CITY OF GRACE PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING HELD ON MARCH 8, 2018

CITY OF GRACE PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING HELD ON MARCH 8, 2018 PRESENT: Chairman Pristupa Commission Members: Joseph McGuire, Angelyn Smith, Kim Welch Zoning Clerk: Loy Raye Phillips OTHERS PRESENT: Mike Ridenour Chairman Pristupa called the regular meeting of the Planning & Zoning Commission held on March 8, 2018 to order at 7:00 p.m. welcoming those in attendance. Commission Member McLain was excused. Invocation: Commission Member Welch. Pledge of Allegiance: Chairman Pristupa. Amendments to the agenda: The Commission had no amendments. Chairman Pristupa acknowledged those present stating they would be allowed to speak and ask questions and give input on the update being worked on. This would give the Commission and the City their opinion and thoughts as to how they feel about the new ordinance. Chairman Pristupa asked if the Commission had read the minutes of the regular meeting held on February 8, 2018 and if there were changes. Commission Members stated they had no changes. Motion was made by Commission Member McGuire that the minutes be accepted. Motion was seconded by Commission Member Welch. Motion passed unanimously. Report from City Council: Chairman Pristupa stated that the City Council has requested that the new ordinance this Commission is working on be completed and brought to the next Council meeting to be held on March 21, 2108 so that it can be reviewed and sent to City Attorney Wood to finalize so the City can move forward with the updated ordinance. Chairman Pristupa informed the Commission of the items that would be worked on to finish the ordinance: Agricultural, RV S, Supplemental Regulations, Definitions and the final updates. Corrections were made removing the word impact area as the City does not dictate what goes on in the Impact area and the words use district were added in 3-1-1 (F). Discussion was had on items that were cleaned up. An addition of a new line is inserted into 3-1-3 Regulations For The R-1 (Residential) and 3-1-4 Regulations For The R-2 (Residential), will be #4 Houses: Setback twenty feet (20 ) from the property line. Porches and/or decks a maximum of ten feet (10 ) from the property line and a maximum of ten feet (10 ) from the right of way on the property line. Superintendent Bredehoft feels this would leave enough room for removal of snow from the streets. Discussion was had on the (G) Off Street Parking Requirements #2: off street parking for the City on Ordinance 207, 8-13-1987; (G) subsection 3-2-1. No parking is allowed on the city streets from November through February which makes it so that you have no other place to park except on side

yards and front lawns if you have more than one vehicle. Discussion was had on ordinances needing to be updated when the new ordinance changes are made. A new ordinance update for off street parking was done with Ordinance 2015-4, 8-5-2015 for Regulations R-1 (residential) Zone, 3-1-4 Regulations R-2 Multiple-Family (Residential) Zone and C (commercial). Discussion was had on the rear lots in R-1 residential and R-2 residential having the depth left at ten feet (10 ) for fire instead of the five feet (5 ). The side yards are five feet (5 ) on either side. Discussion was had that the Fire Chief would have liked to have had ten feet (10 ) on the side yard which makes it tight. Chairman Pristupa opened the discussion on updating ordinance 3-1-7 Regulations for the A (Agricultural) Zone. Discussion was had on the number of chickens that would be allowed in agriculture not allowing roosters because they crow and not more than six (6) Hens, the number would depend on the individual. Discussion was had on a chicken laying approximately two hundred forty (240) eggs, a year. Based on the number of family members in the residence there should be a total number of chickens, if the noise and sanitation ordinance criteria are met they should be able to have chickens whether for meat or eggs this would be a way to support their grocery bill and keep chickens so they do not become a nuisance to any of their neighbors. Commission Member McLain has comments that he had written down to be discussed at this meeting. Chickens should be allowed; hens are domestic and should be allowed to be slaughtered for meat as well as for their eggs. Discussion was had on people not wanting any chickens inside the city limits. Discussion was had on the size of area/lots owned inside the city limits so there needs to be something set as to how many and should the Ag zone be different in the quantity of chickens. Understanding why R-1 and R-2 residential are limited but where do you limit the number in the agricultural area. In R-1 and R-2 residential a limit of six chickens (6) period. Discussion was had on Agriculture A-1, A-2, A-3 depending on amount of acreage that is owned. One acre would sustain a lot of chickens. It could be done by square feet, six (6) chickens per two thousand square feet (2,000 ). Discussion was had on how large a coop and fenced area would be needed for six hens (6). Discussion was had on those Citizen s choosing to have chickens would need to keep them on their own property as neighbors would not want the mess they leave so it is important to keep them in their own yard. The chicken issue has been debated for years as some want to have them and others do not. Discussion was had on an ordinance that is basically a feed operation where you are selling a product which is illegal in the city limits. If the citizen is selling eggs they are producing way too many and should have a smaller number of chickens. Discussion was had on how to decide what a nuisance would be if someone comes in and states that the neighbors chickens have exceeded the number allowed and have become a nuisance, they need to get rid of some chickens to be in compliance because of the limit set by city s ordinance, and that brings you back to how do you police the ordinance. Discussion was had on not allowing roosters in the Ag Zone where it is still in the City limits. Decision was made that the number of chickens in R-1 and R-2 residential zones be set at a limit of six hens (6) and no roosters making that the recommendation to the City Council. Discussion on poultry in the Agriculture zone there could be ducks, geese, chickens, turkeys, bird wise. Do you limit on square footage or could you say six chickens (6) is equal to one (1) animal unit (au) then you would have a limit of animal unit (au) which if you had an acre it would give you twelve chickens

(12) on an acre and for every acre they could have two (2) animal units (au) which would be twelve (12) more for each acre owned. Discussion was had on making other animals exempt if six chickens (6) are used as one animal unit. Discussion was had that the Commission had never discussed it in that direction. Discussion was had on having two horses (2), six chickens (6). One of the concerns has been with using the animal unit (au) if they had twenty acres (20) putting seventy head (70) cattle there for a few months to pasture until they go to summer range or move to another pasture where are the limitations, if they are doing that is it grandfathered. Discussion was had on annexation of property in the agriculture zone what rule do you follow. The new area would be under the new ordinance not the grandfathered ordinance there is no clause on grandfathering property on what is annexed in to the city. If annexation were to be done to the property in the impact area on Burton canyon road what would the rule be for the city to follow on annexation? There would need to be something in the ordinance if annexation does occur do we allow grandfathering. Discussion was had on not having the animal control officer counting the animals it is basically left until there is a complaint you are regulating yourself. The City has a self- regulation program. This has been discussed at city council and this is how we all want to live to be left alone unless we are told otherwise. Discussion on not wanting anyone to tell me that a pig cannot be raised on personal property owned in the agriculture zone in the city limits. Discussion was had on taking care of pigs which are clean if properly cared for. The point is that people do not take care of their pigs when they feed garbage and allow them to wallow in mud. Fair hogs are not raised on garbage, but you still have people that will still do this. The project was not cleaned up until after the project was done which is very unfortunate. This gives porcine (swine) a bad name because of the care that is not given to keep them clean within the city limits. Discussion was had on not allowing porcine (swine) in R-1 or R-2 residential, but will swine (porcine) be allowed in the Agriculture zone? With animal units (au) it would limit the number of swine (porcine) there would be no feed lot that would smell. Discussion was had on a mare/colt as being an animal unit (au) but if a sow has a litter is that one animal unit (au). Most of the piglets would be there until weaned at three (3) to six (6) weeks. The same thing goes for dogs and puppies not having a kennel permit because the puppies would be weaned and gone. When does it become a mare/colt are not an animal unit (au); is it when the colt is weaned? When the colt is weaned it becomes an adult which would make it an animal unit (au), same with a cow/calf when the calf is weaned it becomes an animal unit (au). Discussion was had on the type of consensus being used to classify chickens as an animal unit X number equals an animal unit? Discussion was had on six (6) chickens being an animal unit. Discussion was had on how many porcine (swine) would be allowed in the Agriculture zone feeling was that one (1) animal unit would be allowed but if there was more than one (1) acre you would be allowed to have two (2) animal units per acre. On large acres of property there could be quite a few porcine (swine) and not having anyone who would count the number you might end up with a feed lot which is not permitted in the City limits. It comes back to the issue of who is policing? Discussion was had on pot belly pigs not being pets some do get quite large and can be very aggressive to the family as well as people outside of the family. Decision was made that pot belly pigs or porcine (swine) will not be allowed in R-1 and R-2 residential areas of the City of Grace. Discussion was had on allowing porcine (swine) in the Agriculture zone.

Discussion was had that the Commission had cleaned up the waste handling in the Agriculture area having two (2) animal units per acre provided waste handling can be properly maintained. Discussion was had on porcine (swine) not being allowed in residential areas of the City of Grace, but they will be allowed in the A-1, A-2, A-3 Agricultural zone. Discussion was had on controlling the number of porcine (swine) by using animal units (au). Discussion was held on A-3, agricultural Less than a one half (½) acre how many animal units could one have on the area with twenty-two thousand square feet (22,000 ) having a home, garage, shop with animals. Discussion was had on not having a structure on less than one half (½) acre and having one animal unit or with a house being built could there still be chickens on the property as well as a horse. Discussion was had on allowing six chickens (6) on a city lot at least one (1) animal unit should be allowed on the small lot in Agriculture. Discussion on having no structure or buildings on the property of A3 not allowing them to have an animal unit (au) where they are in the Agricultural zone it should apply the same as for R-1 and R-2 residential. Discussion was had on having two horses on the property they will not be grazing, and they are going to be penned up so it should not matter if there is one or two but there will still be the waste handling regulation that will have to be dealt with. Discussion was had on addition of R-2 (residential) to the Ag zone. R-2 (residential) would allow you to build multiply dwellings on the property or just one dwelling. An example would be an apartment or town house being built on the one (1) acre or one half (½) acre it would allow the property owner to build with the ordinance stating R-1 (residential) and R-2 (residential) regulation. It is possible that the zone would be changed to R-2 residential after the small properties in the Ag Zone are bought and someone chooses to build multiple family dwellings. Discussion was had on how many rabbits make an animal unit (au). If you have a male and female rabbit there would be a possibility of having a feed operation in a hurry. It is very expensive to neuter a male. Rabbits fall in the same category as chickens when it comes to a food source. Discussion was had on having all female or all male. Chickens have been regulated as hens can the same be done to regulate rabbits as does. Roosters are not allowed because of the noise. Discussion was had on raising rabbits as show animals, it becomes difficult to regulate as large bucks are shown as projects. Rabbits do smell if sanitation is not handled it becomes a big issue. Discussion was had on allowing six (6) rabbits as one (1) animal unit being very comparable as to the chickens. Decision was made to allow six (6) rabbits as one (1) animal unit. Discussion was had on the Dog and Cat ordinances being added to the Agriculture zone. Question was asked if there was a number limiting the number of dogs or cats. A copy of the Dog ordinance was given to the Commission Members, so they are aware of the regulations for having dogs in the City limits (see attachment). Discussion was had on needing a noncommercial kennel license if you have more than two dogs, when applying for a kennel permit you need to get the neighbor s signature living within one hundred feet (100) of the property where the kennel will be. The cat ordinance is written very similar to the dog ordinance. Cats are to be licensed the same as dogs. The Dog Ordinance states that dogs are not allowed to run it is basically a lease law. Discussion was had on nuisance not being addressed in the definitions 3-5-5. There is a definition of nuisance in Chapter 3, General under 1-3-2 Definitions. Discussion was had on documenting the events with dogs running at will when it occurs. Discussion was had on the danger of being charged by two large dogs on private property and being able to scare them away when realizing what was happening, but what would have happened if it were a small child.

Property owners having dogs next door would add to the aggressiveness of the other dogs. There is a complaint form that can be signed and issued to the dog owners in these types of situations. Discussion was had on the enforcement of the dog ordinance. The City Ordinance: Chapter 4, 8-4-11 states the Duty of Policemen and Animal Control Officer for the dogs was read. (See attachment). Discussion was had on several years ago there was a constable and a justice of peace in the City of Grace. Several small towns have the Mayor enforce the ordinance. Chairman Pristupa asked if there was anymore discussion on the dog ordinance with the definition to be added in 3-5-5. For information the Cat ordinance is Chapter 5. Chairman Pristupa stated that when the Commission discussed Uses Permitted Commission Members had some questions. Discussion was had on (B) Conditional Uses Permitted. Items read: Airports, broadcasting towers for radio or television, cemetery, commercial kennel, animal hospital, commercial livestock operations as defined in section 3-5-5 of this title, fish hatcheries, mining, dredging, and excavation of sand, dirt, gravel, or other aggregate, private amusement park, ballpark, racetrack, or similar uses, public building, school, hospital, or church, public utility instillations, recreational vehicle parks. Those are uses allowed in the Agricultural Zone. Commission Member McLain has listed several items that need to be removed from the ordinance which would clean up items that do not apply now. Such as: Airport, cemetery, fish hatchery, mining dredging and excavation of sand, dirt, gravel or other aggregate. Most cemeteries are outside the City limits. Chairman Pristupa asked if the Commission had any problem removing these items from 3-1-7 Regulations Agriculture or any more debate? Commission discussed that fish would have to be raised in tanks as the river goes around and there would need to be carrying right of water in the canal. There is not a parcel of ground in the Ag zone that one could build an airport on unless land is annexed outside the City limits. This might happen if a parcel was annexed outside the City limits. Removing these items will clean up the verbiage. Commission made the decision to remove the verbiage and add Cell phone to the broadcasting tower and remove the words Ordinance 2012-294, 2-1-2012 from Recreational Vehicles parks. Discussion was had on adding item four (4) to 3-1-7 (D) Setbacks which will read: 4). YARD/LOT Setbacks: R-1 (residential) and R-2 (residential) houses to be setback twenty feet (20 ) from property line. Porches and/or decks a maximum of ten feet (10 ) from property line. Ten feet (10 ) maximum from the right of way of the property line. Discussion was had on off street parking G 3-2-1 referring to Ord. 207, 3-1-7-1987 will follow the current code. Discussion was had on Chapter 2, 3-2-1 Supplemental Use District Regulations: (D) 1. Needs to be changed to read: 1. Exterior stairs of open design, provided that no such stair shall project into a required front no more than ten feet (10 ) and/or side yard lot more than three feet (3 ) and into any rear yard/lot more than six feet (6 ). Discussion was had on 3-2-1 (E) Nonconforming Uses. Items numbered: 2 through 5 are somewhat confusing. Should be built in one calendar year. Building a home in the Industrial area is not allowed. Occupying a new building or allowed to finish a shop into an apartment and live in the Industrial zone. Citizen did state that when their situation improved they would build a home somewhere else and turn

the apartment back into a shop. Nonconforming #2 is a setback making it conform and #3 addresses someone that is occupying within a nonconforming building not allowed to make an adjustment. Commission had questions for City Attorney Wood on this Non-Confirming portion. Discussion was had on #2). 3-2-1 G: Required parking spaces which will change once the new ordinance is finalized and approved. Discussion was had on selling property how would that affect those that are grandfathered in at the time of the sale. Discussion was had on allowing animal Units (au) on the property. Discussion was had on whatever exists on the property at the time of sale would be allowed with the new owner. Anything new the owner wants on the property needs to be brought to the City Council for a yes or no platform. The type and numbers would have to be changed by Variance or Conditional Use with the new ordinance as what can be had on the property. It would be a good neighbor policy to talk neighbors in the area where the change is to take place. CODE FOR RV PARKING 9-2-5 Restrictions on Parking: Planning & Zoning Commission had approved a proposed RV ordinance which was presented to the City Council and items were updated as per City Attorney Wood suggestions on June 21, 2017 (see attachment). Chairman Pristupa discussed definitions in Definitions Chapter 3, 1-3-2: General: The general definition of Nuisance. The Commission needs to make certain that it co-insides with what will be added later to the zoning ordinance change. Chairman Pristupa opened discussion on -3-5-5 Definitions: When adding definitions to make sure that the Animal Unit (au) is described so it will be understood as what is being asked for. Discussion was had on allowing six (6) chickens no roosters, four (4) ducks, six (6) rabbits, or other small animals or poultry as determined by City Council. Discussion was had on a definition of Animal Unit applying to the Agricultural Zone, mature animals, and how much space is required. Decision was made to use the following Animal Unit: The animal unit (au) refers to a measure of number of livestock equivalent to a mature animal. It is used to calculate the amount of pasture space and animal feed. Discussion was had on keeping the definitions in 3-5-5 people friendly (see attachment). Chairman Pristupa asked for a motion to accept the changes made to the new ordinance dated March 8, 2018, Chairman Pristupa asked that Zoning Clerk have the corrections made by Tuesday, March 13, 2018. Motion was made by Commission Member Welch to approve the changes made to the new ordinance. Motion was seconded by Commission Member Smith. Motion passed unanimously. Announcements: Chairman Pristupa advised the Planning & Zoning Commission of the possibility that a work meeting off our regular schedule with the City Council on the new ordinance changes may be held in April. Chairman Pristupa noted that he will not schedule a meeting in April at this point, if the work meeting does take place. The Planning and Zoning Commission meeting will not be held on April 12, 2018 at 7:00 p.m. Discussion was had on property being grandfathered. Once the ordinance is changed this is what will be allowed. Discussion was had on the sale of property. What needs to be written is what is in existence at the time the ordinance is passed will be allowed on the property. The suggestion was made before creating a form between the City and landowner stating that on my property there is this number and

have it grandfathered at this point, when selling your property that grandfather right will transfer to the new property owner. Discussion was had on not having grandfather carried over allowing the new owner whatever they want. The Animal Unit would be a base for how many animals they can bring on to the property. If the new owner wanted anything new the City Council would have to approve it. If the new owner wants something different they need to state this is the reason why and apply for a conditional use permit. Discussion on selling the property and not being allowed to have any animals. When the City passed the new ordinance in 2012 property owners had to apply for conditional use permits. Mr. Ridenour stated that no one came and visited with the property owners in the Agricultural Zone when making these changes to the ordinance before passing the February 1, 2012 Ordinance (Ord.2012-294). If there was a sale of his property, the people who purchased it would have to come to the City and apply for a Conditional use permit to have animals and decide what they would want. With the Animal Units being used when the property sold they could put on the type of animal wanted. Discussion was had on it being difficult to change an ordinance to make everyone happy. The Planning & Zoning Commission is trying to make it so that our Community can grow. It is very difficult when no one comes to the meetings. Discussion was had on being aware of what is in the Agricultural Zone. Discussion was had on the number of animal units on property being less than what is had at the time of the sale. One suggestion was made that new owners approach the neighbors and make sure that there is no problem with this number of animals. An example would be to have forty acres (40) and be allowed two animal units per acre that would be eighty head, if they wanted to have more on the acreage at sometime come to the City and obtain a conditional use. Chairman Pristupa stated that he would present the final ordinance changes to the City Council at their March 14, 2018 meeting. Chairman Pristupa thanked the Planning and Zoning Commission for the hard work on this Ordinance as a Committee. The Commission was given a big challenge; working to help find our way, learning to give and giving direction to things that were changed. The City and the Citizens of Grace need to learn to give and take. Chairman Pristupa asked for a motion to adjourn. Motion was made by Commission Member McGuire to adjourn. Motion was seconded by Commission Member Smith. Motion passed unanimously. Adjourned at 8:50 p.m. ZONING CLERK APPROVED CHAIRMAN DATE: