HomeMy Public PortalAboutAB 06-068 AttachmentMCCALL CITY COUNCIL
FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS REGARDING AN
APPLICATION FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT
CUP-06-1
Lick Creek Meadows Duplex, Lot 5
The Council finds that:
1. An application for approval of a conditional use permit in the A -Low Density
Residential zone per MCC 3-8-030 was submitted on February 8, 2006 by Scott
Findlay for Lick Creek Meadows, LLC.
2. The application for a conditional use permit would allow a duplex on Lot 5, Block 1,
of Lick Creek Meadows Phase I.
3. Lots 5, 6, 8-14 and 17 were proposed to be duplex lots within Lick Creek Subdivision
at preliminary plat. The proposed duplex lots are approximately one-half acre in area
to maintain the same density throughout the subdivision.
4. Companion applications (CUP-06-2 through CUP-06-9) request conditional use
permits for other duplexes in Lick Creek Meadows, Phase I.
5. Lot 5 and Lot 6 have a shared driveway easement recorded on the final plat of Lick
Creek Meadows, Phase I.
6. The McCall Planning & Zoning Commission held a properly posted and noticed
public hearing on March 7, 2006. A transcribable record was made of the public
hearing.
7. The Commission reviewed a staff report dated February 28, 2006.
8. The applicant did not make a presentation to the Commission.
9. The commission took public testimony both for and against the application. The
testimony was made part of the record.
10. A petition with 30 signatures opposing the conditional use permit applications was
submitted during the public hearing.
11. Images of the proposed duplex designs and floor plans were submitted during the
public hearing by a real estate agent working for a potential buyer of one or more of
the duplex lots.
12. MCC 3-31-030 states that a conditional use permit shall be granted only if the
Planning Commission finds that the use, as applied for, in fact will:
1. Constitute a conditional use authorized in the zoning district involved.
2. Be harmonious with and in accord with the general objectives, and with
any specific objectives of the Comprehensive Plan and/or Title 3. Per 3-
27-020, the applicant shall provide natural trees, shrubs, and grasses, or
provide and maintain landscaping on all areas not actually utilized for
required off-street parking, minimal roads, and buildings.
McCall City Council
Findings and Conclusions
CUP-06-1
April 13, 2006
Page 1
3. Be designed, constructed, operated and maintained to be harmonious
and appropriate in appearance with the existing or likely character of the
neighborhood, and that such use will not change the essential character
of the surrounding area.
4. Not be detrimental to the health, safety and general welfare of persons
residing or working in the neighborhood of such proposed use.
5. Not cause any substantially harmful environmental consequences to any
land or waters within the planning jurisdiction.
6. Not create excessive additional public cost for public facilities and
services, and will not be detrimental to the economic welfare of the
community.
7. Be served adequately by essential public facilities and services including
highways, streets, police and fire protection, drainage structures, refuse
disposal, water and sewer, and schools. The applicant may be required,
as a condition of approval, to mitigate any deficient public service.
8. Not involve uses, activities, processes, materials, equipment or conditions
of operation that will cause unreasonable production of traffic, noise,
smoke, fumes, glare, odors or other forms of pollution.
9. Have vehicular approaches to the property so designed as not to create a
detrimental interference with traffic on surrounding public thoroughfares.
10. Not result in the destruction, loss or damage of an important natural,
scenic or historic feature.
11. Be on a site of sufficient size to accommodate the proposed use,
including the yards, open spaces, snow storage, walls, fences, parking
areas, loading zones and design standards applicable.
13. Staff recommended approval of CUP-06-1 to the Planning and Zoning Commission
with the following conditions: a.)The duplex shall provide either an oversized garage
or attached storage shed for each unit for the storage of household goods, personal
items and other items such as but not limited to bicycles, shovels, garbage cans, etc.
b.)The duplex shall be subject to design review. c.) The maximum dwelling unit
occupancy shall be a family plus two persons unrelated to the family; or no more
than three unrelated persons.
14. The Commission concluded that the proposed conditional use complies with MCC 3-
31-030 in that:
1. The proposed use is authorized in the zoning district involved.
2. The proposed use is harmonious with and in accord with the general
objectives of the Comprehensive Plan and Title 3. The CCRs require
approved landscaping with native plants or compatible vegetation by the
Architectural Control Committee.
3. The proposed use is not detrimental to the health, safety and general welfare
of persons residing or working in the neighborhood of such proposed use.
4. The proposed use will not cause any substantially harmful environmental
consequences to any land or waters within the planning jurisdiction.
McCall City Council April 13, 2006
Findings and Conclusions
CUP-06-1 Page 2
5. The proposed use will not create excessive additional public cost for public
facilities and services, and will not be detrimental to the economic welfare of
the community.
6. The proposed use with conditions will be served adequately by essential
public facilities and services including highways, streets, police and fire
protection, drainage structures, refuse disposal, water and sewer, and
schools.
7. The proposed use does not involve uses, activities, processes, materials,
equipment or conditions of operation that will cause unreasonable production
of traffic, noise, smoke, fumes, glare, odors or other forms of pollution.
8. The proposed use will have vehicular approaches to the property so designed
as not to create a detrimental interference with traffic on surrounding public
thoroughfares.
9. The proposed use will not result in the destruction, loss or damage of an
important natural, scenic or historic feature.
10. The proposed use will be on a site of sufficient size to accommodate the
proposed use, including the yards, open spaces, snow storage, walls, fences,
parking areas, loading zones and design standards applicable.
15. The Commission concluded the proposed conditional use does not comply with
MCC 3-31-030 in that:
1. The duplex has not or will not be designed, constructed, operated and
maintained to be harmonious and appropriate in appearance with the
existing or likely character of the neighborhood, and that the proposed use
would change the essential character of the surrounding area.
16. The Commission recommended that a second hearing was unnecessary.
17. The applicant appealed the Commission recommendation in a letter dated March 10,
2006.
19. Three letters of support for the conditional use permit, dated March 10, March 30,
and April 3, 2006, were received by the Community Development Department.
20. The Lick Creek Meadows subdivision has been approved by the City and any
consideration of a conditional use should be in the context of the approved
subdivision, not the preexisting condition of the land area occupied by the
subdivision.
21. Approval of the subdivision did not presume future approval of duplexes on the lots
in question.
22. The applicant submitted new evidence to the Council that the duplex would be
designed, operated and maintained to be harmonious and appropriate in
appearance with the likely character of the approved subdivision, and that the
proposed use would not change the essential character of the surrounding area.
23. The City of McCall Wastewater Policy (Resolution 06-08) provides a mechanism
whereby adequate wastewater capacity can be provided to support the duplex units
McCall City Council
Findings and Conclusions
CUP-06-1
April 13, 2006
Page 3
while protecting the public health, safety and welfare. Building permits for the
duplexes will be issued in conformance with the Wastewater Policy.
The Council concludes that:
1. The proposed conditional use meets the requirements of MCC 3-31-030(A).
2. The application for CUP-06-1, Lick Creek Meadows Duplex, is hereby approved
with the following conditions:
1. The duplex shall provide either an oversized garage or attached storage shed for
each unit for the storage of household goods, personal items and other items
such as but not limited to bicycles, shovels, garbage cans, etc.
2. The duplex shall be subject to design review prior to application for a building
permit.
3. The maximum dwelling unit occupancy shall be a family plus two persons
unrelated to the family; or no more than three unrelated persons.
Dated: April 13, 2006
Attest:
William A. Robertson Joanne York
Mayor City Clerk
McCall City Council
Findings and Conclusions
CUP-06-1
April 13, 2006
Page 4
CITY OF MCCALL PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS REGARDING AN
APPLICATION FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT
CUP-06-1
Lick Creek Meadows Duplex, Lot 5
The Commission finds that:
1. An application for approval of a conditional use permit in the A -Low Density
Residential zone per MCC 3-8-030 was submitted on February 8, 2006 by Scott
Findlay for Lick Creek Meadows, LLC.
2. The application for a conditional use permit would allow a duplex on Lot 5, Block 1,
of Lick Creek Meadows of Phase I.
3. Lots 5, 6, 8-14 and 17 were proposed to be duplex lots within Lick Creek Subdivision
at preliminary plat. The proposed duplex lots are approximately one-half acre in area
to maintain the same density throughout the subdivision.
4. Companion applications (CUP-06-2 through CUP-06-9) request conditional use
permits for other duplexes in Lick Creek Meadows, Phase I.
5. Lot 5 and Lot 6 have a shared driveway easement recorded on the final plat of Lick
Creek Meadows, Phase I.
6. The McCall Planning & Zoning Commission held a properly posted and noticed
public hearing on March 7, 2006. A transcribable record was made of the public
hearing.
7. The Commission heard public testimony and reviewed a staff report dated February
28, 2006.
8. MCC 3-31-030 states that a conditional use permit shall be granted only if the
Planning Commission finds that the use, as applied for, in fact will:
1. Constitute a conditional use authorized in the zoning district involved.
2. Be harmonious with and in accord with the general objectives, and with
any specific objectives of the Comprehensive Plan and/or Title 3. Per 3-
27-020, the applicant shall provide natural trees, shrubs, and grasses, or
provide and maintain landscaping on all areas not actually utilized for
required off-street parking, minimal roads, and buildings.
3. Be designed, constructed, operated and maintained to be harmonious
and appropriate in appearance with the existing or likely character of the
neighborhood, and that such use will not change the essential character
of the surrounding area.
4. Not be detrimental to the health, safety and general welfare of persons
residing or working in the neighborhood of such proposed use.
5. Not cause any substantially harmful environmental consequences to any
land or waters within the planning jurisdiction.
City of McCall Planning & Zoning Commission
Findings and Conclusions
CUP-06-1
March 7, 2006
Page 1
6. Not create excessive additional public cost for public facilities and
services, and will not be detrimental to the economic welfare of the
community.
7. Be served adequately by essential public facilities and services including
highways, streets, police and fire protection, drainage structures, refuse
disposal, water and sewer, and schools. The applicant may be required,
as a condition of approval, to mitigate any deficient public service.
8. Not involve uses, activities, processes, materials, equipment or conditions
of operation that will cause unreasonable production of traffic, noise,
smoke, fumes, glare, odors or other forms of pollution.
9. Have vehicular approaches to the property so designed as not to create a
detrimental interference with traffic on surrounding public thoroughfares.
10. Not result in the destruction, loss or damage of an important natural,
scenic or historic feature.
11. Be on a site of sufficient size to accommodate the proposed use,
including the yards, open spaces, snow storage, walls, fences, parking
areas, loading zones and design standards applicable.
9. The City of McCall Wastewater Policy (Resolution 06-08) provides a mechanism
whereby adequate wastewater capacity can be provided to support the duplex units
while protecting the public health, safety and welfare. Building permits for the
duplexes will be issued in conformance with the Wastewater Policy.
10. Staff recommended approval of CUP-06-1 with the following conditions: a.)The
duplex shall provide either an oversized garage or attached storage shed for each
unit for the storage of household goods, personal items and other items such as but
not limited to bicycles, shovels, garbage cans, etc. b.)The duplex shall be subjected
to design review. c.) The maximum dwelling unit occupancy shall be a family plus
two persons unrelated to the family; or no more than three unrelated persons.
The Commission concludes that:
1. The proposed conditional use complies with MCC 3-31-030 in that:
1. The proposed use is authorized in the zoning district involved.
2. The proposed use is harmonious with and in accord with the general
objectives of the Comprehensive Plan and Title 3. The CCRs require
approved landscaping with native plants or compatible vegetation by the
Architectural Control Committee.
3. The proposed use is not detrimental to the health, safety and general
welfare of persons residing or working in the neighborhood of such
proposed use.
4. The proposed use will not cause any substantially harmful environmental
consequences to any land or waters within the planning jurisdiction.
City of McCall Planning & Zoning Commission March 7, 2006
Findings and Conclusions
CUP-06-1 Page 2
5. The proposed use will not create excessive additional public cost for
public facilities and services, and will not be detrimental to the economic
welfare of the community.
6. The proposed use with conditions will be served adequately by essential
public facilities and services including highways, streets, police and fire
protection, drainage structures, refuse disposal, water and sewer, and
schools.
7. The proposed use does not involve uses, activities, processes, materials,
equipment or conditions of operation that will cause unreasonable
production of traffic, noise, smoke, fumes, glare, odors or other forms of
pollution.
8. The proposed use will have vehicular approaches to the property so
designed as not to create a detrimental interference with traffic on
surrounding public thoroughfares.
9. The proposed use will not result in the destruction, loss or damage of an
important natural, scenic or historic feature.
10. The proposed use will be on a site of sufficient size to accommodate the
proposed use, including the yards, open spaces, snow storage, walls,
fences, parking areas, loading zones and design standards applicable.
2. The proposed conditional use does not comply with MCC 3-31-030 in that:
1. Be designed, constructed, operated and maintained to be harmonious
and appropriate in appearance with the existing or likely character of the
neighborhood, and that such use will not change the essential character
of the surrounding area.
The Commission Recommends That:
1. The proposed conditional use does not meet the all the requirements of MCC 3-31-
030(A).
2. The application for CUP-06-1, Lick Creek Meadows Duplex, is hereby
recommended for denial by the McCall City Council.
3. The Commission recommends that a second hearing is unnecessary.
Dated: March 7, 2006
Bob Youde
Planning and Zoning Commission
Chairperson
City of McCall Planning & Zoning Commission
Findings and Conclusions
CUP-06-1
Attest:
Roger Millar, PE, AICP
Community Development Director
March 7, 2006
Page 3
MCCALL CITY COUNCIL
FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS REGARDING AN
APPLICATION FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT
CUP-06-2
Lick Creek Meadows Duplex, Lot 6
The Council finds that:
1. An application for approval of a conditional use permit in the A -Low Density
Residential zone per MCC 3-8-030 was submitted on February 8, 2006 by Scott
Findlay for Lick Creek Meadows, LLC.
2. The application for a conditional use permit would allow a duplex on Lot 6, Block 1,
of Lick Creek Meadows Phase I.
3. Lots 5, 6, 8-14 and 17 were proposed to be duplex lots within Lick Creek Subdivision
at preliminary plat. The proposed duplex lots are approximately one-half acre in area
to maintain the same density throughout the subdivision.
4. Companion applications (CUP-06-1through CUP-06-9) request conditional use
permits for other duplexes in Lick Creek Meadows, Phase I.
5. Lot 5 and Lot 6 have a shared driveway easement recorded on the final plat of Lick
Creek Meadows, Phase I.
6. The McCall Planning & Zoning Commission held a properly posted and noticed
public hearing on March 7, 2006. A transcribable record was made of the public
hearing.
7. The Commission reviewed a staff report dated February 28, 2006.
8. The applicant did not make a presentation to the Commission.
9. The commission took public testimony both for and against the application. The
testimony was made part of the record.
10. A petition with 30 signatures opposing the conditional use permit applications was
submitted during the public hearing.
11. Images of the proposed duplex designs and floor plans were submitted during the
public hearing by a real estate agent working for a potential buyer of one or more of
the duplex lots.
12. MCC 3-31-030 states that a conditional use permit shall be granted only if the
Planning Commission finds that the use, as applied for, in fact will:
1. Constitute a conditional use authorized in the zoning district involved.
2. Be harmonious with and in accord with the general objectives, and with
any specific objectives of the Comprehensive Plan and/or Title 3. Per 3-
27-020, the applicant shall provide natural trees, shrubs, and grasses, or
provide and maintain landscaping on all areas not actually utilized for
required off-street parking, minimal roads, and buildings.
McCall City Council
Findings and Conclusions
CUP-06-2
April 13, 2006
Page 1
3. Be designed, constructed, operated and maintained to be harmonious
and appropriate in appearance with the existing or likely character of the
neighborhood, and that such use will not change the essential character
of the surrounding area.
4. Not be detrimental to the health, safety and general welfare of persons
residing or working in the neighborhood of such proposed use.
5. Not cause any substantially harmful environmental consequences to any
land or waters within the planning jurisdiction.
6. Not create excessive additional public cost for public facilities and
services, and will not be detrimental to the economic welfare of the
community.
7. Be served adequately by essential public facilities and services including
highways, streets, police and fire protection, drainage structures, refuse
disposal, water and sewer, and schools. The applicant may be required,
as a condition of approval, to mitigate any deficient public service.
8. Not involve uses, activities, processes, materials, equipment or conditions
of operation that will cause unreasonable production of traffic, noise,
smoke, fumes, glare, odors or other forms of pollution.
9. Have vehicular approaches to the property so designed as not to create a
detrimental interference with traffic on surrounding public thoroughfares.
10. Not result in the destruction, loss or damage of an important natural,
scenic or historic feature.
11. Be on a site of sufficient size to accommodate the proposed use,
including the yards, open spaces, snow storage, walls, fences, parking
areas, loading zones and design standards applicable.
13. Staff recommended approval of CUP-06-2 to the Planning and Zoning Commission
with the following conditions: a.)The duplex shall provide either an oversized garage
or attached storage shed for each unit for the storage of household goods, personal
items and other items such as but not limited to bicycles, shovels, garbage cans, etc.
b.)The duplex shall be subject to design review. c.) The maximum dwelling unit
occupancy shall be a family plus two persons unrelated to the family; or no more
than three unrelated persons.
14. The Commission concluded that the proposed conditional use complies with MCC 3-
31-030 in that:
1. The proposed use is authorized in the zoning district involved.
2. The proposed use is harmonious with and in accord with the general
objectives of the Comprehensive Plan and Title 3. The CCRs require
approved landscaping with native plants or compatible vegetation by the
Architectural Control Committee.
3. The proposed use is not detrimental to the health, safety and general welfare
of persons residing or working in the neighborhood of such proposed use.
4. The proposed use will not cause any substantially harmful environmental
consequences to any land or waters within the planning jurisdiction.
McCall City Council
Findings and Conclusions
CUP-06-2
April 13, 2006
Page 2
5. The proposed use will not create excessive additional public cost for public
facilities and services, and will not be detrimental to the economic welfare of
the community.
6. The proposed use with conditions will be served adequately by essential
public facilities and services including highways, streets, police and fire
protection, drainage structures, refuse disposal, water and sewer, and
schools.
7. The proposed use does not involve uses, activities, processes, materials,
equipment or conditions of operation that will cause unreasonable production
of traffic, noise, smoke, fumes, glare, odors or other forms of pollution.
8. The proposed use will have vehicular approaches to the property so designed
as not to create a detrimental interference with traffic on surrounding public
thoroughfares.
9. The proposed use will not result in the destruction, loss or damage of an
important natural, scenic or historic feature.
10. The proposed use will be on a site of sufficient size to accommodate the
proposed use, including the yards, open spaces, snow storage, walls, fences,
parking areas, loading zones and design standards applicable.
15. The Commission concluded the proposed conditional use does not comply with
MCC 3-31-030 in that:
1. The duplex has not or will not be designed, constructed, operated and
maintained to be harmonious and appropriate in appearance with the
existing or likely character of the neighborhood, and that the proposed use
would change the essential character of the surrounding area.
16. The Commission recommended that a second hearing was unnecessary.
17. The applicant appealed the Commission recommendation in a letter dated March 10,
2006.
19. Three letters of support for the conditional use permit, dated March 10, March 30,
and April 3, 2006, were received by the Community Development Department.
20. The Lick Creek Meadows subdivision has been approved by the City and any
consideration of a conditional use should be in the context of the approved
subdivision, not the preexisting condition of the land area occupied by the
subdivision.
21. Approval of the subdivision did not presume future approval of duplexes on the lots
in question.
22. The applicant submitted new evidence to the Council that the duplex would be
designed, operated and maintained to be harmonious and appropriate in
appearance with the likely character of the approved subdivision, and that the
proposed use would not change the essential character of the surrounding area.
23. The City of McCall Wastewater Policy (Resolution 06-08) provides a mechanism
whereby adequate wastewater capacity can be provided to support the duplex units
McCall City Council April 13, 2006
Findings and Conclusions
CUP-06-2 Page 3
while protecting the public health, safety and welfare. Building permits for the
duplexes will be issued in conformance with the Wastewater Policy.
The Council concludes that:
1. The proposed conditional use meets the requirements of MCC 3-31-030(A).
2. The application for CUP-06-2, Lick Creek Meadows Duplex, is hereby approved
with the following conditions:
1. The duplex shall provide either an oversized garage or attached storage shed for
each unit for the storage of household goods, personal items and other items
such as but not limited to bicycles, shovels, garbage cans, etc.
2. The duplex shall be subject to design review prior to application for a building
permit.
3. The maximum dwelling unit occupancy shall be a family plus two persons
unrelated to the family; or no more than three unrelated persons.
Dated: April 13, 2006
William A. Robertson
Mayor
McCall City Council
Findings and Conclusions
CUP-06-2
Attest:
Joanne York
City Clerk
April 13, 2006
Page 4
MCCALL CITY COUNCIL
FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS REGARDING AN
APPLICATION FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT
CUP-06-3
Lick Creek Meadows Duplex, Lot 8
The Council finds that:
1. An application for approval of a conditional use permit in the A -Low Density
Residential zone per MCC 3-8-030 was submitted on February 8, 2006 by Scott
Findlay for Lick Creek Meadows, LLC.
2. The application for a conditional use permit would allow a duplex on Lot 8, Block 1,
of Lick Creek Meadows Phase I.
3. Lots 5, 6, 8-14 and 17 were proposed to be duplex lots within Lick Creek Subdivision
at preliminary plat. The proposed duplex lots are approximately one-half acre in area
to maintain the same density throughout the subdivision.
4. Companion applications (CUP-06-1 through CUP-06-9) request conditional use
permits for other duplexes in Lick Creek Meadows, Phase I.
5. The McCall Planning & Zoning Commission held a properly posted and noticed
public hearing on March 7, 2006. A transcribable record was made of the public
hearing.
6. The Commission reviewed a staff report dated February 28, 2006.
7. The applicant did not make a presentation to the Commission.
8. The commission took public testimony both for and against the application. The
testimony was made part of the record.
9. A petition with 30 signatures opposing the conditional use permit applications was
submitted during the public hearing.
10. Images of the proposed duplex designs and floor plans were submitted during the
public hearing by a real estate agent working for a potential buyer of one or more of
the duplex lots.
11. MCC 3-31-030 states that a conditional use permit shall be granted only if the
Planning Commission finds that the use, as applied for, in fact will:
1. Constitute a conditional use authorized in the zoning district involved.
2. Be harmonious with and in accord with the general objectives, and with
any specific objectives of the Comprehensive Plan and/or Title 3. Per 3-
27-020, the applicant shall provide natural trees, shrubs, and grasses, or
provide and maintain landscaping on all areas not actually utilized for
required off-street parking, minimal roads, and buildings.
3. Be designed, constructed, operated and maintained to be harmonious
and appropriate in appearance with the existing or likely character of the
neighborhood, and that such use will not change the essential character
of the surrounding area.
McCall City Council
Findings and Conclusions
CUP-06-3
April 13, 2006
Page 1
4. Not be detrimental to the health, safety and general welfare of persons
residing or working in the neighborhood of such proposed use.
5. Not cause any substantially harmful environmental consequences to any
land or waters within the planning jurisdiction.
6. Not create excessive additional public cost for public facilities and
services, and will not be detrimental to the economic welfare of the
community.
7. Be served adequately by essential public facilities and services including
highways, streets, police and fire protection, drainage structures, refuse
disposal, water and sewer, and schools. The applicant may be required,
as a condition of approval, to mitigate any deficient public service.
8. Not involve uses, activities, processes, materials, equipment or conditions
of operation that will cause unreasonable production of traffic, noise,
smoke, fumes, glare, odors or other forms of pollution.
9. Have vehicular approaches to the property so designed as not to create a
detrimental interference with traffic on surrounding public thoroughfares.
10. Not result in the destruction, loss or damage of an important natural,
scenic or historic feature.
11. Be on a site of sufficient size to accommodate the proposed use,
including the yards, open spaces, snow storage, walls, fences, parking
areas, loading zones and design standards applicable.
12. Staff recommended approval of CUP-06-1 through CUP-06-9 to the Planning and
Zoning Commission with the following conditions: a.)The duplex shall provide either
an oversized garage or attached storage shed for each unit for the storage of
household goods, personal items and other items such as but not limited to bicycles,
shovels, garbage cans, etc. b.)The duplex shall be subject to design review. c.) The
maximum dwelling unit occupancy shall be a family plus two persons unrelated to the
family; or no more than three unrelated persons.
13. The Commission concluded that the proposed conditional use complies with MCC 3-
31-030 in that:
1. The proposed use is authorized in the zoning district involved.
2. The proposed use is harmonious with and in accord with the general
objectives of the Comprehensive Plan and Title 3. The CCRs require
approved landscaping with native plants or compatible vegetation by the
Architectural Control Committee.
3. The proposed use is not detrimental to the health, safety and general welfare
of persons residing or working in the neighborhood of such proposed use.
4. The proposed use will not cause any substantially harmful environmental
consequences to any land or waters within the planning jurisdiction.
5. The proposed use will not create excessive additional public cost for public
facilities and services, and will not be detrimental to the economic welfare of
the community.
McCall City Council
Findings and Conclusions
CUP-06-3
April 13, 2006
Page 2
6. The proposed use with conditions will be served adequately by essential
public facilities and services including highways, streets, police and fire
protection, drainage structures, refuse disposal, water and sewer, and
schools.
7. The proposed use does not involve uses, activities, processes, materials,
equipment or conditions of operation that will cause unreasonable production
of traffic, noise, smoke, fumes, glare, odors or other forms of pollution.
8. The proposed use will have vehicular approaches to the property so designed
as not to create a detrimental interference with traffic on surrounding public
thoroughfares.
9. The proposed use will not result in the destruction, loss or damage of an
important natural, scenic or historic feature.
10. The proposed use will be on a site of sufficient size to accommodate the
proposed use, including the yards, open spaces, snow storage, walls, fences,
parking areas, loading zones and design standards applicable.
15. The Commission concluded the proposed conditional use does not comply with
MCC 3-31-030 in that:
1. The duplex has not or will not be designed, constructed, operated and
maintained to be harmonious and appropriate in appearance with the
existing or likely character of the neighborhood, and that the proposed use
would change the essential character of the surrounding area.
16. The Commission recommended that a second hearing was unnecessary.
17. The applicant appealed the Commission recommendation in a letter dated March 10,
2006.
19. Three letters of support for the conditional use permit, dated March 10, March 30,
and April 3, 2006, were received by the Community Development Department.
20. The Lick Creek Meadows subdivision has been approved by the City and any
consideration of a conditional use should be in the context of the approved
subdivision, not the preexisting condition of the land area occupied by the
subdivision.
21. Approval of the subdivision did not presume future approval of duplexes on the lots
in question.
22. The applicant submitted new evidence to the Council that the duplex would be
designed, operated and maintained to be harmonious and appropriate in
appearance with the likely character of the approved subdivision, and that the
proposed use would not change the essential character of the surrounding area.
23. The City of McCall Wastewater Policy (Resolution 06-08) provides a mechanism
whereby adequate wastewater capacity can be provided to support the duplex units
while protecting the public health, safety and welfare. Building permits for the
duplexes will be issued in conformance with the Wastewater Policy.
The Council concludes that:
McCall City Council
Findings and Conclusions
CUP-06-3
April 13, 2006
Page 3
1. The proposed conditional use meets the requirements of MCC 3-31-030(A).
2. The application for CUP-06-3, Lick Creek Meadows Duplex, is hereby approved
with the following conditions:
1. The duplex shall provide either an oversized garage or attached storage shed for
each unit for the storage of household goods, personal items and other items
such as but not limited to bicycles, shovels, garbage cans, etc.
2. The duplex shall be subject to design review prior to application for a building
permit.
3. The maximum dwelling unit occupancy shall be a family plus two persons
unrelated to the family; or no more than three unrelated persons.
Dated: April 13, 2006
Attest:
William A. Robertson Joanne York
Mayor City Clerk
McCall City Council
Findings and Conclusions
CUP-06-3
April 13, 2006
Page 4
MCCALL CITY COUNCIL
FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS REGARDING AN
APPLICATION FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT
CUP-06-4
Lick Creek Meadows Duplex, Lot 9
The Council rinds that:
1. An application for approval of a conditional use permit in the A -Low Density
Residential zone per MCC 3-8-030 was submitted on February 8, 2006 by Scott
Findlay for Lick Creek Meadows, LLC.
2. The application for a conditional use permit would allow a duplex on Lot 9, Block 1,
of Lick Creek Meadows Phase I.
3. Lots 5, 6, 8-14 and 17 were proposed to be duplex lots within Lick Creek Subdivision
at preliminary plat. The proposed duplex lots are approximately one-half acre in area
to maintain the same density throughout the subdivision.
4. Companion applications (CUP-06-1 through CUP-06-9) request conditional use
permits for other duplexes in Lick Creek Meadows, Phase I.
5. The McCall Planning & Zoning Commission held a properly posted and noticed
public hearing on March 7, 2006. A transcribable record was made of the public
hearing.
6. The Commission reviewed a staff report dated February 28, 2006.
7. The applicant did not make a presentation to the Commission.
8. The commission took public testimony both for and against the application. The
testimony was made part of the record.
9. A petition with 30 signatures opposing the conditional use permit applications was
submitted during the public hearing.
10. Images of the proposed duplex designs and floor plans were submitted during the
public hearing by a real estate agent working for a potential buyer of one or more of
the duplex lots.
11. MCC 3-31-030 states that a conditional use permit shall be granted only if the
Planning Commission finds that the use, as applied for, in fact will:
1. Constitute a conditional use authorized in the zoning district involved.
2. Be harmonious with and in accord with the general objectives, and with
any specific objectives of the Comprehensive Plan and/or Title 3. Per 3-
27-020, the applicant shall provide natural trees, shrubs, and grasses, or
provide and maintain landscaping on all areas not actually utilized for
required off-street parking, minimal roads, and buildings.
3. Be designed, constructed, operated and maintained to be harmonious
and appropriate in appearance with the existing or likely character of the
neighborhood, and that such use will not change the essential character
of the surrounding area.
McCall City Council April 13, 2006
Findings and Conclusions
CUP-06-4 Page 1
4. Not be detrimental to the health, safety and general welfare of persons
residing or working in the neighborhood of such proposed use.
5. Not cause any substantially harmful environmental consequences to any
land or waters within the planning jurisdiction.
6. Not create excessive additional public cost for public facilities and
services, and will not be detrimental to the economic welfare of the
community.
7. Be served adequately by essential public facilities and services including
highways, streets, police and fire protection, drainage structures, refuse
disposal, water and sewer, and schools. The applicant may be required,
as a condition of approval, to mitigate any deficient public service.
8. Not involve uses, activities, processes, materials, equipment or conditions
of operation that will cause unreasonable production of traffic, noise,
smoke, fumes, glare, odors or other forms of pollution.
9. Have vehicular approaches to the property so designed as not to create a
detrimental interference with traffic on surrounding public thoroughfares.
10. Not result in the destruction, loss or damage of an important natural,
scenic or historic feature.
11. Be on a site of sufficient size to accommodate the proposed use,
including the yards, open spaces, snow storage, walls, fences, parking
areas, loading zones and design standards applicable.
12. Staff recommended approval of CUP-06-1 through CUP-06-9 to the Planning and
Zoning Commission with the following conditions: a.)The duplex shall provide either
an oversized garage or attached storage shed for each unit for the storage of
household goods, personal items and other items such as but not limited to bicycles,
shovels, garbage cans, etc. b.)The duplex shall be subject to design review. c.) The
maximum dwelling unit occupancy shall be a family plus two persons unrelated to the
family; or no more than three unrelated persons.
13. The Commission concluded that the proposed conditional use complies with MCC 3-
31-030 in that:
1. The proposed use is authorized in the zoning district involved.
2. The proposed use is harmonious with and in accord with the general
objectives of the Comprehensive Plan and Title 3. The CCRs require
approved landscaping with native plants or compatible vegetation by the
Architectural Control Committee.
3. The proposed use is not detrimental to the health, safety and general welfare
of persons residing or working in the neighborhood of such proposed use.
4. The proposed use will not cause any substantially harmful environmental
consequences to any land or waters within the planning jurisdiction.
5. The proposed use will not create excessive additional public cost for public
facilities and services, and will not be detrimental to the economic welfare of
the community.
McCall City Council
Findings and Conclusions
CUP-06-4
April 13, 2006
Page 2
6. The proposed use with conditions will be served adequately by essential
:public facilities and services including highways, streets, police and fire
protection, drainage structures, refuse disposal, water and sewer, and
schools.
7. The proposed use does not involve uses, activities, processes, materials,
equipment or conditions of operation that will cause unreasonable production
of traffic, noise, smoke, fumes, glare, odors or other forms of pollution.
8. The proposed use will have vehicular approaches to the property so designed
as not to create a detrimental interference with traffic on surrounding public
thoroughfares.
9. The proposed use will not result in the destruction, loss or damage of an
important natural, scenic or historic feature.
10. The proposed use will be on a site of sufficient size to accommodate the
proposed use, including the yards, open spaces, snow storage, walls, fences,
parking areas, loading zones and design standards applicable.
15. The Commission concluded the proposed conditional use does not comply with
MCC 3-31-030 in that:
1. The duplex has not or will not be designed, constructed, operated and
maintained to be harmonious and appropriate in appearance with the
existing or likely character of the neighborhood, and that the proposed use
would change the essential character of the surrounding area.
16. The Commission recommended that a second hearing was unnecessary.
17. The applicant appealed the Commission recommendation in a letter dated March 10,
2006.
19. Three letters of support for the conditional use permit, dated March 10, March 30,
and April 3, 2006, were received by the Community Development Department.
20. The Lick Creek Meadows subdivision has been approved by the City and any
consideration of a conditional use should be in the context of the approved
subdivision, not the preexisting condition of the land area occupied by the
subdivision.
21. Approval of the subdivision did not presume future approval of duplexes on the lots
in question.
22. The applicant submitted new evidence to the Council that the duplex would be
designed, operated and maintained to be harmonious and appropriate in
appearance with the likely character of the approved subdivision, and that the
proposed use would not change the essential character of the surrounding area.
23. The City of McCall Wastewater Policy (Resolution 06-08) provides a mechanism
whereby adequate wastewater capacity can be provided to support the duplex units
while protecting the public health, safety and welfare. Building permits for the
duplexes will be issued in conformance with the Wastewater Policy.
The Council concludes that:
1. The proposed conditional use meets the requirements of MCC 3-31-030(A).
McCall City Council
Findings and Conclusions
CUP-06-4
April 13, 2006
Page 3
2. The application for CUP-06-4, Lick Creek Meadows Duplex, is hereby approved
with the following conditions:
1. The duplex shall provide either an oversized garage or attached storage shed for
each unit for the storage of household goods, personal items and other items
such as but not limited to bicycles, shovels, garbage cans, etc.
2. The duplex shall be subject to design review prior to application for a building
permit.
3. The maximum dwelling unit occupancy shall be a family plus two persons
unrelated to the family; or no more than three unrelated persons.
Dated: April 13, 2006
Attest:
William A. Robertson Joanne York
Mayor City Clerk
McCall City Council
Findings and Conclusions
CUP-06-4
April 13, 2006
Page 4
MCCALL CITY COUNCIL
FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS REGARDING AN
APPLICATION FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT
CUP-06-5
Lick Creek Meadows Duplex, Lot 10
The Council finds that.-
1. An application for approval of a conditional use permit in the A -Low Density
Residential zone per MCC 3-8-030 was submitted on February 8, 2006 by Scott
Findlay for Lick Creek Meadows, LLC.
2. The application for a conditional use permit would allow a duplex on Lot 10, Block 1,
of Lick Creek Meadows Phase I.
3. Lots 5, 6, 8-14 and 17 were proposed to be duplex lots within Lick Creek Subdivision
at preliminary plat. The proposed duplex lots are approximately one-half acre in area
to maintain the same density throughout the subdivision.
4. Companion applications (CUP-06-1 through CUP-06-9) request conditional use
permits for other duplexes in Lick Creek Meadows, Phase I.
5. The McCall Planning & Zoning Commission held a properly posted and noticed
public hearing on March 7, 2006. A transcribable record was made of the public
hearing.
6. The Commission reviewed a staff report dated February 28, 2006.
7. The applicant did not make a presentation to the Commission.
8. The commission took public testimony both for and against the application. The
testimony was made part of the record.
9. A petition with 30 signatures opposing the conditional use permit applications was
submitted during the public hearing.
10. Images of the proposed duplex designs and floor plans were submitted during the
public hearing by a real estate agent working for a potential buyer of one or more of
the duplex lots.
11. MCC 3-31-030 states that a conditional use permit shall be granted only if the
Planning Commission finds that the use, as applied for, in fact will:
1. Constitute a conditional use authorized in the zoning district involved.
2. Be harmonious with and in accord with the general objectives, and with
any specific objectives of the Comprehensive Plan and/or Title 3. Per 3-
27-020, the applicant shall provide natural trees, shrubs, and grasses, or
provide and maintain landscaping on all areas not actually utilized for
required off-street parking, minimal roads, and buildings.
3. Be designed, constructed, operated and maintained to be harmonious
and appropriate in appearance with the existing or likely character of the
neighborhood, and that such use will not change the essential character
of the surrounding area.
McCall City Council
Findings and Conclusions
CUP-06-5
April 13, 2006
Page 1
4. Not be detrimental to the health, safety and general welfare of persons
residing or working in the neighborhood of such proposed use.
5. Not cause any substantially harmful environmental consequences to any
land or waters within the planning jurisdiction.
6. Not create excessive additional public cost for public facilities and
services, and will not be detrimental to the economic welfare of the
community.
7. Be served adequately by essential public facilities and services including
highways, streets, police and fire protection, drainage structures, refuse
disposal, water and sewer, and schools. The applicant may be required,
as a condition of approval, to mitigate any deficient public service.
8. Not involve uses, activities, processes, materials, equipment or conditions
of operation that will cause unreasonable production of traffic, noise,
smoke, fumes, glare, odors or other forms of pollution.
9. Have vehicular approaches to the property so designed as not to create a
detrimental interference with traffic on surrounding public thoroughfares.
10. Not result in the destruction, loss or damage of an important natural,
scenic or historic feature.
11. Be on a site of sufficient size to accommodate the proposed use,
including the yards, open spaces, snow storage, walls, fences, parking
areas, loading zones and design standards applicable.
12. Staff recommended approval of CUP-06-1 through CUP-06-9 to the Planning and
Zoning Commission with the following conditions: a.)The duplex shall provide either
an oversized garage or attached storage shed for each unit for the storage of
household goods, personal items and other items such as but not limited to bicycles,
shovels, garbage cans, etc. b.)The duplex shall be subject to design review. c.) The
maximum dwelling unit occupancy shall be a family plus two persons unrelated to the
family; or no more than three unrelated persons.
13. The Commission concluded that the proposed conditional use complies with MCC 3-
31-030 in that:
1. The proposed use is authorized in the zoning district involved.
2. The proposed use is harmonious with and in accord with the general
objectives of the Comprehensive Plan and Title 3. The CCRs require
approved landscaping with native plants or compatible vegetation by the
Architectural Control Committee.
3. The proposed use is not detrimental to the health, safety and general welfare
of persons residing or working in the neighborhood of such proposed use.
4. The proposed use will not cause any substantially harmful environmental
consequences to any land or waters within the planning jurisdiction.
5. The proposed use will not create excessive additional public cost for public
facilities and services, and will not be detrimental to the economic welfare of
the community.
McCall City Council
Findings and Conclusions
CUP-06-5
April 13, 2006
Page 2
6. The proposed use with conditions will be served adequately by essential
public facilities and services including highways, streets, police and fire
protection, drainage structures, refuse disposal, water and sewer, and
schools.
7. The proposed use does not involve uses, activities, processes, materials,
equipment or conditions of operation that will cause unreasonable production
of traffic, noise, smoke, fumes, glare, odors or other forms of pollution.
8. The proposed use will have vehicular approaches to the property so designed
as not to create a detrimental interference with traffic on surrounding public
thoroughfares.
9. The proposed use will not result in the destruction, loss or damage of an
important natural, scenic or historic feature.
10. The proposed use will be on a site of sufficient size to accommodate the
proposed use, including the yards, open spaces, snow storage, walls, fences,
parking areas, loading zones and design standards applicable.
15. The Commission concluded the proposed conditional use does not comply with
MCC 3-31-030 in that:
1. The duplex has not or will not be designed, constructed, operated and
maintained to be harmonious and appropriate in appearance with the
existing or likely character of the neighborhood, and that the proposed use
would change the essential character of the surrounding area.
16. The Commission recommended that a second hearing was unnecessary.
17. The applicant appealed the Commission recommendation in a letter dated March 10,
2006.
19. Three letters of support for the conditional use permit, dated March 10, March 30,
and April 3, 2006, were received by the Community Development Department.
20. The Lick Creek Meadows subdivision has been approved by the City and any
consideration of a conditional use should be in the context of the approved
subdivision, not the preexisting condition of the land area occupied by the
subdivision.
21. Approval of the subdivision did not presume future approval of duplexes on the lots
in question.
22. The applicant submitted new evidence to the Council that the duplex would be
designed, operated and maintained to be harmonious and appropriate in
appearance with the likely character of the approved subdivision, and that the
proposed use would not change the essential character of the surrounding area.
23. The City of McCall Wastewater Policy (Resolution 06-08) provides a mechanism
whereby adequate wastewater capacity can be provided to support the duplex units
while protecting the public health, safety and welfare. Building permits for the
duplexes will be issued in conformance with the Wastewater Policy.
McCall City Council
Findings and Conclusions
CUP-06-5
April 13, 2006
Page 3
The Council concludes that:
1. The proposed conditional use meets the requirements of MCC 3-31-030(A).
2. The application for CUP-06-5, Lick Creek Meadows Duplex, is hereby approved
with the following conditions:
1. The duplex shall provide either an oversized garage or attached storage shed for
each unit for the storage of household goods, personal items and other items
such as but not limited to bicycles, shovels, garbage cans, etc.
2. The duplex shall be subject to design review prior to application for a building
permit.
3. The maximum dwelling unit occupancy shall be a family plus two persons
unrelated to the family; or no more than three unrelated persons.
Dated: April 13, 2006
Attest:
William A. Robertson Joanne York
Mayor City Clerk
McCall City Council
Findings and Conclusions
CUP-06-5
April 13, 2006
Page 4
MCCALL CITY COUNCIL
FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS REGARDING AN
APPLICATION FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT
CUP-06-6
Lick Creek Meadows Duplex, Lot 11
The Council finds that;
1. An application for approval of a conditional use permit in the A -Low Density
Residential zone per MCC 3-8-030 was submitted on February 8, 2006 by Scott
Findlay for Lick Creek Meadows, LLC.
2. The application for a conditional use permit would allow a duplex on Lot 11, Block 1,
of Lick Creek Meadows Phase I.
3. Lots 5, 6, 8-14 and 17 were proposed to be duplex lots within Lick Creek Subdivision
at preliminary plat. The proposed duplex lots are approximately one-half acre in area
to maintain the same density throughout the subdivision.
4. Companion applications (CUP-06-1 through CUP-06-9) request conditional use
permits for other duplexes in Lick Creek Meadows, Phase I.
5. The McCall Planning & Zoning Commission held a properly posted and noticed
public hearing on March 7, 2006. A transcribable record was made of the public
hearing.
6. The Commission reviewed a staff report dated February 28, 2006.
7. The applicant did not make a presentation to the Commission.
8. The commission took public testimony both for and against the application. The
testimony was made part of the record.
9. A petition with 30 signatures opposing the conditional use permit applications was
submitted during the public hearing.
10. Images of the proposed duplex designs and floor plans were submitted during the
public hearing by a real estate agent working for a potential buyer of one or more of
the duplex lots.
11. MCC 3-31-030 states that a conditional use permit shall be granted only if the
Planning Commission finds that the use, as applied for, in fact will:
1. Constitute a conditional use authorized in the zoning district involved.
2. Be harmonious with and in accord with the general objectives, and with
any specific objectives of the Comprehensive Plan and/or Title 3. Per 3-
27-020, the applicant shall provide natural trees, shrubs, and grasses, or
provide and maintain landscaping on all areas not actually utilized for
required off-street parking, minimal roads, and buildings.
3. Be designed, constructed, operated and maintained to be harmonious
and appropriate in appearance with the existing or likely character of the
neighborhood, and that such use will not change the essential character
of the surrounding area.
McCall City Council
Findings and Conclusions
CUP-06-6
April 13, 2006
Page 1
4. Not be detrimental to the health, safety and general welfare of persons
residing or working in the neighborhood of such proposed use.
5. Not cause any substantially harmful environmental consequences to any
land or waters within the planning jurisdiction.
6. Not create excessive additional public cost for public facilities and
services, and will not be detrimental to the economic welfare of the
community.
7. Be served adequately by essential public facilities and services including
highways, streets, police and fire protection, drainage structures, refuse
disposal, water and sewer, and schools. The applicant may be required,
as a condition of approval, to mitigate any deficient public service.
8. Not involve uses, activities, processes, materials, equipment or conditions
of operation that will cause unreasonable production of traffic, noise,
smoke, fumes, glare, odors or other forms of pollution.
9. Have vehicular approaches to the property so designed as not to create a
detrimental interference with traffic on surrounding public thoroughfares.
10. Not result in the destruction, loss or damage of an important natural,
scenic or historic feature.
11. Be on a site of sufficient size to accommodate the proposed use,
including the yards, open spaces, snow storage, walls, fences, parking
areas, loading zones and design standards applicable.
12. Staff recommended approval of CUP-06-1 through CUP-06-9 to the Planning and
Zoning Commission with the following conditions: a.)The duplex shall provide either
an oversized garage or attached storage shed for each unit for the storage of
household goods, personal items and other items such as but not limited to bicycles,
shovels, garbage cans, etc. b.)The duplex shall be subject to design review. c.) The
maximum dwelling unit occupancy shall be a family plus two persons unrelated to the
family; or no more than three unrelated persons.
13. The Commission concluded that the proposed conditional use complies with MCC 3-
31-030 in that:
1. The proposed use is authorized in the zoning district involved.
2. The proposed use is harmonious with and in accord with the general
objectives of the Comprehensive Plan and Title 3. The CCRs require
approved landscaping with native plants or compatible vegetation by the
Architectural Control Committee.
3. The proposed use is not detrimental to the health, safety and general welfare
of persons residing or working in the neighborhood of such proposed use.
4. The proposed use will not cause any substantially harmful environmental
consequences to any land or waters within the planning jurisdiction.
5. The proposed use will not create excessive additional public cost for public
facilities and services, and will not be detrimental to the economic welfare of
the community.
McCall City Council April 13, 2006
Findings and Conclusions
CUP-06-6 Page 2
6. The proposed use with conditions will be served adequately by essential
public facilities and services including highways, streets, police and fire
protection, drainage structures, refuse disposal, water and sewer, and
schools.
7. The proposed use does not involve uses, activities, processes, materials,
equipment or conditions of operation that will cause unreasonable production
of traffic, noise, smoke, fumes, glare, odors or other forms of pollution.
8. The proposed use will have vehicular approaches to the property so designed
as not to create a detrimental interference with traffic on surrounding public
thoroughfares.
9. The proposed use will not result in the destruction, loss or damage of an
important natural, scenic or historic feature.
10. The proposed use will be on a site of sufficient size to accommodate the
proposed use, including the yards, open spaces, snow storage, walls, fences,
parking areas, loading zones and design standards applicable.
15. The Commission concluded the proposed conditional use does not comply with
MCC 3-31-030 in that:
1. The duplex has not or will not be designed, constructed, operated and
maintained to be harmonious and appropriate in appearance with the
existing or likely character of the neighborhood, and that the proposed use
would change the essential character of the surrounding area.
16. The Commission recommended that a second hearing was unnecessary.
17. The applicant appealed the Commission recommendation in a letter dated March 10,
2006.
19. Three letters of support for the conditional use permit, dated March 10, March 30,
and April 3, 2006, were received by the Community Development Department.
20. The Lick Creek Meadows subdivision has been approved by the City and any
consideration of a conditional use should be in the context of the approved
subdivision, not the preexisting condition of the land area occupied by the
subdivision.
21. Approval of the subdivision did not presume future approval of duplexes on the lots
in question.
22. The applicant submitted new evidence to the Council that the duplex would be
designed, operated and maintained to be harmonious and appropriate in
appearance with the likely character of the approved subdivision, and that the
proposed use would not change the essential character of the surrounding area.
23. The City of McCall Wastewater Policy (Resolution 06-08) provides a mechanism
whereby adequate wastewater capacity can be provided to support the duplex units
while protecting the public health, safety and welfare. Building permits for the
duplexes will be issued in conformance with the Wastewater Policy.
McCall City Council
Findings and Conclusions
CUP-06-6
April 13, 2006
Page 3
The Council concludes that:
1. The proposed conditional use meets the requirements of MCC 3-31-030(A).
2. The application for CUP-06-6, Lick Creek Meadows Duplex, is hereby approved
with the following conditions:
1. The duplex shall provide either an oversized garage or attached storage shed for
each unit for the storage of household goods, personal items and other items
such as but not limited to bicycles, shovels, garbage cans, etc.
2. The duplex shall be subject to design review prior to application for a building
permit.
3. The maximum dwelling unit occupancy shall be a family plus two persons
unrelated to the family; or no more than three unrelated persons.
Dated: April 13, 2006
Attest:
William A. Robertson Joanne York
Mayor City Clerk
McCall City Council
Findings and Conclusions
CUP-06-6
April 13, 2006
Page 4
MCCALL CITY COUNCIL
FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS REGARDING AN
APPLICATION FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT
CUP-06-7
Lick Creek Meadows Duplex, Lot 13
The Council finds that.-
1. An application for approval of a conditional use permit in the A -Low Density
Residential zone per MCC 3-8-030 was submitted on February 8, 2006 by Scott
Findlay for Lick Creek Meadows, LLC.
2. The application for a conditional use permit would allow a duplex on Lot 13, Block 1,
of Lick Creek Meadows Phase I.
3. Lots 5, 6, 8-14 and 17 were proposed to be duplex lots within Lick Creek Subdivision
at preliminary plat. The proposed duplex lots are approximately one-half acre in area
to maintain the same density throughout the subdivision.
4. Companion applications (CUP-06-1 through CUP-06-9) request conditional use
permits for other duplexes in Lick Creek Meadows, Phase I.
5. The McCall Planning & Zoning Commission held a properly posted and noticed
public hearing on March 7, 2006. A transcribable record was made of the public
hearing.
6. The Commission reviewed a staff report dated February 28, 2006.
7. The applicant did not make a presentation to the Commission.
8. The commission took public testimony both for and against the application. The
testimony was made part of the record.
9. A petition with 30 signatures opposing the conditional use permit applications was
submitted during the public hearing.
10. Images of the proposed duplex designs and floor plans were submitted during the
public hearing by a real estate agent working for a potential buyer of one or more of
the duplex lots.
11. MCC 3-31-030 states that a conditional use permit shall be granted only if the
Planning Commission finds that the use, as applied for, in fact will:
1. Constitute a conditional use authorized in the zoning district involved.
2. Be harmonious with and in accord with the general objectives, and with
any specific objectives of the Comprehensive Plan and/or Title 3. Per 3-
27-020, the applicant shall provide natural trees, shrubs, and grasses, or
provide and maintain landscaping on all areas not actually utilized for
required off-street parking, minimal roads, and buildings.
3. Be designed, constructed, operated and maintained to be harmonious
and appropriate in appearance with the existing or likely character of the
neighborhood, and that such use will not change the essential character
of the surrounding area.
McCall City Council
Findings and Conclusions
CUP-06-7
April 13, 2006
Page 1
4. Not be detrimental to the health, safety and general welfare of persons
residing or working in the neighborhood of such proposed use.
5. Not cause any substantially harmful environmental consequences to any
land or waters within the planning jurisdiction.
6. Not create excessive additional public cost for public facilities and
services, and will not be detrimental to the economic welfare of the
community.
7. Be served adequately by essential public facilities and services including
highways, streets, police and fire protection, drainage structures, refuse
disposal, water and sewer, and schools. The applicant may be required,
as a condition of approval, to mitigate any deficient public service.
8. Not involve uses, activities, processes, materials, equipment or conditions
of operation that will cause unreasonable production of traffic, noise,
smoke, fumes, glare, odors or other forms of pollution.
9. Have vehicular approaches to the property so designed as not to create a
detrimental interference with traffic on surrounding public thoroughfares.
10. Not result in the destruction, loss or damage of an important natural,
scenic or historic feature.
11. Be on a site of sufficient size to accommodate the proposed use,
including the yards, open spaces, snow storage, walls, fences, parking
areas, loading zones and design standards applicable.
12. Staff recommended approval of CUP-06-1 through CUP-06-9 to the Planning and
Zoning Commission with the following conditions: a.)The duplex shall provide either
an oversized garage or attached storage shed for each unit for the storage of
household goods, personal items and other items such as but not limited to bicycles,
shovels, garbage cans, etc. b.)The duplex shall be subject to design review. c.) The
maximum dwelling unit occupancy shall be a family plus two persons unrelated to the
family; or no more than three unrelated persons.
13. The Commission concluded that the proposed conditional use complies with MCC 3-
31-030 in that:
1. The proposed use is authorized in the zoning district involved.
2. The proposed use is harmonious with and in accord with the general
objectives of the Comprehensive Plan and Title 3. The CCRs require
approved landscaping with native plants or compatible vegetation by the
Architectural Control Committee.
3. The proposed use is not detrimental to the health, safety and general welfare
of persons residing or working in the neighborhood of such proposed use.
4. The proposed use will not cause any substantially harmful environmental
consequences to any land or waters within the planning jurisdiction.
5. The proposed use will not create excessive additional public cost for public
facilities and services, and will not be detrimental to the economic welfare of
the community.
McCall City Council
Findings and Conclusions
CUP-06-7
April 13, 2006
Page 2
6. The proposed use with conditions will be served adequately by essential
public facilities and services including highways, streets, police and fire
protection, drainage structures, refuse disposal, water and sewer, and
schools.
7. The proposed use does not involve uses, activities, processes, materials,
equipment or conditions of operation that will cause unreasonable production
of traffic, noise, smoke, fumes, glare, odors or other forms of pollution.
8. The proposed use will have vehicular approaches to the property so designed
as not to create a detrimental interference with traffic on surrounding public
thoroughfares.
9. The proposed use will not result in the destruction, loss or damage of an
important natural, scenic or historic feature.
10. The proposed use will be on a site of sufficient size to accommodate the
proposed use, including the yards, open spaces, snow storage, walls, fences,
parking areas, loading zones and design standards applicable.
15. The Commission concluded the proposed conditional use does not comply with
MCC 3-31-030 in that:
1. The duplex has not or will not be designed, constructed, operated and
maintained to be harmonious and appropriate in appearance with the
existing or likely character of the neighborhood, and that the proposed use
would change the essential character of the surrounding area.
16. The Commission recommended that a second hearing was unnecessary.
17. The applicant appealed the Commission recommendation in a letter dated March 10,
2006.
19. Three letters of support for the conditional use permit, dated March 10, March 30,
and April 3, 2006, were received by the Community Development Department.
20. The Lick Creek Meadows subdivision has been approved by the City and any
consideration of a conditional use should be in the context of the approved
subdivision, not the preexisting condition of the land area occupied by the
subdivision.
21. Approval of the subdivision did not presume future approval of duplexes on the lots
in question.
22. The applicant submitted new evidence to the Council that the duplex would be
designed, operated and maintained to be harmonious and appropriate in
appearance with the likely character of the approved subdivision, and that the
proposed use would not change the essential character of the surrounding area.
23. The City of McCall Wastewater Policy (Resolution 06-08) provides a mechanism
whereby adequate wastewater capacity can be provided to support the duplex units
while protecting the public health, safety and welfare. Building permits for the
duplexes will be issued in conformance with the Wastewater Policy.
McCall City Council
Findings and Conclusions
CUP-06-7
April 13, 2006
Page 3
The Council concludes that:
1. The proposed conditional use meets the requirements of MCC 3-31-030(A).
2. The application for CUP-06-7, Lick Creek Meadows Duplex, is hereby approved
with the following conditions:
1. The duplex shall provide either an oversized garage or attached storage shed for
each unit for the storage of household goods, personal items and other items
such as but not limited to bicycles, shovels, garbage cans, etc.
2. The duplex shall be subject to design review prior to application for a building
permit.
3. The maximum dwelling unit occupancy shall be a family plus two persons
unrelated to the family; or no more than three unrelated persons.
Dated: April 13, 2006
Attest:
William A. Robertson Joanne York
Mayor City Clerk
McCall City Council
Findings and Conclusions
CUP-06-7
April 13, 2006
Page 4
MCCALL CITY COUNCIL
FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS REGARDING AN
APPLICATION FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT
CUP-06-8
Lick Creek Meadows Duplex, Lot 14
The Council finds that.-
1. An application for approval of a conditional use permit in the A -Low Density
Residential zone per MCC 3-8-030 was submitted on February 8, 2006 by Scott
Findlay for Lick Creek Meadows, LLC.
2. The application for a conditional use permit would allow a duplex on Lot 14, Block 1,
of Lick Creek Meadows Phase I.
3. Lots 5, 6, 8-14 and 17 were proposed to be duplex lots within Lick Creek Subdivision
at preliminary plat. The proposed duplex lots are approximately one-half acre in area
to maintain the same density throughout the subdivision.
4. Companion applications (CUP-06-1 through CUP-06-9) request conditional use
permits for other duplexes in Lick Creek Meadows, Phase I.
5. The McCall Planning & Zoning Commission held a properly posted and noticed
public hearing on March 7, 2006. A transcribable record was made of the public
hearing.
6. The Commission reviewed a staff report dated February 28, 2006.
7. The applicant did not make a presentation to the Commission.
8. The commission took public testimony both for and against the application. The
testimony was made part of the record.
9. A petition with 30 signatures opposing the conditional use permit applications was
submitted during the public hearing.
10. Images of the proposed duplex designs and floor plans were submitted during the
public hearing by a real estate agent working for a potential buyer of one or more of
the duplex lots.
11. MCC 3-31-030 states that a conditional use permit shall be granted only if the
Planning Commission finds that the use, as applied for, in fact will:
1. Constitute a conditional use authorized in the zoning district involved.
2. Be harmonious with and in accord with the general objectives, and with
any specific objectives of the Comprehensive Plan and/or Title 3. Per 3-
27-020, the applicant shall provide natural trees, shrubs, and grasses, or
provide and maintain landscaping on all areas not actually utilized for
required off-street parking, minimal roads, and buildings.
3. Be designed, constructed, operated and maintained to be harmonious
and appropriate in appearance with the existing or likely character of the
neighborhood, and that such use will not change the essential character
of the surrounding area.
McCall City Council
Findings and Conclusions
CUP-06-8
April 13, 2006
Page 1
4. Not be detrimental to the health, safety and general welfare of persons
residing or working in the neighborhood of such proposed use.
5. Not cause any substantially harmful environmental consequences to any
land or waters within the planning jurisdiction.
6. Not create excessive additional public cost for public facilities and
services, and will not be detrimental to the economic welfare of the
community.
7. Be served adequately by essential public facilities and services including
highways, streets, police and fire protection, drainage structures, refuse
disposal, water and sewer, and schools. The applicant may be required,
as a condition of approval, to mitigate any deficient public service.
8. Not involve uses, activities, processes, materials, equipment or conditions
of operation that will cause unreasonable production of traffic, noise,
smoke, fumes, glare, odors or other forms of pollution.
9.. Have vehicular approaches to the property so designed as not to create a
detrimental interference with traffic on surrounding public thoroughfares.
10. Not result in the destruction, loss or damage of an important natural,
scenic or historic feature.
11. Be on a site of sufficient size to accommodate the proposed use,
including the yards, open spaces, snow storage, walls, fences, parking
areas, loading zones and design standards applicable.
12. Staff recommended approval of CUP-06-1 through CUP-06-9 to the Planning and
Zoning Commission with the following conditions: a.)The duplex shall provide either
an oversized garage or attached storage shed for each unit for the storage of
household goods, personal items and other items such as but not limited to bicycles,
shovels, garbage cans, etc. b.)The duplex shall be subject to design review. c.) The
maximum dwelling unit occupancy shall be a family plus two persons unrelated to the
family; or no more than three unrelated persons.
13. The Commission concluded that the proposed conditional use complies with MCC 3-
31-030 in that:
1. The proposed use is authorized in the zoning district involved.
2. The proposed use is harmonious with and in accord with the general
objectives of the Comprehensive Plan and Title 3. The CCRs require
approved landscaping with native plants or compatible vegetation by the
Architectural Control Committee.
3. The proposed use is not detrimental to the health, safety and general welfare
of persons residing or working in the neighborhood of such proposed use.
4. The proposed use will not cause any substantially harmful environmental
consequences to any land or waters within the planning jurisdiction.
5. The proposed use will not create excessive additional public cost for public
facilities and services, and will not be detrimental to the economic welfare of
the community.
McCall City Council
Findings and Conclusions
CUP-06-8
April 13, 2006
Page 2
6. The proposed use with conditions will be served adequately by essential
public facilities and services including highways, streets, police and fire
protection, drainage structures, refuse disposal, water and sewer, and
schools.
7. The proposed use does not involve uses, activities, processes, materials,
equipment or conditions of operation that will cause unreasonable production
of traffic, noise, smoke, fumes, glare, odors or other forms of pollution.
8. The proposed use will have vehicular approaches to the property so designed
as not to create a detrimental interference with traffic on surrounding public
thoroughfares.
9. The proposed use will not result in the destruction, loss or damage of an
important natural, scenic or historic feature.
10. The proposed use will be on a site of sufficient size to accommodate the
proposed use, including the yards, open spaces, snow storage, walls, fences,
parking areas, loading zones and design standards applicable.
15. The Commission concluded the proposed conditional use does not comply with
MCC 3-31-030 in that:
1. The duplex has not or will not be designed, constructed, operated and
maintained to be harmonious and appropriate in appearance with the
existing or likely character of the neighborhood, and that the proposed use
would change the essential character of the surrounding area.
16. The Commission recommended that a second hearing was unnecessary.
17. The applicant appealed the Commission recommendation in a letter dated March 10,
2006.
19. Three letters of support for the conditional use permit, dated March 10, March 30,
and April 3, 2006, were received by the Community Development Department.
20. The Lick Creek Meadows subdivision has been approved by the City and any
consideration of a conditional use should be in the context of the approved
subdivision, not the preexisting condition of the land area occupied by the
subdivision.
21. Approval of the subdivision did not presume future approval of duplexes on the lots
in question.
22. The applicant submitted new evidence to the Council that the duplex would be
designed, operated and maintained to be harmonious and appropriate in
appearance with the likely character of the approved subdivision, and that the
proposed use would not change the essential character of the surrounding area.
23. The City of McCall Wastewater Policy (Resolution 06-08) provides a mechanism
whereby adequate wastewater capacity can be provided to support the duplex units
while protecting the public health, safety and welfare. Building permits for the
duplexes will be issued in conformance with the Wastewater Policy.
McCall City Council April 13, 2006
Findings and Conclusions
CUP-06-8 Page 3
The Council concludes that:
1. The proposed conditional use meets the requirements of MCC 3-31-030(A).
2. The application for CUP-06-8, Lick Creek Meadows Duplex, is hereby approved
with the following conditions:
1. The duplex shall provide either an oversized garage or attached storage shed for
each unit for the storage of household goods, personal items and other items
such as but not limited to bicycles, shovels, garbage cans, etc.
2. The duplex shall be subject to design review prior to application for a building
permit.
3. The maximum dwelling unit occupancy shall be a family plus two persons
unrelated to the family; or no more than three unrelated persons.
Dated: April 13, 2006
Attest:
William A. Robertson Joanne York
Mayor City Clerk
McCall City Council
Findings and Conclusions
CUP-06-8
April 13, 2006
Page 4
MCCALL CITY COUNCIL
FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS REGARDING AN
APPLICATION FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT
CUP-06-9
Lick Creek Meadows Duplex, Lot 17
The Council finds that:
1. An application for approval of a conditional use permit in the A -Low Density
Residential zone per MCC 3-8-030 was submitted on February 8, 2006 by Scott
Findlay for Lick Creek Meadows, LLC.
2. The application for a conditional use permit would allow a duplex on Lot 17, Block 1,
of Lick Creek Meadows Phase I.
3. Lots 5, 6, 8-14 and 17 were proposed to be duplex lots within Lick Creek Subdivision
at preliminary plat. The proposed duplex lots are approximately one-half acre in area
to maintain the same density throughout the subdivision.
4. Companion applications (CUP-06-1 through CUP-06-9) request conditional use
permits for other duplexes in Lick Creek Meadows, Phase I.
5. The McCall Planning & Zoning Commission held a properly posted and noticed
public. hearing on March 7, 2006. A transcribable record was made of the public
hearing.
6. The Commission reviewed a staff report dated February 28, 2006.
7. The applicant did not make a presentation to the Commission.
8. The commission took public testimony both for and against the application. The
testimony was made part of the record.
9. A petition with 30 signatures opposing the conditional use permit applications was
submitted during the public hearing.
10. Images of the proposed duplex designs and floor plans were submitted during the
public hearing by a real estate agent working for a potential buyer of one or more of
the duplex lots.
11. MCC 3-31-030 states that a conditional use permit shall be granted only if the
Planning Commission finds that the use, as applied for, in fact will:
1. Constitute a conditional use authorized in the zoning district involved.
2. Be harmonious with and in accord with the general objectives, and with
any specific objectives of the Comprehensive Plan and/or Title 3. Per 3-
27-020, the applicant shall provide natural trees, shrubs, and grasses, or
provide and maintain landscaping on all areas not actually utilized for
required off-street parking, minimal roads, and buildings.
3. Be designed, constructed, operated and maintained to be harmonious
and appropriate in appearance with the existing or likely character of the
neighborhood, and that such use will not change the essential character
of the surrounding area.
McCall City Council
Findings and Conclusions
CUP-06-9
April 13, 2006
Page 1
4. Not be detrimental to the health, safety and general welfare of persons
residing or working in the neighborhood of such proposed use.
5. Not cause any substantially harmful environmental consequences to any
land or waters within the planning jurisdiction.
6. Not create excessive additional public cost for public facilities and
services, and will not be detrimental to the economic welfare of the
community.
7. Be served adequately by essential public facilities and services including
highways, streets, police and fire protection, drainage structures, refuse
disposal, water and sewer, and schools. The applicant may be required,
as a condition of approval, to mitigate any deficient public service.
8. Not involve uses, activities, processes, materials, equipment or conditions
of operation that will cause unreasonable production of traffic, noise,
smoke, fumes, glare, odors or other forms of pollution.
9. Have vehicular approaches to the property so designed as not to create a
detrimental interference with traffic on surrounding public thoroughfares.
10. Not result in the destruction, loss or damage of an important natural,
scenic or historic feature.
11. Be on a site of sufficient size to accommodate the proposed use,
including the yards, open spaces, snow storage, walls, fences, parking
areas, loading zones and design standards applicable.
12. Staff recommended approval of CUP-06-1 through CUP-06-9 to the Planning and
Zoning Commission with the following conditions: a.)The duplex shall provide either
an oversized garage or attached storage shed for each unit for the storage of
household goods, personal items and other items such as but not limited to bicycles,
shovels, garbage cans, etc. b.)The duplex shall be subject to design review. c.) The
maximum dwelling unit occupancy shall be a family plus two persons unrelated to the
family; or no more than three unrelated persons.
13. The Commission concluded that the proposed conditional use complies with MCC 3-
31-030 in that:
1. The proposed use is authorized in the zoning district involved.
2. The proposed use is harmonious with and in accord with the general
objectives of the Comprehensive Plan and Title 3. The CCRs require
approved landscaping with native plants or compatible vegetation by the
Architectural Control Committee.
3. The proposed use is not detrimental to the health, safety and general welfare
of persons residing or working in the neighborhood of such proposed use.
4. The proposed use will not cause any substantially harmful environmental
consequences to any land or waters within the planning jurisdiction.
5. The proposed use will not create excessive additional public cost for public
facilities and services, and will not be detrimental to the economic welfare of
the community.
McCall City Council
Findings and Conclusions
CUP-06-9
April 13, 2006
Page 2
6. The proposed use with conditions will be served adequately by essential
public facilities and services including highways, streets, police and fire
protection, drainage structures, refuse disposal, water and sewer, and
schools.
7. The proposed use does not involve uses, activities, processes, materials,
equipment or conditions of operation that will cause unreasonable production
of traffic, noise, smoke, fumes, glare, odors or other forms of pollution.
8. The proposed use will have vehicular approaches to the property so designed
as not to create a detrimental interference with traffic on surrounding public
thoroughfares.
9. The proposed use will not result in the destruction, loss or damage of an
important natural, scenic or historic feature.
10. The proposed use will be on a site of sufficient size to accommodate the
proposed use, including the yards, open spaces, snow storage, walls, fences,
parking areas, loading zones and design standards applicable.
15. The Commission concluded the proposed conditional use does not comply with
MCC 3-31-030 in that:
1. The duplex has not or will not be designed, constructed, operated and
maintained to be harmonious and appropriate in appearance with the
existing or likely character of the neighborhood, and that the proposed use
would change the essential character of the surrounding area.
16. The Commission recommended that a second hearing was unnecessary.
17. The applicant appealed the Commission recommendation in a letter dated March 10,
2006.
19. Three letters of support for the conditional use permit, dated March 10, March 30,
and April 3, 2006, were received by the Community Development Department.
20. The Lick Creek Meadows subdivision has been approved by the City and any
consideration of a conditional use should be in the context of the approved
subdivision, not the preexisting condition of the land area occupied by the
subdivision.
21. Approval of the subdivision did not presume future approval of duplexes on the lots
in question.
22. The applicant submitted new evidence to the Council that the duplex would be
designed, operated and maintained to be harmonious and appropriate in
appearance with the likely character of the approved subdivision, and that the
proposed use would not change the essential character of the surrounding area.
23. The City of McCall Wastewater Policy (Resolution 06-08) provides a mechanism
whereby adequate wastewater capacity can be provided to support the duplex units
while protecting the public health, safety and welfare. Building permits for the
duplexes will be issued in conformance with the Wastewater Policy.
McCall City Council April 13, 2006
Findings and Conclusions
CUP-06-9 Page 3
The Council concludes that:
1. The proposed conditional use meets the requirements of MCC 3-31-030(A).
2. The application for CUP-06-9, Lick Creek Meadows Duplex, is hereby approved
with the following conditions:
1. The duplex shall provide either an oversized garage or attached storage shed for
each unit for the storage of household goods, personal items and other items
such as but not limited to bicycles, shovels, garbage cans, etc.
2. The duplex shall be subject to design review prior to application for a building
permit.
3. The maximum dwelling unit occupancy shall be a family plus two persons
unrelated to the family; or no more than three unrelated persons.
Dated: April 13, 2006
Attest:
William A. Robertson Joanne York
Mayor City Clerk
McCall City Council
Findings and Conclusions
CUP-06-9
April 13, 2006
Page 4
3
City of McCall...' -
216 East Park Street
s- F E B- 8 2006
McCall, Idaho 83638 I J -
Phone (208) 634-7142
Fax (208) 634-3038
Applica
Conditional Use Application
Application Number OW 0&-1 fiD Ot? t?(o-`I
Date Received 7-/7 1 VTP —
q-(oO(-)C)
Applicant's Address: 20 'Boy 10(, Zip: QL-,Lk,
Agent/Representative: l Phone: �p 4—(4(70
Agent/Representative's Address: �0 Fax: 34- 9? d
Address of Subject Property_ 4j2� & k - " .
Current Zoning Map Classification of Subject Property
^ ,�cZZW _ A Sj1,61.� A
Legal Description of Subject Property- _ ) -a t —zdtod l a,
Desired Use of Subject Property
The following must be submitted (attach to this application):
A narrative statement including the following:
Q"*' A plot plan of the property, drawn to scale and stamped by a registered
/ professional surveyor
Description of the relationship of the proposed development use to the use
indicated in the Comprehensive Plan
Description of the relationship of the subject property to the surrounding area
AQ' A plan of subdivision or re -subdivision, if any, drawn to scale and stamped by a
registered professional surveyor
Description of land uses, building location and number of dwelling units
V The arrangement of streets, utilities, and other easements and pedestrian ways,
drawn to scale and stamped by a registered professional surveyor
❑ The location of off-street parking spaces and loading or service area, drawn to'
scale and stamped by a registered professional surveyor
CND The location of public or communal open space, drawn to scale and stamped by
a registered professional surveyor
❑ Plans for site grading and landscaping
❑ Plans for water supply, sewage disposal, storm water drainage, and snow
storage
N A narrative statement evaluating the effects on a adjoining property of such
elements as noise, glare, odor, fumes, and vibration; and a discussion to the
general compatibility with adjacent and other properties in the district
Conditional Use Permit Application Page 1
CUP - Conditional use Permit application final 042205
i� A list of the names and mailing addresses, including two sets of mailing labels, of
all property owners located within 300 feet of any part of the applicant's property
for which the conditional use is requested
EK' Fee of $125; check made payable to City of McCall
A conditional use permit shall be granted only if the Planning Commission finds that the
use, as applied for, in fact will meet the following standards. Describe how the proposed
use complies with each of these standards (please attach additional sheets is needed):
1. Constitutes a conditional use authorized in the zoning district involved:
seQ aja C !
2. Is harmonious with and in accord with the general objectives, and with any specific
objectives of the Comprehensive Plan and/or Title 3:
�0 CA 6--
3. Will be designed, constructed, operated and maintained to be harmonious and
appropriate in appearance with the existing or likely character of the neighborhood,
and that such use will not change the essential character of the surrounding area:
4. Will not be detrimental to the health, safety and general welfare of persons residing
or working the neighborhood, and that such use will not change the essential
character of the surrounding area:
� f' � Gc'-E•Gio �Q
5. Will not cause any substantially harmful environmental consequences to any land or
waters within the planning jurisdiction:
6. Will not create excessive additional public cost for public facilities and services, and
will not be detrimental to the economic welfare of the community:
%P GA GAL C Gt o cc
7.. Will be served adequately by essential public facilities and services including
highways, streets, police and fire protection, drainage structures, refuse disposal,
water and sewer, and schools. The applicant may be required, as a condition of
approval, to Mitigate any deficient public service.
Conditional Use Permit Application Page 2
CUP - Conditional Use Permit application final 042205
8. Will not involve uses, activities, processes, materials, equipment or conditions of
operation that will cause unreasonable production of traffic, noise, smoke, fumes,
glare, odors or othe�f�' forms of pollution.
2 t A 012�C
9. Will have vehicular approaches to the property so designed as not to create a
detrimental interference with traffic on surrounding public thoroughfares:
0.- Ok
10. Will not result in the destruction, loss or damage of an important natural, scenic or
historic feature:
11. Will be on a site of sufficient size to accommodate the proposed use, including the
yards, open spaces, snow storage, walls, fences, parking areas, loading zones and
design standards applicable:
l certify that l understand the procedures and requirements of the McCall Zoning Code.
give permission for City representatives and/or Planning & Zoning Commission members to
view and enter the subject property in order to fully review this application. I understand that
failure to provide complete and accurate information on this application may lead to denial of
this appl" lon.
2-7, 06
Ap . ant's Si ture Date
Conditional Use Permit Application Page 3
CUP . Conditional Use Permit application final 042205
Application for Conditional Use Permits within Lick Creek Meadows Subdivision
Legal Description of Subject Property:
Lot 5, Block 1 Lick Creek Meadows Subdivision, Phase 1
C K P Olo -1
Lot 6, Block 1 Lick Creek Meadows Subdivision, Phase 1
GA.P 0 0 - 2
Lot 8, Block 1 Lick Creek Meadows Subdivision, Phase 1
Gu,P D lo— 3
Lot 9, Block 1 Lick Creek Meadows Subdivision, Phase 1
cq P Ob - 4
Lot 10, Block 1 Lick Creek Meadows Subdivision, Phase 1
Gu, p 0 I, - S
Lot 11, Block 1 Lick Creek Meadows Subdivision, Phase 1 C K p o la -
Lot 13, Block 1 Lick Creek Meadows Subdivision, Phase 1 c K F 09 - 7
Lot 14, Block 1 Lick Creek Meadows Subdivision, Phase 1 G tk p o to — $
Lot 17, Block 1 Lick Creek Meadows Subdivision, Phase 1 Cu p b b - q
Description of proposed land use and evaluation of its affect on surrounding areas:
Lick Creek Meadows, LLC is proposing that the City of McCall allow a small number of
lots in Lick Creek Meadows subdivision to be used as multi -family housing, specifically
that they be used for duplex home sites. The purpose of proposing two-family housing is
to help address the need for affordable housing options for residents in McCall.
Lots 5, 6, 8-14, & 17 were proposed to be duplex lots within Lick Creek Subdivision at
the time of Preliminary Plat approval. All of the proposed duplex lots were platted to be
half acre lots, so there won't be any change in density from the rest of the subdivision.
Because all units in Lick Creek Meadows will remain 4 units per acre, and that was the
initial purpose of that area, there will not be any adverse affects to surrounding areas as a
result of the duplex lots.
Conditional Use Permit Standards:
1. Constitutes a conditional use authorized in the zoning district involved:
Yes. The conditional use permit requested meets the guidelines set forth by the
City of McCall Code.
2. Is harmonious with and in accord with the general objectives, and with any
specific objective of the Comprehensive Plan and/or Title 3:
Yes. The lots proposed for duplex home sites are all within an R4 zoned area, and
are all larger than 20,000 sqft (which maintains the allowed density for R4
housing).
3. Will be designed, constructed, operated and maintained to be harmonious and
appropriate in appearance with the existing or likely character of the
neighborhood, and that such use will not change the essential character of the
surrounding area:
Yes. The proposed lots will be subject to the same standards and guidelines set
forth in the Lick Creek Meadows CC&Rs. All building plans will be subject to
approval by the LCM Architectural Control Committee and the City of McCall
Building Department.
4. Will not be detrimental to the health, safety and general welfare of persons
residing or working in the neighborhood, and that such use will not change the
essential character of the surrounding area:
The proposed lots were designed and platted with the intention of being used for
duplex housing, and as such, will not be detrimental in any way to the
surrounding area..
5. Will not cause any substantially harmful environmental consequences to any
land or waters within the planning jurisdiction:
No, it will not cause any harmful environmental consequences. All
environmental concerns were addressed and alleviated during the process of
designing & platting Lick Creek Meadows, which has received final plat
approval.
6 Will not create excessive additional public cost for public facilities and services,
and will not be detrimental to the economic welfare of the community:
The proposed lots have been annexed into the City of McCall and the Payette
Lake Sewer District as part of Lick Creek Meadows. The cost for servicing Lick
Creek Meadows had already been determined before it received final plat
approval. The proposed duplexes in McCall will be a healthy addition to the
community & its economy, because it will provide a more affordable housing
option for the full-time residents in our area.
7. Will be served adequately by essential public facilities and services including
highways, streets, police and fire protection, drainage structures, refuse disposal,
water and sewer, schools.:
Yes. See item No. 6. The proposed lots will be served adequately by all essential
public facilities as part of Lick Creek Meadows. The impact of the lots in
question on public services was determined and accepted at the time of platting.
8. Will not involve uses, activities, processes, materials, equipment or conditions of
operation that will cause unreasonable production of traffic, noise, smoke,
fumes, glare, odors or other forms of pollution:
The proposed lots will not be involved in any issues listed above. The use of
these lots is intended for residential purposes only. All residences will be
required to abide by the CC&Rs recorded for Lick Creek Meadows, which
prohibits any/all of the issues listed.
9. Will have vehicular approaches to the property so designed as not to create a
detrimental interference with traffic on surrounding public thoroughfares:
Yes. All lots are easily accessed by paved, residential, city streets. Lots 5 & 6
will be accessed by a paved, shared driveway easement, which has been recorded
with the final plat. The other lots will be accessed through Ginney Way.
10. Will not result in the destruction, loss or damage of an important natural, scenic
or historic feature:
No, it will not. (See item No. 5)
11. Will be on a site of sufficient size to accommodate the proposed use, including
the yards, open spaces, snow storage walls, fences, parking areas, loading zones
and design standards:
Yes. The lots proposed for duplex home sites are all over 20,000 sgft, and
meet the city's guidelines for R4 zoned housing.
gggq om
° ---- nwER g o
_.•�--_ _—_---500'21'04'W 1324.06' --� —�
;"� I n
g3j
I�g s
$ t g,3 R ji b I ORIGINAL ALIGNMENT
% gig9 LP 2
jR5 �
�p��yn�°/--
j
8 sg„85 ^a
gj 2
O J \ \ w V
mi
LCb
gg
ml
w yw
8$8888888y
Y �1 `~
A wB�N �m.mwm4
C
s m 1 I ~ r L O
felon pe N = N S m 9 N $ °1 SWANIE War 2 1 IPI. fif...
__l N8028Y8'E �m 1 ..�i `(b
07 �I �° n 188.d8' `
UW� X 12B4.80' g i (1'.
aS p S0G29'18'W 1319.60'
ii A R
Y m NN� dq
NN 4
4
O Lg
O °o
a3g� aS�Vga44�tq�,<$i"xg�at
° +o o®F o � mV
a og 2;1w :F
h1 g ti S $8 g JUL j� aR s t �P, ggq gR~
�IlkHs Sg a
ypp° a s a >i 35 yp� Al
Aga® Ir �
«
tt
R gpa s q
p y y98$ 4� z s9 Q A m f �� L{�9wCS
fillBi
$p«
g g.
3D
37 32
PINECREST
ADDITION
} CRESCENT RIM
l
Qo/ I F�`�ENT RIAI
=r BEAR Iv., cP-
BASIN
!MLIDOW
a , LAKE �} ; moo; Crescent
- ESTATES t r WHITEBARK ��. wi afj Q 5 ESTATES
! MILE HIGH Beach
ESTATES 's $ 3 LENONYMOD sT
I S'vooD 1ST' 4 FOREST, LAWN
3 ',t PAYETTE
f BEAR'2 m" IT CLUB
000 ST
BASIN--" owe qo a s eRDauvn! s
'-`�++ e ESTATES 8 �`: I OYMHIA FpArywwb at
TRAILS ,��6 t gI 2HELMICH IR'Otrt OOp�aT�
-� �40 8 a RD
JASPER 24 WATER'S
SKI RANCH SUBDIVISION EDGE
Im `OOp DR'!E°P
155 rI 2'Fo,/ ELEVATION
N` s m' , �q 5000
.1 HAYES sTAVF ST
SKI RANCH #2
WH?E TAIL 7
GOLF COURSE
(PROPOSED)
McCALL
I cs,: 'roil' ypi
E
Sylvan
A� Point
29 28 zoe
Sylvan
j 11,,)3each
p Ui LR -
Wagou
Wheel
sy� a B
i.
' y Sheppard's
Point
PUBLIC
BEACH BROWN
p11PALACE
R A
.oQ
Y 'QP
KY SHORE OR
Picnic
Point
Lake
Payette
�V
LAKEVIEW .
VILLAGE
PEARL S
Davis ,c�,
Beach
P
MILL
MILL SUBDIVI
PARK
13 it
HEMLI
MARINA ar
�t
FlR
ART LEGACY]
CRYSTAL ROBERTS PARK r�F
BEACH PARK:
2/
Shellworth
Island
Porcupine
Point
Huckleberry
27 Bab'
PONDEROSA
ilS¢
STATE PARK ['
Duck
Bay
i
Luck's
Point ,RAY
•k 9�,GV.' gtOG
34
I
i
WILSON
PR(
GIRL Point of
SCOUT CAMP;-t ROCKS
r
I
7 0l
6tI
WV� S
[/y{{ /}�ry�y�
i
l i+ ,
1 '
moo; e°i" cea oP Pilgr
1Rl NJP� ( 3
¢ I >_ /a yX, Cat•
...,.PLYAr
�f o&I,SHADY BEACF
i BALSHAE
tMo COMMI �;
CPILGR
OVE
,DIaH RD FLYNN .l IgiLEs STah Qo �Y�'-
SH .. r
cEE wnr �Y
ST0ewooHY_4L.
LTH LE
iTATES CHIPMUNK LN
UCK CREEK RO L 5
S rTIMBERLOSTOAR�Ci�fS' BVp
• d 1-33 2 FAIRWAY LOLP I
FAIRWAY OR 3IR VCE LH �.
_ PlOR
i2 55 WOODY TIMBERLOST 4
UAIESRC viFiy
.SUITOR LN 3 j TIBMBERLOST 5`•
ems.
uw �>cE
. ! MCCALL GOLF
-� jREEDY LNJ . COURSE &
lyq y .CLUBHOUSE
�ALLEV'1• S
i
oe:
israucg 54 1� - THE COTTAGES
iFIR T l�l� r _ .'TIMBERLOST
I s �r FA'S TEAr0f4
t .!
'UDgAF,Y i.:, AVE I P.
'3rIDALPATa WAY tOOLE WAY SPRING MOUNTAIN
IAMI]EllR - .- �.; RANCH
t0
n
} GPMAg P,L
WILDF:OP.SE
ore
m ._ Re eq .'b gWEEO
aRDdEgEIxW LAKE F1P. ,-__. _.. _. ..
m I ~MFN o
ud
sue/ s1L
I SYRINGA Y FOREST 27
Axo ST
.. 9i_ •`�9 Oe:.
BVfro
.
I ,__—ING IT i I, ESTATES
._.. 8f1 2BO0T DR .
9 G.a _.
GENA PN �o
Moog
CFAIdfY
OR
1?m ;o r.,4i0(B. ADO ST }_-j_.; COLORADO ST
yI
`.I� ffi
- ..
WAY RIO
Foy
'l
�` a ,..
SA"?wT
17
TERRA VISTA
GRANDIS r
(.,S-ISMEST Noo„tvlssr
' u uN s ,a s
A,_,__RIO VISTA BLVD
ESTATES
TERRA GRANDIS Ce
O
hcT
^ e<<
- & i �HI,1 IT SUNSET
28 suNsE sr L� ST, -
sr I
WEST vauev ESTATES CFIYAY
o
��+�, �NOEL
G x I ' ! EVERGREEN
,'
FLovDE sT
INDUSTRIAL LOOP r
�¢ RD .... DRv!
- ROYDEa �. _'mTERRA €
O_....
i
i TREATMENT is
j , i-I ■I SUNRISE CARE &
REHABILITATION
'
KOSKI DR
_
❑ BLUE ■ PLANT
n BLUE JAY �'
OPfN
gA GRID S f60
LN STATE LANDS
D2III{ 22 2 POST
Ja`'�
., .:..... ,.:,: ,. s
.., •-.. RD.eOYDSTUN
BL DG
OFFICE
'. FFICE ■
WOODLANDS .
CONNECTOR _
PRDPoseoi
78
_.
._..'. _.. .._..___
RIVERSIDE' VILLAGE y DEINHARD LN '
$
S cygD
ADDITIONSQUARE N VALLEY
COUNTY
PINE
SPINE
RIVERSIDE PARK ANNEX
f.
TERRACE #2
(PROPOSED), Iecce sr
TERRACE #1 -
I US FOREST SERVICE
SMOKE JUMPER JACOB'S
PIFIETERF
�%
� HEADQUARTERS MANOR SAMSON
Sro'v-ON
_
�O bpi
CT
OR'~n
. .....
VALLEY VIEW' LN
VALLEY VIEW #1
KIAMILN
WEST PLACE
VALLEY VIEW #3 NIDGE �' e
McCALL AIRPORT ,HE,,,. L„ WHISPERING
WOODS
VALLEY VIEW #2
FALCON RIDGE °
ESTATES a _
Fs N N TIMBER RIDGE °
f9 �
Lick Creek Meadows, LLC
PO Box 1064
McCall, ID 83638
City of McCall
City Council Members
216 E. Park St
McCall, ID 83638
March 10, 2006
Re: Application for CUP 06-01— 06-09
To Whom It May Concern:
S t rV�
IVAR
10 ?)} 11
In regards to the application for CUP-0601-0609, to allow the construction of duplexes
on nine lots in Lick Creek Meadows Subdivision, the City of McCall Planning & Zoning
Commission found that the "use, as applied for, in fact will not `be designed, constructed,
operated & maintained to be harmonious and appropriate in appearance with the existing
or likely character of the neighborhood, and/or that such use will change the essential
character of the surrounding area."'
In response to these findings, Lick Creek Meadows, LLC is requesting an appeal of the
Planning & Zoning's decision to deny the CUPS for duplex lots in Lick Creek Meadows.
Lick Creek Meadows, LLC believes that these nine CUPS would meet the above criteria
as stated in the McCall City Code.
To ensure the highest quality of design and construction of all duplexes built in Lick
Creek Meadows, any owner or contractor building on these lots would be required to pass
through four quality assurance processes, including review by three separate entities
before they would be allowed to build. There are recorded CC&Rs associated with Lick
Creek Meadows. All lots, including duplex lots, will be required to build within the
guidelines of the CC&Rs. Lick Creek Meadows also has an Architectural Control
Committee in place to guarantee that all homes or duplexes meet the guidelines and
standards stated in the CC&Rs. The recorded CC&Rs in Lick Creek Meadows have
similar and compatible standards, and in some cases greater standards than those in
surrounding neighborhoods.
The City of McCall staff has also proposed a requirement that any potential duplexes in
Lick Creek Meadows be subject to an additional design review by the city before
construction begins. If this recommendation is passed, then not only will these duplexes
be held to the same standards as all of the homes in McCall, but they will actually be
scrutinized further than most other homes in the area.
The City of McCall Building Inspector's review of any proposed plans will reinforce the
design reviews in place by making sure that the construction plans and construction
process meet all city codes and standards. The building inspector will provide further
assurance that the duplexes will be well -constructed.
Shared -wall units and rental properties all have an important role in the make-up of the
McCall housing market. Even though duplexes are often built for the purpose of
providing rentals to McCall residents and vacationers, we do not believe that it is
appropriate to make the assumption that any or all of the proposed duplexes will be used
as rental property. It is important to keep in mind that these duplexes are being sold
individually, and even if some of them are used as rentals, they can also be used for two
half ownerships or a single owner with one owner -occupied unit and one rental unit.
If some of the units are used for rentals, the city has proposed a restriction on the number
of "non -family residents" who can live in each unit. The terms of this restriction would
create more control over the type of tenancy in the duplexes and would be a more
restrictive rental than most of the single-family rentals throughout McCall.
The current character of the areas around Lick Creek Meadows includes many types
shared -wall units located next to and nearby other single family neighborhoods. The
duplexes would not change the existing character of the area, but if anything, would
enhance the area.
Examples of proposed or existing shared -wall housing in the area surrounding Lick Creek
Meadows include, but are not limited to: Timberlost VI, Birdie Glenn Condos,
Hearthstone, Shiner Creek Condos, and Mountain Meadows.
Unlike many of the shared -wall projects within McCall, the proposed duplexes in Lick
Creek Meadows would maintain the same low -density residential zoning already allowed
in that subdivision. In fact, the 2.7 units/acre that exists overall in Lick Creek Meadows
(even with duplex lots) is a lower density than the 4 units/acre platted in the neighboring
Timberlost IV Subdivision. Building a shared -wall unit on a half acre lot would provide
a better use of space than building 18 single family units, because it will allow for more
open space between units.
Although we believe that the information stated above provides sufficient evidence that
that the proposed CUPs meet the criteria of the McCall City Code, we do reserve the
right to add rebuttal material at the time of the appeal hearing.
Sincerely,
I
Scott Findlay By Angela Brown
Lick Creek Meadows, LLC Attorney in Fact
March 30, 2006
City of McCall
City Council Members
216 East Park Street
McCall, ID 83638
Re: Application for Conditional Use Permit for Lick Creek Meadows
To Whom It May Concern:
I am writing to support conditional use permits being granted for the construction of
duplexes in Lick Creek Meadows Subdivision. I believe the proposed duplexes will
enhance Lick Creek Meadows by providing high building standards. More importantly
these specific duplexes will give buyers another option for affording real estate within the
City of McCall.
In working as a Realtor at the McCall Real Estate Company for the past five years, I've
witnessed the large increase in price for property in McCall. By buying a duplex a
person could live in one unit and supplement their mortgage payment with rental income
from the other unit. By supplementing their income with rental income more buyers will
qualify for higher loans. I also feel that these duplexes will provide a valuable
commodity for people who may qualify for affordable housing but do not want to wait
for deed restricted housing.
On March 7, 2006, The Planning and Zoning Committee denied the application based on
the fact that the "design, construction, operation and maintenance of the duplexes would
not be harmonious in appearance with the existing character of the neighborhood".
Based on the Covenants and Restrictions recorded with Lick Creek Meadows strict
building guidelines will be enforced. A person building in Lick Creek Meadows must
meet these guidelines as well as have an Architectural Committee approve building
design, plans and exterior color. This mandate will demand a higher standard of design
and construction; thus enhancing the harmonious appearance of the existing
neighborhoods.
Please reconsider approval of the CUP application for duplexes in Lick Creek Meadows.
In doing so, you will enhance the continuity of the surrounding neighborhoods like those
of Timberlost IV, Aspen Ridge Phase III, and Spring Mountain Meadows. Furthermore,
you will also provide more opportunities for residents to buy real estate in the City of
McCall
Thank you for your consideration.
Ellen Ganz
1104 Alpine Street
McCall, ID 83638
04/03/2006 11:42 4614452 C C H ING PACE 01
"'o'x no P100.0 44 lour t 0=0.
413106
City of Maw
City Council Members
216 Fast Park Street
McCall, III 83638
Re: Application for Conditional Use POMit for Lick Creels Meadows
To Wham It May concern;
We are writing this Letter to support conditional use Permits being Scanted for the construction of
duplexes In Lick Creek Meadows Subdivision. These are several reasons wwhy we feel that the
duplexes we would like to build, if conditional use permits are granted, will enhance the character
and quality ofLick Creek Meadows.
These duplexes would add a gmof housing for the surrounding area. m
We are a custo
home builder with a well established reprrta#Ion for building energy efficient, quality, homes.
Nlttch time and effort been put into the puns fo:r the duplexes that we would like to build in
Lick Creek Meadows. We feel that there would be a good balance ofquality amenities as well as
amordability-
Vile own severs" ofthe single family lots in Lick Creek as well as 5 of the 9 proposed duplex lots.
The amenities that we are looking to use on the duplexes match that Of single family homes.
It is very Important to us that the architectural design elements are consistent throuShout the
subdivision and the surrounding area. By maintaining the same guidelines for the duplexes as
well as the single fly residences, this can be accomplished. As a hommbuiiderihat is only In
control ofa small number ofthe homes being built i4 the subdivisionr, the Aui derthat l
Committee is who we will rely on to enforce the dosigns, plans and colors that will ensure the
high gtWity and harmonious appearance of the subdivision.
Your reconsideration for the approval of the CUP application for the duplexes in Lick Creek
Meadows is greatly appreciated.
Travis Tindall
Cornerstone Custom Homes, Inc.
PO Sox 321
Nampa ID $3686
We the undersigned oppose Scott Findlay's request for a Conditional Use Permit
allowing the construction of duplexes in Lick Creek Meadows.
S.
Guy �vl�
Fluc?kYI
F�,eQ N��.�'nJIL
7T
41AUARD SH1774
l4iv I)),&�, r/e,
/4 1/�AJ4 e4�
/AGO rr►-����.
t�(O -rtvn6E?- Oa -de
42_i47-ek
z/i.1 Jac,
21itt 166
a-gq-04
�7 - a Y. a b
a -�
y_
(� L d W(,o
We the undersigned oppose Scott Findlay's request for a Conditional Use Permit
allowing the construction of duplexes in Lick Creek Meadows.
Name Address Signature Date
AX -Alp
S L
/G 0,0
44�
31y� �6� •� -b
J��
0
�.
w � tS �Z
II
COI
o O
ay" V7dlvn
3.sc.esses �
tonal iHznsrsunug tune AS
y_ ......
------—14
Sea.Bfr 9 .•...-.'••.'.-..
1%
~I �.. .
b,
h
RS `
_ I a,tuw.ees
I
'4i:':':':':' 1 $ I ova
grog
Y / i1aAeB-S
h
h
�sF�a�essea�^�s��e=^
a�gg�«Ns82�?��aie��
gF
u�
�9✓o�8&a:aF:a8`R��kQ
�ses�a"mre9e6®8ffix�RG
888888888888
88888
CITY OF MCCALL
Scott Findlay
PO Box 1064
McCall, ID 83638
March 13, 2006
Dear Mr. Findlay:
The City of McCall has received your appeal later dated March 10, 2006 for the application of
CUP-06-1 through CUP-06-9 for the construction of nine duplexes on nine lots in Lick Creek
Meadows. Per MCC 3-32-070, the Council shall hold a hearing on the appeal and the
application appealed within forty five (45) days of the request. Please contact me if you have
any further questions at 634-3458.
Sincerely,
City of McCall
M. Millar, PE, AICP
unity Development Director
Cc: William Nichols, City Attorney
216 East Park Street - McCall, Idaho 83638 - (208) 634-7142 - FAX (208) 634-3038
McCall Area
Planning and Zoning Commission
Meeting Minutes
March 7, 2006
CALL TO ORDER AND ROLL CALL
Chairman Bob Youde called the McCall Planning and Zoning Commission meeting to
order at 7:00 pm. Commissioners Jeff Schoedler and Sarah Jessup were present, Phil
Feinberg was absent. Quorum present.
REVIEW & APPROVAL OF MINUTES
The February 7, 2006 minutes were approved as read.
OLD BUSINESS
No items.
NEW BUSINESS
VAC-06-1
Spring Mountain Boulevard
A request to vacate public right-of-way in Lick Creek Meadows Subdivision. The area
requested for vacation is the original alignment of Spring Mountain Boulevard, more
particularly described as the right-of-way between Lick Creek Meadows Road and the
southern property of Lick Creek Meadows Subdivision. A PUBLIC HEARING.
The Future Land Use Map in the McCall Area Comprehensive Plan identifies the
property and surrounding properties as "Low Density Residential."
Prior to finalizing the preliminary plat for Lick Creek Meadows the City received a deed
for that portion of the Boulevard that crosses the land for that subdivision. The
subsequent plat changed the alignment of the Boulevard making portions of the original
alignment unnecessary. Because the deed for the original alignment was already
recorded, a vacation is necessary to remove the road right of way from some of the
newly platted lots in Lick Creek Meadows Subdivision. Staff recommends approval of
VAC-06-1. Draft Findings and Conclusions are attached.
Chairman Youde opened the public hearing. Hearing no comments either for or against,
or about the vacation Chairman Youde closed the public hearing.
Chairman Youde asked Mr. Millar to clarify the history on this vacation. Mr. Millar
advised the new subdivision platting process required a new alignment for Spring
Mountain Blvd with the same snow storage easements, berming, landscaping, and the
bicycle facilities as were originally envisioned when it was purchased as a part of
approval through Spring Mountain Ranch Planned Unit Development. The new
alignment has move the road a little to the east and flatted the curbs out. The vacation
is for the county assessor and the county cartographer to make sure that 50 years from
now when somebody looks at it that it is absolutely clear who owns the land.
Commissioner Schoedler made a motion to approve VAC-06-1. Commissioner Jessup
seconded the motion, and the motion carried.
CITY OF MCCALL PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION PAGE 1
MINUTES MARCH 7, 2006
SUB-05-10
Denali Court Subdivision
The applicant is requesting approval of a preliminary plat for a four -lot subdivision of
1.653 acres at 810 Wooley Avenue, just west of Spring Mountain Ranch. NOT A
PUBLIC HEARING.
The Future Land Use Map in the McCall Area Comprehensive Plan identifies the
property as "Low Density Residential." It is bordered by other properties identified as
"Low Density Residential."
The proposed subdivision would by served by City of McCall water and sewer.
Denali Court is proposed as a private street but will be devoted to public use. The street
should be constructed to City standards. The access is from Wooley Avenue.
Staff recommends approval of the final plat subject to the following conditions:
1. The applicant shall sign a development agreement with the City pursuant
to MCC 3-21-070.
2. The applicant shall submit electronic files of the final plat in a form
specified by the City.
3. City Council must approve the final plat.
Commissioner Schoedler made a motion to approve SUB 05-10. Commissioner Jessup
seconded the motion, and the motion carried.
CUP-06-1, CUP-06-Z CUP-06-3, CUP-06-4, CUP-06-5, CUP-06-6, CUP-06-7,
CUP-06-8, CUP-06-9
The applicant is requesting a conditional use permit in the A Low Density Residential
zone per MCC 3-8-030 to construct duplexes.
The Future Land Use Map in the McCall Area Comprehensive Plan identifies the
property and surrounding properties as "Low Density Residential."
The proposed conditional use is authorized for A Low Density Residential zone under
MCC 3-8-030 (C). The applicant has an approved final plat for the subject property. The
proposed conditional use is consistent with the final plat.
The project is proposed to be served by City Water and Payette Lakes Sewer District.
Staff recommends approval of CUP-06-1, CUP-06-2, CUP-06-3, CUP-06-4, CUP-06-5,
CUP-06-6, CUP-06-7, CUP-06-8 and CUP-06-9. Draft Findings and Conclusions are
attached.
The three conditions of approval for all of the duplexes include:
1. The duplex shall provide either an oversized garage or attached storage shed for
each unit for the storage of household goods, personal items and other items
such as but not limited to bicycles, shovels, garbage cans, etc.
2. The duplex shall be subjected to design review.
City of McCall Planning and Zoning Commission
March 7, 2005 Minutes
Page 2
3. The maximum dwelling unit occupancy shall be a family plus two persons
unrelated to the family; or no more than three unrelated persons.
The Conditional Use permits need to be approved through City Council.
Chairman Youde wanted it noted for the public record that additional material provided to
the commission includes a letter from CH2M Hill and a public comment letter from Mr.
Shay on Hilton Cove in McCall.
Mr. Millar, Community Development Director, addressed the commission and advised
them that one of the findings that they have to make to approve a conditional use permit
is that the proposed use is consistent with the character of the neighborhood in which is
being proposed. There is a lot of concern about people leasing the properties and then
putting construction workers or large numbers of unrelated folks into units as rentals. In
keeping with the family character that is out there the intent here is that the maximum
occupancy would be a family or 2-3 unrelated people.
Chairman Youde opened the public hearing. There was no one to testify in favor of the
project. Chairman Youde asked those to speak against the project.
Shane Jefferies, 1659 Timber Circle, McCall states he is 3rd generation McCall native.
He handed the commission a list of names from a petition of the neighbors that are
opposing the project. He addressed three concerns that he and the other neighbors
share regarding "the conditional use permit shall be granted only if the Planning
Commission finds that the use, as applied for, in fact will:"
1. Be harmonious with and in accord with the general objectives, and with any
specific objectives of the Comprehensive Plan and/or Title 3.
2. Be designed, constructed, operated and maintained to be harmonious and
appropriate in appearance with the existing or likely character of the
neighborhood, and that such use will not change the essential character of the
surrounding area.
3. Not result in the destruction, loss or damage of an important natural, scenic or
historic feature.
Mr. Jefferies also expressed serious concern regarding the CC&Rs and parts of the
McCall Comprehensive plan. He recommended to not approving the conditional use
permit as he feels it is not consistent with the comprehensive plan and not consistent to
where we want to go with the future.
Jan Tracy, 1656 Timber Circle, McCall is against the project. She suggested cottages
instead of duplexes. Her hope is when this is voted on tonight think about the
generations to come.
Roger Newton, 1660 Timber Circle, McCall said that he is against the duplexes and
would like the developer to stay with single-family residences. He felt duplexes would
take away from the beauty.
Ellen Ganz, 1104 Alpine, McCall is representing the buyers that are interested in buying
duplex lots. She said they are builders from Nampa and are interested in building
affordable housing. She said they have created rendered images of what they are going
to present to the city and are pretty consistent with the surrounding area. She stated
they are single story so you can still see views of the mountains and the floor plan is
very open. She felt it does not look like the average duplex. Ms. Ganz said that she has
two people interested in buying the duplexes if the CUP is approved. One buyer would
live in one half as his personal residence and rent out the other side to help make the
City of McCall Planning and Zoning Commission
March 7, 2005 Minutes
Page 3
mortgage payment. The other buyer is an investor who would use this as a vacation
rental. The unit total would cost $600,000 / $300,000 each side. She stated her clients
would be buying the lots only if the conditional use is approved.
Angela Brown, Scott Findley's assistant, responded to some of the comments. She
feels most of the issues should have been addressed in the original platting of the
subdivision. She said they have already been platted and sold and to move around
duplex locations would be very difficult at this time. Mr. Findley donated about 5 acres to
the city for open space. She feels he has compromised to meet some of the neighbors
concerns by building mostly single-family housing with some duplex lots. Ms. Brown
said that there are CC&Rs and architectural control committee documents have been
recorded as part of the subdivision.
Jim Fronk addressed the podium to continue the developer's response to the public
hearing testimony. He felt the design guideline recommendation is a good
recommendation. He expressed his appreciation on the history of McCall from Mr.
Jefferies.
Commissioner Schoedler addressed the opposing audience and advised them that when
the subdivision was originally platted Mr. Findley purposely made some of the lots larger
in order to support a duplex. He advised that a number of them could ask for a lot split
therefore creating the possibility of building two homes on essentially one lot, which
could be more intrusive to views. The opposing audience agreed they would rather have
two single-family homes versus duplexes and rentals.
Chairman Youde asked Mr. Millar to remind the Commission and everyone what the
Council approved when they approved the final plat.
Mr. Millar advised that Council approved a subdivision and the subdivision had lots at
the dimensions that were shown on the subdivision. Mr. Findley was very clear through
the subdivision process that he intended to build duplexes on those lots if he could get
conditional use approval. He sized the lots accordingly and this body was very clear to
him that if he wanted to put duplexes on them then he would be back for a conditional
use permit. The comp plan and conditional use permit language that is there, the
density is the same as the underlying density. The issue of a duplex versus a single
family home is not one that we can debate.
Mr. Millar reiterated that this not affordable housing, this is lower cost housing in the
McCall market, these are not community housing units and they are not proposed to be
deed restricted. The applicant is making no contribution to community housing in
anyway. If they are approved with the conditions that are in the staff recommendation
they are subject to design review. Another option that the Commission can request for
the conditional use permit is to require a second hearing at City Council. Otherwise
there would not be a hearing at Council unless someone appealed the decision.
Hearing no further testimony for or against the CUP Chairman Youde closed the public
hearing.
Chairman Youde made a motion for the Planning and Zoning Commission to approve
the staff recommendation Commissioner Schoedler seconded the motion and the motion
failed. One was in favor and two were against.
Mr. Millar addressed the Commission and requested that they allow Staff to put together
findings and conclusions recommending denial for the Commissions consideration. This
could either be addressed this evening or can be brought back to a subsequent meeting.
Mr. Millar advised Chairman Youde that if the sense of the Commission is denial to give
City of McCall Planning and Zoning Commission
March 7, 2005 Minutes
Page 4
Staff their input and let them put together some findings and conclusions that can be a
recommendation of denial to Council. Commissioner Schoedler recommended denial of
CUP 06-1 through CUP-06-9 that it is not consistent with all the criteria necessary for
approval of a conditional use permit as it is does not meet criteria number three. (Be
designed, constructed, operated and maintained to be harmonious and appropriate in
appearance with the existing or likely character of the neighborhood, and that such use
will not change the essential character of the surrounding area.) Commissioner Jessup
seconded and the motion passed to deny 2 to 1.
ROS-06-2
407 S. 3" Street
The applicant is requesting to split one (250'x343') parcel into two lots.
NOT A PUBLIC HEARING.
The application is eligible for a Record of Survey.
The resultant lots comply with the provisions of Section 3-12-070, Standards for
Development, for the GC Zone.
Staff recommends approval with the condition that:
1. The two resultant lots are to share one access from 3rd Street. The Record of
Survey shall include a note to this effect and a cross access easement.
Commissioner Schoedler made a motion to approve ROS-06-02. Commissioner Jessup
seconded the motion, and the motion carried.
OTHER
Public Hearing-143 Lake Street
Dr. Shane Newton: A public hearing per MCC 3-32-030 by the Planning and Zoning
Commission related to the violation of the conditions of CUP-00-3. A PUBLIC
HEARING.
Ms. Groenevelt gave an extensive history of the violation and the correspondence
between the applicant and the Community Development Department. Staff is
recommending that applicant be required to comply with the conditions of the original
approval. The draft findings and conclusions are attached. The action of the
commission can be appealed by City Council.
Mr. Millar advised the Commission that there has been some conversation with the
applicant about the condition being ambiguous that the driveway and landscaping would
be maintained that somehow is an ambiguous condition. Staff has looked at the record
of the meeting and the public comment and it was very clear that the intent was to
preserve the residential character of the building and to preserve the landscaped front
lawn and the action that the applicant took was to pave the entirety of the front yard
which the staff felt the condition wasn't ambiguous and the action certainly wasn't
ambiguous. We all agree on what to do except for the addition the applicant wants of
reserving rights to do this and the City attorney says that is not appropriate. The
condition of approval was in the conditional use permit. The applicant should be
required to comply with the conditions of the conditional use permit. The Commission
can take an action tonight, that action is appealable to City Council, City Council can
take an action and that action is appealable to the courts. The hope is to get the
City of McCall Planning and Zoning Commission
March 7, 2005 Minutes
Page 5
property back in the condition that was envisioned by both the applicant and the City at
the time the CUP was approved.
Ms. Groenevelt also added that she had attached some information in the packet some
background information from the original CUP where the staff report talks about the
parking spaces, the location and the landscaping. Chairman Youde added for the record
that the letter dated March 6, 2006 from the applicant's council was also included in the
packet.
Chairman Youde opened the public hearing.
Shane Newton 143 E. Lake Street states he has operated a dental practice at this
location for approximately five years. He said that over the period of time he had
removed a lot of dead and dying landscaping and replaced it with more landscaping.
They replaced the dirt driveway with gravel because the dirt was an inconvenience to
patents and neighbors. It was replaced immediately after receiving the conditional use
permit. He stated during this time, he never received any notification from the City that
he had not maintained the existing landscaping and the existing parking facility. In short,
for the first five years he states those improvements have steadily been made and never
had he received anything from anyone derogatory about what he's done with this
property. He said he has letters from a number of letters from his patients over the
years that are pleased with what he has done with the property and the parking area.
Jean Odmark lives adjacent to the property. She was happy that the driveway is paved
as when it was gravel and they snow removed she would get all the gravel in her yard.
She said she has spoken with Dr. Newton about increasing his landscaping. She felt he
has done a great job with the building but she would like to see trees and flowers on the
property.
Dr. Shane Newton responded to Ms. Odmark's comments. He reiterated that he has
been a good neighbor and has improved the property. He felt that he is not expanding
the parking but making it easier to delineate specific parking areas in attempt to be that
better neighbor. He asked the City what the meaning of "maintain" means.
Chairman Youde closed the public hearing.
Ms. Groenevelt responded to Dr. Newton's remarks. She said when the settlement
agreement was held the point of hiring a landscape architect was to reconfigure the
parking spaces. The City did not say that they had to be in the same place, only the
same number of parking spaces and the same area of landscape area because that is
the condition of the CUP. The City did not say return the yard to grass but asked him to
come up with a plan to show the Planning and Zoning that has maintained the same
area and the same number of parking spaces. It was open to the applicant how they
wanted to configure it and what type of landscaping would work best there.
Chairman Youde asked Mr. Millar if he knew how many approved ITD driveway access
slots there are in front of the lot. Mr. Millar advised no, we do not know how many
approved ITD approaches are on the property. Mr. Millar advised that Staff believes the
doctor has been a good neighbor, he has taken the house and done some
improvements, and Staff wishes they could resolve this situation amicably. The doctor
wants the language added to the agreement that his attorney recommended. The City
City of McCall Planning and Zoning Commission
March 7, 2005 Minutes
Page 6
attorney recommended that the language not be added. It is not a compromise solution
but a settlement of a violation of the conditions of the conditional use permit.
Procedurally, if the Commission adopts the recommendation of Staff the applicant has
two options; comply with the conditions or appeal it to the Council. Again, the feeling is,
we have asked the applicant to hire a landscape architect come back with a plan for this
Commission to approve that has approximately the same area of landscape and parking
that the original plan had but reconfigure it however he feels it should be reconfigured to
better operate his business. The Commission will approve that plan and you can go
build it or the Commission doesn't approve the plan or you don't like what the
Commission says and can appeal it to the City Council.
Ms. Groenevelt clarified for the Commission that the settlement agreement that Dr.
Newton denied at the last meeting the settlement agreement had change adding
wording that stated "provided however that you should not be required to remove any
existing pavement" so the conduct is changing as to what is to be done.
Chairman Youde stated that while this CUP predates all of the Commission and
everyone involved, for the record and testimony he wants to say four things; one is he
felt the word "maintained" is clear to him that it means a standard of reasonablis and
clarity. Second, it's unfortunate when lawyers get involved that it gets so complicated.
Third, the applicant had the opportunity and prerogative to seek clarification of the CUP
approval and the definitions on maintaining the site or seek modification of the CUP if
they were likely to do something different then the original CUP condition. Lastly, the
issue is not whether the improvements made were good, bad or acceptable or otherwise
the issue is that it violated the CUP condition and the issue should now go forward to
Council. Chairman Youde's recommendation is to approve the Staff recommendation
that the applicant either comply with the conditions or appeal the findings to City Council.
Commissioner Schoedler stated that the wording in the original CUP is clear and
perhaps the improvement he made throughout the years were not maintained but the
City does not get involved until a neighbor complains.
Commissioner Jessup asked what we want at this point, do we just want it to look better
and that if the applicant is willing to make it look better isn't there some way to do this
without prolonging this?
Mr. Millar said if the Planning and Zoning Commission were to ask the applicant to come
back with a landscape plan for the property for the Planning and Zoning Commission's
approval and you tabled this and the doctor could come back with a landscape plan then
you can look at it and say go then we'd be done. This is one way you can go, to table
the staff report, table the findings and conclusions, ask the applicant to come back next
month with a landscape plan then you can look the landscape plan over and if the
Commission is fine with it then you can approve it by motion. Chairman Youde clarified
that it would either meet the original CUP language or would be an acceptable
modification and it would be entered into the record and be done. All Staff wanted was a
landscape plan and a commitment to act on it. If the applicant comes back in with an
acceptable landscape plan then a letter or finding can be written that the City and the
applicant agree that the attached landscape plan meets the requirement of the
conditional use permit and there would be something in the file.
City of McCall Planning and Zoning Commission
March 7, 2005 Minutes
Page 7
Mr. Millar asked Dr. Newton if he could have something to the Commission a week prior
to the May meeting, then the Commission would look at it at that time. Dr. Newton said
he would be able to provide a landscaping plan.
Chairman Youde made a motion to table the staff recommendation to continue the item
to the next regular May meeting and to request that the applicant bring a landscape plan
to Staff for a presentation at that meeting Commissioner Schoedler seconded and the
motion passed.
Commission By -Laws
The Commission will review and update the By -Laws, which govern Commission
procedures.
Commissioner Schoedler made a motion to adopt the revised draft Commission By -
Laws, Commissioner Jessup seconded, and the motion passed.
ADJOURNMENT
As there was no further discussion, Chairman Youde adjourned the meeting at 9:05 p.m.
ATTEST:
Robert Youde
Planning and Zoning Commission
Chairman
City of McCall Planning and Zoning Commission
March 7, 2005 Minutes
Carrie Rushby
Community Development Admin. Assistant
Page 8