Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout005 05 83LAND USE & DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION MINUTES May 5, 1983 Minutes of the regular meeting of the Land Use and Development Commission held in the city municipal building, May 5, 1983. Present: Chairman Richard Allen, Commission Members: Robert Allen, Pete Anderson, Ronald Nelson, Myrna Cain, Janet Williams, Dee Stalder, in the abscence of Thomas Nield, Dwain A. Kinghorn acted as Council Representative, City Attorney B. Lynn Winmill, Public Works Director Steven Smart and Secretary Dorothy Ward. Meeting called to order at 8:05 by Chairman Allen. Chairman Allen asked for any corrections or additions to the minutes of meeting held April 7, 1983. There being none, Janet williams made motion to accept minutes as written, Myrna Cain seconded the motion with all commission members voting in favor. PUBLIC HEARING ITEM: 1. PROPOSAL BY IDAHO BANK & TRUST COMPANY, FOR A LAND USE DISTRICT CHANGE on property located west of 4581 Yellowstone to General Commercial (C-2). Property is presently zoned General Residentail (R-2). Dave Gallafent, representing Idaho Bank & Trust, said the bank owned the property but didnot intend on building a bank on it; but felt the ground would sell better if it was zoned commercial. He stated in the Comprehensive Plan the property is shown as commercial. He stated Item #3 on the agenda was property owned by the City of Chubbbuck, which is contiguous with I ~ & T property and that the city is also requesting a zone change. Chairman Allen asked for testimony for or against proposal. There being no oral testimony, Chairman Allen asked for discussion among the Commission Members. Councilman Kinghorn said land for Little Tree Inn and the Motel 6 are of the same depth as this piece of property would be, therefore could see no reason not to approve the request. Pete Anderson made motion to recommend to the City Council for their approval the proposal by Idaho Bank & Trust Company for a Land Use District change on their property located west of 4581 Yellowstone to General Commercial (C-2). The findings of fact that property is designated as General Commercial in the Comprehensive Plan. The relevant criteria and standards set for consideration of this application are set forth in the Comprehensive Plan, in section B, B(5), B(6), B(8), ~ and Idaho Code 67-6502 and 67-6508. The existing neighboring land uses in the immediate area are to the north undeveloped and the south Commercial PUBLIC HEARING - IDAHO BANK & TRUST The conclusions of law being the change in Land Use District is reasonable to provide ~for orderly development of the City and change is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and the Local Planning Act of 1975. The requested change in Land Use District from R-2, General Residential, to C-2, General Commercial, should be granted. Janet Williams seconded the motion. Roll call vote, Nelson, yes; Allen, yes; Anderson, yes, Williams, yes; Cain, yes; Stalder, yes; Robert Allen, yes. PROPOSAL BY BICYCLE CITY, vICTOR HERBERT, FOR A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO DEVELOP a Bicycle Motocross track on Lot 4 Block I Pine Ridge Mall Development, behind and adjacent to Pine Ridge Mall. Property is presently zoned General Commercial (C-2). Victor Herbert,of Bicycle City, said tract will be managed by children and their parents and Bicycle City would help. He said tentative plans call for races every other Friday and as long as he has any thing to do with it he would discourage Sunday races. Mr. Herbert said races would be by age group, four to eight people riding in each race. He said it was an opportunity for the kids to have a good time. Mr. Herbert said the kids would win points for ABA - insurance would be furnished by ABA, 365 days a year, not just on race days. He said there are several tracks in Idaho. That it is a good organization, with 200 to 300 racers on a friday evening. Chairman Allen asked for testimony in favor of proposal. He read a letter from the Pine Ridge Development stating they had an agreement with Bicycle City. There being no testimony in favor, he then asked for testimony against proposal. Wilford Stratten, 1020 W. Quinn Road, said his property was adjacent to proposed tract and that he opposed having it installed. He said they were already experiencing vandalism and tresspassing problems with youth. He said they were bothered with noise from the flying of model airplanes. George Carlsen, 4040 Hawthorne, said he objected to the location of the tract. With as many people as Mr. Herbert indicated would be involved he felt it would cause a traffic problem. He said he objected because of the noise and felt it would devalue his property. Chairman Allen closed testimony from the audience; and asked for discussion from the commission members. Mr. Herbert stated that this tract was for bicycles only, not motor cycles. That no motorized vehicles would be allowed. Dee Stalder asked if there was residences within 300 feet of the track. He said the canal would be a buffer zone. Councilman Kinghorn asked if field, would be fenced and secured when not in use. Mr. Herbert said not at this time. That it was a non profit organization and they wanted the children to be able to practice on it. PUBLIC HEARING - BICYCLE CITY MOTOCROSS TRACK Pete Anderson asked how field would be maintained and especially weed and litter control. Mr. Herbert replied the club would maintain track, that it would strictly be a dirt track. Pete Anderson asked about planting of grass and if artificial lights would be used. Mr. Herbert said they did not plan on doing any planting of grass at the present. That the races would be run in daylight hours only. He also said the announcer's stand would be on the south end of the track therefore sound would be carried to the north. Pete Anderson made motion to grant the conditional use permit to Bicycle City, Victor Herbert, 456 Yellowstone, for a Bicycle Motocross Track on Lot 4 Block 1, Pine Ridge Mall Development, behind and adjacent to the Pine Ridge Mall. The findings of fact being, property is presently in a General Commercial area and t~'ack will be operated by non-profit club for bicycle races. The conclusions of law being the permit sought will not produce adverse impact on the economic values of adjacent properties because of distance from residential property. With the following conditions to be : 1. Property be properly maintained, from April through October, on weekly basis, as to weeds and litter. 2. Area used for track to be fenced to secure area from motorized vehicles by April, 1984.~All areas not used for track planted with vegatation other than weeds. 3. No motorized vehicles allowed on track. 4. Operation limited to daylight hours. 5. Operation to be established at least 300 feet from all structures adjoining property. 6. Operation to be reviewed by Land Use Commission on annual basis in November of each year, beginning in November, 1983. Janet Williams seconded the motion. Roll call vote, Nelson, yes; Allen, yes; Anderson, yes; Williams, yes; Cain, yes; Stalder, yes; Richard Allen, yes. PROPOSAL BY THE CITY OF CHUBBUCK FOR A LAND USE DISTRICT CHANGE ON PROPERTY located west of 4545 Yellowstone.to General Commercial (C-2). Property is presently zoned General Residential. Steven Smart stated property is adjacent to the Idaho Bank & Trust property in Item #1; that the Comprehensive Plan of the City of Chubbuck shows it to be used as commercial property. He said the city was desirous of auctioning this property and felt it should all be zoned General Commercial. Chairman Allen asked for testimony in favor, there being none, he asked for testimony opposed, there being none, he asked for discussion from the commission. ~CORRECTION PUBLIC HEARING - CITY OF CHUBBUCK, LAND USE CHANGE After discussing this proposal commission felt same criteria should be used on basis of motion as used on motion for Idaho Bank & Trust Company request. Janet Williams made motion to recommend to the city council for approval for a Land Use District change on property located on west portion of property located at 4545 Yellowstone. The findings of fact, that property is designated as General Commercial in the Comprehensive Plan. That relevant criteria and standards of this application are set forth in the Comprehensive Plan in sections B, B(5), B(6), B(8), and in Idaho Code 67-6502 and 67-6508. The conclusion of law being change is reasonable and necessary to provide orderly development within the city. That plan is consistant with Comprehensive Plan and that requested change in Land Use District from R-2 to C-2 should be granted. Ron Nelson seconded the motion. Roll call vote, Nelson, yes; Allen, yes, Anderson yes; Williams, yes; Cain, yes; Stalder, yes, Richard Allen, yes. PROPOSAL TO BE CONSIDERED, UPON MOTION BY THE CITY COUNCIL, FOR CHANGE IN the City's Comprehensive Plan Land Use Pattern to Limited Commercial (c-1) & 'General R6sidentail (R-2) with respect to a parcel of land containing approximately 17.5 acres. PARCEL A. This parcel be zoned Limited Commercial (C-1), approximately 3 acres, bounded on the west by Hiline Road, on the north by East Chubbuck Road, on the east by Hiline Canal and on the south by 1-86. PARCEL B. This parcel be zoned General Residential (R-2), approximately 14.5 acres bounded on the west by Hiline Canal, on the north by East Chubbuck Road, on the east by the West 1/16th line of Section 11T.6S, R.34 E.B.M. and on the south by 1-86, excepting therefrom that portion of Mountain Park Subdivision lying west of said 1/16 line. Steven Smart told the commission that in order for Land Investments to be heard on Item #5 of the agenda, the city's Comprehensive Plan Land Use Pattern would need to be changed. Land Investments, Inc. would like to develop the west side of Hiline Canal to Limited Commercial (C-1) and the east side to General Residential (R-2). Rodney Parrish, 689 E. Chubbuck Road, representing Land Investments, Inc., said there is a problem with Hiline Road. He said there is no right-of-way on either side of Hiline Road for widening or straightening the road. He said the city had requested an easement for sewer and water lines and to improve the road for a better flow of traffic. Mr. Parrish said they had no plans for the present on developing the ground east of the Hiline Canal. He said that the topography of the ground limited them to the use of it. Mr. Parrish said that Hiline Road is developing into a commercial zone from Pocatello, and they would like to have the zoning west of the Hiline Canal changed to Limited Commercial (C-1). PUBLIC HEARING ITEM ~ FOR CHANGE IN THE CITY'S COMPRHENSIVE PLAN LAND USE PATTERN Chairman Allen asked for testimony in favor of proposal. There being none he then asked for testimony against proposal. Greg Leeds, 702 Bedford, asked for a clarification between R-1 and R-2 zone. Carol Johnson, 723 Bedford, said she was concerned that council would request this hearing when the people in area had been in previously and had expressed concern with the change of zoning. Richard Bailey, 707 Norcrest, said area was designated as R-1 in the City's Comprehensive Plan and he would be appalled at stores or shops along Hiline Road. Gloria Anderson, 743 Bedford, said when they bought their home one of the things that attracted them to the home was there was no through traffic. She said she felt it would de-value their homes to have the zoning changed to R-2. Stan Merril, 732 Bedford, said although he owns a duplex in an R-1 zone, he felt he took as good a care of it as any of the others and was selective about his tenants. He said changing of zoning would de-value their property. Rex Buttars, 742 Bedford, said rental property brought transient people in and they did not have the concern for the property that owners had. Irene Diers, 703 Moran, said area around Chubbuck School is zoned R-2 and it is not the type of neighborhood they would like theirs turned into. Chairman Allen closed the public testimony and asked for discussion from the commission. Steven Smart told the commission that at the time the Comprehensive Plan was adopted are~ ~eneral Residential (R-2) and it was inadvertently changed to Limited Residential (R-l) on the maps.prepared. He said the city held public hearings on changing it back to R-2 but that the people requested it remain an R-1 zone. Commission Members discussed the width of Hiline Road. Steve Smart said the Comprehensive Plan calls for it to be 80 feet wide; but that he felt this was more width than needed. All expansion would be on the east side of Hiline Road. They also discussed the easement that would be needed for Land Investments, Inc., to build commercially next to the Fort Hall Canal. Mr. Parrish said they would have plenty of usable ground after the easement for the canal. Robert Allen made motion to recommend to the city council for a change in the City's Comprehensive Plan Land Use Patten on Parcel A. This parcel to be zoned Limited Commercial (C-1), approximately 3 acres, bounded on the west by Hiline Road, on the north by East Chubbuck Road, on the east by Hiline Canal and the south by 1-86. Mr. Allen recommended to the ci~council they deny a change in the Comprehensive Plan Land Use Pattern on ParCel B. This parcel is approximately 14.5 acres bounded on the west by Hiline Canal, on the north by East Chubbuck Road, on the east by the West 1/16th line of Section 11T.6S, R.34 E.B.M. and on PUBLIC HEARING ITEM - FOR CHANGE IN THE CITy'S COMPREHENSIVE PLAN LAND USE PATTERN the south by 1-86, excepting therefrom that portion of Mountain Park Subdivision lying west of said 1/16th line. Janet Williams seconded the motion. Roll call vote. Nelson, yes; Allen, yes; Anderson, yes; Williams, yes; Cain, yes; Stalder, yes; Richard Allen, yes. Pete Anderson made motion to recommend to the city council for approval the change of zoning in Parcel A of the request of Land Investments, Inc., from Agriculture (A) to Limited Commercial (C-1). Findings of fact that it would be consistant with the Comprehensive Plan. Due to recent development area is no longer suitable for Agriculture. With the development of Hiline Road, Commercial uses of a limited nature could be acceptable. Natural buffer with the canal to the east. Conclusions of law that it would not be injurious to neighborhood and would create no adverse impact. Robert Allen second the motion. Roll call vote. Nelson, yes; Allen, yes; Anderson, yes; Williams, yes; Cain, yes; Stalder, yes; Richard Allen, yes. Robert Allen made motion to recommend to the city council Parcel B, of the Land Investments, Inc., request for change of zoning to General Residential (R-2) be denied. The findings of fact that homes in surrounding area built to fit purpose of Limited Residential (R-l). Most homes above canal single family residents. Duplexes would be permitted conditionally. General Residential (R-2) not acceptable in this area. Conclusions of law General Residential (R-2) zone would conflict with the aesthetic qualities of surrounding area. It would produce an adverse impact on value of homes in area. The traffic conditions would produce a negative affect. Myrna Cain seconded the motion. Roll call vote, Nelson, yes; Allen, yes; Anderson, yes; Williams, yes; Cain, yes; Stalder, yes; Richard~Allen, yes. Motion made to adjourn at 10:45 p.m. by Pete Anderson, seconded by Robert Allen With all commission members y . ~ d, Secretary vot rman CITY,OF CHUBBUCK LAND USE AND DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND ORDER This matter having come before the Commission for public hearingpusuant to public notice as required by law, on M , 194'03, upon the applica ion of =&;Wp �alar�ldt�tlf�T ';;hereinafter referred to as "applicant"J1 for a change in land use district for the real property described on Exhibit A hereto from E -'L or GM;tJa*%, ?LES1I&EN7-1hL_ to C -L or C-fgew&2At, , and the Commission having heard testimony form 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 JZ -Z_ to _C -;Z- for the real property more particularly described on Exhibit A hereto. n 2. All legal requirements for notice of public hearing have been met. 3. The prod rty in question is zoned Q -L or pursuant to the Land U%e Ordinance of the City of Chubbuck. 4. The property is designated as O UEOL, C-armMf✓t'CIA- 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 the Comprehensive Plan in sections and in Idaho Code Sections 6. The existing neighboring land uses in the immediate ares of this property are: To the north, to the south, 5JJA to the east, FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND DECISION - PAGE n ; to the west, 7. The requested change in land use district xe-� 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 / 4_a_� suitable for the proposed land use district, and such uses would be compatible with existing land uses in the area. 9. Owners of adjacent properties have / "ve-ft3 expressed approval of the proposed change in land use district. 10. The requested zone change is / ie trot' 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 / i.,s--A�et in the best interests of the public that the proposed change in land use district be granted. 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 Section 67-6509(d) have been met. 2. The proposed change in land use district is / is--nvt- 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 / _j&--ftti 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 from 2 or C ku a t.o4t T_L 5-%bre M{1 A L to C, -Z- or CTWttAi. C401MM"C,1Prl- - should / should not be granted. FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND DECISION - PAGE n n DECISION 1. The application for a change in land use district to designate the land described on Exhibit A as G,L or -*W ma" is / 3 - racontiw� DATED this err day of 01 198 �; . Xa�—ian, Land Use and Development Commission Motion by AQj��Sor , seconded by Janet Williams , to adopt the foregoing Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law and Decision. ROLL CALL: COMMISSIONER VOTED FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND DECISION - PAGE 0 CITY OF CHUBBUCK LAND USE AND DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION FINDINGS OF FACT CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND ORDER This matter having public hearing pusuant to law, on the applica on of ',,hereinafter referred land use district for the Exhibit A hereto From come before the Commission for public notice as required by , 19_, upon s""applicant" real property or for a change described on in to or , and the Commission having heard testimony form 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 to for the real property more particularly described on Exhibit A hereto. 2. All legal requirements for notice of public hearing have been met. 3. The property in question is zoned _� or pursuant to the Land Use Ordinance of the City of Chubbuck. 4. The property is designated as 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 the Comprehensive Plan in sections and in Idaho Code Sections 6. The existing neighboring land uses in the immediate are.of this property are: To the,north, to the south, to the east, FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND pEC16I0N - PAG+ to the west, n 7. The requested change in use district is / is not in conflict with the provisions of existing zoning regulations or the duly adopted Comprehensive Plan of the City of Chubbuck. S. The property in question is / is not suitable nor the proposed land use district, and such uses would be compatible with existing land uses in the area. 9. Owners of adjacent properties have / have not expressed approval of the proposed change in land use district. 10. The requested zone change is / is not 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 / is not in the best interests of the public that the proposed change in land use district be granted. n 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 Section 67-6509(d) have been met. 2. The proposed change in land use district is / is not 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 / is not 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 from or to or n should / should not be granted. FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND DECISION - PAGE r /-IN DECISION 1. The application for a change in land use district to designate the land described on Exhibit A as or is not hereby granted. DATED this / day of 198,5. C airman, Lan Use and Development Commission Motion by : Janet Williams , seconded by Ron Nelson , to adopt the foregoing Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law and Decision. ROLL CALL: COMMISSIONER Nelson Allen Anderson Williams Cain Stalder Richard Allen VOTED Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND DECISION — PAGE CL �� --- 0 Cb a 44& a�ac, \ A44 ,vn '�' L� Ai L) CITY OF CHLMBUCK IAND USE & DEVEiIJPNENT OCLISSION FINDECS OF FACT, OONCLUSIONS OF LAW AMID ORDER This matter having corn before the Can ission for public hearing pursuant to public notice as required by law, on , 1913, upon applicant's application for C`„e©fpr h ci 3ic Til a Y Conditional Use Permit , as follows:iea " /-.., t��� Location:- � r Applicant: FINDINGS OF FACT 1. Applicant has applied for: 2 The existing land uses in the area are: to the north, .� to the east, - P-01 AA; to the south, to the west, V 3. That the Comprehensive Plan designates this area as 4. That the existingIzoning of the property is 5. That all legal requirements for notice of the public hearing have been fulfilled. 6. Owners of adjacent property 4W."0 have not expressed approval of the application. n /'N /1—\ n Decision & order The Land Use & Development Canmission, pursuant to the foregoing, finds that the request of for a should be approved/approved subject to the follawing conditions/denied. OONDITIONS_ . 1 (gym d 3 U } 7_7-83 Motion by: Pete Anderson seconded by Janet Williams to adopt the foregoing Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law and Order. BOLL CALL: Commissioner Nel son Commissioner Allen Commissioner Anderson Commissioner Williams Commissioner Cain Commissioner Stalder Commissioner Richard Allen Comnissioner Commissioner Voted Voted Ypc Voted yPc Voted yPc voted yp c Voted yPc voted Yes Voted Voted IOIN 7. Relevant criteria are set forth in standards for constriction of this application S. The facts relevant to an evaluation of the relevant criteria in standards are as follows: A. C. E. G. H. conclusions of Law 1. The use for which the permit is sought wal/will not be injurious to the neighborhood or otherwise detrimental to the public health, safety or welfare. 2. The penait sought w�/will not produce an adverse impact on the economic values of adjacent properties . lNu .a�.•�.A vr( d� �.�,° w`' 4t7��� 3. The permit sought will/will not produce a negative impact on transpo tion fag' s, puVied.ut�; ''ties, schools, is parks, or the tural iro t an - had strict I,- d Use ante been s 4. The noise and traffic conditions generated by the use for which the permit is sought, when analyzed in conjunction with the noice and traffic conditions now existing in the vicinity daes/does not indicate that the penait should be denied. 5. The use for which the petit is sought shaWshall not work an unreasonable hardship upon surrounding Property Owners by virtue of the legal nature or by the impact of changes made in the landscape of the land. 6. LISA n 9. 10. 11. The requested conditional use permit should be granted, subject to the conditions, if any,. set forth hereinafter.