Sign, nuisance removal discussed

Planning commission asks for sign and nuisance removal, talks mobile home zoning and matrix fees

At their regularly scheduled meeting at 5:30 p.m. on March 13 at the Saratoga Town Hall, the Saratoga Planning Commission addressed a public complaint about Saratoga Hot Springs Resort’s sign, two letters of correspondence regarding separate properties within town limits and further discussed the future of 18.57 and Title 18.

Saratoga Resort and Spa

As reported in the Saratoga Sun last week, the Saratoga Hot Springs Resort had installed a sign at the corner of Bridge Ave. and Southeast River street on the green building owned by the resort.

According to Dan Ferrin, Town of Saratoga planning and zoning officer, he had approached the resort about the sign and informed them that the installation had required a permit.

“They put up a sign on the green building,” said Ferrin, “They replaced one of the ones that was there, but they did it without a permit. So I went and talked to them and gave them an application for the permit. I told them the best way to go about it was a variance or they’d have to reduce the size. They chose to go with the variance.”

Tom and Pat Rozel, who live near the property and had received a letter asking for approval of the variance, were in attendance at the meeting and told the planning commission that the sign was not their only concern.

“We would like to see the green building gone because it’s a hazard,” said Pat Rozel.

Jon Nelson, chairman of the Saratoga Planning Commission, stated he thought a better approach would be to improve and restore the building due to the historical value it had.

“It’s a haven for vermin,” said Tom Rozel.

“Last year we trapped 13 skunks, 4 feral cats and 4 racoons. Now we’re getting ready to start all over again because of buildings like that green one on the corner. They need to be destroyed,” added Pat Rozel.

“There’s nothing dilapidated where I live and I have skunks, two or three every year, and there’s a whole two families of racoons on either side that get into the dumpsters and I think, where we live, you’re not going to get rid of all your skunks and raccoons by addressing that building,” said planning commission member Chris Duke.

Tom Rozel stated that if the animals had nowhere to reside they wouldn’t stick around the area. He then informed the commission the letter he had received from the resort did not have an address and just asked if they were for or against the sign.

Scott Randall, manager of the Saratoga Hot Springs Resort, said that had been an oversight on his part and added the resort wasn’t trying to hide anything nor did the resort want to create any hard feelings.

Further discussion of the sign led to Will Faust, council representative on the planning commission, expressing worry that this could set a precedent. The commission directed Ferrin to request the resort remove the sign until a decision had been reached upon the variance application at the next scheduled meeting. Nelson added they would also direct Randall how to address the deficiencies of the green building in regards to the nuisance ordinance.

The commission moved onto two pieces of correspondence: one from Randy Stevens and the other from Betty Snider.

Correspondence

In a letter dated Feb. 24, 2018 and addressed to Faust, Stevens issued a complaint regarding a Town of Saratoga excavator that had been on Veterans street for an extended period of time.

“This is within one block of the same street I was evicted from my property. The Town of Saratoga claimed my use of the property devalued everybody else’s property. I was mandated to relocate. I still own property in this area and feel the Town of Saratoga should protect my property values in the same manner,” wrote Stevens.

Jim Beckmann, planningcommission member, informed the commission the excavator in question had been moved and was no longer an issue. Stevens’ letter issued a further complaint regarding Jerry Fluty and the use of his property in RD 7200 for storage of construction equipment stating it was devaluing his property.

“Let this letter serve as notice that if the Town of Saratoga does not act upon this notice I intend further legal action,” Stevens wrote, ending the letter.

The commission discussed that the use of the property by Fluty has been non-conforming as long as anyone can remember and used for equipment storage. Faust explained that at one point, Fluty did have equipment on town property and, after being sent a letter, moved it without complaint.

Nelson informed the commission that he would speak with Fluty and report back at the next meeting.

“Regardless of the source of how it’s been brought to our attention I think the merit of the issue is what’s important,” Nelson said.

Faust next read a letter that had been delivered to him by Betty Snider. In the letter, Snider made a complaint about property located on the corner of Sixth and Rochester that had recently become filled with vehicles and equipment despite the area being zoned residential.

“Maybe we need to elect some board members with guts. You need to stop arguing amongst yourselves and get something done. This is not the only one, either. Take a drive around town and check it out. The signs around town that say ‘Beautify Saratoga’ are a waste of time,” wrote Snider.

When Faust was finished reading the letter, Nelson addressed the complaint.

“I drove by and, by my observation, I think the pure and simple explanation for what is going on is that cars and equipment that was being stored in the light industrial area has been moved into the backyard of a residential lot and it’s happened very quickly and very recently,” said Nelson.

Faust informed Nelson the owner of the property, Gene McDowell, had spoken with the council the week before and explained that his property in the light industrial district had sold faster than he had expected.

“He owns property in Wamsutter. What he said in the meeting is that his goal is to get all of the equipment, cars and everything, off to Wamsutter,” said Faust.

Ferrin informed the commission that he had sent a letter to McDowell approximately two weeks before the meeting informing him of the zoning violation and giving him 10 days to move the equipment.

“I don’t know if we need to proceed with a formal notice of abatement in this case. That would be the next step,” Faust said.

“I think we do. I think what Betty (Snider) has said is pretty accurate,” added Nelson.

“I think we just did the same thing with the sign,” said Tom Westring, planning commission member.

18.57

The commission moved onto the business of changes being made to chapter 18.57 - the section of the town code concerning mobile home parks. Faust informed the commission of minor changes to RD 6000 and a draft code that would create an MH (Mobile Home) district.

“As per our conversation last meeting, the second piece is adding 18.41, which would be a new zoning district,” said Faust, “It is essentially a carbon copy of RD 6000 as it stands right now with some minor language tweaks to clarify RVs, mobile homes, those sorts of things. So essentially what we have now as RD 6000 would become MH.”

Faust and Nelson engaged in discussion concerning the layout of zoning lines and the placement of, if it were to be created, the MH district.

“I think we’re running the risk, if you will, of having a very long and drawn out debate over where the new districts go,” said Nelson.

“So what you are saying is we create the zoning districts and make the changes?” asked Faust.

Nelson agreed, using the commission’s changes to the Planned Unit Development (PUD) code as an example. Nelson then asked Faust if it would be possible for someone to establish a mobile home park using the PUD. Both Duke and Beckmann noted that, under 18.51.030, no PUD may have an area less than five acres.

“What if there is no mobile home park. You can have mobile homes on single lots in RD 6000 now and what if the solution to the travel trailer question is travel trailer courts and its only allowed in a travel trailer court. Mobile home parks kind of go away. Or you have a mobile home park that’s a PUD,” said Nelson.

“I think this brings up a point that Nora (Asbury) was talking about last meeting. Mobile home parks are a real need in our community as far as affordable housing,” said Faust.

As discussion continued, Nelson and Faust came to an agreement that one of the ways to proceed would be to keep the amended code for RD 6000 which removed mobile home parks, create a new zoning district without zoning lines drawn and update the permitting process.

“I think we’re banging our heads. I keep going back to the workshop and Sue Jones. That’s what I got stuck in my head. RD 6000, mobile homes and mobile home parks are allowed,” said Westring.

Following further discussion, the commission decided to create a second draft of proposed amendments to RD 6000 which would still include mobile home parks but would no longer permit recreational vehicles or travel trailers within mobile home parks. The two drafts would then be compared at the next planning commission meeting and the commission would make a decision where to go from there.

Fee Matrix

As the meeting came to and end, the commission briefly discussed how to approach the issue of updating the fee matrix. The commission came to the decision to write an ordinance updating each fee and presenting them to the town council.

With no further business to conduct, the planning commission adjourned. The next Saratoga Planning Commission meeting will be at 5:30 p.m. on April 10 at the Saratoga Town Hall.

 

Reader Comments(0)