HomeMy WebLinkAbout009 10 81 LAND USE & DEVELOPMENT CflMMISSION MINUTES
September 10, 1981
Minutes of the regular meeting of the Land Use & Development Con~cission
held in the City Municipal Building, September 10, 1981.
Present: Chairman Richard Allen, Commission Members: Dee Stalder, Pete
Anderson, Michael ~etcalfe and Earl Rcmreill, City Attorney Donald L.
Burnett, Jr., City Engineer Steven Smart and Secretary 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
August 6, 1981; there being none, Earl Romriell made motion to accept
minutes as written. Dee Stalder seconded the motion with all Commission
Members voting in favor.
DESIGN REVIEW- BUILDINGS
1. Duane Marler, Architect for Littletree Inn, formerly the Rodeway Inn,
presented the plans for the addition to the Littletree Inn. He said they
are expanding the dinning area, the lounge area and the administrative offices.
He said they wouldbemoving the canopy and opening another area for the
lobby. He explained that additional parking was being added.
Commission Members reviewed the plans and discussed the reconrnendations of
the Building Inpector, Dan Stuart.
Michael Metcalfe made motion to recc~mend to the City Council for approval of
the Design Review of the Littletree Inn, subject to the recon~nendations
of the City Engineer, Steve Smart. Earl Romriell seconded the motion,
with all Cc~mission ~_mbers voting in favor.
PUBLIC HEARING ITEM:
1. Application by John Stoddard, 211 Hiway Avenue, for a Variance, a
Change of Land Use District or a Conditional Use Permit, whichever
is applicable, to operate what has been determined a kennel at their
residence.
Stoddard stated they were providing temporary boarding for dogs without
homes for the Bannock Humane Society. He said he was not aware that the
dogs had created a problem.
Chairman Allen asked Mr. Stoddard if he recieved compensation for caring for
the dogs. Mr. Stoddard said food was donated and those animals sold,.~he
Qe? was used for shots, spaying, neutering, feed and etc.. He said they
a Peen caring for dogs at their home for about one year and had fourteen
dogs at the present. He said they had no intention of operating a
conmercial business; but would license the dogs if he had to.
PUBLIC HEARING- John Stoddard - Page tw~
Chairman Allen asked for public testimony from those in favor of proposal
of John Stoddard. Chairman Allen said he had received two telephone calls
one from Jerry Tydeman, 156 Hiway Avenue and Sheryl Edmunds, 231 Hiway
Avenue, stating they were neighbors of Mr. Stoddard and they did not
object to him operating a kennel.
Mr. Robert Neilson, 203 Hiway Avenue, said as neighbor on the west he did not
object to the kennel.
Chairman Allen then asked for testimony frcm those opposing the proposal of
John Stoddard.
Stephen Grumbein, 231 Hiway Avenue, stated he did not like the noise, that
you cannot walk out on your property without the dogs barking.
Sue Myers, said she was purchasing property at 219 Hiway Avenue, said every
time they walk out in the back yard the dogs charge the fence and bark
constantly. She said she has a small child and the child is terrified of
Dwain Kinghorn, 145 Hiway Avenue, stated he opposed what Mr. Stoddard is doing
by having that many dogs. and asking for a kennel in a residential zone.
He said he realized that he was providing a needed service but it should
be in a area zoned for a kennel. He said this area is zoned for animals
and many of the neighbors have animals and he would have no objection if
animals added on the san~ basis as other neighbors animals. He said he
had talked with his neighbors and they stronly opposed a kennel. He said
Mr. Stoddard had gone ahead and brought in dogs and prepared places for
them, knowing they did not have legal right to do so.
Kinghorn explained the reason the city does not have a kennel license is
because of the nuisance that goes with it, the smell, flies, extra traffic.
He said the city did not feel it prudent to have a kennel license.
Mr.
Kinghorn said he would like to go on record opposing an animal care site
or a kennel being granted by variance, or if the re~dation is made
to the City Council for a conditional use permit he would like to have
conditions stipulated.
Mr. Romriell asked to step down frem the Con~ission as he has a personal
interest in this matter as he lives on Hiway Avenue.
Mr.
Romriell said a lot of consideration shouldbe given to the fact that many
of the neighbors had lived on Hiway Avenue for quite a few years and if the
City approves, Mr. Stoddard should give them a lot of consideration. He
said to visualize a kennel in your own neighborhood and how you would feel.
He said the city has considered a place for dogs, as kennels are needed;
but they should be in an area where they would not disturb peoples privacy.
Attorney Burnett said property is in a residential zone; that there was a choice
of alternatives in the application.
1. Variance - nature of land use going on there, it appears they are partially
being suppol~ced by some consideration. Consideration coming from in-kind
contribution or in-kind support provided by the Humane Society. It appears
there is some boarding occasionally for privat persons. There are many dogs
PUBLIC HEARING - John Stoddard
being kept for no consideration. There is no evidence thse people are
making a profit. Activity in his opinion would constitute a kennel; it
also appears it would constitute an animal care site. Animal ~Care does
not appear in table of uses but kennel does. Kennel is prohibited and
may not be considered in a Residential zone. It may be subject of a
conditional use permit an a Commercial zone. If the Con~ission takes the
position that this land use constitutes a kennel and goes no farther,
then a kennel cannot be subject of a conditional use application in a
residential area.
Mre
Burnett said if Conmission takes the position that a kennel and an animal
care site are distinquishable; and this property can be viewed as an
animal care site and not as a kennel, because animal care site does not
appear in table of uses the ordinance provides it may be allowed only on
a conditional use. He stated in his opinion an Animal Care Site and
Kennel are the same.
Mro
Burnett said the ordinance is very specific on what conditions a variance
can be granted. He then read from Ordinance #205, page 45. He said the
Commission would need to determine if limitations are such that a variance
could not be granted under these circumstances. He explained because the
area is zoned Residential, if Con~ission takes position that operation is
a kennel, it would be the end of the matter as far as a Conditional Use
is concerned.
If the Con~ission changes zoning from Resi~_ntial to Con~nercial, it does not
automatically allow a kennel; butwoul~put in position to consider a
Conditional Use Permit.
Mr. Burnett said that in the event the Conx~ssion decides to consider the
question of rezoning, a change of Land Use District, it will be necessary
to receive specific statements on that issue, so that transcribable
record can bemade.
Chainnan Allen asked for comments from the Commission M~mbers.
Michael Metcalfe said he did not feel a variance could be granted according to
the Land Use Ordinance.
Pete Anderson responded that he did not feel a hardship existed. He said
Mr. Stoddard is rendering a service. Dee Stalder said he did not
feel a variance was applicable.
Michael Metcalfe made motion to deny granting a variance to Mr. John Stoddard,
to operate a kennel and or a animal care center at 211 Hiway Avenue.
Pete Anderson seconded the motion. Voting was unanimous.
Chairman Allen asked for a determination if the area would be a kennel or
an animal care center.
Mr. M~tcalfe said he felt he was qualified to answer, as he had prepare_d~the
shedule of controls, for the consideration of the Commission and the City
Council. He said he saw no difference, he believes that a kennel and
an animal care center are one and the same. The fact there is two
terminologies should be rectified in the ordinance.
PUBLIC HEARING - John Stoddard
Michael Metcalfe made motion this Commission interpret that a kennel and
animal care center are one and the same. Dee Stalder seconded the motion
Metcalfe, yes; Anderson, yes; Stalder, yes; Allen, no.
Chairman Allen asked for the Con~nission to consider a zoning change on the
John Stoddard property at 211 Hiway Avenue,frcm General Residential (R-2)
General Cc~mercial (C-2).
John Stoddard then requested the property at 211 Hiway Avenue be rezoned
from General Residential (R-2) to General Cc~a~rcial (C-2), so that
he might operate a kennel.
Chairman Allen asked for testimony in favor of a zone change.
There being no conm~nt, Chairman Allen then asked for testimong opposing a
zone change.
Attorney Burnett reminded those present that a change of zoning to a
General Con~rcial (C-2) would allow all uses allowed in the schedule of
controls.
Stephen Grumbein, 231 Hiway Avenue, said he was opposed to a zoning change.
He said they did not need the additional traffic this would generate.
Sue Myers, contract purchaser of 219 Hiway Avenue, directly least of the
Stoddard property, said she was extremely opposed to a cor~nercial zone,
she said she feels it should remain residential. She said she was opposed
to ~spot zoning.
Dwain Kinghorn, 145 Hiway Avenue, asked if the Con~ssion was talking only of
the Stoddard property. Chairman Allen assured him it was only the
Stoddard property in question. 5~r. Kinghorn warned that once the zoning
is changed; there is nothing the neighbors can do. He emphasized the
Comprehensive Plan is a long range plan reaching into the future. This
should only be done when timely transition to the benefit of people
living there.
Kinghorn asked if it was reasonable thinking to change ½ acre in the
middle of a subdivision to a cc~a~ercial zone for the purpose of keeping
dogs versus home and property. He said he was opposed to the zone change
on Hiway Avenue - until it fulfills the very word of the ordinance.
Pete Anderson said Con~ission should take into consideration they are talking
about ½ acre which in essence is spot zoning; spot zoning is a very
negative thing as far as a city goes; He said that spot zoning was
detrimental to a neighborhood.
Mr. Anderson asked the City Engineer to determine the zoning areas on Hiway
Avenue.
Engineer Smart said beginning at Yellowstone, Highway Acres Subdivision, lots
10, 11, 12, 13 and backportion of 14 are General Con~nercial (C-2),
remainder of lots are General Residential (R-2), beyond the end of the
subdivision for about three hundred feet next to the Railroad tracks it
is Industrial (I).
PUBLIC HEARING- John Stoddard
Chairman Allen asked how the Stoddard property related to the Jerry Tydeman
. property that was turned down from being rezoned con~nercial. It was
determined this property lies directly south and east, across the road
from the Tydeman property.
Stoddard askedthat Ordinance 185, pertaining to the licensing of dogs
be explained. If he has tw~ dogs that are not spayed or neutered, male or
female, the cost is five dollars to license them; any additional dog is
ten dollars per head. Ordinance does not say how many additional dogs
one can have, if he has to license the 14 dogs he would do whatever has
to be done.
Burnett said it is true an individual may have more than two dogs on a
given premise and for each dog in excess of two the license fee is $10.00
for each additional dog. If a person maintains a constant population of
14 dogs and the population was turning over all the time, each dog that
came in and stayed the amount of time prescribed by the ordinance would
have to be seperately licensed. The other question asked "Is there no law
against having any given number of dogs as long as they are properly
licensed?" Mr. Burnett said assuming all dogs are properly licensed and
fees have been paid, it is true the ordinance at this time does not impose
a limit on the number of dogs one owns or can keep. However the question
would come down to if the dogs have been licensed as a result of direct
ownership or licensed for some other purpose and still being kept for some
consideration or compensation. If they are being kept for some consideration
or cc~pensation then the operation would be a kennel even if the dogs
were licensed.
Michael Metcalfe made motion to re~d to the City Council they deny a
zone change to John Stoddard, 211 Hiway Avenue, based in fact is not in
compliance with Comprehensive Plan and not in the best interest of the
city, in this Commissions view. Dee Stalder seconded the motion. Stalder,
yes; Anderson, yes, Metcalfe, yes; Allen, no.
PUBLIC HEARING ITEM:
2. Proposal by Joseph D. Baker, 228 W. Custer, Pocatello, Idaho, for a
conditional use permit to place a mobile home at 245 Mingo Lane,
for residential purposes.
Mrs. Baker said they had purchased a larger, more modern trailer to place
on the lot. She said they intended to make this their home; they
would be retiring soon and wanted to live close to their family.
Several neighbors in the area were present and voiced no opposition to the
removal of the small trailer and putting in a new one. They all
expreSS~o~Oncern over the fact that the Bakers had to have a public
hearing what they felt was upgrading the neighborhood.
The Conr~ission and people in the Mingo Lane neighborhood discussed the zoning
and how it related to their property.
Earl Romriell made motion to reconn~d to the City Council,for approval,
the conditional use permit of Joseph D. Baker, to place a mobile
home at 245 Mingo Lane, for residential purposes. Pete Anderson seconded
motion. Voting was unanimous.
Pete Andersonmademotion to recommend to the City Council they take proper
action to alleviate th~. problem of replacing an existing mobile home
with a new one in areas zoned for mobile homes. Earl Romriell seconded
motion, with all Commission Members voting in favor.
DESGIN REVIEW - SIGNS
1. Auto Vu, Inc., 4031 Poleline Road, Desgin Review on sign. Dee Stalder
made motion to recc~m~--nd to the City Council for approval. Michael
Metcalfe seconded the motion. Stalder, yes; Metcalfe, yes, Rc~riell, yes;
Allen, yes. Anderson abstained from voting.
2. Design Review, Circle K #166, 5090 Yellowstone, Sign. Earl Romriell
made motion to recommend for approval to the City Council. Dee Stalder
seconded the motion. All Commission Members voted in favor.
3. Design Review, Roadrunner Travel Shop Sign, 4260 Yellowstone.
Staldermademotion to recon~n~d to the City Council for approval.
Pete Anderson seconded the motion. All voted in favor.
Dee
4. Sign Systems, Sign for MeadowsMobile Home Park, 5155 Yellowstone.
Michael Metcalfemademotion to re~d to the City Council for
approval. Earl Rcmriell seconded the motion. All voted in favor.
5. Design Review, Eastern Idaho~bile Homes, Sign, 4212 Yellowstone.
Pete Anderson made motion to recu~,L~nd to the City Council for approval
of the permanent sign. Dee Stalder seconded the motion. All voted in
favor.
6. Design Review, D & S Electrical Supply Sign, 363 W. Chubbuck Road.
Michael Metcalfe made motion to reco~nend for approval to the City
Council. Earl Romriell seconded the motion. All voted in favor.
7. Design Review, Lawrence Formica , Sign at 4854 Yellowstone.
Earl Romriell made motion to recor~nend to the City Council for approval.
Pete Anderson seconded the motion. Voting was unanimous.
8. Southland Corp. dba 7 - 11 Stores, 4914 Yellowstone, Sign.
Dee Staldermademotion to reconn~nd to the CityCouncil for approval.
Michael Metcalfe seconded the motion. Voting was unanimous.
9. Carefree, Inc., Design Review of Sign, 4639 Yellowstone.
~chael Metcalfe made motion to recorm~nnd for approval to the City Council.
Pete Anderson seconded the motion. Voting was unanimous.
Doctor Greg Romriell asked the Conn~ission to consider the road shown in the
Conlorehensive Plan that extends frcmWard Drive to East Burnside.
Chairman Allen told Dr. Romriell he would need to apply for a public
hearing on %his matter.
~iichael Mmtcalfe made motion to adjourn at~. Pete Anderson seconded
the motion. Voting was unanimous. // ~_/_,._~---~
Dorothy L. ~d, Secretary
,^
Name of Applicant: Diane Marler - Little Tree Inns
Subject of Application: _133 W Riixmside
L IND USS AND COMMISSION
A. NATURE OF ACTION: V-�Recoirne:dation to City Council
Decision (Subject to Appeal to City Council)
B. ACTION TAKEN: ,,�Application Approved Application Denied
Application Approved on Following Condition(s):
C. SOURCES CONSIDERED: Chubbuck Comprehensive Plan (with any applicable
amendments)
Chubbuck Land Use Ordinance (with any applicable
amendments)
/Chubbuck Land Development Ordinance (with any
applicable amendments)
Chubbuck Land Improvement Standards Ordinance (with
any applicable amendments)
Other:
D. REASONS FOR ACTION TAKEN:
E. ACTIONS APPLICANT COULD TAKE TO OBTAIN FAVORABLE CONSIDERATION:
Not Applicable (Application not Denied)
Applicable:
L-� O--- .
This summary supplements the official minutes of a meeting/hearing on this date,
and constitutes part of the record of Co;rmission acti�cr� the above matter.
9- /o
Date
Name of Applicant:Oc
Subject of Application: e�,;l- 11?c Al,j
C`;
A. NATURE OF ACTION: ✓ .eco;{ r.. ,;c ,a�.io . to City Council
Derision (Subject to Appeal to City Council)
B. ACTION TAKEN: Application Approve ✓Application Denied
Application Approved on Following Condition(s):
C. SOURCES CCNSIDERED: t-1 Chubbuck Comprehensive Plan (with any applicable
amendments)
L' Chubbuck Land Use Ordinance (with any applicable
amendments)
Chun, uck Land Development Ordinance (with any
applicable amendments)
Chubbuck Land improvement Standards Ordinance (with
any ap_Dlicable amendments)
Ocher:
D. REASONS FOR ACTION
TAKEN:
IiLii!l'1(C'e�—tlyl
lj&:: 44 fci Lll
U T f j j
G`v`n-,,�.te%�t,?� �� ��tiS �•z�,r= Ut�I_,y��� C�� S�t,� �i�t/..1'<J �.tL': Ltrf_,c���7 �ra�lnc'
/I /
(•-�, � � �7 'trs'`_ c�F__,� �'7 '%r �.� , � T r rz-I n�
E. ACTIONS APPLICANT COULD TAKE Ml CDTAIN FAVORMBILE CONSIDERATION:
Not Applicable (Applicationn not Denied)
k. Appl icabye :
J
This summary supplements tine oific:Lal miru'--es of a meeting hearing on this date,
and constitutes part of the record of Cor iss:�on—aetzon---•gn the above matter.
`A1 /iz•1
Date
cer
n
Name of Applicant: wl ioA
Subject of Application: 17
A. INURE OF ACTION: .to C-Lty Q) ncil
Decision (Subject to Appeal to City Council)
B. ACTION TAi{EN: Application Approved ✓Application Denied
Application Approved on Following Condition(s):
C. SOURCES CONSIDERED: Chubbuck Comprehensive Plan (with any applicable
amen(Iments)
X Chubbuck Lard Use Ordinance (with any applicable
amendments)
Chubbuc;c Land Development Ordinance (with any
applicable a�:,endments )
Chubbuc:c Land improvement Standards Ordinance (with
any a-
.C�:)licable amendt,ents)
Other:
D. REASONS FOR ACTION TAIZI"'%7 :
I ,
2:ire�� �?tac( �-l�� 1 S � �<<`i��� L-c�-Mer 1�lrcc L'%�i-r�•�tC e ��i�-�
2_ ez-417�6't*-1'�>/� �E
/
-7
E. ACTIONS APPLICMNT COULD TAX^ TO O3TAIN FAVORABLE CONSIDERATION:
Not Applicable {Application not Denier])
X Applicable:
This summary supplements the officia. minat-es
and constitutes part of the record of Cormiss
Date
�meetin5�hearing on this date,
action,6n the above matter.
cer
QQ
Name of Applicant: lot+,U cat4WA-' �uE
Subject of Application: .% �,�,, t� r t K�2"c; �; ?j� �o&-440
COMMISSION
A. NATURE OF ACTION: RecomT,,-rdation to City Council
Decision (Subject to Appeal to City Council)
B. ACTION TAKEN: _ Application Approved k Application Denied
Application Approved on Following Condition(s):
C. SOURCES CONSIDERED: Chubbuck Comprehensive Plan (with any applicable
amendments)
X Chubbuck Land Use Ordinance (with any applicable
amendments)
Chubbuck Land Development Ordinance (with any
applicable amendments)
Chubbuck Land Improvement Standards Ordinance (with
any applicable amendments)
Other:
D. REASONS FOR ACTION TAKEN:
LZUC'_ S I-ZOL 1qe'-- ( C/_i J ' /'/ `6-J— C e S I f S i�
qSr'_ , Aid-
E.
id
E. ACTIONS APPLICANT COULD TAKE TO OBTAIN FAVORABLE CONSIDERATION:
Not Applicable (Application not Denied) --
A
Applicable: U to .
This summary supplements the official minutes of a
and constitutes part of the record of Commission a
9 f /I-, 1' I
Date
ing on this date,
above matter.
n
Name of Applicant: _0 "�)' Q z
Subject of Application:7tio
S"<
COMMISSION
A. NATURE OF ACTION: Recoiari ndati
✓on to City Council
Decision (Subject to Appeal to City Council)
B. ACTION TAKEN: Application Approved Application Denied
Application Approved on Following Condition(s):
C. SOURCES CONSIDERED: Chubbuck Comprehensive Plan (with any applicable
amendments)
_ZChubbuck Land Use Ordinance (with any applicable
amendments)
Chubbuck Land Development Ordinance (with any
applicable amendments)
Chubbuck Land Improvement Standards Ordinance (with
any applicable amendments)
other:
D. REASONS FOR ACTIN TAKEN:
E. ACTIONS APPLICANT COULD TAKE TO OBTAIN FAVORABLE CONSIDERATION:
Not Applicable (Application not Denied)
Applicable:
This summary supplements the official minutes of a
and constitutes part of the record of Commissi action
�-16 - S/
Date
searing on this date,
the above matter.
n
Name of Applicant: Auto Vu, Inc.
Subject of Application: Sign, 4031 Pole Line Road
C--77Y
'3z'
C11"' R•,-•,-..; CK
Sj ou IARY
LAND USE JEVZMP:',IE�gr COMMISSION
A. NATURE OF ACTION: "commendation to City Council
Decision (Subject to Appeal to City Council)
B. ACTION TAKEN: Application Approved Application Denied
Application Approved on Following Condition(s):
C. SOURCES CONSIDERED: Chubbuck Comprehensive Plan (with any applicable
amendments)
Chubbuck Land Use Ordinance (with any applicable
amendments)
Chubbuck Land Development Ordinance (with any
applicable amendments)
Chubbuck Land Improvement Standards Ordinance (with
/any applicable amendments)
�ar�r
D. REASONS FOR ACTION TAKEN:
E. ACTIONS APPLICANT COULD TAKE TO OBTAIN FAVORABLE CONSIDERATION:
Not Applicable (Application not Denied)
Applicable:
This summary supplements the official minutes of a
and constitutes part of the record of Commission�a
Date
hearing on this date,
the above matter.
Name of Applicant: Circle K #166
Subject of Application: Sign - 5090 Yellowstone Ave.
C:z'ff C `U1sBJCK
- ti
Al.� at.;;:v Su' LL ii '-Ry
LA110 USE Aim DEVELOPMEEW COMMISSION
A. NATURE OF ACTION: r/ Reconmiendation to City Council
Decision (Subject to Appeal to City Council)
B. ACTION TAKEN: Application Approved Application Denied
Application Approved on Following Condition(s):
C. SOURCES CONSIDERED: Chubbuck Comprehensive Plan (with any applicable
amendments)
Chubbuck Land Use Ordinance (with any applicable
amendments)
Chubbuck Land Development Ordinance (with any
applicable amendments)
Chubbuck Land Improvement Standards Ordinance (with
any applicable amendments)
Other:��
D. REASONS FOR ACTION TAKEN:
E. ACTIONS APPLICANT COULD TAKE TO OBTAIN FAVORABLE CONSIDERATION:
Not Applicable (Application not Denied)
Applicable:
This summary supplements
the official
minutes of
a mee garinq
on this date,
and constitutes part of
the record of
Commission
ion on
a above matter.
Date
n
n
Name of Applicant: Road Runner Travel Shop
Subject of Application: Sign - 4260 Yellowstone Ave.
LAI\,J L.,I• Aid) COMMISSION
A. NATURE OF ACTION: Reco,r aeruu ion to City Council
Decision (Subject to Appeal to City Council)
B. ACTION TAKEN: Application Approved Application Denied
Application Approved on Following Condition(s):
C. SOURCES CONSIDERED: Chubbuck Comprehensive Plan (with any applicable
amendments)
Chubbuck Land Use Ordinance (with any applicable
amendments)
Chubbuck Land Development Ordinance (with any
applicable amendments)
Chubbuck Land Improvement Standards Ordinance (with
any applicable amendments)
Other: 0
D. REASONS FOR ACTION TAKEN:
E. ACTIONS APPLICANT COULD TAKE TO OBTAIN FAVORABLE CONSIDERATION:
Not Applicable (Application not Denied)
Applicable:
This summary supplements the official minutes of a meetinq/hearinq on this date,
and constitutes part of the record of Commission aq�r��e above matter.
Date
n
Name of Applicant: Sirpz SlzstPntis
Subject of Application: Sign for Meadows Mobile Home
Park, 5155 Yellowstone Ave.
LAWN UC�� COMMISSION
A. NATURE OF ACTION:/eco.m,aendu'cion to City Council
Decision (Subject to Appeal to City Council)
B. ACTION TAKEN: Application Approved Application Denied
Application Approved on Following Condition(s):
C. SOURCES CONSIDERED: Chubbuck Comprehensive Plan (with any applicable
amendments)
Chubbuck Land Use Ordinance (with any applicable
amendments)
Chubbuck Land Development Ordinance (with any
applicable amendments)
Chubbuck Land Improvement Standards Ordinance (with
any applicable amendmenttsL)
D. REASONS FOR ACTION TAKEN:
E. ACTIONS APPLICANT COULD TAKE TO OBTAIN FAVORABLE CONSIDERATION:
Not Applicable (Application not Denied)
Applicable:
This summary supplements the official minutes of a meeting/hearing on this date,
and constitutes part of the record of Commission action on the above matter.
'?-/0 -81
Date Ch-ai /Presiding Officer
n
WHO
Name of Applicant: Eastern Idaho Mobile Hanes
Subject of Application: -; _ 421yPllows on Ave,
C�.E �..,�z.�,
w-... _,._uCi.
LAND U> y; Al' -'D � I �:' ;moi\`I' COVIVIISSION
A. NATURE OF ACTION: `---RecoiTamendation to City Council
Decision (Subject to Appeal to City Council)
B. ACTION TAKEN: Application Approved Application Denied
Application Approved on Following Condition(s):
C. SOURCES CONSIDERED: Chubbuck Comprehensive Plan (with any applicable
amendments)
Chubbuck Land Use Ordinance (with any applicable
amendments)
Chubbuck Land Development Ordinance (with any
applicable amendments)
_ Chubbuck Land Improvement Standards Ordinance (with
any applicable amendment�
Other:
D. REASONS FOR ACTION TAKEN:
E. ACTIONS APPLICANT COULD TAKE TO OBTAIN FAVORABLE CONSIDERATION:
Not Applicable (Application not Denied)
Applicable:
This summary supplements the official minutes of a meeting/hearinq on this date,
and constitutes part of the record of Commission actio a above matter.
Date Ch irman/Presiding Officer
500
Name of Applicant: D & S Electrical Supply
Subject of Application: Si= _ '161 WL C,,,hh„c-k Rd -
LAND USE 10 DEV-E1LPY1E1fi COMMISSION
A. NATURE OF ACTION: V Recommendation to City Council
Decision (Subject to Appeal to City Council)
B. ACTION TAKEN: Application Approved Application Denied
Application Approved on Following Condition(s):
C. SOURCES CONSIDERED: Chubbuck Comprehensive Plan (with any applicable
amendments)
Chubbuck Land Use Ordinance (with any applicable
amendments)
Chubbuck Land Development Ordinance (with any
applicable amendments)
Chubbuck Land Improvement Standards Ordinance (with
any applicable amendments)
f, -'Other:
D. REASONS FOR ACTION TAKEN:
E. ACTIONS APPLICANT COULD TAKE TO OBTAIN FAVORABLE CONSIDERATION:
Not Applicable (Application not Denied)
Applicable:
This summary supplements the official minutes of a meeting hearing on this date,
and constitutes part of the record of Commission action on the above matter.
Date C iding Officer
Name of Applicant: Lawrence Ftwffi ca
Subject of Application: Sign - 4854 Yellowstone Ave.
Cl'i J: V'-H7i3i:iUC1K
LAND USE' AND COv MSSION
A. NATURE OF ACTION: ;ecortmc-ndation to City Council
Decision (Subject to Appeal to City Council)
B. ACTION TAKEN: Application Approved Application Denied
Application Approved on Following Condition(s):
C. SOURCES CONSIDERED: Chubbuck Comprehensive Plan (with any applicable
amendments)
Chubbuck Land Use Ordinance (with any applicable
amendments)
Chubbuck Land Development Ordinance (with any
applicable amendments)
Chubbuck Land Improvement Standards Ordinance (with
any applicable amendments)
✓
Other:
D. REASONS FOR ACTIN TAKEN:
E. ACTIONS APPLICANT COULD TAKE TO OBTAIN FAVORABLE CONSIDERATION:
Not Applicable (Application not Denied)
Applicable:
This summary supplements the official minutes of a
and constitutes part of the record of Commission a
Date
nqAwaring on this date,
on thk above matter.
Off
n
Name of Applicant: So13th1anr1 comm_ - 7-11 Stores
Subject of Application: Sign _ 4914 Yellowstone Ave.
LAND U Aj-�D CO1',W1ISSION
A. NAT -ORE OF ACTION: "Reco;:menda`ion to City Council
Decision (Subject to Appeal to City Council)
B. ACTION TAKEN: Application Approved Application Denied
Application Approved on Following Condition(s):
C. SOURCES CONSIDERED: Chubbuck Comprehensive Plan (with any applicable
amendments)
Chubbuck Land Use Ordinance (with any applicable
amendments)
Chubbuck Land Development Ordinance (with any
applicable amendments)
Chubbuck Land Improvement Standards Ordinance (with
any applicable amendments
D. REASONS FOR ACTION TAKEN:
E. ACTIONS APPLICANT COULD TAKE TO OBTAIN FAVORABLE CONSIDERATION:
Not Applicable (Application not Denied)
Applicable:
This summary supplements the official minutes of a _ inq earinq on this date,
and constitutes part of the record of Conmissio action the above matter.
Date
Name of Applicant: Carefree, Inc.
Subject of Application: Sign - 4639 Yellowstone Ave.
n-,
'.1SSION
A. NATURE OF ACTION: -to City Council
Decis cn (Suuject to Appeal to City Council)
B. ACTION TAKEN: Application A,Droved Application Denied
Application Approved on Following Condition(s):
C. SOURCES CONSIDERED: Chubbuck Comprehensive Plan (with any applicable
amendments)
Chubbuck Land Use Ordinance (with any applicable
amendments)
Chubbuck Land Development Ordinance (with any
applicable amendments)
Chubbuck Land Improvement Standards Ordinance (with
any applicable amendments)
Other : !�
D. REASONS FOR ACTION TAKEN:
.10-N
E. ACTIONS APPLICANT COULD TAKE TO OBTAIN FAVORABLE CONSIDERATION:
Not Applicable (Application not Denied)
Applicable:
This summary supplements the official. minutes of a
and constitutes part of the record of Commission a
<7 - x�
Date
ng_t Baring on this date,
on thd above matter.