Loading...
Findings - PZ - 1991 - Zoning for 2 seperate tracts of land currently zoned M3 - Proper Notice Was Not Given In 1990 Annexation/So Void BEFORE THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION ¿ OF THE CITY OF EAGLE, IDAHO In Re: Applicants. ) ) Zoning Applications By ) Eagle Land Company (Prime) Earth) and Myron Stahl and) Kathren R. Stahl, ) Trustees, and Raymond) Dowding (Dowding Gravel) Co., Idaho Sand and Gravel) Co. ) , ) } } ) FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW, AND DECISION This matter having come before the Planning and Zoning Commission of the City of Eagle, Idaho, on July 15, August 5, and September 16,1991, for public hearing pursuant to public notice as required by law, the application for the zoning of Tract 1 (legal description attached as Exhibit A) by Eagle Land Company (Prime Earth), Applicant, and the application for zoning of Tract 2 (legal description attached as Exhibit B) by Myron Stahl and Kathren R. Stahl, Trustees, and Raymond Dowding (Dowding Gravel Co., Idaho Sand and Gravel Co.), Applicants, in the vicinity of Hill Road and Highway 55; the Planning and Zoning Commission having heard testimony from interested parties and being fully advised in the matter, now makes the following: FINDINGS OF FACT 1. The property owner of Tract 1 is: Eagle Land Company (Prime Earth) FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW, AND DECISION - P. 1 The property owners of Tract 2 are: Myron Stahl and Kathren R. Stahl, Trustees, and Raymond Dowding (Dowding Gravel Co., Idaho Sand and Gravel Co.) The property owners of Tract 1 and Tract 2 are hereinafter referred to as the "Applicants". 2. The Applicants of Tracts 1 and 2 made applications to the Zoning Administrator for an M-3 zoning classification for Tracts 1 and 2, more fully described in Exhibits A and B, 3. respectively. Tracts 1 and 2 were annexed by the City of Eagle at the request of the Appl icants on June 12, 1990 pursuant to Ordinance No. 163. The Applicants requested that said properties be annexed subject to the condition of the 4. properties being zoned M-3. As part of the zoning procedure, notice and hearings are required by state statutes and under the City Code. The City of Eagle gave notices and conducted public hearings according to the Applicants' zoning applications requesting M-3 zoning and subsequently zoned the properties M-3. Applicant Prime 5. Earth then commenced gravel extraction operations. On January 21, 1991, by petition, several residential property owners who owned property within 300 feet of the external boundaries of Tract 1 and Tract 2, notified the City that they had not received the written notice as required by law. Said property owners indicated that their properties were injured by the gravel extraction operations. FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW, AND DECISION - P. 2 10. 6. The failure to provide proper notice to the surrounding property owners was due to an incomplete list given to the City by the Applicants pursuant to the Applicants' 7. responsibilities under City of Eagle Code Section 8-7-5:C. The City of Eagle has a duly adopted Comprehensive Plan, 8. adopted January, 1978, and revised March, 1990. Due to the defective notice of the earlier hearings, the Planning and Zoning Commission conducted another set of public hearings regarding the Applicants' zoning applications. The Planning and Zoning Commission held its first public hearing on July 15, 1991, a~ the City of Eagle City Hall building. 9. Notice of the Planning and Zoning Commission hearing of July 15,1991 was published in the official newspaper and mailed to all persons who own property within 300 feet of the external boundaries of Tracts 1 and 2, all as required by law. Upon these applications for zoning, the following organizations and agencies were notified for their comments: - Ada County Assessor - Ada County Engineer - Ada County Highway Department - Eagle Sewer District - Idaho State Transportation Department - Eagle Water Co. - Ada County Development Services and no adverse comments were received. FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW, AND DECISION - P. 3 11. At the July 15, 1991 public hearing portion of the Planning and Zoning Commission meeting, five members of the community spoke against the Applicants' zoning applications. Their concerns were: (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) whether the Applicants were bonded; whether the Applicants had the proper permits to operate gravel extraction; what were the Applicants' reclamation plans; excessive trash in the area; the property values of the surrounding property; the dangers for children in the area; the lack of proper fencing; the lack of City control; and the noise and dust created by the Applicants' operation. 3 zoning. Two representatives of the Applicants spoke in favor of the M- The basis of their argument was to enable the Applicants to continue their gravel extraction operation. 12. The Planning and Zoning Commission continued the public hearing regarding the zoning applications of Tracts 1 and 2 to August 5 , Planning Applicants 1991, the date of the next regularly scheduled and Zoning Commission meeting, to provide the with opportunity an to gather additional information to respond to the Commission's questions and to allow public comment on such responses. FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW, AND DECISION - P. 4 14. lS. 16. 17. 13. At the August 5, 1991, public hearing portion of the Planning and Zoning Commission meeting, eight members of the community spoke out against the Applicants' zoning requests. During this meeting, it was determined that Applicant-Eagle Land Company's reclamation bond was in the amount of $7,SOO. The members of the public opposed to these zoning applications expressed concern regarding: property values, safety of children, insufficient bonding, contamination of water, environmental concerns, and destruction of the land. Three persons in attendance, representatives of the Applicants, were in favor of the Applicants' zoning requests. The Applicants' representatives proposed limiting the time for the gravel extraction operations and restricting the routes used by trucks hauling gravel. The Commission specifically finds the objections to the M-3 zoning designations to be meritorious. At all public meetings all interested persons were given the opportunity to be heard. The surrounding land uses in the immediate area of these properties are a state of Idaho gravel operation, vacant land, and some residential housing. The surrounding land is zoned R-S, C-3 or is unzoned by the City. The present use of Tracts 1 and 2 is for gravel extraction. The proposed future use of the land, at the conclusion of the gravel extraction, is for a residential subdivision. The Comprehensive Plan provides, as policies and goals for industrial uses within the City of Eagle, that: FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW, AND DECISION - P. S A. Factors, such as public services and environmental and social impacts, shall be considered before approval is B. given to industrial proposals. Industrial development shall be limited to light industry and technical parks (e.g. Hewlett Packard). C. Industrial development shall adhere to state and federal laws with respect to air and water quality. D. Industrial proposals that may overburden public services and facil i ties causing increased publ ic expenditures shall not be approved unless the industry directly pays its proportionate costs of related services. The Comprehensive Plan has not been amended pursuant to these 18. 19. zoning applications. In making zoning its decision regarding the Applicants' requests, the Planning and Zoning Commission reviewed these applications, with due consideration to: A. B. C. D. E. F. Providing orderly development of the City according to the Comprehensive Plan; Promoting public health, safety, and general welfare; Protecting property rights and enhancing property values; Ensuring that adequate public facilities and services are provided to the people at reasonable costs; Ensuring compatibility with the surrounding neighborhoods; Ensuring that the economy of the state and localities is protected and enhanced; FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW, AND DECISION - P. 6 G. H. J. K. L. M. N. Ensuring that the important environmental features of the state and localities are protected and enhanced; Encouraging the protection of prime agricultural, forestry, and mining lands for production of food, fibre, and minerals; I. Encouraging urban and urban-type development within the incorporated city; Avoiding undue concentration of population and overcrowding of land; Ensuring that the development on land is commensurate with the physical characteristics of the land; Protecting life and property in areas subject to natural hazards and disasters; Protecting fish, wildlife, and recreation resources; and Avoiding undue water and air pollution. Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact, the Planning and Zoning Commission hereby makes the following: 1. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW The earlier action taken by the City on the Applicants' M-3 zoning requests is void, because written notice to all persons who owned property within 300 feet of the exterior boundaries of Tract 1 and Tract 2 was not given due to a defective list 2. of property owners given to the City by the Applicants. Tract 1 and Tract 2 came into the City as unzoned land. FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW, AND DECISION - P. 7 3. statutory due process, as contained in the Idaho Code and City of Eagle Code, has been satisfied. 4. A zoning classification of M-3 for Tract 1 and Tract 2 is not compatible with the use and zoning of the surrounding area. Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, the City of Eagle Planning and Zoning Commission hereby enters the following: DECISION 1. It is the recommendation of the City of Eagle Planning and Zoning Commission to deny the zoning requests of the Applicants for M-3 zoning for Tract 1 and Tract 2. It is the further recommendation of the Commission to classify Tract 1 and Tract 2 as an R-S zoning designation. 2. The recommendation of the Planning and Zoning Commission is based upon the following facts: A. It is adjacent to residential zoning; B. It is a logical use; If grandfather rights exist, the operation can continue C. until the need is gone, at which time property zoning will be already in place; and For safety and health protection for residential areas. D. 3. R-S zoning for Tract 1 and Tract 2 is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and is compatible with the use and zoning of the neighboring area. FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW, AND DECISION - P. 8 DATED this ---- day of , 1991. CITY Commission FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW, AND DECISION - P. 9