HomeMy WebLinkAbout003 03 83LAND USE & DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION MINUTES
March 3, 1983
Minutes of the regular meeting of the Land Use and Development Commission
held in the city municipal building, March 3, 1983.
Present: Chairman Richard Allen,Commission Members: Robert Allen, Pete
Anderson, Ronald Nelson, Myrna Cain, Janet Williams, Dee Stalder,
Council Representative Thomas Nield, City Attorney B. Lynn Winmill,
Public Works Director Steven Smart, Building Inspector Danny Stuart,
Deputy Clerk Dorothy Ward.
Meeting called to order at 8:00 p.m. by Chairman Allen.
Chairman Allen asked for any corrections or additions to the minutes of
February 3, 1983. There being none, Janet Williams made motion to
accept minutes as written. Myrna Cain seconded the motion with all
Commission Members voting in favor.
PUBLIC HEARING ITEM:
A PROPOSAL BY JAMES REILLY, D.V.M., HAWTHORNE ANIMIAL HOSPITAL, FOR
a conditional use permit to build twelve (12) 10' x 10' horse shelters
at 5011 Hawthorne Road. Property is presently zoned General Residential
(R-2).
Dr. Riley told the commission by building this type of shelters he would be
better able to care for the animals in his care. He said for the present
they would be of tongue and groove material; but he hopes to cover them
soon with metal siding.
Tom Nield asked how he would take care of the manure problem. Dr. Riley said
they would have sawdust in the stalls and they would be cleaned every day
and the manure would be put in the city dumpsters to be hauled away.
Attorney Winmill questioned whether manure could be put in the city dumpster.
Steven Smart said his research had not turned up anything stating that
the city would not dispose of it.
Commission Members discussed the drainage problem. Dr..Riley said they had
already fixed an area for drainage and felt this would eliminate their
problem of water standing in the corrals.
Attorney Winmill asked about the land uses surrounding the Hawthorne Animal
Hospital. There are four-plexes to the north, Residential (R'2) to the
east and south and Hawthorne Elementary School to the west. There
would be 36 feet between the corrals and the four-plexes.
Chairman Allen asked for testimony in favor of the conditional use permit.
There being none, he then asked for testimony opposed.
HAWTHORNE ANIMAL HOSPITAL - continued
Allen Martin, 546 Boyd, asked how many animals would be taken care of in
this arrangement. He was also concerned about the'fly problem.
Dr. Riley said he hoped the fly problem would be eliminated with the
drainage and using sawdust in the stalls and cleaning them every day.
He said he realized flies were a problem and they could not let them
become a problem, as they needed sterile situations at their hospital.
Robert Allen made motion to recommend to the City Council for their
approval the conditional use permit of James Reilly, D.V.M., Hawthorne
Animal Hospital to build horse shelters with the following conditions:
1. Reduce to'eleven (11) the shelters on the north side to increase
the set back of 50 feet from structure.
2. Buffer zone along"n°rthside of property composed of hedge or
dense foliage.
3. Applicant must make arrangements for disposal of animal waste
so as to maintain sanitary condition of site.
Pete Anderson seconded,~e motion. Roll call vote: Nield, no; Nelson, yes;
Robert Allen, yes;~~ yes; Williams, yes; Cain, yes; Stalder, yes. ~
2. A PROPOSAL BY BOYD AND DARLINE CRUMP AND KAREN CRUMP FOR A CONDITIONAL USE
PERMIT to operate a day care center at 818 Pinewood. Property is presently
zoned General Residential (R-2).
The Crumps are contract purchasers of .property.
Danny Stuart, Building Inspector, stated home had originally been built for a
Day Care Center and would handle up to 47 children. He said there were
several things that needed to be corrected and that the Crumps had agreed
to the corrections.
Karen Crump, P.O. Box 114, McCammon, Idaho, said she worked now in a day care
center. They would like to purchase the home and live upstairs and operate
the day care center for about 35 children. She said they had considered
staying open until 1:00 a.m. depending if there was a need for it. She
said that state law requires one adult for every ten children.
Chairman Allen asked for testimony in favor of the day care center. There being
none, he asked for testimony against.
Delbert Butler, 770 Pinewood, presented a petition from approximately twenty five
people in the area that were opposed. He said there concern was the traffic
flow and with the number of small children in the area,
Merrill Moon, 760 Pinewood, said there was a good number of children in area
and very little sidewalk area so the children did play out in the street,
and crossed from one side to the other.
Loa Bell, 826 Pinewood, said their home was next door and they had had problems
with the children throwing things into their yard and Children cutting
across their yard to go to their homes.
Karen Crump said their operation would require the parents to p~ck the children
up. She said there was always problems that arose with children but they
CRUMP CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT - continued.
would do their best to run a very high class day care center.
The Commission Members discussed with Mrs. Crump if she intended to bring
children in from outlying areas or just neighborhood children. She said
she would advertise but would hope to have mostly neighborhood children.
They then discussed the parking problems and if they could provide the number
of spaces required by ordinance. Also they were concerned with staying
open until 1:00 a. m. in a residential neighborhood.
Tom Nield said he felt commission members should be concerned about the
traffic problem, also the noise factor. He said the aesthetics of the
neighborhood should be a big concern.
Pete Anderson made motion to recommend to the City Council the conditional
use permit of Boyd and Darline Crump and Karen Crump to operate a
day care center at 818 Pinewood be denied because of the following
conditions, the parking both on-street and off-street is inadequate and
does not comply with Land Use Ordinance; significant noise will be developed
by the proposed use for which the permit is sought.
Ronald Nelson seconded the motion. Roll call vote, Nield, yes; Nelson, yes;
Robert Allen, yes; Anderson, yes, Stalder, yes; Williams, yes, Cain,
abstained; Richard Allen, abstained.
3. A PROPOSAL BY JACQULYN KORN FOR A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT, TO CONDUCT A HOME
OCCUPATION, TO OPERATE A SMALL PRINTING PRESS AT HER HOME, 4851 Cole.
Mrs. Korn said she had been doing the printing for the Catholic Churches and
had now purchased a small printing press of her own. She stated 90% of
the printing she would be doing would be for the Catholic Churches in this
area. She said there would be no traffic problem. That she had paper
delivered about every two months.
Chairman Allen asked for comment in favor or against. There being none, the
Commission questioned Mrs. Korn as to the operation.
Janet Williams made motion to recommend to the City Council for their approval
the conditional use of Jacqulyn Korn to operate a printing press in her
home, subject to the following conditions: limited to use of one press
of same capacity as is currently being used, limited to current area and
that no appreciable increase in traffic from current traffic flow.
Dee Stalder seconded the motion. Roll call vote, Stalder, yes; Williams, yes;
Cain, yes; Robert Allen, yes; Nelson, yes; Nield, yes and Richard Allen, yes.
e
A PROPOSAL BY NORJAM, AN IDAHO GENERAL PARTNERSHIP, FOR A VARIANCE TO SIGN
HEIGHT, 60 foot pole with 16 foot sign, total height 76 feet, at Burger
King, 4805 Yellowstone.
Bob Thompson, 5096 Cherokee, representing Norjam, said they were requesting the
sign variance in order that the sign be seen from the Interstate. He said
sign would be 220 feet off Yellowstone to the east and north of McKnights.
He said it would be a typical Burger King sign.
James Thilmont, 2705 Lois Lane, owner of the Burger King told how important it
NORJAM CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT - continued
is to draw people from the Interstate, that only with a proper sign can this
be done.
Tom Nield made motion to grant variance to Norjam, an Idaho General Partership,
for sign, 60 foot pole with 16 foot sign, total height 76 feet, at
Burger King, 4805 Yellowstone.
Pete Anderson seconded the motion. Roll call vote, Stalder, yes, Williams, yes;
Cain, yes; Anderson, yes; Richard Allen, yes; Robert Allen, yes; Nelson, yes;
Nield, yes.
OTHER BUSINESS:
1. Norjam, an Idaho General Partnership, for a waiver of platting of the
Burger King at 4508 Yellowstone.
Bob Thompson said that water and sewer lines would be installed as to city
specifications, in an easement off from Evans Lane. If for some reason
they would not be able to secure this easement then it would be brought
off from Yellowstone Highway.
Mr. Thilmont said they were working very hard to secure the corridor the city
was interested in for future road that would tie in with Valenty Road.
Steven Smart said he felt they should provide a thirty foot easement for the
sewer and water lines. Mr. Thompson said this would be no problem.
Pete Anderson made motion to vaive the platting for Norjam, for the Burger King
they are building at 4805 Yellowstone and for the City Council to require
a thirty foot easement. Janet Williams seconded the motion with all
Commission Members voting in favor.
2. Rick Hillman and Lee Hawkins, request for waiver of platting requirements
in order to construct a retail sales outlet on Lot 6 Bonniebrae Acres, 221W
Chubbuck Road.
George Southworth, representing Mr. Hillman and Mr. Hawkins, said they did not
feel they should be required to plat for one single operation. That they
were willing to put curb, gutter and sidewalk in and to pave the parking
lot.
The Commission Members discussed the paving of the area between Chubbuck Road
and the parking area.
Pete Anderson made motion to recommend to the City Council they waive the
platting requirements of Rick Hillman and Lee Hawkins for Lot 6 Bonniebrae
Acres, 221W. Chubbuck Road. That the dedication problem be taken up
by the City Council. That curb, gutter and asphalt be installed along
the entire 120 feet. That grade be established by city engineer according
to the city Standards Ordinance. Myrna Cain seconded the motion. Voting
was unanimous in favor.
3. Rick Hillman and Lee Hawkins, Design Review for sign on retail outlet
on Lot 6 Bonniebrae Acres, 221 W. Chubbuck.
Gary Chisumm, builder,said sign would be mounted on building and would be
a 4' by 16 ' sign. That it would be lighted but with no flashing lights.
Mr. Chisum showed a drawing of sign.
Janet Williams made motion to recommend to the City Council for their approval
the Design Reivew for sign on retail outlet planned by Rick Hillman
and Lee Hawkins, 221W. Chubbuck Road. Dee Stalder seconded the motion,
Tom Nield abstained from voting, remainder of Commission Members voted in
favor.
4. Rick Hillman and Lee Hawkins, Design Review for retail outlet on Lot 6
Bonniebrae Acres, 221 West Chubbuck Road.
Gary Chisum, representing Mr. Hillman and Mr. Hawkins said it would be a pre-
engineered metal building with natural cedar shakes with the front portion
tongue and groove with brick. He showed landscaping along the front of
building and between the street and parking lot.
Pete Anderson asked about the two foot wide planters, he cautioned that it was
almost impossible to grow shrubs in such a narrow area. He also asked
about the water to the green areas. Mr. Hawkins said they had planned on
using a hose for watering. Mr. Anderson stated they should either have
underground water or a hydrant.
The Commission Members then discussed the green areas and made a recommendation
they be changed from the front~a~eato an area directly in front of bu~idi~g.
Robert Allen made motion to recommend to the City Council the Design Review of
Rick Hillman and Lee Hawkins Design Review for retail outlet on Lot 6
Bonniebrae Acres be approved with the following changes, to change the
diagonal parking and have the planter go out from the front of the entrance
to the street with parallel parking into it, that underground water be
provided and that the green area be eliminated from the area between parking
lot and road.
Pete Anderson seconded the motion, with all Commission Members voting in favor.
5. Signworks, Tony Galsorry, Design Review for sign at Mr. Petrol's Pantry,
4756 Yellowstone.
Mr. Galsorry said the base was already there, that they had taken down the
original sign as it had interfered with the Idaho Bank & Trust Sign.
He said that Idaho Bank & Trust had moved their sign and now Mr. Petrol's
Pantry would like to put their sign back up.
Myrna Cain made motion to recommend to the City Council for their approval the
Design Review for sign at Mr. Petrol's Pantry, 4756 Yellowstone. That sign
be installed on base that is already their and that the owner to move the
sign at his own expense if at such time the State widenne Yellowstone
Highway.
6. R. V. Service & Supply, B. J. Parrish, Design Review for sign at 4866
Yellowstone.
Kent Parrish was present representing B. J. Parrish, said sign would be in
front of building with the top part illuminated.
Pete Anderson made motion to recommend to City Council for their approval
the Design Review for sign at R. V. Service & Supply, 4866 Yellowstone
Robert Allen seconded the motion, with~all Commission Members voting in favor.
Dee Stalder.made motion to adjourn at 11:50 p.m., seconded by Janet Williams.
Voting was unanimous in favor.
Ric~rdj ]~qen ,'~Yh~irman
,J '
n
FINDINGS OF FACT, BIONS OF LAW AIS ORDER
This matter having cane before the Ccmui.ssion for public hearing
pursuant to public notice as required by law, on`` J+ 3 19f►
upon applicant's application for
Conditional Use Permi
as follows: V5E Of -STA QCr P -S Ean- A61 eA" CE MAk-
Applicant:
1. Applicant has applied for: . Wmmnnk 1&1 4-2111
t4JAt . rJlM.
2. The existing land uses in the area are: to the north,
to the east,
to the south,
to the west,
3. That the Comprehensive Plan designates this area as
4. d That the existing zoning of the property is E _A&
5. That all legal requirements for notice of the public hearing have been
fulfilled.
6. Own s of adjacent property lame/have not expressed approval of the
application.
n 7. Relevant criteria and standards for construction of this application
are set forth in
/IIIIIIIIIIIII,
8. The facts relevant to an evaluation of the relevant criteria in
_ , I U _
' WWV
Conclusions of Law
1. The use for which the permit is sought will/will not be
injurious to the neighborbood or otherwise detrimental to the public
health, safety or welfare.
2. ThWVer mit
the
D
0
3. The permit sought will/will not produce a negative impact on
transportation facilities,
a: the n +� at. any greater than had the strict terms of the
Lard Use ordinance been satisfied.
4. The noise and traffic conditions generated by the use for which
the permit is sought, when analyzed in conjunction with the voice and
traffic conditions now existing in the vicinity does/ indicate that
the permit should be denied.
which5 The use for - permit
ii . .. ..o . prope---Towners ue. .-
of the land.
6. The aesthetic qualifies of the proposed use will/conflict
with the aesthetic qua] -ii -it- of the surrounding lands.
7. The applicant has/has not shown that he has taken all reasonable
steps to comply with the strict terms of the ordinance.
8. Adverse impact on other development within the City will/will not
be minimized by the applicant's use sought by the permit.
WIN
61
11. The requested conditional use permit should `be granted, subject to
the conditions, if any, set forth hereinafter.
Decision & order
The Land Use & Development Camnission, pursuant to the foregoing,
finds that the request of
fora t A i i e _ _ _ _ 4- -6 Al J-. .--* & AL 1.
Motion by:
to adopt the foregoing Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law and order.
1k6.. 51 u LN FOM9
ROLL CALL:
Con<ziissioner
�� �-���
Voted
Comnissioner
-r'
L
Voted
Commissioner
//
/�
Voted
Catmissioner
l < y
0
Voted
Commissioner
�-
��
Voted
Commissioner
Voted
This matter having care before the Camnission for public hearing
pursuant to public notice as required by law, on 19w;
upon applicant's application for age 4a !—,A Use ni stri:: t, 71 ea L. trc�
Conditional Use Perini t,
as follows: U " +.Vx" ( i i\ . o' Y Ar 1+r4R ae
Location: 5011 IN1•dM�o►d�
Applicant:
J-Vvbl•wgg
1. Applicant has applied for: , tA4A
O
2. The existing land uses in the area are: to the north, - kms#-
; to the east,
to the south, ow
to the west, S-O�-
3. That the Comprehensive Plan designates this area as
4. That the existing zoning of the property is C p A (r- Z)
5. That all legal requirements for notice of the public hearing have been
fulfilled.
kale.,,tsp�+bsed.
6. owners of adjacent properly _ agg&w---- appm 1 4 moi the
application.
n
n
7. Relevant criteria and standards for construction of this
are set forth in f -1 ,..t 11,1_
8. The facts relevant to an evaluation of the relevant criteria in
standards are as follows:
D.
E.
F.
G.
H.
I.
Conclusions of Law
1. The use for which the permit is sought %iW6/wi.1l not be
injurious to the neighborhood or otherwise detrimental to the public
health, safety or welfare.
2. The permit sought nW/will not produce an adverse impact on
the evonanic values of adjacent properties.
3. The permit sought viW/will not produce a negative impact on
transportation facilities, public utilities, schools, public parks,
or the natural envixonment any greater than had the strict terns of the
Land Use Ordinance been satisfied.
4. The mise 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 in the vicinity -dam/does not indicate that
the permit should be denied.
5. The use for which the permit is sought MmWsball not work an
,unreasQnable hardship upon surrotuxding property owners by virtue of the
elltv'ab-Ire
or by the impact of changes made in the landscape of the land.
6. The aesthetic qualifies of the proposed use W"b/will not conflict
with the aesthetic qualities of the surrounding lands.
7. The applicant haste Shawn that he has taken all reasonable
steps to comply with the strict terms of the ordinance.
8. Adverse impact on other development within the City wit
be minimized by the applicants use sought by the permit.
9.
10.
11. The requested conditional use permit should be granted, subject to
the conditions, if any, set forth hereinafter.
n
n
Decision & order
The Land Use & Development Cc mnission,
finds that the request of
for a
pursuant to the foregoing,
Notion by: r
to adopt the Lforegoing Findings of Fact,
seconded by ,GP LIZ,,�', e x/
Conclusions of Law and order.
BOLL CALL:
Commissioner
Pte .e
Voted
1J0
Cmumssioner
uELUW
Voted
Iye-S
Commissioner
Au.eg
Voted
Commissioner
Voted
Commissioner
Voted
Co missioner
t % a wu%
Voted
r • •, •• « • • • i• • = I*•
This matter having come before the C=MSSion for public hearing
p•,* sua t to public notice as required by law, cn i 3 193%
upon applicant's applicaticn for ea 3 x1 Lt� n; G+ ri �-i- — + •,
G;�Ia Jan Conditional Use Permi ,
as follows: nd�.� - GP 14e-w� ate'
Ipcati on: K 851 Co It
Applicant: -,T&c I V A A. k or %
FINDI S OF FACT nn
1. Applicant has applied for: T
2. The existing land uses in the area are: to the north,
to the east,
to the south,
to the west,
3. That the Cmprehensive Plan designates this area as
4. That
L1 existing zoning of the property is It CyeN-ero ZZs dw �a(
C
5. That all legal requirements for notice of the public hearing have been
fulfilled.
6. Owners of adjacent property eve not expressed �ct0 e tO
application.
/'N
r . J
7. Relevant criteria and standards for Construction of this application
are set forth in G Ftp ISbVc V- $A 0 iJ 1 G IAA L CODE fE A JR. Z. 1CO
la lit, 2o,igan &AA,& )T .7 V. d -TO
8. The facts relevant to an evaluation of the relevant criteria in
standards are as follows:
B.
P
C.
D.
E.
F.
G.
H.
I.
conclusions of Lawn
n / /
1. The use for which the permit is sought w&}1/'will not be
injurious to the neighborhood or otherwise detrimental to the public
health, safety or welfare.
2. The permit sought w&11/will not produce an adverse impact on
the economic values of adjacent properties.
3. The permit sought w4�11 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 satisfied.
4. The noise and traffic conditions generated by the use for which
the permit is sought, when analyzed in conjuncticn*ith the nice and
traffic conditions now existing in the vicinity cloos/does not indicate that
the permit should be denied.
5. The use for which the permit is sought s1 4 4/shall not work an
unreasonable hardship upon surrounding property owners by virtue of the
legal nature or by the impact of changes made in the landscape of the land.
6. The aesthetic qualifies of the proposed use wA-1/will not conflict
with the aesthetic qualities of the surrounding lands.
NA."
7. The applicant 4WA/t shown that he has taken all reasonable
steps to comely with the strict terms of the ordinance.
9.
10.
11. The requested conditional use permit should be granted, subject to
the conditions, if any, set forth hereinafter.
Decision & order
The Land Use & Develognent Camussion, pursuant to the foregoing,
finds that theof j"-* n M,)y, Ire PA
for a rj /1dJ 'A —`�.. k
Motion by: Janet Williams sec o by Dee Stalder
to adopt the foregoing Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law and Order.
Commissioner Stalder
C mllissioner Williams
Commissioner Cain
Catmissioner Robert Allen
Camdssioner Nelson
C" issioner Nie1d
Voted Yes
Voted �z5
Voted -Y e s
Voted Yes
Voted Yes
voted Yes
Commissioner
Commissioner
Commissioner
,-IN
Richard Allen voted vA�
voted
voted
FIMINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND ORDER
This matter having come before the Cmutission for public hearing
pursuant to public notice as required by law, on JtAwk 73 , 19_4
upon applicant's applicaticn for Change in Land Use District trent to
ariance/P ,
Applicant:
-- - --- --- _a �;dalw=,.. i --- ...�rte.-.
FIMINGS OF FACT
P"
1. Applicant has applied for: IfatioSAKE FOU HeUrMT 1)Ai1Tr4TtoN5
n
2. The existing land uses in the area are: to the north, +TLArdJ-51T1OA/Ac
046mto the east, 4OWN Grl2 t C J 1, MM E
to the south, C.&MME# c1 At,
to the west, _CZ -1m od ize G (4&-
3. That the Comprehensive Plan designates this area as
4.That the existing zoning of the property is & "M&xL- Ld Mall !L L11�G.
t c
5. That all legal requirements for notice of the public hearing have been
fulfilled.
6. Owners of adjacent property /have not am,, the
application.
n
n
7. Relevant criteria and standards for construction of this application
are set forth in CAV66weK Hup1►t jA9j CyAF 4-j f. 3 L . 0 4/0
8. The facts relevant to an evaluation of the relevant criteria in
standards are as follows:
B.
D.
E.
E.
G.
H.
I.
/'1
1. The lands involved:
c) are/ affected by such topographical and location condition,
.srw+i ng i n, 1Q72
that it would create a private hardship
not required to protect the public interest to compel the applicant
to adhere strictly to the provisions of the Chubbuck Land Use Ordinance.
2. The private hardship /was not created or allowed to occur
by the applicant, the land owner, or any of their agents.
3. The private hardship /was not known or foreseeable at the
time when the land in question, or an interest therein, were aoquired.
4. The private hardship is ie-mt serious, immediate and unavoidable.
5. Alleviating the hardship &444 -/will not create a possible, present
or future hardship for any other private party nor will it be contrary to
n the public interest.
6. The requested variance should be granted.
DECISION & ORDER
The Land Use & Developwnt Comission, pursuant to the foregoing.,
finds that the request of "P;:" 4W 46176��
for a AP&AA ti[wL ....- -A a [A A A..Z.�T' .... . " _ . ICA.. W, .A..
71111111111� 1, 111 �
••.. a •...
n
Motion by: Thomas Nield . seconded by Pete Anderson
to adopt the foregoing Finclings of Fact, Conclusions of Law and Order.
Calmissioner
L�
Caimli-winner
Camu ssioner
Ooumissianer
Commissioner � � `" c✓�I
Ccumissioner
CamLissioner
Calmi.ssioner
Comissioner
Voted
Voted
Voted
Voted
Voted
Voted
Voted