Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutP&Z MINUTES OCTOBER 20, 1993g~ a & ~ Planning & Zoning 10/20/93 7:00 P.M. Public Hearing Those Present: Chairman: John Millar Members: Mary Ann Mounts Jim Long Jerry Jeppesen Jeff Walters Davawn Beattie Richard Smith John Watson Excused: Marsha Bjornn RE: PUBLIC HEARING TO MODIFY THE EXISTING ZONING --- BUFFER ZONES & R.V. PARKING The purpose for the Public Hearing is to modify the existing Zoning Ordinance. John stated to be in harmony with the ordinance, we need a motion to go to Public Hearing. A motion was made by Jerry Jeppesen to go to Public Hearing to amend Ordinance 725. Seconded by Jim Long. A11 Aye. • Public Hearing regarding proposed amendments and changes of City of Rexburg Zoning Ordinance No. 725. That Sections 4.7 A.1. and A.2. of that ordinance be amended to provide for fencing and /or screening requirements in certain zones; and that Section 4.8 A. of that ordinance be amended to clarify the fact that the period of time for parking of recreational vehicles in residential zones is 16 days in a calendar year. At such hearing the City Planning & Zoning Commission will hear all persons and all objections and recommendations relative to such proposed amendment and changes. John Millar asked for public input from those attending. Because the issues are so different first we will address amending section 4.7 A.1 and A.2 providing for fencing and/or screening requirements in certain zones. Jim stated that it was his interpretation that the Board will have the option to determine what the person can do in the way of screening. Since the last meeting we circulated a plan for a business in H.B.D. and as he looked at it he could not determine under the requirements if it needed screening. John said that was correct, it did not need screening because it was in the business district. In the ordinance it said it would be in a landscaped setting and all he could see on the plan was two trees on the whole site. If we would have had that sent to us and it were in a transition zone, we could not have independently . make a decision. We will have to sit down together and decide. ~pD t'• No further comments on that section. Section 4.8 A. regarding the parking of Recreational Vehicles in residential zones. Glen Rowberry - 555 Park Street- His concern was the 16 day parking. Was that parking on our property totally or would their be objection to parking behind the house or to the side of the house. He asked if it pertained to if you park the vehicles on the property behind or to the side of the house? John told him it only pertained to parking in front of the house. If it is parked on the side or in back there is no problem. Glen asked what the set back on Park Street is? John told him it was either 15 or 20 feet from the property line. Bart Linderman - 241 South 4th East- What is the drive, what is creating the momentum that we need to do something regarding the Zoning Ordinance regarding Recreational Vehicles? What is it in the city that is providing the problem with the Zoning Ordinance regarding Recreation Vehicles. John told him what happened on this is, we had several comments prior to the preparation of this last ordinance a couple of years ago. What has brought about this change is in the ordinance it says 16 days per year and we need to clarify that as 16 calendar days per year. Bart - Quoted from Rexburg paper September 1991 and October 8, 1991. ~ • He suggested that the new clarification is no more clear or no more in the right direction than the other clarification which could be 16 consecutive days. What would be wrong with 16 consecutive days as clarification as opposed to 16 days per year. Understand, I don't prefer to park my trailer in front of my house any more than I need to. I battle that inconvenience with the inconvenience of having to run out and get it and bring it back between trips. It is a summer activity. He is proposing 90 consecutive days or 90 for the full year. I don't know who decided the rule but he wants his input on it. So if it is a summer activity, it is something you do and 16 days was not a good enough clarification, then what about 90 calendar days per year, what ever our summer months are. Has that been considered? I am trying to figure out the intent of the council. You people are suppose to represent the taxpayers, all of us. You talked about it has to be behind the setback. So the people on West main should still have a screen. John told him that was not called for in the original ordinance. Would it be so bad just to leave each area's restrictive covenants to deal with it. John told him the problem we have with restrictive covenants is there are almost none of them that have a body to enforce the covenants. Bart said who will enforce them, the neighbors? We want neighbors to communicate with neighbors. Richard told him most of the areas in the city do not have restrictive covenant only the newer sub divisions have them, the rest of the city does not. Bart said they moved in that area by choice. I moved into an area with restrictive covenants by my choice. The reason he asked • that, is he lives across from an elementary school and you are telling i me you can't park my trailer between trips, and he has to look at their ~Q~ dumpster year round. It comes to a matter of convenience or what is • logical. I am concerned also about enforcement on it. He has been asked by a neighbor to read a letter. Alan D Palmer - 439 East 350 South Street. (letter attached) Sue Whitbeck- 260 Apache- I feel this ordinance is not reasonable. In order for me to go on a trip it takes me a few days to pack and a few days to unpack. As a result one trip could take four days. Adding that up, I can only go about four times a year. I feel that is unreasonable and feel it should be brought to your attention. John asked what she would consider reasonable? I agree with what Mr Lindermen said, I feel like the summer months. I don't want my R.V. parked in my driveway. It takes up my space for my garage and pulling my cars in. I don't argue with you about having some reasonable ordinance. On my property there is a problem, there is no room on each side of my home to get it to the side. As a result, we have had to cut down a tree, one reason among others. We also have the neighbor's bushes, that we need to talk about that have been there for 20 years. I feel that this is an unreasonable amount of time, but I feel something more reasonable could be worked out. The summer months that 90 days would be adequate. John read a letter from Vance Whitback- (attached) Mary Ann stated that when we did the 16 days, we had in mind this • clarification. That is the reason we are doing this. We always did plan the total of 16 per year. It was not an arbitrary number that we picked. We thought that 16 was enough for loading and unloading. She felt that Mrs Whitback made the best argument she had heard. She wondered if we could say not more than four consecutive days and increase the 16 days, but 90 days is too long. Mrs Whitback felt that would tell her how many trips she could make. Mary Ann told her the neighbors and other people who have property rights in your neighborhood are not going to want your R.V. parked in the front where they have to look at it. When we did the ordinance, there was as many people or more that feel the opposite of you, so we need to come up with something reasonable. Jim Long stated what if we go two weekends and you bring it on Thursday to pack it for weekend "one" and then you say you are going to take it next weekend, so you leave it sitting there all week and you have two days after weekend "two" so it has sat there for fourteen days. Your neighbor across the street is looking at for that fourteen days. Mrs Whitback asked if that shouldn't be up to the neighbors. Mary Ann told her no, because they won't say anything. Jim said your are saying let the neighbors decide and Alan Palmer says that is a busy body. Mary Ann agreed, on one hand you are saying let the neighbor decide, but on the other hand if the neighbor does complain he is a busy body. John Watson asked if it was for a safety issue or because neighbors did not like R.V. parked in the neighborhood? It is a safety issue if it • blocks the view for traffic. In his mind the ordinance allows for a side yard. The purpose of having a side yard, is a separation of the ~p~ ~• adjacent property owners, but it is also an access for fireman, etc. He felt that the ordinance is quite liberal. Jim stated that part of the original concern was to try to prevent someone moving into someone's front yard for the summer months. We need to set it up so if your relative comes and you camp her in your front yard for three weeks and your neighbors are nice and don't want her parked for three weeks, but don't want to tell you to move it. John Millar closed the hearing. A motion was made by Mary Ann Mounts to recommend to the city council to adopt the new ordinance with regard to the proposed changing of the fencing requirements in transition zones. seconded by Davawn Beattie. All Aye John called for a motion on the number of days a trailer can be parked. Jim stated we need to be careful on what we recommend, or we will open it up for a whole issue that we had originally when we passed the ordinance. (discussion) A motion was made by Jerry Jeppesen to go seven days with 30 days, seconded by Jim Long. Those voting Aye: Jerry Jeppesen, Jim Long, Jeff ~ • Walters. Those voting Nay: Davawn Beattie, Richard Smith, Mary Ann F Mounts, John Watson. Motion fails. A motion was made by Richard Smith that the R.V.'s be allowed to be parked a maximum of 30 days per calendar year with four consecutive days. Seconded by Mary Ann Mounts. All Aye. The mayor told them we sent out a survey asking if people wanted R.V.'s parked in front of homes, and 2/3 want the ordinance enforced. A motion was made by Mary Ann Mounts and seconded by Jim Long to adjourn. All Aye f.• LL ~D~ Letter to Rexburg City Council and Planning and Zoning Committee Ta be read by my good friend Bart Linderman. • Re: Clarification of zoning ordinance about travel trailer parking on private residential property. 2Q October 1993 .Dear S1rs: Once again the issue of parking travel trailers in private driveways has become an issue in our fair city. Once again I would like to express my thoughts and feelings on this issue. I believe that the travel trailer issue has na place in a city, county, or state zoning ordinance. It belongs in restrictive covenants in individual parcel developments. Clarification of the existing zoning ordinance is a useless wasted effort. Consider the following: A.) The existing ordinance is clarified to mean that trailers are allowed to be parked in private driveways no more than 16 days per year. ~i11 the ordinance mean that A specific trailer can be parked in . ~^ any driveway only 16 days? Wi11 the ordinance say that a drive way can only have a trailer parked in it 16 days? Wr11 the ordinance say that a specific trailer can be parked in a specific driveway only 16 days? ~~Vhat organization do we have in our city to track the number of days every trailer in town is parked in a driveway? NONE! Sa now we have to rely on informers to complain to the city that someone is not in compliance. The ill wi11 generated by a few do-gooders wi11 largely offset any benefit the city or neighborhood would receive by not having trailers in driveways. B.) The existing ordinance is clarified to mean that trailers are allowed to be parked in private driveways no longer than 16 days per month. Again are we talking specific trailers in .specific driveways or are we talking any trailer in any driveway? Again who or what organization is going to inspect anal keep track of trailers and drivev~Tays? NONE!, except the neighborhood busy-body, spreading ill will throughout the community. Naw supposing a city police officer comes to my home to give me a citation for parking my trailer in my driveway contrary to the zoning ordinance. I would then take the following steps. 1) I would ask for proof of non-compliance. I would want to see a daily log indicating vE.Thich days a specific trailer was parked in my driveway. • i 2) ~ would want tl~city to provide a certificate of non-discrimination. This `~ `~ statement would indicate that the ordinance was being enforced throughout ~< the entire city in an equitable manner. Again I vE~ould «ant to see the daily logs of all driveways in the city and the days trailers were ar were not parked in each of them. {~ 3) If either of the above two items was not complete, I would consider hiring a lawyer to defend my rights and sue the city. If I really were committed to parking my vehicle in my driveway, I am sure that I can figure out how to work all the loopholes in the zoning ordinance. For example: What is to keep me from parking on the street during the da.ST and in the driveway during the night? Does that count 1 day each place or only 1/2 day each place? I park my trailer in my driveway 16 days a month and in somebody else's the other 15 days. The other person does the same. Zet's get reasonable about this tivhole issue. Conditions of parking of travel trailers in private driveways does not belong in the zoning ordinance and should be removed from it as quickly as possible. Yours Truly, Alan D Palmer ;~ i ~~ • • ~~ ~. v • October 20, 1993 City Of Rexburg Attn: Rose Bagley Dear Rose, Could you please have the attached letter read in the Planning and Zoning, and City Council meetings scheduled for October 20th concerning the RV parking ordinance, as I regretfully will not be available to deliver it in person. • Sincerely, VANCE WITBECK 260 APACHE AVE REXBURG, ID 83440 • ~~ ~• October 20, 1993 Dear Planning & Zoning/City Council, I am concerned about your recent proposal to increase restrictions on RV parking. Although stated in your public notice as a mere clarification i.t is actually a major change increasing restrictions on the citizens of Rexburg. I have in compliance with the existing ordinance arranged for long term parking for my travel trailer, however when I am between trips it would extremely inconvenient for me to have to move it out of town and then retrieve it in just a few days. The current law clearly allows me the privilege of being able to park it in my driveway for these short periods of time. I can understand the desire to have long term parking of RV's discouraged in front yards, the current law does this however and `~~ imposing further restrictions serves no useful purpose. In an effort to solve the long term parking problem in my yard I have removed a beautiful 35 foot birch tree and am working on the removal of shrubs necessary to forge a road through my front yard to allow parking to the side. What a sacrifice to make for the "beauty" of the neighborhood. I hope.you will reconsider your proposal and realize additional government control upon the homeowners of Rexburg is not always in our best interests. Sincerely, VANCE WITBECK . • . ~.. ~~ Dear Planning and Zoning Committee; • I am unable to attend this meeting but would like to voice an opinion regarding the changes to the RV Parking ordinance. Please read this letter in your meeting. I feel that there are other rules governing derelict vehicles and other safety concerns without making the current RV Parking ordinance more restrictive. 'Sixteen days in a year' would not be practical for a family to enjoy camping or boating for a summer season. The verbiage 'sixteen days in a period' takes care of any problems in the winter. The current verbiage should be left as it is written. Sincer ly, ~~ ~~~ ~ ~ Anthon ~ Perkins ~~,, 86 Birch Ave. ~t~ Rexburg, Idaho r ,~ ~~ ;~ ~o •