Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout009 07 95LAND USE AND DEVELOPMENT MEETING September 7, 1995 .Xlinutes of the regular meeting of the Land Use and Development Commission held in the city municipal building September 7, 1995. Present: Chairman Kent Kearns, Commission members: Mary Harker, Pete Anderson, Dusty Whited, Myrna Cain, and Richard Pearson; Council Representative Dean Wood; Attorney: Tom Holmes; City staff: Larry Kohntopp, Gerd Dixon and Steve Smart Chairman Kearns informed those in attendance that the Harold Scalf request will not be on the agenda, since he was not able to acquire the land. The meeting was called to order by Chairman Kent Kearns at 8:00 pm. Chairman Kearns asked for approval of the minutes of the August 3, 1995 meeting. Mary Harker moved to approve the minutes with Dusty Whited seconding. All voted in favor. Chairman Kearns asked if any members of the commission had a conflict of interest. Dean Wood indicated that he had a conflict of interest on Items 3, 4, and 5. PUBLIC HEARING: 1. h application by Jim Worthen, 730 E. Chubbuck Road for review of a preliminary plat for Ranae Subdivision. A Subdivision located in Lot 15 in the Cloverdell Farms Subdivision (North of 242 and 244 E. Chubbuck Road.) Property is presently zoned Industrial (I). Chairman Kearns asked for any additions to the staff report. There was none Tim Shurtliff, 426 W. Lewis represented the Worthen's. The preliminary plat was submitted some time ago and approved to a two lot subdivision. They let the time slip away and passed the 6 month time limit for the final plat. This propert:y doesn't butt Chubbuck Road. Chairman Kearns asked for public testimony in opposition to the preliminary plat, there was none. He then asked for any public testimony supporting this plat, there was none. The public testimony portion of the meeting was closed and the meeting was brought back for discussion by the commission and a motion. Chairman Kearns reviewed the requirements on the original application of the p ~'eliminary plat. Pete Anderson moved to recommend to the city council to approve the preliminary plat for the Ranae Subdivision with the provision of naming the street, and that it be developed in three lots and two phases. Myrna Cain seconded the motion. Roll call vote: Myrna Cain, yes; Richard Pearson, yes; Pete Anderson, yes; Kent Kearns, yes; Mary Harker, yes; Dusty Whited, yes and Dean Wood, yes. Land Use and Development Commission Page £ September 7, 1995 Dean Wood stepped down because of conflict of interest. 2. An application by Southern Idaho Corp. of SDA, 1535 Troy Lane, Pocate]lo, Idaho for a change in land use district upon requested annexation to Light Commercial (_~-1) for 8 acres. Property is located on the SE corner of Siphon Road and the Railroad Tracks. In looking at the proposal there were a couple of points that the commission needed to address. 1. If the property was close enough to be annexed into the city. Tom Holmes told the commission that it appears that the property could be considered adjacent if it. was anywhere near the property located within the boundary. The NW boundary was close enough to be contagious with the city. The commission then discussed: 1. The land use district changes being in line with the comprehensive plan. 2. The elevation problem. 3. The sewer lines in the right of way. 4. The need to plat the adjoining property Kent Weakly, 8244 Buckskin Road. Asked the commission if they could run a sewer line up Siphon road. The>' would like to get started with the school as soon as possible. Steve Smart, public Works Director told Mr. Weakly that they don't know if there was enough fall to go into the sewer lift station at Ellis School. The commission felt t:hat we needed that information before we can make a decision. The commission discussed: 1. Having this information before we annexed them into the city. 2. Drain fields for the sewer instead of hooking into the city sewer. 3. Tabling these two items until they have time to address them. Chairman Kea:rns opened the meeting to public testimony in opposition: Edwin DeKay, 13149 W. Hiline Road owned land adjacent. He objects to the proposed annexation, of his property to the city of Chubbuck. He owns the remed'ning 22 acres of that plat and still wants to farm him ground and not have it annexed into the city. blt. DeKay doesn't object to any proposal of the Land Use and Development Commission Page 3 September 7, 1995 Dean Funk, 1749 South Fairway owes the eight acres that is being sold. They would need a right of way from Mr. DeKay to cross his property. Time is of the essence as they wanted to get something st~arted ~n the school before the snow flies. He would like to see something worked out with Mr. DeKay. Glen Marshall, 200 S. Main was the Northside Plaza Corporation representative. They plated 60 acres for industrial use and at that time it was not surrounded by the buildings that are built there now. The Coca Cola company was considering a distribution plant on seven acres adjacent to the steel company and Siphon Road.. They told him that if there was a school nearby they would not construct on that location. Hr..X{a~,shall doesn't feel that this is the place for an elementary school. They would like them to locate in an area that is more compatible to their use. Connie Howell, 224 E. Chubbuck Road was here as a concerned citizen and asked if Ellis School was in the city limits. She represented Mr. Dekay and asked what the plating process involves. Chairman Kearns asked for public testimony supporting the application. There was none. Ken Weakley, 8244 Buckskin Road, informed the commission that it would be elementary age students. They liked the property because it was close to Ellis Elementary and they can use public school facilities for' the private school. It is hard to find a piece of property to take care of the school needs. Chairman Kear'ns closed the public testimony portion and brought it back to the commission. The commission discussed: 1. It being conducive with the neighborhood. 2. We need to look at each item separately. 3. Industry not wanting to locate next to populated land or residential related functions. 4. Pt'otecting an existing development in the community. 5. The access to city services being thought through by the developer and the seller. 6. The county allowing the city sewer, in the county right of way. 7. The need for' more info,'marion before a decision can be made 8. How we are going to p~'ovide services to them. 9. Fife Protection available. 10. Tabling this item. Land Use and Development Commission Page 4 September 7, 1995 Richard Pearson moved to table this and give the parties involved time to work this out and bring it back. Pete Anderson seconded the motion. Ali voted in favor. 4. An application by James P. Fenton, P.O. Box 2932, Pocatello, Idaho for a conditional use permit for a retail auto sales at 4759 Yellowstone. Property is presently zoned General Commercial (C-2). Dwight Carpenter, 1329 S. 3rd, represented James Fenton. bit. Carpenter asked the commission what they needed to do to get the ball moving. He informed the commission that the building would be painted and some type of shrubbery would be planted. Chairman Kearns explained that they needed to meet current landscaping requirements. The city has landscaping ordinances and supplemental controls; and they needed to come into full compliance with the ordinances. tttorney Tom Holmes, told Mr. Carpenter that they needed to make an appointment with the city clerk and come into design revie~v on a Tuesday mot nih g. Chairman Kearns opened the public hearing and asked for public testimony in opposition to the conditional use permit, there was none. Chairman Kearns then asked for public testimony in support of the conditional use permit, there was none. Richard Pearson moved to grant this conditional use permit on the condition that the gentlemen representing this business come in and so be informed as to the landscaping and the city requirements and be in compliance there to. b]ary Harker seconded with all voting in favor. 5. An application by Lee & Cindy Madden, 5008 Yellowstone for a conditional use permit to have an impound storage yard to store Rv's, Fireworks Stands, and Towed Vehicles at 145 E. Linden. Property is presently zoned General Commercial (C-2). Cindy Madden, 5008 Yellowstone, showed the commission a drawing of the area. They would like to have a 7' to 8' feet fences with barb wire on top for security reason. They are no~ a junk yard or salvage yard. They just store vehicles until the insurance company or owner okays the disposal of them. They will move their repair shop to that site and use the old B.J's truck wash bull. ding. They want to have plug-ins for semi-truck to use in the winter months. The average number of vehicles would be about 15. They would put residual fuel oil as a dust cover on the surface to keep the dust down. They do motor cycle, car, truck and some RV's repairs. They would, put steel posts by the pasture fence to keep people from backing into the pasture fence. Land Use and Development Commission Page 5 September 7, 1995 Lee Hadden, 5008 Yellowstone, currently they have 13 or 14 RV's units stored. They lease the spaces to people for RV's on a monthly' or yearly basis. The people would have access to their vehicle only during office hours. They also, do repair work on semi-trucks. They would put on the back corner of the building two 500 watts sodium lights. They would light up a good size area. Chairman Kearns opened the p~blic hearing meeting to testimony in opposition to the proposal. Bill McKee, 140 Evans lane. The irrigation canal that runs between their property lines is a concern. They want to make sure it is kept open. He would like to have an 8' fence. Drug Trego, 211 E. Linden is concerned with the irrigation ay'stem. If it is fenced how would they get to the ditch to clean it. They would also need access to the head gate to turn the water down. Chairman Kearns asked for any testimony is support of the application. There was none. Cindy Madden, 5008 Yellowstone, told the commission that they would be willing to pu~ the fence on the inside of the ditch to leave it opened so it could be maintained. They questioned how much room they would need for the access. They are not willing to pay for the piping of the ditch. ommlsslon disc ussed: 1. Easement on the right of way. 2. 6~ :is the amount of area needed to run a tractor down the ditch. 3. Possibility of having water user pay for the ditch. Bill McKee, 140 Evans lane, they need access with enough space to bring a tractor down the ditch. He felt they needed 10~ to 15~ in order ~o .get. a tractor down there. Lee .Madden, 5008 Yellowstone told the commission that he would be willing to give up 4' of his property for the ditch. Chairman Kearns closed the pubic portion of the meeting and turned it to the commission .for discussion. Chairman Kearns, reviewed the issues: 1. surface 2. design review 3. dust control 4. impounded vehicles 5. provision on no salvage allowed 6. lighMng issues 7. fencing four foot off the center line of the ditch Land Use and Development Commission Page 6 September 7, 1995 Pete Anderson moved that we grant Lee and Cindy 5iadden, 5008 Yellowstone a condition use permit to have a impound storage yard at 145 E. Linden with the following conditions: 1. That the 7' or 8' high solid fence go through design review. 2. That there will be some type of dust control that is acceptable by the city and all governing agencies involved. 3. That there be no salvage vehicles and that they not exceed 40 vehicle either towed or stored in the yard at any one time. 4. Lighting is not directed in such a way that it is shining into the surrounding residential yards or residences. 5. Provide that as far as the irrigation system goes that 3lr. ,kladden work with the neighbors in providing a suitable means of allowing them access to the ditch by going four feet in from the center line of the ditch. Dusty Whited seconded. Roll Call vote: Myrna Cain, yes; Richard Pearson, yes; Pete Anderson, >'es; Kent Kearns, no; Mary Harker, yes; Dusty Whited, yes. Chairman Kearns informed those in attendance that they had 25 days to appeal this decision to the City Council " N oE~ ERAL BUSINESS: ].. Disc~ssion on the possibilities of modifying our Land Use Development Ordinances to provide for Twin Homes or Zero Lot line housing developments. Dean Wood explained his reason for requesting this. Developers were building twin homes and tieing them together. Commission discussed: 1. Being flexible 2. Cost of developing subdivision. 3, Giving developers a loop hole to develop. 4. The need to put some controls on them. 5. Allowing just twin houses. The staff needs to bring back some suggestions to the next meeting. !~ichard Pearson moved that we ask the city staff to look into this and come back with some recommendation that the Land Use can consider. Pete Anderson seconded, with all voting in favor. Mary Harker moved to adjourn at 10:00 pm with Pete Anderson seconding. ent'~'Kear n s, Chairman Myrn<~ ~apo, Secretary~ 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 September 7, 1995 which was continued to October 5, 1995, upon the application of Southern Idaho Corp. of SDA, (hereinafter referred to as "applicant") for a conditional use permit to build a private elementary school on the real property located at the southeast corner of Siphon Road and the railroad tracks and the Commission having heard testimony from interested parties and being fully advised in the matter, now makes the following: above. FINDINGS OF FACT 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 lies outside of the City limits but is zoned Agricultural (A) and Applicant has requested annexation which this Commission has recommended be approved with a rezone or annexation to C-1) light commercial. 4. The property is designated as (C-1) light commercial 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. Property across from this property is zoned Industrial and the owner of the North Side Plaza Industrial Park object to this use because of negative impact to industrial users. B. A representative of Coca Cola Bottling Company indicated it plans on building a plant across the road and will have heavy truck traffic. It is opposed to the project. C. Applicant has funds now to build a school building but will need to raise additional money to build the proposed adjacent church. FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND DECISION - Page 1 dsc chbbck12.053 10*� D. Property south of Applicant is zoned to develop as single family residential. E. Applicant's school and, in the future, church, would be a buffer between the industrial use and the north and residential use to the south. F. Applicant proposes to access the property from Siphon Road and does not have access to the property to Whitaker Road. 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. 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 traffic conditions generated by the use for which the permit is sought, when analyzed in conjunction with the 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. DECISION 1. The Land Use and Development Commission, pursuant to the foregoing, finds that the request of the applicant should not be approved. FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND DECISION - Page 2 dsc chbbck12.053 J � 2. The conditional use permit requested by the Applicant is not granted. 3. Takings. Pursuant to Idaho Code S 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. 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. nt -Y^ (I DATED this / day of 4:0-L)l , 19x. LAND USE AND DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION By: ,,�✓_ _----- Chairman FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND DECISION - Page 3 dsc chbbckl2.053 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 September 7, 1995, upon the application of James E. Fenton (hereinafter referred to as "Applicant") for a conditional use permit for retail auto sales on the real property located at 4759 Yellowstone 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. r, 3. The property in question is zoned General Commercial (C-2) pursuant to the Land Use Ordinance of the City of Chubbuck. 4. The property is designated as General Commercial (C-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 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. Property has previously been used as a retail auto sales site. B. Property has become run down with landscaping which detracted from the area. C. Applicant has painted and cleaned up the building and proposes to put in landscaping. 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 t dsc chbbckl2.058 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 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 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 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. n 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: Applicant must meet with design review and be informed of the City requirements for landscaping and comply with the ordinances for landscaping. FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND DECISION - Page 2 dsc chbbckl2.058 � 3. The conditional use permit requested by the Applicant is granted, subject to the foregoing conditions. 4. 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. 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 1 sr day of F, LAND USE AND DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION By: --'Chairman FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND DECISION - Page 3 dsc chbbckl2.058 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 September 7, 1995, upon the application of Lee and Cindy Madden (hereinafter referred to as "Applicant") for a conditional use permit to operate an impound storage yard to store recreational vehicles, fireworks stands and travel vehicles on the real property located at 145 E. Linden 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 zoned C-2 General Commercial 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. 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. Applicant presented drawings of the area as proposed. B. Applicant proposes a 7' to 8' fence around the impound yard. C. The yard would not be used as a junk or salvage yard. Applicant stores vehicles until cleared for disposal by the owner or insurance company. D. Applicant will have a repair shop on site in the old B -J Truck Wash building for repair of cars,trucks, motorcycles and recreational vehicles. E. Approximately 13-14 RVs will be stored. FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND DECISION - Page 1 d9c ChbbCk12.057 n F. Applicant will put a dust cover on the surface to keep dust down. G. Several neighbors have expressed concern about the fence around the property interfering with their irrigation ditch. H. Applicant proposes to set their fence four feet from the center line of the irrigation ditch to allow room for cleaning out the ditch. 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. 3. The permit sought will not produce a negative impact on transportation facilities, public utilities, schools, public parks, or the natural environment any greater n 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 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 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 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. FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND DECISION - Page 2 doe chbbtkl2.057 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: A. The 7' or 8' high solid fence go through design review. B. There will be some type of dust control that is acceptable by the City and all governing agencies involved. C. There be no salvage of vehicles and that Applicant not exceed 40 vehicles either towed or stored in the yard at any one time. D. Lighting be directed in such a way that it is not shining into the surrounding residential yards or residences. E. Mr. Madden work with the neighbors in providing a suitable means of allowing them access to the irrigation ditch by going four feet in from the center line of the ditch. 3. The conditional use permit requested by the Applicant is granted, subject to the foregoing conditions. 4. Takings. Pursuant to Idaho Code S 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. 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. FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND DECISION - Page 3 dac chbbckl2.057 AOIN 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. 4. DATED this _ day of ��-1, . , 19x n FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND DECISION - Page 4 deo chbbckl2.057 LAND USE AND DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION By: Chairman