Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout010 01 98L.M',ID USE AND DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION October 1, 1998 Minutes of the regular meeting of the Land Use and Development Commission held in the City Municipal Building October 1, 1998. Present: Acting Chairman Ray Rosen; Commission Members: Gayle Anderson, Mary Harker, Myrna Cain; Council Representative Marvin Gunter; Attorney Tom Holmes; City Staff: Larry Kohntopp; Secretary Myrna Crapo. Acting Chai~Tnan Rosen called the meeting to order at 8:00 PM. Chairman Rosen asked if any of the commission members had a conflict of interest. There was none. Chairman Rosen asked for approval of the September 3, 1998 minutes. Mary Harker moved to approve the minuted with Gayle Anderson seconding. All voted in favor. PUBLIC HEARING: 1. An application by Pam McBride, 838 Washburn for a Conditional Use Permit to have a one person cosmetology salon in a residential home at 838 Washburn. Property is presently zoned Single Family Residential (R- 1). Pam McBride, 838 Washburn, wants to be at home with her children and have a beauty salon in her home. Her shop is behind the home with an outside entrance. It has a one chair salon and she will be working about 28 hours a week. There will not be any lights or signs indicating that she has a home occupation. She has an average of 5 or 6 clients a day. Chairman Rosen asked for anyone in favor of the application. There was none. Chairman Rosen then asked for anyone in opposition to the application. Mike Butterfield, 4476 Sawtell, the restrictive covenants wouldn't allow the use of anything except home living. It will diminish the value of their home. They are 500 to 600 feet away. Patsy Burnett, 4468 Sawtell, the restrictive covenants #6 D states that "no property can be used for any businesses". It will lower the value of your home ifa business is in the area. There are cars parked around the house in the street. Chairman Rosen opened the meeting to rebuttal. Robert Marley, 4492 Sawtell, Is the closest neighbor and he doesn't have any complaints about the business there. It won't hurt him. There is no indication that there is a business there. The commission asked Pam McBride: 1. Her business hours are from 8:30 am to 7:30 PM, only being opened late a couple of nights a week. 2. The cars parked on the street where her children friends. Vail McBride, they contacted all of the people who were going to build in the area; no one had any opposition Land Use and Development Commission Page 2 October 1, 1998 Don Kugler, 702 Brundage, There is a lady on Chateau who does the stone time of work and when he had his home appraised his property value was up; having a beauty salon in the area would be a convenience for his kids. John Koplin, 4474 Leatherman, called his real estate agent and he told him that this type of business wouldn't affect his property value. Joe Miller, 4475 Leatherman, he is neutral. Mr. Miller asked if anyone else had a conditional use permit for the area. J. R. Grover, 707 Brundage, if before they bought the lot they knew they would want a business in their home, why did they decide to go ahead and build without getting it resolved. His wife babysits for neighbors and that could be considered a business. Darris Ellis, 13560 N. Hawthorne Road owner of the subdivision. He wouldn't have sold the property to them to build upon if he thought it would be a problem. There are five other business's in the area. He took the Mark Bunce restrictive covenants and updated them. Wayne Hess, 730 Washburn, he wasn't aware when they bought a new home there would be any businesses in the area. The traffic on Washburn is growing with a lot of small children playing in the area. He feels it will decrease their property values. He is opposed. The public hearing was closed and opened to the Commission for discussion and a motion. The Commission then discussed: 1. Not being noticed in the areas where they live. 2. Restrictive covenants 3. Being convenient for the neighbors to use. Myrna Cain moved to approve the application by Pam McBride, 838 Washburn for a Conditional Use Permit to have a one person cosmetology salon in her home at 838 Washburn. Mary Harker seconded the motion. Roll call vote: Myrna Cain, yes; Ray Rosen, yes; Mary Harker, yes; Gayle Anderson, yes. 2. An ordinance of the City of Chubbuck amending section 18.12.030 1 to change the required parking fbr Elementary and Junior High Schools to two parking spaces fi)r each classroom and one for each five seats and to change the parking for Colleges and Universities to one for each four students in addition to one for each three employees and 25% of the total for visitor parking. none. Chairman Rosen opened the meeting to public hearing tbr anyone in favor, there was It was then opened to anyone in opposition; there was none. The commission discussed: 1. The number of students driving their own cars. 2. The increase that had been added. Land Use and Development Commission Page 3 October 1, 1998 Mary Harker moved to recommend to the City Council approval of the amended section 18.12.030 to change the parking for Elementary and Junior High Schools as submitted. Gayle Anderson seconded. Roll call vote: Myrna Cain, yes; Ray Rosen, yes; Mary Harker, yes; Gayle Anderson, yes. GENERAL BUSINESS: 1. A discussion on C-1 designation in schedule of land uses. The commission reviewed the lists prepared by Larry Kohntopp for neighborhood commercial zoning. Mary Harker moved to table this item for the next meeting. Gayle Anderson seconded. All voted in favor. 2. A discussion on proposed ordinance to clarify massage by an untrained person as not being allowed The commission discussed: 1. Inspection by the city 2. Certification of training being displayed Tom Holmes will make the additions and present it at the November meeting. Mary Harker moved to adjourn the meeting at 9:15 PM n n 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 1, 1998, upon the application of Pam McBride (hereinafter referred to as "applicant") for a conditional use permit to have a one person cosmetology salon on the real property located at 838 Washburn 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-1 pursuant to the Land Use Ordinance of the City of Chubbuck. 4. The property is designated as R-1 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. Applicant will have no signs identifying this use and has a separate outside entrance as required by state law. B. Some residents of the subdivision believe this use would violate their restrictive covenants. C. The nearest resident does not oppose this application. D. The developer indicates the covenants were not intended to ban this type of home occupation. E. The covenants are based on those used by Bunce in his development and within that development is the same type of one chair cosmetology home occupation on Chateau Street. F. The City does not enforce restrictive covenants. FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND DECISION - Page 1 dsc chbbck10.263 0 1V, G. This use will generate minimal traffic and applicant has adequate parking for customers. 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 r,N 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, although others in the subdivision oppose the application. 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. FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND DECISION - Page 2 dsc chbbck10.263 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: None. 3. The conditional use permit requested by the Applicant is granted, subject to the foregoing conditions. 4. Takings. Pursuant to Idaho Code § 67-8001 et seq., the Commission makes the following findings with respect to the decision in this action: A. This Action does not result in a permanent or temporary physical occupation of private property. B. This Action does not require the property owner to dedicate a portion of the property or to grant an easement. C. This Action does not deprive the owner of the property of all viable uses of the property. D. This Action does not have a significant impact on the landowner's economic interest. E. This Action does not deny a fundamental attribute of ownership. F. This Action does not serve the same purpose that would be served by directly prohibiting the use or action; nor does the condition imposed substantially advance such purpose. DATED this _/ 2� day of 0<-4". , 1998. LAND USE AND DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION By:,z Chairman FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND DECISION - Page 3 dsc chbbck10.263