HomeMy WebLinkAboutDraft MinutesCHUBBUCK
Land Use and Development Commission
Regular Meeting
May 14, 2024
6:00 PM
City Hall Council Chambers
290 East Linden, Chubbuck, ID 83202
MINUTES
Board Members Present: Chair Jason Mendenhall, Darell Stewart, Brett Hiltbrand, Carrie Holm,
Adam Thayer, and Bryson Smith. Staff Members Present: Attorney Ryan Lewis, Planning Manager
Don Matson, and City Clerk Joey Bowers.
Mendenhall called the meeting to order at 6:OOpm.
Mendenhall asked if any commissioners had a conflict of interest with the items before the
board. None were reported.
PLEDGE ALLEGIANCE TO THE FLAG
APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES: April 9, 2024.
Mendenhall entertained a motion to approve the minutes as emailed. Stewart moved to accept the
meeting minutes of April 9, 2024 as emailed; Thayer seconded. The full commission approved.
PUBLIC HEARING
1. An application for a Variance to reduce the required side yard on a corner lot from twenty
feet (20') to five feet (5') in the Single -Family Residential (R-1) zone. The proposal would
accommodate a detached garage for the subject property, located at 1026 Lexington St in
Chubbuck, ID. The application will be reviewed against criteria in section 18.28.030.B.5
of City Code. Type of action: Decision.
Applicant Anthony Harral presented an application for a variance to reduce the
required side yard on a corner lot from twenty feet (20') to five feet (5') in the Single -
Family Residential (R-1) zone. The proposal would accommodate a 30' x 36' detached
shop/storage shed. Mr. Harral stated that before purchasing the property with his son he
had met with the building department back in September 2023 about building a shop on
the property. The building department had given him preliminary requirements and
setbacks. It was his understanding that his shop had meet all those requirements and it
wasn't until after he had purchased the property and came to get a building permit that he
discovered that he did not meet the required requirements. After meeting with City Staff
multiple times and discovering that there was some discrepancies in City Code. City Staff
recommended applying for a variance to reduce the required side yard on a corner lot from
twenty feet (20') to five feet (5') and to clarify where the side yard ends and the back yard
begins. Mr. Harral also talked to the majority of his neighbors before applying for this
variance to see if they had any issues or concerns. The garage doors access will be off of
the current driveway with a second access in the rear to store a classic car.
Planning Manager Don Matson stated that this application had been reviewed by City
Staff and does not appear to meet the comprehensive plan and the standards of Titles 16,
17 and 18 of City Code, and recommended denial. 18.06.41013 states that on a corner lot,
regardless of the facing or configuration of the principal structure, there shall be a yard on
one side that is at least the amount of the minimum front yard setback set forth in
subsection A of this section, and the other side on the corner shall be not more than five
feet (5') less than the setback set forth in subsection A of this section [25']. If a garage or
carport opens into the smaller of the two (2) setbacks, the garage shall set back the same
distance as the required front yard setback on the adjacent corner.
Mendenhall declared the public hearing open for public comment, due to no public comment
Mendenhall closed the public hearing.
Mr. Harral stated that it was his understanding of City Code that the front of his shop
had to be setback 20' from his front door.
Mendenhall asked when these setbacks had been adopted and if there had been any
recent changes. Matson stated that these requirements had probably been adopted back in
the 80's and there had not been any recent updates. Matson also stated that when the
building department gets calls and preliminary questions over the phone they do not have
all the details for example whether or not the property is on a corner lot.
Thayer asked if there had been any recent updates to the section about corner lots.
Matson stated that there had not been any changes to that section of code, but it is a section
that staff is currently working to better clarify. Thayer also asked about right of way
requirements. Matson stated that the right of way is a foot behind the sidewalk.
Mendenhall stated that the Board needed to decide if the application meets all the
requirements of section 18.28.030.B.5. Standards for Approving a Variance, and that the
Board also had the recommendations of those requirements per City Staff.
Thayer stated that City Staff answers preliminary building questions every day. Until
they actually have an application and have all the details associated with an
application/property, those answers are just preliminary and may not include all the
required requirements.
Hiltbrand asked if there was any leeway associated with these standards.
Attorney Ryan Lewis stated that the standards for a variance by nature are made to be
difficult to protect the standards adopted by City Code.
Thayer stated that setbacks and right of way standards are what they are for a number
of reasons, but most importantly to protect the community.
Holm asked for a definition of a side yard versus a back yard. Matson stated that a side
yard typically starts at the front of the house and runs along the side of the house and
ends at the back property line.
Matson went over 18.06.410, 18.08.042, and 18.12.030 that sets the standards and
definitions associated with setbacks, yards, corner lots, and accessory structures.
Accessory structures may not be located within: a) the front yard, and b) the minimum
side yard setback area required by section 18.08.042 of this title extended twenty feet
(20') to the rear of the principal structure, and shall not be located closer than twenty feet
(20') from any residential structure on adjoining lands.
Mendenhall felt like requirement 1 had been satisfied but also felt like it was clear that
requirements 3 and 4 had not been satisfied, nor could they be satisfied with this
application.
Thayer felt like the size of the proposed shop would have a negative impact on the
surrounding neighbors.
Holm asked if the layout of the property and the angle of the primary structure could
qualify as a hardship.
Thayer didn't feel like that qualified as a hardship because it wasn't taking away the
potential to build a shop just maybe not a shop that size.
Hiltbrand stated that the house was probably angled to meet all the required standards
and setbacks to build the primary structure in the first place. Which existed before the
purchase of the property.
Thayer also felt like it was clear that requirements 3 and 4 had not been satisfied.
Holm stated that it was her understanding that if the Board could not find supporting
facts that satisfies all 6 requirements for a variance, then they should deny the request for
a variance. Thayer agreed that all 6 requirements needed to be satisfied before approving
a variance.
Thayer motioned to deny an application for a variance to reduce the required side yard on a corner
lot from twenty feet (20) to five feet (5') in the Single -Family Residential (R-1) zone as presented,
including the findings, facts and conclusions of law by changing that standard 1 had been
satisfied. Based on the fact that the applicant had taken all reasonable steps to comply by
meeting with City Staff multiple times. Due to no second the motion died.
Smith stated that he would like to find a way to make this application possible but he
was not seeing any way to factually make it meet all the standards for approval, and asked
about other interpretations from the preliminary conversations with City Staff.
Attorney Lewis stated that even under the most favorable interpretations this
application would not meet the standards of City Code.
Holm agreed that she didn't see any possible scenario for this application to meet all
the standards for approval.
Thayer stated that regardless of the different interpretations the application was too
close to the right of way and wouldn't meet the required standards. A structure that size
and that close to the right of way needed to be required to meet all the setback standards.
The Board went through each of the requirements of section 18.28.030.B.5. Standards
for Approving a Variance individually.
1. The applicant has taken all reasonable steps to comply with the strict terms of the
ordinance from which a variance is requested. a. Finding: Satisfied. Under the strict
terms of the ordinance a smaller shop building, but still of significant size, could fit in the
rear yard. b. The applicant's desire is to construct a 30' x 36' shop for housing a vintage
car and other items. The house was rotated parallel to Freedom Ave to better comply with
Access standards, creating a triangle shaped back yard. A shop would fit in the rear yard.
c. Accessory structures are normally allowed in rear and side yards, but because this is a
corner lot the required setback is 20'. Accessories must be separated from the principle
structure or property lines by at least 5'. With this standard a shop in the rear yard could
be up to 20' wide.
The Board disagreed with City Staff and determined that the applicant had taken all
reasonable steps to comply by meeting with City Staff multiple times, and determined
that standard 1 had been satisfied.
2. Granting of the variance is not a right or special privilege. a. Finding: Satisfied. Every
variance review is based on specific facts and details of the application and does not
establish precedence anywhere else in the City.
The Board agreed with City Staff and determined that standard 2 had been satisfied.
3. Granting of the variance is due to an undue hardship as related to the characteristics of
the land, and the applicant has shown that absent a variance, they would be deprived of
rights commonly enjoyed by other properties in the identical zoning district under the
terms of the title. a. Finding: Not Satisfied. There are some peculiarities of the parcel
development, but not a clear undue hardship. Applicant stated he would be deprived of
building a shop as is allowed throughout the R-1 district. b. Shop buildings are allowed in
the rear yards of homes in the R-1 district, as well rear yards on corner lots. Large shops
are found behind home lots that have a deep rear yard and a wide side setback to ensure
vehicular access, approximately 12' wide. c. There are some sheds in the side yards of
corner lots of homes in the neighborhood and other parts of the city, but they are each
under 200 square feet and do not require building permits.
The Board agreed with City Staff and determined that standard 3 had not been
satisfied.
4. Granting of the variance is the result of an undue hardship caused by the characteristics
of the site and the creation of the hardship did not result from actions of the applicant, or
the current, or a prior landowner, or any of their agents. In no event shall any variance be
granted merely because compliance would diminish the financial return from use of the
land in question or because it would reduce the market value of lands or because
compliance with code would be financially costly. a. Finding: Not Satisfied. The
peculiarities of the parcel are the results of the developer and builder, not necessarily the
physical characteristics of the site.
The Board agreed with City Staff and determined that standard 4 had not been
satisfied.
5. Granting of the variance does not demonstrably adversely affect adjacent/nearby
property. a. Finding: Satisfied. No adverse effects are evident if the request is granted.
The applicant provided a petition with signatures of 12 neighbors in support of the
proposed Variance. The location also complies with the requirement to be at least 20'
away from any other residential building.
The Board agreed with City Staff and determined that standard 5 had been satisfied.
6. Granting of the variance is not detrimental to the public health, safety, and welfare.
a. Finding: Satisfied. There are no identifiable public health, safety, or welfare concerns
if the Variance was granted. The building would also be well clear of the sight triangles
at the intersection.
The Board agreed with City Staff and determined that standard 6 had been satisfied.
Thayer motioned to deny an application for a variance to reduce the required side yard on a corner
lot from twenty feet (20') to five feet (5') in the Single -Family Residential (R-1) zone as presented,
including the findings, facts and conclusions of law by changing that standard 1 had been
satisfied. Based on the fact that the applicant had taken all reasonable steps to comply by
meeting with City Staff multiple times. Smith seconded.
With all commission members understanding the motion they voted.
Roll Call Vote: Darell Stewart, Yes; Adam Thayer, Yes; Brett Hiltbrand, Yes; Jason
Mendenhall, Yes; Bryson Smith, Yes; Carrie Holm, Yes; Motion carried.
Thayer excused himself from the meeting at 7:13.
GENERAL BUSINESS
1. Discussion on the Comprehensive Plan Update.
Planning Manager Don Matson gave an update on the Comprehensive Plan update.
ADJOURN: Mendenhall adjourned at 7:23.
Jason Mendenhall, Chairperson
Joey Bowers, City Clerk