HomeMy WebLinkAbout1991.09.18 CITY COUNCIL MINUTES-,>` j,
II~
~J
State of Idaho)
County of Madison (ss
City of Rexburg)
Those Present: Mayor:
Councilmember:
Also Present:
Planning & Zoning:
Excused:
City Council
09/18/91
7:30p.m.
Nile Boyle
Nyle Fullmer
Bruce Sutherland
Darlene Peterson
Farrell Young
Glen Pond
Brad Liljenquist
J. D. Hancock, Attorney
Terry Leishman, Building Inspector
John Millar
Chuck Frost
Jim Long
Mary Ann Mounts
Scott Mortensen
Dave Pincock
Rose Bagley, City Clerk
Janet Williamson was present to take minutes in the absence of Rose
Bagley, City Clerk.
Pledge to the flag.
A motion was made by Nyle Fullmer and seconded by Bruce Sutherland to
approve the minutes with one correction. All aye.
RE: 2ND READING & DISCUSSION OF THE NEW ZONING ORDINANCE
The first item on the agenda was the second reading of the new zoning
ordinance.
Ordinance 725
AN ORDINANCE REPEALING ORDINANCE NO. 478 AND 685, ORDINANCES OF THE
CITY OF REXBURG, IDAHO; ENACTING A ZONING ORDINANCE FOR THE CITY OF
REXBURG, DIVIDING THE CITY INTO DISTRICTS IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE
REVISED COMPREHENSIVE PLAN; REGULATING AND RESTRICTING THE HEIGHT,
NUMBER. OF STORIES, SIZE OF BUILDINGS AND OTHER OBJECTS, THE PERCENTAGE
OF LOT THAT MAY BE OCCUPIED BY STRUCTURES, THE SIZE OF YARDS AND OTHER
OPEN SPACES, THE DENSITY OF POPULATION, LOCATION AND USE OF BUILDINGS,
STRUCTURES AND LAND FOR TRADE, COMMERCE INDUSTRY, RESIDENCE AND OTHER
PURPOSES; PROVIDING FOR VIOLATION OF THE PROVISIONS OF THE ORDINANCE;
PROVIDING FOR ENFORCEMENT OF THE ORDINANCE; PROVIDING FOR EFFECTIVE
DATE OF ORDINANCE.
The mayor opened the meeting to any questions pertaining to the
ordinance.
David Taylor - In reference to the land between College Avenue and
Center Street and Carlson to 1st South it is all colored high density
residential which is what they want it to be but Rose Bagley indicated
that maybe not all the property they owned was covered that way. After
some discussion, Mayor Boyle and Glen Pond told Mr. Taylor that that
entire area that he owned was high density residential.
RE: CHANGE IN ORDINANCE FROM 1 HORSE POWER TO 3 HORSE POWER
The Mayor said he had had a call today from a Mr. Latham who was
concerned about the R.V. parking part of the ordinance. He also was
I /
l~
concerned about the part of the ordinance on home occupations. Turning
to page ~5- of the ordinance #11 reads:
"No motor power other than electrically operated motors shall be
used in connection with a home occupation. Home occupations shall
not involve the use of electric motors of more than one (1) h.p."
Mr. Latham said even his router used 1.5 horsepower and he wanted to
see that raised to 3 h.p. Mary Ann Mounts said the consultants
thinking was that they might have more then one. If you have 5 with a
horsepower of three going like in a cabinet business the noise level
might be too high. The Mayor said you would not be able to have a
cabinet business in the first place and Jim Long pointed out that the
noise level was taken care of in #12 page 34. (No equipment or process
shall be used in a home occupation which creates noise, glare,
vibration, or fumes, or odor detectable to the normal senses of the
property.) Darlene Peterson moved that the ordinance be changed to 3
h.p. The motion was seconded by Farrell Young. All aye.
Another thing Mr. Latham was concerned about was that in the old
ordinance we had requirements that garbage cans be screened from the
view of the street and since we are going to this new, big garbage can,
do we want to leave that out of the ordinance? The general feeling was
that everyone would put it the best place they had.
Mr. Latham thought that it looked like on the map that it was a thru
street by Dr. Crouchs new office rather then a cul-de-sac like it was
supposed to be. He wanted to make sure that the map was changed to
show that that was a cul-de-sac and not a thru street.
He was also concerned about the R.V. parking. The Mayor said the old
ordinance that has been here since 1968 is even more restrictive then
the new one. The new ordinance says:
(pg. 32 A.) Parking of Recreational Vehicles. No person shall
park or allow the parking of any recreational vehicle in the clear
sight triangles required by Section 4-6 of this Ordinance. In a
residential zone, no person shall park or allow the parking of any
recreational vehicle in any front yard or a side yard facing a
public street for a period greater than seven (7) days.
Even though the old ordinance was never enforced, if I am the one that
is going to enforce this and get all the calls, I want the council to
make sure they know what they want in this one before we pass it.
Leo-Hear had a number of questions. Who is proposing the R.V.
restrictions on the parking? The Mayor said it was in the 1968
ordinance and was rewritten a little bit and put in the new one. Mr.
Hair asked if everyone that has an R.V. parked by their house was in
violation and the answer was yes, if it was longer then 7 days. You
could park it on the side of the house if the side did not face the
street. Mr. Hair felt that we propose an ordinance that any time
something is being passed that effects a homeowner that something be
sent to them in the mail. The Mayor said that all that the law
requires is that it be put in the paper. We would be mailing to
everybody in town every time we did something. Mr. Hair said that
there is nothing in his protective covenants that says he cannot own an
R.V. or park it in his driveway. To pass an ordinance over the top of
the protective covenants which effects the personal property in side
the property lines, especially if you do it ex post facto, that
seems like your starting to bridge upon constitutionalty. In answer
to that, the Mayor said that there have been so many laws on zoning
that there is no question on the legality of it.
Mr. Hair asked what the objection was to parking an R.V. on your
property? It is the desirability of an R-1 zone to not have things
parked there. Mr. Hair said there were things that were objectionable
to him: a large brown dog, a noisy dumpster being emptied at 4:30 in
the morning, etc., but he was not asking for an ordinance against these
things.
Calvin Whatcott felt the present ordinance was not looking at
reality for R.V. owners. In the Summer it was more convenient to park
his R.V. in front. In the Winter, when he did not use it as much, he
could manage to park it in back. Maybe the answer would be to omit the
7 day period during the Summer months - April to November.
1;,~~ ~-
Leo ~~~~ asked what the definition of an R.V. was and the Mayor read
from page 10 of the ordinance:
Recreational vehicle. A portable vehicle or structure used
primarily for hobbies, vacations, extended travel, camping, sports and
aquatic use. Recreational vehicles may be self-propelled, towed, or
transported by trailer. 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, and off-street vehicles such as snowmobiles,
dune buggies, all-terrain vehicles, and any type of three or four
wheeled sport racing/drag vehicle.
Allen Miller said he objects to the way it is written up; in such a way
that it limits and restricts peoples use of their property.
Mr. Winn said he has a Van that is strictly passenger. He also has a
van that has a bed, a stove, and a wash basin in it. They are
identical in appearance. Would he be restricted from parking a van in
front of his place?
It was asked if utility trailers were included in this.
Mr. Winn was not quite sure about where he could park an R.V.. He
had poured a strip next to his house to park his R.V. on. There was a
hedge of trees hiding it from his neighbors yard. He would not be in
violation.
Alan Palmer quoted from the 1968 ordinance saying it states that
unoccupied trailers not exceeding 20 feet in length could not be parked
out front. It was apparently trying to keep these exceptionally large
vehicles out of the residential area which was probably appropriate at
that time. Now it appears that the intent of the new zoning ordinance
is to not up grade but to make more restrictive because the more wealth
that we, the people of Rexburg, have been able to acquire the larger
the vehicle we have been able to purchase and the average length of a
vehicle would be between 25 and 30 feet. He asked what kind of
grandfather clause we have? The 1968 ordinance has never been
enforced. Is it enforceable today? Where is the grandfather clause?
(page 57)
Merle Fisher said he bought his house in 1959. Then he bought a 30
foot trailer in 1964 and built a diagonal off the driveway to
accommodate that trailer. Would he be grandfathered in. The answer
was yes, he would.
Pat Burton asked if when she puts her canoe on top of her van and
leaves it there all Summer, does that convert it to a recreational
vehicle?
Jim Long said that something we need to mention is that we have a
restrictive ordinance as far as fence-types in our front yards and that
is universally accepted all over the country - that you don't build a 6
foot fence out in front of your property. Well, these R.V.'s are like
a 9 foot fence in your front yard.
Farrell Young asked if there were any people there in favor of the
ordinance as it was written out. Mary Ann Mounts pointed out that
those people think that this is the way it is going to be and they
didn't need to come tonight.
Lee Workman - He has a tent trailer in front and he thinks he has 1/3
of his front yard in cement for his boy to play basketball and he would
resent a cop out there measuring his yard to see if he met the
ordinance requirements.
Dee Theusen asked what was wrong with cement in your front yard.
Alan Palmer read from the ordinance page 33 B.:
.....No more than thirty percent (30~) of the front yard shall be
covered with concrete, asphalt, or gravel unless incorporated into the
landscaping. He felt this was very open to interpretation.
.d d°
The Mayor said everyone now would be grandfathered in but if you were
building new you would have to abide by the 30~ unless incorporated
into the landscaping.
Merle Fisher said we need to allow people freedom of choice. It is
very much like this thing of prayer in schools. Some people want it
and some people don't.
John Millar stated that if you get into this ordinance the whole
ordinance restricts your use of property. All the laws we have
restrict us. He bought into a residential area so he could have grass,
landscaping, and look like a residential area and not like a parking
lot. There are two sides to this.
Tony Alridge - 61 K Street - he said he feels the new ordinance is
more restrictive than the old. Last Saturday he reread the article and
he fells it is taking liberties away from the middle class. He read 7
thoughts that he had on Saturday.
1. Middle class homeowners work a long time for a small piece of
ground that they can call their own.
2. Putting up basketball standards, planting flowers, planting
trees, installing lamp posts, and even parking R.V.s are freedoms that
all us property owners have cherished up until now. If any of the
above are blocking vision these infractions should be looked at on an
individual basis.
3. R.V.s in many cases are purchased by the middle class families
who can't afford the luxuries of a cabin or expensive travel using
motels, restaurants, etc.
4. Are we now to pay expensive fees to store our R.V.s just
because a few men, namely the rich, can't stand to see our unsightly
campers and trailers. If these few rich decision makers are so intent
on taking away this basic freedom we have had all these years, will
they also be happy to pay our storage fees?
5. It's wrong to restrict vision for motorist and pedestrians,
and it's wrong to park R.V.s on public roadways, private parking, and
drives without permission.
6. It's also wrong for a few men to take away the freedom of
using our own property as we see fit, especially if using our own
property doesn't infringe upon the equally important freedoms of others.
7. To lose this basic freedom is totally unjust especially if it
is not put up for a public vote.
He also asked for clearification: if you park on the side of your
house and it doesn't extend beyond the front are you okay. The Mayor
said yes if there was not a public street that went along the side of
your house.
The main point he was trying to make was why does it have to be such a
cut-and-dry situation. Why can't it be considered on an individual
basis.
Calvin Whatcott said the 1968 ordinance was written quite sometime
ago. Who wrote the new one? The Mayor answered that the City hired a
professional planner who was very capable and she was a consultant to
our planning and zoning board. Mr. Whatcott felt that some had been
asleep on this and now it was moving a little too fast. He felt we
were still at a point where a few alterations could be made to satisfy
the R.V. owners as well as those that object to them. He also felt the
7 day restriction during the Summer months was too prohibitive. Maybe
it could say that for April to November you could have it parked in
your driveway.
Howard Randall asked if there could be a provision to get your
neighbors approval. John Millar said the reality is it's there to
enforce if there's been complaints. Nyles said in the community that
we live in the neighbors aren't going to come over and complain. Even
if you asked them and they did object, 90~ would not say so.
Leo stated that he has a 21 foot motor home. He did some research
and found out that it is legal to park it anywhere in the United States
on a public street. He finds if very difficult to believe he can park
anywhere in the U.S. and not park in his own front yard. Idaho Falls
had this ordinance and dropped it. Mary Ann Mounts said that Salt Lake
City, Utah has it and enforces it.
l~
Jim Long said that what he heard them saying to the Council is I want
you to pass laws but don't pass them if they effect me. Planning and
zoning has sat for the last 6 months and had people come in who want to
turn the City into a parking lot for students and their objective is
not to think about what the City is going to look like but to get some
money in their pockets. Planning and zoning have worked very hard to
try to come up with something that is going to improve the City.
Dave Pincock, a member of planning and zoning, said that they wanted to
protect residential owners and make it a nice place to live.
Mayor Boyle said this was only the second reading of this ordinance and
we need to move on. The third reading would be October 2, at the City
Council meeting.
RE: FENCE BY PROFESSIONAL PLAZA
Down around Professional Plaza the people along 3rd East want the
Council to enforce the zoning ordinance where it states that they build
a fence. The petition, signed by 6 property owners, suggests that they
would like a cedarwood fence. We can tell them the specifications
but not what kind to build. Ron Bird was a spokesman for the property
owners. The Mayor said he would talk to the people about it.
RE: TRAILER HOUSE AT TETON CHALET - 439 S 3RD W
The next item discussed was the trailer house at Teton Chalet - 439 S.
3rd W.. They are supposed to come back to City Council every year to
get permission to leave the trailer there to be in compliance. David
Chugh, the owner, is now selling it to Craig Hunter. The trailer is
currently being used for the manager and will continue to be used for
the manager to live in. Bruce Sutherland moved that we give them a
permit to have the trailer there. There would be no charge for the
permit. Nyle Fullmer seconded it. All aye.
RE: RECOMMENDATION TO ADOPT A SEPARATE PARKING ORDINANCE
Glenn Pond made a recommendation from the planning and zoning board
that the council consider adopting a parking ordinance separate from
the zoning ordinance and should they address the issue and try and
develop a parking ordinance. The main reason would be that it would be
all in one place and easy to see for someone who needed student
housing. They wouldn't need to thumb through the whole ordinance. J.
D. Hancock was asked to come up with a summary sketch for planning and
zoning and report to them next Wednesday when they meet.
RE: REQUEST BY HAROLD LARSEN FOR BUSINESS AT 1ST S & CENTRAL
Harold Larsen was at the meeting to ask if he could submit and
application for a business on the corner of 1st South and Central. It
would be for a soup and salad or deli type of business in the
basement of the beauty shop there. Parking space was discussed. He
was told he would have to come in and apply for a building permit and
the building inspector would check to see if it met all the
requirements, especially parking spaces.
Question about the new zoning ordinance - Will surrounding residents
have any say in a building coming into their area? J.D. Hancock
explained that it is state law now. It is done by public hearing. All
those that are within 300 feet are to receive written notice of the
proposed zoning change but there is no longer an 80~ requirement. The
planning and zoning board can make the determination as to whether or
not there will be a change in the zoning. It is found on page 53 of
the new zoning ordinance.
RE: TRAILER AT TETON CHALET
Craig Hunter asked if there would be any problems with putting a newer
or bigger trailer in place of the trailer that is there. Mr.Hancock
said it would be a nonconforming use so as long as you continue to use
it for the same purpose your alright. But you can't enlarge the use or
expand the use or change the use. He was told it didn't have to be
~ ~„
brand new and he would be able to up grade the trailer, with approval
from the City Council, as long as he continued to use it for the
manager.
RE: LARRY CUNNINGS - PARKING AT BUENA VISTA - 3RD E & 4TH S
Larry Cummings - parking at 3rd East and 4th South. The Mayor showed
the council of the drawing that was given to Larry before he purchased
the property. The drawing was illegal and did not meet requirements.
You have a grandfathered apartment on a lot that is too small. When.
we went to enforce the parking we had the problem of the parking lot.
The plan given to Larry was worse then what Larry has come up with.
Larrys way seemed more logical and was a better approach to the
problem but was still not in compliance. He meets the requirement for
parking, but he is in the set back on the street. Glen Bean told him it
was illegal either way he did it. Nyle Fullmer moved we give him a
special use permit. The motion was seconded by Farrell Young. Aye:
Farrell Young, Brad Liljenquist, Darlene Petersen, Nyle Fullmer,
Bruce Sutherland. Nay: Glen Pond.
RE: NEED PERMIT FOR PAVING OR BLACK TOPPING
It was discussed and decided that if anyone is doing any paving or
black topping they need to get a permit and have a plan for it. It
needs to be in the parking ordinance. J.D. Hancock was asked to
included that in his report to the planning and zoning next week.
RE: 9-PLEX FOR LYNN ASHLIMAN AT 33 W 1ST S.
Lynn Ashliman - 33 West 1st South. Mrs. Ashliman was present.
They are wanting to build a 9 plex girls student housing at this
address. If they are issued a permit before-the new zoning ordinance
they can do things better, not tear up the landscaping as much, then
they could after the new ordinance goes in. Either way though they
need special permission because they cannot meet all of the parking
requirements without tearing up a lot of beautiful trees and
landscaping. Steve Wilson, the contractor, had some proposed plans to
show to the Council. Some of the problems they are working around are:
1. Large trees in the front of the yard
2. A big forest of trees and a gazebo in the back yard.
3. Not getting too close to the existing home because of small
children.
John Millar was concerned about maintaining the set back rules and not
making another exception like Snowview Apartments and they squeezed it
and squeezed until he is not sure you can even use it now. Jim Long
argued for the other side and was willing to give up some of the set
back to preserve the trees and landscaping. Glen Pond felt that every
time we try to accommodate someone we get into trouble.
After much discussion Farrell Young made the motion that they maintain
the set back and we allow them two fewer parking spaces if they will
move it back as far as possible. Nyle Fullmer seconded the motion.
Aye: Farrell Young, Brad Liljenquist, Nyle Fullmer, Bruce Sutherland.
Glen Pond abstained. Darlene Petersen was absent for the vote.
RE: REVIEW OF RESOLUTION ON SUBSTANCE ABUSE
The Mayor said we had a request for the City to adopt a resolution that
would cover City employees and it's on substance and alcohol abuse. We
have a resolution that J.D. has drawn up and we would like everyone to
review it. A rough draft will be given to everyone and it will be ready
for the first reading next time.
Glen Pond, Nyle Fullmer and the Mayor will ride in the Homecoming
Parade.
RE: DISCUSSION OF MEMBERSHIP AT SPORTS AND FITNESS CLUB
It was discussed whether or not the City would help pay on a large
group membership for individuals to participate at the Sports and
Fitness Club. It was decided that no, the City would not.
l ~~~~
Nyle moved that they go in to executive session. Glen Pond seconded
the motion.
Upon reconvening after the executive session, Nyle Fullmer moved that
they approve the bills. Glen Pond seconded the motion. All aye.
John Millar asked if there would be a time when the Council could have
a work session with the planning and zoning board. It was decided that
they would meet with the planning and zoning board next Wednesday,
September 25th, at the regular planning and zoning meeting.
The Mayor adjourned the meeting.
1
Nile L. Boy , Mayor
/ ~'
Rose Ba ey, Cit le
u