HomeMy WebLinkAbout005 02 96City of Chubbuck
Land Use and Development Meeting
May 2, 1996
Minutes of the regular meeting of the Land Use and Development Commission
held in the City Municipal Building May 2, 1996.
Present: Chairman Kent Kearns, Commission Members: Mary Harker, Dusty
Whited, Gayle Anderson, Myrna Cain; Council Representative, LeRoy Quick;
Attorney, Tom Holmes; City Staff: Larry Kohntopp and Steve Smart; Secretary,
Myrna Crapo.
The meeting was called to order by Chairman Kent Kearns at 8:00 p.m.
Chairman Kearns asked for any additions or corrections to the minutes. Gayle
Anderson moved to approve the minutes of April 4, 1996 with Mary Harker
seconding. All voted in favor.
Chairman Kearns asked if any members had a conflict of interest. There were
none.
PUBLIC HEARING:
1. An application by Aleksandr Karmanov, 1222 Freeman Lane, Apt #170,
Pocatello for a Conditional Use Permit to move a manufactured home to 311
Adams. Property is presently zoned Limited Residential (R-2).
Chairman Kearns opened the meeting for testimony in opposition, there was
none. He than opened the meeting for testimony in support of the proposal,
there was none. The public hearing testimony portion of the meeting was
closed and the meeting was turned over to the commission for discussion and
a motion.
Gayle Anderson moved that we approve the application of Aleksandr Karmanov
for a Class II Manufactured home at 311 Adams Street, lot 8 block 2 of the
Mingo Subdivision, and that the conditional use be transferable with sale of
the property. Mary Harker seconded. Dusty Whited, yes; Kent Kearns, yes;
Mary Harker, yes, LeRoy Quick, yes; Gayle Anderson, yes.
GENZER.AI. BUSINESS:
1. Discussion on "Regi_ilating Billboards"
The commission discussed:
1. Needing a definition of billboard.
2. Controlling then by the zoning.
3. The provisions we want to see in the ordin.- nce.
4. Using design review fog controls.
5. How many more we want in the
6. Regulating for height, ?i. t. .ce,and totes' area.
7. Having Roy Quich hrin- back. the council opinions.
R. Str,ff ot:. x -h ,. federal regulations are.
9. Fe- , Irl Vl elp T—gelate hillbo<ards
T_and L's:^ ,^nd Development Conim ssion
Nl-Jy 2, 1996
Kearns asked for an updated comprehensive plan map on large
T .:i -y Harker moved to adjourn at 9:00 p.m.
K n Kearns, Chairman
Myrna CIG>c), Secretar,y-
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 May 2, 1996, upon the application of Aleksandr
Karmanov (hereinafter referred to as "applicant") for a conditional use permit to place a
Class II manufactured home on the real property located at 311 Adams a/k/a Lot 8,
Block 2, Mingo Subdivision, 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.
AO -111 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 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. Other Class II mobile homes are in the area.
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 will not be injurious to the neighborhood
or otherwise detrimental to the public health, safety or welfare.
FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND DECISION - Page 1
dsc chbbck05.151
AA- 1 y 3
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 or disapproval of
10,111, 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:
The permit is transferable upon any sale of the property.
3. The conditional use permit requested by the Applicant is granted, subject to
the foregoing conditions.
4. Takings. Pursuant to Idaho Code S 67-8001 et seq., the Commission
makes the following findings with respect to the decision in this action:
FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND DECISION - Page 2
dsc chbbck05.151
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 I/ day of 3•��.� , 1996.
LAND USE AND DEVELOPMENT
COMMISSION
By: �
Chairman
FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND DECISION - Page 3
dsc chbbckO5.151