Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout012 03 87LAND USE AND DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION MINUTES DECEMBER 3, 1987 Minutes of the regular meeting of the Land Use and Development Commission held in the city municipal building December 3, 1987 Present: Chairman Pete Anderson, commission members Sue Parrish, Myrna Cain, Larry Call, Council member Becky Hopkins, Public Works Director Steve Smart, Attorney Lynn Winmill, Secretary Myrna Crapo. Meeting called to order at 7:30 pm by Chairman Anderson. Chairman Anderson asked for any additions or corrections to the October 1, 1987 minutes. There being none Myrna Cain made a motion to accept minutes as mailed. Sue Parrish seconded the motion, with all commission members voting in favor. .~ UNFINISHED BUSINESS: A PROPOSAL BY RANDY BROADHEAD, 850 TODD FOR A VARIANCE To utilize an existing structure located at 710 Canal for the purpose of storage of commercial materials relating to a cleaning business. Property is presently zoned R-2, Limited Residential. Attorney Winmill explained the letter he had written to Chairman Pete Anderson regarding Utilization of Existing Sturcture for Storage of Commercial Materials. The commission then discussed having a business in a residential area. They also questioned Mr. Broadhead on: 1. The status of the property-He stated he had ernest money continigent to the approval by the commission. 2. Use of the adjacent ground--Mr. Broadhead would be storing a wood trailor in back. be 3. Amount of time they woul~coming and going--it would be a station facility an,~ used 1¼ times a day. 4. Deliveries by truck--Last month 2 semi--trucks (27' trailors) delivere~ supplies. One 5o his home. 5. Nigat work--would be used at 6igh5 only in case of emergency. The finding of facts and Cor~clu~sions.of Law were discussed by attorney Winmill. Mr. Broadhead was informed of the appeal process. LAND USE AND DEVELOPMENT MEETING December 3, 1987 Page 2 Randy Broadhead went through his presentation on his proposal and what he wanted to do. A discussion was held by the commission. Becky Hopkins made a motion to deny the variance and adopt the finding of facts and conclusions of law as orally stated into the record and which will be memoralized in writing for signature by the chairman. Myrna Cain seconded. Attorney Winmill went through the finding of facts and conclusions of law with the commission. Mr. Broadhead was informed of the appeal procedure. A roll call vote was taken. Sue Parrish, yes; Myrna Cain, yes; Becky Hopkins, yes; Pete Anderson, yes; and Larry Call, yes. The motion passed unamiously. GENERAL BUSINESS: A REVIEW OF A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR RANDY KRESS, 4674 Yellowstone Avenue, to operate a trailor sales business from a mobile home. Randy Kress was not present at thea~eeting. A registered letter had been sent November 25 and~yet no receipt had been received from the Post Office. The commission discussed the conditional use and the past history. Sue Parrish made a motion to table the review of the conditional use permit for Randy Kress until the January 7th meeting. Becky Hopkins seconded the motion. All voted in favor. REZONING OF AREAS IN THE CITY. that were held. A follow-up to the hearings The commission discussed the neighbo£hoods that they wanted to consider for rezoning. & An article stating"that the Land Use~Development Commission meeting over a period of four months invited all the home owners in various areas of the city in and after reviewing all the facts they have decided that the R-2 zoning is appropriate for these subdivisions: Heights, Alturas, Greener Pasture, Neider, and Ro~'~needs to be put in the paper. LAND USE AND DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION MEETING December 3, 1987 page 3 Becky Hopkins motion to begin procedures for a public hearing at the next land use commission meeting in January, 1988, to consider a change in the land use district in Paradise Acres and Greener Pastures Subdivisions from limited residential R-2 to single family residential R-1. Other areas of the city as originally under consideration are to remain as existing. That a map be prepared showing the various areas of the city originally considered for possible land use district change along with statements to the effect that only Paradise acres and Greener Pastures subdivisions are being proposed by the Land Use Commission for change. Myrna Cain seconded the motion with all commission members voting in favor. The meeting adjourned at 8:50 p.m. ~~~//~~ ete A~erson; Chairman CITY OF CHUBBUCK LAND USE & DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND DECISION This matter having come before the Commission for public hearing on December 3, 1987, upon the application of Randy Broadhead (hereinafter referred to as "Applicant") for a variance to utilize an existing structure located at 710 Canal Street for the purpose of storing commercial materials; the Commission adopts the following Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law and Decision. Findinqs of Fact 1. The Applicant has applied to the Land Use & Development Commission for a variance to utilize an existing structure located at 710 Canal Street to store commercial materials relating to a cleaning business. 2. The subject property is located within a subdivision which is currently designated as part of the Limited Residential (R-2) Land Use District. 3. The Comprehensive Plan designates this area as falling within the General Residential (R-2) Land Use Pattern. 4. This lot lies within a residential subdivision. Between 50 and 75 percent of the lots in the subdivision have residential structures built thereon. The lot lying immediately to the west of the subject property is vacant, but there is a single family residential structure on the lot lying immediately to the east of the subject property. FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND DECISION - Page 1 ck 12Z-64 ki 11' 5. A public hearing on this matter was held on November 5, 1987. All legal requirements for notice of that public hearing were satisfied. After hearing public comment on the Applicant's request for a variance, the public hearing was closed and the Applicant's request tabled until the city's legal counsel could provide the Commission with further guidance on the standards and criteria established by the Land Use Ordinance for the review of variance applications. 6. The only person, other than the Applicant, who testified at the public hearing, expressed some concern about the impact which the Applicant's activities would have upon his home, which lies immediately to the east of the subject property. '~ 7. The relevant criteria and standards for construction of this application are generally set forth in Idaho Code §§67-6501 et. seq., the Comprehensive Plan of the City of Chubbuck, Idaho, and Title 18 of the Chubbuck Municipal Code. Specifically, Idaho Code 967-6516, provides, in pertinent part, that: "A variance is a modification of the requirements of the ordinance as to lot size, lot coverage, width, depth, front yard, side yard, rear yard, setbacks, parking space, height of buildings, or other ordinance provisions affecting the size or shape of a structure or the placement of the structure upon lots, or the size of lots. A variance shall not be considered a right or special privilege, and may be granted to an applicant only upon a showing of undue hardship because of characteristics of the site and that the variance is not in conflict with the public interest." Additionally, Section 18.28.030 of the Chubbuck Municipal Code n provides that: FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND DECISION - Page 2 ck 12Z-64 "variances may be granted where the lands involved are of such size or configuration, are subject to such title limitations of record, are affected by such topigraphical and location conditions or have been so developed lawfully prior to advent of zoning in 1972, that it would be impossible or that it would create a private hardship not required to protect the public interest to compel the applicant to adhere strictly to the provisions of this title. However, no variance shall be granted upon the grounds of "impossibility" if compliance is merely inconvenient, burdensome or difficult. . . . [N]either shall a variance be granted upon the grounds of "private hardship" unless (1) the hardship was not created or allowed to occur by the applicant, the landowner or any other agent; (2) the hardship was not known or foreseeable at the time when the lands in question, or an interest therein was acquired; (3) the hardship is serious, immediate and unavoidable; and (4) alleviating the hardship will not create a possible present or future hardship for any other private party nor will it be contrary to the public interest. In no event shall any variance be granted merely because n compliance with this title would diminish the financial return from use of the lands in question or because it will reduce the market value of the lands." In addition, the following provisions of the Land Use & Development Section of the Chubbuck Comprehensive Plan are deemed applicable to this application: 1. GOAL 2: Encourage the development of a central business district within the areas designated for general commercial development in the land use patterns adopted as part of this Comprehensive Plan. 2. Objective 2.1: Discourage commercial development outside of the commercial corridor which has developed along Yellowstone Avenue and the general area bounded by FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND DECISION - Page 3 ck 12Z-64 Chubbuck Road, Yellowstone Avenue, Quinn Road and Hawthorne Road. 3. GOAL 3: Provide for safe, pleasant, distinctive and attractive neighborhoods. 4. GOAL 6: The city should encourage quality commercial development that is not disruptive to adjacent use. 5. Objective 6.3: In solidly residential neighborhoods neither commercial strips nor anything other than neighborhood services should be allowed to encroach on any residential area. 6. Objective 6.4: Commercial development should locate where urban services are sufficient and conflicts in uses can be minimized, rather than in established residential neighborhoods where property is less expensive. 7. Objective 6.5: Commercial development in the developed parts of the city should occur primarily in areas already committed to commercial activities rather than encroaching on residential areas. 8. The facts relevant to an evaluation of the relevant criteria and standards are as follows: A. The Applicant testified that he intended to utilize the property for the storage of commercial materials related to his cleaning business. Although the Applicant referred to these FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND DECISION - Page 4 ck 12Z-64 cnhAivicinn_ +thP c--+-rm--iirP r^nntilei hP I1SPei aG An AttAChP_[3 Or materials as "chemicals", he indicated that these products are not toxic, caustic, or dangerous to the public. B. The Applicant testified that either he or an employee would visit the premises to pick up materials, equipment or motor vehicles approximately 24 times per month or one and one-half times per working day. The Applicant testified that he will store two vans on the premises. The vans will not be used every day but will be used by the Applicant or his employees on a regular basis. C. The Applicant testified that on an undetermined number of days, his employees would park their vehicles on the premises and use it as a basing point for the Applicant's business operations. D. The Applicant testified that he does not own the property at this time, but has signed an earnest money agreement to purchase. The Applicant testified that one of the contingencies of the earnest money agreement is that he must be able to obtain approval of this variance before he will be obligated to complete the transaction and purchase the property. The Applicant further testified that if the Commission turns down his application for a variance, he will not purchase the property. E. This structure was originally built by the developer of the subdivision. The structure was used as a storage facility during the construction of improvements within the subdivision. However, it was designed so that following the completion of the subdivision, the structure could be used as an attached or FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND DECISION - page 5 ck 12Z-64 detached garage for a single family residential structure which could be located within the front, rear and side yard setbacks. A number of years has now passed and a single family residential structure was not constructed on the lot as contemplated by the developer. Since the completion of the subdivision, the structure on the subject property has not been used for any specific purpose. Conclusions of Law 1. The Applicant did not provide any evidence which would show that the lot in question (1) is of a unique size or configuration, (2) is subject to unique title limitations of record, (3) is affected by unique topigraphical or location conditions, or (4) was developed lawfully prior to advent of zoning in 1972, as required by §18.28.030 of the Chubbuck Municipal Code. 2. The Applicant cannot show that the variance should be granted upon the grounds of "impossibility", since it is clearly possible to utilize the property for residential development as it is currently zone for. 3. The Applicant cannot show that the variance should be granted upon grounds of "private hardship", since his only interest in the property is created by an earnest money agreement which specifically provides that he will have no obligation to complete the sale if the variance under consideration here is FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND DECISION - Page 6 ck 12Z-64 n denied. This precludes any conclusion that the "private hardship" was unknown or unforeseeable at the time of the Applicant's acquisition of the land, or that the "private hardship" is serious, immediate or unavoidable. Since both of these findings are necessary to establish a "private hardship", the Applicant does not qualify for a variance. 4. The Applicant is also unable to satisfy the criteria and standards set forth in Idaho Code X67-6516, since he has not made a showing of "undue hardship because of characteristics of the site and that the variance is not in conflict with the public interest." 5. The variance requested by the Applicant is in direct conflict with the goals and objectives of the Comprehensive Plan set forth above. 6. Although it would be desirable to have the structure on the subject property utilized for some constructive purpose, the establishment of a storage facility within a solidly residential subdivision would undermine the clear intent of the Comprehensive Plan and Land Use Ordinance in establishing residential zoning for this area. 7. This property is available for residential development and the location of the structure on this property will not inhibit the construction of a single family residential structure, since the existing structure can be used as an attached or detached garage. FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND DECISION - Page 7 ck 12Z-64 8. Approval of this variance would establish a precedent which would be in conflict with the public interest. Decision The Land Use & Development Commission, pursuant to the foregoing, finds that the Applicant's request for a variance to use an existing structure located at 710 Canal Street for the purpose of storage of commercial materials relating to a cleaning business, should be and is hereby denied. ENTERED this day c FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND DECISION - Page 8 ck 12Z-64