Findings - PZ - 1994 - Rezone - Rezone From R5 To C2 (2)
CITY OF EAGLE
IN THE MATTER OF
CUSTOM MASONRY
STEVE AND LINDA HIATT AND
LONNIE CLARKSTON
AN APPLICATION
FOR A REZONE
)
)
)
)
)
)
FINDINGS OF FACT
AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
On May 2, May 16, June 6, July 18 and November 7, 1994, pursuant to
public notice and hearing procedures set forth in Section 67-6509,
Idaho State Code, Custom Masonry, represented by Steve and Linda
Hiatt and Lonnie Clarkston, the applicant, and Stanley Crow,
attorney for the applicant, came before the Planning and Zoning
Commission for the City of Eagle, Idaho, requesting consideration
for a rezone from R5 to C2.
Based on the application, testimony from the applicant and all
interested parties and, together with all documentary evidence
submitted concerning the application, the Eagle Planning and
Sonning Commission finds the following:
1.
2.
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
The records in this matter indicate all notices, and
publications have occurred as required by law. The records
further reflect notice of the public hearing was sent to
relevant public entities.
On March 22, 1994, Custom Masonry applied for a rezone of
property located in the City of Eagle.
3.
The Planning and Zoning Commission heard this application on
May 2, May 16, June 6, and July 18, 1994. On May 16, 1994 the
Commission voted to recommended a rezone from R5 to C2 with a
development agreement to be prepared jointly by the Planning
and Zoning Staff and the Hiatts. The development agreement
was to return to Planning and Zoning prior to this issue being
placed before City Council. On July 18, 1994 the Commission
heard testimony that the Planning and Zoning Staff and Mr.
Hiatt were not able to come to an agreement and the Commission
recommended the application be denied.
4.
The existing business, Custom Masonry, was found to be an
illegal non-conforming use. The business has been in the
present location for 11 years, but was established after the
zoning regulations were adopted in 1978.
Eagle City Council History
The Eagle City Council heard this application on August 23,
September 27, and October 11, 1994. On September 27, 1994 the
Council voted (two for the motion, two against) to deny the
application as presented. As the vote was not a super majority,
the Council accepted Planning and Zoning recommendation to deny.
On October 11, 1994, the applicant presented testimony that the
Planning and Zoning Commissioners' denial was based upon the lack
of a development agreement. The applicant also stated that he
would present a new development agreement which he believed the
Planning and Zoning Commission would approve. The Council voted to
reconsider the application. They then voted to remand the matter
back to Planning and Zoning for consideration of a rezone request,
in view of the newly proposed development agreement.
RESPONSES RECEIVED FROM
ENTITIES:
CENTRAL DISTRICT HEALTH:
its impact to dry creek.
DEQ must review business operation and
EAGLE FIRE DEPT:
no opposition.
EAGLE SEWER DIST: This property is within the District's Planning
Area and has been annexed. This areas was part of the West
Expansion Project in 1989 and was funded, in part, by an LID. A
portion of the land identified in the map submitted to the District
is owned by Fred Kunkler. Parcel SO508315260 does not have sewer
available across Dry Creek. If sewer service is required it will
be Mr. Hiatt's responsibility to extend the line and secure any
necessary stream crossing permits. Approval would be necessary
from the District.
WRITTEN COMMENTS: petition signed by 16 residents objecting to the
dust, sand and stacks of bricks, also expressing objections to the
trucks and large equipment in the residential area causing dust
and noise. Also opposed: Cathy Horting, Boyd and Mary Young.
Written comments in favor: Peggy Irving, Ray Means, Wayne and Jane
Crosby, Inis Cupp, Sani Lawson, Mary Ann Taylor, William Russell,
R. Kent Miller, Lonnie Clarkston, Wayne Swanson, Cal D. Low.
CONCLUSION
1.
City Council heard testimony on the conflicting uses of
surrounding property, and finds that rezone of the property
should only occur such that the conflicting uses are
minimized. These conflicting uses include noise, dust, and
operation of equipment near a residential area.
2.
The applicant presented a revised Development Agreement to the
City Council and requested an opportunity to have the Planning
and zoning Commission review the new development agreement to
determine if it adequately addressed those concerns relative
to conflicting uses.
3.
The Planning and Zoning Commission found that the new
development agreement, with modifications, does address the
concerns relating to conflicting uses in the area.
RECOMMENDATION
Based upon the foregoing findings of facts, the Eagle Planning
and Zoning Commission recommends that the application be
approved with the development agreement with the following
changes to the development agreement:
1. Section B1, Development Agreement Terms, Term of
Agreement, have a 5 year expiration limit, with the
opportunity to review at that time.
2. Section B2, Pathway Easement, be effective at the time
the City of Eagle develops a pathway in that location.
3. Section B6, Sight and Sound Barrier, Mr. Hiatt will
provide a berm and fence on the east side of the property
providing flood plain permits required can be obtained.
ADOPTED by the Eagle Planning and Zoning Commission of the City of
Eagle, Idaho.
This
21st
day of
November
, 1994.
Ken mith, Chai
City of Eagle
an
"
/1