Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Zoning Amendments topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Planning commission declines to recommend proposed accessory-structure and lot-width amendments to Title 17
Summary
Commissioners did not recommend approval of proposed changes to Title 17 (accessory-structure definitions, minimum front lot widths, and related design provisions). Staff will revise the proposal—removing fence language—and return it in the correct form to the commission and City Council.
The Jerome Planning & Zoning Commission reviewed proposed amendments to Title 17 on Jan. 13, including expanded definitions for accessory uses and structures, proposed minimum front-lot-width requirements, and limits on cargo/shipping-container uses in residential zones. After discussion, the commission did not recommend approval and the motion to recommend the amendments to City Council failed by a 0–4 vote.
City Planner Ida Clark said proposed language would clarify that cargo or shipping containers are not allowed as stand-alone accessory structures in residential zones but could be used as the internal frame of an accessory building that meets architectural standards; commercial and industrial zones could allow containers if neutral in color. Clark told commissioners the draft also included a proposal to set a 50-foot minimum front lot width in residential zones with limited exceptions for small old-townsite lots. Clark said temporary container use during construction should be allowed but removed within 30 days after issuance of a final occupancy permit.
Commissioners raised concerns about regulating container color and the implications of minimum lot-width language for existing townsite lots. Commissioner Benjamin Reed said color regulation could be problematic given how containers arrive on site. "I do not believe we should address color in both the industrial and commercial zones," Reed said. Commissioner Paul Johnson moved to recommend approval of the amendments as proposed; the motion was seconded but failed (AYE: none; NAY: Reed, Schroeder, Fraser, Johnson). Clark said she will remove the fence language and bring the amendments back in the correct form for further review before submittal to City Council.
Because the commission did not recommend approval, the proposed ordinance changes will return to staff for revision before the commission forwards a recommendation to the City Council.
