HomeMy WebLinkAbout2021-06-22 Hearing Examiner Minutes APPROVED v
Special Caldwell Hearing Examiner Min tes
Tuesday,June 22, 2021,7:00 p.m.
Community Room,Caldwell Police Depart v.,.. .(‘Q(oQ:7-
110 South 5th Avenue,Caldwell,Idah s
Call to Order-Hearing Examiner, Mr.Bruce Eggleston opened the meeting for the public
hearing at 7:00 p.m.
II. Review of Proceedings- Mr.Bruce Eggleston outlined the procedures for the public
hearing.
Members Present:Jerome Mapp (Director P&Z); Deb Root(Senior Planner); Katie Phillips
(Associate Planner); Lori Colligan (Associate Planner); Cynthia Brogdon (Administrative
Assistant);T.J. Frans (City Engineering)
Members Absent: Robb MacDonald (City Engineer)
III. Consent Calendar:
1) Mr. Eggleston approved the Minutes of the May 11,2021 meeting.
2) Mr.Eggleston approved the Minutes of the May 25,2021 meeting.
IV Old Business:
1) Case Number ANN21-000001/PUD-000001 (Continued from 5/25/2021 Hearing
Examiner Meeting): A request by T-0 Engineering,on behalf of Brady Lasher,for an
Annexation, Planned Unit Development and a preliminary plat for Enclave Subdivision,a
mixed use (single-family,multi-family and commercial) development with a zoning
designation of H-C (Highway Corridor) zone on parcel's R32795 and R32795010 containing
46.76 acres. The proposed subdivision consists of 88 single-family lots, 204 multi-family
units, 2 commercial lots and 13 common lots. The 2040 Comprehensive Plan designation is
H-C (Highway Corridor). The subject properties are located 1,500 feet west of the
intersection of HWY 55 and Midway Road,Caldwell,ID.
Testimony: Mr. Eggleston continued this case to 7/13/2021 Hearing Examiner Meeting.
2) Case Number SUP21-000006 (Continued from 5/25/2021 Hearing Examiner Meeting):
A request by Hannah Mitchell for a Special Use Permit for Timbergrass Apartments,a 274
unit multi-family residential complex on 16.57 acres in a C-2 (Community Commercial)
zone. The property is located approximately 350 feet southwest from the intersection of
10th Avenue and Ustick Road.
Testimony: Mr.Eggleston continued this case to 7/13/2021 Hearing Examiner Meeting.
IV New Business:
1) Case Number SUP-20-02: Jeff Hatch, Hatch Design Architecture,on behalf of Venus
Development is requesting a special use permit for traditional ministorage consisting of six
storage structures,landscaping and an office on approximately 5.4 acres of a 16.5 acre
parcel, R30881011,located on the west side of Middleton Road approximately 460 feet
south of the intersection of Ustick and Middleton Roads,Caldwell,Idaho. The subject
property is zone C3 (Service Commercial).
1
Hearing Examiner Minutes 06/22/2021
•
Testimony:
Deb Root,Senior Planner,621 Cleveland Blvd,Caldwell, ID,stated that Jeff Hatch, Hatch
Design Architecture,on behalf of Venus Development is requesting a special use permit for
traditional ministorage consisting of seven storage structures,landscaping,an office on
approximately 5.4 acres of a 16.5 acre parcel, R30881011,located on the west side of
Middleton Road approximately 460 feet south of the intersection of Ustick and Middleton
Roads,Caldwell,Idaho.
Mr.Eggleston read the letter from another storage business in the area into the record: Too
many storage units in one location. He stated that there is similar letter from another
storage owner within the staff report.
He stated concern about cross-access to the west. Cross-access is not shown on the site plan.
It is essential to this application to acquire that cross-access now.
Ms. Root referred to Exhibit PA-2 the engineering memo. Cross-access agreements are
needed. Ustick and Middleton roads have restrictive access points. Need to ensure that all
of the properties have cross-access for emergency needs.
Mr.Frans,City Engineering,621 Cleveland Blvd,Caldwell, ID.Stated that with restrictive
access,it is going to make it difficult for traffic to get in and out of the site. City Council has
already adopted a Middleton road policy as well as a policy for Ustick road. The applicant
needs to obtain cross-access to those roads. Staff has worked with Mr. Hatch for the North
side of the property. Primary access point(common access driveway).That would work
well. If they proceed with those plans and do not make changes.Cross-access easement is
still needed.
On the circular driveway,the width of the access is split.A portion on this project.The other
portion of the width of the circular driveway is for a future project.Common access is
currently split between two parcels.
Mr.Eggleston asked if this fulfills this condition.
Mr.Frans stated that the applicant's site plan does not show the access. It does not meet the
condition as it is currently drawn.
Mr.Eggleston stated that he is worried about approving for something that is in the future.
Ms. Root stated that engineering identified that the entire project would require a TIS.
Applicant did not want to wait for the TIS for the storage portion,so the applicant separated
the storage portion and are going forward with only the storage portion.When the
applicant comes back with the other portion of the plan,they would be required to apply for
a new Special Use Permit and would include a Traffic Impact Study.
Mr.Eggleston stated that the ingress/egress,are not demarcated on this site plan.Zero-
scape is not an acceptable landscape. Landscape to obscure the outdoor vehicle storage is
essential. He asked if Planning&Zoning staff considered the landscape plan complete.
Ms. Root stated that the landscae plan is incomplete.
Jeff Hatch,Applicant, (Applicant) 5119 Briarcrest Dr, Nampa, Id 84686 stated that the
proposed project today is mostly recreational storage,which is lacking in this area. There
are four Canopy's for recreational vehicles and boats.There are many residential
developments in the area,which are driving this recreational storage need.The common
2
Hearing Examiner Minutes 06/22/2021
•
access point on the east is directly across from Key Lock Storage's access. The northern
access on Middleton road aligns with access points to the east.Access to the west as a
condition of approval is agreeable,but consideration right now is on the common access on
the east. He agreed with staff's comments and consideration for the landscaping plan.They
will work with staff on frontage,including putting in a public art piece,an old tractor with
historic content. He said that they have worked diligently to make something that would
not compete with other storage businesses in the area.The access concerns the applicant
found agreeable with staff with the exception to the west,for now.They want to stub the
location to the west in order to optimize flexibility.
Mr.Eggleston stated the following concerns: Future projects are playing a prominent part in
this application;the internal circulation has not been nailed down; cross-access agreement
is part of a future proposal; lot split is not a part of this application.The staff needs a clearly
defined plan.Staff says that building on the south needs to move north for landscape buffer.
The landscape in general does not show that it is meeting the City's requirements.Hours of
business operation are not noted anywhere.There is no outside lighting plan. Lighting is
crucial to 24/7 access.Possible lighting issue with the airport.Concern about the issues
from neighboring businesses.The applicants need to clarify the issues with the other
storage businesses in the area.There needs to be a plan to address non-allowed uses on site.
This project is being mixed with future proposals.The lack of clarity makes it difficult to
make a decision.Site plan is being modified during this meeting.There is a lack of
landscaping and set-back information on the plan. Plans would need to be re-drawn to meet
the conditions.This is not a complete application.
Ms.Root stated that the applicants are now putting in more canopys that are not shown on
the plans that staff has received.The City's fencing ordinance for this type of open storage
would require a site-obscuring fence at a minimum to hide the open storage. Potentially,
enhanced landscape would mask that.
Mr. Hatch stated that in order to add clarity on elevation that the canopy's are 3-sided and
would not need fencing. No open storage would be visible to the street.The applicants
agree on the landscaping requirements,but believe there is no need of fencing.
Ms. Root stated that she is unclear on if Mr. Hatch provided new drawings showing the
canopy.Nowhere in the plans that staff has received does it say they are 3 sided and
shielded from the public.The drawings that they showed tonight are not the drawings that
staff has on file.
Mr.Hatch stated that they are agreement with staff's recommendations and that they will
adjust the plans accordingly.
Jerry Dickerson at 36155 Raintree,Nampa,ID,signed in favor but has chosen not to speak.
Greg Ferney, (Applicant),4549 N.Mackenzie Lane,Boise,Id 836703 stated that most HOA's
do not permit RV parking.This is an ideal location.They stated that they would have
dimmed lighting every other row.There would be no light pollution.They would adapt to
whatever the airport would require. Landscaping issues would be addressed. They have
been in contact with the property owner to the west. They will work to get the best cross-
access for both property owners.
Ms.Root stated that there are missing pieces to this application. Conditions of approval
would have to be met for the landscape design.The applicants would have to have an
acceptable cross-access plan. Corridor plan would have to be placed over their plan.
Landscape buffers need to be shown on the plan. Dimensions would need to be shown on
3
Hearing Examiner Minutes 06/22/2021
•
the plans.Buffers need to show the appropriate widths. The ROW for the Middleton
corridor needs to be shown on the plans. It must clearly show that the canopy structures
will be 3-sided.The plan needs to be based on Mr.Hatch's verbal explanation. Neither the
proposal letter nor the drawings that staff have match the applicant's verbal explanation.
The plans are not complete.There needs to be more clarity.She believes that it could be
approved based on conditions.
Mr.Frans stated that the ROW for the U-turn opportunity on the southern property line is
not depicted on the plat.Staff has not seen the ROW for that yet. It could impact the lay out
and changes could occur.He would like to see that information on the plat now.
Mr.Hatch stated that they would respond more appropriately. He would like to propose a
draft of the access agreement; updated landscape plan with the city's expectation being met;
3-sided canopys shown on the plan. He would like to remove the future warehouse from the
current plan. He will work with the Engineering staff. He will work with staff on northern
landscape buffer.
Mr.Eggleston closed the public testimony.
Mr.Eggleston stated that there are number of items still outstanding. If this were on a
discrete property location,we could move forward with conditions. But this is a large
chunk of land at this location.Access has to be clearly defined as part of the current
application.Landscaping is incomplete.Not proposed to meet city code. Redefinition of the
type of storage. Move building 5'to the north.The whole thing is in flux.Lighting is
paramount to this type of use for this area. He would like to continue this application and
get it completed.That will entail a clear proposal and definition; cross-access agreement for
the entire parcel of 16 acres;where the cross-access will be located with that agreement.
Landscape plan must meet city code.They need to go the extra mile on the landscaping
details.Description of security and lighting plan. Ensure lighting does not project on
surrounding properties. Either totally exclude future use from this plan or bring all of it
back in. Make a coherent application with a TIS. Show how they are going to come together
with the ultimate build out.A decision for what is to be done with the Ustick Road and
Middleton Road corridors need to be made.The corridor plans will need to be nailed down.
Ms. Root stated that they will need to submit for just the storage portion or hold off and do a
TIS and site plan for the entire 16 acres. TIS would need to be completed and reviewed by
engineering prior to submitting the application.
Mr.Eggleston open the hearing for further testimony from Mr.Ferney.
Mr. Ferney stated that they would like to bring back just the storage unit.That is their
preference.
Mr. Eggleston asked if they could complete modifications in 30 days.
Ms.Root stated that they would continue this at least 30 days.
Mr.Eggleston asked Mr. Ferney if they wanted continue this case to the 7/27/21 Hearing
Examiner meeting.
Mr.Ferney stated that they would like to continue to that date.
Mr.Eggleston closed the public testimony.
Mr.Eggleston has continued this case to the July 27, 2021 Hearing Examiner meeting.
4
Hearing Examiner Minutes 06/22/2021
2) Case Number SUP-21-02: A request by Rojelio and Tonya Rojas for a Special Use Permit to
construct a triplex on.25 acres in an R-2 (Medium Density)zone. The property is located
on the northeast corner of S.Montana Avenue and E.Oak Street.
Testimony:
Kate Phillips,Associate Planner at 621 Cleveland Blvd,Caldwell,ID,stated that this is a
request by Rojelio and Tonya Rojas for a Special Use Permit to construct a triplex on .25 acres in
an R-2 (Medium Density)zone. The property is located on the northeast corner of S. Montana
Avenue and E. Oak Street.
Mr.Eggleston asked if the property was to be fenced.
Ms.Phillips stated that there is no requirement for fencing.
Mr. Eggleston asked if there consideration for parking in the rear.
Ms.Phillips stated that parking is allowed anywhere on the property if paved. They can
pave in the rear.
Adam Garcia, (Applicant) 39th St.,Nampa,Idaho,stated that this is a triplex single story
designed for a cohesive fit in this neighborhood. The triplex is intended for student housing
for college of Idaho.
Mr.Eggleston asked if there is fencing.
Mr.Garcia stated that there is a fence is in place that divides the two properties.
Mr.Eggleston stated that the site plan was well done.
Roy Rojas, 1215 Stahlridge St.,Caldwell,Idaho 83608 signed in favor but has chosen not to
speak.
Mr.Eggleston closed the public testimony.
Comprehensive Plan Analysis for SUP-21-02 (Special Use Permit):The Hearing Examiner
accepted the comprehensive plan analysis as listed in the staff report.
Findings of Fact for SUP-21-02 (Special Use Permit): The Hearing Examiner accepted the
general facts as outlined in the staff report,public testimony,and the evidence list.
Conclusions of Law for SUP-21-02 (Special Use Permit):The Hearing Examiner accepted
the Conclusions of Law as outlined in the staff report.
ORDER FOR SUP-21-02:The Hearing Examiner RECOMMENDED that Case Number SUP-
21-02 (Special Use Permit): BE APPROVED with the following conditions: 8.2-8.8 with
the addition of 8.9:That there be a fence on the adjoining property line.
Planning Issues-None
The next regularly scheduled Hearing Examiner meeting is scheduled for July 13, 2021.
The Hearing Examiner adjourned the meeting at approximately 8:58 p.m.
Respectfully submitted by Cynthia Brogdon,
5
Hearing Examiner Minutes 06/22/2021
MINUTES APPROVED AND SIGNED BY THE HEARING EXAMINER, BRUCE EGGLESTON, ON THE
DATE NOTED BELOW:
k/24,ze- - 2a( 2c Z t
Mr. Bruce Egglesto e
•
Deb.'- Root,Se '.r 'ann: /►"te I
For detailed Minutes,please request a copy of the digital recording.
6
Hearing Examiner Minutes 06/22/2021