Council makes decision on building ordinance

Finally the City of Sidney City Council made a decision Tuesday night on the proposed ordinance of defining accessory buildings in residential zones, and discussion on other proposed ordinances was continued.

Council member Joe Arterburn started discussion on the accessory building ordinance last night and inquired as to whether the stipulations of the attached garage and detached garage having to be 1,200 square feet or smaller was necessary.

“I had the same thought Joe, because over time lot sizes are bound to change and if we are putting a hard fast figure in there I don’t know if that is going to create problems 10, 20 or 30 years down the road,” said Roger Gallaway, a newly elected council member.

“I like the provision that says the total footprint of the buildings and impervious surfaces not exceed 40 percent of the lot,” said Gallaway. “That is a nice restraint and I like the fact that it does not exceed the principle building.”

Council member Mark Nienhueser proposed that the ordinance be changed from “the building shall not exceed 1,200 square feet or the square footage equal to the ground floor footprint of the principle building, whichever is smaller” by taking out the phrase “1,200 or whichever is smaller.”

“Lots very in different sizes and houses vary in different sizes, and this is a universal fits all scenario,” he said.

“When you have 1,200 square feet for large lots and small lots it’s too unpredictable.”

“By leaving it in I think we would be creating unnecessary problems down the road,” said Gallaway.

Nienhueser had a few more changes to make to the ordinance before he would allow it to pass.

“In any residential zone, with the exception of R1A and AR, no residential property shall be given more than one attached and one detached accessory building. I would like to see us make that change and we change 120 square feet to 180 square feet,” said Nienhueser.

R1A and AR lots must still comply with the stated setbacks however, the members decided.

“It can be changed to no residential property, with the exception of R1A and AR zones, shall have more than one attached and one detached accessory building and in all residential zones any detached accessory building shall be located (within the proper setbacks),” said J. Leef, City of Sidney Attorney.

“I think this prevents the problem that lead us down this path to start with, and that was somebody building this commercial looking structure in the middle of a residential neighborhood because the lot was rather unique,” said City of Sidney City Manager Gary Person.

The above changes were made and 1,200 square feet was stricken from record.

Members of the commuinty thanked the council members for taking the extended time on the matter and getting it right.

“I think you guys did a wonderful job to where it fits everybody, not just one group of people,” said a community member.

There was also discussion on considering an ordinance changing the definition of lot coverage in the city code.

A new proposed definition would include impervious surfaces located on the lot in a resident’s total lot coverage percentage.

According to Person, the redefinition was brought up from concerns by the planning commission that residents would have too much coverage with things like impervious surfaces and that that would cause flood problems.

“My concern is that chart is set up around those buildings off of those percentages and I’m afraid this has got more far reaching impacts,” said Nienhueser.

“We wouldn’t be the first city to put this into place. Many other communities that have storm water ordinances in place have instituted such a provision,” said John Hehnke, City of Sidney Public Services Director.

“The more impervious surfaces we create, the more storm water we put into our streets and storm water system which creates the problems we have now,” he said.

Hehnke agreed to bring in some storm water ordinances from other cities, where most show 40 percent lot coverage and 45 percent impervious surface coverage.

Further discussion on the topic is set to commence at the next council meeting.

The hot topic of changing the current ordinance on parking trailers and recreational vehicles was also readdressed at the meeting. The current ordinance has been in place since 1978.

A map was provided that showed the Sidney streets under current law that allow vehicles to park on the streets.

Nienhueser brought up a point that the first-time offense for not dollying down vehicles that needed to be should not be an intense fee like $500.

He said that there should be “a little bit of grace” on the first offense but the people who would continually do it, well-knowing it was against the law, should pay the price.

“$500 on a first-time offense is ridiculous,” he said.

The council members decided that whether to enforce a fine of $100 on the first offense or to just offer a warning to violators would be up to the discretion of the police.

“I think adding on there that the failure to dolly down on the city streets results in a $100 fine for the first offense and a $500 fine for each side offense after that makes sense,” said Mayor Wendall Gaston.

Leef explained that proving beyond a reasonable doubt that damage had been caused to the street by the lack of a dolly would be placed upon the city.

One community member addressed the issue of recreational vehicles having to be at least 10 feet back from the curb.

“If I’m back into my garage like that I can’t get my other vehicle in or out of the garage,” he said.

The council members agreed with the man and changed the ordinance to state that a recreational vehicle must not overhang or impede the sidewalk.

One member of the community asked if there had been any problems from trailers and recreational vehicles parked in the street in the past, and said if there wasn’t there should be no law against it.

“We have had complaints from the fire departments about getting through roadways for emergencies or they would think they would have problems getting through them,” said Gaston.

“You’re going to force a lot of people to leave town (if the current ordinance stays in place),” said the man.

Nienhueser brought up the current changes that were before the members to be voted on regarding the issue.

“What’s being amended here is changing 24 hours allowed on the street to 72 hours for leaving vehicles, correct language to not block the sidewalk, and protection that if they are going to be parked on the street that they use dollys to protect the street,” he said.

Garth Ferris, a Sidney resident located on Charlotte Drive, commented that even just leaving normal vehicles parked on the streets is a safety hazard and a burden to residents because the streets aren’t wide enough for normal traffic.

He explained that when his truck was parked on one side of the street and another truck directly across the street from his, his wife’s small Neon car could not even drive down the street between the two trucks.

“If my wife can’t even get through in a Neon, how would you get emergency vehicles through?” he asked.

Gallaway had the idea of creating one-way streets in some parts of town but that idea was soon shot down as it was decided that that would be too difficult to put in place and keep in place.

“It’s not our responsibility as the city to provide storage for recreational vehicles,” said Nienhueser. “I think we are going a long ways to accommodate it. If people live on narrow streets, I’m sorry. But if you get in the event when, we all know how kids play, somebody runs out from behind the vehicles into the middle of the street when somebody is driving down the street – that is where I think our biggest liability is. That’s what scares me the most about this thing, and I think we are doing all that we can - we can’t afford to widen the streets.”

“Keep in mind that this was 1978 when it was adopted and recreational vehicles were much smaller and it was a problem then,” said Person. “One of the problems is the increased size.”

“You keep asking for solutions,” said one concerned citizen. “Let us park our recreational vehicles for 72 hours in front of our houses just like a car or pickup during the April through October period of time. That’s the solution to that.”

“We’re trying to inform people that as it stands now you are liable and have been since 1978 if an accident were to occur because of the vehicle blockage,” said Gaston.

It was decided that the council members would not take action until the full issue could be addressed and Leef said she would have better definitions and what each definition applied to by the next meeting.

The mayor said that he welcomed input and suggestion from residents.

The map of the streets residents are able to park on will be available online on the city website, said Gaston.

“Every spring when we announce that you can start parking again we will put up the chart that states where you can park so that the public knows. If you are on a red street you can park your recreational vehicle on the street, if it is not red you can’t,” he said.

Also discussed by the council members was the proposed ordinance of licensing cats.

Leef said that the entire section of the proposal had been modified and that cats will be treated much like dogs.

“It allows for tattooing or micro chipping for those concerned about cats with collars and

the time that they need to be licensed has been changed to the age of four months instead of two,” she said.

“You can’t get a rabies vaccination until the animal is four months and you can’t license the animal until it has a rabies vaccination,” said Joe Aikens, the City of Sidney Police Chief.

Animals are now required to be licensed within 30 days after turning four months of age.

It was decided that if a cat is licensed and still on the loose it is considered a “cat at large.” Cats must be on a leash or inside if they cannot be contained within the owner’s property.

Arterburn lead the discussion of cat licensing, starting with striking out that dogs must be on a leash at all times because he said dogs can be under the control of their owner with voice command or shock collar.

“It will be changed from securely leashed to under the immediate control of the owner, with cats being the same,” said Leef.

Also discussed was the topic of animal identity tags.

The current law states that a rabies tag must be warn by an animal but an identification (name, owners address, etc.) tag is not allowed.

The reason for this is it helps law enforcement to see right way if an animal is licensed or not via the rabies tag.

It was decided that some people could put an identification tag on an animal just so the animal looked licensed from a distance.

“Any person who harbors or permits any dog or cat to be harbored for 10 days or more, or who lets the same habitually remain and be fed for 10 days or more in or about their house, store or enclosure, shall be deemed the owner and possessor of such animal,” said Leef.

Leef said she would clear up all the language in the proposed licensing ordinance and make changes for a new draft and single ordinance to readdress to the council at the next meeting.

John Hehnke also presented a maintenance plan by the street department for the new year.

“The citizens number one concern is street maintenance and you guys put a lot of work into this,” said Nienhueser.

One big project on the city street department’s plate for the new year is their annual chip-seal project.

The council members decided they needed to discuss how to adequately review the plan and build it right. Hehnke and members of the council also discussed the consideration of a new proposed storm water ordinance to be addressed more in meetings to come.

There was also a brief discussion by the council members on the mayor’s report from his meeting with the swimming pool committee.

“The swimming pool committee was in favor of establishing an indoor and outdoor pool, even if that means raising money,” said Gaston.

Gaston said that the next step would be for members of the council to meet with members of the Cheyenne County Community Center Board to discuss the fate of the old community center and possibly creating a new one. The two parties’ discussion will greatly determine further action because the pool committee seemed to be in a group consensus on site option C.

“C was probably the best option they thought, only because it didn’t land lock the community center,” said Gaston. “That was their consensus. I think we are a long way from accepting any of the plans, but the next step is to have a meeting in the next couple weeks with community center representatives.”

A meeting has been planned for April 3 at 12 p.m. at either City Hall or the community center - whichever is available.

“We know what our budget is and we can’t really go over that projected $3 million,” said the mayor. “So we’ll have to have some form of fundraising to do it. They said if it took two or three or four years to do, that they were in favor of doing it right because that is Sidney’s reputation.”