HomeMy Public PortalAbout1992.05.14 Esquibel-special use-944 Strawberry-deniedCity of McCall
OFFICE OF THE CLERK
BOX 1065
MCCALL, IDAHO 83638
May 29, 1992
Emilio A. Esquibel
13515 TruenLane
Caldwell, Idaho 83605
Dear Mr. Esquibel,
On May 28, at their regular meeting, the McCall City
Council considered the recommendation by the Impact Area
Planning and Zoning Commission on your request for a
special use permit to place a mobile home on your property
at 944 Strawberry Lane. By a motion properly made
and seconded, the Council adopted the Findings of Fact and
Conclusions of Law presented by the Commission, dated May
14, 1992, a copy of which are attached. Your request was
denied based upon those Findings and Conclusions.
If you have further questions, please contact me. We
regret that there was so much confusion in this matter and
that it will cause you inconvience.
Sincerely,
Arthur . Schmidt,
City Administrator
McCALL PLANNING & ZONING
EXHIBIT
RECEIVED ='1 `."-ct (61_ .
CITY OF McCALL
AREA OF CITY IMPACT PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION
FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS IN SUPPORT
OF RECOMMENDATION FOR DENIAL OF A SPECIAL USE
1. A petition for approval of a special use was
presented for public hearing on May 11, 1992 by Emilio
Esquibel, as owner of
a lot described by metes and bounds in
Carico Subdivision, sometimes known as
944 Strawberry Lane
for placement of a mobile home on a lot in Zone A within the
City of McCall Area of City Impact.
2. An existing mobile home on the property has recently
been removed; the intent of the owner was to replace it with
a larger, new double -wide mobile home.
3. There is a hardship claimed by the applicant in
that various conversations with County employees and City
employees (specifically not including the City Zoning Clerk,
who was allegedly out of the office at the time) did not
reveal that there would be any problem moving in a new
mobile home; he claims to have paid cash for the new mobile
home which had custom modifications made in it for the
northern clime.
4. Three members of the Commission visited the site.
The Commission concluded that conventional housing was the
prevalent mode of construction, especially newer
construction, in the neighborhood. Objections to the
special use were mailed in by five of the neighboring
owners, citing a diminution in land values if mobile homes
were placed in the subdivision area, and indicating that
conventional construction is the desired development mode.
5. The Commission found that the hardship, while it
exists, is softened by the fact that the mobile home is new
and will have resale value.
6. The Commission concluded that it should adopt by
example the standards of Title III for analysis of special
use applications.
7 The Commission determined that mobile homes are not
a special use in the A zone. The zone speaks of mobile home
subdivisions as a special use, thus differentiating between
single family dwelling units and mobile homes, while not
providing that mobile homes on single lots in conventional
subdivisions are permitted either as a permitted use or as a
special use.
8. The Commission determined that proposed use would
not be in harmony with the goals of the comprehensive plan.
9. The Commission determined that the proposed use
would not be harmonious with the intended character of the
neighborhood.
10. The Commission determined that the proposed use
would be detrimental to the general welfare of persons in
the neighborhood.
11. The Planning and Zoning Commission recommended by
motion unanimously adopted that the special use should be
denied.
Dated: May 14, 1992
Jude Eddins
Chairman