Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1980/09/16 P & Z MInutes PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MINUTES September 16 , 190 The meeting was called to order at 7 : 30 p .m. by Chairman John Pilote in the Council Chambers . Present were Don Tolley , Boyd Henry , Starr Farish, Bob Carpenter , Ralph Nyblad , 3i Free and Mel Lewis . Starr Farish and Ralph Nyblad moved to dispense with the reading of the August 21 and September 3 minutes and approve them as written . Motion carried . The first item on the agenda was a public hearing to take testimony regarding a proposal to change the Comprehensive Plan from medium density residential to frame and service commercial for certain pro- perties northerly from the interstate highway on the frontage road (Hannibal ) which parallels the interstate . Area 1 is Block 35 of Golden Gate Addition which is bounded by Boise Avenue , 1st Avenue , Ithaca Street and Hannibal Street . Area 2 includes one property on the south corner of Block 33 and the approximate southerly half of Block 32 of Golden Gate Addition between 3rd and 4th Avenues . Mr . Lewis identified the location as being near the Idaho Power Substa- tion on one end (Block 35) and contiguous to the commercial zone on 5th on the other end (Block 32 ) . Block 32 is occupied by 3 residences and 2 mobile homes . Block 35 contains 3 residences facing on Ithaca . The present land use is medium density residential with an R-2 zoning. Block 35 is not presently served by sewer . There is an existing main on 2nd Avenue extended which is in poor condition and a line runs through Blocks 32 and 33 . There are 4 " water mains in 1st and 3rd and also mains in 4th extended . The properties are located on the future access road and will front on the interstate access except for Block 35 . The frontage road will be improved with concrete curb and gutter and surfacing with 30 ' curb to curb width and parking restrictions . The Comprehensive Plan indicates an undefined general commercial area around the proposed Boise River interchange and the block between 4th and 5th is frame and service commercial . Proposed Plan change for these properties is frame and service commercial to 0-9-1 accommodate a C-3 Zoning. Don Tolley moved to accept the above staff report as given by Mr . Lewis as the findings of fact by the Commission . The motion was seconded by Bob Carpenter and carried unanimously . John Pilote then opened the public hearing to take testimony . Mr . C . P . Christensen was recognized and said he was attending on behalf of Gloria Collins , one of the property owners in Block 32 of Golden Gate Addition . He requested a clarification of the designation frame and service commercial . Pilote informed Mr. Christensen that this was probably the least restrictive of the commercial land uses and Mr. Christensen indicated that this was what he wanted . Hearing no further testimony , the Chairman closed the public hearing. After 3-9-2 a discussion by the Commission , Ralph Nyblad and Starr Farish moved and seconded to recommend to the City Council a Comprehensive Plan change from medium density residential to frame and service commer- cial for Area 1 . Motion carried unanimously . Starr Farish and Boyd Henry moved and seconded to recommend a Plan change for Area 2 from medium density residential to frame and service commercial to the City Council . Motion carried unanimously . These recommendations will be forwarded to the City Council along with two other proposed Plan changes as of this date . -1- Opened next was a public hearing on a special use permit requested by Pete Waller of Signs , Inc . , to exceed the maximum square footage on a sign to be located on the Bill Gilbert property at Chicago , Linden and I-84 . The sign is to be 12 x 40 or 480 sq . ft . and is to be a double-faced bulletin . The maximum is 269 sq . ft . per 500 feet of frontage . Don Tolley inquired of Mr . Waller what the inter- state rules and regulations are concerning signs . Mr. Waller stated they permit the signs to be located in commercial and industrial zones and have issued him a permit . Since the site he is interested in is in the City limits , Mr. Waller contacted the City for its approval and was told he would have to seek a special use permit because of the size of the sign . No testimony was offered from the audience during the public hearing and the hearing was closed . Don Tolley commented that he thought the granting of the special use permit to this particular gentleman would be opening up the gates for a lot more along the freeway coming into Caldwell . Bob Carpenter pointed out the maximum specified in the ordinance ( 269 sq . ft . ) was not standard for a billboard and a sign of smaller dimensions might not be legible to passing traffic . Mr . Waller stated he recognized the problem of a clutter of signs going into a city and the State in fact regulates that by allowing one sign every 1000 feet in a com- mercial or industrial zone . None would be permitted in a residential 30-9-3 zone . After further discussion , Don Tolley said that as every 1000 feet would allow 5 signs per mile, he would move the Commission not grant the special use permit . The motion was seconded by Ralph Nyblad and, after a vote , carried . Mr . Waller asked if he were going to have a chance to say anything about this . John Pilote explained that he could appeal the decision of the Commission to the City Coun- cil if he entered his appeal within 5 days . Next on the agenda was a request for a special use permit to construct a residence in the C-3 zone on Lake Avenue and place it more than 55 feet from the right-of-way . Mr. John Hjelter, who has purchased the property at 3719 Lake Avenue where the Idaho Septic Tank Company was located, told the Commission he intends to use that building for a precision tool and die shop . He does intend to manufacture certain products but not at this location . Pilote opened the public hearing to take testimony from the audience . Mr . John Bullis , 2410 Windsor Drive , informed the Commission that he owns property adjacent to the property in question . He did say he was not opposed to the business being there , but wanted it known that he did not want the residence at any time to take precedence over any commercial use that might go in on his property . For example , what would happen if in 2 or 3 years a business went in that was oven 24 hours a day and the gentle- man objected on the grounds that his house was there prior and had grandfather rights . Mr . Iijelter responded that he was fully aware that the area is commercial and in building in that type of an area sometimes a person has to put up with certain things he would not have to in a residential district . He added there are a few people living in that neighborhood now . Another gentleman representing the owners of the Terrace Drive-in Theater told the Commission they would have the same comments . They did not oppose building the house but did not want interference with the operation of the theater . At this time Mr . Lewis read into the record a letter from Odell Theaters and Arthur Anderson , et . al . The letter stated that the inheritors of the land have no objection to the special use permit requested by Mr . -3- Hjelter provided he agrees that loud noises , bright lights and other things that would be disruptive do the operation of the Terrace during its business hours would be acceptable . He should also understand that the Terrace has been in operation for a number of years and he will voice no objections to the traffic , sound , lighting or other items connected with the normal operation of the drive-in theater . Mr . Hjelter replied he fully realizes there is a theater there and was not going to try to rearrange the neighbor- hood at this time or any time in the future . Commission members informed Mr . Hjelter that the residence would be at his risk and he should not seek recourse from the City or the P and Z Commission regarding the commercial nature of the surrounding area . Mr . Hjelter 30-9-4 acknowledged this requirement . Don Tolley moved to allow the special permit to build a residence in the C-3 zone with a greater than 55- foot setback with the understanding that Mr . Hjelter knows what he is getting into . The motion was seconded by Bill Free and carried unanimously . The final public hearing was for a variance requested by Florence Trudell to construct a residence on Lot 18 , Block 3 of Sylvan Manor which would extend 8 feet at one corner into the rear setback area . Roger Tomlinson, the builder , was recognized and said he had to extend back for a 2-car garage so the setback encroachment would be 10 feet rather than 8 feet as formerly requested in order to observe the 20-foot setback on the cul-de-sac in front of the residence . John Pilote then opened the public hearing . Testifying was Les ^ Summers , 2223 S . 10th , who indicated he and Gene Graves owned the v adjacent Lot 19 and had no objections to the variance . Mr . Lewis then read two letters from adjacent owners stating they did not object to the violation of the covenants pertaining to the distance from the north line of Lot 18 , Block 3 , of Sylvan Manor as outlined in the building permit application to Florence Trudell . The letters were signed by Dave and Susan Gipson , Robert and Gayla Tyson , Les Summers and Gene Graves and are on file in the Engineer ' s office . 80-9-5 After a discussion , Ralph Nyblad and Bob Carpenter moved that the variance request be granted to extend 10 feet into the rear setback . Motion carried unanimously . Ray Kuntz appeared before the Commission seeking a special use per- mit to remodel his residence at 1204 Teton Avenue , which extension will encroach 10 feet into the rear setback . A letter was submitted by the applicant stating that the undersigned neighbors do not object to the proposed remodeling project at 1204 Teton and the letter was signed by neighboring property owners . A public hearing for consid- eration of the variance was set for October 16 . A discussion was held on a preliminary layout of Ustick Industrial Park, a proposed industrial subdivision to be located on part of the Christian Boulevard School property on Ustick Road northeasterly from Blacker ' s . The engineering firm was basically seeking approval of the concept at this time . The school is not to be included as part of the plat . The Ustick Head access as shown on the plat , according to Mr. Lewis , is to accommodate the corridor planned by JUB Engineers several years ago for the County , Nampa and Nampa Highway District . The corridor is to be 80 feet wide and connection was to be at an angle not greater than 60° . The proposed plan reflects both the location -4- • shown for the corridor and intercepts Ustick at the angle of approxi- mately 60° . The planning has limited public access between the corni- - e dor known as Arthur Street and the Union Pacific Railroad , If the e interchange off the interstate at Ustick ever occurs there may be a grade separation at the railroad and Ustick and access may be cut off. This plat reflects that thinking. Mr . Lewis said it was his understanding from Blakley Engineers that Blackens have agreed to cooperate in deeding their half of Arthur Street as shown on the plan. He pointed out that the street named Cargo Way would end in a T-shaped cul-de-sac as was considered in Industrial Site No . 5 . Sewer would be available to the site immediately from the Southeast Interceptor Project for which grant money is being obtained . City water is available at Blackens ' corner at Cleveland . The intention of this planning is to identify the corridor and to define the pro- perty shown as Lot 1, Block 3 , which the owner wants to sell imme- diately . The City Engineer has stipulated that sale of the lot and issuance of a building permit would require deeding of the corridor at this time by both Blackens and the owner and the deeding of half of Ustick Road . These deeds are to convey lands that will eventually be included or dedicated in the subdivision plat . Joel Petty of Blakley Engineers indicated they will be ready with a preliminary plat for the October meeting. The owner plans to develop Lot 1 , Block 3 as soon as possible and develop the rest of the subdivision as he gets requests to build . It was the concensus of the Commission that the development should proceed as outlined . A draft of proposed fence regulations was distributed to the members which is essentially the same as the original draft except that the numbering has been made to correlate with the zoning code and a few additions and changes have been made . Item 3(b ) was added to clarify the location of fences on rights-of-way . Mr . Lewis said he believes that really applies to residential areas and expressed concern about fences in commercial and industrial areas where property owners want to fence in part of the right-of-way . He further stated he felt permission to use the right-of-way in those areas should be granted by the City Council . If the right-of-way is not needed in the judg- ment of the Council or they can protect themselves in agreement or easement stating when the right-of-way is needed access will be provided , they can allow or grant a variance for the fence . It was agreed this should be included in the draft . Item 7 was added as a definition of sight or vision triangle . There was some discussion on Item ( c ) 3 regarding unsightly or dangerous material utilized in the construction of fences and it was suggested that the wording be changed to clarify this section . After further discussion , it was moved and seconded by Starr Banish and Boyd Henry to set a public hearing on the proposed fence regulations and to submit a copy with the changes to the City Council for their comments . Motion carried unanimously . Mr . Lewis reported on his actions in getting Planning Act information to the State . He said he called Mr . Blickenstaff on one point which said when two cities couldn ' t agree about impact area problems , the larger city prevailed . Ni' . Blickenstaff informed him this had already been changed . Lewis stated further that the hearing process hasn' t been loosened up but there is some thought about changing Plan recom- mendations to 4 months rather than u . He also thought the advertising time might specify two weekly issues of the local newspaper with the last notice being 5 days before the hearing. Meeting adjourned at 9 : 10 p .m. Respectfully submitted, Sylvia Robison , Secretary pro tem