|
 The item had been on the Agenda at the August 17th voting session
but was tabled.
This week when the item came up on the agenda, Jonie Tibbs motioned
to remove it from the table for voting, with Todd Mourning offering
the second. With Steve Parrott absent for the evening, the remaining
six members voted unanimously to remove the item from the table.
Tibbs then made a motion to approve the ordinance as it had been
presented. When Mayor Pro-Tem called for a second, none was offered.
The motion died on the floor.
When this occurred, Tibbs, looking in the direction of Building and
Safety Officer John Lebegue said she was curious to know, what part
of the ordinance was unclear, leading to it not passing. Lebegue
said he didn’t know the answer.
He went on to say that in the time since the ordinance was first
introduced, he has had calls to his office, but the majority of the
conversations resulted in the caller finding out that the new
ordinance had no real impact on them personally.
Lebegue explained that for some time, there has been "rule of thumb"
decisions made about fences with nothing specific in writing. He
felt that the ordinance was now putting into writing much of what
has been practiced by his office in the past.
 He added that there had been comments on the five-foot setback for
side and back yards that are technically front yards. This occurs
when a home is located on a corner lot, which technically means
there are two front yards to the property. Lebegue said prior to the
fence ordinance, the only rule written about this pertained to
accessory structures, which a fence would be considered. That rule
he said calls for a 25-foot setback. Therefore, he said what the
planning and zoning committee had offered was a better situation.
He said the issue of building fences directly at the edge of a
sidewalk was a safety concern. He noted as an example, someone
riding a bike on the sidewalk could fall, and fall into the fence.
Lebegue also spoke about the industrial fence rule in the new
ordinance. He said the rule only applied to industrial businesses
with storage in the front yard area, and a residential district
within 300 feet of the business. He said there was only one area in
town that this was an issue – North Logan Street. He also pointed
out that if there were no outside storage at the business, in the
front yard, then the rule would not apply.
Tibbs said that some of the comments she had heard was that people
believed that if their fence were not in compliance now, it would
have to be torn down. She and Lebegue both reiterated that is not
the case. Existing fences can stay just the way they are, with the
exception of those that are built with non-conventional building
materials.
The non-conventional materials referred to are items such as old
roofing or siding, window shutters, and other items that were never
intended to be used as fencing. Lebegue had illustrated this when he
introduced the ordinance to the council, showing a slide of a house
where the “fence” was a collection of discarded materials. He noted,
though not in the slide, that there had been one location where an
old bed mattress had been used to block a hole in the fence. The new
ordinance will permit Lebegue to order that those materials be
removed. Tibbs offered another comment on the use of fences in
industrial areas. She said it was a good thing for the community.
She talked about the people living in such an area who want a nice
home and a nice setting when using their yards, but they don’t have
it. She commented, “Those residents deserve a break.”
Jeff Hoinacki spoke up saying that he was in favor of the ordinance
but felt there had been some confusion about the action to be taken
on Tuesday night. He believed the ordinance was to be tabled again
for further discussion at the next workshop session.
[to top of second column] |
Mourning said he had thought the same thing. He also asked if the fencing for
the industrial zones would be mandatory. Lebegue said it would if they use their
front yard areas for material storage.
Lebegue also said that he intended to give these business owners a good amount
of time to get their fences built. He understood that fences are costly and will
have to be planned for, so he’s not going to rush to enforce the rule with those
businesses.
Tibbs spoke again saying she realized that now that the motion has died, this
particular ordinance cannot be brought back before the council. She wondered if
there was some way that it could be modified and re-introduced to the council.
Michelle Bauer spoke up saying that she had constituents who were concerned
about the setback rule. She noted a home on Union Street specifically, on a
corner lot with a very small back yard. She said if those homeowners had to
comply with the five-foot setback, they would have no yard left. She wondered if
they could petition for a variance or exemption.
Bauer said she had done some looking around in her Ward and had come to realize
that there are several homeowners that would be in the same situation as the
Union Street residents.
Lebegue confirmed that residents in those situations could apply for a variance
or exemption to the rule. Bauer asked if that would involve a fee paid to the
city, and Lebegue confirmed that it would.
Lebegue said he understood that there were some properties where the five-foot
setback would cause a problem, but he countered that no ordinance is ever a
perfect fit for everyone. He noted that there will almost always be five to 10
percent of the population for which an ordinance does not work out to be
beneficial. He noted that statistic applied for all ordinances, not just this
one.
City Administrator Clay Johnson offered a suggestion on how to bring the
ordinance back before the council. Now that it had died on the floor, the
ordinance in this format cannot be brought back. However, Johnson suggested that
language could be added to specify how long businesses had to comply with the
fence rules. He said they could add a final deadline for compliance for those
businesses only. He suggested one year, or more or less according to the
council’s wishes.
Mourning said he did want to bring the ordinance back for another vote, and he
was in favor of putting a specific date on the ordinance for businesses. Around
the room, others agreed by the nod of the head.
The specific deadline for compliance will be put into effect only for commercial
and industrial businesses that store product in their front yards and have their
business within 300 feet of a Residential District.
It is expected that the ordinance in its current form will return to the council
for voting in the near future.
[Nila Smith]
Past related
|
