Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout08 13 1985 CM 1~7 COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES August 13, 1985 · Minutes of regular council meeting held in the city municipal building, August 13, 1985. Present: Mayor John O. Cotant, Jr., Councilmembers Becky A. Hopkins, Leroy S. Quick, Thomas S~ Nield, Steven M. England, Attorney B. Lynn Winmill, Engineer Steven M. Smart, and City Clerk Ron C. Conlin. Meeting was called to order at 7~50 p~m. by Mayor Cotant. APPROVAL OF MINUTES - Mayor Cotant asked for corrections and additions to the minutes of July 23, !985. Councilman Nield moved to approve the minutes of July 23, !~5 as read. Councilman England seconded. All councilmembers voted in favor of motion. APPEAL OF CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT ISSUED TO CLIFF SPEARS - An appeal on a conditional use permit granted Cliff Spears by the Land Use & Development Commission, to place a duplex at 4915 Trent, Block 4, Lot 14 in the Heights Subdivision. The appeal stated that there are residents within 3On' that did not recieve due notice of the public hearinq. Mayor Cotant read names of residents that should have been notified of the public hearing, but was not: 1) Richard Smith, 4865 Trent was at the Land Use Meeting but was not notified. 2) T.B. Smith, 4862 Trent was not notified. 3) Lynn Buck', 775 Gloria was not notified. 4) Scott Nichols, 85! Todd wa~ not notified. It was decided the Conditional Use Permit issued to Cliff Spears to place a duplex at 4915 Trent, Block 4, Lot 14 in Heights Subdivision would be required to go before the Land Use & Development Commission a~ain for a new public hearing, since it appeared that Mr. Spears failed to give the City a proper list of persons residing or owning property with 3Q~' of the property on which he desires to construct a duplex. FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW - APPEAL DF CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT - At the July 23, 1985 Council Meeting the council reversed the action of the Land Use Development Commission on a conditional use permit issued to Stewart Nelson, to place 4-plex units on the west 55Q feet of Lot 18, Block 1, Paradise Acres Subdivision ~nd directed Attorney Winmill to prepare Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law for council approval. Attorney Winmill read the Findings of Fact and Conclusions df Law to Mayor Cotant and Council. After discussion Councilman England moved to adopt the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law as read. Councilwoman Hopkins seconded. Roll Call Vote: Hopkins, yes; Quick, yes; Nield, yes; England, yes. BUSINESS LICENSE APPLICATION - David Fitzen, Project 8Q, 24Q Fairmont, Pocatello, Idaho, has applied for a business license to sell candy door to door. David Fitzen was present and explained his selling program to Mayor Cotant and Council. 109 BUSINESS LICENSE APPLICATION - David Fitzen, Project 80 - (Cont.) Councilman Nield stated there had been complaints last year. Mr. Fitzen responded that he was unaware of any complaints. Mr. Fitzen was asked if he is compliance with child labor laws. Mr. Fitzen stated he is. Mr. Fitzen also stated that the young people_~n~Ql~ed in h~s program travel in pairs. An adult is always within one or two blocks and checks on the young people every 15 to 20 minutes. Attorney Winmill advised the council that we could not, under our ordinance, preclude the sale of candy door to door, unless there was a rienfiable and unique concern for the public health, safety and welfare. In view of the precautions taken by the applicant for the protection of the participants and the fact that parental consent is required for the young person's participation, it was considered that no such concern, could be shown. Councilman Nield moved to approve a business license to David Fitzen, Project 80~ to sell candy door to door in the City of Chubbuck. Councilman England seconded. All coundilmembers voted in favor of motion. FINAL PLAT - HILINE HEIGHTS SUBDIVISION - Engineer Smart presented a copy of the Final Plat to Mayor Cotant and Council for review. Engineer Smart stated there are a few minor changes that need to be made before the final plat is approved. Engineer Smart stated he needed some clarifications on what the council was requiring on the fencing of the canal for the final plat. Discussion about where the fence should be installed. Mr. John Parker, Fort Hall Irrigation Co. wa~ present and explained Fort Hall Irrigation Co's. position on the easement along the canal..Mr. Parker stated Fort Hall Irrigation Co. meeds adequate easement footage. Discussion about who is responsible to keep the easement clean from junk that is dropped in the area. Mr. Parker said this has been a real problem. Engineer Smart suggested the City eliminate the fencing requirment on the final plat of the Hiline Heights Subdivision because he did not feel it would serve a purpose. Attorney Winmill stated he had checked with other municipalities and none of them involve themselves with requlatinq safety along canal banks in this way. The council decided that imposing'a fencing requirment was not a practical method to decrease any hazzards created by the canal. It was sueeested that any hazzard can best be dealt with by each lot owner based on a consideration of their unique situation, including proximity to canal, number and ages of children, and the instance or non-existence of fences on adjoining lots. Engineer Smart suggested striking the last paragraph on the final plat. It was stated that by the council approving the final plat the council is not taking the position as to whether or not the final plat may be in violation of the Fort Hall Irrigation Co. rights under federal regulation or under their general rights of common law. That issue must be resolved between the developer and the Fort Hall Irrigation Co. 111 FINAL PLAT - HILINE HEIGHTS SUBDIVISION - (Cont.) Discussion about the crossing of the canal, the council was assured by John Parker, Fort Hall Irrigation Co. that there would not be a problem with this, Councilman Nield moved to approve the Final Plat - Hiline Height Subdivision subject to : 1) Removal of the last full paragraph on the deed of dedication 2) Modifications the City Engineer would propose to bring into accordance with the ordinance. 3) Removal of any typographical errors. 4) Designation of the utility easement between Bedford Drive and Bistline Park as a pedestrian easement as well as a utility easement. Councilman England seconde~. All councilmembers voted in favor of motion. CLAIMS - Computor print-out and handcheck claims have been presented to Mayor Cotant and Council. After discussion Councilwoman Hopkins moved to approve computer print-out and handcheck claims as read. Councilman Quick seconded. All councilmembers voted in favor of the motion. At 9:10 p.m,, Councilwoman Hopkins moved, Councilman Quick seconded, with full council approval to adjourn the meeting, Ro rk FJohn O. Cotant, Jr., Mayor FINDINGS CHUBBUCK CITY COUNCIL OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND DECISION This matter having come before the Council for public hearing pursuant to public notice as required by law, on July 23, 1985, upon the appeal of Troy Knoblich from the decision of the Chubbuck Land Use and Development Commission granting Stewart Nelson (hereinafter referred to as "applicant") a conditional use permit to construct sixteen four-duplex units on real property described as the West 550' of Lot 18, Block 1, Paradise Acres Subdivision, and the Council having heard testimony from interested parties and being fully advised in the matter, now makes the following: FINDINGS OF FACT 1. Applicant applied for a conditional use permit as particularly described above. 2. Ail legal requirements for notice of the public hearing before the Land Use and Development Commission and the City Council have been met. (R-2) 3. The property in question is zoned General Residential pursuant to the Land Use Ordinance of the City of Chubbuck. 4. The property is designated as General Residential (R-2) 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 Section 7-4 of the Chubbuck Land Use Ordinance and other pertinent provisions of the Chubbuck Land Use Ordinance and Comprehensive Plan. 6. The existing neighboring land uses in the immediate area of this property are: to the north, single family residential structures and some four-plexes; to the east, single family residential structures; to the south, duplexes; and to the west, single family household dwellings. 7. The facts relevant to an evaluation of the relevant criteria and standards are as follows: A. Neighbors express concern both before the Land Use and Development Commission and the City Council about the negative impact which dense apartment complexes will have on adjoining property values and the quality of life in adjoining subdivisions~ FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND DECISION - Page 1 CH#6-54 B. Under both current and prior zoning, a multiple household structure is allowed if the conditional use permit is granted. C. At the time the current zoning was adopted by the City Council and the Land Use and Development Commission, neither body was apprised of the fact that the restrictive covenants applicable to this area required that this area be maintained as a neighborhood commercial district. D. The recorded restrictive covenants, although not binding on the City Council, do indicate that the adjoining landowners, when the purchased their property were put on notice that this property would be retained as a limited or neighborhood uom~nerciai district. E. The applicant, although receiving written notice of the public hearing on the appeal, did not appear before the City Council on the date scheduled for the public hearing. 8. Owners of adjacent property have objected to the issuance of the requested conditional use permit. BASED UPON THE FOREGOING FINDINGS OF FACT, the hereby enters the following: City Council CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1. The use for which the permit is sought may be injurious to the neighborhood and be significantly detrimental to the public health, safety or welfare. 2. The applicant has not provided satisfactory evidence that conditions can be imposed which would prevent an adverse impact on the economic values of adjacent properties. 3. It is unclear what impact the construction of a dense apartment complex would have upon transportation facilities, schools, public parks and the natural environment. 4. It would appear that the apartment complex which applicant desires to build will work an unreasonable hardship upon surrounding property owners. FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND DECISION - Page 2 CH~6-54 5. It would seem clear that the aesthetic qualities of the proposed use will conflict with the aesthetic qualities of the surrounding lands in that applicant has not done an adequate job of landscaping the area so as to minimize the "army barracks" appearance of the complex which he desires to build. 6. Although the Council is not bound by the provisions of the restrictive covenants applicable to applicant's land, it may take notice of such restrictions as indicating the factors which adjoining landowners relied upon in purchasing their property. 7. The applicant's failure to appear in defense of his application indicates an apparent intention not to proceed with the application. 8. The requested conditional use permit should be denied. DECISION 1. The City Council, pursuant to the foregoing, the request of the applicant should be denied. finds that CITY OF CHUBBUCK ATTEST: MAYOR CITY CLERK FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND DECISION - Page 3 CH#6-54 !%rt ;;all Irrigation Project United States Department of the Interior BUREAU OF INDIAN AFFAIRS FORT HALL AGENCY FORT HALL, IDAHO 83203 September 10, 1985 Parrish Architects 4~O1 Yellowstone Pocatello, ID 8~O2 Re: Hiline Heights Subdivision Dearer. Parrish: This letter serves aa a reminder that the Fort Hall Irrigation Project has a right-of-way for the Fort Hall Main Ca.al (Hiline Canal) through your proposed subdivision. For 2our information the following exerpts from the Code of Federal Regulations are provided: l~ights-of-way. !171.12 (a) Rights-of-way reserved for the project's irrigation system are of ~ufficient width to per. it passage and use of equipment neceBsary · or construction and proper operation and m~in%e~e of the project's CnnA1B, laterals, and other irrigation works. Obstructions. ~171.11 No obstructions of any kind including service or farm ditches, will.he permitted upon project rights-of-way. Due notice will be given to an operator or landowner to remove any obstructions. If not removed within a reasonable period of time after notice ie given, an obstruction will be removed by project forces at the expense of the operator or landowner. Health and sanitation. ~171.21 Use of Government storage reservoirs, canals, laterals or drains for disposal of sewage and trash shall not be permitted under any circu~- stances. If such conditions occur, and project forces are unable to correct them, the OfficexT-in-Charge shall request the Area Director to arrange for the necessary legal action. Page 2 Structures. ~171.9 (c) After a project is completed, additional structures crossing or encroaching on project canal, lateral or drain right-of-way which are needed for private use ~ay be constructed privately in accord- ance with plans approved by'the Officer-in-Charge or by the project. In either case the coat of installing such structures will not be at the project's expense. Such structures will be constructed and ~aintained under revocable permits on proper for~a issued by the Officer-in-Charge of the irrigation project to the party or parties desiring such structures. In light of the above provisions it should be noted that the "Deed of Dedication" as ~houn on ,~heet 2/2 of your Subdivision Plat contains erroneous or misleading inforeation. Without'an approved per.it stating otherwise, the official ca.al right-of-way width is 70 feet east of the canal centerline and between 105 to 2~0 feet west of the cansl centerline. With an approved per.it the Project will allow a 40 foot east width and a 55 foot west width as per our ~/~/85 letter. If the canal were piped, this width could be reduced still more. Fi.sl width would depend upon the final design, but would not be less than 20 feet. The right-of-way ~idth is for the operation and maintenance of the system. It will not be changed in size or abandoned without a formal declaration by the Government. Thus no structures or encroachment by anyone upon the CAnal right-of-way, will be allo~ed. Present and perspective landowners should be informed of these restrictions. Regardless of any City or County approvals, the Federal regulations concerning this canal and its right-of-way must be followed. In su.w~ary the Hiline Canal and its right-of-way are protected by Federal statute. Any encroachment or unauthorized use of this right-of-way is prohibited. If you have any questions or comments regarding this matter, please advise. Sincerely, cc; Alan L. Oliver Supervisory Civil Engineer Judy Harmon, Bannock County Steve ~mart, City of Chuhbuck Nayor Cotant, City of Chubbuck BAnnock County'Commiesioners