HomeMy WebLinkAbout010 06 94LAND USE AND DEVELOPMENT MINUTES
October 6, 1994
Minutes of a regular meeting of the Land Use and Development
Commission held in the city municipal building at 8:00 pm.
Present: Chairman Kent Kearns, Commission Members: Mary Harker,
Myrna Cain, Pete Anderson, Gayle Anderson; Council Representative
Marvin Gunter; Attorney Tom Holmes, Public Works Director Steve
Smart, Project Engineer Gerd Dixon, and Secretary Myrna Crapo
The meeting was called to order at 8:00 p.m.
Chairman Kent Kearns asked for approval of the minutes of the
September 1 meeting. Gayle anderson moved to approval the minutes
as mailed with Myrna Cain seconding, all voted in favor.
Chairman Kearns asked if any of the commission members had a
conflict of interest with any of the items for public hearing.
There were none.
PUBLIC HEARING:
1. An application by COLIN SHULER, 5104 REDFISH, FOR A CONDITIONAL
USE PERMIT TO PUT A DOUBLE WIDE MANUFACTURED HOME. Property is
zoned Limited Residential (R-2).
Chairman Kearns Opened the public hearing and asked Gerd Dixon if
he had any additional comments concerning the staff report.
He had none.
Dusty Whited, 248 Briscoe representing Colin Shuler explained what
Mr. Shuler was going to do.
Chairman Kearns then asked for any public input, there being none
he closed the public testimony and opened it to the commission
for discussion. He reminded the commission that they might
want to make this transferable with the sale of the property.
The commission asked: 1.if it was being placed on a permanent
foundation and 2. the size of the garage being built.
Mary Harker moved that we approve Mr. Shulers application for a
Conditional Use Permit as specified and that we make this
transferable with the sale of the property. Myrna Cain
seconded. Myrna Cain, yes; Marvin Gunter, yes, Pete Anderson,
yes, Kent Kearns, yes; Mary Harker, yes; Gayle Anderson, yes.
AM APPLICATION BY R. ALAN & TAMARA G. CORSON, 1706 BENCH ROAD
TO PUT A MANUFACTURED HOME AT 4418 BURLEY DRIVE. Property is
presently zoned Limited Residential (R-2).
Land Use and Development Commission
Page 2
October 6, 1994
Gerd Dixon informed the commission that they needed to be aware of
the comprehensive plan zoning this property as Industrial.
Chairman Kearns opened the public hearing. Alan & Tamara G. Corson
addressed the commission. They are going to have one acre of
ground. They were aware that the property is zoned Industrial
in the Comprehensive Plan.
Chairman Kearns reminded the commission that the comprehensive plan
shows the property as industrial.
The meeting was then opened for public testimony, there being none
the public hearing was closed and opened to the commission for
discussion and a motion.
The commission discussed: 1. Making this property transferable
2. Being in a potential Industrial Zone
3. There being similar dwellings there now.
4. Industrial being a potential conflict in the future.
Pete Anderson moved that we approve the conditional use permit for
Corson's to put a manufactured home at 4418 Burley Drive with
the conditional use being transferrable upon sale of the
property. Mary Harker seconded. Myrna Cain, yes; Marvin
Gunter, yes; Peter Anderson, yes; Kent Kearns, yes; Mary
Harker, yes; Gayle Anderson, yes.
AN APPLICATION BY STEVE CAMPOLATTARO, 435 E. CHUBBUCK ROAD FOR
A MAJOR HOME OCCUPATION. Property is presently zoned Limited
Residential (R-2).
Gerd Dixon reviewed the ordinance for a major home occupation.
Outside employees are not allowed.
Steve Campolattaro, 436 E. Chubbuck Road told the commission:
1. Materials maybe delivered to his address until he moves
them to the job site.
2. He would like to put up a 6' wooden fence
3. He plans on landscaping spring of 1995
4. He would like to build a storage area to store his
equipment.
Mr. Campolattaro was a sub contractor until the contractor he
was working for went out of business, forcing him to start his
own business. He does all types of home improvements. An
employee comes in from 9 to 5 to answer the phone and to
solicit business. He moves from one job to another and
generally has things delivered on the job site.
Land Use and Development Commission
Page 3
October 6, 1994
Chairman Kearns opened the meeting to public testimony
supporting or opposing the application, there being none he
closed that portion and brought it back to the commission for
discussion. The commission then discussed with Mr.
Campolattaro:
1. Not complying with ordinance requirements by doing tele-
marketing and having a business establishment.
2. The way to calculate the floor area as needed for the
ordinance. It was decided that it needs to just be the house.
3.Controlling it with a yearly review.
4. On site storage of supplies and equipment between jobs.
5. A 6' screening fence, and having the storage contained
within a storage shed.
6. Limitation on having outside employees.
7. Mr. Campolattaro plans on putting a fence on his left side
and behind the back of the garage.
8. Vehicle travel on the property only being his trucks.
9. Mr. Campolattaro will put grass along side of the driveway
with gravel in the driveway.
10. There will be no vehicles along the side of the shop.
11. Tele-marketing by an outside person moves it out of a home
occupation.
12. He could have call forwarding or locate tele-marketing off
site.
13. House under a handicap because of the area being zoned R-2
and not really a residential area.
Pete Anderson moved that we grant the home occupation with the
following conditions:
1. That he comply with all the conditions spelled out in
section 18.12.030.G2 a-j
2. That the receiving of materials on a emergency and a
occasional basis be allowed with a storage time of no longer
than three days
3. That there will be no outside employees
4. Also that it be subject to review every two years.
Marvin Gunter seconded. Myrna Cain, yes; Marvin Gunter, yes;
Pete Anderson, yes; Kent Kearns, yes; Mary Harker, yes; Gayle
Anderson, yes.
A PROPOSAL BY THE CITY OF CHUBBUCK TO AMEND CHAPTER 18.14 TO
DEFINE SHRUB SIZE, require sprinkler systems and require
shrubs every five feet.
Chairman Kearns opened it to public testimony for or against
seeing none he closed it and opened it for discussion and a
motion by the commission. The commission then discussed:
Land Use and Development Commission
Page 4
October 6, 1994
1. The changes not creating a burden on a legitimate
developer.
2. The requirements being no greater than other communities.
Mary Harker moved that we recommend amending ordinance
18.14.020 to the city council as presented to us this evening.
Myrna Cain seconded. Myrna Cain, yes; Marvin Gunter, yes;
Pete Anderson, yes; Kent Kearns, yes; Mary Harker, yes; Gayle
Anderson, yes.
Mary Harker moved to adjourn with Marvin Gunter seconding at 9:50
pm.
ent Kearns, Chairman
Myrna'-~r~po, Secretar~
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 October 6, 1994, upon the application of Colin
Shuler, (hereinafter referred to as "applicant") for a conditional use permit to place a
Class II production building on the real property located at 236 Briscoe 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 R-2 Limited Residential pursuant to the
n Land Use Ordinance of the City of Chubbuck.
4. The property is designated as R-2 Limited Residential 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 S 67-6512 and in Chubbuck Code S 18.28.040 (C).
6. The facts relevant to an evaluation of the relevant criteria and standards are as
follows:
A. Similar permits have recently been granted in Briscoe Meadows Subdivision.
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.
FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND DECISION - Page 1
dsc chbbck10.144
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 not conflict with aesthetic
qualities of the surrounding lands.
7. The adverse impact of the proposed use on other development within the
City has not 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:
A. The permit runs with the land and will automatically transfer to
subsequent purchasers of the property.
3. The conditional use permit requested by the Applicant is granted, subject to
the foregoing conditions.
DATED this �6 day of , 1994.
LAND USE AND DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION
By: 15�X7 ��..---------
Chairman
FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND DECISION - Page 2
dsc chbbck10.144
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 October 6, 1994, upon the application of R. Alan
and Tamara Corson, (hereinafter referred to as "applicant") for a conditional use permit
to place a Class II production building on the real property located at 4418 Burley Drive
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 R-2 Limited Residential 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 S 67-6512 and in Chubbuck Code S 18.28.040 (C).
6. The facts relevant to an evaluation of the relevant criteria and standards are as
follows:
A. Similar dwellings are in the area.
B. Applicant is aware of potential future industrial development as a result of
industrial zoning in the comprehensive plan.
BASED UPON THE FOREGOING FINDINGS OF FACT, the Land Use and
Development Commission hereby enters the following:
FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND DECISION - Page 1
dsc chbbck10.145
-�r � �14
n
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 not conflict with aesthetic
qualities of the surrounding lands.
7. The adverse impact 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 approval 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:
A. The permit runs with the land and will automatically transfer to
subsequent purchasers of the property.
FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND DECISION - Page 2
dsc chbbck10.145
3. The conditional use permit requested by the Applicant is granted, subject to
the foregoing conditions.
DATED this'P� ,1
day of rNo���t� , 1994.
LAND USE AND DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION
By: ------
Chairman
FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND DECISION - Page 3
dao chbbck10.145
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 October 6, 1994, upon the application of Steve
Campolattaro (hereinafter referred to as "applicant") for a conditional use permit to
conduct a major home occupation on real property located at 435 East 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 R-2 Limited Residential pursuant to the
Land Use Ordinance of the City of Chubbuck.
4. The property is designated as R-2 Limited Residential 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 S 67-6512 and in Chubbuck Code S 18.28.040 (C).
6. The facts relevant to an evaluation of the relevant criteria and standards are as
follows:
A. Mr. Campolattaro operates a construction business, however, concentrated
primarily on home improvements.
B. Mr. Campolattaro moves from one job site to another and generally has
construction materials delivered to the job site. Occasionally Mr. Campolattaro's
materials are delivered to the property at 435 East Chubbuck Road.
C. Mr. Campolattaro intends to put up a six foot wooden fence around the
back of the area and the left hand side (east side) and he plans on doing landscaping in
the area in the spring of 1995.
D. Mr. Campolattaro currently has a secretary come to the premises for phone
answering purposes and does occasionally conduct tele -marketing from the property.
FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND DECISON - Page i
dsc chbbck10.146
-W<<-,�>
E. Mr. Campolattaro has made significant improvements in cleaning up the
^ back of the property within the last few days.
F. A written protest filed by Marie Ann Branson protests the development
and notes the problems with the appearance of the back of the house.
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 not conflict with aesthetic
qualities of the surrounding lands.
7. The adverse impact 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 not expressed approval 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,
n finds that the request of the applicant should be approved.
FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND DECISION - Page 2
dac chbbck10.146
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:
A. All conditions must be complied with by applicant as set forth in
Chubbuck Code S 18.12.030(G)(2A-J).
B. Materials received on an emergency and on an occasional basis may
be allowed on the property with a storage time of no longer than three days.
C. There shall be no outside employees.
D. This conditional use permit shall be subject to review every two
years.
3. The conditional use permit requested by the Applicant is granted, subject
to the foregoing conditions.
DATED this day of , 1994.
LAND USE AND DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION
By;---���--------
Chairman
FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND DECISION - Page 3
dsc chbbck10.146