Loading...
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