Sign and building ordinances passed on second reading

RVpark ordinance fails at second read

GENTRY -- City officials, on July 5, passed on their second readings two ordinances regulating signs and accessory structures and portable buildings in the city but failed to pass a second reading of another ordinance which would make it possible to establish a recreational vehicle park within the city.

With rules suspended, all three ordinances were read by heading only but a vote on an ordinance which would have made it possible to build an RV park and campground within the city fell short of the majority of elected council member votes needed with only four of the eight council members voting in favor of the ordinance (five were needed to pass it). Janice Arnold, Jason Barrett and James Furgason opposed the proposed ordinance. Warren Norman, Todd Wagner, Michael Crawford and Kyle Jordan voted in favor of it. Jimmy Thorburn was absent.

Before the vote, council member James Furgason made a motion to amend the proposed ordinance to make it necessary for asphalt to be used for drives within the park rather than SB2 gravel, but his motion died for lack of a second.

Janice Arnold had previously voiced concerns over allowing the parks in the city because it could lower the property values for other property owners near the RV parks. Though the proposed ordinance specified that such RV parks and campgrounds would only allow temporary camping and parking by restricting the removal of trailer hitches, and not allowing the removing wheels or putting down skirting, concern was still voiced that such parks could become the permanent residence of some by simply moving the RV to a different space within the park periodically.

The ordinance which had been recommended by the city's planning and zoning commission is now dead unless someone again brings the matter back to the council for consideration.

Passed on its second reading was a sign ordinance which would remove content-based discrimination from Gentry's sign ordinance and, hopefully, prevent any litigation against the city for allowing some kinds of signs and not others based on the content of the signs rather than on the sign size, construction and location.

As a result of a Supreme Court ruling (Reed v. Town of Gilbert, Arizona), a proposed ordinance amending Gentry code regarding signs and, particularly, yard-sale signs was recommended to the council by the Gentry Planning and Zoning Commission.

In a 2015 ruling, the United States Supreme Court ruled that municipalities could not discriminate in allowing or prohibiting signs based on the content of the signs. In order to comply with the ruling and not expose the city to lawsuits, a proposed amendment was brought to the council in June which was intended to fix the problem by repealing Gentry Code, Section 7.28.05, regulating yard- and garage-sale signs and amending Code, Section 14.04.09, to say that people who are legally permitted to display commercial or non-commercial signs on their properties may substitute noncommercial messages without discrimination in regard to content.

The proposed change would again make it illegal to post garage-sale signs on any city-owned property or right of ways. The state already prohibits any non-state signs from being displayed in state right of ways, including at intersections, on utility poles or traffic signal posts. Signs may still be posted on private property but only with the property owner's permission.

Also passed on its second reading was a proposed ordinance which would change city code regulating the placement of accessory structures and portable buildings on one's property within the city. The ordinance was recommended to the council by the planning and zoning commission because of the number of variance requests made under the existing code.

If passed on its third reading, the ordinance will allow property owners to place an unlimited number of accessory and portable buildings on the part of their parcel behind the front of the primary residence up to the use of 50 percent of the total parcel area for the residence and auxiliary structures. A 6-foot privacy fence would be required once the primary residence and auxiliary buildings exceed 30 percent of the square footage of the parcel.

The ordinance will not permit the structures to be closer than three feet to another structure and it adjusts rear and side set-back distances, depending on the zoning, to no less than five feet from the side or rear property lines (A-1 is 25 feet, R1 is 10 feet and R2 is 7 feet. Setbacks in R-3, R4 and R0 are between 5 and 10 feet.). Portable structures, defined as not having a permanent foundation or being more than 120 square feet, may be placed no closer than five feet from the rear or side parcel lines in the proposed ordinance.

The proposed ordinance originally would have allowed portable buildings to be placed within three feet of rear and side parcel lines, but that was amended to five feet in a compromise before the vote. Furgason had suggested removing the provision allowing portable buildings to be closer to the side parcel lines than the setbacks for permanent auxiliary buildings because of concerns that portable buildings could become eyesores and cause drainage issues for neighbors, which would have made side-yard setbacks between five and 25 feet, depending on the zone.

Five feet was suggested since it is the current requirement in regard to the placement of portable buildings, and the proposed ordinance was amended to reflect the current five feet set-back for portable buildings and adopted unanimously by the council.

The setback is measured from the parcel property line to the base of the building. An 18-inch roof overhang is allowed but, if the roof overhangs more than that, the additional inches are added to the setback distance for the building base to prevent drainage from damaging a neighbor's property or fence.

Also approved by the council was the disposal of obsolete city property items (old radios, fire helmets, office equipment, etc.) by offering the items in lots on govdeals.com, an online auction site for the disposal of government property.

General News on 07/13/2016