Meeting Minutes 2008
MINUTES OF THE
PUBLIC HEARING OF THE
PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION
OF GARDEN CITY, UTAH
The Garden City Planning & Zoning Commission held a Public Hearing on Wednesday, March 5, 2008 at the Garden City Office Building located at 145 W. Logan Rd. Commission Chair Jennifer Huefner opened the meeting at 6:35 p.m.
Commission Members Present:
Jennifer Huefner, Chairman
Sharlene Millard Ken Storrs
Chuck Webb Roland & Jeanie Squire
Mark & Kathy Stringham David Jensen
David Stringham RuthAnn Jarman
Jared Larson Katie Ballingham
Deenna Tolentino Lance Anderson
Jay Davis Kelly Harmon
Reed Eborn Anita Weston
Bess Huefner Brandon Moldenhauer
Commission Chair Huefner explained that a Public Hearing is to gather comment from the public. She asked them not to repeat the same things so that we can use this time efficiently and wisely.
RE-ZONE, Chuck Webb
Commission Chair Huefner explained that Mr. Webb would like to re-zone his property on 100 W. from Single Family Residential to Community Commercial.
A member of the audience, Rulon Squire, wondered what it would do their taxes or value of home. Also, is there going to be a lot of traffic on 100 W. That’s where the bike trail is and he’s concerned about the amount of traffic on the trail with the neighbors nearby and the children that play in that area.
Kathy Stringham said she has a lot of concerns. One of which is the hike and bike trail. She wondered what the plan for the property is. Mr. Webb said that hasn’t been decided yet. There are a few options. Mrs. Stringham said it’s a huge concern if he plans on putting in storage sheds. She thinks this should be tabled.
Mrs. Stringham said we talked last month about defining the commercial zone. She understands that this is the only residential area between so much commercial. She realizes it increases the value of his property to re-zone it commercial, but she built there to have a residential neighborhood for her children and grandchildren to be safe. There is so little residential left in our town anymore. There’s tons of commercial property in town. She wanted some place quieter to live than on Main Street. She said she would like to see them have a buffer on that street and not let them access it from 100 W. It should be accessed from 2nd West.
Mrs. Stringham thinks we should have at least 2 acres of homes in that area. She would like the consideration of the Planning Commission for those who have been there and have interest in that area and those who will be coming. We want to see Garden City be beautiful. When people come off of that hill, she hates for them to have to see storage sheds. It’s important to define what commercial is. Right now, it could be anything from storage sheds to a meat packing plant.
Commission Chair Huefner said we only have one commercial zone right now.
Mrs. Stringham said it’s hard to say that this is something we want in our neighborhood or in the view line of the mountains. She’s also concerned about the value of the homes and hopes it can be addressed.
Mr. Webb said in commercial, any development would be under a conditional use permit. There are a lot of different things that can go on commercial ground. Houses can even go on commercial ground.
There was discussion about another future road– 3rd West and 350 South to help with traffic.
Ken Storrs said he echoes Kathy Stringham’s comments. There’s already a lot of commercial property around this area. It seems like the town would have more of an interest in developing the commercial property that’s already commercial.
Commission Member Smith said that town doesn’t develop the property.
Mr. Webb said you can view it both ways. There’s a lot of commercial property around this, so why is it such a big deal not to include this also. It fits with everything around it.
Deenna Tolentino asked what the town’s plan is to keeping any residential in the downtown area. Or do we even have a plan?
Commission Member Smith said because something is zoned commercial, it doesn’t mean a developer can’t do a housing area.
Commission Member Ballingham said the town has a plan. But it’s challenging to tell people what they can do with their land. Our job is to protect the citizen’s wishes. If there’s something that’s in an area to be zoned commercial and doesn’t have residential use, then that’s the way it should be. If there’s something in a residential area with no commercial use, then that’s the way it should be. Our primary interest, as a planning commission, is the safety and well being of this town and its citizens.
Katie Ballingham said she is also concerned with keeping our town a town with a place for residential neighborhoods so we’re not all stacked around so that you can’t see our neighbors. This is a neighborhood with a dozen children running around on the streets constantly and that’s a concern. That’s not including the numerous others who are there in the summer. If that becomes a busy area, it’s worrisome. They also built there because they thought it was downtown residential area. Not commercial.
RuthAnn Jarman said if a residence can come into a commercial zone, maybe we need to change that. We need to protect the residences. That’s what it was when they came understanding. We need to protect that little neighborhood.
Anita Weston said she doesn’t think we want this commercial area in the town. Have commercial where you don’t have residences. Residential people keep their eyes open and watch out for each other.
Jeanie Squire said her family has been there 4 generations. Many of the people living there are there year round. They care about their neighbors and would hate to see commercial in a residential area.
Commission Chair Huefner said as a Planning Commission, re-zoning is one of the toughest things they have to do, but it is subjective. We get to make the decision based on our judgment and knowledge of the ordinances that we have and the overall welfare of the community. The Planning Commission is an advisory body; we do not make the final decision on this. We recommend to the Town Council.
Commission Member Smith said if this is done the way that was suggested last month, there would be a buffer along 100 W. and the accesses are also from 3rd West and 350 S., then that shouldn’t be such a concern for the residences there.
Kathy Stringham said that’s what she would prefer.
Commission Member Smith said a property owner also has the right to do what they want with their property.
VACATE AND SUBDIVIDE DUNHAM SUBDIVISION– DellLoy Hansen, Dave Jensen
No comment from the audience.
BEAR LAKE CONDOS, Jared Larsen
Council Member Bess Huefner said she looked at the plan and feels it’s too dense for that piece of property. Their original plan was 14 acres. Mr. Larsen said it’s 19 acres. Council Member Huefner said she still feels it’s too dense.
Commission Chair Huefner adjourned the meeting at 6:55 p.m.
Jennifer Huefner, Chair Assistant Clerk
MINUTES OF THE
MEETING OF THE
PLANNING COMMISSION OF
GARDEN CITY, UTAH
The Garden City Planning Commission held their regularly scheduled meeting on Wednesday, March 5, 2008 at the Garden City Office Building located at 145 W. Logan Rd. Commission Chair Jennifer Huefner opened the meeting at 7:10 p.m.
Commission Members Present:
Jennifer Huefner, Chairman
Sharlene Millard Ken Storrs
Chuck Webb Roland & Jeanie Squire
Mark & Kathy Stringham David Jensen
David Stringham RuthAnn Jarman
Jared Larson Katie Ballingham
Deenna Tolentino Lance Anderson
Jay Davis Kelly Harmon
Reed Eborn Anita Weston
Bess Huefner Brandon Moldenhauer
The minutes of the Public Hearing of February 6, 2008 were presented. Commission Member Ballingham made the motion to accept the minutes as currently presented. Commission Member Bills seconded the motion. All in favor and the motion carried.
The minutes of the regular meeting of February 6, 2008 were presented. Commission Member Ballingham made the motion to accept the minutes as currently presented. Commission Member Gough seconded the motion. All in favor and the motion carried.
The minutes of the special meeting of February 12, 2008 at 5:45 p.m. were presented. Commission Member Bourne said we still don’t have a solution. The developer is on one side of the fence, and we’re on another. The ordinance says 35’, that’s it. We need to watch it and the Building Inspector needs to watch. Commission Member Gough said
you need to have a grade to start with. He feels what the Building Inspector is doing is good. Commission Chair Huefner said the Building Inspector was on the same page as we were. She’ll communicate with the Building Inspector to make sure he’s on top of that. Commission Member Smith made the motion to accept the minutes. Commission Member Bourne seconded the motion. All in favor and the motion carried.
The minutes of the Public Hearing of February 12, 2008 at 6:20 p.m. were presented. Commission Member Gough made the motion to accept the minutes as written. Commission Member Bourne seconded the motion. All in favor and the motion carried.
The minutes of the special meeting of February 12, 2008 at 6:40 p.m. were presented. Commission Member Gough made the motion to accept the minutes as written. Commission Member Smith seconded the motion. All in favor and the motion carried.
RE-ZONE, Chuck Webb
Commission Chair Huefner explained that this re-zone is for 16 acres of property at approximately 330 S. 100 W. from recreational residential to community commercial.
Commission Chair Huefner said she understands that Mr. Webb is buying this property under contract right now and that the new owner may want to come in for a PUD zone. Mr. Webb said that is a possibility. The storage shed issue kept coming up, but there are other possible uses.
Commission Chair Huefner said if that is the case, we try not to do a lot of changing of zones. She doesn’t want to see the zones go back and forth. She said if that is a possibility, she would rather wait and have the next owner change to the PUD zone instead of making it commercial right now.
Commission Chair Huefner said it does depend on the type of development he does. If he’s going to do a subdivision, it won’t need a zone change. But a PUD requires a zone change because it’s different than a subdivision. It’s essentially residential use. A PUD is mixed use. It depends on what the developer has in mind. She doesn’t want to have to change it next month to another zone.
Mr. Webb said it will depend on what the developer wants. It could go either way.
Commission Member Ballingham said it sounds like the future intent of this land is in question. If that is the case, what is the purpose of changing it to Community Commercial? A PUD can’t be placed in a commercial zone. But you can have commercial within a PUD.
Mr. Webb said he is just trying to change the zone to commercial. What the next owner does is up to him.
Commission Member Ballingham said it takes the control out of our hands by changing the zone to commercial. Once it’s commercial, they can come in and put whatever they want in there. As of right now, the town has some control as to what goes in there.
Commission Member Ballingham said as it is right now, we’re opening Pandora’s Box if we don’t know. Mr. Webb said the developer couldn’t do whatever he wants if it’s commercial. He will still need to come in and get a special use permit.
Commission Member Ballingham said if it fits in the commercial zone, he could come in and do whatever he wants with it. If he comes in with a Wal-mart, we are legally bound to let him as long as it fits the ordinances of the town. We may try to deny him a business license, again, we would be legally liable for that. As it is right now, in a residential zone, we’re taking the interest of all the residents that live in that neighborhood and we are also retaining control in this matter because we don’t know what this will be turned into. He suggested Mr. Webb bring in a conceptual plan of what would be done on this property.
Commission Member Ballingham said he also has a concern with 100 W. staying residential. That determines the intention of that land. We have to protect our interests. His biggest issue is safety. He feels the access concern is huge. If a Wal-mart comes in and wants to bring their big trucks through there, we have no control over that. Then the residents are at risk and the town will be responsible for that. If we turn this into commercial property, we lose control over it. You can’t guarantee what will happen to that land, so we as a town need to provide some type of security.
Commission Member Argyle asked about the gentleman who came to the Planning Commission for a zone change and we wouldn’t let him because it created an island.
Now we have a gentleman asking for the same thing where there is no island.
Commission Member Ballingham said it’s all in how you look at it. On the east side, it’s all RR or R1. It’s not an island. The west side is all commercial. He feels on the west side, it should absolutely be commercial, but on the east side it would create an island. It’s between houses and is insane to have commercial there.
Commission Member Argyle said he is surrounded by commercial property on 3 sides. We should give him that choice, If he’s in a commercial zone and wants to put residential in there, let him put residential in there. But, you’re saying that if he stays residential, he’ll be surrounded by commercial. Who knows what the commercial around him will be. And now, how desirable will this property be to sell when it’s residential?
Commission Member Ballingham said as he comes in with a final plan, it helps us make a better decision for the town. It also helps the future owners to make a better decision.
There’s no reason he can’t shave an acre or two off the east property and make it residential and have everything behind that be commercial. In his mind, that is the right thing to do.
Commission Member Argyle said Mr. Webb has come to us tonight to ask for a re-zone to commercial. But people have caught wind of what might or might not be, when essentially, he’s just asking for a zone change.
Commission Member Ballingham said why would we ever allow a commercial piece of property that is 100’ wide to go right between a bunch of houses? It’s a huge safety issue, also an access issue. He agrees that Mr. Webb has the ability and the right to turn a portion of the property into commercial, but if we allow him to turn the whole piece into commercial, we as a town and the planning commission are not protecting the citizen’s in that area and we’re not protecting the best interest of the town.
Commission Member Argyle asked are you saying that if he puts in a commercial business with less traffic flow, that that is a worse detriment for the town than a PUD with a couple of condos in there?
Commission Member Ballingham said you’re asking the wrong question. If he came in with a business with very little traffic and most of the access is coming off of 300 W. he would say that’s a great plan, and let him know the stipulations he would need to follow. And if he followed those regulations, I will personally approve this.
Mr. Webb said what would actually bring in the least amount of traffic is the storage sheds.
Commission Member Ballingham said he would have no problem with the storage sheds. His problem is with the commercial between the two houses. He doesn’t think we can make a decision on the entire piece. As it stands right now, it would be foolish for us to approve this. If he came in with a plan, intentions and some type of outline that gives us guidance where he’s heading with this, making sure that we can protect our citizens, but also allow him to do the things he wants to do or the future buyer to do what he wants, then he’s very supportive of that. But we need to protect the residences in that neighborhood.
Commission Member Bourne said he can see it both ways, but agrees that we need to protect the citizen’s. He agrees that we need to hear from the developer what is going on the property. He would also like to see the east portion of that property residential.
Commission Member Bills agreed.
Commission Member Gough said everything around that, other than the two homes, is commercial. The same situation could happen two houses down with a Wal-mart and there’s nothing that we could do. He’s concerned that if we tell Mr. Webb that it can’t be zoned commercial, and the only access he has is on 100 W. and they’re not going to allow a right of way to get to the commercial, what’s the sense? You’re basically telling him, tough, you’ve got commercial, but we want you to take this piece out and put
houses, and we’ll not let you in because of traffic. In reality, that property is his and he should have access to it. If we do create it as commercial, then we should allow him access to it as well. If it’s the safety issue on the road, he doesn’t even see it as an issue because if it’s a PUD, you’ll have more cars coming in and out of there than you’ll ever have with a Wal-mart. We can’t stop cars from going in there. You can only make it safe by setting speed limit signs, etc. On one hand, it’s a safety issue, but if it’s a PUD, which is legal, there will be a lot of cars coming out of there.
Commission Member Smith said he agrees with everyone. He would like to see the eastern portion of the lot be residential. But if that’s his only access, at this point, until another access can be created when the paradise parkway is built. And then abandon the 100 West road.
Kathy Stringham understood that once you have access, you can’t go back and erase that.
Commission Chair Huefner said you could put on a plat that you’ll use the temporary access until it’s abandoned.
Commission Member Gough said you’ve got to allow access to residential as well as commercial. You can’t allow it to be commercial and then not allow him access.
Mr. Webb said when he had the sheds planned, it had a buffer zone of residential between the homes and he thought it looked really nice. But since then, things have changed and he thought everyone would be happy that it wasn’t being used for storage sheds.
Commission Member Gough said if there’s a PUD going in, there will be a lot of traffic.
Commission Member Ballingham said he agrees with Commission Member Gough. You don’t create an island. He recommends that we do not approve the zone change tonight until 1) we have a good plan of what’s coming forth, and, 2) we work out the access issues. We have talked with developers in helping the town by putting in roads to their developments. There is a possibility of extending the road, 350 S., and going up to that property. That would be a viable route. That makes a lot more sense to him than to put it between two homes where there are children. It also creates the block concept.
Commission Member Ballingham recommended that we either table this or deny it until we have more information and know what’s going on and look at these access issues. He thinks we would be foolish to approve this at this point in time.
Commission Member Ballingham said if there’s going to be a PUD, there will be traffic issues, so there needs to be a secondary access. There needs to be an ingress and egress.
It can either be 300 W. or 350 S. Either way, before construction can begin, there needs
Be a road in and a road out. There is a lot of options here but we don’t have enough information to make a wise decision at this point in time.
Commission Member Argyle said he’s come in for a specific thing and we’re addressing everything around it. She doesn’t think we would do that for other people.
Commission Member Ballingham said we did it for Mr. Crosby’s development. The road, which went between the homes, was a safety issue. Commission Member Argyle said she thought that was a UDOT issue. Commission Member Ballingham said if the road was there, the houses wouldn’t have their setbacks and it would be unsafe for the people who lived there. Also, there wasn’t a second access off of 300 West at the time.
Mr. Webb asked when Paradise Parkways is going in? Commission Chair Huefner said it’s going to start this season, how far south it will go, will depend on what the Town Council comes up with as far as the plan and doing it in phases. There are a lot of options in getting it started, but she knows it will at least be started this season. If there are property owners that are willing to help, it will push it up even further.
It was asked what would happen with a property owner who is not willing to donate their property for the road? Commission Chair Huefner said there may be some like that and they don’t quite have a plan for that right now.
Commission Member Bills asked Mr. Webb what if the buyer didn’t need the whole parcel? He suggested the front portion being branched off as residential. He said if we left the rear portion as commercial, that would cover the citizens. However, if that was deeded off and with the price of land, it could be split into 3-4 actual residential lots. There is still the two accesses for a PUD. Mr. Webb said he would have that discussion.
Commission Member Ballingham said you can only subdivide once every 5 years. That’s why it’s important to have a plan. But you need to bring it in as one plan.
Commission Member Gough reminded him that he’ll need two accesses for a PUD.
Commission Chair Huefner said if you do a lot split then you have to wait 5 years to do another one, but if you want to come in and subdivide it, you’re okay. There’s no time limit. You can come in for a subdivision anytime. But if you come in for a lot split and then for a subdivision, you have to use the entire piece for the subdivision. It can be done in phases said Commission Member Ballingham.
Commission Member Ballingham made the motion that we deny the current application to re-zone this property based on the issues discussed; access, safety, islands, so forth. But at the same time, invite Mr. Webb to please come back in the near future with a more solidified plan as to what will happen with this property, addressing issues of subdivision, access and safety so that we can make a more informed and wise decision for the
residents of this community as well as the town itself. Commission Member Bills
seconded the motion. Roll Call Vote: Commission Member Ballingham for; Commission Member Bills for; Commission Member Smith for; Commission Member Bourne for; Commission Member Gough for; Commission Member Argyle against.
This will go to the Town Council next week for a final decision.
DUNHAM SUBDIVISION, DellLoy Hansen and David Jensen
Mr. Jensen is here representing Mr. Hansen. He said he was here last fall. Mr. Hansen has had this piece of property near Gus Rich Point for several years. It’s a legal non-conforming piece. He also owns a large portion of the old Dunham Subdivision. In the years past, he’s tried to do some building projects. They are trying to do things properly, such as getting water properly, and going through the right channels. When Guido was here and tried to get a Building Permit, it was hard to do because of the old subdivision lines. Mr. Hansen then decided that he would like to take the property, vacate it and record it as it is. They are attempting to get some good drawings and infrastructure. They have written the letter to vacate the subdivision. There’s 4 owners; Milt and Judith Jensen, the Jones family, Ellouise Sims and Mr. Hansen. There was an issue with the high water mark, but that has to be surveyed with the state. The Jensen’s have had it done, the Jones’s have not. But for some reason, the Jones’s wouldn’t sign the plat. Mr. Hansen would just like to vacate the old subdivision and re-record it as it is being developed and platted.
Mr. Hansen has paid to have it all surveyed and will pay all the legal fees. In order to do this, they’ll have to have a new name, have it surveyed and have everyone sign a petition. The old subdivision was never developed.
Commission Member Gough doesn’t see a problem with it. Everyone will still have their own property.
Commission Member Ballingham wondered about when someone with Triangle Estates was trying to do the same thing. Was it the CC&R’s that prevented it? He remembers that there needed to be 100% of the property owners sign off on it. He said from a legal standpoint, is it based on their CC&R’s or the town ordinance that states everyone has to sign off on it or not. Mr. Jensen said it’s town ordinance. Mr. Lance Andersen said it’s state code. Mr. Jensen said his attorney said if there is someone that doesn’t want to participate, with the recommendation of the Planning Commission, you can approve this without everyone’s approval.
Commission Member Ballingham said it would be foolish not to approve this. But at this point of time, the others haven’t shown up for this. He doesn’t know their personal feelings on this.
Mr. Jensen said the state code says they should have 45 days to respond.
Mr. Andersen said you’d do it the same as subdividing an existing lot within a subdivision. You can hold a Public Hearing, allow that to happen and listen to the comments, and then make the motion. He suggested talking to our legal people.
Commission Member Ballingham wondered if we can send them a letter after the fact. He recommends passing this because it makes sense and send a letter to the Jones’ and the Sims’ letting them know it passed and if they have a strong opposition to this they would be invited to the Town Council who will entertain their concerns.
Commission Chair Huefner said we don’t have record that they received it and she likes Commission Member Ballingham’s comment about sending a letter. She agrees that it makes sense to do this and clean it up, but she would like to give the others a chance to respond.
Commission Member Ballingham made the motion to accept the petition to vacate the Dunham Subdivision which was established in 1917, essentially vacating it and re-establishing the property lines as they are currently drawn out. The stipulation with this motion is that the town office will send out certified letters to all current property owners within this subdivision and that they will have 45 days from the time they receive that certified letter to object. If there is no objection, it will be assumed that they are in agreement with the decision made and that there will be no further legal recourse for them. Commission Member Bills seconded the motion. All in favor and the motion carried.
Mr. Hansen or Mr. Jensen will have to wait 45 days to go to the Town Council.
BEAR LAKE CONDO’S, Jared Larsen and Lance Andersen
Mr. Andersen would just like to get their comments. He said they are the first ones to go through the process with the new ordinance. Mr. Andersen said one thing he would recommend is - the condo declaration is presently being required to be done for the preliminary, he suggested putting it as required for the final phase.
He also has a concern with impact statements. It’s good to have, but it’s hard to understand what the town wants. Definitely with a larger project, you’re going to want that information.
Commission Member Huefner said we knew there were things that needed to be changed in the ordinance.
Mr. Andersen said there is parking under the buildings for a few buildings.
Commission Member Gough is concerned about the turn around instead of backing out. Mr. Larsen said he would like to have a bridge or something to access the rest of the pool and clubhouse. Mr. Andersen said we need to expand the trail. He’s going to do 6
buildings on the interior. This is just the master plan.
Commission Member Ballingham said he’s sees two different projects; one with obvious access, and another that looks like a flag lot. It doesn’t connect with the entire project. There’s got to be some type of conductivity that allows for ingress/egress or a turnaround.
Commission Chair Huefner said it’s really steep right there.
Commission Member Ballingham feels better with the ingress/egress. If they’re creating a cul de sac, the question would be what standard would we hold? Mr. Larsen decided to find a way for the people to go down. He doesn’t want them to go down 350 S. to go to the clubhouse. He said they’d work it out.
Commission Chair Huefner said she met with the Mayor, Commission Member Smith and Mr. Larsen. They agree that with every subdivision, an ingress/egress is always something that is needed. She showed the 350 S. road, which isn’t there yet, but it will be their secondary access. They don’t want to hold up the Bear Lake Condo’s approval for this. But it will be recorded that this will connect to 350 S. They really only have the county road which goes to the Negus’.
Mr. Larsen said their portion of the 350 S. road would be dedicated to the town.
Commission Member Ballingham warned that even if that road is paved and meets town standards, they may not accept it and plow it for you. Mr. Larsen will need to talk with the Town Council to see if they’ll accept it or not for maintenance and snow removal.
Mr. Andersen showed the impact statement. He said the town shouldn’t have to look at the sewer impact because they don’t do anything with the sewer.
Commission Member Ballingham said it’s there more for their information to know they need to contact them.
Commission Member Ballingham said the density and parking look good.
Commission Member Ballingham made the motion to accept the preliminary plat for Bear Lake Condo’s as it is currently presented. That the discussion we’ve had about the road to the town be discussed with the Town Council and ensure that we have their blessing on that but otherwise allow these gentlemen to continue and pursue final approval. Commission Member Gough seconded the motion. All in favor and the motion carried.
KOA, Curtis Moldenhauer
Brandon Moldenhauer is here representing Curtis Moldenhauer. This is not an item for
approval. They are just here showing us what the use is on their property at 485 N. Bear Lake Blvd. Mr. Moldenhauer said they want to move the bike shop over to where the car wash is now. It will be safer. Customers can leave from the shop to the bike path and it will be a lot safer for them. They’re using the same building, just remodeling it.
Commission Member Ballingham said it’s a great idea and makes a lot of sense. He wondered if they are only going to rent to those who are customers of KOA and if not, is there adequate parking for those who just come to rent bikes? Mr. Moldenhauer said we have always rented to everyone and it will stay that way. And doing this will increase the parking there. It will even increase more parking by the storage units.
Commission Member Gough is concerned with the entrances.
Commission Chair Huefner wanted to make sure they meet the Architectural Standards. She said it looks like they will and said the plan looks good.
BEAR LAKE TOWNHOMES, Kelly Harmon
Mr. Harmon said at the last meeting they came to, there was concern over a second access. They will make that change to the map when it’s closer to submittal.
Commission Chair Huefner said now it requires a zone change. But it is done at the same time as the preliminary approval. It’s not meant to create more work, just for us to manage that type of development more efficiently.
He showed the previous map and asked if it looks like a feasible zone change. Commission Chair Huefner said it looks like a residential PUD. There’s no commercial.
Commission Member Ballingham said even if they wanted to come in with commercial along the front, that would be appropriate. We would just zone it within a subdivision.
Mr. Harmon said their secondary road could easily come out on 200 N. which is fairly level. They could move the buildings slightly uphill and put an access out the back going over the canal.
Commission Member Ballingham wondered about crossing the road of the daycare center. Mr. Harmon said that will be resolved with them. They’re wondering about creating a new right of way for them. If they did that, it would give them a little more room to work with. Right now it’s 23% density for the building footprint. Because of the shape of the property, at one point they had a cul de sac up there which took up a lot of room. He talked about putting in a hammerhead instead of the cul de sac. Commission Member Ballingham said he has a problem with that. If the private street on the north is the primary access, he feels they need a cul de sac. A fire truck wouldn’t be able to get out. Commission Chair Huefner said that is in the ordinance.
Commission Member Ballingham said if a secondary access is off the private road, that would work well. But if a secondary access is at the other end, it’s a huge safety issue.
Commission Member Gough suggested putting the road along the side. Mr. Harmon said that would hinder the setbacks for the buildings, drop the density and make the project less desirable.
Mr. Harmon said this is a PUD. They will be taking care of the roads, snow removal, etc.
Commission Member Ballingham suggested having 2 roads that make a big circle at the end and having other roads jetting off between them. Mr. Harmon asked if a secondary access at the top would be just as acceptable. Commission Member Ballingham thought it would. Mr. Harmon said with the cost of building another road the full length of the property vs. addressing issues of crossing the canal and the density offset, that would probably be preferable to making a loop through the project.
Commission Member Ballingham said rather than having a private road be your access, he suggested moving it to the upper side, it would help with the cul de sac. But you need two accesses either way.
Commission Member Smith said it would need to be 30’ from the center of the canal.
Council Member Bess Huefner suggested talking with their neighbor, Frank Smith, to connect their roads. She said they are trying to connect some subdivisions for safety with roads and if they could work together, it would be nice.
Commission Member Bourne asked for them to think about the name of their PUD. There are a few that are so close in name.
Mr. Harmon said for preliminary, the retention ponds are okay where they shown, the parking is okay. They do have 3 parking spaces plus a garage for each unit. There are 12 spaces at the clubhouse. There is no oversize parking for trailers. Commission Chair Huefner is concerned about that. It’s going to be recreational. Where are the people with boats and trailers going to park? Council Member Huefner said they should plan for one large parking space per unit. Mr. Harmon said all of the end units have a longer parking space than the others, plus a 21’ boat would fit in the garage.
Commission Member Ballingham doesn’t know where they would put oversize parking. He suggested creating within the CC&R’s that no RV’s are allowed, but limitations are to one trailer per unit. Mr. Harmon asked what if they just said there will be no street parking.
Commission Chair Huefner felt that would be fine.
Commission Member Gough said the issue is so many people bring boats to stay for the weekend, but have nowhere to park them. Maybe suggest whatever you bring needs to go in your parking space.
Mr. Harmon asked if there is private parking within the town? The Planning Commission said no, we’re working hard just to get public parking.
Dark Sky Ordinance
Commission Chair Huefner said she has read one other ordinance that she liked better than this one. She feels this is too technical. She feels she would have to have an attorney read this to see what it says. She likes the ordinance Krista Klein brought in. It was easier to understand.
Commission Member Gough is concerned how you would ever police all of this.
Commission Member Ballingham said the electrical contractor’s would even have to follow this.
Commission Member Smith said the public will let us know if someone is violating something. Then we can go check them.
There was discussion about lumens and what they even were. Commission Member Bourne said there are only two in town and they are at Raspberry Square, and they are only 200-250 lumens. The ordinance is talking about 1800 lumens.
Commission Member Argyle asked if a lumens is like someone having a business with a ton of lights around it? Commission Member Bourne said maybe, if you added them all together.
Commission Member Gough asked about a business with a parking lot that has lights all around it. How do we monitor to know what the lumens are?
Commission Member Ballingham talked about a photographer using an instrument to measure the lumens of light. Light is based upon space. From a parking lot standpoint, that would be something that the engineer would measure.
Commission Member Gough said the parking lot at the clinic could be lit up and that would look nice. Council Member Huefner said the clinic has turned down their lights in the back, which makes it nice when coming down from the canyon. There were so many lights and it looked too commercial.
Commission Member Gough said it does look really nice to be able to see the stars at night, but then again, it’s not feasible in some areas either.
Commission Member Argyle said part of it is directional. It’s good to have them facing downward.
Commission Member Smith had a question about having lights at an amphitheatre. The lights would be downward on a stage.
Commission Member Ballingham said this is more for lights that would be on all the time.
Commission Member Ballingham said he is looking at this from the outside. This ordinance is very difficult to understand. But it’s very specific. It has teeth. You’ll get better compliance when it’s spelled out.
Commission Chair Huefner said the electrical contractors should understand this. It’s up to the Building Inspector to police it anyway.
Commission Member Gough asked about flagpoles. It says it’s okay to light government flagpoles only.
Commission Member Bourne said government flags are supposed to be lit up at night.
Commission Chair Huefner said she would like to take that part out.
Commission Member Ballingham said what if we let anyone light a flag, maybe just get specific about what type of lights people can use for lighting their flags. Or they could use a circular light above the pole.
Commission Member Bourne asked if there is light out there that is offensive now? Commission Member Argyle said someone noticed one house that shines very bright in Bear Lake West. It could happen in any subdivision.
Commission Member Bourne said someone across the lake has said the lookout looks like a ballpark.
Commission Member Bills said the lighting there is done very well.
Commission Member Bourne said he would like to read the ordinance more before we do anything. There are so many ways to get around it. There are 4 types of light bulbs, and you can skirt so many ways around lumens.
Commission Member Bourne wondered if we could do an offensive lighting ordinance instead. Commission Member Gough agreed. He wondered about letting logic prevail.
Commission Member Smith doesn’t know if logic will prevail. Someone might not be offended by a light, when many others would. He thinks it would be good to have something written to fall back on.
Commission Member Ballingham said the ordinance is not to go out and police every home. It’s just to make people be reasonable.
Commission Member Argyle thinks it’s safer to have some lighting.
Commission Member Bourne said the state had to postpone the canyon road improvement for one year to make the lighting nice at the lookout.
Commission Chair Huefner said the words discourage and encourage is used several times. She doesn’t know if that is helpful. Why even have it.
Commission Member Bills wonders why we are trying to control lighting. There’s a &@%$ of a lot of other things to worry about. As the town grows, there’s going to be more lights. The more lights you have, the less crime you have. He doesn’t think it’s worth the paper it’s written on.
Commission Chair Huefner agrees. She said if you want to look at the lights, go up the canyon and look at them.
Commission Member Bills made the motion to omit the ordinance and let people live their lives and enjoy life. Commission Member Argyle seconded it. All in favor and the motion carried.
Council Member Bess Huefner wrote this ordinance and said it’s written funny because she got it from about 3 different ordinances. She wrote it because there was a home near her that was built and a sidewalk was ruined and was never fixed.
Commission Member Smith wondered about being able to come down the canyon and see the lake. The next thing he knew, there were storage sheds up and no lake and he wondered how that happened. We can’t put a building there that would constrict the view of the tennis courts in Harbor Village. They’re called site corridors.
Commission Chair Huefner said there is an ordinance that she and Elizabeth Seiler wrote about restricting cutting of roads and the bike path. An encroachment ordinance would be when someone builds something and encroaches onto someone’s land. We’re trying to protect the town’s property.
This ordinance is only for town property. Commission Member Ballingham said it’s a civil matter between private parties.
Commission Chair Huefner said there are many places in town where the town streets have been built on. The town is losing its right of ways. As the town grows, how are we going to get it back? The law says we can’t take public property through adverse possession. We can legally go in and tear it down. This ordinance will protect the town.
Commission Member Gough said it’s good to set a time and get it done as timely as possible with the excavation. If there’s a timeline, it will get done.
Council Member Huefner will refine the ordinance and bring it back next month.
Commission Member Smith said he really likes our general plan.
ZONE PLANNING DISCUSSION
Commission Member Ballingham said he had a zone ordinance ready, but forgot it tonight. We originally talked about having commercial A and B, etc. for zones, with what can be put in each zone. He has looked at other town’s ordinances and found that they just write what can be put in each zone. Restaurants and shops were put together in a zone. It’s very black and white. He said, referring to Chuck Webb’s property, that putting that back piece of property as commercial makes sense.
We as a Planning Commission really need to know what type of venues we want in what areas. We need to be able to be specific with zones. He suggests we get going on this as soon as possible. No one wants a dump right next to a Wendy’s.
Commission Chair Huefner showed the zoning map. It will only get harder the longer we wait.
Commission Member Ballingham said we need to push as much as possible onto 3rd West and make that the town center. That’s where the town office will be. It puts most of the people in one specific area.
Commission Chair Huefner said we need to come up with a specific plan to recommend to the Town Council. She would like to have something written with a map, showing, with colors, what we think should go where and explain our reasoning. She would like us to take the time to go through and make sure it’s what we want.
Commission Chair Huefner would like to make specific assignments tonight and have some of us come back next month with something concrete.
Commission Member Gough asked how many levels we’re planning on and how far back on the property the will levels go.
Commission Member Ballingham feels we should get our vision first and then come later with the levels. He said restaurants only use 1 acre of ground. That’s what we need to define here tonight.
Commission Member Bills thinks we need to only have one more zone than what we presently have – an industrial area. He doesn’t think we can plan the zones until we have
an anchor, i.e. if a grocery store comes in, stores will follow. He said all we need is an industrial area. That stops an automobile repair shop from dropping into your neighborhood.
His worry with the town isn’t what’s going in on the commercial area, but he thinks until you have a commitment from a Marriott Hotel, or grocery store, none of the others will come. There are contractor’s that create buildings and businesses follow. We need to create a “hub” for businesses to want to come.
Commission Member Bourne agrees, he really had a hard time approving the little cabins last month. He thinks if we don’t get an ordinance in place, we’ll be the laughing stock of Utah. Anyone can come in with an acre of ground and put in 8 of those cabins. He doesn’t want to see them allover. There’s a place for those cabins coming in and it should be tucked away. He doesn’t want to see them on the highway.
Commission Member Gough said boat storages would be great. You can’t build them enough of them. If we can’t determine where they’re going, we’ll have them in places we really wish weren’t there. They could be all along 300 West. We could stipulate a certain section of where they could be allowed.
Commission Member Bills said we can’t dictate what will go where. The thing we want to keep out is the industrial.
Commission Member Ballingham said Logan is taking all the traffic off the highways and designated 100 acres of ground to be their CDA. They will have restaurants, movie theaters, and high-rise condos. It’s their own little city center. They will have paths, etc.
They get tax benefits and write offs.
Commission Member Gough said the main road is where all the businesses want to be.
He thinks we should have an industrial park.
Commission Member Ballingham said if we let storage sheds on 3rd West, that will determine our future. Commission Member Gough said they could be pushed back a little and if it’s zoned that, the people should know that and understand that.
Commission Chair Huefner said we have a unique land problem where we’re between the mountains and the lake; do we really want to have an industrial area?
Commission Member Argyle doesn’t think pushing industrial toward the mountains is good, because that’s the first thing people see when they come here and it’s ugly.
Commission Chair Huefner said she would be okay with light industrial. Commission Member Ballingham wondered what the definition of light industrial is.
Commission Member Smith suggested about 300 W., it would be nice to designate 200’ back for something nice.
Commission Member Ballingham said that would be nice and if someone wanted to put in storage sheds, they could put them behind the designated retail area.
Greg’s recommendation is that we are going to want to eliminate as much driving and parking as possible. Chances are where the new developments are -is where the new restaurants, etc will pop up. We’ll want to encourage that so people won’t have to drive very far.
There was discussion about putting 300’ along each side of Paradise Parkway SR 30 and Highway 89 as a type of commercial/retail zone. The Planning Commission needs to come up with definitions for each zone. Commission Member Ballingham suggested breaking it up into 5 zones. He said he will put something together for next month.
Commission Member Bills wondered how we can dictate what doesn’t come in but we can dictate what does come in.
Commission Member Bourne thinks we should get our corridor protected now and worry about the rest of it later.
Commission Member Ballingham talked about getting Architectural Standards on the whole building, not just the front.
Commission Member Gough thinks we should talk with Town Council again and try to get it done.
Commission Member Argyle adjourned at 11:10 p.m. Commission Member Ballingham seconded the motion.
Jennifer Huefner, Chair Assistant Clerk