HomeMy WebLinkAboutHearing 1-27-09CALDWELL HEARING EXAMINER
MINUTES
January 27, 2009
I. Call to Order – Hearing Examiner, Mr. Jerome Mapp, opened the meeting for the public hearing at 7:07 p.m.
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 November 25, 2008 meeting as signed on December 4, 2008 by Hearing Examiner Mapp.
New Business:
Case Number SUB-192PF-08 a request by Steve White for short plat/condo plat approval of Eldorado Estates Condominiums consisting of eight 4-plexes and 3 duplexes being converted to 38
condominium dwelling units. The site is located on the north side of Ustick Road approximately 300 feet west of Montana Avenue.
Testimony:
Brian Billingsley, Planning Director, presented the staff report and
submitted an aerial map labeled as exhibit PZ-1000.
Mr. Mapp asked Mr. Billinsgley if there is a cross access agreement.
Mr. Billingsley stated that there is a cross access agreement with the preliminary plat that connects the two north-south streets.
Steve White, applicant, provided supporting testimony and submitted an address numbering plat map that was labeled as exhibit PZ-1001 and pictures of the existing condos that was labeled
as exhibit PZ-1002. Mr. White stated that the reason for condominiumizing these units is because of the softening of the housing market.
Mr. Mapp asked if the entire development is under a home owners association.
Mr. White stated that the development is controlled by a home owners association.
Mr. Mapp asked if the other units will be rentals.
Mr. White explained that the condominiumizing of the development will happen in 3 phases, this being phase 1. Mr. White also stated that the 2 other owners are not prepared at this time
to come up with the financial contribution to condominiumize the remaining units.
Brian Billingsley stated that there is a cross access easement south of lots 13, 12 and 11 connecting Idaho Ave. to Washington Ave. and on the south side of the property there is another
cross access easement south of lots 5, 6, and 7 that runs from Idaho Ave. to an out parcel.
Mr. Mapp pointed out that lots 8, 9, and 10 would also need a cross access easement.
Mr. Billingsley stated that those lots use the same cross access easement.
Mr. Mapp asked about lots 5, 6 & 7.
Mr. Billingsley stated that they use the southerly cross access easement.
Mr. Mapp pointed out that there is no cross access easement for lots 2, 3, & 4.
Mr. Billingsley stated that there needs to be a cross access easement added to that area.
MR. MAPP CLOSED THE PUBLIC TESTIMONY.
Comprehensive Plan Analysis: Mr. Mapp accepted the comprehensive plan analysis as listed.
Findings of Fact for SUB-192PF-08: The Hearing Examiner accepted the general facts as outlined in the staff report, public testimony, and the evidence and exhibits list as presented.
Conclusions of Law for SUB-192PF-08: The Hearing Examiner accepted the Conclusions of Law as outlined in the staff report
Recommendation:: The Hearing Examiner recommended that Case Number SUB-192PF-08 be approved with conditions as outlined in the staff report with the addition of the following conditions:
8.1 through 8.7
Adding 8.8- the applicant shall provide cross access agreement for properties located on block 1, lots 2, 3, & 4.
Old Business:
(cont. from 11/25/08) Case Number SUB-196P-08 a request by JRL Properties LP and Bailey Engineers for preliminary plat approval of Crown Point Subdivision consisting of 21 buildable
lots and one non-buildable lot in a C-4 Interchange/Freeway Commercial zone. The site is addressed as 3912 Hwy 20-26 and is located at the southeast corner of Highway 20-26 and Aviation
Way.
Testimony:
Brian Billingsley, Planning Director, presented the staff report and
submitted an aerial map labeled as exhibit PZ-1000 and PZ-1001 a letter of opposition to the engineering department’s requirements.
Brent Orton, City Engineer, stated corrections to the traffic study for the record. Mr. Orton also stated that the first sentence in item number 2 on page 6 of 16 in the staff report
needs to be changed to read “The Crown Point Subdivision is expected to generate 10,175 vehicle trips per day.” This would then change the percentage of signalization that the applicant
is responsible for from 141% to 137%. The engineering department will make the
appropriate corrections to the staff report. Mr. Orton stated that it may be necessary to add the following requirements :
As existing right-of-way allows to make improvements on HWY 20/26 in front of the Flying J.
Access points are contingent on the approval of the modifications to the City’s current ordinance.
The access points may require some right-turn drops in addition to the width that is recommended by staff.
Mr. Mapp stated that the applicant submitted a letter (PZ-1001) and Mr. Mapp asked Mr. Orton to spell out which of the items listed on the letter that Mr. Orton agreed to modify as requested.
Mr. Orton stated that the required conditions are part of Caldwell City Code and cannot be modified. Mr. Orton then explained that when it comes to city vs. state ordinances the more
strict regulations apply.
Kent Brown signed in as the applicant’s representative, provided supporting testimony and submitted a large preliminary plat as exhibit PZ-1002.
The applicant is requesting the following conditions from the staff be modified:
Page 3, General, item number 3- should call out the specific streets that the City is asking for as being dedicated to the City of Caldwell.
Mr. Mapp clarified that the public streets that are involved are Aviation Way, Skyway Drive & Hwy 20/26.
Page 3, General, item number 4 – Mr. Mapp suggested the following statement be added to the end of the existing statement “construct to City of Caldwell specifications or to State specifications.”
Page 5, Rights-of-Way, item number 1- Delete
Page 5, Rights-of-Way, item number 5- Mr. Mapp suggested that it should read “...all rights-of-way, as defined above in item numbers 1- 4, are to be dedicated to the public.”
Page 5, Street, item 1- Mr. Orton suggested the statement “or as permitted by ITD” be added to the end of the first sentence.
Page 6, Street, item 5- Mr. Orton suggested that it read “Approaches shall comply to City’s intersection and driveway spacing requirements in code.”
Page 6, Traffic Mitigation, item 2- Mr. Brown asked that a dollar amount be put in place with the 137% that the applicant/ owner would be responsible for.
Mr. Mapp asked Mr. Orton if he knew what the dollar amount would be.
Brent Orton stated that the estimated cost of the average intersection is approximately $425,000.00.
The following changes shall be made:
Page 7, Traffic Mitigation, item 3- Mr. Billinsgley suggested changing the wording to read “...The more restrictive of coincident or conflicting requirements shall apply...” Mr. Mapp
stated that Mr. Orton is to provide language for this item. Language is as follows: “The owner/developer/applicant shall keep the City informed of and comply with any additional requirements
Idaho Transportation Department ahs the final authority to impose. Requirements of ITD shall be met independent of requirements of the City. ITD standards shall be followed for roadway
section depth. City requirements shall be followed for roadway width and traffic mitigation.”
Page 7, Traffic Mitigation, item 4- Mr. Brown stated that it sounds repetitive. So Mr. Orton suggested that item 4 be moved to page 5 , Street, item 1.
Page 15, Condition 8.7- Mr. Brown stated that he would like the streets to be called out as the public right-of-way adjacent to the subject property.
Dave Szplett signed in favor of the application and stated that he agreed with Mr. Brown’s testimony and stated that he still respectfully disagrees with the right-of-way costs for the
intersection enhancement at Aviation Wy. & HWY 20/26 because of the amount of traffic that is being produced from the surrounding subdivisions.
Kevin Amar signed in favor of the application and requested that the applicant follow ITD’s regulations & code because no agreements have been made between ITD and the City of Caldwell
regarding who has control over Hwy 20/26 so ITD is still Hwy 20/26’s current governing body.
MR. MAPP CLOSED THE PUBLIC TESTIMONY.
Comprehensive Plan Analysis: Mr. Mapp accepted the comprehensive plan analysis as listed.
Findings of Fact for SUB-196P-08: The Hearing Examiner accepted the general facts as outlined in the staff report, public testimony, and the evidence list as presented.
Conclusions of Law for SUB-196P-08: The Hearing Examiner accepted the Conclusions of Law as outlined in the staff report.
Recommendation: The Hearing Examiner recommended that Case Number SUB-196P-08 be approved with conditions as outlined in the staff report with the following changes:
8.12 through 8.13 as written
8.7 modified- after public right of way add Aviation Way, Skyway and Hwy 20/26.
The following items be changed to read as follows: Item 3 under Traffic Mitigation on Page 7: The owner/developer/applicant shall keep the City informed of and comply with any additional
requirements Idaho Transportation Department has the final authority to impose. Requirements of ITD shall be met independent of requirements of the City. ITD standards shall be followed
for roadway section depth. City requirements shall be followed for roadway width and traffic mitigation.
Item 1 under Street on Page 5 stays the same, but with the addition of the following: “To the greatest extent reasonable, applicant shall coordinate these improvements with adjacent
development to ensure simultaneous improvement of US 20/26 frontage and to maximize efficiency.
New Business:
Case Number SUB/PUD-198P-08 & ZON-64-08 a request by Landmark Engineering and Planning, Projects West Inc., and L209-1 ID Houston LLC for preliminary plat/planned unit development approval
of Golden View Subdivision consisting of 377 residential lots, 80 commercial lots and 25 common lots; a rezone of 37.65 acres from R-1 Low Density Residential to C-2 Community Commercial;
a comprehensive plan map amendment from Low Density Residential to Commercial; and, a development agreement. The site is located at the southwest corner of Marble Front Road and KCID
Road.
Testimony:
Brian Billingsley, Planning Director, presented the staff report and submitted an aerial photo labeled as PZ-1000 and requested that condition number 12.32 be deleted from the staff
report.
Mr. Mapp expressed his concern for the request for part of the streets to be gated.
Clint Boyle, applicant’s representative, signed in favor of the application and provided supporting testimony explaining that this would be a great place for this development with the
prospect of the hospital being next to the subject property. Mr. Boyle also explained that the Vision Charter School is looking to develop the northern existing parcel of 9 acres. Mr.
Boyle emphasized on the possibility of having the gated portion of the project be senior living. Mr. Boyle also stated that there is an existing building permit allowed on the site
that the Vision Charter School would like to use prior to final plat approval of the remainder of the development.
Mr. Mapp asked Mr. Boyle where the access to the property would be.
Mr. Boyle stated that the access to the school would be off of Marble Front Rd.
Mr. Mapp asked whether the green area on the plan is going to be a park or a golf course.
Mr. Boyle stated that the applicant’s envision a golf course but if they are not financially able to do that it would then be a park.
Mr. Mapp stated that he would like to see a park by phase 12.
Kirby Clendenon signed in neutral to the application and stated his concerns for his irrigation water rights being preserved.
Laura Knothe signed in favor of the application and provided supporting testimony stating that Vision Charter School is very excited about the prospect of having this site for their
school.
Jed Wyatt signed in favor of the application stated that he agreed with everything Mr. Boyle had stated.
John Carpenter signed in favor of the application, provided supporting testimony and answered Mr. Clendenon’s concerns regarding his water rights being preserved. Mr. Carpenter stated
that the applicant’s intent is to pipe the existing cement ditch that supplies Mr. Clendenon’s water.
Paul Edminster signed in favor of the application and provided supporting testimony.
Dennis Pray signed in opposition to the application and provided testimony regarding his concerns about the development of new residential properties, when there are many vacant homes
and lots in Caldwell and the commercial portion of the subject property and how it’s going to be developed.
Clint Boyle, applicant’s representative, rebutted explaining that the phasing of the development is very well thought out and conservative because of the condition of the market.
MR. MAPP CLOSED THE PUBLIC TESTIMONY.
Comprehensive Plan Analysis: Mr. Mapp accepted the comprehensive plan analysis as listed.
Findings of Fact for ZON-64-08: The Hearing Examiner accepted the general facts as outlined in the staff report, public testimony, and the evidence list as presented.
Conclusions of Law for ZON-64-08: The Hearing Examiner accepted the Conclusions of Law as outlined in the staff report.
Recommendation: The Hearing Examiner recommended that Case Number ZON-64-08 be approved with conditions as outlined in the staff report.
Findings of Fact for SUBPUD-198P-08: The Hearing Examiner accepted the general facts as outlined in the staff report, public testimony, and the evidence list as presented.
Conclusions of Law for SUBPUD-198P-08: The Hearing Examiner accepted the Conclusions of Law as outlined in the staff report.
Recommendation: The Hearing Examiner recommended that Case Number SUBPUD-198P-08 be approved with the following conditions:
12.1 through 12.32 as written
12.22- add that the gated community be allowed only on the one street, unless a life safety issue is revealed, as recommended by the Fire Department.
12.32- grass shall be in the main park by phase 12.
12.33- cross access agreements shall be prepared as needed for the commercial portion of the development.
Planning Issues –
Brian Billingsley stated that the 2009 hearing schedule has been amended and the Hearing Examiner will only have meetings every other month. The next hearing will be March 10, 2009.
Adjournment
The Hearing Examiner adjourned the meeting at approximately 10:15 p.m.
MINUTES APPROVED AND SIGNED BY THE HEARING EXAMINER, M. JEROME MAPP, ON THE DATE NOTED BELOW:
ATTEST:
M. Jerome Mapp Date
_____________
Brian Billingsley, Planning Director Date