HomeMy WebLinkAbout004 02 98LAND USE AND DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION
April 2, 1998
Minutes of the regular meeting of the Land Use and Development Commission held in the City
Municipal Building April 2, 1998.
Present: Chairman Kent Keams; Commission Members Mary Harker, Wally Wright, Pete
Anderson, Myrna Cain; Attorney Tom Holmes; City Staff: Gerd Dixon, Larry Kohntopp and
Secretary Myrna Crapo.
Chairman Kearns asked for approval of the March 5, 1998 minutes. Pete Anderson moved to
approve the minutes of March 5, 1998. Myrna Cain seconded the motion. All voted in favor.
Chairman Kearns asked if any commission member had conflict of interest. There was none.
GENERAL BUSINESS:
1. A discussion of Bannock Planning Organization's Long Range Policies, Goals and
Strategies for the transportation system to see if they are consistent with Chubbuck's
Comprehensive Plan.
Kathleen Lacey explained that they needed to have approval from Chubbuck. Chairman Kearns
opened the meeting to a discussion by the commission. Their transportation plan needed to
parallel our transportation plan.
Mary Harker moved to accept this plan as being compatible with our long range comprehensive
plan. Wally Wright seconded the motion. Roll call vote: Myrna Cain, yes; Wally Wright, yes;
Pete Anderson, yes; Kent Kearns, yes; Mary Harker, yes.
1. An application by Merlin Phillips, 232 Pearl Street, Pocatello, Idaho for a change of
Land Use District from Limited Residential (R-2) to Limited Commercial (C-l) with an
accompanying Conditional Use application to create a duplex of the existing home and use
part of the existing home as an insurance office. Property is located at 4801 Whitaker
Road.
Chairman Kearns asked for any additions to the staff report. There was none.
Gail Anderson joined the meeting at 8:10 pm.
Merlin Phillips, 2332 Pearl Street, he and his wife will live on the main floor, the insurance office
will occupy one bedroom. It is a low traffic business. He has two employees and access will be
from Chubbuck Road. The second application is to build a four-plex and there is adequate room
for it. It would be a daylight basement type.
Land Use and Development Commission
April 2, 1998
Page 2
The neighbors had some concerns about privacy in the back yard; he would plant some trees to
help out with that problem.
Mr. Phillips showed the commission a picture of the proposed building. It would be higher then a
single story home. He will restore the home to its original design. In front he will raise the level
and remove some of the scrubber. His hours of business will be 9 PM to 5 PM. He would do
curb, gutter and sidewalk if that is required by the city. He has a 6 foot wood solid fence on the
north and on the west; there are also trees to block the view.
The commission discussed:
1. Zoning in agreement with the comprehensive plan
2. Comprehensive plan shows it can be considered for R-3
Williams Brown, 5351 Whitaker Road. He is in opposition to the request. If everything was
allowed it could increase to 9 extra vehicles. It would allow commercial in the neighborhood. It
would greatly increase the traffic flow. A zoning change would not bind future owners to the
commitment that Mr. Phillips has made tonight.
Jan Heinz, 4796 Branson, he lives directly across from the property. It is a residential area and
doesn't need to be C-1. He is opposed to it.
Melvin W. Jackson, 5111 Whitaker Road, It doesn't quality as a home occupation. He is opposed
to the request. This would be the first parcel to be commercial. It would also be the first duplex
approved. There are 127 places with rental property in the newspaper.
Elaine Hale, 4825 Whitaker Road, she is concerned about the impact on property value. Its a
residential zone and not a commercial zone. The homes and yards are well kept. She would like
to have a masonry fence as a buffer between them.
Wayne Hale, 4825 Whitaker Road, he is concerned about what would happen when he wants to
sell in the future. The traffic is a concern. He is concerned about a C-1 zone opened up the area
to commercial. It doesn't fit currently as zoned.
Janice Heinz, 4796 Branson the R-2 zone is in Mr. Phillips favor. She doesn't see where the
business would generate many cars. She is concerned about the bottom line being letting in
businesses.
The commission discussed:
1. Transition area zoning
2. The history behind our comprehensive plan
3. The comprehensive plan vision
Land Use and Development Commission
April 2, 1998
Page 3
Chairman Kearns opened the meeting to public testimony in favor of the application.
K.C. Gibbs, 426 E. Chubbuck Road where does the commercial zone end. How far is it going
to go. What will happen to the irrigation ditch. He is not opposed to this application.
The commission discussed:
1. The comprehensive plan being updated since Mr. Gibbs application.
Merlin Phillips, 232 Pearl Street, their is an irrigation ditch going down the property line. There is
waste water pipe that is underneath the fence by the northwest corner of the property. It would
be taken care of. He wouldn't want to see a gas station, tattoo parlor, etc. in that area.
Janice Heinz, 4796 Branson asked how a day care is allowed with employees in that zoning.
Attorney Holmes explained that a day care is listed under a different ordinance and is not a major
or minor home occupation.
The commission discussed:
1. Day care ordinances
Wayne Hale, 4825 Whitaker asked if there could be a temporary zoning.
Jan Heinz, 4796 Branson, asked about what Chubbuck Road would go to in the future.
Chairman Kearns closed the public testimony portion and brought it back to the commission for
discussion and a motion.
The commission discussed:
1. C-1 under the comprehensive plan being allowed in the area.
2. We can't control the future uses of the property.
3. Setting up a buffer
4. We allow some businesses in a residential area
5. Major Occupations not allowing employees.
6. Number of people in a day the coming to the business would be five to seven.
7. The use being compatible
Land Use and Development Commission
April 2, 1998
Page 4
Pete Anderson moved to recommend to the city council that they rezone this property C1 based
on the fact that this is the type of business that we are looking to have in Cl. The business would
be compatible with the interest of the neighborhood. The comments made here are not a concern
to Mr. Philips business but more to a Cl. In our present ordinances this is the only direction we
can technical go. Wally Wright seconded the motion. Roll call vote: Myrna Cain, yes; Wally
Wright, yes; Pete Anderson, yes; Kent Kearns no; Mary Harker, no; Gayle Anderson, yes.
Merlin Phillips, 232 Pearl, the basement would be rented out. The business and their home would
be on the main floor.
Pete Anderson moved to deny the conditional use permit to create a duplex because this is a
contradiction to the previous motion. He doesn't feel that a mixing of a rental residential in a C1
zone is a appropriate use. Myrna Cain, seconded. Roll call vote: Myrna Cain, yes; Wally Wright,
yes; Pete Anderson, yes; Kent Kearns, yes; Mary Harker, yes; Gayle Anderson, yes.
2. An application by Merlin Phillips, 232 Pearl Street, Pocatello, Idaho for a Conditional
Use Permit to build a 4-plex at 4801 Whitaker Road.
Chairman Kearns opened the meeting to testimony in opposition to the four plex.
Elaine Hale, 4825 Whitaker Road, the four plex will look into her back yard which is her
property. She is concerned about there being enough room to build one and the parking for that
many families plus the business. She is concerned about the irrigation on the property. It will
need to be replaced; will she have to pay for it.
Bill Brown, 5351 Whitaker objects to the four plex on this property.
Melvin Jackson, 5111 Whitaker, the fair housing act was reviewed by Mr. Jackson.
Ross Minson, 4840 Whitaker Road we will be opening the door if we allow it to go in. He is
opposed to a 4-plex.
Rod Traughber, 446 E. Chubbuck Road west of the proposed 4-plex. He wonders if he will have
enough room to build the four plex. He is opposed to it.
Kelly Taylor, 530 E. Chubbuck Road is opposed to the apartment. It doesn't fit into the
neighborhood.
Wayne Hale, 4825 Whitaker quoted Kent England letter stating the property values would
decrease.
Land Use and Development Commission
April 2, 1998
Page 5
Steve Green, 410 E. Chubbuck Road when the property next to him was approved three promises
were made. 1. a screening fence, 2. irrigation ditch, 3. a 30' green strip. They have not been kept.
Chairman Kearns opened the meeting to public testimony in support. There was none.
He brought the meeting back to the commission for a discussion and a motion.
Pete Anderson moved to deny the conditional use because there are some code issues that the
building department needs to address. The commission cannot make an adequate decision at this
time as far as the conditional use. Wally Wright seconded. Roll call vote: Myrna Cain, yes; Wally
Wright, yes; Pete Anderson, yes; Kent Keams, yes; Mary Harker, yes; Gayle Anderson, yes..
3. An application by BC Circle Properties, LLC, 310 North 2nd East, Rexburg for a
preliminary plat for BC Circle Subdivision. Property is located at Northwest corner of
Circle Inn Drive and Yellowstone (4907 Yellowstone). Property is presently zoned General
Commercial (C-2).
Mike Lund, Benton Engineering of Idaho Falls represented the applicants. The are going to put a
Checker Auto Parts on that lot. They would put a 40 foot radius on Circle Inn and Yellowstone.
They would be closing the driveways and have a shared access on the north side. One access on
Yellowstone shared with the property owner on the north. They will have an access on Circle Inn
drive.
Chairman Kearns opened the meeting for testimony in opposition to the preliminary plat. There
was none. He then opened the meeting to public testimony in favor of the plat. There was none.
Chairman Kearns then closed the public hearing portion and brought it back to the commission for
a discussion and a motion.
Pete Anderson moved to recommended approval of the preliminary plat for BC Circle plat.
Myrna Cain seconded. Roll call vote: Myrna Cain, yes; Wally Wright, yes; Pete Anderson, yes;
Kent Kearns, yes; Mary Harker, yes; Gayle Anderson, yes.
4. Area of City Impact Agreement between Bannock County and the City of Chubbuck for
the unincorporated areas of the county lying outside the City of Chubbuck city limits. This
proposed, negotiated agreement will ensure county and city cooperation in planning for an
orderly growth process of the urban fringe area. A defined geographical area of city
impact is proposed and should be in harmony with the Comprehensive Plan.
Larry Kohntopp passed out copies of the proposed city/county impact area. North to reservation
line, west to Laughrin Road out to the river.
The commission discussed: Hart's ground being in Pocatello
Land Use and Development Commission
April 2, 1998
Page 6
Chairman Kearns opened the meeting to public testimony for or against.
Veda Rupp, 12789 Hiline Road, they don't want it to be in the City of Pocatello. She owned the
property there above the hill.
Chairman Kearns closed the public hearing portion of the meeting and turned it back to the
Commission for a discussion and a motion.
Pete recommend to the city council approval of the city impact area. Gayle Anderson seconded.
All voted in favor.
GENERAL BUSINESS:
1. A discussion of P.U.D.
The commission discussed:
1. PUD being abused by developers for infill
2. Having infill different from a P.U.D.
3. Sitting a minimum size for P.U.D.
4. Needs to be unique into itself
5. Require professional services
6. Giving applicants examples of past P.U.D.
The meeting adjourned at 11:40 P.M.
Kent Kearns, Chairman
Myrna C'~9, Secreta~
�, CITY OF CHUBBUCK
n
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 April 2, 1998, upon the application of Merlin Phillips (hereinafter
referred to as "applicant") for a conditional use permit to build a four-plex on the real property
located at 4801 Whitaker 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.
3. The property in question is zoned Limited Residential R-2 pursuant to the Land Use
Ordinance of the City of Chubbuck.
4. The property is designated as R -3/C-1 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 section 67-6512 and in Chubbuck Code section 18.28.040 (C).
6. The facts relevant to an evaluation of the relevant criteria and standards are as follows:
A. The land contains about .71 acres. In related application, applicant has
indicated that his insurance business which would be in an adjacent building and is a low
traffic business. Applicant would have two employees who would be secretaries.
B. Access would be off Chubbuck Road generally, rather than Whitaker Road to
service this development.
C. A six foot fence exists now between applicant's property and the property to
the north. There is no fence to the west but there are some trees that the neighbor to the
west indicates could potentially be harmed by the development.
D. Chubbuck Road will tend to develop as a commercial area according to the
Chubbuck Comprehensive Plan and the appearance of recent developments in the area.
^ Whitaker Road on the other hand appears likely to continue to be more of a residential
neighborhood.
FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND DECISION - Page 1
dsc chbbck08.112
n E. Some Whitaker Road residents indicate there is a pending application to
change most of the Whitaker Road residential area from an R-2 to an R-1.
F. The insurance business generates 5-7 people per day, but some days have no
traffic.
G. The proposed insurance office would be upstairs and could live in the balance
of the upstairs and the basement could be rented out.
H. This proposed mixing of dense residential use with business use appears
inappropriate.
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 be injurious to the neighborhood or
otherwise detrimental to the public health, safety or welfare.
1-00*N 2. The permit sought will produce an adverse impact on the economic values of
adjacent properties.
3. The permit sought will 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 complied 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
indicate that the permit should be denied.
5. The use for which the permit is sought shall 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 conflict with aesthetic qualities of
the surrounding lands.
7. The adverse impact of the proposed use on other development within the City has
not been minimized by Applicant as much as is reasonably possible.
8. Owners of adjacent property have not expressed approval of the issuance of the
requested conditional use permit.
FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND DECISION - Page 2
dsc chbbck08. 112
9. A business use should not be mixed with a residential use.
DECISION
1. The Land Use and Development Commission, pursuant to the foregoing, finds that the
request of the applicant should not be approved.
2. The conditional use permit requested by the Applicant is not granted.
3. Takings. Pursuant to Idaho Code § 67-8001 et seq., the Commission makes the
following findings with respect to the decision in this action:
A. This Action does not result in a permanent or temporary physical occupation of
private property.
B. This Action does not require the property owner to dedicate a portion of the
property or to grant an easement.
C. This Action does not deprive the owner of the property of all viable uses of the
property.
00,111, D. This Action does not have a significant impact on the landowner's economic
interest.
E. This Action does not deny a fundamental attribute of ownership.
F. This Action does not serve the same purpose that would be served by directly
prohibiting the use or action, nor does the condition imposed substantially advance such
purpose.
DATED this') 4day of , 1998.
LAND USE AND DEVELOPMENT
COMMISSION
By: —r
hair an
FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND DECISION - Page 3
dsc chbbck08.112