Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout7-29-08_HECALDWELL HEARING EXAMINER MINUTES July 29, 2008   I.   Call to Order – Hearing Examiner, Mr. Jerome Mapp, opened the meeting for the public hearing at 7:00 p.m. II.   Review of Proceedings – Mr. Jerome Mapp outlined the procedures for the public hearing. Members Present: Brian Billingsley (Planning Director), Brent Orton (City Engineer) and Savanna Davis (Administrative Secretary). Old Business Mr. Mapp approved the minutes of the June 3, 2008 meeting.  New Business Case Number SUP-312-08/ZON-59-08 a request by Tom Needham for a comprehensive plan map amendment from Commercial to Industrial, a rezone of 0.36 acres from R-2 Medium Density Residential to M-1 Light Industrial, a development agreement and a special use permit approval for an automobile/vehicle storage yard. The site is located at 109 W. Freeport. Testimony: Anne Marie Skinner, Senior Planner, presented the staff report and submitted PZ-1000, an aerial photo, PZ-1001 comp plan map & PZ-1002 Caldwell zone map. Mr. Mapp expressed his concerns for the land use surrounding the property. Thomas Needham signed in favor as the applicant and provided supporting testimony. Mr. Mapp asked Mr. Needham why a vehicle storage yard should be approved for an area that is a gateway to Caldwell. Mr. Needham stated that he thought it would be improving the appearance of the surrounding area because it would clean it up. MR. MAPP CLOSED THE PUBLIC TESTIMONY. Comprehensive Plan Analysis for the Rezone: Mr. Mapp accepted the comprehensive plan analysis as listed. Findings of Fact for the Rezone:  The Hearing Examiner accepted the general facts as outlined in the staff report, public testimony, and the evidence list as a part of the Findings. Conclusions of Law for the Rezone: The Hearing Examiner accepted the Conclusions of Law as outlined in the staff report. Recommendation: The Hearing Examiner recommended that Case Number ZON-59-08 be denied for the following reasons: The requested use is not appropriate because the subject property is located next to current and existing residential uses and zones on two sides of the subject property. The subject property is located on Freeport Street which the City has master-planned as a gateway entrance from Centennial Way and the requested use is not appropriate for such an entrance. Comprehensive Plan Analysis for the Special Use Permit: Mr. Mapp accepted the comprehensive plan analysis as listed. Findings of Fact for the Special Use Permit:  The Hearing Examiner accepted the general facts as outlined in the staff report, public testimony, and the evidence list as a part of the Findings. Conclusions of Law for the Special Use Permit: The Hearing Examiner accepted the Conclusions of Law as outlined in the staff report. Order of Decision: The Hearing Examiner ordered that Case Number SUP-312-08 be denied for the following reasons: The requested special use permit is only allowed in an M-1 Light Industrial zone. The subject property is currently zoned R-2 Medium Density Residential. Case Number SUP-313-08/ZON-60-08 a request by C&MP Properties LLC and B&A Engineers for a comprehensive plan map amendment from High Density Residential to Commercial, a rezone of 1.6 acres from R-1 Low Density Residential to C-2 Community Commercial, a development agreement and a special use permit approval for a mini-storage unit business. The site is addressed as 106 S. Indiana Avenue and is located on the west side of Indiana Avenue and the south side of Hillcrest Lane if it were extended. Testimony: Anne Marie Skinner, Senior Planner, presented the staff report and submitted exhibit PZ-1000 an aerial photo, PZ-1005 the Caldwell zoning map, PZ-1001 a petition signed by numerous surrounding property owners, PZ-1002 a letter from Kenneth and Carmen Asker, PZ-1003 a letter from Dorothy Worman, and PZ-1004 a petition that four other people signed. Chet Pipkin, applicant, signed in favor of the application and provided supporting testimony stating that there is a storage facility ½ a mile from his own home in Boise and he has not noticed it to be detrimental to the residences. Mr. Mapp asked if there will be any RV storage. Mr. Pipkin stated no. Mr. Mapp asked if there would be water or electricity available to the people renting the units. Mr. Pipkin stated no. Mr. Mapp asked about hazardous materials storage on the site. Mr. Pipkin stated that there would be no hazardous materials allowed to be stored on the site. Mr. mapp asked if a person could open up a shop in any of the units. Mr. Pipkin stated no. Mr. Mapp expressed his concerns for traffic and curb cuts. Mr. Mapp asked how many units there would be. Mr. Pipkin stated that there would be approximately 200 units. Mr Mapp asked why the applicant didn’t have sufficient plans. He also stated that they need to be drawn by an architect and not by pencil sketch. Mr. Mapp asked if there would be any noise pollution. Mr. Pipkin stated there would be none because the vehicles would be shut off after parking. Mr. Mapp asked about the high traffic flow the storage facility may bring during peak traffic hours. Mr. Pipkin stated that they would like to have the facility open from 7 am- 7pm but he would be willing to change those hours. Dorothy Worman signed in opposition to the application and provided testimony to supplement her submitted letter. Jake Nancolas signed in opposition to the application and expressed his concerns for lowering the property values and higher traffic volume. Gary Vance signed in opposition to the application and stated his concerns for Canyon Hill not being a place for commercial uses. Mr. Vance also stated that a multi-family use would be more suitable. Margarita Choy signed in opposition stated that this is not the place for commercial uses, instead it should be residential. Ms. Choy also expressed her concerns for the increase of traffic. Larry Robinson expressed his concerns for the greatly enhanced traffic, light pollution, noise pollution, spot zoning and the hazardous waste products that may be stored at the facility. Patricia McCarthy signed in opposition to the application and expressed her concerns for the surrounding road conditions. Jerry Stewart signed in opposition to the application and stated his concerns for the increase of traffic and having a commercial use in a residential neighborhood. Mr. Stewart also stated that a multi-family use may be more suitable. Mr. Orton stated that the trip generation for traffic would be 41 trips in a week day with 3 trips in the morning and 4 trips in the evening. The trips would either be coming or going. Mr. Pipkin rebutted stating that mini storage units would mean less traffic for the surrounding neighborhoods than an apartment complex. Mr. Pipkin also stated that instead of decreasing the value of the surrounding properties it would be more likely to increase the values because city services that are not currently available would be brought up to the neighborhood. MR. MAPP CLOSED THE PUBLIC TESTIMONY. Comprehensive Plan Analysis for the Rezone: Mr. Mapp accepted the comprehensive plan analysis as listed. Findings of Fact for the Rezone:  The Hearing Examiner accepted the general facts as outlined in the staff report, public testimony, and the evidence list as a part of the Findings. Conclusions of Law for the Rezone: The Hearing Examiner accepted the Conclusions of Law as outlined in the staff report. Order of Decision: The Hearing Examiner recommended that Case Number ZON-60-08 be denied for the following reasons: A commercial zone is not appropriate given the residential zoning on the north, south and east of the subject property. Public access to the subject property is not sufficient to warrant the traffic volume generated from commercial uses. Comprehensive Plan Analysis for the Special Use Permit: Mr. Mapp accepted the comprehensive plan analysis as listed. Findings of Fact for the Special Use Permit:  The Hearing Examiner accepted the general facts as outlined in the staff report, public testimony, and the evidence list as a part of the Findings. Conclusions of Law for the Special Use Permit: The Hearing Examiner accepted the Conclusions of Law as outlined in the staff report. Order of Decision: The Hearing Examiner ordered that Case Number SUP-313-08 be denied for the following reasons: All of the immediately adjacent surrounding properties are being used as residential home sites.  Planning Issues  Adjournment  The Hearing Examiner adjourned the meeting at approximately 9:30 p.m.  MINUTES APPROVED AND SIGNED BY THE HEARING EXAMINER, M. JEROME MAPP, ON THE DATE NOTED BELOW:                                                                                         ATTEST: M. Jerome Mapp                           Date                                                                                                                                                                                                                         Planning and Zoning Director