HomeMy WebLinkAboutP&Z MINUTES SEPTEMBER 25, 1991~3
Those Present: Chairman:
Members:
Councilmember:
City Clerk:
Attorney:
Building Inspector:
Planning & Zoning
9/25/91
John Millar
Dave Pincock
Mary Ann Mounts
Jim Long.
Chuck Frost
Scott Mortensen
Dan Hess'
Glen Pond
Rose Bagley
J. D. Hancock
Terry Leishman
Also Present: Nile Boyle, Mayor
Farrell Young, Councilmember
Brad Liljenquist, Councilmember
Bruce Sutherland, Councilmember
Nyle Fullmer, Councilmember
A motion was made by Dave Pincock and seconded by Mary Ann Mounts to
approve the minutes. A11 Aye
John Millar introduced Terry Leishman the new building inspector.
Chris Mix was excused.
RE: DISCUSSION OF ADDITION TO CHARLES SMITH'S HOME - 544 W MAIN
Charles Smith, 544 West Main, was at the meeting to show plans and
request building an addition to his house for his hot tub. When he
built the house, he built it too big for the property and there is no
place to expand. t was built in 1962 before the first zoning ordinance
was passed so it would be grandfathered. He wants to build right back
to the back of his lot and had some signatures from the neighbors
saying they did not object. His covered patio which was built 25 years
ago is already on the property line. He wanted to take it down and add
this room. He also wanted to put in storage and shop on the line. His
sister-in-laws lot boarders his lot, but would not sell him five feet.
His only alternative is to build on the line.
John Millar said the situation we are looking at is a variance because
of a hardship on the property that is imposed by the shape of the
property not a convince.
He wanted to enclose it with a gazebo building around it. There is a
roof on the existing patio and he wants to replace it with a better
roof.
John said we have an existing building line which is on a zero lot
line. It would not change the situation and would need to be a
variance and need to go through the process and not just grandfathered
a~
,~ in. He was told he could put the tub under the existing patio and put
a new roof on that. The patio and existing building pre dates the
zoning ordinance. He said he would do that and if he decided he would
come back later for a variance. John told him he could get a building
permit to put the new roof on, but the addition on the west end for the
storage and shop against the property line would require a variance. He
said he would not request a variance tonight. .The group discussed
other ways he could build.
RE: APPROVAL GIVEN FOR FENCE AT 452 E 1st N (DEREK TINGEY)
Derek Tingey - 452 East 1st North- He lives on the corner of 1st
North and Madison Ave. On June 12 they applied for a building permit to
build a fence. There was a question on where the property line was and
where he could build the fence. Glen Bean was supposed to come up and
tell them the particulars on the fence, but didn't come. Tingeys
since had to release the contract on the the fence because they were
under a time frame. A few weeks after he contacted Rose and told her
Glen still had not been up and issued the permit, and she said she
would check into it and have him come up. Several more weeks went by
and we are into August and told Rose, Tingeys still had not gotten the
permit and needed to get going on the fence. She again told Glen to go
over there. Tingeys had two reasons for the fence (1) was the safety of
the children playing in the back yard and {2) they want some privacy.
A couple of weeks ago he felt he had to get the fence built;it had been
since June. He did not think there should be a problem and was going
f,, to do it himself. He got the fence poll up and on Friday had a message
from Glen Bean saying the fence was in violation to city code and did
not have a building permit for the fence. He called on Monday to get
in touch with filer, and Glen explained the law as it pertains to fences
on corner lots. He said Mr Tingey could not have a six foot fence
where he had put the polls on a corner lot. He said he had the cement
posts cemented in the ground. Glen Pond gave some history of Madison
Avenue.
John Millar said Glen had talked to him about the property line and in
order to find the property line Mr Tingey would have to have a survey.
Mr Tingey said he was told that after the fact. John said he did not
think the location of the fence was the issue, but the the height of
the fence is the issue. Terry Leishman said the 6 foot would not make
any difference, according to what is already there.
Jim Long said he felt the city had caused him a problem and he felt the
city has an obligation to him. The board discussed if it was in
compliance or not. Chuck Frost and John Millar said it was in
compliance, after reading the ordinance page 12 section 45 section 2
paragraph A, the board agreed that it was in compliance. Normally
there would be an easement for a sidewalk but there isn't one on
Madison Avenue so the board felt there isn't a problem.
DISCUSSION OF CARPORT FOR MELVIN RUDD AT 278 WEST MAIN
Melvin Rudd - carport - 278 West Main
Mr Rudd had decided to build a carport. He came in the City Hall to
get a permit with a drawing to scale. He was told by the building
inspector after he looked at the plans he could go to the property line
if it didn't drip on the neighbors property. About one month later he
started to build on it and got it up to the point that it is now and
was told he was to stop. When he started, Mr Bean came over with his
tape measure and checked it out and told him he should be okay as long
as it doesn't drip on your neighbors property.
Mayor Boyle said he got a call from Mr Cooper, owner of the adjoining
property, so he went down and looked at it and it looked wrong and he
told him to stop building.
Mr Cooper, owner of the property on the north of Melvin, stated that
the roof went right to his property line. He understood that if it
drips on his property it is wrong. He thought it should be set back
from the property line. Mr Cooper said the city engineer looked at it
and said it was wrong and some of the council members said it was
wrong. Mr Rudd told him if it dripped on his property he would put in
a gutter, but that would not work in this country. He felt he was
being imposed upon. The mayor said permits had been given around town
for carports if they are open on three sides. The inspectors have used
the definition of an accessory building. Some court cases on an
accessory building is would not work for a carport.
John Millar read the definition from-the zoning ordinance. The mayor
't ~ said it is probably a mistake on the part of the building inspector.
John said we are in a variance situation or it will need to be moved
back five feet. Whether the city has a responsibility in that it is
for the City Council and city attorney to determine. The Planning &
Zoning position is whether or not we feel it is a variance position and
whether or not we want to recommend a variance to the city council or
recommend they remove the building back to the set back requirements.
Jim Long said we can't give him a variance and have the drip line on
his neighbors property. Terry Leishman said he had looked at it and
over the winter it will build up a lot of ice on top of the concret
wall. John asked if it would meet the requirements of a variance.
Chuck Frost said he did not think it met the requirements. Scott
Mortensen said he thought the city should have some liability to move
it back. Chuck said if it isn't finished it would not be expensive to
move.
The mayor said he thought the building inspector made an honest mistake
-and it has been done before. He was there three times and still gave
him approval to build. Jim Long said if we make a decision to make him
comply with the law, we are putting an imposition on him because of
what the building inspector has done. Mr Rudd said if that is the case
he would take it down but he had lost his time and materials which were
an expense. He would expect to recuperate his losses.
A motion was made by Mary Ann Mounts to recommend to the city council
that he should have the choice to either take it down or move it back
with financial help from the city because of the mistake that had been
made by the inspector. Seconded by Jim Long All Aye
~~
,~ RE: DISCUSSION OF R.V. PARKING
Daren Birch was at the meeting to ask about R V Parking on commercial
property, which is allowed.
Calvin Whatcott, Tony Alldredge, and Leo Heer were at the meeting to
discuss R V Parking.
Mr Whatcott - He expressed his concerns. On page 32 4.8 part A, it
seems to be quite restrictive as to where and how long you can park an
R.V. There are enough people who want to park their R. V's for part
of the year and don't have a rear yard to park them in and need to
park them in the front yard. Some have a circular driveway. He felt
it was unreasonable. He suggested that it be worded "that parking of
an R V be allowed in the season there of as long as it does not
". It needs to be written so it protects and enhances the front
yard. Most R. V's are good looking units and it would still retain
the open character. Some people do not have the money to store their
R. V's. He did not see how the health and safety has anything to do
with an R. V. parked in the front yard. He would like it written
without the restrictions and restrains.
Mayor Boyle said he had more people call him that would like the
restrictions there and not allow them to be parked for an extended
period. Farrell Young stated that it would only be valid if the
neighbors complained.
They were asked if vans were R V's.
Jim Long said his neighbors had relatives come to visit and they parked
in their back yard, but they would have parked in the front yard if
they couldn't have parked in the back and they stayed all summer. Some
place there has to be a regulation. He had bought a camper and a boat
and when he bought them he bought insurance as a part of the R.V. and
felt that storage was a part of it as well. If he had enough money to
buy them he had an obligation to get a place to park them.
Mr Alldredge - Everyone can't afford storage when they have a pad by
their house. He was told if we kept the old ordinance it is more
restrictive. He also said if we leave the restriction of 30~ of
concrete in the ordinance, everyone on K Street is in violation. He
was told they would be grandfathered and they would determine them on
an individual bases. There is also probably not enough rental places in
this area. He was told that if the R. V. is not further out than the
house in a side yard it would be allowed.
They discussed the circular drives on Main Street. Backing out on Main
Street is hazardous. Jim Long stated that the ordinance answers that
with a review plan. With a plan review there are ways to work it out.
Chuck Frost stated that is the purpose of the board. Jim said look at
the old ordinance, it was tougher.
Leo Heer discussed the problems with the R. V. Ordinance in Idaho
Falls. Jim Long stated that an R. V. Ordinance has worked in other
a7
cities. Mayor Boyle told them that zoning is for the good of the
majority of people in the city. Jim also said what is desirable for
the greatest number of people is what is for the betterment of the city.
John Millar told them when we say parking in the front yard it means
parking in the set back. Chuck Frost told them one problem we have is
when they park two or three R. V's in one yard. Mr Heer said it
should be by a complaint from the neighbors. Jim said he thought he
had a right to complain if he drove by that house every day and saw
they were in violation.
Nyle Fullmer asked them if we keep the old ordinance in effect, would
they be willing to do what the old ordinance says. If we try to
enforce the old ordinance, will you let us enforce it. Mr Heer asked
if they would modify the old ordinance in a form that would make it
livable.
A discussion on the length of R. V's. Brian Birch said what he saw is
the property owners are trying to protect their rights. John Millar
said zoning is a hard issue.
Mayor Boyle said we need to make a decision on parking. Brad
Liljenquist had to leave, but thought 15 to 30 days parking would be a
good time table. He asked if the 30~ paving could be a problem. Jim
Long said we would look at it on an individual bases when they apply
for a permit. If need be, it could be an conditional use permit.
A discussion on screening of garbage dumpsters and cans. It was felt
that issue needed to be addressed under the garbage ordinance. They
need to be behind the building set back or in line with the house.
RE: MOTION PASSED TO CHANGE THE R.V. PARKING TO 16 DAYS
A motion was made by Chuck Frost to change the requirement for R. V.
parking to 16 days. Seconded by Jim Long. Those voting aye: Dave
Pincock, Dan Hess, Jim Long, Chuck Frost. Those voting nay: Mary Ann
Mounts. Motion carried.
A motion was made by Chuck Frost to change the definition of
Recreational vehicles deleting the first and last sentence making it
read:" Recreational vehicles may include but are not limited to motor
homes, converted busses, camping and travel trailers, light-duty
trailers and transporters, horse and cattle trailers, rafts, boats and
their trailers". Seconded by Jim Long. All Aye.
Other changes recommended by the city council were page 34 Home
Occupations #11 Home occupations shall not involve the use of electric
motors of more than three (3) h.p. #9 take out the word electricity.
A motion was made by Dave Pincock and seconded by Mary Ann Mounts to
adjourn. All Aye.
'~