HomeMy WebLinkAbout011 07 96 City of Chubbuck
Land Use and Development Commission
November 7, 1996
Minutes of the regular meeting of the Land Use and Development Commission held in the City
Municipal Building November 7, 1996.
Present: Acting Chairman Pete Anderson, Commission Members: Dusty Whited, Mary Harker,
Gayle Anderson, Richard Pearson, Myma Cain, Wally Wright, Council Representative, Marvin
Gunter, City Staff Steve Smart and Larry Kohntopp, Attorney Tom Holmes, Secretary Myrna
Crapo.
The meeting was called to order by Acting Chairman Pete Anderson at 8:00 p.m.
Chairman Anderson asked if anyone had a conflict of interest for any of the items on the agenda.
There was none.
Acting Chairman Pete Anderson asked for approve of the minutes of the October 3, 1996
meeting. Wally Wright, moved to approve the minutes with Gayle Anderson seconding. All
voted in favor.
PUBLIC HEARING:
1. An application by Peggy Bullock, Mill End Fabric, 4415 E. Burnside, for a Conditional Use
Permit for one Cargo Container for outside storage. Property is presently zoned General
Commercial (C-2).
Chairman Anderson asked for any questions of the city staff.
Peggy Bullock, Mill End Fabric, 311 Siphon Road representing Mill End Fabrics. They want the
container to store extra batting, foam, etc. for their business. It will be temporary until they get a
bigger building. They are growing out the building and hope to get another building. They hope
to only use it for two years. The container wouldn't be included in the sale of the building. It
would be rented from Denny's and will be located at the back of the building.
The meeting was opened to public comment for or against. There was none. The public portion
was closed and turn back to the commission for discussion and a motion.
Richard Pearson moved to approve the application for Peggy Bullock, Wally Wright seconding.
The commission then discussed adding stipulation, such as the change of location,
Richard Pearson amended the motion, it was moved to approve the application by Peggy Bullock
for a Conditional Use Permit with the stipulation that it be placed at the rear of the building as
indicated on the map and that if within a two year time it is still there that it come before the
commission for a review. Wally Wright seconded the amended motion. Roll Call vote: Pete
Anderson, yes; Wally Wright, yes; Myrna Cain, yes; Richard Pearson, yes; Gayle Anderson, yes;
Mary Harker, yes; Dusty Whited, yes.
Land Use and Development
November 7, 1996
Page 2
2. An application by Dennis & Kathy Murray, 11481 N. Rio Vista Rd. For a Conditional Use
Permit to put a manufactured home at north end of Rose Street. Property is presently zoned
Limited Residential (R-2).
Chairman Anderson reviewed the stall report. The requirement of the street was reviewed. The
need for a preliminary plat was pointed out and discussed.
Two issues:
1. Unplated area
2. Street that is required to be put in. Splitting the cost of the road between the adjoining property
owners.
3. Triggering our subdivision ordinance. We need a preliminary plat before considering a
conditional use.
Kathy & Dennis Murray, 11481 N. Rio Vista Road. Dennis: Told the commission that it was
agricultural land, and the home was built after 1970 and at that time they were not required to
have a gutter. They are willing to put in the sewer and water.
Chairman Anderson opened the meeting for public testimony for or against. There was none.
The public hearing was closed and brought back to the commission for a discussion.
The commission discussed:
1. an LID to put in the street.
Richard Pearson moved that we table this application for the conditional use permit until a
preliminary plat is brought before this commission. Wally Wright seconded. Roll call vote:
Dusty Whited, yes; Mary Harker, yes; Gayle Anderson, yes; Richard Pearson; Myrna Cain, yes;
Wally Wright, yes; Pete Anderson, yes.
The motion has been table until December 5, 1996. We will reconsider it at that meeting.
Wally Wright moved to adjourn, Myrna Cain second~.,.e~w~s adjourned at 8:50 PM
te Anderson, Acting Chairman
Myma Crapo, Secretary
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 November 7, 1996, upon the application of Mill End
Fabric (hereinafter referred to as "applicant") for a conditional use permit to locate a
large container for outside storage on property located at 4415 E. Burnside, 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 General Commercial (C-2) pursuant to the
n Land Use Ordinance of the City of Chubbuck.
4. The property is designated as General Commercial (C-2) 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. Peggy Bullock appeared on behalf of Mill End Fabric.
B. The building is too small and crowded for the level of business activity.
C. Mill End Fabric anticipates moving to a different location within two years.
D. Applicant presented a site plan with a proposed location of the container.
E. The container would be leased from Denny's Wrecker Service.
F. No one appeared for or against the proposal.
FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND DECISION - Page 1
d9c chbbcki 1.131
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 or 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 is effective for two years.
FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND DECISION - Page 2
dsc chbbck11.131
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:
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 -7IL-day of Jam,,, �,r� , 199,'
LAND USE AND DEVELOPMENT
COMMISSION
By:
C rman
FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND DECISION - Page 3
dac chbbck11.131