A Preston resident, Ellen Jensen, presented complaints about alleged code violations, notification procedures for recent rezoning, and nuisance conditions at a particular property; the council and city staff responded with a series of administrative findings and agreed to continue research and to revisit ordinance clarifications at the council’s Sept. 8 meeting.

What the resident raised: Jensen asked the council to review whether the city provided proper legal notice for rezoning and to clarify which codes apply to accessory structures, setbacks and alleged nuisance conditions. She asked for determinations about whether an area used as private parking sits on city right‑of‑way or another category of property.

Staff response: Sean Alverson, director of planning and land use, provided documentation of public notices and said the city published six notices (three before the Planning and Zoning hearing and three before the council hearing) when the code’s notification threshold applied. He said many noncompliant structures in the city are legal nonconforming uses because they were permitted or legal under earlier ordinances.

Police and code enforcement: The police chief said his department investigated the accumulation and nuisance complaints and that the property in question had been cleaned up since the complaint; the chief said the particular shed referenced was not found to be in violation and that some prior building practices predated current enforcement approaches.

Legal review: City Attorney Lyle Fuller and staff reviewed the code language provided by Jensen and noted past ordinance provisions and later revisions. Fuller said some historical questions — such as the exact zoning when structures were built — would require archival research (for example, checking newspaper archives or county records) and that staff could pursue that work if directed by council.

Action taken: The council did not adopt any enforcement action that night. Council voted to table a formal ordinance‑clarification response and to bring that item back on Sept. 8 for further review after staff had time to complete historical and legal checks.

Why it matters: The matter touches property‑rights questions, code enforcement consistency and public notice practices. Staff told the council that under current code, structures legally built under prior regulations may remain as legal nonconforming uses and that enforcement resources and historical ordinance changes complicate retroactive enforcement.

Discussion vs. decision: Staff’s reports were informational; the council directed further research and scheduled a follow‑up meeting rather than imposing new enforcement or code changes that night.

Ending: The council set the ordinance‑clarification item for the first meeting in September so staff can complete historical research and prepare a written response and recommendation.