Loading...
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