HomeMy WebLinkAbout03 10 1987 CITY COUNCIL MEETING
MARCH 10, 1987
Mayor: We'll go to item number 2 a public hearing. I will declare that hearing
opened at this time.
Becky Hopkins: I need a minute to look at this, these things that we just received.
Lynn WinTrdll: Let me comment on that. The city, the land use development commission
Thursday evening, a recommended that upon annexation into the city this property
should be zoned R-1 which is what the comprehensive plan calls for. Mr. Lacey
requested that it be zoned R-2. A, and that recomend, that request was in eence
turned down by the Land Use Development Commission. They met at 7 o'clock and adopted
the findings of facts and the conclusions of law that we have placed in front of you.
If you want to review those it would be appropriate. In any event all their decision
was to recommend to the council. Now really no definitave action can be taken by the 1
council until zoning or rather annexation decision is made. There is no purpose in
making a decision on a zoning application until a, the annexation issue unless you
all eessentially sign a opinioniously that we have taken care of the public before
the Land Use Commission and could take care of the public hearing tonight as to what
zoning should be if the city were to determine that it was appropriate to annex the
property ino the city.
At the time of the, I wanted, I asked the Mayor if he felt it would be appropriate
then and he feels it would be, to make a comment upon some further research that I
have done. At the time of the hearing before the Land Use and Development Commission 1
I advised the commission that they could approve zoning that would very firm our
comprehensive plan but they would have to have a very good reason to do so, but the
Idaho Supreme Court has provided some authorization for the cities to do that. If for
example the council would determine that in the short term it would be appropriate to
zone in one way even though the comprehensive plan calls for long term developing in
a different direction. However, since doing that I reviewed our ordinance more
closely and one of the sections that I've quoted in the findings of facts and
conclusions of law Page, bottom of page 3 states very specifically that "no variance
should be granted nor any conditonal use permit issued nor any revision of this title
adopted," which is what any rezone is, is a revision of the rezoning ordinance
l'unlem such action is consistant with the cities comprehensive plan". My concern is
despite the fact that the supreme court said that the city can very firm it's compre-
hensive plan I don't think we can do that, in view of that language in our zoning
ordinance. Even thought the Supreme Court system could under some circumstances that
would only be if we did not have this kind of descriptive language. So I guess what
I feel like I need to say to this council is that we would be in very or that I would
have too, as legal council for the city a advise the council that we would be
running some legal risk if we were to adopt a zoning classification that would
violate the comprehensive plan in view of that very specific language in our own
ordinance. I think we have to amend that language in the ordinance before we can
even consider a zoning that was inconsistant with the comprehensive plan. So that's
the problem, I think that to some extent may dictate, wP11 it may not dictate the
result. The council is always free obviously to make its own decision, but I think I
need to offer that legal advice a prior to any public hearing. Now I've commented to
Steve that that you know part of this is caught Mr. lacey unaware because of lack of
communication within the city and within myself, or to myself. A, but I'd also
recommend that if Mr. Lacey does wish to apply for a modification of the comprehen-
sive plan which would be the first step that we ought to do that perhaps at the
cities expense that is for the mailing of notices and that sort of thing. It's not a
1
•
tremendious amount of money but it would be I think in all fairness we ought to do
that. But nevertheless I think it is important to make that point tonight. A an
then see where you want to go from there. Now obvio:tsly we can't have, we should
have the public hearing. But I do need to offer that legal recommendation to the
city council.
Mayor: Ok, I appreciate that. Let's go to the public hearing and continue and a we'll
ask Mr. Lacey as much as he is the proponent of this action. Would you like to take
the stand, rostrum and kind of explain again or go through it if you so desire
whatever your feelings are, Roy.
Roy Lacey: Ok, I've prepared some evidence, I'v brought that a I can go over
this a little bit again. A I don't know if its proper, I'd got
about 35 pictures here of a acreages and backs of Dell Road and I know there some nice
homes in the area but also have lots of experience of acreages people don't take
care of their land.
t
My name is Roy lacey and a I would like to develope this 19 acreas and I need a R-2
zoning out of it. I a did have it zoned R-1 at one time when we sort of ran out
feasibilties to build the subdivision so at this time I can see a feasibility in a
building an R-2 subdivision. A it will be an enclosed area and it will be for adult
and senior citizens. A mostly so they can be in their own environment. There will be
no children allowed other than visitations. They have a two weeks limitation on
visitation. There will be no. I could read this thing if its.
Mayor: Whatever
Mr. Lacey: Ok, It starts out as a descriptions. Total area 19.09 Acres
for the purpose of insuring the use of the property and maintaining an attractive
subdivision with lots described on Official Plat for attractive residential purposes
only, to prevent nuisances, to prevent the impairment of the attractiveness of the
property, to maintain the desired tone of the community and thereby to secure to
each site owner the full benefit and enalyment of his home,with no greater restriction
upon the free and undisturbed use of his site then is necessary to insure the same
advantages to the other site owners, hereby create the following restrictions and
declare the same to be covenants running with the use of property in this
subdivision.
I. PERSONS BOUND BY THESE RESTRICTIONS:
That the covenants and restrictions are to run with the land,all persons and
corporations who now own, or shall hereafter acquire any interest in any of the
land above described or any lot,portion or parcel thereof,shall be taken and held
to agree and covenant vij'h the owners of the said land with their heirs and assigns
to conform to, and observe, the following covants,restrictions and stipulations as
to the use thereof, and the construction of residences and in.provementb thereon
1
far a period of thirty(30) years from the date hereof,at which time saia covenanIe
shall be automatically extended for successive periods of ten(10) years,unless by
vote of the owners of said lots and land it is agreed to change such covenants in
whole or in part or to declare the same null and void; such vote shall require a
two thirds(2/3) majority of the then owners of said real estate and that evidence
N
of said vote be recorded with the County Recorder of Bannock County,Idaho.
Any Federal,State,County or Local ordinances,standards or other regulations
which are more rigid than provisions set forth in covenants shall supersede any
•
provisions set forth herein.
II.USE OF LAND AND RESTRICTIONS:
1. Building line and side line restrictions: All buildings and garages
erected or moved upon this property shall be set back a minimum distance of 25 ft.
from the front line of any such lot,provided further,however, that all corner
lots having dedicated roadways on more than one side of said lots,that all residence
buildings and garages erected upon such corner lots shall be set back a minimum
distance of 25 ft. from such dedicated road to the end that all such residence
buildings or garages shall be built or placed no less 25 ft. from such dedicated
road; and no residence building or garage shall be erected on any lot nearer
than five(5 ft. )feet from any side line of said lot, the buildings constructed
r'
with attached garages shall maintain the distance of five(5 ft)feet from the side1.
line of the lot,including the attached garage. All the land must be in lawn or
tilled as to prevent the growth of undesirable weeds.
I'd like to make a comment. Now the city has a total of 15 feet, so one side can be
5 feet but the other side would have to be 10 feet from the sideline.
4 i
2. Obstruction of View: On any corner lot in which a front yard is required
7n
by this Ordlance,no wall,fence or other structure shall be erected,and no hedge,
shrub,tfree or other growth exceeding 3 ft. above the street grade shall be maintained
within the triangular area formed by the intersecting property lines and a straight
line joining said property lines at points which are 25 ft. distance from the point
of intersection, measured along raid street lines.At no time will a hedge,tree,ehrub
or structure be located on public rights-of-way, signs or other devices for public
use excepted. L3�
•
. . ' I
3. Nuisances: No noxious or offensive trade shall be carried on upon any
part of said land, nor shall anything be done thereon which may be or become any
annoyance or nuisance to the neighborhood and adjoining lands.
No dogs,cats cr other animals will be allowed to run loose. Any pets must be
either on leash or fenced. If pet becomes a nuisance, the owner will be required
to remove the pet from the park. And this is probably won't be used very much.
4. Mobile Homes:
Home Skirting, Now this is a probably won't be used very much. Home skirting must be
installed immediately. Now this is a the language on this particular one has to be
changed because all of it has to be put down on permanent foundations, and the
permanent foundation has to be like 3 below the frost level. It/s there's a requirement by tte
city for that. Skirting must be of equal materials and shall be of the same material
and texture as that of the home. Skirting must be extended around the complete
perimeter of the home, and shall extend from the ground level to the bottom edge of
the home. All home tongues and hitches must be removed prior to skirting the home.
5. Storage building to be provided by occupants. It must be constructed of
material that will complement the home.
6. Each mobile home must have "nonfreeze" tape on all water lines.
7. No soliciting, conducting of sales or sale signs are allowed in the spaces.
8. Adult residency only.
9. Double wides or constructed homes only, except in Block 1,lots 12 thru 34,
which single wides are welcomed but none to be less than 600 sq.ft. of living space.
Lot # 35 to be used for Club House, Lots # 1 & 2 for homes only, and lots # 1 & 2
are not restricted for adults use only adult residence.
c.y)
t might comment that R-2 homes have to be built after 1976 and they are 2x4 walls
. with pitched roofs, and there won't be any aluminum siding or any a thing other then
like a house siding on it.
1. Club House management and Club House owners will not be responsible for
accidents,injuries, or loss of property by fire,theft,wind,floods,or other natural
acts which are beyond its control. Equipment and apparatus furnished on the grounds
are solely for the convenience of residents and all persons using same do so at
their own risk.
2. Management should be notified immediately of any hazardous conditions
which have developed in the Club House.
3. The speed limit within the subdivision is 20 miles per hour. All -
residents and their guests are expected to obey this speed limit.
4. All residents must be registered at the Club House. All moneys are
payable monthly in advance in accordance with the rates and must be paid by the
fifth(5th) of the month or a late charge of $5.00 (five dollars) will be assessed.
5. Guests under age 18 y=s. may stay 2(two)weets.
6. No OR street parking except by guests when visiting.
7. Recreation vehicles are to be stored off street.
8. No fencing in front of residence.
9. Fire extinguishers of suitable size should be installed within the resident's
home. These extinguishers should be annually inspected as to charge and working order.
10. Drunkedness or immoral conduct will not be tolerated and all State and Local
laws shall be observed.
11. No tampering with utilities. Please contact management 'in case of problems.
12. Disorderly conduct,abusive language,noisy disturbances, or disregard of the
rules and regulations herein contained shall be grounds for immediate removal/of all
rights to the Club House.
IV. CONVENIENCES
1. Privacy and Security
2. Club House with small Convenience Store on park. Residents and guest only.
3. Picnic and Recreation park.
4. Large lounge with kitchen, pool table and other activities.
5. All underground utilities.
6. Cable TV to each space or lot'
7. Natural gas available to each space or lot.
8. Health and physical fitness oriented.
9. Sidewalks throughout park.
10. All facilities available for Family Reunions, weddings and special occasions.
11. Recreational vehicle and RV sewage dumps for residents and persons with
permission from management only.
There wifl be an RV dump in the corner of this large lot where the recretiadonal
hall is located.
12. One evergreen tree for each front yard. First one to be supplied by developer.
13. A Thirty—fi--e dollar($35.00) charge for each resident for the purpose to
maintain the Club House and to keep all front lawns mowed. The management
of the Club House will try in good faith to maintain this charge. If it
becomes necessary to increase this charge, a minimum charge will be made.
V. VIOLATIONS AND DAMAGES:
If the parties hereto,or any of then or their heirs or assigns,or subsequent
ownersoshall violate or attempt to violate any of the covenants or restrictions
herein prior to the termination of this agreement, it shall be lawful for any
other persons owners of any of said lots, in said subdivision, to prosecute any
proceedings ak law or in equity against the person or persons violating any such
covenants or restrictionsvand either to prevent him or them from so doing by in-
junction or otherwise or to recover damages or other dues for such violation;and
such violation should further pay the plaintiff's attorney fees and costs should
they be successful.
1
I've contacted the owners there interested in building homes to fit these lots and I've
contacted Boise Cascade and there having plans drawn up for any builder that wishes
to build these lots. A, there will be a permanent foundation under anything that's put
out there. This is not a trailor park, it's going to be a controled unit. It's
going to be built according to code as a subdivision. Trailor park can be built for
half the cost to build a subdivision. We'11 have sewer, adequate for basements.
We'll have, a the water will be in the street each individually connected. Sewers all
individually connected. All the gases is individually connected, and the telephones,
TV, everything will be on this and will be a something new for this area. They do
have parks like this in other areas, and they have been successful. They tried to do
this park without a cubhouse and they are not that successful, but with a clubhouse a {'
everyone that I have looked at has been successful, because there is somebody there
to maintain this thing.
Now these older people, now we're all going to be old one of these days. Children
don't even want to brother with most of them. They get up and walk the streets, walk
with the dog, they meet each other in certain places. A lot of leaves this town and t
goes to Phoenix and they have regular meeting placed down there. They have
subdivisions like this in Phoenix. We have several hundred people from this area
going to Phoenix and Sun City and all different places down there. The spread out (
just like a spider web, and they leave here for three and four months out of the year.
Thats the kind of people that I want to a get in this park, and I think it can be done.
If I didn't it's going to cost way over half million dollars and that money will
be spent in this area to develope this park and a I think it takes a lot of courage to
get started on something like this and I think this is something that in the end that
we'll will all be proud of, and proud to have it in this city. Thank you.
Mayor: Thank you Mr. Lacey. Is there anyone else who would like to speak in behalf
of the subdivision. Now in as much as we've been through a hearing before those of
you who have signed the petition and etc. do you have one individual that might speak
for you. I think you've pretty well expressed yourself in you petition and etc. and one
individual could probably do that in the interest of time and a instead of several (.
talking about the same thing I, why don't we have one persons speak for you.
Gene Pickens: Can I ask a question before we get started on this. Those pictures that were(
given to you folks, are we going to be able to see those.
Mayor: You can see them as far as I'm concerned.
Gene Pickens: I would like to ask the lawyer a question. Is this legal these
picture? In otherwards what I am asking, if a gentlemen comes by my house and
took a picture would that be legal. Come by my house take a picture of my house
when I wasn't there and didn't ask my permission.
(
Lynn Winmill; As long as he didn't go on your property.
Gene Pickens: Thanks
Mayor: Mrs England would you like to
l
Lynn: Let me comment on the pictures a while she is comming up. we have a requirement
that any written materials that are to be presented are to be placed on file with the
l
r
t
city at least three days before the public hearing so as to provide anyone else to
come and review the written materials, now I don't know that we have ever extended
that to photographs, but the same principle might be applied. A, I don't I guess I
don't see that the pictures are going to have any real impact on the decision here
tonight so I just think that we'll probably just not, maybe take notice of the fact
that there were 35 what about 3 x 5 photographs that were submitted but they won't be
admitted as exhibit or otherwise involved in the decision since they weren't
submitted in advance of the hearing so that people could come and review them and
then and then provide any written rebattal that they wish to.
Mayor: The only comment that I have about the picture is that if some of you see
them you might want to go home and clean up your yard, and I guess that could pretain
to me too if someone took a picture of mine. Go ahead Mrs. England
Margaret England: I'm Margaret England and I live at 19953 N. Hawthorne Road which is the
log house with the land bordering Mr. Lacey's proposed division. Have you all
read the minutes of the meeting last Thursday night, so your familiar with all the things f
that we brought up then. I'll go through them if you me to. but if you've read
them.
Mayor: I've read them, I don't know about the others,
Mrs England: If not then you probably would be in everyone's best interest to go
through them.
Mayor: Council have you read the minutes, I think everyone has read them.
Becky Hopkins: I would like a minute to skim through them again, it was last
Saturday when I read them. I would like to refresh my memory. Can I just do that
real fast.
Mayor: Council do you want Mrs. England to read the minutes again or are you satisfied
with what's there. It would save her reading those.
Boyd Fullmer: I think that anything that she feels pertains, as far as I rereview the
minutes not necessary but anything that you would have to offer by way of comment.
Mrs. England: Ok, we've come up with some, we have some new understandings from the 1
meeting the other night that we would like to present. But we wanted to make sure
that the things that we presented the other night also were a in your understanding so that
when you made your decision your would make that a part of whatever decision you
make. OK.
The only thing that we have been able to come up with that is part of your ordinances,
part of your plans, part of how you do things since we are not use to dealing with
this. Is certain criteria for which you make changes in the comprehensive plan. Now
if I understand Mr. Winmill has said that in fact it's against your ordinance to make
a change in the comprehensive plan. Except, am I incorrect.
Lynn Winmill: Well I don't want to interrupt your statement, but do you want me to
clarify what I said earlier. What I said was that the we could not modify our zoning
ordinance, or the zoning map except in compliance with the comprehensive plan, we
could modify the comprehensive plan in any way that the council feels is appropriate,
but we cant modify the ordinance in a way that is inconsistent with the comprehen-
sive plan.
•
Mrs. England: So if your going to make a change you have to change the comprehensive
plan first. Is that correct.
Mr. Winmill: Right
Mrs. England: Ok, that's what we have talked about in our petition but didn't
realize that those were the specific terms that we were using. When we said that we
would like to have it a divided into larger areas. Now we asked the other night in
the Land Use committee meeting if there was any way that we could have these nice
houses that is put in the R-1 zone but in an acerage setting, because all of the
people with the exception of the Chandlers who originally sold the land to Mr.
Lacey, who live north of the canal have signed the petition, all except for one that
we would like the acreages. That is the planning of those other developers who have
land and that is for the reasons that we listed and the facts that we all have our
homes and acreages that way now. The only criteria that oh, when we asked the other
night, we said could we do that and the answer was that said no that we don't have
any divisions like that. I didn't even know that you had anything but they were
reading from a whole lot of things on different pages the other day so we got a copy
of some of those things and you, in fact do have a district it is district A you have
the minimum lot as you do for R-1 and R-2.
R-1 is 7,000 square feet, R-2 is 6,000 square feet the A is one acre.
LeRoy Quick: It's agricultural
Mrs. England: Right, right, as I understand there is an area for interpertation under the
Agricultural. The interpretation from your point of view and from the planning
committee in the beginning was to have it before it came into the City of Chubbuck.
It is Agricultural and for it to go into the City of Chubbuck that that would be the
time that it would be appropriate to change it. However that is just an
interpretation, I think. Specifically stated here it says until it becomes
appropriate. To all of us who live there, it isn't appropriate yet. The fact that the
interpretation is that it would be appropriate if it were annexed is just an
interruptation it's not written here, so written here we have, you have the
opportunity to zone it with the one acre lot no less than, with the nice housing and it
is written in here.
The only criteria that you have for any change is under the conditional use permits.
I'm not asking for the conditional use permit but that's the only criteria that I
have that I know means anything to you for changing the comprehensive plan. In it it
states It should be not be done if it is injurious to the neighborhood or detre mental
to public health, safety or wPWare. We pointed out the fact that there is no room
on the road for people to walk, for people to bicycle. We pointed out that you
already have oudles of wood stoves already in the City of Chubbuck and you applied
for a grant, or are applying for one in order to not have it be an Mr polution
problem. Most people who build homes have those and if we put 95 more in there we're
going to certainly be injurious to public health.
We pointed out the fact that the canal being opened there, with 95 more people and we
are not just considering these 95 homes we are also considering the rest of the
acreages there and if you open the door you have 95 in 20 acres for the other 110
acres hat open we put in 425 using 95 for 20 acres. So were talking over 500
different homes here, that definately is going to have an impact on the number of
people that are there by that canal and definately could get hurt in that canal. I'm
surprized that it hasn't lately, but my testimony the other night, I've seen people
who have died in that canal, little ones as well as we've had bodies of bigger ones.
So it is diffently injurious to public health and safety.
When they have family reunions, weddings and etc. that clubhouse where the children
are not watched as closely when your busy visiting with friends, and when there not
being use to being around canals those are usually the ones that get lostin it. So
that diffently fits your criteria there.
Second, it shall not produce an adverse inpace on an economic value of adjacent
property. Mr. Satchwell is here tonight, if you would like to have his testimony
that when you do have trailer parks in the area it does lower the land value of the
adjacent properties. So we've met that qualification.
The third one, it should not produce a negative impact on transportation facilities.
Certainly if you add 500 more homes there or even 95 at the present rate what is
being considered right now, the inpact on Hawthorne Road is going to be negative
cause it just can't handle all that traffic. It's doing good to handle what it is
now.
Public utilities, we have several outages from the sub-station on Siphone Roadalready
due to the overload of what is alreay there. It's definately going to have a nega-
tive impact on that.
School. All of our schools are still over crowded. You can ask anyone of the
principles in the threeschools in the area that would be concerned. Even with Ellis
school just being built there still over crowded.
Public parks, you have to answer that question. You know more than I do. So we've
met the criteria for Number 3.
Number 4. Noise and traffic conditions. Obviously with the people that we have
would have an acreage; it would be a whole lot le m noisy then if you put 500 homes
in theew or even 95 in the 20 acres your talking about. So we've met criteria number
4.
5. Account shoull be taken of the character and use of the building and land adjoin-
ing and in the vicienty of the property. All of the adjoining land, all in the
vicinity of the property is acreage and the R-1 clARsification of homes, so we've met
that.
Number 6, asthetic qualities of the proposed land. We have talked at length about
how quickly le m expensive homes go down hill in comparison with the R-1 qualifica-
tion of homes. So we've met that.
Number 7, account shall be taken of the support or opposition expreed by persons
entitled to receive notice of the conditional use permit. That's 99%, so we've met
that.
All of the other stipulations in there have to do with a specific paper work. These
are the only stipulations that we were able to find in any of your ordinances that
you felt important for your zoning classification. We have answered every single one
of them, and they would be met best by having acreages, and the nicer quality home.
What we're asking you to do is to modify your comprehensive plan or at least have an
open meeting of why you feel it is important and why the people felt it was important
b
to have the R-1 in the beginning and not put R, and nor put an A in there at all.
The canal naturally divides us from everything else and you have many places both
trailor houses and the nice quality homes throughout the City of Chubbuck that are
available, but and Mr. Satchwell can again account to this on the market very seldom
are acreages. It is what is needed everything else is already there in abundance and
is not being used. So were asking you to take a second look at your zoning and see
if in fact the A classification would not be better for the City of Chubbuck and if
you have any more criteria then the ones you've listed let us have an opportunity to
visit with you about it. Thank you
Mayor: Thank you Mrs. England, appreciate your comments and a I don't know if we
need anymore. That pretty well expresses I think the sentiments of the those who
signed the petition and a I don't know at this point if we need any more testimony
either way. A, I think a as Mr. Winmill has expressed it must go to a hearing for
the change of the comprehensive plan before anything can take place anyway. So at
this point i think we will close the public hearing accepting your testimony as you
have given it and I'll ask Wiinmill just what legally or what procedure we should
follow there.
Mr. Winmill: The point that I, I spoke with Mrs. England earlier today and frankly
the big point that there is simply no agricultural zoning in our comprehensive plan.
The land use and developement commission, and city council at its, the time it formed
the comprehensive plan determined that long term the city was going to develope in
residential small city mannor that there would be no room for leaving farms or small
agricultural plots within the city. Based upon that Mrs. England comments although
appropriate in terms of suggested course of action would really not be any more
appropriate as far as what the council could do tonight, then what it would be for
Mr. Lacey to as far as the R-2.
I think that were essentially required by the ordinance to follow the comprehensive
plan in our zoning and even though we may have original designated areas as agricul-
tural upon any subsequent development of any of those areas start tending towards a
residential developement that we would then switch from agricultural to R-1 or R-2
development. So based upon that I think that the ordinance dictates that we follow
the comprehensive plan. Now we really can't take action tonight, I think we do need
a, to set down well we really can't take action because that land is not within the
city, we cannot dictate a zoning classification for that. A, Mr. Lacey has requested
annexation and I think that we're going to have to set down and make a derision as to
what annexation fees we're going to require. That's been done pretty consistantly in
the past and there would be fees to cover the cost of providing city services a, to
that area in terms of capitol improvements. That's been done very consistantly with
every other subdivision that has requested annexation into the city. Once that's
been done and perhaps tonight will be the first step towards that; then we would
have to follow up with the a zoning classification and I guess we could act tonight
in the sense that we'll indicate what zoning we are going to put into that area if it
is annexed. But that would be condition upon whether the city ever does annex it.
There are some cities that are not annexing any more land because of the tax
considerations that we can't increase our tax base, it jests provides us with more
responsibility or responsibility to karge territories but with no increased taxes to
provide those services. So there is a lot of consideration but I think my recom men-
dation is that we cannot zone this or even indicate that we are going to zone this in
anyway but R-1 and we can't indicate to Mrs. England that we're going to do it
agricultural. We can't indicate to Mr Lacey that we're going to designate it as R-2
or general residential until the comprehensive plan. Now it would be free to Mr.
Lacey to apply at the next Land Use Development Commission meeting for a change in
the comprehensive plan if he so wishes. And as I indicate earlier it would be my
recommendation that we not impose any fees for his application because of the misun-
derstanding a within the city. So I think really that your going to have to make a
decision tonight a, as to whether or not you want to even give any indication as to
what zoning your going to give it and I think we need to either direct they city
public works director to formulate some reasonable annexation fee and then have
further discussions on that either tonight or at subsequent meeting as to under what
circumstances were going to annex that property.
Mayor: Ok, I think a the next step logically is up to Mr. Lacey, if he wants to
pursue a change, a request for a change in the comprehensive plan then that's his
opportunity to do so. A, if we don't have anyone out there apparently who want, who
owns property who wants to change the comprehensive plan to acreage type lots at this
time. There maybe someone in the future, but at this time we don't have anyone
making that request. Then we would have to address that at that time if council felt
that they wanted to change the comprehensive plan, if the ordinance could be changed
and etc to accomodate that. So
Roy Quick: Mayor
Mayor: Yes
Roy: The agricultural designation principally as I sat a part of the original
planning of the comprehensive plan was designed only as a taxing base structure for
those that owned property that was not being presently used as residential properties
to give them tax advantage, becuase there was a tax advantage being left as agricul-
tural rather then residential, and so that's way the agriculture designation was
included in the record. But then also the R-1 does not restrict a person from
developing acreages within R-1 zone. There is only a minimum footage requirement, so
a person could develope in acreages without any problem under the R-1 nlaR;ification,
but the real purpose between the two was basically for the taxing base advantage for
the individuals that had all that property out there that was not presently being
used as residential.
Lynn Winmill: Let me make sure that you understand, even though an individual could
decide wanting minimum lots in there property the ordinance does not say the city
could require that person to develope that way. That would be there decision.
Mayor: So Lynn, at this point any other council question. I think we're probably, a
that's as far as we can go at this time. Yes, Mr. Lacey
Mr. Lacey: Can I make a statement Sir.
Mayor: Yes, Sir
Mr. Lacey: A, I've explained to Mrs. England that I've got bids on this property and
it's a, not counting the cost of the land in developing it $556,000 to meet the city
of Chubbuck's code, put in the sewer, water and everything properly. A If I make one
acre lots I could probably cut that in half. Now, Idaho Power just gave me a bid,
their power is $38,000 so that's added to the $556,000 which is alread required. So
I'm up to $594,000 for construction. Now where do we go to get 25 or $35,000 per
acre for this land for somebody to build on and then try to build a 50, or 100, or
$150,000 home on it. So you know, it's not in the making to try to a follow, and
abide by the City of Chubbuck's code to put in the proper streets, the proper
drainage. I've got five storm sewers, I've got nine fire plugs and the water is in
ductile which is required, and the sewer is down to compliament basements. So where
would you go to develope land to get that kind of money out of it in acreages, so I
that's why I requested an R-2 zone and I requested it to go as a subdivision and it
will be restricted to these certain adult people and most of these people will never
see them walking down the street because there places sidewalks completely circled
inside this subdivision. If they want to go out for a walk they can walk around and
around a 1/4 of a mile in this subdivision. So this street, I'll actually improve
Chubbuck Road or Hawthorne Road cause I'll put sidewalks down Hawthorne Road and
there's no sidewalks in that district outthere at this point, but I'll have sidewalks
in front of the places for the few people that goes by there as time. But as far as
the people that lives there, chances are they won't be walking there and then as far
as the school district, I don't think there'll be any children going to school out of
that subdivision.
Mayor: I think a we'll go back to again that until the hearing is held, the public hearing
is held to change the comprehensive plan, anything we say here tonight is just, is
just really doesn't apply. At that time if there is a change, if there is a
application made to change the comprehensive then is the time that the others at that
hearing we would listen to anybody comments or
Lynn Winmill: That's fine, I think that
Mayor: I don't think anything we would say tonight is just opinion. It's good
opinion both ways but until we have an application to change the comprehensive plan
the council really cannot act on anything here tonight. And I suppose we are at
fault here at the city to some degree in the information that was given to Mr. Lacey
in the original application, and therefore we have agreed that if he desires to ask
for a change in the Comprehensive Plan that they city will accept the responsibility
and the cost in notifying those same people that he's had to pay his cost to notify
in his application to the Land Use last Thursday and tonight for you to be here. So
I think at that point a wouldn't you, if your
Becky Hopkins: I have a question
Mayor: Yes
Becky: Why would that maybe take place before annexation.
Lynn: No, he could
Mayor: It doesn't take
Lynn Winmil1. All I'm saying, we could go ahead and negotiate with him but upon
annexation that property going to be zoned R-1 and that's not what he wants.
Becky: Ok, right but what if the decision is not to annex then that probably changes
his plans too,
Lynn: Well, it still has some bearing, because the in order for a subdivision to be
approved there because within the cities impact area the comprehensive, his plat
would have to be approved and our ordinance would not allow us to even approve a plat
unless it'sconsistent, unless it's consistent with the comprehensive plan.
Becky Hopkins: OK
Lynn: So if he wants to develope that either in or outside of the city it's my
understanding that we, that he would have to have that our comprehensive plan changed
to R-2, or to an R-1 excuse me to an R-2 district. I'm going to have to look at that
question but preliminary that's my feeling about it and I've think we've consistantly
taken that position that whatever development goes on within the impact area has to
be consistent with what the comprehensive plan calls for as far as future
development. Steve, am I correct, is there any have we ever varied from that.
Steve Smart: No we haven't
LeRoy Quick: Well one other thing I might add to the area is that just because
their request made be asked for a change, it doesn't give any consideration whether it
will be changed or not it may still just remain the same, but it will be open to
public hearing and see what the imput of the people's are that pretains to that
particular change, so it doesn't say one way or the other whether we'll change it or
not, so I don't want to lead falsely, but just because you request that it will be
changed necessary, doesn't nece.,ary mean that.
Lynn: I think if I'm reading the council correctly what probably the decision should
be to I guess substain or adopt the recommendation of the Land Use and Development
commission that we get if property is annexed it will be zoned R-1 at this point
until, when the comprehensive plan is changed we can, or if it's changed I'm not
saying it will be. Please I'm not saying that at all. A, then we'd then we'd have
to look at that anew. A if you wish or if you want you can withdraw the application
tonight, and we'll, because I don't think annexation. Well let me leave it just at
that.
Becky Hopkins: I have another question I guess. Only the property owners can
request zoning, is that correct.
Lynn: Well, I've just been sitting there thinking about it myself. I don't think
were we've ever confronted the situation where somebody wanted to come and request
zoning for anything more than just his own property. A, I might have to take a look
at it. I'm going to guess that anybody, I'll just have to take a look. Al my I'm
going to guess it would have to be either the owner or the city council upon its own
initative.
LeRoy Quick: They would have to have an invested interest in it to request it.
Lynn: But I think the council could at anytime.
LeRoy: Yhah
Lynn: Just determine that the property, because the way the property is developing
that this is the way it needs to be zoned. But I'm going to take a look at that.
It may well be that any citizen in the city of Chubbuck would have the right to
petition the council and request that they take some action. Then the council could
set up a public hearing and consider that. Now I guess what I'm saying is anybody
can initate the request and then the council would have to decide whether they want
to hold a public hearing on it. But I've got some real serious problems about
somebody forcing
LeRoy: Someone else to change.
Becky Hopkins: Ahah
4
Lynn: Someone else's property to be changed as far as the zoning rlascification.
But I have a feeling based on what I'm hearing tonight we're going to have to
confront that very question in the very near future.
Mayor: Appreciate your being here tonight, and hope that we've answered your questions as
much as we can tonight and until we do receive an application for a change in the
comprehensive plan there will be no further action taken by the city council.
Lynn WthmiTh Now the only alternative I think Mr. Lacey is for us to go ahead and
adopt the Land Use and Development Commis;Ion recommendation that it be zoned R-1
when and if it's, or if you want you can just simply withdraw it. Is that
satisfactory to you, that we not take any action on it.
Roy Lacey: R-1 won't help me
Lynn: So it is, it is your desire then that we just not take action on that
tonight, and then wait for your decision whether or not you'll apply for a change in
the comprehensive plan.
Roy Lacey: Yes, I wonder if it would be proper for Mrs. England to look at those
pictures.
Mayor: All body can see them
Steve: I laid them right here in the corner
Mayor: Anyone can come up and pick those pictures up if they want to take them back
there and look at them can do so. We'll go ahead with our meeting and you can pass
the pictures around and
Roy Lacey: I withdraw the statement until the comprehensive plan can be looked at.
Steve: I think we going to need an application from you thought
LeRoy Quick: give it to you.
Mayor: Ok, thank you everyone for, for your attentiveness tonight and a I think your
to be commended also for the hearing Thursday night because it was conducted in such
a businesslike manor. We've had, we've had hearing you know on various types of
things in the city where people will just beligerantly accrusing the developer of
such and such you knok. And you've folks didn't approach it that way, you've approa
ched it very lodically and very businesslike. We appreciate that and I'm sure Mr.
Lacey appreciated that too. So thank you very much. Let's go to our item #3.8