Meeting of the Planning and Zoning Commission held February 25, 2025, 6:00 P.M. in the Council Chambers of City Hall.
Members present:
Mike Cook – Chairman
Kevin Asker – Vice Chair
Dan Gautney
Brian Perry
James Zehner
Lee Spencer
Yolanda Stout
City Staff: City Administrator Kennedy
Public Works Director Mager
The meeting was called to order by Mike Cook at 6:00 p.m.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES: On motion by James Zehner, second by Dan Gautney to approve the minutes of January 28, 2025, as presented. Motion carried.
PUBLIC HEARING #1: The public hearing was opened at 6:02 p.m.
APPLICANT PRESENTATION: Kathy Wells was present representing her mom, Loretta Wells (she has power of attorney for Loretta) and her son Christopher Johnson, owners of 224 E North 5th Street. She is trying to get everything straightened out. She would like to get the variance approved so she can get electricity, water and sewer hooked up to the trailer, get the rigs moved and the property cleaned up.
STAFF PRESENTATION: City Administrator Kennedy reported all notices of hearing were delivered to adjoining property owners and published in the paper as required. Kennedy explained the request for the variance is to be able to place the manufactured home in the front yard setback. The property is at the intersection of E North 5th and Mill Street and irregular in shape. When viewing the Fogg’s Park plat, the street was platted with a “roundabout” circle at the intersection of E North 5th and Mill. Due to this circular right of way at the intersection, all four properties at the intersection have an arched piece missing from their property.
The trailer was moved onto the property without going through the building permit process. The city notified the owners to apply for a permit. At the time they came in to complete the necessary paperwork, and complete the plot plan, the city could not determine where the property lines were. The city required a survey of the property to continue with the permit process. After the survey was completed, the city could not determine all the property line points, due to the irregular shape of the lot. The city asked the surveyor, Greg Skinner, to plot the manufactured home on the lot to determine if it could fit on the property. If the trailer is placed at the 5’ setback on the south and west sides, the trailer fits on the property; however, the north side does not meet the 20’ required front yard setback. The northeast point of the trailer is at the curve line of the property.
James Zehner wanted to verify there was a culdesac plotted on the plat, but that it doesn’t exist in the street? Kennedy stated it’s not really a culdesac, but it is a circular area at the intersection. The four corner properties lost a portion of their lots due to the circle at the intersection. Kevin stated 5th Street dead ends above the rodeo grounds at Meadow. When he drove past the property, the property does have four corners, and there is not a curve in the street. Kennedy stated that is correct. Kevin questioned if they just couldn’t use that area to set the home on it. Kennedy explained they own the irregular lots, not the circular portion of the street. Even though on the ground it looks like the properties are rectangle.
City staff determined that two options were available as follows:
1. The city could go through the vacation process for the circular section of the street, vacating portions of the arch at the intersection for all four properties, however still maintaining the regular width of E North 5th Street. This would have required surveys of the portions to vacate on all four corners of the intersection. The city determined it did not have the funds for this process.
2. The Johnsons and Wells could go through the variance process to place the manufactured home in the front yard setback so their home would be on their property, they just wouldn’t have a front yard setback.
Mike Cook asked if all the owners got together and had surveys would the city go through the process to get rid of the property. Kennedy stated if the owners all got together and went through the process, they could ask to have it vacated. It would go to the city council for a public hearing and decision. Mike questioned if the city had any plans to utilize that circular section? Kennedy stated no; Bob confirmed. Dan Gautney stated the corner of the home is right on the property line on the northeast. How close is it on the northwest corner? Kennedy didn’t have that number, but based on the plotting by the surveyor, knows it would fit on the property. Lee questioned if that area was being treated like private property by the owners, since currently they have items are on it? Kennedy stated that is correct. James stated there used to be a home on the property previously. Kathy stated yes there was a house and it burnt two years ago. James questioned if the old house was single-wide too. Kathy said yes, it’s on the same footprint. James asked if the new house is on the property. Kathy said yes; they thought they were trying to do the right thing and set it up exactly where the old trailer was and found out that was wrong. She takes responsibility for that.
Public Works Director Mager stated this is a 4-way corner. The circle has always been there; however, the city doesn’t recognize it as round about. The original trailer was in the wrong spot and now the new trailer is in the wrong spot too. They had no permit, so now the city is working to correct it. It came in at night. Dan questioned if it is set at 5’ on the rear and side? Mager stated it is in the wrong spot. If the variance is approved, a building permit can be issued, and the trailer can be moved to the correct location. James questioned, does the house currently need moved to the west? Mager stated yes.
Brian Perry asked if it was set correctly, is the Mill Street setback is ok? Mager stated yes, the variance is for the front yard setback only. Brian questioned if it was a true single-wide. Mager stated at this time it is a singlewide with maybe a porch. Kevin felt they would gain usable space off Mill Street. Brian asked if they have just the 10’ setback. Kennedy stated according to the plot, they have approximately 20’ of usable space on Mill Street. Kennedy explained if they want any addition on the Mill Street side, deck, porch or other, it will need to through the building permit process to see if it met regulations. On the front yard setback, they can’t store anything to the north of the house unless it’s in the tiny triangle on the northwest corner. They can park vehicles, but they can’t store any personal items in that area. It’s a variance so they don’t have a front yard setback on the north side. Lee said looking at the map, it looks like the other three landowners might be using some of the street right of way. Kennedy stated looking at the map the lines aren’t exact, but it appears that way. The city did not research anything on the other three properties as they are existing and not making changes. Brian questioned if Mill Street was the front yard would they still be in this situation. Mager and Kennedy stated yes, they would have still had to go through the variance process.
WRITTEN CORRESPONDENCE: None
SUPPORTERS: None
NEUTRALS: None
OPPONENTS: None
APPLICANT REBUTTAL: Kathy Wells explained when they originally bought the home, they were told everything was legal by the previous owner, Port Wagner. They didn’t realize it was wrong.
Hearing closed at 6:21 p.m.
DISCUSSION AND RECOMMENDATION: On motion by James Zehner, second by Kevin Asker to recommend to the city council to approve the variance as presented with placement of the manufactured home as placed on the map. ROLL CALL VOTE: YES: Gautney, Stout, Asker, Spencer, Zehner, Perry. NO: none. ABSTAIN: none. The motion passed.
Kathy asked if they could go on the property and remove cars and junk, they know they can’t go in the house. Kennedy stated they yes they could as long as they stay away from the house.
PUBLIC HEARING #2: The public hearing was opened at 6:24 pm.
APPLICANT PRESENTATION: Lewis Clark Early Childhood Program, 400 S Idaho, Janna White, program director, stated they’ve been in the school about 15 years. They recently found out they needed to be licensed so it’s part of the process to have the city sign off on zoning compliance. Jana explained they are mostly known as Head Start.
STAFF PRESENTATION: City Administrator Kennedy reported all notices of hearing were delivered to adjoining property owners and published in the paper as required. They have been in the building forever. When you have to get licensed with the State of Idaho, the form requires the city to sign off stating you mean all the zoning regulations. They are not in the right zone. It’s interesting because Mountain View School has been at that location for years and most likely before the city’s zoning laws, so they are basically grandfathered in. However, Lewis Clark Early Childhood Program is not part of Mountain View so they need to go through the conditional use process now that we need to sign off on zoning. If approved, they will get a letter stating they are in compliance with the zoning regulations through a conditional use permit. Previous planning and zoning members probably remember applications from Noah’s Ark, Kids Klub and others. This program is located within the school building, so there is no new facility. James Zehner questioned where they are located at GEMS. Kennedy showed the map which shows them located in the gym facility in a classroom.
Mike Cook asked if they are currently in existence. Jana stated they’ve been in the current classroom location for about 3 years. Brian Perry asked when they operate. Jana stated it is Monday – Thursday.
WRITTEN CORRESPONDENCE: None
SUPPORTERS: Billy Sue Stephens was in support.
NEUTRALS:
OPPONENTS: None
APPLICANT REBUTTAL: none
Hearing closed at 6:30 p.m.
DISCUSSION AND RECOMMENDATION: On motion by Kevin Asker, second by Yolanda Stout to recommend to the city council that they approve the conditional use submitted by Lewis Clark Early Childhood Program. ROLL CALL VOTE: YES: Gautney, Stout, Asker, Spencer, Zehner, Perry. NO: none. ABSTAIN: none. The motion passed.
FINDINGS OF FACT:
a. The conditional use does not unreasonable impact public health, general welfare or general interest in the community. No issue determined by no correspondence or comments against it.
b. The proposed conditional use of property or structures will be appropriately located with respect to transportation facilities, water supply, fire and police protection, waste disposal and other similar facilities which might be needed for the proposed use. Existing structure, no issue.
c. The general neighborhood character and surrounding property values will not be unreasonably negatively impacted. No concern.
d. The proposed conditional use will not cause an undue traffic hazard or unreasonable parking problem in the use district in which the conditional use is proposed. They are already operating and there have been no issues.
e. There is no substantial community objection and the terms of section 10-10-3 of this chapter are incorporated herein as an additional condition to the granting of a conditional use. No community objection.
Kevin Asker stated the commission agrees with the findings of fact.
NEXT MEETING: A hearing is scheduled for March 25, 2025 at 6:00 p.m.
Adjourned by Mike Cook at 6:34 p.m.
Tonya Kennedy – City Clerk
