Loading...
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.