HomeMy WebLinkAbout006 02 94LAND USE AND DEVELOPMENT MEETING
June 2, 1994
Minutes of the regular meeting of the Land Use and Development
Commission held in the city municipal building.
Present: Chairman Kent Kearns, Commission Members: Myrna Cain,
Mary Harker, Gayle Anderson, Richard Pearson; Attorney Tom Holmes,
Project Engineer Gerd Dixon, Public Works Director Steve Smart and
Secretary Myrna Crapo.
Chairman Kent Kearns called the meeting to order at 8:00 PM.
Chairman Kearns asked for approval of the minutes of the May 5,
1994 meeting. Myrna Cain moved to approved the minutes with Mary
Harker seconding. All voted in favor.
Chairman Kearns asked if any of the commission members had a
conflict of interest. There were none.
PUBLIC HEARING:
A PROPOSAL BY RANAE WORTHEN, 730 E. CHUBBUCK ROAD, CHUBBUCK,
IDAHO FOR A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR AN RV STORAGE located
north of 242 and 244 E. Chubbuck. Property is presently zoned
Industrial (I).
Gerd told the commission that according to Cary Campbell, Fire
Chief they would need a fire hydrant. The city would require
extension of water and sewer lines.
Ranae Worthen, 730 E. Chubbuck, they had purchased 1.7 acres
hoping to put a R.V. Park on it. There would be an apartment
for security reasons and it would just be a studio apartment
that would have a couple with no children. They were planning
on putting in a 6' chain link screening fence with slats.
The commission discussed whether an apartment would be allowed
in a Industrial zone as the ordinance read that single family
dwellings are not allowed in Industrial Zones. There being a
need to have a security apartment and the way in which it
might be allowed.
Attorney Tom Holmes informed the commission it could be
interpreted as being more integrated with the storage for
security purposes and not considered as a residence. It would
need to have some conditions put on it. The commission needs
to be sure that further on down the road that it wouldn't be
used as a duplex.
Land Use and Development Commission
Page 2
June 2, 1994
Mr. Holmes suggested the
commissions consideration:
following conditions for the
1. Live in guards on sites allowable as long as the guards are
staying there as a condition of their employment.
2. Not a permanent residence and not to be construed as
allowing a residential use in an industrial area.
The commission discussed the apartment being allowed and the
conditions needed. A couple without children, two adults.
Tim Shurtliff, 426 W. Lewis suggested that the commission
could consider a new ordinance to allow for security in a
storage complex and tag it with the apartment has to be used
for that reason. It could also be limited by the amount of
area you would need to have and a definition of what that
house could be like.
Attorney Holmes advised it to be part of the main building.
Steve Smart, Public Works Director suggested that the
commission leave the requirements as they are and address this
problem with a conditional use as part of its use and part of
the property.
Chairman Kearns opened the meeting for public testimony:
James Humble, 230 E. Chubbuck told the commission that he
would like to have the ground surveyed and marked where the
line would be so he could get his fence straightened out.
Noise wise he would like to limit the time it could be used.
He needs to be able to clean his ditch and have access to the
ditch to be able to do that.
Steve Smart informed Mr. Humble that he needed to check with
Kimberly Nursery to see if they did a survey when the property
was sold. He could then use that survey to measure from.
Tim Shurtliff told the commission that he would be surveying
the right of way and marking those parts of it, if the project
goes through.
Chairman Kearns turned the meeting back to the commission.
The commission members discussed:
1. The hours of operation
2. The definition of occupancy of security structure and
limiting it to two adults one being an employee of the storage
facility. The purpose being for security.
3. Approving of phase I
Land Use and Development Commission
Page 3
June 2, 1994
4. Protection in the conditional use permit process.
5. The need for a 8' or 6' screening fence.
6. The live in facility is limited to being used as an
intergial part of the business operated in the area and not
approved to be a separate living unit.
Richard Pearson moved that we approve the proposal by RaNae
Worthen, 730 E. Chubbuck Road for a conditional Use Permit for
an R-V storage located north of 242 and 244 East Chubbuck
Road.
1. This is phase 1 that we are defining tonight. Further
development beyond what we speak of tonight needs to come back
and be approved and reviewed by the Land Commission in stages
if that is necessary.
2. Security structure that is included in the property. The
residential section will be used only for security and is
limited to two adults one of which must be an employee and it
must be used for security purposes as part of the business and
not be used as a dwelling or residential area.
3.That a 6' fence will be placed around the property, chain
link slated.
4. That the property is a vehicle storage site repair
facility, etc. only for that purpose and not for salvage or
anything like that.
Myrna Cain seconded the motion. Roll call vote: Myrna Cain,
yes; Richard Pearson, yes, Kent Kearns, yes; Mary Harker, yes;
Gayle Anderson, yes.
A PROPOSAL BY THE CITY OF CHUBBUCK AMENDING SECTION 17.16.070
TO PROVIDE FOR A THREE YEAR WARRANTY PERIOD ON IMPROVEMENTS
DEDICATED TO THE PUBLIC.
Gerd Dixon told the commission that he had talked to Brad
Frasure and he concurred that three years was a good period of
warranty. Anything beyond that would tend to build in
additional costs in your estimate and inflate the development
costs.
Gayle Anderson expressed concern about the length of time
being three years. It would inflate the costs. What would
happen if the business would go out of business before the
three years were up.
The commission discussed the bonding process and how it helps
to protect the city.
Land Use and Development Commission
Page 4
June 2, 1994
Chairman Kearns opened the meeting to public testimony. There
being none the testimony was closed and the meeting was opened
to the commission for discussion.
Myrna Cain made a motion that we recommend to the city council
that they approve the proposal by the city of Chubbuck
amending section 17.16.070 to provide for three year warranty
period on improvements dedicated to the public. Mary Harker
seconded the motion.
Roll call vote: Myrna Cain, yes; Richard Pearson, yes; Kent
Kearns, yes; Mary Harker, yes; Gayle Anderson, no.
GENERAL BUSINESS:
1. DISCUSSION ON A PROPOSED ORDINANCE TO DECREASE THE MINIMUM AREA
REQUIRED FOR A PLAN UNIT DEVELOPMENT.
The commission reviewed the discussion on the ordinance at the
previous study session. Town houses vs apartments, it was
felt that town houses are more stable. The R-1 area of the
city needed to be protected.
The Residential Development for an R-1 would be one acre; R-2,
R-3 and R-4 would be no minimum area. Three acres for
residential use with subordinate commercial or industrial
uses. Five acres for commercial use and five acres for
industrial use.
Richard Pearson moved to put out for public notice the
proposed ordinance with the changes listed above. Gayle
Anderson seconded the motion with all voting in favor.
DISCUSSION ON A PROPOSED ORDINANCE TO PROVIDE BAY WINDOWS MAY
EXTEND INTO THE FRONT YARD SETBACK UP TO TWO FEET.
The commission discussed where you measure from for the bay
window. The reason for this ordinance being considered was
because of some violations in set back requirements.
Richard Pearson moved to go to publication with Myrna Cain
seconding. Ail voted in favor.
APPROVAL OF FINDINGS OF FACT FOR WHITAKER FARM ASSOCIATION·
Myrna Cain made a motion to approve the Finding of Fact for
Whitaker Farms Association. Mary Harker seconded, with all
voting in favor.
APPROVAL OF FINDINGS OF FACT FOR CALVARY CHAPEL. Mary Harker
moved that we approve the finding of fact for Calvery Baptist
Land Use and Development Commission
Page 5
June 2, 1994
Finding of Fact (Cont.d)
Church· Myrna Cain seconded with all voting in favor.
APPROVAL OF FINDINGS OF FACT OF HAROLD L. SCALF. Chairman
Kearns noted an error in the first paragraph where it says A-1
it needs to be R-1.
Gayle Anderson moved to approve the finding of fact for Harold
L. Scalf. Mary Harker seconded the motion with all voting in
favor.
APPROVAL OF FINDINGS OF FACT FOR MICHAEL BUCHANAN AND SELVY
TRUJILLO.
Myrna Cain made a motion that we approve the finding of fact
for Mike Buchanan and Selvy Trujillo with Gayle Anderson
seconding; all voted in favor.
APPROVAL OF FINDINGS OF FACT FOR DUSTIN AND HOLLY WHITED·
Myrna Cain made a motion to approve the finding of fact for
Dustin and Holly Whited with Mary Harker seconding; all voted
in favor.
APPROVAL OF FINDINGS OF FACT FOR DONALD AND BRENDA CURTISS.
Mary Harker moved to accept the finding of fact for Brenda and
Donald Curtiss with Gayle Anderson seconding; all voted in
favor.
The meeting adjourned at 9:30 pm with a motion from Richard Pearson
and a second from Mary Harker.
'~kent'~mearns, Chairman
yrn~ C~apo, Secret~ry
CITY OF CHUBBUCK
LAND USE AND DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION
FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND DECISION
This matter having come before the Commission for public hearing pursuant to
public notice as required by law, on June 2, 1994, upon the application of Ranae
Worthen (hereinafter referred to as "applicant") for a conditional use permit to place an
RV storage on the real property located at 242 and 244 E. Chubbuck Road, and the
Commission having heard testimony from interested parties and being fully advised in
the matter, now makes the following:
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. Applicant has applied for a conditional use permit as particularly described
above.
2. All legal requirements for notice of public hearing have been met.
3. The property in question is zoned (I) Industrial pursuant to the Land Use
Ordinance of the City of Chubbuck.
4. The property is designated as (I) Industrial 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 Idaho Code section 67-6512 and in Chubbuck Code section 18.28.040 (C).
6. The facts relevant to an evaluation of the relevant criteria and standards are as
follows:
A. Area is zoned industrial and the use, as regulated by the Chubbuck Code, is
compatible with the zoning.
B. No neighbors have objected or opposed the application. James Humble,
230 E. Chubbuck Road, has asked for help in getting his fence line located as part of the
process, but he has not indicated an opposition to the project. Mr. Humble has also
expressed the concern about being able to maintain his irrigation ditch and have access
to it.
FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND DECISION - Page 1
dsc chbbck06.141
BASED UPON THE FOREGOING FINDINGS OF FACT, the Land Use and
Development Commission hereby enters the following:
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. The use for which the permit is sought will not be injurious to the
neighborhood or otherwise detrimental to the public health, safety or welfare.
2. The permit sought will not produce an adverse impact on the economic
values of adjacent properties.
3. The permit sought will not produce a negative impact on transportation
facilities, public utilities, schools, public parks, or the natural environment any greater
than had the strict terms of the Land Use Ordinance been complied with.
4. The noise and traffic conditions generated by the use for which the permit
is sought, when analyzed in conjunction with the noise and traffic conditions now existing
does not indicate that the permit should be denied.
5. The use for which the permit is sought shall not work an unreasonable
hardship upon surrounding property owners by virtue of its physical natures or by the
n impact of changes made in the landscape of the land.
6. The aesthetic qualities of the proposed use will not conflict with aesthetic
qualities of the surrounding lands.
7. The adverse impact, if any, of the proposed use on other development
within the City has been minimized by Applicant as much as is reasonably possible.
8. Owners of adjacent property have expressed neither approval nor
disapproval of the issuance of the requested conditional use permit.
9. The requested conditional use permit, if granted, should be maintained
subject to the conditions set forth below.
DECISION
1. The Land Use and Development Commission, pursuant to the foregoing, finds
that the request of the applicant should be approved.
2. The following conditions, if any, are hereby imposed upon the granting of said
conditional use permit and applicant, by taking advantage of said conditional use permit
agrees to the imposition of the same:
FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND DECISION - Page 2
dsc chbbck06.141
A. Only phase 1 of the project, as presented to the Land Use
Commission, is approved. Further development will be approved and
reviewed by the Commission in stages as necessary.
B. A security structure is approved as part of the property. The
section in which the security officer or individual would reside may be used
only for security and is limited to two adults, one of which must be an
employee of the owners. The security structure must be used for security
purposes as part of the business and may not be used as a dwelling or
residential area except to the extent it is an integral part of the security
purposes for the business. The permit specifically does not approve a
residential section on the property as that is not compatible with the
property's zoning and the industrial area and approval is not given for
present or future use of that structure or portion of the structure as a
separate residence.
C. A six-foot fence must be place around the property, chain
linked and slated where required by Code Section 18.12.030(N)(1) to
screen the vehicles on the premises from public view and from the view
from existing and adjoining residential property or residentially zoned
areas.
^ D. The property is a vehicle storage site and repair facility and
may only be used for that purpose and not for salvage of vehicles.
3. The conditional use permit requested by the Applicant is granted, subject to
the foregoing conditions.
DATED this � day of j�,, , 1994.
LAND USE AND DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION
By:
C rman
FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND DECISION - Page 3
dsc chbbck06.141
CITY OF CHUBBUCK
LAND USE AND DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION
FINDINGS OF FACT CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND DECISION
This matter having come before the Commission for public hearing pursuant to
public notice as required by law, on June 2, 1994, upon the application of Ranae
Worthen (hereinafter referred to as "applicant") for a conditional use permit to place an
RV storage on the real property located at 242 and 244 E. Chubbuck Road, and the
Commission having heard testimony from interested parties and being fully advised in
the matter, now makes the following:
above.
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. Applicant has applied for a conditional use permit as particularly described
2. All legal requirements for notice of public hearing have been met.
^ 3. The property in question is zoned (I) Industrial pursuant to the Land Use
Ordinance of the City of Chubbuck.
4. The property is designated as (I) Industrial 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 Idaho Code section 67-6512 and in Chubbuck Code section 18.28.040 (C).
6. The facts relevant to an evaluation of the relevant criteria and standards are as
follows:
A. Area is zoned industrial and the use, as regulated by the Chubbuck Code, is
compatible with the zoning.
B. No neighbors have objected or opposed the application. James Humble,
230 E. Chubbuck Road, has asked for help in getting his fence line located as part of the
process, but he has not indicated an opposition to the project. Mr. Humble has also
expressed the concern about being able to maintain his irrigation ditch and have access
to it.
FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND DECISION - Page 1
dsc chbbck06.141
BASED UPON THE FOREGOING FINDINGS OF FACT, the Land Use and
Development Commission hereby enters the following:
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. The use for which the permit is sought will not be injurious to the
neighborhood or otherwise detrimental to the public health, safety or welfare.
2. The permit sought will not produce an adverse impact on the economic
values of adjacent properties.
3. The permit sought will not produce a negative impact on transportation
facilities, public utilities, schools, public parks, or the natural environment any greater
than had the strict terms of the Land Use Ordinance been complied with.
4. The noise and traffic conditions generated by the use for which the permit
is sought, when analyzed in conjunction with the noise and traffic conditions now existing
does not indicate that the permit should be denied.
5. The use for which the permit is sought shall not work an unreasonable
hardship upon surrounding property owners by virtue of its physical natures or by the
impact of changes made in the landscape of the land.
6. The aesthetic qualities of the proposed use will conflict with aesthetic
qualities of the surrounding lands.
7. The adverse impact, if any, of the proposed use on other development
within the City has been minimized by Applicant as much as is reasonably possible.
8. Owners of adjacent property have expressed neither approval nor
disapproval of the issuance of the requested conditional use permit.
9. The requested conditional use permit, if granted, should be maintained
subject to the conditions set forth below.
DECISION
1. The Land Use and Development Commission, pursuant to the foregoing, finds
that the request of the applicant should be approved.
2. The following conditions, if any, are hereby imposed upon the granting of said
conditional use permit and applicant, by taking advantage of said conditional use permit
agrees to the imposition of the same:
FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND DECISION - Page 2
dsc chbbckO6.141
6
A. Only phase 1 of the project, as presented to the Land Use
Commission, is approved. Further development will be approved and
reviewed by the Commission in stages as necessary.
B. A security structure is approved as part of the property. The
section in which the security officer or individual would reside may be used
only for security and is limited to two adults, one of which must be an
employee of the owners. The security structure must be used for security
purposes as part of the business and may not be used as a dwelling or
residential area except to the extent it is an integral part of the security
purposes for the business. The permit specifically does not approve a
residential section on the property as that is not compatible with the
property's zoning and the industrial area and approval is not given for
present or future use of that structure or portion of the structure as a
separate residence.
C. A six-foot fence must be place around the property, chain
linked and slated where required by Code Section 18.12.030(N)(1) to
screen the vehicles on the premises from public view and from the view
from existing and adjoining residential property or residentially zoned
areas.
D. The property is a vehicle storage site and repair facility and
may only be used for that purpose and not for salvage of vehicles.
3. The conditional use permit requested by the Applicant is granted, subject to
the foregoing conditions.
DATED this 4� day of } , 1994.
LAND USE AND DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION
By: Zr Chairma-n
FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND DECISION - Page 3
dsc chbbckO6.141