Loading...
Council Minutes 07/12/2001 CITY OF AMMON July 12, 2001 Minutes of the Nuisance Hearing and the Regular Meeting of the Mayor and City Council: The meeting was called to order by Mayor C. Bruce Ard at 7:30 P.M. in the City Building, 2135 South Ammon Road, Ammon, Idaho, with the following City Officials present: Mayor C. Bruce Ard Councilmember W. Lee Bean Councilmember Harvey L. Crandall Council member Leslie Folsom Councilmember Ira K. Hall Attorney W. Joe Anderson Attorney Brian Tucker Engineer Bill Manwill Public Works Director David Wadsworth Fire Chief Clarence Nelson City Clerk Aleen C. Jensen Deputy Clerk Connie R. Guymon Others Present: Lyndon and Bonnie Hall, 3235 Owen Street, Ammon Robin and Jerald Knight, 3265/3275 Owen Street, Ammon Troy Palmer, 2780 Midway, Ammon Stephanie Bonney, Attorney for Knights, 3570 Stonegate Drive, Ammon Dan and Drew Menkhaus, 3675 Taylorview Lane, Ammon Hazel and Brian Wilson, 3716 East Cordell Drive, Idaho Falls Lee Gagner, Homestead Realty/Construction, 1301 East 1 ih Street, Idaho Falls Alan Cunningham, Mountain River Engineering Kellie Dalik, 2700 Ross Avenue, Ammon David and Dana Russell, 1730 Falcon Drive, Ammon Robert and Paula Loveland, 2795 Romrell Lane, Ammon Mark and Laurie Welker, 2835 Romrell Lane, Ammon Jeff Freiberg, Harper Leavitt Engineer Troy Palmer, 2780 Midway Avenue, Ammon Leslie Faerber, 2735 Romrell Lane, Ammon Steve and Val Loveland, 3325 Rawson Street, Ammon Councilmember Crandall led the Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag and Councilmember Hall offered a prayer. Tom and Kellie Dalik, 2700 Ross Avenue submitted a request for a non- commercial kennel license for three dogs. Kellie explained that they own a yellow Lab, a German Short Hair, and an older mutt. The German Short Hair is not neutered. City Council Meeting, July 12, 2001 - Page 2 He is quite an expensive animal, and they stud him out. Normally the dogs are kept in kennels and are never out of Oalik's yard. Signatures of approval were obtained from nine property owners within one hundred fifty (150) feet of the Dalik property. Councilmember Folsom cautioned that a license maybe revoked at any time if the dogs are not maintained properly. The Council did not find any problems with the request. Councilmember Crandall moved to approve the non-commercial kennel license for Tom and Kellie Oalik at 2700 Ross Avenue. Council member Hall seconded the motion. Roll call vote: Crandall - Yes; Hall - Yes; Bean - Yes; Folsom - Yes. The motion carried unanimously. Kellie Oalik proposed putting a stop sign up on the corner of Georgia Lane and Ross Avenue. She believes it is needed because she has a four-year old and people drive sixty (60) miles per hour down Ross Avenue. The drivers are not only teenagers, but they are also adults. She has called the officers several times, and they have come out and set radar. It is really bad. There are certain times of day when it is worse. The area is open and the cars just fly through. There are stop signs on Ross Avenue at 1 yth Street, Wanda, Geneva, and Sunnyside Road. Engineer Manwill reported that stop signs are not to be used for speed control according to the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control, which is the guideline for all signing. The request is for a four-way stop. There are three criteria to justify a four- way stop. One is, if the intersection warrants a traffic signal and the stop sign is urgently needed, as a temporary measure until the traffic signal is in place. Two is accident history of five accidents in a twelve- month period, which could be corrected with a four-way stop. Three is traffic volume of 500 vehicles per hour through the intersection. There is no engineering justification for a stop sign. Kelli Oalik asked if there could be a sign "slow children at play." Council member Folsom pointed out that such signs are not recommended, and there is a brochure available, which explains why. There was a discussion regarding the times of day that traffic is worse and how to deal with the problem. It was decided to alert Greg Black, Bonneville County Sheriff's Department officer assigned to City of Ammon. Dana Russell, 1730 Falcon Drive, requested a home occupation permit to operate a day care in her home for up to twelve children. She has not had a state certified day care before, but she watched children several years ago when they lived in Rigby. After she had her fourth child, she could not afford to pay for a sitter while she worked. It was either work nights or open a day care. She chose to open a day care. She does not plan to take any more children than she can handle without employing help. City Council Meeting, July 12, 2001 - Page 3 In case of sickness, she may have someone come in to help for a day. If she takes more than six children, she has to have a state license. She has passed all the state requirements to qualify for a license to care for newborns to age ten pending completion of a background check. A fire inspection and a health inspection have been completed. She has a large, add-on room in the back of her house, which she uses for a play area. Additionally she uses the dining room/cooking area for eating and the bathroom facilities. Russell's backyard is fenced, and the neighbors have not expressed any opposition. The neighbors are seldom at home. Hours will be from 7:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. Parking should not be a problem. The requirements for a home occupation permit (C.C.10-7-8) have been read and signed to show that they will be observed. Councilmember Hall moved to approve a home occupation permit for Dana Russell, 1730 Falcon Drive. Council member Folsom asked Dana if she was aware that a home occupation permit could be revoked if the requirements are violated. She was aware. Council member Folsom seconded the motion. Roll call vote: Hall - Yes; Folsom - Yes; Crandall - Yes; Bean - Yes. The motion carried unanimously. Alan Cunningham of Mountain River Engineering presented the First Amended Plat of Eagle Pointe Divisions No. 2 and 3. The Planning and Zoning Commission reviewed the plat on July 3. They did not have quorum at their meeting, but the Commission members who were present did not find a problem with the plat. They recommended that it be presented to City Council for action. The vicinity map was reviewed. The plat for Eagle Point Division NO.3 was approved, and it was recorded in December of 2000. The developer has requested an amendment to the plat to add one lot in Block 5 and one lot in Block 6. Also, Block 7 was one big lot, and it has been subdivided into lots to accommodate what is planned for that area. On the original plat for Eagle Pointe Division No. 3 the lots were platted from 105' to 101' wide. In the amended plat the lots are platted to be 84' wide. The lots in Block 7 are platted from 116' to 124' wide. Lee Gagner, the developer, discussed the zoning and how they intend to create buffers to increase the marketability. Zone R-2 buffers East 1 ih Street. Four-plexes are planned for Block 7 to buffer the commercial. The over-all plans are to buffer by building single family duplex or four-plex. Council member Bean moved to approve the First Amended Plat of Eagle Pointe Divisions No. 2 and 3 as proposed. Councilmember Folsom seconded the motion. Roll call vote: Bean - Yes; Folsom - Yes; Crandall - Yes; Hall - Yes. The motion carried unanimously. Lee Gagner discussed the Eagle Pointe park property. Councilmember Crandall drove by the property, and he observed there are quite a few pieces of lava rock. The Council has talked about getting someone in to plow it. Lee Gagner said the property was ready for planting last fall, but it got too late to plant. Weeds are building up. The City Council Meeting, July 12, 2001 - Page 4 major concern is the lava rock. The developer donated land to the telephone company for the big power box. When they installed the power box, they dug up rocks and left them. The telephone company should come back and clean up the rocks. There is very little rock on the park itself. A map of the park was studied. The developer is interested in knowing what the City needs for water and sewer to serve the park. When the ten acres of land was donated for the park, the City agreed to pay a share of development costs that would constitute park road frontage. It was estimated the City's share would be $10,926. Based on a conversation with Public Works Director Wadsworth on June 1, he requested installing a six (6) inch waterline and a stub in for the sewer to the park from Mountain Vista Drive. The additional cost would be $1675 for an amended total of $12,600. There is no cost to the City for lava removal. The developers will be responsible for that cost. It is intended to let the bid within two weeks. The project should be finished within 45 to 60 days. Councilmember Bean stated that it appears the City will have sufficient funds this fall to pay the $12,600 share, to install the sprinkler system, and to seed the park. Council member Hall moved to approve the additional $1675 for bringing the water and sewer into the Eagle Pointe park property. Council member Bean seconded the motion. Roll call vote: Hall - Yes; Bean - Yes; Crandall - Yes; Folsom - Yes. The motion carried unanimously. Councilmember Bean suggested a walk-through of the park property to go over plans. A walk-through was set for Friday, July 13, at 10:30 A.M. Lee Gagner recommended that the City Council flag any areas where they believed needed to have additional fill dirt. Jeff Freiberg of Harper-Leavitt Engineering presented the First Amended Preliminary Plat of Oak Ridge Division No.1. The Council was oriented to the plat, as it was presented to the Planning and Zoning Commission on July 3. The Commission lacked quorum at their meeting, but the members who were present did not have a problem with the amended plat. They recommended that it come to the City Council for action. The amended plat eliminates the extension of Chasewood Drive to the west. A commercial developer is interested in a western parcel of the Oak Ridge Addition, which is designated as Block 6 on the proposed amended plat. Plans are to add the Oak Ridge parcel to another piece of undeveloped property which lies west to Hitt Road (25th East). Councilmember Bean recommended that, if the property to the west (Block 6) is developed commercially, that the City request Lot 5 Block 5 of Oak Ridge Addition Division No. 1 be opened as a commercial road. Councilmember Bean moved to approve the First Amended Preliminary Plat of Oak Ridge Division NO.1 conditioned upon a right-of-way being established for a road over City Council Meeting, July 12, 2001 - Page 5 Lot 5 Block 5 Division No. 1 to connect Chasewood Drive to the potential development of Block 6. Council member Hall seconded the motion. Roll call vote: Bean - Yes; Hall - Yes; Crandall - Yes, but one comment. "The property is landlocked now is it not?" "Yes, it is." Folsom - Abstained because she would like to know more about what is happening. Regarding the minutes, Council member Bean had some questions. The Council has talked about the cost for an oversized well. He wondered what an estimated cost would be. Alan Cunningham agreed to have Mountain River Engineering provide some numbers for the budget. What the City wants to know is what the City will end up paying for the oversize well and the water and sewer lines on 21st Street and through The Cottages. Also, it is important to know when the additional costs are due. Alan Cunningham understood that it would be due when the pipe is in the ground and the City accepts it, probably before October 1 . Engineer Manwill reported that Benton Engineering is on schedule with the water system study. The City needs to provide information on power bills and what kind of water we are pumping. Councilmember Folsom moved to approve the minutes of City Council Meeting held May 17, 2001. Councilmember Hall seconded the motion. Roll call vote: Folsom - Yes; Hall- Yes; Bean - Yes; Crandall- Yes. The motion carried unanimously. Councilmember Crandall discussed the City's policy on returned checks. "A check returned for payment on account, if returned as insufficient or for other reasons, must be redeemed in cash or certified funds in the amount of the check plus a $20 service charge. This must be paid within five (5) working days from the time the notice is given by the City of the return of the check in order to prevent the account from becoming a delinquent account." A recent incident occurred where an individual ignored redeeming the check and water was shut off. Councilmembers became involved and the water was turned on upon receipt of another check. When all the details were put together, Council member Crandall took the two checks to the bank and collected the City's money. Our returned check policy is good. However, we are looking at the policy, but not being practical or flexible. We should do everything we can to collect our money even if it involves a telephone call or a trip to the bank. Instructions agreed upon are to continue the City's policy, but be a little more diligent on our part. Do whatever is reasonable to collect. The City received a complaint from K.S.Ririe, 4495 Mason Street, about the sewer project on Mason Street. Residents were without water for over ten hours, and they received very little notification. Part of the reason for poor notification and long outage of water was unavoidable because of more problems than were anticipated. City Council Meeting, July 12, 2001 - Page 6 Councilmember Bean sent a letter of apology to Mr. Ririe. The Council reviewed the procedures to be followed when a known service outage is to occur. "(1) Proper Notification is to be given to the developer/contractor informing him that it is required to provide a minimum of 24 hours written notice to households that are going to be effected by a service outage. (2) When we are asked to shut the service off, we do so only if the proper written notification has been given. Otherwise the project will be delayed until such notice is given. (3) Proper follow up with the developer/contractor and monitoring of the project to insure that the citizens in the area are protected to the highest degree possible from the effects of the project." The City declared several items of equipment to be surplus, and they were advertised for sale. Larry A. Waters of Waters Construction was the only bidder on two trucks. When he came to pay for the trucks, it was discovered that there had been an error in the newspaper notice, and he was expecting a 1990 truck instead of a 1980 truck. Since there were no other inquiries about the vehicles, he agreed to pay $1,990 plus $99.50 sales tax, what he bid for the two old vehicles, provided a third one was included at no extra cost. The Council was asked to amend the terms. Councilmember Crandall moved to ratify the sale of trucks to Larry A. Waters, President of Waters Construction Company, to include the 1980 Ford utility truck, the 1973 Chevrolet dump truck, and the 1975 Dodge dump truck for $1,990.00 plus $99.50 sales tax. Council member Bean seconded the motion. Roll call vote: Crandall - Yes; Bean - Yes; Hall- Yes; Folsom - Yes. The motion carried unanimously. The City Clerk encouraged the City Council to review the Development Agreements to insure that the agreement covers all of the divisions in each development. The agreement is usually drawn up at the time of annexation and development of the first division. The Attorney and City Clerk agreed to research the existing agreements to determine coverage. Council member Folsom recommended an addendum to the resolution on water and sewer rates. Under the metered rates delete residential rate amount and put the following directly under the metered rate heading like the new construction area: "At this time, there will be no residential nor apartment metered rates." Under Storage Unit Facilities-All Others change to: "Storage Unit Facilities." Delete Storage Unit Facilities-Water Line Used Only for Irrigation. Add a section after Storage Unit Facilities to read: "Commercial/Professional Office Space/Churches/Seminaries/Storage Facilities-Water Line for Sprinkling Systems Only (Line must not go through any building or structure. This must be a separate line directly to the sprinkling system.) Water (year around) Metered Rate ($9.75 minimum)." City Council Meeting, July 12, 2001 - Page 7 Under Water Line Connections add the following paragraphs:"A meter box with shut off will be installed on all single-family residential/townhouse/condominium/mobile home/manufactured home per individual unit." "A meter box per apartment building and a shut off per unit will be installed on all apartments." (The shut off would need to be inside the building.) "A meter with shut off will be required on all sprinkling system only lines. The line must not go through any building or structure. This must be a separate line directly to the sprinkling system." "A commercial meter with shut off will be installed per usable commercial or professional office space?" Meters are required now on commercial development. There is no reason to change the policy. Mayor Ard opened the Public Hearing to consider a nuisance complaint filed against Jerald and Robin Knight, 3265/3275 Owen Street. A notice of the hearing was published in the Post Register on June 27 and July 4, 2001. A notice of hearing for Jerald Knight and a notice of hearing for Robin Knight were hand delivered to the Knight residence on June 28, 2001. Parties in interest were sworn in to give testimony. Mayor Ard instructed the audience on the hearing procedures. Stephanie Bonney represented Mr. Knight. In addition to being Mr. Knight's attorney, she is also a city attorney. She stated that she understood the Council was in a difficult position. There are a number of neighbors complaining about the storage units. They don't like the looks of them. They would like them removed. On the other hand, you have Mr. Knight's rights as well. What she wanted to discuss was to remind that we are not here to argue about how the units look, how ugly they are, or whether the people like them or not. What we are here to decide is if the units actually meet the legal definition of whether or not he is conducting a nuisance. The Ammon ordinance for nuisance is, as far as she could tell, verbatim the same as the Idaho Code. She has done a survey of the cases within Idaho to take a look at the standards they look at and the type of cases that have come up in which Idaho courts and the Supreme Courts have found to be a public nuisance. She presented pictures for the Council to view. They included three pictures of Mr. Knight's storage containers and the other pictures were of his direct neighbors and surrounding neighborhoods in which there are things equally as unsightly, if not more unsightly, and although by being ugly, they may not be nuisances either. Essentially a nuisance is a conduct, which involves a significant interference with the public health, the public safety, the public peace, the public comfort or public convenience. Generally courts look at the location of the claimed nuisance, the City Council Meeting, July 12, 2001 - Page 8 character of neighborhood, the nature of the offending activities, the frequency of the intrusion, and the affect upon the enjoyment of life, health and property. Essentially you are looking at conduct which interferes with other neighbor's use and enjoyment of their property. The conduct is such that a person can not actually enjoy his or her own property because of somebody else's use of that property. It can be within a neighborhood. When you talk private nuisance, you generally have to be adjoining. Of course, public nuisance means that you are offending people at large. This is straight out of a case called Carpenter vs. Double R Cattle Company. It is an appellant case. It is one of our larger cases, and it involves feed lots. Most Idaho cases involving nuisances involve feed lots. Under Carpenter, the court specifically says the circumstances looked at are the location of the claimed nuisance, the character of the neighborhood, the nature of the offending activity, the frequency of the intrusion, and the affect upon the enjoyment of life, health, and property. Generally in a survey of suits of nuisances, the types of activities that are found in the nuisances are rending plants, phosphate plants, sawmills, and feed lots. To be honest, feed lots go fifty-fifty. About half of the feed lots are found in the nuisances and half are not. That often depends on what neighborhood they are operating in. The types of case that are found to not be nuisances are piles of debris in yards, excessive lights, and excessive noise. The Supreme Court said it best. Not every intentional and significant invasion of a person's interest and the use and enjoyment of land is actionable. Life in organized society, and especially in populous communities, involves an unavoidable clash of individual interests. Practically all human activity, unless carried on in a wilderness, interferes to some extent with others or involves some risk of interference. These interferences range from mere trifling annoyances to serious harms. Liability for damages is approached, in those cases in which the harms or risks to one are greater than ought to be brought to bear under the circumstances, at least without compensation. I would submit to the Council, as I said before, these storage containers may not be found agreeable. They may be found ugly. But, it is Stephanie Bonney's opinion and Mr. Knight's opinion that they come no where rising to the level of what could be termed a nuisance. Thank you! Attorney Anderson asked for the pictures to be sorted out. Most of them are of other properties. It was requested that they be put in two different categories. They did not try to point fingers at people with the pictures to say everyone is worse than Knights. They are of things we all have to live with. Locations of the various pictures were explained. All were within the City of Ammon. City Council Meeting, July 12, 2001 - Page 9 The question was asked if any of the pictures were of adjoining property-right next door or touching. One was of property across the street, but not next door. In response to why there was none of adjoining property, Mr. Knight explained he was the corner lot and he has road on two sides. Council member Bean said he was trying to get a picture of the neighborhood. Mr. Knight considers that a neighborhood takes in several streets. Attorney Anderson asked Stephanie Bonney, if in her review, she found any definition referring to offensive to the senses. She did not directly. Usually offensive to the senses comes in as part of not just to the sight. She did not find anything that directly addressed something that was basically ugly. Offensive to the senses comes in a feed lot usually as odor or smell. Attorney Anderson stated offensive to the senses includes sight, sound, smell and she agreed. Steve Loveland spoke for himself and for the neighbors who filed the complaint. However, some of the neighbors may choose to add their own comments. Steve owns property adjacent to the Knights on the north. He reviewed some of the facts. In regard to the nuisance complaint, Idaho Code 52-101 defines a nuisance as anything "offensive to the senses. . . so as to interfere with the comfortable enjoyment of life or property." Paula Loveland added when they look out their front window or when they walk out their front door that is what they look at every day. It is what people coming to visit them see. They are cargo shipping containers. The units in question are not storage containers. The definition of them is industrial cargo containers. They are used by shipping companies. They are designed to be put on ships and bolted down and ship cargo from overseas back and forth. In the City Council minutes of November 16, 2000, Mr. Knight thinks "because of the red color and they resemble railroad boxcars" the neighbors do not like them. "Originally there was an old storage building on the property but he tore it down because the neighbors did not like it." They have canvassed every neighbor and nobody, that they have found, claims to have told him that they did not like his storage shed and to tear it down. Also the minutes state, "The storage units are ugly. Plans are to move them to Bingham County in June or July. They will not be replaced on the Owen Street property with another type of storage building." Mr. Knight stated other similar units have been moved into the Ammon area without approval or a moving permit. Steve is not aware of any other units. If they have been, he would appreciate a list of the addresses and names of people who moved them in. The only units that he has seen like these are industrial units moved in at Kmart on occasion when they are doing an upgrade. He has never seen any at a residence. City Council Meeting, July 12, 2001 - Page 10 "Councilmember Crandall moved to let the units remain out of compliance until June 1, 2001, at which time they are to be moved out of the City of Ammon." Councilmembers Crandall, Bean, and Folsom voted in favor of the motion. (November 16, 2000) Do the minutes indicate that was agreeable with Mr. Knight? Mr. Knight was at the City Council meeting of November 16, 2000. The Lovelands were not at the November meeting, but they attended Council meeting on December 7. At the December 7 meeting they were advised that Mr. Knight had agreed to move the units by June 1. Lovelands accepted the decision to move the units by June 1. The provision was that the boxcars would be gone by June 1 or the City Council would take enforcement action. At the November City Council meeting, the Council found Jerald Knight was in violation of the moving ordinance. At the December meeting, Lovelands contended Knight was also in violation of the 1997 Uniform Building Code. Steve Loveland pointed out again that the units do violate the UBC. The Code requires that a permit be obtained for any structure over 120 square feet. The units are 8' X 20'. That is 160 square feet each. Mr. Knight needs to apply for a permit to describe the work to be done, to indicate the use, and to show how it is to be located on the land. In addition, a permit requires plans, diagrams, specifications, and other data required by the building officials. The units are not on a foundation, and they are not tied down. No building permit has been issued. The units do not meet any of the requirements of the building code. Attorney Anderson asked if UBC would require a foundation for units of this size. Steve Loveland was not sure. The Code could require tie downs. It is not known because no permit was issued. Paula Loveland stated it has to be secured in some way either by foundation or tie downs. Councilmember Bean inquired about building requirements. If they are going to move a prefab building on site, they still need a building permit to review site plans, etc.? Yes, they do according to Steve Loveland. Steve Loveland stated UBC also addresses work without a permit. "Whenever any work for which a permit is required by code has been commenced without first obtaining said permit, a special investigation shall be made before the permit may be issued for such work." Under the zoning ordinance, the Board of Adjustment may grant a conditional use permit for the temporary use of structures. The use of the building has to be determined to be "in harmony with the objectives and characteristics of the zone in which such use is to be located." Paula Loveland pointed out that Knight's property is zoned residential and the units are industrial cargo containers not in harmony with the City Council Meeting, July 12, 2001 - Page 11 neighborhood. "The Board may require written consent of all property owners within three hundred (300) feet." Steve Loveland has never once received any notification from Mr. Knight of what he was doing there or was bringing there. Permits should be granted after public notice and hearing. Loveland has never been to a hearing. It was pointed out these are requirements for granting a conditional use permit. In the minutes of May 17, 2001, "He argued that he was not in violation of any code or ordinance, the sheds are not a problem, they are not ugly, and they are not in bad shape. He invited his neighbors to come to City Council meeting to voice their opinions, but they did not show." All of the neighbors talked to or who are present at this meeting did not get any such invitation. Also at the May 17, 2001, City Council meeting, Councilmember Hall explained that Mr. Knight committed on his own volition that the sheds would be gone by a certain date. He did not commit that the sheds would be moved back on the property. Originally the sheds were out in or close to the right-of-way. Steve Loveland's concern was for his apartments. The sheds were blocking the view of the intersection for the people who rent his apartments. After that, Mr. Knight moved the shed back thirty (30) feet. The City Council allowed the sheds to remain during the winter, but then they expected them to be gone as Mr. Knight said they would. When Mr. Knight was reminded of the approaching June 1, 2001, moving deadline, he did not believe the sheds were violating any ordinance and he indicated that he did not see a reason to comply. City Code 5-2-13(C) pertains to abatement of nuisances and it specifies a penalty for failure to comply. Mr. Loveland's testimony stated the facts as they have unfolded since November. He has been a resident of Ammon since 1948. The old City of Ammon is a unique problem. As a resident in the old City of Ammon, they are trying to clean up and improve the area. Steve has much more junk than Mr. Knight does, but he does not bring his junk out in his neighbor's front yard. There are places in Ammon that definitely need to be cleaned up. Some of the problems in old Ammon may take years to cleanup, but we do not need to move in industrial units and add to the problem. It is hoped new people moving in will want to keep Ammon clean from the start. Mr. Knight should be able to have a storage shed that is in harmony with the neighborhood. Stephanie Bonney stated for the record, since this is a quasi-judicial determination, that according to both the legal notice and the agenda we are here to discuss whether or not this property is legally a nuisance. It is her contention that information on whether or not it meets UBC or information on whether it meets Planning and Zoning are not appropriate at this time. They will be happy to address those issues in a separate meeting if the Council would like that. City Council Meeting, July 12, 2001 - Page 12 Paula Loveland responded that, when they came in November they specifically addressed the UBC concerns that they had regarding the property. It was determined all those issues would be satisfied if Mr. Knight was given until June 1. Attorney Anderson asked Ms. Bonney if she had any cross-examination for Mr. Loveland. She did not. Attorney Anderson said he would like to establish some information. He questioned Steve Loveland. What are the units made of? They are made out of heavy gage steel. They have been used as cargo containers? Yes. How does a private person get a hold of them? Are they declared surplus? After a period of time, I don't know what that would be. Probably they do not seal up good enough for shipping products overseas because they have to be tight. Through the handling over the years they get to the point where they are not acceptable for that work. They have been used, like at Kmart. They will fill the units up, and they are designed to put right on the back of a semi-truck. So it is very convenient for them if they are going to do something in their stores or whatever main center they have. They can fill the container and mark it for the Idaho Falls Kmart. I'm sure a lot of the big stores use them. They ship them here, drop them off, and at the store's leisure they can empty them. Where are they located now on Mr. Knight's property? They are located against my (Steve Loveland's) fence about thirty feet back on the back of his property adjacent to mine. What do you call the back of his property? That would be north of his house. Right on his line? It would be very close. The fence is all on Loveland's property and the units are pushed up against the fence. Jerald Knight interrupted to object and stated he had the property surveyed and the property line came down the middle of the fence. Attorney Anderson stopped Knight and said he would have an opportunity to rebut. Attorney Anderson continued with questioning Steve Loveland. The thirty feet is measured from where? From the easement back. What easement? The easement on Romrell Lane. From the edge of Romrell Lane to the west? To the west-Yes, that is correct. Is the west line of the Knight property coincidental with your property? Yes. What is the distance of the lot from Romrell to the west line? It would be in the neighborhood of 150 feet. He did not have the exact footage. How much distance is there between the back of Mr. Knight's house and the north line of his property? I'm not sure. A guess would be thirty or thirty-five feet. Where is the front of your structure facing Romrell Lane in relation to these storage units? The front of my unit is in the neighborhood of fifty or fifty-five feet back from the easement. The storage units being thirty feet would be in front of your structure? Yes. What do you find objectionable in them being placed thee? Besides them being placed there, up until City Council Meeting, July 12, 2001 - Page 13 maybe a week ago, he had a trailer filled with junk. It is the first thing we are privileged to see when you turn north on Romrell Lane driving to my apartments. Everyone has the privilege of seeing all his trash and storage sheds right in the front. You have to get around them to see my apartments. What trash? Junk and stuff that is not being used. I'm very familiar with it. I've got lots of it. About a week ago he moved it over to the back of his units toward the west. Is it still there? Yes. He pointed to it on one of the pictures. Does the Council have any questions for Steve? Councilmember Bean asked if Steve had any reason to believe that the looks of the storage units will affect your ability to rent your apartments? Beth Kohler, a renter in the apartments, responded. She would think twice before going there. The storage units were not there when she moved in. They look industrial. They don't look like a neighborhood. They are cargo crates. What do you find when you look at them? I think of a train yard. I think of industrial. I used to work in storage units in Salt Lake City and they were right by industrial. That is what Knight's units remind me of. You don't like the looks of them? No. I wouldn't want them by my home. Laurie Welker, 2835 Romrell Lane, has lived in Ammon for forty-two years and during all those years she has never had problems with a neighbors. Her house is on the corner of Owen Street and Romrell Lane. They have spent a lot of time and a lot of money to make their home look nice during the thirteen years they have there. Everyone in the neighborhood tries to make the area nice. For years there have been renters in the place where Knights live. When Knights moved in, they thought someone would take some pride in the place. Unfortunately it looks worse now than when low income renters lived there. He starts a project and doesn't finish it. He starts another project and doesn't finish it. As homeowners, it is very frustrating. We do not have anything against Mr. Knight. We just want it to look nice. They are something we have to look at. They affect the harmony of the neighborhood. All we are asking is that Mr. Knight will honor what he said when he said that he would move the units by June 1. We do not want him to be miserable. If he wants to build a shop. Great! We have even thought about helping him to build a shop. Lyndon Hall, 3235 Owen Street, lives directly to the west of the Knights. The wind blew part of the roof off his storage shed, and he freely tore it down. The shed was built several years ago by a renter. It was built out of construction materials. It never had shingles or siding. It was destined to fall apart by the way it was maintained and taken care of. Mr. Hall has had several run-ins with Mr. Knight. He keeps lilacs on the east side of his place so he doesn't have to look out at the Knights. Councilmember Bean asked why the shed wasn't brought up as a nuisance? Mr. Hall has lived there since 1990, but he doesn't remember if the shed was there when he City Council Meeting, July 12, 2001 - Page 14 moved to Owen Street. Why wasn't the shed brought out as a nuisance and the storage units are? Mr. Hall brought up about the shed because he heard it mentioned in the testimony that neighbors had complained about it. He remembers the wind and the rain disintegrating the roof, and he remembers him knocking it down. It was sometime since last August. Mr. Hall just wanted to confirm that Mr. Knight tore it down of his own free will. No one asked him to. It was over against the fence on Knight's west property line. Mark Welker, 2835 Romrell Lane, lives east of Mr. Knight. For several years renters have lived in the house where Knight's now live. There were two apartments in the house. It was quite run down. When people started moving in, they started cleaning things up. One of the renters started building the shed, but he let it run down. The property changed hands a few times. When Knights bought the property, the neighbors were encouraged. The real problem now is the storage containers. Mr. Welker works out to the Site and he sees those containers all day. He doesn't want to come home to see those containers in his front yard. Why are they different than the shed? The shed is gone now and it is no longer an issue. The containers do not fit the code for what we are trying to put in. Mr. Welker went through a lot of effort to be able to build a shop in his own yard. To all of a sudden drop some storage containers in their yard and call that storage is not going to fly. We need to start cleaning this area up, and why not start with Mr. Knight to let everyone know we want no more of this in the City of Ammon. Paula Loveland addressed why the shed was not a problem and the cargo containers are. The shed was very small, and the cargo containers stick out like a neon light. She feels it is a nuisance because it impacts her property value. She does not oppose Mr. Knight having some sort of storage, but when his right to store his stuff impacts Loveland's right to have a place that is pretty and worth something because they have to look at cargo containers that is a problem. The containers are industrial in a residential area. Either the ordinances apply to everyone and everyone complies or they should not apply to anyone. Steve Loveland added that if, Mr. Knight would have followed the proper procedures, he would never have had the expense of moving the containers in. We do not need to pick on Mr. Knight to start cleaning up. The ordinances have been in effect for quite a few years. The storage units do not fit. As for the shed, it was a race between him tearing it down and it falling down. Mr. Knight brought the problems on himself. The neighbors expect him to do what he said he would do. Attorney Anderson asked about the neighborhood. Is the neighborhood entirely residential? No. There is a section zoned R-2 because Steve Loveland owns a four unit apartment building and Mr. Knight's residence was a duplex for many years. Knight's property is also zoned R-2. There is no commercial except for Waters City Council Meeting, July 12, 2001 - Page 15 Construction, which is about a half block west on Midway Avenue. Ammon Elementary School is across the street to the south on the corner of Owen Street and Central Avenue. It may take time to clean up old Ammon, but the ordinances are in place so that it can happen. Leslie Faeber, 2735 Romrell Lane, lives north of Paula and Robert Loveland. There is an empty lot in between. On the other side is the Crows, and they have equipment in there, but they have built a high, sturdy fence so there is no offensive view. Before Knights moved in there were renters in the duplex, and it was in better shape than it is now. When someone bought the property, it was hoped for an improvement. It has not been an improvement. She would like the neighborhood improved and not unimproved. Troy Palmer, 2780 Midway Avenue, lives in the house right next to Waters Construction. He has listened to the comments about the neighborhood and what is in the neighborhood. It sounds like we are talking about people's judgement of what is right and what is wrong on someone else's property. There are things all around the neighborhood. We are not talking about Beverly Hills. If we say Mr. Knight can't have a storage shed, then what is next? Mr. Palmer has used similar storage containers in his work. The units are becoming more readily available. They are even available for rent. It is not a permanent building. It is storage. We are opening a can of worms that is a lot broader than a couple of storage units on Knight's property. Paula Loveland commented that it has been brought out that people in the construction business use the units during construction. Also, it has been brought out that they are temporary. What Mr. Knight is proposing is that they become permanent which is not what he agreed to originally and which is why we are here. Steve Loveland stated City of Ammon has an ordinance dealing with conditional use permits, which would allow Mr. Knight to bring in a cargo container during construction. However, he is not allowed to arbitrarily move units in. Stephanie Bonney responded that she appreciated that everybody wants to have a nice neighborhood. She appreciates the fact that they want to beautify their neighborhood. Unfortunately the law does not protect your right to do that. What the law of nuisance does is prevent people from using the property in such a way that it essentially renders everybody else's property useless. It deals with things like rendering plants and phosphate plants where you can not even walk out the door. She submitted to the City Council, while this perhaps being unsightly does not rise to the level of a legal nuisance, which is what we are here to decide. Thank you! Councilmember Bean asked Attorney Anderson does the law, in fact, state that a nuisance has to rise to the level where it renders the property useless? City Council Meeting, July 12, 1001 - Page 16 No, that is not the extent of it. The statutes are very general. The City has the power to declare what is a nuisance and offensive to the senses as well as the other elements that have been mentioned so as to deprive others of the enjoyment of their property. The determination to be made is whether this is offensive to the senses of the people who filed the complaint. Why did you choose this type of unit? Jerald Knight: Because of the cost of them. I want to make one thing clear to everyone here. At no time have I ever said those units are going to be there permanently. At no time and in no record have I ever said they were going to be there permanently. Another thing, if I was planning to put them there permanently, I would have poured a concrete foundation and bolted them to the ground. Those units are meant to be moved and relocated at any time. There is a difference between these units and a permanent structure. Councilmember Hall asked what Mr. Knight considers a permanent structure. A garage is. What is the time frame? Mr. Knight responded, "That is a question I have to ask. Is it a week? Is it six months?" He is using the units to store carpet for his house and other materials for home improvement projects. He offered to let the contents be examined. It takes him a while to complete projects. He stated, "I'm following the ordinances. I came to the City before the containers ever came on to the property. I have seeked out information and now I feel I'm being judged because I didn't get the right answers. That makes you guys as much at fault as myself." He indicated that the price he paid for the containers was a personal matter. He agreed the units were first used for industrial shipping, but they are now used for many more purposes than they were first designed for. Councilmember Crandall asked what changed between November and June. First I received a certified letter from the City. It said the storage units needed to be moved or located differently on the property. I was trying to get the audiotapes of the City Council meetings to remember exactly what was said. He was not able to get the tapes from the City of Ammon. He claimed that he was able to get some information on July 11. There was a hand written note from the Clerk on some of the information regarding the need for the documents being requested. She needed to talk to the attorney about the tapes. He was given copies of the minutes and other information that the office was able to interpret to be what he wanted. The City had a difficult time trying to deliver a notice to Jerald Knight and one to Robin Knight of the complaint and the hearing. Officer Greg Black was unable to deliver the notice letters. David Wadsworth finally taped the letters to the Knight's door. Usually a son was sent to the City Office to get information. The City Clerk suggested to Mr. City Council Meeting, July 12, 2001 - Page 17 Knight's son to have his father accept the notice letter prepared by the attorney and it would give him the information he needed. Councilmember Crandall: You feel like you were under duress when you agreed to move the units? Yes. Stephanie Bonney has not listened to the tapes. All she knows is what Mr. Knight has told her. She believes it was his understanding that if he could find another spot that he would move them. He thought that he had a place in Bannock County, but the deal fell through. (The minutes call it Bingham County.) He does not feel that he, or he mistakenly did, ever agreed to definitely move the structures. Mr. Knight stated we did discuss the matter about it falling through. It was at that time and if you listen to the ending of the tape, that you gave him the opportunity if he couldn't do it to at least make them comply. Mayor Ard stated we read the set backs of what the City Code actually says. It is important to read the requirements before you know where to set things. When a person comes to the City, whatever City, and they request information on how to do it they should be directed how to do it properly. He was directed to David Wadsworth. We went out on site and discussed this. He followed what he believed and took steps. He followed procedures to the best of his understanding. Mayor Ard: So you believe the units are sitting where they are supposed to be? Yes. Council member Folsom asked what kind of paint he painted them with. "Exterior paint. They are white now. In November they were red." In answer to what is stored in the units, Mr. Knight answered carpet, tile, saws, stuff used on his floors, and some personal property. He is storing what he is using for his home. Mr. Knight said he never intended the units to be permanent and he intended them to be temporary. What is temporary? When is he planning to move them? Council member Bean asked Mr. Knight: Do you consider them temporary or permanent structures? "I consider them temporary meaning that they can be moved from one location to another whether it is on the same property or not." In your opinion, what is temporary? What time frame is temporary? "At this time I can not give you that information." City Council Meeting, July 12, 2001 - Page 18 Council member Bean: I need to have your definition of temporary. "My definition of temporary. If I have to make a definition of temporary. I guess that would have to be when I finish working on my place. I plan on putting siding on, so I plan on putting the siding in there. When that is done, I plan on going to the next step. I have continuously tried to improve that property. I have taken offense if they say I have not." He explained some of his projects. He has discussed them with David Wadsworth. He is waiting for the City to complete Owen Street. He does not believe he needs permission every time he digs a hole. He has offered to do some things and he has been told no. He is trying to work with the neighbors, but he does not think he needs permission from his neighbors to work on his property. "I'm in no wrong. I have to depend on City of Ammon to tell me the way to go. I'm asking for nothing more than some understanding. I have got no communication from my neighbors to talk anything over. I don't want the storage units there forever. That is why I don't put a foundation under them. Under the City's regulation, if I tie them down, I must get a building permit. To give you an exact time I will not do. Just like when you start a construction job, a number of things can come up to stop you or delay you. I'm just a residential homeowner and I'm doing the best I can." Laurie Welker commented that it could take years to complete construction. Jerald Knight called attention to the law governing permits. If you get a permit, it requires you to work on it any given time in six months. If you cease for a certain amount of time, it is considered a breech of the permit according to his understanding. He does not think he has stopped working on his place since he moved there. Council member Bean stated there is a difference between maintenance and construction. Steve Loveland added the units are over 120 square feet, and there never was a permit applied for as a permanent structure or as a temporary so it is in violation of City ordinances and codes. Lyndon Hall said he tried to talk to Mr. Knight when he first moved in. A year ago this spring he had corner posts of the fence dropped down. He knocked them down and waited for the frost to get out of the ground. Mr. Knight started digging postholes. He had the place surveyed. One posthole was three feet out from the corner of the fence and Mr. Knight said this is the mark the surveyor said is the property line. Mr. Hall said he hated to argue, but the fence had been the property line for many years. There is not a lot of thought and logic to what Mr. Knight does some times. Mr. Knight said, "As pointed out, for me to please the right side I can't please the left side. For me to please the left side I can't please the right side. This is not what we City Council Meeting, July 12, 2001 - Page 19 are here for. We are here to determine if these units are a nuisance. Nothing more. Nothing less." Paula Loveland: Back in November and December when we started all of this, it was determined that Mr. Knight was in violation because he did not obtain the permits. It was decided the best way to go about that was to give the leeway to keep the storage containers until June 1. We all accepted that, and we agreed to it. He has not applied for any permits or done anything to be in compliance with ordinances. He has moved the units back out of the easement. This is not an attack on him. This is what is right is right and what is wrong is wrong. There are codes in place for everyone. The codes apply to Mr. Knight just like they apply to us. They apply to Welkers. Mark Welker built a shop. He got the permits necessary. He met the easements. He had inspections. None of that has been done with these containers. Even if they are temporary, they still have to meet code for their size. All we are asking is that the City Council enforce what they agreed to and what Mr. Knight agreed to as far as those containers being in our area. If Mr. Knight wants to, I am sure we as neighbors will all pitch in and help him build a beautiful garage. He has been very unapproachable, and we have all had our reasons for giving him a very wide birth. That is why we are here. For him to stand up and say how mean we are, how unfair we are, and how we pick on him, that is simply not true. We have lived here for 17 years and never had a problem with a neighbor. Mayor Ard closed the public hearing. Attorney Anderson advised that the City Council can have the choice to make a decision now or to take it under consideration and review the evidence before making a decision. Councilmember Crandall moved to defer the decision and to take under consideration the various points and discuss them. The motion died for lack of a second. Councilmember Bean moved to make a decision this evening. Councilmember Folsom seconded the motion. Roll call vote: Bean - Yes; Folsom - Yes; Hall - No; Crandall - No. Mayor Ard voted to break the tie and he voted - Yes. The motion carried. Councilmember Bean expressed his feelings. What we have to take a look at is not necessarily the code violations. The code violations are there potentially. Those need to be put aside to be dealt with at another time depending upon the outcome. The verbal commitment does not come into play because this is a nuisance hearing. In that case, if looking at this purely from a nuisance standpoint, there are two issues that are very concerning. There is an ordinance in the City of Ammon that stipulates construction has to be in harmony and characteristic of the neighborhood. Whether that neighborhood is defined as two houses away or whether it is defined as a mile away it has to be in characteristic of the neighborhood. The pictures of the property City Council Meeting, July 12, 2001 - Page 20 other than the residences and perhaps how your residence may fit with others around are relevant. The reason they are not relevant is we are not trying to decide if his looks better or the others look poorer. The issue of whether the units were in harmony with the neighborhood was brought up to both of you. Neither one of you disputed the fact that it was or was not within characteristic. This surprises me because normally, typically if someone puts forth an argument, you would rebut that argument. It was not rebutted. I would consider those storage units not in characteristic and harmony with that neighborhood. For that very reason, I would find a nuisance. One other statement, there was a renter who stated she would question whether she would rent there again. There was no rebuttal whether that was valid or not valid. Again, lack of rebuttal would indicate you don't have any feelings toward that. I think, in fact, if that is the case, that renters do feel that way and that interferes with the Loveland's rights and uses of the property and enjoyment of their property. Therefore, I would find that a nuisance also. In that fact, I would find the property in violation and would be considered a nuisance. Councilmember Folsom asked Attorney Anderson, "What do we look at?' Attorney Anderson: You are looking at whether or not in the neighborhood the are located are they proper there or do they constitute a nuisance. If they were located somewhere else, they may not be a nuisance. If they were located in an industrial setting, that is what they are meant for so they are okay. Do they become okay in a residential setting? Do they fit in where they are located? Council member Folsom stated, on that note with what Attorney Anderson said, I'm going to differ with you. There are lots of uses out there in that area. Councilmember Crandall expressed the feeling that the containers are inconsistent with the neighborhood. His initial reaction was that he wanted more time to think about and to look at the specific violations. Council member Hall questioned Mr. Knight. When did you paint the containers white? He started preparing them back in May. This involved sanding and removing the stickers to get them ready for painting. As he had the money, he purchased the paint. He finished the job last Sunday. It was an overall project. Council member Hall stated that he was disappointed that the neighbors can not get together. It is unfortunate that it has to come to this. At the same time, Mr. Knight has been less than honest and forthright in his dealings since last fall. It is a concern that we do not know what temporary means. The units do not fit in the neighborhood for one season, and it sounds like it is going to be considerable more than that. It would have been desirable to work something out with the neighbors and maybe in a City Council Meeting, July 12, 2001 - Page 21 different location. There have been no answers to direct questions. There is no indication that things are going to change. Council member Bean moved to declare the storage units to be a nuisance and to ask them to be removed in not greater than thirty (30) days. Councilmember Hall seconded the motion. Roll call vote: Bean - Yes; Hall- Yes; Crandall - Yes; Folsom - No. The motion carried. (Exhibit A - Findings and Conclusions) Unfinished Business: We have had a vacancy on the Planning and Zoning Commission since Dick Bybee asked to be replaced. Things have changed for Dick and he has expressed a willingness to come back to service. Mayor Ard recommended that because of Dick Bybee's experience that he be re-appointed to the Planning and Zoning Commission to complete his term. Councilmember Crandall moved to reappoint Dick Bybee to the Planning and Zoning Commission on the Mayor's recommendation. Roll call vote: Crandall - Yes; Bean - Yes; Hall - Yes; Folsom - Yes. The motion carried unanimously. Reports: David Wadsworth reported for Public Works. They have been patching potholes. The Owen Street project was explained. It is a joint project with the School District. The City's portion of the project includes completely redoing and widening Owen Street from Ammon Road to Western Avenue. The School's portion includes closing the Owen Street access to Hillcrest High School. Attorney Anderson received a communication from Palisades Park regarding their billing. He discussed the letter he received with the Council, and he drafted a proposed reply for the Council's opinion. The letter from Palisades Park was difficult to understand what they wanted. The Council agreed with the proposed reply. The ordinance for the annexation of the additional acreage on The Cottages Division No. 2 and the ordinance for the annexation of the new well site off East 21 st Street were deferred until a later meeting. Council member Folsom reported that Dan Ruddell has ninety (90) days from June 4 to activate his liquor licenses. Council member Bean had a question. The Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) gives a go ahead on sanitary sewer systems and water systems for new developments. In their recent letter of approval for the Miller/Hatton property, they mentioned implementing Idaho Storm Water Best Management Practices. Councilmember Bean wanted to know what that was. There was a discussion, and it was concluded that meant developers need to plan for storm water drainage. City Council Meeting, July 12, 2001 - Page 22 Council member Hall reported that it would cost $600 to paint the Well No.4 storage building with the special graffiti paint. It was agreed to authorize the Eagle Scout to complete his project with regular paint. The Department of Lands has grants available and a community forestry grant workshop is scheduled for August 1. Councilmember Hall met with Gerry Bates and Marla Bezold, a representative of TieBreaker School, regarding the program. Councilmember Hall recommended that the City get a grant writer. Ron Folsom has volunteered if the City will pay for his education to learn about grant writing. Councilmember Hall moved to officially appoint Ron Folsom as a grant writer for the City of Ammon and to provide training funds for him to become a grant writer, and to authorize him to participate in the August 1 workshop. Roll call vote: Hall - Yes; Bean - Yes; Crandall- Yes; Folsom - Abstained. The motion carried. Engineer Manwill reported on the Hitt Road sewer project. It is about 50% complete, and it will take about five more weeks. The City's share of costs is estimated to be $250,000. The 1-15 Interchange Project has been split into two phases. The first phase would be to address all the environmental and to do the designs. The second phase would be the bridge across the Snake River and the connection. The reason for splitting into phases is there is not sufficient funding to do the entire project. The first phase can be built on schedule to begin in 2003. Funding is not in place for the second phase. Continuing with the Sunnyside Road Project and working toward the east is the federal aid widening project from Yellowstone Highway to Holmes Avenue. It has been determined regarding the historical property, and the trees and the Bennett property will have to be avoided. As a result there will be a significant increase in right-of-way costs. Some adjustments have been made, which will affect the commercial properties. They are building on a seventy-five (75) foot roadway section and the center lane turn out has been eliminated in that portion. City of Idaho Falls believes this will be adequate in this section. Bonneville County is negotiating the right-of-way. The expense will be to all three entities. Details of right-of-way acquisition and federal aid participation in the project were discussed. Nothing is supposed to be delayed but the intersection project. Claims were approved. Council member Crandall moved to adjourn the meeting, and Councilmember Hall seconded the motion. The meeting was adjourned at 11: 15 P. M. Mayor Attest: City Clerk July 12, 2001 Exhibit A - Page 1 Before the City Council City of Ammon, Idaho Re: Hearing on Complaints vs Property 3265 Owen Street Ammon, ID 83406 Findings of Fact and Conclusions A petition was received by the City of Ammon signed by numerous citizens and residents complaining of the condition of the property at 3265 Owen Street, Ammon, Idaho. The City finding probable cause from such petition, set for hearing before the City Council the question of the violation existing at the location of 3265 Owen Street. An order was set for the hearing of said complaints on the 12th day of July, 2001 at 7:30 p.m. Due and proper notice of said hearing was given and published and at said hearing, all persons present who desired to testify were given an opportunity to testify, to be cross-examined and a recorded, transcribable record is made of such proceedings. The property owners, Jerald Knight and Robin Knight were present and represented by attorney Stephanie J. Bonney, Esq. The Mayor and City Council do hereby make the following findings of fact and conclusions: 1) That a petition was received and signed by 24 citizens and residents of the City of Ammon, that the City Council define a nuisance and violation of ordinances at the location of 3265 Owen Street, Ammon, Idaho and take action to correct such conditions. 2) Citizens have appeared at previous City Council meetings orally complaining of the conditions and existence of structures upon said premises and that the owners of said premises, Jerald & Robin Knight, appeared at meetings of the City Council to explain their placement of structures on their property. 3) That the property at 3265 Owen Street, Ammon, Idaho, faces Owen Street with the frontage facing south and the backyard being to the north; that the adjoining property on the north faces Romrell Lane and the south side yard of such adjoining property is the contiguous boundary with the backyard of the Knight's property. 4) That the structures complained of are two industrial cargo units built for the purpose of transporting freight by truck, train, or boat. That they are approximately 8 feet in height, 8 feet in width, and 20 feet in length. Two of the structures were placed on the Knight's property, side by side, with the northerly side of the units being on the property at the north property line of the Knight property . July 12, 2001 Exhibit A - Page 2 5) It was determined at said meetings that the structures were located in violation of the set back requirements from Romrell Lane, which is the east boundary of said Knight property forming the side yard for the property. 6) That the Knight's represented to the City Council that it was difficult to move said units in the winter conditions and agreed that they would move the units from the property by June 1, 2001 if no action were taken during the interim. 7) That following June 1,2001, and the units not having been moved, the Knight's were requested to explain to the City Council why they had not complied. The Knight's defended their position saying that they had moved the container units to be approximately 30 feet back from Romrell Lane and still located on the north boundary line. The Knight's felt that this complied with the City ordinances, and therefore, stated that they do not intend to move them off of the property. 8) That after the Knight's declined to move the units, the citizens, neighbors, and residents in the area presented a petition for the Council to determine a violation existed and thereupon the hearing was set for the Council to hear evidence and make a determination upon the allegations. 9) That the storage units remain located upon the Knight property approximately 30 feet to the west of Romrell Lane and located at the north boundary line of the Knight property. 10) That the Knight property and the property adjoining there to on the north are zoned R2 under the zoning ordinances of the City of Ammon. 11) That the structures complained of on the Knight property are industrial in appearance and are no longer used for the purpose for which they were manufactured. That the appearance of such structures is not in harmony with the objectives and characteristics of the residential zone wherein they are located. 12) That the Idaho Code Section 67-6518 allows a governing Board to adopt standards for such building designs. 13) That the Idaho Code Section 50-334 empowers cities to declare what shall be deemed nuisances and grants the power to abate nuisances. 14) That the Idaho Code Section 52-101 defines nuisances and the Ammon ordinances Section 5-8-1 defines nuisances both of which state that anything which is injurious to health, morals, is indecent, is offensive to the senses or an obstruction to the free use of property so as to interfere with the comfortable enjoyment of life or property - - -is a nuisance. 15) That the structures have been located on the Knight property at a location which is in violation of the zoning ordinances and requirements of the City of Ammon. July 12, 2001 Exhibit A - Page 3 16) That witnesses testified that the character of the structures and the location thereof are offensive to them and interfere with their comfortable enjoyment of life and of their property. 17) That the City Council does find that the character and location of the structures on the Knight property are a nuisance and it is hereby ordered that said structures be removed from the property within 30 days from the date of the hearing. rH Dated this c:5? ~ day of July 2001. .~{!. 2-:=~_~ City of Ammon . (/ By: Clerk The foregoing order was passed by the City Council upon a roll call vote as follows: Voting Aye: Council Person Hall Council Person Bean Council Person Crandall Voting Nay: Council Person Folsom L\ WJA \0011 \knight-city of ammon.doc