Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout012 08 94LAND USE AND DEVELOPMENT MEETING December 8, 1994 Minutes of the regular meeting of the Land Use and Development Commission held in the city municipal building. Present: Chairman Kent Kearns, Commission Members: Gayle Anderson, Dusty Whited, Richard Pearson, Myrna Cain, Steve Shouse; Council Representative Marvin Gunter; Attorney Tom Holmes; Project Engineer Gerd Dixon and Secretary Myrna Crapo. Chairman Kent Kearns called the meeting to order at 8:05 PM. Chairman Kearns asked for approval of Minutes of Nov. 3rd and Nov. 17th meetings. Myrna Cain moved to approve the minutes with Gayle Anderson seconding. All voted in favor. Chairman Kearns asked if any of the commission members had a conflict of interest. There was none. PUBLIC HEARING: 1. A proposal by Art Paz, Box 340, Pocatello, Idaho for a change of Land Use District for 218 West Chubbuck Road from R-2 Limited Residential to R-4 Dense Residential in order to allow building of 4-plex's. Chairman Kearns opened the public hearing: Gerd Dixon discussed the staff findings: plating is triggered by this proposed building according to the staff report. Mr. Steve Vigilaturo 2835 Janet Pocatello, explained that there was an existing brick home on the west side of the property and another grey home on the east side. They want to take out the grey house and would like to use that as an access into the back of the property. The proposed plat shows that information. They would take the back part of the property and using the open spaces back there will have 29 parking places, with three four plex'~. The apartments would have two bedrooms. They would retain [-.he brick house in the front, and want to fence them to create a buffer between the house and the apartments. The house is currently leased out. They will try to create some attractive houses. The Co~nmission informed Mr'. Vigilaturo that the city could at a future date require sidewalks, curb and gutter. Mr. Vigilaturo was not opposed to that, as they would like to keep it as nice as possible. Gerd Dixon reviewed a part of the staff report, this will create a street requirement. The ordinance was read by Gerd for the commission. This street is required by the ordinance. Land Use and Development Commission Page 2 December 8, 1994 The commission discussed platting of the property and the zone change triggered by a combination of the structure and the length of the street (150 feet or more). The zone change would allow the four plex's, but the street would trigger the platting process. Chairman Kearns opened the meeting for public testimony for or against the proposed application. Gary Brown, 4638 West Portneuf Road, felt it was compatible with the other part of the neighborhood. He thought it should be a private road and the responsibility of the owners and not a public street. The street should be the developers problem. Lewis Hoge, 4827 N. Alton. His property is at the back of where the apartments would sit. He is concerned with the type of fencing, more traffic and what this would do to the area. They have had problems with people in the existing apartments coming through their property. They do not need more people there. Mr. Hoge wanted to know what type of fence would be required. He had trouble getting his current fence that he had been promised by developers. He was not. in favor of it until they have more information as there was too many generalities. He would like to have them come up with a reasonable situation 'to solve the problems. Mr. Hoge would like a 7' or 8' solid fence, and good drainage and etc from the parking lots. He wants to have his privacy and to keep the noise down. Kent Kearns informed Mr. Hoge that the city could require a 6' fence; an extension above 6' would require an additional conditional use. Mr. Hoge stated that. people in the apartment would rather jump the fence than go around. He has a solid cedar fence in there now; which has stopped quite a bit of traffic. The original fence was not maintained right. He is concerned because nothing talked about tonight shows any particulars of what they plan on doing. L. V. Hageman, 162 W. Chubbuck, his ground borders on the west. They need a fence that is not climbable, and it needs to be put in writing so it can be enforced; the last developers didn't follow through with promises they had made. Are they just going to build a curb, and gutter without, any adjoining property having it. He couldn't afford to put it on his property, if this would require him to do so. Land Use and Development Commission Page 3 December 8, 1994 Kent Kearns explained to bir. Hageman that we want. to have curb, gutter and sidewalk installed at the developers expense. Mr. Hageman also questioned what the lighting was going to be like or if it would be dark. Don Hazekamp, 4901 Yellowstone #51 told the commission that he borders the property, living very close to the existing apartments. He has had problems with children hoping the fence and running though their property. The additional buildings will have the same problem. How will Chubbuck road handle the additional traffic. He doesn't have a problem with 2 duplex's but does with 4 plex's. That amount of apartments will bring an average of 48 people. Apartments will attract a cer'tain type of people. They are noisier. He is a shift worker and has trouble with the existing apartments. He is against rezoning it; instead he would like to see duplexes. Gary Brown, 4638 W. Portneuf. They have no problem with fencing. There is a plat in place currently and they would like to use the plat for the recorded survey. This is a record of survey. The Commission then informed Mr. Brown that the city is asking them to plat the property. The city would accept the road and it's maintenance. If they replat and do it to the cities specification they would accept it. ~lr. Brown: they would go a 6' screening, chain link fence with sla'ts and if necessary would even go 7' If it was needed to satisfy the neighbors he would not be opposed to that. Gerd Dixon told Mr. Brown that the only the thing the city will be responsibility for is the street, to the start of the parking lot. Chairman Kearns closed the pubic testimony portion and brought it back to the commission for discussion. Marvin Gunter questioned if the 129' would fall under the ordinance. He is not sure the city would want a street 129' in the city to maintain; it may be better as a private way. Gerd explained that anyone of those things can triggered the requirement for a street. Land Use and Development Commission Page 4 December 8, 1994 The commission discussed the following: 1. Whether the Fire department would have a problem in responding to fires. 2. Having it constructed to the city standards as far as the proper drainage. 3. Whether the street would be required to have a turn around area. 4. The zoning is the only thing we are considering now. Comprehensive Plan doesn't designate any R-3 or R-4 areas, but they are to be dealt with on a case by case basis. The existing zoning is a small isle of R-2. The comprehensive plan shows it commercial with the land around being C-2. 5. This change would change it to the designation. The R-4 would be a good step. comprehensive plan 6. The issue being the zone change recommendation to 'the city council. and that this was a Myrna Cain make a motion that we recommend approval of the application by Art Paz, P.O. Box 340 for a change of Land Use zoning from R-2 limited residential to R-4 dense residential for use in building three 4-plex's. Dusty Whited seconded the motion. Myrna Cain, yes; Marvin Gunter, yes; Richard Pearson, yes; Steve Shouse, yes; Kent. Kearns, yes; Dusty Whited, yes; Gayle Anderson, yes. 2. An application by Nicholas J. Crookston, 244 E. Chubbuck, Idaho 83202 for a conditional use permit to locate three apartments above building at 246 East Chubbuck Road. The proper'ty is zoned (I) Industrial. Gerd Dixon Reviewed the staff report. The commission discussed an application for an apartment above a storage unit that we had considered a few months ago. Apartments are conditionally permitted in industrial zones. That was a non-conforming use; while this application with a 3-plex over the bake shop is conditionally permitted. Nickolas J. Crookston, 244 E. Chubbuck Road. They are in the process of developing 246 E. Chubbuck into a bakery. Originally they intended to make it office spaces but the American Disabilities Act made it. economically not feasible. Rather then changing the design they decided to make an application for apartments up there. They decided to do it now instead of later. Land Use and Development Commission Page 5 December 8, 1994 Kent Kearns asked Mr. Crookston where the people would park. He informed the commission parking would be on the north side of the building and around the back from the loading dock. Eventually they will take out the red brick house when it becomes an industrial or commercial area. Eventually the road would widen and they would combine that property and develop it into some other business. They did not plan to move the house right now. They were living in the house at the present. Chairman Kearns asked for testimony supporting or opposing the conditional use permit. There being none, it was turned back to the commission for discussion. The commission discussed the following: 1. Why it would be conditional permitted and come before the commission. Richard Pearson moved that we grant the conditional use permit to allow three apartment on top of the bakery at 344 E. Chubbuck Road. Gayle Anderson seconded. Myrna Cain, yes, Marvin Gunter, yes; Richard Pearson, yes; Steve Shouse, yes; Kent Kearns, yes; Dusty Whited, yes; Gayle Anderson, Yes. 3.An application by Chad Baum, 310 Briscoe, for a conditional use permit to place a manufactured home at 310 Briscoe Road. The property is presently zoned R-2 Limited Residential. Don Yowell, 505 S. 8th a friend of the Baum's who was representing them. The present home was a single story home in poor condition and they had originally thought they would restore it; but decided to tear it down and put a manufactured home there. They both work in the evening and so they asked him to represent them. They had previously gone before the city council on November 22 and the city council did approve 'the building of the foundation with the understanding that it was at their risk. There are several other manufactured homes on the street. The foundation is there now. The home would be almost 2,000 sq. feet 28 x 70. It would have to meet the definition of class II. Chairman Kearns asked for any testimony supporting or opposing the application. There being none it was brought back to the commission for discussion. Kent reminded the Commission that they might need to make it transferable as part of 'the motion. This prevents them from having to come in at the time of sale of the property. Land Use and Development Commission Page 6 December 8, 1994 Richard Pearson made a motion to allow the conditional use to place a manufactured home at 310 Briscoe Road with the transferability at sale as part of the conditional use permit. Marvin Gunter seconded the motion. Myrna Cain, yes; Marvin Gunter, yes; Richard Pearson, yes; Steve Shouse, yes; Kent Kearns, yes; Dusty Whited, yes; Gayle Anderson, yes. GENERAL BUSINESS: David Wessell: Presented version I of the Comprehensive Plan. He wanted to review the genera] format and began at the first one of two elements. After that the commission needed to take the information home and read it and make corrections. The commission needs to do some additional brainstorming. This draft is without maps; but maps will be forthcoming shortly. This plan is supported by the analysis that has been done. Goals and strategies are under each goal. David left the vision and issue addressed from when we did our exercise on the preliminary goals. Summations are left in; and public opinion are facts. Each section is set up the same way. Most sections will have a map pertinent to that section. He has tried to keep it simple. Are there any format problems? As they pop into the commission's head bring them up. David would like some help with this. One of the biggest issues we need to prepare for in the future is the roads. The council needs to stand behind the planned roads. We have open ground to use in our development. Mr. Wessell then preceded to go through the handout. Richard Pearson suggested putting the statement of what Chubbuck is just off of the freeway and advertize it for people to see and to be proud of. The city needs to work on the area of impact city agreement especially on subdivisions. We need to find out what. is stopping developers from doing infill inside of the city. Another option is setting an actual growth ring boundary. This would force people to do infill inside of the City of Chubbuck. Lack of infra structure has come back to haunt us. them up and dress them up by code enforcement. Need to clean Land Use and Development Commission Page 7 December 8, 1994 We need to have a person to take care of development. We need a plan to show what we want to take place in an area. Access to residential areas. We need a better transportation system. A desire to keep residential areas excluded from traffic. Decent parks, & schools trend to rub off on the neighborhood. We can control infra structure with the comprehensive plan. bione)7 and politics will makes a difference in what can be done. L.I.D. that could take small subdivisions and lump them together. Objectives were reviewed. Great idea but how can you pull it off. Need a plan B if plan A doesn't work. The commission needs within, a week, 'to get their comments into Myrna to incorporate into version 2. Commission adjourned at 10:30 pm. rns, Chairman {yrna O-i~apo, Secreta~r~ CITY OF CHUBBUCK LAND USE AND DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND DECISION This matter having come before the Land Use and Development Commission for public hearing pursuant to public notice as required by law, on December 8, 1994, upon the application of Art Paz (hereinafter referred to as "applicant") for a change in land use district for the real property located at 218 W. Chubbuck Road from R-2 or Limited Residential to R-4, or Dense Residential, and the Land Use and Development Commission having heard testimony from interested parties and being fully advised in the matter, now makes the following: FINDINGS OF FACT 1. Applicant has applied for a zone change from R-2 to R-4 for the real property located at 218 W. Chubbuck Road. 2. All legal requirements for notice of public hearing have been met. 3. The property in question is zone R-2, Limited Residential pursuant to the Land Use Ordinance of the City of Chubbuck. 4. The property is designated as C-2, general commercial in the duly adopted Comprehensive Plan of the City of Chubbuck. 5. In the Comprehensive Plan of the City of Chubbuck, R-4 or dense residential zoning is a floating zone. The existing Comprehensive Plan has no R-4 or dense residential areas set aside, but is rather left to the dynamics of the change in land uses and dense residential is allowed where it is compatible with the developing mix of residential and commercial development. 6. Relevant criteria and standards for consideration of this application are set forth in the Comprehensive Plan in Sections B, B(5), B(6), and B(8) and in Idaho Code S 67-6502 and S 67-6508. 7. The requested change in land use district is not in conflict with the provisions of existing zoning regulations or the duly adopted Comprehensive Plan of the City of Chubbuck. 8. The property in question is suitable for the proposed land use district, and such uses would be compatible with existing land uses in the area, some of which are dense residential uses. FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND DECISION - Page 1 d9c chbbckt2.152 `7 i .-� 9. Owners of adjacent properties have expressed disapproval of the proposed change in land use district. 10. The requested zone change is reasonable to provide orderly development of the City, and to promote economic values and will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, and welfare. 11. It is in the best interests of the public that the proposed change in land use district be granted. 12. Developer has expressed a willingness to fence the area to minimize conflicts between this dense residential use and adjoining residence residential uses. BASED UPON THE FOREGOING FINDINGS OF FACT, the Chubbuck Land Use and Development Commission hereby enters the following: CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1. The requirements of Idaho Code S 67-6509(d) have been met. 2. The proposed change in land use district is reasonable and necessary to provide orderly development of the City, and to promote economic values, and is not inconsistent with or detrimental to the public health, safety, and welfare. 3. The proposed change in land use district is consistent with the provisions of the Comprehensive Plan and Land Use Ordinance of the City of Chubbuck and the Local Planning Act of 1975, as codified in Chapter 65 of Title 67 of the Idaho Code. 4. The requested change in land use district should be granted. DECISION It is recommended that the application for a change in land use district to designate the land described on Exhibit "A" and known as 218 W. Chubbuck Road be granted by the City Council. DATED this 0 day of December, 1994. LAND USE AND DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION By: /-I- -'Chairiftn FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND DECISON - Page 2 dac chbbck12.152 CITY OF CHUBBUCK LAND USE AND DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION FINDINGS OF FACT. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND DECISION This matter having come before the Commission for public hearing pursuant to public notice as required by law, on December 8, 1994, upon the application of Nicholas Crookston, (hereinafter referred to as "applicant") for a conditional use permit to allow three apartments on top of a bakery being built on real property located at 244 E. Chubbuck Road and the Commission having heard testimony from interested parties and being fully advised in the matter, now makes the following: FINDINGS OF FACT 1. Applicant has applied for a conditional use permit as particularly described above. 2. All legal requirements for notice of public hearing have been met. n 3. The property in question is zoned (I) Industrial pursuant to the Land Use Ordinance of the City of Chubbuck. n 4. The property is designated as (I) Industrial in the duly adopted Comprehensive Plan of the City of Chubbuck. 5. Relevant criteria and standards for consideration of this application are set forth in Idaho Code S 67-6512 and in Chubbuck Code S 18.28.040(C). 6. The facts relevant to an evaluation of the relevant criteria and standards are as follows: A. The schedule of land uses at 18.08.040 allows conditional use permits apartments in industrially zoned areas. B. There exists a shortage of apartments in the Chubbuck/Pocatello area. BASED UPON THE FOREGOING FINDINGS OF FACT, the Land Use and Development commission hereby enters the following: FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND DECISION - Page 1 dee ehbbck12.153 ,.1N, n CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1. The use for which the permit is sought will not be injurious to the neighborhood or otherwise detrimental to the public health, safety or welfare. 2. The permit sought will not produce an adverse impact on the economic values of adjacent properties. 3. The permit sought will not produce a negative impact on transportation facilities, public utilities, schools, public parks or the natural environment any greater than had the strict terms of the Land Use Ordinance been compiled with. 4. The noise and traffic conditions generated by the use for which the permit is sought, when analyzed in conjunction with the noise and traffic conditions now existing does not indicate that the permit should be denied. 5. The use for which the permit is sought shall not work an unreasonable hardship upon surrounding property owners by virtue of its physical natures or by the impact of changes made in the landscape of the land. 6. The aesthetic qualities of the proposed use will not conflict with the aesthetic qualities of the surrounding lands. 7. The adverse impact of the proposed use on other development within the City has been minimized by Applicant as much as is reasonably possible. 8. Owners of adjacent property have not expressed approval or disapproval of the issuance of the requested conditional use permit. 9. The requested conditional use permit, if granted, should be maintained subject to the conditions set forth below. DECISION 1. The Land Use and Development Commission, pursuant to the foregoing, finds that the request of the Applicant should be approved. 2. The following conditions, if any, are hereby imposed upon the granting of said conditional use permit and applicant, by taking advantage of said conditional use permit agrees to the imposition of the same: None. FINDINGS OF FACT, CONIMUSIONS OF LAW AND DECISION • Pegs 2 dsc chbbek12.133 �1 3. The conditional use permit requested by the applicant is granted, subject to the foregoing conditions. DATED this i day of December, 1994. FNDWM OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND DECISION - Page 3 doe ohbbcklI153 LAND USE AND DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION By. /-.I- Chairman ..z n CITY OF CHUBBUCK LAND USE AND DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION FINDINGS OF FACT CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND DECISION This matter having come before the Commission for public hearing pursuant to public notice as required by law, on December 8, 1994, upon the application of Chad Baum (hereinafter referred to as "applicant") for a conditional use permit to place a manufactured home on real property located at 310 Briscoe Road and the Commission having heard testimony from interested parties and being fully advised in the matter, now makes the following: above. FINDINGS OF FACT 1. Applicant has applied for a conditional use permit as particularly described 2. All legal requirements for notice of public hearing have been met. 3. The property in question is zone R-2, limited residential pursuant to the Land Use Ordinance of the City of Chubbuck. 4. The property is designated as R-2, limited residential in the duly adopted Comprehensive Plan of the City of Chubbuck. 5. Relevant criteria and standards for consideration of this application are set forth in Idaho Code S 67-6512 and in Chubbuck Code S 18.28.040(C). 6. The facts relevant to an evaluation of the relevant criteria and standards are as follows: A. Other manufactured homes are located in the immediate area. BASED UPON THE FOREGOING FINDINGS OF FACT, the Land Use and Development commission hereby enters the following: CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1. The use for which the permit is sought will not be injurious to the neighborhood or otherwise detrimental to the public health, safety or welfare. 2. The permit sought will not produce an adverse impact on the economic values of adjacent properties. FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND DECISION - Page 1 dsc chbbck12.151 3. The permit sought will not produce a negative impact on transportation facilities, public utilities, schools, public parks or the natural environment any greater than had the strict terms of the Land Use Ordinance been compiled with. 4. The noise and traffic conditions generated by the use for which the permit is sought, when analyzed in conjunction with the noise and traffic conditions now existing does not indicate that the permit should be denied. 5. The use for which the permit is sought shall not work an unreasonable hardship upon surrounding property owners by virtue of its physical natures or by the impact of changes made in the landscape of the land. 6. The aesthetic qualities of the proposed use will not conflict with the aesthetic qualities of the surrounding lands. 7. The adverse impact of the proposed use on other development within the City has been minimized by applicant as much as is reasonably possible. 8. Owners of adjacent property have not expressed approval or disapproval of the issuance of the requested conditional use permit. 9. The requested conditional use permit, if granted, should be maintained subject to the conditions set forth below. DECISION 1. The Land Use and Development Commission, pursuant to the foregoing, finds that the request of the applicant should be approved. 2. The following conditions, if any, are hereby imposed upon the granting of said conditional use permit and applicant, by taking advantage of said conditional use permit agrees to the imposition of the same: This permit is assignable and will automatically transfer upon conveyance of the property. 3. The conditional use permit requested by the applicant is granted, subject to the foregoing conditions. DATED this day of December, 1994. LAND USE AND DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION By: S ,,,Chair4&n FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND DECISION • Page 2 dsc chbbck12.151