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