HomeMy WebLinkAbout005 02 91LAND USE AND DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION
May 2, 1991
Minutes of the regular meeting of the Land Use and Development
Commission held in the city municipal building May 2, 1991.
Present: Chairman Kent Kearns, Commission Members: Ron Andersen,
Gayle Anderson, Pete Anderson, Richard Pearson, Luther
Perkins, and Betty Poole; Attorney Tom Holmes, Public Works
Director Steve Smart; Project Director Gerd Dixon; Secretary
Myrna Crapo
Chairman Kearns asked for approval of the March 7, 1991 meeting.
Pete Andersen moved to approve the Minutes of the March 7,
1991 meeting as submitted. Gayle Anderson seconded the motion
with all council members voting in favor.
PUBLIC HEARING
Chairman Kearns asked if any Land Use Members had a conflict
of interest with any proposals before them tonight. There was
none.
1. A PROPOSAL BY DALE SHOOK, 980 W. QUINN ROAD, FOR A CONDITIONAL
USE PERMIT TO PLACE A CLASS II PRODUCTION DWELLING at the
above address. Property is presently zoned limited
residential (R-2).
Dale Shook, 980 W. Quinn Road, showed the commission pictures
of the proposal dwelling.
Chairman Kent Kearns closed the public hearing.
Gerd Dixon, project engineers expresses concern on whether the
property was to be rented or sold and if so would it meet the
minimum lot size requirements.
Mr. Shook told the commission that the existing home would be
deeded to his in-laws who would live in the house and that the
remaining land would be divided. He then showed the
commission a diagram on how the land would be divided.
Pete Anderson made a motion to approve the conditional use
permit for Mr. Shook to locate a class II production dwelling
at 4020 Ronald Road and that (1) the conditional use be
assignable and transferable as per section 18.28.040.8 of the
city code; that (2) it complies with all the city ordinances
and requirements. Richard Pearson seconded the motion.
Roll Call vote- Betty Pools, yes; Gayle Anderson, yes; Pete
Anderson, yes; Kent Kearns, yes; Luther Perkins, yes; Richard
Pearson, yes; Ron Andersen, yes.
Land Use and Development Commission
Nay 2, 1991
Page 2
2. A PROPOSAL BY IRIS GLOVER, 123 STUART, FOR AN R.V. STORAGE
ON FERN STREET behind or south of 117, 123, 131, 135 Stuart.
Property is presently zoned General Commercial (C-2).
The public hearing was opened by Chairman Kent Kearns.
Kim Matkin, 261 1/2 Mingo explained to the commission what
they wanted to do. They owned the land and wanted to put up
an 8' fence to protect their vehicle and to allow storage for
other vehicles. The access would be from Fern Street. The
surface would be graveled and they wanted to put up a chain
link fence. The existing sheds would remain.
The commission discussed putting slats to screen the storage
from neighbors. A 20 foot buffer would be required for a
storage site.
Engineer Steve Smart informed the commission that according
to the code any fence over 6' must be authorized as a
screening fence.
Earl Terry, 269 Fairway owners the property at 117 Stuart and
rents it out. He was in favor of an 8' fence.
Randy Matkins, 123 Stuart asked the commission if the 20'
fence buffer could be waived.
Chairman Kearns closed the public hearing.
Pete Anderson moved that we approve the conditional use permit
for a "R.V. Storage Lot" south of 117, 123, 131, 135
Stuart; that it comply with all conditions stated in the
ordinance for a vehicle storage lot. Richard Pearson seconded
the motion.
Pete Anderson amended the motion to include as a condition for
the conditional use a 20' buffer provided on the North & south
side of the property.
After some discussion the motion was with drawn.
commission discussed getting a variance.
The
Land Use and Development Commission
May 2, 1991
Page 3
Pete Anderson moved that we recommend approval for a "R-V
Vehicle storage facility behind 117,123, 131, 135 Stuart with
the conditions-
1. A solid 8 foot fence be placed on all four sides of the
property.
2. A 20' buffer be provided along all north property line and
westerly half of south property line where subject property
abuts other R-2 Property.
3. That a gravel surface be placed on the entire site.
4. If the west portion of the subjects property is to be used
for Rv Storage that a variance will be needed for the
reduction of the south buffer.
Richard Pearson seconded. Roll Call vote Betty Poole, yes,
Gayle Andersen, yes; Pete Anderson, yes; Kent Kearns, yes;
Luther Perkins, yes; Richard Pearson, yes; Ron Andersen, yes.
GENERAL BUSINESS:
1. Chubbuck Municipal code books were turned in and each
commission member was give a binder with information that they
needed while serving on the Land Use Board.
2. Engineer Steve Smart reviewed the cooperative comprehensive
plan. We need two representatives from the commission to
serve on a committee overseeing the comprehensive plan.
The meeting in June needs to discuss goals and standards that
we want included in the comprehensive plan.
Richard Pearson moved to adjourn at 9:30 with Gayle Anderson
seconding.
~enc~arns, Chairman
Myrna¢ ~r~po, Secreta~ry
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,
1991, upon the application of Dale Shook, (hereinafter referred
to as "applicant") for a conditional use permit to place a Class
II Production Dwelling on the real property located at 980 West
Quinn Road, 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.
n 3. The property in question is zoned R-2, pursuant to the
Land Use Ordinance of the City of Chubbuck.
4. The property is designated as R-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. The dwelling, as pictured in a photograph presented by
applicant, presents an acceptable appearance for the proposed
location.
B. The square footage of the lot meets or exceeds the
minimums for an R-2 zone.
C. Per City Code, applicant intends to conform as far as
footings and foundation.
D. City staff recommends the permit, if granted, be
assignable and transferable per Chubbuck Code 18.28.040A.
BASED UPON THE FOREGOING FINDINGS OF FACT, the Land Use and
Development Commission hereby enters the following:
FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND DECISION - Page 1
chbbck05.063
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 exiting 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. Applicant shall comply with all City ordinances and
recommendations.
FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND DECISION - Page 2
chbbck05.063
FA-00
3. The conditional use permit requested by the Applicant is
granted, subject to the foregoing conditions and is assignable
and transferable by Applicant upon sale or transfer of the
property pursuant to Chubbuck Code § 18.28.040A.
DATED this day of Jvv�Q , 1991.
LAND USE AND DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION
By: Z—Z-
-.4aairmafr—
FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND DECISION - Page 3
chbbck05.063
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 May 2,
1991, upon the application of Iris Glover (hereinafter referred
to as "applicant") for a conditional use permit for an R.V.
storage on the real property located on Fern Street, South of
117, 123, 131 and 135 Stuart 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 C-2 pursuant to the
Land Use Ordinance of the City of Chubbuck.
4. The property is designated as 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. Applicant wants to install an eight foot fence around
the property, for security.
B. An eight foot can be installed only if it functions to
screen or buffer the property as per Chubbuck Code S
18.12.040(E).
C. A vehicle storage must be screened with a solid fence
not to exceed eight foot for all areas viewable by the public,
residences or residentially zoned areas as per Chubbuck Code S
18.12.040(A).
D. The R.V. storage would be a vehicle storage site as
n denied in Chubbuck Code S 18.04.050(BB).
FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND DECISION - Page 1
chbbck05.064
jf�C-7 6
E. The north and part of the south of the property adjoins
residences and/or residentially zoned areas and must be buffered
by a 20 foot buffer as per Chubbuck Code S 18.12.020(C). The 20
foot buffer is allowed with a solid screening fence per the
ordinance.
F. A chain link fence with slats would not meet the Code
requirements for a screening fence as per Chubbuck Code §
18.12.020(C)(1).
G. With the buffering requirements, applicant will have
only a ten foot strip on a portion of the property that can be
used for R.V. storage, unless a variance is later granted. The
issue of a variance is not properly before the Commission at this
time and cannot be acted upon.
H. The 20 foot buffer area may be gravel and used in
getting access to the portions of the property that are not
buffering areas.
BASED UPON THE FOREGOING FINDINGS OF FACT, the Land Use and
Development Commission hereby enters the following:
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
n 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 exiting 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 reasonable possible.
FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND DECISION - Page 2
chbbck05.064
8. Owners of adjacent property have expressed approval 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. An eight foot solid fence shall be placed on all four
sides of the property with appropriate provisions in the fence
for access to the property on Fern Street.
B. A 20 foot buffer shall be required on those portions of
the property abutting residences or residentially zoned areas.
C. A gravel surface shall be placed over all of the
n property.
D. A variance would be required to reduce the buffer
zones, which variance is not before this Commission and is not
granted.
3. The conditional use permit requested by the Applicant is
granted, subject to the foregoing conditions.
DATED this g day of ��.�� , 1991.
LAND USE AND DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION
By: .- - .ems
irm
FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND DECISION - Page 3
chbbck05.064