaping is provided.
V CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
5.1 Granting of a special use permit does not set a precedent in respect to common areas and
acreage requirements normally required by planned unit developments.
5.2 Granting of a variance permits the Planning and Zoning Commission greater latitude in
reviewing projects as they relate to a specific site.
5.2 A natural buffer to the R-1 zone north of the subject site is provided by the hillside, The
project qualifies as an in-fill and is a good transition between the M-1 zone located southeast
of the site. The location of the land in relation to the Notus Canal and the depth of the
property make it difficult to develop as a subdivision. The site is served by City services and
the City's Engineering/Fire Protection departments did not indicate any adverse impacts.
5.3 The five criteria required to be answered "true" in granting a variance were met. The
topography of the site provides exceptional and extraordinary circumstances that do not
apply to other properties with the same zoning district. The granting of the variance will not
constitute a grant of special privilege and will not be materially detrimental to the public
health, safety or welfare. Granting of the variance will not conflict with the spirit and intent
of the Comprehensive Plan and will not effect a change in zoning.
, r.
SUP-09-97.VAR-01-97
PAGE 5
VI ORDER OF DECISION
Based on these Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, and for the reasons stated, the
Planning and Zoning Commission of Caldwell, Idaho, orders that the request by Roy Hardy
for a Special Use Permit to develop a planned unit development, and for a variance from
the 2-acre requirement for planned unit developments be approved subject to the following
conditions:
6.1 The specific terms and conditions placed on this 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, or replaced with another approved use. The Special Use Permit
is not transferable from the approved site to another site.
6.2 The Applicant, or future assigns having an interest in the subject property, shall fully comply
with all conditions placed upon this Special Use Permit.
6.3. No changes in the conditions and terms of this 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 and
approval for amendment has been granted through the public hearing process.
6.4 The special use permit shall be considered null and void if construction plans have not been
approved by applicable City departments within 6 months from the date of signing this Order
and if construction of the site has not commenced within one year from the date of signing
this Order.
6.5 Any violation of the terms and conditions of this 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.
6.6 Curb and gutter, and a 5-foot sidewalk will be installed, as approved by the City Engineer,
along Plymouth Avenue the length of the development.
6.6 Prior to any building permits being issued, the Applicant shall verify in writing to the
Community Development Department that all conditions placed on the project by the City's
Engineering and Fire Departments have been met.
6.7 Weather permitting, the Applicant shall install landscaping, as approved by the City Forester
and Community Development Director, as soon as possible following construction activities.
6.8 Use of City water for irrigation purposes shall be approved by the City Engineer in writing
and submitted to the Community Development Department.
6.9 As shown on the site plan, four access points to the site from Plymouth Road shall be
provided.
SUP-09-97.VAR-01-97
PAGE 6
DATED THIS DAY OF JUNE, 1997.
BY ORDER OF THE CALDWELL
PLANNING D ZONING COMMISSION
lei) ■.-- --'' -----"" ATTEST:
William Roos, Chairman
r /7 i �/.
Mi
lid Nac tigall, V' e Chairman Betty Jo Keller, City Clerk
PUBLIC HEARING EXHIBIT SHEET
ITEM DATE SUBMITTED BY
�Qla1v� in��;Gl�
P2 t ax) V•.•LC,p ikkttt ■5 , Pc( Situ
. .
..:... : e4L _,,,,,
_N. , „,„If mr. B 1 .._ . ,,,, ,,, ; ad Y. ; ° iP. 8 11 f .11 ; '
ran En ae
Z � � m �' M maiti I. .' w. 4 311N3AV NV9IN3IN ® N1 NON rdg '14 1 1 .1.111
6.11q WIi Mani
® PEI 1Ii&ii ■iE iiva=.111
E- , _ ' IMMEIN MIN
: i!pi. .,
120.111Mirm„).. i 3A/dO MJ/A imallgillip
11. 1111M) 4 :ti 111 iii 1 •• ..,..- 26 1
1 d I '' iz _ °� , �1. _
Not i pors4 ,,,000SEVELT., t /T � ? F .. al: »v ...
'-- . nirl, i GI 7.. .4‘1:\/44h,\./ 4,46../ciL4'kr if: \\.:77x ,,/'--
1 --..:o– • __ -r.— q
Mg :' 0 � .Ill1 N�
,,
mi,,, �, 4 \
® 9NISNVI i i �"G /.eto
11 I rgi i \ /** bi 4#10*. \ /4,W
Wr# / - 4 ‘‘‘V / 441Virr
' x
U /
e
N / e ',lir
IP _ / C......A... 1
O W . ,
AAA r•
e }p
bile 1._ 0 P e 8
®Z® W F'- f'° (— two £ $ s t. 1 -
a8i?3 _ s J e
1 1 R 1 1 nia
Willi
il;i5 sg _i ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ 111::
PUBLIC HEARING COMMENT SHEET
(PLEASE PRINT CLEARLY)
NAME: _ C 4 z/ 4_-
STREET A DRESS: L Q _dr,-+y,. _ ,i
:7-
NAME CITY/STATE/ZIP: "%/ �OF CASE BEING HEARD:Ry ,-
--k ('- ° 1_ R'?
Check the appropriate line:
Applicant or Representative I Neutral/
I wish to speak
I do not wish to speak
I
In favor/ I Opposed/
wish to speak I wish to speak
do not wish to s eak I do not wish to speak
Written comments may be attached to this form or you may write them in below.
22 -- �
� '
c
---C
COMMUNITY NITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT T
' am� T (CiN. of qtaihturii
621 CLEVELAND BLVD.
CALDWELL, ID 83605
LINDA JAMES TELEPHONE 455-3021
Community Development Director FAX 455-3003
MINUTES OF THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
Meeting of May 15, 1997
7:00 p.m.
I CALL TO ORDER:
Chairman William Roos called the regular meeting of the Planning and Zoning Commission
to order, at 7:00 p.m., in the Caldwell City Hall Council Chambers.
II ROLL CALL:
Present: William Roos, Sonia Huyck, Mike Nachtigall, Ron Reed, Bill Gilbert
Absent: None
Staff: Linda James, Ann Marie Reyes
III REVIEW OF PROCEEDINGS:
Chairman Roos explained the procedures for public hearings.
IV POLL FOR CONFLICT OF INTEREST:
The members were polled for conflicts of interest; none were expressed.
V OLD BUSINESS:
1. The minutes of the April 17, 1997, meeting have not been prepared. This item will be
continued to the next scheduled hearing.
THE FOLLOWING WERE NOT ON THE AGENDA, BUT WERE BROUGHT TO THE
COMMISSIONS ATTENTION.
1. Linda James stated that there was an error under item number two, it is shown that Case No.
SUP-07-97, it should read Case No. SUP-08-97.
2. Linda James informed members that at the hearing held on May 14, 1997, regarding Case
Nos. OA-03-97. SUP-06-97, and ANN-02-97, a motion was made to deny the text
May 15, 1997,Minutes
Page I
amendment to include mobile home parks in the listing of special uses in the R-2 zone. The
Planning and Zoning Commission does not have the authority to approve or deny a text
amendment, they can only make a recommendation to City Council. In essence. this means
that no action on the request for Country Village was taken. This matter has been discussed
with the city attorney, Richard Harris, the applicant's attorney, Susan Wildwood, and the
opposition's attorney, William Gigray. All parties agreed that it would be appropriate for the
Commission to set a date this evening for the purpose of holding a "continuation-of-
decision" meeting, in order to take appropriate action on this request. Mr. Gigray and Mrs.
Wildwood have agreed that public hearing notification requirements could be met, if staff
will mail notice of the "continuation-of-decision meeting" to all persons having expressed
an interest in this case. Mailings will include all of those persons who have previously filled
out a sign-up sheet, all persons represented by Mr. Gigray, and all of the persons identified
from the case file. The "continuation of decision" meeting will not include reopening the
hearing for public testimony, but will only be for the purpose of acting on a decision.
Mr. Gigray called a point of order to confirm everything the director had stated was correct. He
stated that he had been informed of this action and agrees on the recommended course of action in
this matter.
It was the general consensus of the Commission to continue the "continuation of decision" to
Wednesday, May 21, 1997, at 6:00 p.m.
Commissioner Gilbert excused himself from the hearing at 7:20 p.m.
VII NEW BUSINESS - PUBLIC HEARINGS
1. Continuation of Case No. SUP-03-97, a request by Scott Wendell, and the L.D.S. Church,
for a Special Use Permit to construct a 1,716 s.£ classroom seminary. The location is at the
northeast corner of the intersection of Spruce Street and South Indiana.
Linda James informed members that this Case and Case No. SUP-08-97 were scheduled to be heard
May 1, 1997. Commissioner Gilbert and Mrs. James were the only persons to attend that public
hearing. The Planning Zoning Commission's Rules and By-Laws, Conduct of Meetings,Procedures,
Governing Business, allows the members present to adjourn to a date until a quorum is obtained.
Mr. Gilbert adjourned to May 15, 1997, at 7:00 p.m.
Mrs. James reviewed the application report on SUP-03-97. Ten notices were sent out to adjoining
owners;no comments where received. Comments were received by the Fire Marshall and the City
Engineer. A detailed storm water drainage plan will have to be submitted to the Engineering
Department for review and approval. Mrs. James reviewed exhibit PZ1000 (location map and
surrounding zoning).
Scott Wendell,the applicant's representative testified that he had developed a landscaping plan. The
intent is to irrigate by using city water on two separate meters.
May 15. 1997,Minutes
Page 2
\)2 -9
There were no further speakers or questions; Commissioner Huyck moved that the public hearing
portion of the this case be closed, motion seconded by Commissioner Reed. The motion was passed
by voice vote.
Comprehensive Plan Analysis - The applicable items were as follows: 1) Residential Categories-
Policy L: 2) Urban Storm Runoff- Policy 1; and 3) Community Design- Policies 1, 2, 3, 6 and 9.
Findings of Fact - 1)the property is located on a minor arterial road; 2) the property is zoned R-2.
which would allow such usage; 3)the application did not include a landscape plan, but Mr. Wendell
stated in his testimony that he would submit the plan; 4) additional parking will be available at the
high school; 5)the school district had not indicated any problem associated with this application or
its approval; and 6)this is a special use application, so special conditions can be included to address
the landscaping, fire protection, and storm runoff. Moved by Commissioner Reed, seconded by
Commissioner Nachtigall, to accept the Findings of Fact as stated.
Roll Call: Yes: Ron Reed, Mike Nachtigall, Sonia Huyck, William Roos
No: None MOTION CARRIED
Conclusions of Law - Based on the stated Findings of Fact, the usage fits with the intent of R-2
zoning, parking spaces are allocated with overflow parking available at the high school, and special
conditions can be applied on a SUP. Commissioner Reed made a motion to accept the Conclusions
of Law as stated. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Nachtigall.
Roll Call: Yes: Ron Reed, Mike Nachtigall, Sonia Huyck, William Roos
No: None MOTION CARRIED
In addition to the standard conditions listed in the application report, all conditions regarding fire
• protection must be met, all items regarding storm water must be met, and the applicant must submit
and have written approval from the Community Development Director and City Forester of a
landscape plan which must be implemented as soon after completion of construction as weather
permits. Moved by Commissioner Reed, seconded by Commissioner Huyck, that based upon these
Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, the Planning and Zoning Commission hereby approves
the request by Scott Wendell for a Special Use Permit to construct a 1,716 s.£ classroom seminary
and directs the Community Development Director to prepare the Order of Decision.
Roll Call: Yes: Ron Reed, Sonia Huyck, Mike Nachtigall, William Roos
No: None MOTION CARRIED
Anyone interested in filing an appeal may contact the Planning and Zoning Department.
2. Continuation of Case No. SUP-08-97m a Special Use Permit to legally permit an existing
single family dwelling in the C-3T zone.
Linda James presented the Application Report. She reviewed Exhibits PZ1000, a copy of the
May 15. 1997.Minutes
Page 3
Assessor's map showing the location of the site and surrounding zoning; and A-5, the applicant's
narrative. There were no comments and no opposition from any of the City agencies, or any persons
that were notified.
Beth Hemenway. Realtor, testified that this single family dwelling at 506 E. Elgin, was constructed
prior to the adoption of the City Zoning Ordinance in 1977, the site was zoned C-3. This property
was grand fathered as a nonconforming use. If the property does burn down, the owner or future
owners would like to rebuild the property as a residential use.
Duane Fussleman, owner of subject site, briefly stated they would like to sell his home as a
residence, and go into retirement. If the Special Use Permit is not granted then he would be unable
to sell his home and move on to other adventures.
Being no further speakers or questions, the public hearing portion of the this case was closed.
Comprehensive Plan Analysis - The applicable items were as follows: 1) Residential Categories-
Policies 2, 6, and 7.
Findings of Fact- 1)this is an established residence constructed prior to the C-3 zoning and it was
Grand fathered as a non-conforming use; 2) it takes a Special Use Permit to make it a conforming
use; 3)it meets the legal size of a residential lot; 4) it has two off-street parking spaces as required
for a single dwelling; 5) adjacent properties are residential but in the C-3 zone; 6) it is serviced by
city water and sewer; 7) the applicant is seeking the special use permit to make the residence a
conforming use. Moved by Commissioner Reed, seconded by Commissioner Nachtigall, that the
Findings of Facts be approved as stated.
Roll Call Vote: Yes: Ron Reed, Mike Nachtigall, Sonia Huyck, William Roos
No: None
MOTION CARRIED
Conclusions of Law - This application is a formality required as a result of rezoning after the
residence was built. The owners are seeking to bring it into conformance, this appears to be
something that was not the result of negligence on the part of the property owners. This SUP will
not result in any changes to the property or put any burden on the city services. It will have no
impact on the neighborhood or surrounding community. The residence is an asset to the
neighborhood and meets the requirements for usage. Moved by Commissioner Reed, seconded by
Commissioner Nachtigall, that the Conclusions of Law be approved as stated.
Roll Call Vote: Yes: Ron Reed, Mike Nachtigall, Sonia Huyck, William Roos
No: None
MOTION CARRIED
Moved by Commissioner Reed,seconded by Commissioner Nachtigall,that based upon the Findings
of Facts and Conclusions of Law Case No. SUP-08-97, to legally permit an existing single family
May 15. 1997,Minutes
Page 4
dwelling in the C-3T zone, hereby be approved. The Planning and Zoning Commission directs the
Community Development Director to prepare the Order of Decision in this matter.
Roll Call Vote: Yes: Ron Reed, Mike Nachtigall, Sonia Huyck, William Roos
No: None
MOTION CARRIED
Anyone interested in filing an appeal may contact the Community Development Department.
3. Case No. SUP-10-97, a request by Centennial Baptist Church, for a Special Use Permit to
construct a two-story, 17,280 square food, educational building on approximately 10 acres
located in the R-1 zone.
Linda James presented the Application Report. She reviewed Exhibits PZ1000, a copy of the
Assessor's map showing the location of the site and surrounding zoning.
Gene Gipson,the applicant's representative, stated the site plan complies with the Zoning Ordinance.
He was aware of the requirements and standard conditions, in the Application Report, and is in
agreement to meet all of the requirements.
Being no further speakers or questions, the public hearing portion of the this case was closed.
Comprehensive Plan Analysis-the applicable items were as follows: Residential Categories-Policy
12; Urban Storm Runoff- Policy 1; Community Design - 1, 2, 3, 5, and 9.
It was the general consensus of the Commission to reopen the public hearing and call Mr. Gibson
back to the podium to clarify what the intentions where for signage. There is an existing sign on the
property that was permitted with the last Special Use Permit when the facility was constructed. That
sign or a very similar sign would be in continuation, the sign may be relocated because it is directly
on the corner of Lake Avenue and Ustick Road. It may be located near an exit, but it would be the
same sign. There would be some minor directional signs so that people can find the part of the
facility that they are looking for.
Being no further speakers or questions, the public hearing portion of the this case was closed.
Findings of Fact- 1)the Church already exists on the property, and a day care is already in operation
at this location,with the use of the current church plus a portable unit which would be removed when
the new structure is completed; 2) it would not make any changes to Ustick Road or Lake Avenue;
3) parking is adequate for joint usage of church and day school, there is also an overflow parking
area; 4) it meets the transportation criteria with the two existing ingress/egress points which are on
a major and minor arterial; 5) the Fire Marshall has submitted fire protection requirements which
have been addressed in the application and must be approved; 6) the City Engineer has included an
attachment concerning storm runoff requirements which must be approved prior to issuance of a
building permit and construction; 7) it is the applicant's responsibility to get written approval from
May 15, 1997,Minutes
Page 5
the Southwest Health District for the new septic disposal system listed under 2.6.3 in the application
report; and 8)a current sign does exist, the sign may be moved in the future, because of it's location.
Moved by Commissioner Reed, seconded by Commissioner Nachtigall, that the Findings of Fact be
approved as stated.
Roll Call Vote: Yes: Ron Reed, Mike Nachtigall, Sonia Huyck, William Roos
No: None
MOTION CARRIED
Conclusions of Law-an educational facility complies with the Comprehensive Plan for an R-1 zone;
the facility will not be detrimental to the existing uses in the area; staff has addressed fire protection
and storm runoff requirements which would be conditions of any permits issued; and parking is
adequate. Moved by Commissioner Nachtigall, seconded by Commissioner Reed, that the
Conclusions of Law be approved as stated.
Roll Call Vote: Yes: Mike Nachtigall, Ron Reed, Sonia Huyck, William Roos
No: None
MOTION CARRIED
Commissioner Huyck stated that she would like to list the conditions before the motion is stated.
In addition to the standard conditions as listed in the staff report, the sunset clause be included, the
construction plans would need to be approved within six months, and construction begin within one
year. The existing landscaping would remain. Written approval of the Fire Marshall stating that the
requirements of the City have been met or that they have a satisfactory fire protection plan. It is the
responsibility of the applicant to obtain written approval of the Southwest District Department for
any changes to the septic system. Storm water runoff must have written approval from the City
Engineer. Allow the existing signage to be moved to a satisfactory location with the written
approval of the City Community Development Director and the City Engineer. The additional
landscaping as submitted will be completed as soon after completion of construction as weather
conditions permit.
Commissioner Reed made a motion that the Planning and Zoning Commission approve Case No.
SUP-10-97, a request by Centennial Baptist Church, for a Special Use Permit to construct a two-
story, 17,280 quare foot, educational building with the Conditions as stated. The motion was
seconded by Commissioner Nachtigall.
Roll Call Vote: Yes: Ron Reed, Mike Nachtigall, Sonia Huyck, William Roos
No: None
MOTION CARRIED
Anyone interested in filing an appeal may contact the Community Development Department.
4. Case Nos. SUP-09-97, a request by Roy Hardy, for a Special Use Permit for a Planned Unit
Development to construct two three-family dwellings and two four-family dwellings on
May 15, 1997,Minutes
Page 6
�Ly�
approximately 1.36 acres located in the R-2 zone, AND Case No. VAR-01-97, a request for
a variance from the 2-acre requirement for a Planned Unit Development.
Linda James presented the Application Report. She reviewed Exhibit PZ1000, a location map
showing the subject site and the surrounding zoning. The City Engineering and Fire Department's
comment were reviewed.
Lynn Hardy, the applicant's representative, testified that there is a steep hill on the north side of the
subject property where a retaining wall has been constructed, and the Engineering Department has
approved. There will be a lawn between each unit. There will also be a sidewalk alongside the front.
He has read all of the Conditions stated in the application report and has no problem with any of the
conditions. There will be four ingress/egress points and there is room to back in and out without
backing into the street.
There being no further speakers or questions, Chairman Roos closed the public hearing.
Comprehensive Plan Analysis - The applicable items were as follows: Natural Resources and
Hazardous Areas - Policies 2 and 5; Residential Categories - Policies 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, and 10.
Utilities - Policies 1 and 2; Urban Storm Runoff- Policies land 2; Housing - Policies 1, 2, 3, and
5; Boise River- Policy 3; Community Design - Policies 1, 2, 3, 4, 8, and 9.
The first item the Commission acted upon was the Variance. Chairman Roos explained the
procedure for Variances. The Planning and Zoning Commission found that all five criteria required
to be met, listed under Section 10-03-05 for a Variance, are true. Moved by Commissioner Huyck,
seconded by Commissioner Nachtigall to approve the variance.
Roll Call Vote: Yes: Sonia Huyck, Mike Nachtigall. Ron Reed, William Roos
No: None
MOTION CARRIED
Findings of Fact- 1) multiple housing is allowed in an R-2 zone with a Special Use Permit; 2)the
land is currently unused, the steep hillside hehind the property creates problems in usablity. The
applicant has put in an engineered retaining wall to stabilize the hillside; 3) the Planned Unit
Development Zoning Ordinance requires 2 acres, but a Variance has been granted; 4) due to the
configuation of the property,the applicant is not proposing a common area, but a SUP does not set
a precedent concerning common areas or acreage requirements; 5) the site plan also has more than
adequate parking; and 6) it has City water available and it has already recieved written approval
from the City Engineering Department for City sewer hookup. Moved by Commissioner Reed,
seconded by Commissioner Nachtigall, that the general Facts outlined in the Staff Report be
approved as the Findings of Fact on this application. Based on public testimony the inclusion of the
Facts that have been previously stated are incorporated.
Roll Call Vote: Yes: Ron Reed, Mike Nachtigall, Sonia Huyck
No: None
May 15, 1997,Minutes
Page 7
--\,) L-- 9
MOTION CARRIED
Conclusions of Law- Approval of a SUP does not set a precedent in respect to common areas and
acreage requirements for PUD's. The acreage was considered under the variance. It does give the
Planning and Zoning Commission a broader scope in which to set conditions in granting an SUP to
develop a PUD. The location of the land in relation to the Notus Canal and the depth of the property
make it difficult to develop under the Subdivision Ordinance. City services are available to the site.
More than adequate parking has been designated. There is a natural buffer to the north provided by
the hillside. This proposal qualifies as an in-fill and is a good transition to the M-1 zone to the
southeast. Moved by Commissioner Huyck, seconded by Commissioner Reed, that based upon the
Findings of Fact, the Conclusions of Law be approved as stated.
Roll Call Vote: Yes: Sonia Huyck, Ron Reed, Mike Nachtigall, William Roos
No: None
MOTION CARRIED
In addition to the Conditions stated in the Conditions listed in the Application Report, the permit
shall become null and void if construction plans have not been approved within six months of
signing of the Order of Decision and development of the site has not commenced within 1 year of
signing of the Order of Decision. A sidewalk along Plymouth with curb and gutter shall be included.
The stormwater drainage shall be designed and approved by the City Engineer prior to issuance of
building permits or construction. A landscaping plan shall be submitted and approved by the
Community Development Department and the City Forester prior to issuance of permits. All
conditions listed by the Fire Marshall shall be met. An agreement is to be worked out with the City
Engineer concerning use of City water for the sprinkler system. There will be four access ways from
Plymouth Road.
A motion was made by Commissioner Huyck, seconded by Commissioner Nachtigall,that Case No.
SUP-09-97 to approve the request by Roy Hardy for a Special Use Permit for a Planned Unit
Development to construct two three-family dwellings and two four-family dwellings on
approximately 1.36 acres located in the R-2 zone, and directs the Community Development Director
to prepare the Order of Decision which shall include all the conditions stated.
Roll Call Vote: Yes: Sonia Huyck, Mike Nachtigall, Ron Reed, William Roos
No: None
MOTION CARRIED
Anyone interested in filing an appeal needs to contact the Community Development Department.
5. Chairman Roos noted for the record that Case Nos. SUB-03P-97 (Pal-Shaw Estates), for
preliminary subdivision plat to develop 8 residential lots on approximately 1.81 acres of land
location in the R-1 zone, AND Case No. SUB-03F-97 (Pal-Shaw Estates, Unit No. 1), for
a fmal subdivision plat of three of the 8 residential lots of Pal-Shaw Estates, where
withdrawn and would be heard June 12, 1997.
May 15, 1997,Minutes
Page 8
3. Case Nos. OA-04-97, an amendment to Article 2, Land Use Schedule, Table 1, of Zoning
Ordinance No. 1451 by adding "espresso/pastry shop" to the list of special uses in the R-2
zone,AND Case No. SUP-11-97,for a Special Use Permit to operate an espresso/pastry shop
out of an existing building.
Linda James presented the Application Report. She reviewed Exhibit Nos. PZ1000, a copy of the
Assessor's map outlining the site and surrounding zoning, and A-7, Approach Permit Application
from the Idaho Transportation Department.
Roxanne Stephens, applicant, noted that the outer integrity of the home would not be changed. She
reviewed a copy of the site plan, Exhibit Nos. PZ1001. PZ1002, a diagram from the Idaho
Transportation Department, PZ1003; a letter from the employees at the Steve Regan Company; and
PZ1004, a letter from the owner and operator of the Sunrise Cafe. There will be seven parking
spaces. There will be an entrance to the drive-through from Cleveland Boulevard. There will also
be an entrance from the alley to get to the parking spaces. There will be an enclosed area, where the
trash will be kept. Sidewalks are going to be put in alongside 21st Street. There will be outside
speakers for the drive through and a bell. The speakers are adjustable to help keep the noise level
down. Some of the shrubs on the north side of the property will be removed.
Linda Stephens testified that the shrubs on the north side of the property will be removed and
replaced with something that does not hang out and will allow the full use of the alley. There will
also be shrubs and flowers outlining the drive-through to keep the integrity of the aesthetics of the
residential home.
Commissioner Roos questioned staff how the occupancy was established. Mrs. James responded
stating the Fire Department and Building Department determined occupancy.
Eleven persons signed up in favor of the project. Support included: a good location for this type of
business, and the dwelling is no longer suitable for use as a residence because of the busy
intersection. One person signed up remaining neutral. Concerns expressed were: bus stop on 21st
Street and garage on premises. Nine persons signed up in opposition to the project. Concerns
expressed were:traffic;trash and garbage generated; degradation of the historic area; having a drive-
through in a residential district; commercial use in a residential district; and inadequate parking.
Roxanne Stephen's rebuttal included: the proposal will not be a restaurant,just an espresso/pastry
shop; there will be no alcohol served;the occupancy regulations will be followed; there will be on-
site baking; there will be an outside patio area with tables. The school bus issue was also brought
up. The issue was discussed with Susan Lehman, Manager of the Caldwell Transportation
Department, who indicated the business would not affect the bus route. Next year they are putting
in a new system where a computer will pick where the bus stops are currently located. She indicated
that the bus stop will be moved next year, because of the new stop lights and because of increased
traffic.
Commissioner Nachtigall questioned if there would be a sign placed on the site, where it would be
May 15. 1997,Minutes
Page 9
located, and what it was going to look like. Roxanne Stephen's stated that there would be a sign
placed on the site. They would be following the guidelines set forth in the Zoning Ordinance. The
sign had not yet been designed, and there was no exact location for the sign. Chairman Roos
questioned how many seats were going to be placed in the business. Roxanne Stephen's stated that
she wasn't sure because of the construction that needed to be done. It depends a lot on what the
agencies require.
There being no building plans for the interior design, seating arrangements, changes to building,
maximum occupancy, and signage, it was the general consensus of the Commission to have the
public hearing continued. Moved by Commissioner Nachtigall, seconded by Commissioner Reed
that the case be continued to the next hearing date June 12. 1997.
The public hearing was reopened to allow the applicant to comment. Linda Stephens expressed her
concern regarding the delay.
Being no further questions, the public hearing portion of the agenda was closed again.
VII DISCUSSION ON PLANNING ISSUES: None
IV ADJOURNMENT: Chairman Roos adjourned the meeting at approximately 11:45 p.m.
May 15, 1997,Minutes
Page 10
?2-`1-1
-
11.
4( 1
---'
•
1
,k!
It
€.;
! s
I _
!
11 -
)
,
. ,