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