Meeting Minutes 2007


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, May 2, 2007 at the Garden City Office Building located at 145 W. Logan Rd.  Vice Chairman Frank Smith opened the meeting at 6:50 p.m.

 

Commission Members Present:

 

           Frank Smith

           Lance Bourne

           DJ Ballingham

           Greg Bills

           Dennis Salzetti

           Jennifer Huefner

 

Others Present:

 

           Sharlene Millard                              

           Anita Weston

           Bobbie Coray

           Brian Leishman

           Ray Elliott

           Brian House

           Gloyd Sprouse

           Kelly Harmon

 

ORDINANCE #07-13

 

Commission Member Smith explained that the Planning & Zoning felt they needed to add Multi-Family apartments to the Community Commercial zone.

 

There were no comments from the audience.

 

CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT,  Brian Leishman

 

Mr. Leishman explained that he will be developing the land west of Canyon Cove and the Health Clinic and east of the canal.  They have received conceptual approval for the Planned Unit Development which they are engineering.  The Conditional Use Permit will be for one 4-unit building and a clubhouse.  They wanted to get approval to start those projects before the engineering is ready for the whole PUD. 

 

There are two different floor plans.  They would like to construct them and start with pre-sales.  Each unit will have a single car garage and a driveway suitable for 2 cars, which

 

                                                      -Page 1-

meets the ordinance.  These units will be for sale, not rent.  The clubhouse will only be used by the property owners.  They’re working on getting a bank in their commercial area.

 

Council Member House suggested that if these projects are done within their PUD area, it should be done in phases and this would be called Phase I.  Mr. Leishman said they would still need to go through the approval process.

 

Mr. Leishman said they will have in their CC&R’s that they can have their toys, but they will need to be in the appropriate parking places.

 

Vice Chairman Smith closed the meeting at 7:00 p.m.

 

 

APPROVED:                                              ATTEST:

 

 

 

_________________________________     _________________________________

Frank Smith, Vice Chairman                        Assistant Clerk

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

                                                      -Page 2-

 

MINUTES OF THE

MEETING OF THE

PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION OF

GARDEN CITY, UTAH

 

 

The Garden City Planning & Zoning Commission held their regularly scheduled meeting on Wednesday, May 2, 2007 at the Garden City Office Building located at 145 W. Logan Rd.  Vice Chairman Frank Smith opened the meeting at 7:00 p.m.

 

Commission Members Present:

 

           Frank Smith

           Lance Bourne

           DJ Ballingham

           Greg Bills

           Dennis Salzetti

           Jennifer Huefner

 

Others Present:

 

           Sharlene Millard                               Rulon Crosby

           Anita Weston                                   Paul Webb

           Bobbie Coray                                   Norman Mecham

           Brian Leishman                                Bret Peterson

           Ray Elliott                                       Shana Fawcett

           Brian House                                     Rick Fawcett

           Gloyd Sprouse                                 Nadine Sprouse

           Kelly Harmon

 

APPROVAL OF MINUTES

 

The minutes of the Public Hearing of April 4, 2007 were presented.  Commission Member Ballingham made the motion to accept the minutes as currently in place.  Commission Member Bills seconded the motion.  All in favor and the motion carried.

 

The minutes of the regular meeting of April 4, 2007 were presented.  Commission Member Ballingham made the motion to accept the minutes as presented.  Commission Member Salzetti seconded the motion.  All in favor and the motion carried.

 

The minutes of the special meeting of April 18, 2007 were presented.  Commission Member Bourne made the motion to accept the minutes as presented.  Commission Member Huefner seconded the motion.   All in favor and the motion carried.

 

 

                                                      -Page 1-

 

ORDINANCE #07-13

 

Commission Member Bourne made the motion to accept the ordinance changes for #07-13.  Commission Member Ballingham seconded the motion.  All in favor and the motion carried.

 

CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT,  Brian Leishman

 

Mr. Leishman showed a drawing of the Planned Unit Development he is planning.  They have made the buildings larger and more appealing.  They’ve also increased the open space.  There will now be 72 units.  They previously had 28% coverage, now it’s 23%.  They are asking for a Conditional Use Permit for a clubhouse and the first unit.  There are 2 streets that will go onto the highway and one road onto the RV Park on the east, which they bought.  Jackie Criswell will actually go through their park to get to her property.

 

Commission Member Smith suggested the property owners park their toys in the back corner because it won’t be used.  They could put parking there for overflow of boats, etc.  Mr. Leishman said they have increased their parking from 183 parking spaces to 230 spaces.

 

Commission Member Bourne questioned the setback from the street to the front of the building.  He said it should be 22’ to accommodate large trucks.  Mr. Leishman said he thought their setback was more than that.  It’s large enough for 2 vehicles.  Commission Member Bourne said there should be no on-street parking.  We like them to park in the garage, driveway and overflow.

 

Commission Member Smith said it’s a good idea to build the clubhouse in the front.  Commission Member Huefner asked if they are taking this part out of the PUD and asking for a Conditional Use Permit for it.  Mr. Leishman said yes, this would allow them to start building sooner.

 

Commission Member Ballingham said this looks like a great project.  He is concerned with the RV spots in the back.  He’s looking towards the future.  If the road is going to become a permanent road, the RV Park will lose some spaces on both sides to maintain safety.  That’s a consideration.  He wondered if they would be selling any models prior to the completion of the building. 

 

Mr. Leishman said each building would have two models.  They would sell two and keep the other two until the project is done. 

 

Commission Member Ballingham said they would need to make sure they have both accesses usable before a building permit can be issued.  This would be after the building permits of the first two buildings.  He recommended having that road accessible for the construction crews, especially in the summer.

 

 

                                                      -Page 2-

Commission Member Ballingham wondered if this should be a Conditional Use Permit or a variance from the Conditional Use Permit.  Commission Member Smith also wondered if the bonding or letter of credit needs to be taken care of first.

 

Commission Member Bourne said we need to require both an ingress and egress and make sure UDOT is okay with the accesses.  He would like to see more specific plans on the clubhouse and what will be in it.   Kelly Harmon said they will have a weight room/exercise room, open recreational area, pool table, large screen TV, and open area with a kitchen for reunions or parties.  They will also have offices for management, restrooms, storage, etc.  The clubhouse will be 3,000 sq. ft.

 

Commission Member Ballingham said he suspects this is an issue for the Town Council.  He wondered if we should approve it as Phase I.  When they bring in additional drawings, they would approve them in phases.  He wondered if the Town Council would not let them start because it’s not a Phase.

 

Commission Member Bills said if you have a phase a whole PUD plan should have already been approved.  There was discussion as to whether to call this a Conditional Use Permit or Phase I of Big Bear Townhomes.  He thinks we should grant the Conditional Use Permit on the contingency of the whole PUD being approved.  Commission Member Ballingham said that means they can’t start construction until the whole PUD is approved. 

 

Commission Member Ballingham made the motion to allow Big Bear townhomes to progress forward with their Conditional Use/Phase I of their project allowing them to build one unit as well as the clubhouse on the condition that they will have ingress/egress in place and the UDOT paperwork is approved.  Commission Member Bills seconded the motion.  All in favor and the motion carried.

 

FINAL APPROVAL FOR COTTONWOOD SUBDIVISION,  Mel Larsen, Rulon Crosby and Doug Thompson

 

Commission Member Smith read through the concerns of the Rich County Recorder – Debbie Ames.  Mr. Larsen explained that the dedication of the right of way and cul de sac was worked in the agreement with the town.  As the town agrees to take the road, they would deed the right of way to the town.

 

Mr. Crosby said they started on their subdivision about the same time Trailhead started.  Their engineer showed on the plat the extension of the road that goes to Hodges Canyon.  He wondered if they need to limit their development where it intersects 3rd West until the road is done and they use the access on Bear Lake Blvd.  Commission Member Ballingham said that wouldn’t give them two accesses.

 

Mr. Elliott said as the final plat indicates, everything in that boundary is on the final plat.  It will require all the signatures of the property owners at that time.

 

 

                                                      -Page 3-

Mr. Crosby said after the engineer submitted their plan, they noticed the road increased from 30’ to 50’ wide.  He said it’s only a 7-lot subdivision and doesn’t think the traffic would require that large of a road.  He would like to revert back to the original 30’ and make the property owner responsible for taking care of their lot up to a few feet to the road.  He doesn’t plan on having curb and gutter.

 

Mr. Crosby has received a letter from the town engineer recommending 40’ for his lane.  He wondered if they have to follow that recommendation.

 

Commission Member Ballingham said if the engineer recommends a 40’ wide road, and you want the town to take it over then they need to make it a 40’ wide road.  Mr. Crosby said even if the town takes it over, there isn’t a requirement in the ordinance to make it over 30’.  He wondered if it was practical.

 

Commission Member Ballingham said the town can’t require them to make it over 30’, but if it’s not built to the recommendations, the town doesn’t have to take it over.  Commission Member Bills wondered if the difference would be for snow removal or parking in the small area.  Commission Member Smith said if the town engineer makes a recommendation, we have to listen to him. 

 

Mr. Elliott said the town engineer also recommended 50’ for the Bear Hollow Condo’s.

 

Mr. Crosby wondered if it could be approved so that they would be allowed to change the road to 40’ or 50’?

 

Council Member House said whatever the town engineer recommends, that’s what we’ll accept. 

 

Commission Member Bourne said this is what you presented us tonight, that’s what will be approved or disapproved.  If you want something different, you’ll have to come back.  If you want to have it changed, you will need to discuss it with the town engineer and see what he says.

 

Commission Member Smith said this is not a minor subdivision, it’s a full subdivision and they will need 10% open space with 50% of that usable.  He suggested having a jogging path in the front of each of the lots.  Mr. Larsen said they’ve donated enough land to the town.

 

Commission Member Smith said Debbie Ames mentioned there are other “Cottonwood” names.  Commission Member Ballingham said he’s not opposed to the name, but agrees that it can be confusing for emergency vehicles.   Commission Member Smith said everything should eventually be GPS’d.   Commission Member Ballingham recommended that they go with the numerical way of addressing.  That way it would be easier to find.

 

Commission Member Smith went through the checklist.

                                                      -Page 4-

Commission Member Bourne discussed power information and gave the advice that if they get a signed contract with the power co. there will be a cost involved.

 

Commission Member Bourne said we don’t need to worry about addressing, the county will do that. 

 

Mr. Larsen said they will pave 24’ of the cul de sac.

 

Commission Member Smith said there’s a HOA requirement with the subdivision ordinance.  Mr. Larsen said they won’t be having a HOA.

 

Mr. Larsen said they should consider that they’re giving so much land to the town for 3rd West of 100’; and doesn’t feel it’s a normal situation.  Mr. Crosby said he would understand that if they were going to have private streets and garbage collections.  They just want to quality for the town to take over the road.  Mr. Larsen said they’re bending over backwards for this.

 

Council Member House said we also have a nuisance ordinance to take care of people not mowing their lawns, etc.  The Planning & Zoning decided it wasn’t necessary to have a HOA.

 

The final survey will be on the Mylar.

 

Commission Member Ballingham made the recommendation that the Fire Marshall review and approve all fire hydrant locations and the water plan is reviewed by the public works as well.

 

Council Member House said at the last meeting they discussed that the sewer line will be 18”. Mr. Larsen said they will pay for 8” and the sewer district will pick up the difference. As for the water, the town will pay the difference.

 

Mr. Crosby said they don’t have water, they have asked the town if they can acquire some, and they’re told it’s in the works.    Mr. Larsen has 1 ¼ shares.

 

Commission Member Ballingham made the motion to accept the Cottonwood Subdivision based on the contingencies and we accept this plat.  If they want to submit a change they will need to come back before this committee.  The Town will take care of the dedication.  The subdivision needs to be in compliance with all the specific items checked on the checklist.  Commission Member Huefner seconded the motion.  All in favor and the motion carried.

 

WHISPER MOUNTAIN PRESENTATION, Rick Fawcett

 

Mr. Fawcett explained that Whisper Mountain is located in Pocatello, Idaho.  They help with creating or updating town’s general plans, emergency or management plans.  They have full service GIS for communities.  They specialize in rural communities and would prefer to work in areas with smaller than 1,000 people. 

                                                      -Page 5-

 Mr. Fawcett said he is doing a proposal for Bear Lake County right now.  Montpelier has been very restrictive with their building.  They are decreasing in population and tax base.  They have infrastructure issues and are working with them in changing their master plan and comprehensive plan to bring in the right type of development for job placement.  They realize their best asset is the lake and pristine space.

 

Mr. Fawcett said they are working with land use ordinances and re-zoning.  Mitch Poulson from the Regional Commission earlier talked with Jared Seamons, who explained that we have started on our general plan and need some help.  They are interested to be able to get synergy between both areas.  They agree that they should take away the boundaries and get consistencies with ordinances, etc.  There are opportunities that would benefit both communities.  The granting agencies are excited about this.  There is a special pot of money that is not tapped very often.  They are here to hear our concerns and see what they can do to help us.

 

Mr. Fawcett said Commission Chairman Seamons is concerned with the ordinances.

 

Commission Member Smith said this is what they do and they’re willing to help us.  He likes the idea of looking at the valley as a region.  Mr. Fawcett said we have a large amount of small children, 5 and under, and no school over here.

 

Mr. Fawcett said St. Charles has a 25-year plan for 13,000 homes.  It may impact Garden City by the roads, if nothing else.  Mr. Smith said funding is something they can help with if they can.  There are a lot of resources to be tapped said Mr. Fawcett.

 

Mr. Fawcett wants to find out what the issues are and they can help find resources to do that.  Sometimes they contact the developers.  They are the ones making the money and they should be part of the community and the plan.  They want to have good plans, so the town needs to have good ordinances.

 

Commission Member Huefner asked what talents they have to create all they do.  Mr. Fawcett has a doctorate in Public Administration, a  Masters in Environmental Engineering and a Bachelors in Industrial Safety Engineering.  He explained the others credentials also.

 

Commission Member Ballingham asked about disclosure.  He doesn’t want to be swallowed up by Bear Lake County and vice versa.  We have a lot of small businesses that compete.  If we go this way, the Planning & Zoning needs to take a good look at this.  If all our plans are going to be disclosed to Bear Lake County, would they wipe out any competition?  Mr. Fawcett doesn’t think he should get into that level of information unless we wanted them to.  They don’t try to get into small businesses.  Commission Member Ballingham said he wants to make sure there’s a free economy and that information goes to both areas to make it more fair.

 

Commission Member Ballingham talked about a possible EMS crew from St. Charles.  He wondered if another community would be able to use their services?

                                                      -Page 6-

Commission Member Huefner said our biggest challenge is transportation planning.  She sees that we need to get planning where the roads will be in the future.  She would like someone to come in and help plan for the roads since we’ll be growing so much.  It’s easier now than when we’re full of houses.  Mr. Fawcett said they use an engineering firm for that type of work.  Their specialty is planning for growth in rural communities.  There are federal dollars for that.  Every county should have a plan for roads.  The federal government encourages it so they know where to appropriate their money.

 

Mr. Fawcett said they also look at water, sewer, power, etc.  They will look at the grand scheme of where we are and where we want to be.  Commission Member Smith said it would be good to go forward with this.

 

Mr. Fawcett said they are sending out 2,900 surveys to residents who own property in Bear Lake County.  It will be interesting to see what information comes in about growth around the lake.  They will be having a Public meeting on the 24th of May in Montpelier.  They will share the information with everyone.

 

Commission Member Ballingham made the motion to recommend endorsing Mr. Fawcett of Whisper Mountain in that they asked to meet before the Town Council board and give them the same information.  Commission Member Bills seconded the motion.  All in favor and the motion carried.

 

Mr. Fawcett said they will put together a proposal for Garden City.

 

SHUNDAHAI MASTER PLAN, Ray Elliott

 

Mr. Elliott showed a Power Point Presentation of the Master Plan for Shundahai subdivision.  He said the name “Shundahai” means peace and harmony or one with the earth.  There is a yellow flower in that area often called Mule’s ear, which the scientific name is Balsamorhiza.  That’s where they got that name.  It was a root that pioneers had to eat at that time.  Eagle Feather is the name of the first phase of Shundahai.  This is a conceptual plan and there will be changes along the way.  There will be an 18-hole golf course.  There will be a corporate retreat in Hodges Canyon as well.

 

Mr. Elliott said there will be a trail system within the subdivision and will connect with other trail systems.  Not all of the property is in the town right now.  There will be trails all through the project which will have 4 entrances. 

 

SHUNDAHAI – EAGLE FEATHER FINAL APPROVAL, Ray Elliott

 

Mr. Elliott said the lots in Eagle Feather are larger than 1 acre.

 

The timeframe for building will be long term, depending on the market and economic situations.  It will take a while to do this size of project.  They have about 1,000 acres.

 

Commission Member Smith went over the checklist that the engineer had sent with Mr. Elliott.

                                                      -Page 7-

It was stated that the design standard will need to be shown in their CC&R’s. 

 

The Planning Commission went over the engineer and attorney letters of concern.

 

Commission Member Bourne asked about the crash gate, which will be installed on top, between there, and Bridgerland.  He wondered who would maintain it.  Mr. Elliott said they won’t be building a fence to restrict wildlife.  The earlier fence was to keep cows in.  It will be their responsibility to take care of the fence.  There needs to be fencing and the existing stock fence will be maintained.  The crash gate will only be used for crash purposes.  It won’t be used as a road.

 

Commission Member Bourne asked about the tank location.  Mr. Elliott explained that it will be on the east side of the bare hump.  It won’t be visible from the highway.  The road will be noticeable for about one year.  He said you will only see the tank if you’re above it.  There is a controversy whether it could be covered or not.  If you cover it, it can be contaminated.  Mr. Elliott said there is a tank in Laketown that they plan on covering about 2”.  It’s the town’s tank and their preference, but he would prefer not to.  The town and their engineer and the DEQ are the ones to decide whether to do that or not.  The cement can be colored to make it look like dirt, but that depends on the engineers, etc.

 

Mr. Elliott said there will be about 50’ around the sides of the tank.  It will be for construction and may be fenced at the 50’ barrier.  Commission Member Bourne wondered if they could move the tank further to the south among some trees.  It would only be visible from an airplane.  Mr. Elliott said they would lose pressure.  He said the engineer preferred them putting the tank in that place.

 

Commission Member Bourne asked if they could plant some trees on the top side?  Mr. Elliott said they would do whatever the town says to comply.

 

Commission Member Smith said there is a way to coat the top of the tanks.  Mr. Elliott said it’s not really their decision.  The dedication is also for the lot the tank sits on.  Their plan is to re-vegetate the area after the tank is in.  His preference would be to cover it up.

 

Commission Member Bourne said he would like to see the tank moved further south and have trees on the side.  It will be an eyesore and will drive him crazy.  The town needs to be more considerate of the residents.  People have told him that they didn’t buy lots to come up here and look at a tank.  Mr. Norm Mecham said he could certainly look at that and see what can be done to litigate that.

 

Commission Member Smith suggested painting the tank.

 

Council Member House suggested landscaping around the tank, or dieing the cement.  They could make it look nice.

 

 

 

                                                      -Page 8-

 

Commission Member Ballingham thinks we should recommend taking it to the Town Council.

 

Mr. Elliott and Mr. Mecham said they understand his concerns.

 

Mr. Elliott said they will look at completely burying the tank, if they cannot, they will look at other alternatives.  They have not done a soil test on the top yet.  There will only be one tank for the subdivision if they can leave it on top.

 

Commission Member Bourne made the recommendation to approve the final plat of Eagle Feather of Shundahai subdivision and let them go ahead and continue with leaving the water tank open for discussion of location and litigation.  Commission Member Ballingham seconded the motion.  All in favor and the motion carried.

 

Commission Member Bourne said he knows they will do everything they can to make it look nice.

 

CHANGE OF TEXT IN ORDINANCE,  Tony Johnson

 

Norm Mecham is here representing Mr. Johnson.  He said Mr. Johnson would like to propose a change in the text of the ordinance to have the developer post either cash or a letter of credit to ensure the completion of improvements.  The proposal is to add that a bond be included as an alternative.

 

Mr. Johnson said he has talked with our town attorney and he feels the town would be better off with bonds included.  A letter of credit is only good as long as the developer is solvent, if the developer goes bankrupt, you don’t have the letter of credit standing behind you anymore.  The bank is not committed to pay if they were in the first position, although they would probably want to.  A bond does come through and covers bankruptcy.

 

Council Member House said a bond requires that money is sitting there somewhere to cover the project.  It’s an insurance policy that pays in case of default.  A letter of credit is money that is in reserve and the bank has money that secures the project.  It has to be renewed every year.   It is generally 1% of the total amount.

 

Commission Member Ballingham made the motion to recommend to the Town Council that we accept bonds to be in the form of collateral for improvements.  Commission Member Huefner seconded the motion.  All in favor and the motion carried.

 

PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT,  Merlin Goeckeritz

 

Mr. Goeckeritz said he purchased a 1-acre piece of land on the west side of his restaurant.  It presently has two homes on it.  He would like to take a ½ acre piece of land and put townhomes on it.  He found this type of home in Coronado Island.  The house is 18’ wide and 40’ deep.  It has 3 stories and is about 1600 sq. ft.  He would like to make the homes

 

                                                      -Page 9-

affordable – maybe in the $200,000 range.  He would like to put 6 homes on the ½ acre.  His vision is to have 6 of them lined up on the south side of his property.

 

Mr. Goeckeritz would like to make the homes look very close to the pictures presented.  He would like to put in a 6’ vinyl fence.  There will be adequate parking on each side to get 2 vehicles end to end.  There will be about 50’ of privacy garden in the back and 12’ in the front.  They will each have separate water, sewer, electrical, etc.   They will not be connected in any way.

 

Mr. Goeckeritz wondered if the Planning & Zoning would work with him to be able to help people who can’t afford to pay so much for a house.

 

Commission Member Smith asked if he wants to rent the homes to tourists?  Mr. Goeckeritz said his vision is to sell the homes. 

 

Commission Member Smith said it would be good to put that in the CC&R’s to keep people from renting them. 

 

These homes are in the Community Commercial zone.

 

There was discussion about setbacks and minimum size lots.  The Planning Commission didn’t think it would fit to have all 6 homes on ½ acre.  Commission Member Smith feels having 4 homes is more what is accepted in the ordinances.

 

Mr. Goeckeritz said he needs to be able to pay for the property.  He won’t be able to make them affordable if he can’t put 6 on the ½ acre.  He wondered if he needs a variance.

 

Commission Member Smith said if there were more than 4 on a lot, you’d have to own them and rent them out, not sell them.

 

Mr. Goeckeritz wondered if the Planning Commission could work with him.  Commission Member Ballingham suggested he get a variance.  Commission Member Smith said we are favorable to bringing in affordable housing.  Council Member House said they still need to follow the ordinance.  If he wants something different, he’ll have to get a variance.

 

Commission Member Smith said as the ordinances are now, he thinks Mr. Goeckeritz could put in 4-5 buildings per acre.  If they had garages together and were a multiple unit such as a duplex, more could go on the lot.  They will need to meet the setbacks and go through a variance. 

 

Commission Member Ballingham said to build on ½ acre, you need to look at what type of ordinance you’re looking at.  It would be a major subdivision, which he won’t want to do.  Commission Member Bourne said it’s a multi-family unit.

 

 

                                                      -Page 10-

 

Commission Member Ballingham said Quadplexes and Duplexes are permitted within the commercial zone. 

 

Commission Member Ballingham wondered about putting 6-8 townhomes within one building.  More would fit within a small piece of land.

 

Mr. Goeckeritz said putting that many people together takes away from them wanting their own piece of paradise.  It’s just a bunch of people stacked together with no privacy.  All he wants to do is give someone a piece of heaven.  Commission Member Smith said as it sits right now, you’ll have to go to a lower density. 

 

Council Member House suggested Mr. Goeckeritz look through the ordinances and see what fits for him. 

 

Commission Member Ballingham said when you put a home in the corner of a lot; you have to change the way you do things.  You will need to make sure of the setbacks; the height is 35’, there needs to be an ingress/egress.  There is a little more flexibility when it’s residential.  He just needs to find a place in the ordinances that this fits.  He should get someone to create a conceptual idea through an engineer to get a plan going.

 

Commission Member Smith said there are people around that can lay it out conceptually without going to an engineer

 

Commission Member Ballingham suggested Mr. Goeckeritz take graph paper and draw it out to see what he can do with setbacks.

 

QUESTION OF HEIGHT OF BUILDINGS,   Brett Petersen

 

Mr. Petersen said he is working with Norman Mecham and they’re going to do a development on the lakefront of the motor lodge.  He wants to do a mixed used with commercial on the highway and residential condo’s towards the lake.  They will do a lot of landscaping and make it attractive. 

 

Mr. Petersen said the ground tapers towards the lake and showed pictures of what they’re thinking for their design.  It’s three stories high.  It may fit into the 35’ height restriction, but is borderline.  It’s closer to 40’.  He wondered if they can start measuring the height from the sidewalk level and  build up to where the parking is.  They want to keep the pitched roof.  They would like to have the point of beginning from the sidewalk. 

 

Commission Member Bills said he would recommend that he visit with the local building official.  You can have a 40’ structure if you’re 5’ in the ground.  You will have major issues if you go over 35’.  It’s the building officials call anyway.  It would benefit Mr. Petersen to show the building inspector drawings and he will show where the grade mark is.  It’s a happy medium on the lot.

 

 

                                                      -Page 11-

 

Commission Member Ballingham said this is a beautification issue.  If you have a commercial building in the front, you won’t even see the buildings behind it.  It would be good to meet with him.  If it’s not adequate, this can be directed to the Town Council.  He feels they would work with him on this.

 

ORDINANCES

 

There was discussion about the length of a cul de sac.  They felt a cul de sac of ½ mile long isn’t safe.  Commission Member Bourne feels it should be no longer than 12 lots long.  Commission Member Ballingham suggested rather than stating lot sizes, maybe use footage.  Lots could be as large as 10 acres a piece.  There was discussion about making a cul de sac 750’ long.

 

There was discussion about having a 50’ radius at the end of a cul de sac.  Council Member House suggested calling the sanitation department to see what radius they need to turn around in.

 

Commission Member Bills made the recommendation to define a cul de sac of a maximum of 12 lots or 1000’ with a minimum of 50’ turn around.

 

Commission Member Ballingham made the recommendation that this definition should be presented to them next week for their final approval.  Commission Member Huefner seconded the motion.

 

Cutting Roads

Commission Member Bourne said before cutting any town roads, there must be prior written approval with the town.

 

GENERAL PLAN DISCUSSION

 

Commission Member Huefner said she was disappointed with Whisper Mountain’s presentation.  Commission Member Ballingham said we need to work closely with Bear Lake County or completely separate from them.  He feels this area has a sense of beating the next town to something.  There’s a big attitude issue difference if you’re from Utah or from Idaho.

 

Commission Member Smith thinks some of us should go to the Bear Lake County meeting and talk with their commissioners.  Commission Member Bills asked if we just hire them and incorporate their ideas.  We’re not re-inventing the wheel.  They do this so much, they’ve got to have a good plan.   He feels we need to be compatible with the Idaho side.  We should either tell the representatives from Whisper Mountain if we want their input or not; but it’s ultimately the town’s responsibility to decide if we’ll use them.

 

Commission Member Smith said we should look at the possibilities of synergies and non-competitions. Commission Member Huefner thinks we need to have an interlocal agreement between both communities.

                                                      -Page 12-

Council Member House said if they’re on the payroll, they’ll do the general plan the way we want it done

 

Commission Member Ballingham said we need to do what will help our town the most.  He worries about some of the services overlapping. 

 

Commission Member Smith thinks we should have them come and present us with more information and we can ask more questions. 

 

Council Member House said if we want to hire someone, we could put it out to bid, there are probably others that do the same thing.

 

MISCELLANEOUS

 

Difference of PUD and Multi-Family Apartments

There was a question about the difference between a PUD and Multi-Family apartments.  The Planning & Zoning explained that a PUD needs 5 acres or more and they are for single families.  It was mentioned that adding the Multi-Family apartments to the Conditional Use Permit ordinance now means that the apartments don’t need to come to more than one meeting to approve what is being done.  The setbacks and water wasn’t even addressed and there is no preliminary or final plat reviews.  Commission Member Smith feels we need to study this as we did the flag lot.  We need to put restrictions on those developments that are smaller than 5 acres.

 

Mylar Discussion

There was a question about the ordinance stating that Mylars need to be at the final review.  There are many developers who feel they need to wait until after the final so that all the changes can be made before it’s recorded.  They feel they don’t want to have to go through the expense of preparing another Mylar.  The Town Clerk was wondering if they could bring it in after the final, and if someone from the Planning & Zoning Commission check it over before it’s recorded.

 

Commission Member Ballingham wondered about having everything on a Mylar before going go to Town Council.  Commission Member Smith said a Mylar is just the type of paper it’s on.  He doesn’t think it would be too hard or expensive to change one.

 

Commission Member Bills said the Mylar is what has all the signatures on it and is recorded.  If someone were totally dishonest, they could change the Mylar before it’s recorded.  Commission Member Smith said maybe they should bring it to the meeting and if there are any changes it will need to be fixed and approved by a member of the Planning & Zoning.  When it’s totally done, send it to the Town Council.  They wouldn’t need a meeting for each change.  Council Member House said if there is any question, they shouldn’t be bringing in the Mylar.

 

Commission Member Ballingham said it seems like Norman Mecham and Ray Elliott seem to know what they’re doing and try to do a good job.

 

                                                      -Page 13-

Commission Member Ballingham said when they were working with the Cottonwood Subdivision, something stuck out in his mind.  The comment was made that “they donated all this land and the town should work with them”.  He said we want developers to come and develop without them feeling like the town owes them something.  They have two pieces of property that they can’t sell and it will just sit there.  They’re not losing that much.  We are here to uphold the ordinance.  We should be treated with respect.  Subdivisions should meet the town’s ordinances.

 

Commission Member Bills said he doesn’t think they realized what it takes to develop a piece of property.  There are developers and there are wannabee’s.

 

Commission Member Bourne said whatever is presented to the Clerks is what they are to approve.  If it’s changed, they have to come back with a different presentation.  We legally can’t approve it if it’s different.  It’s not negotiable.

 

ADJOURNMENT

 

Commission Member Bills made the motion to adjourn the meeting at 11:10 p.m.  Commission Member Salzetti seconded the motion.

 

 

 

 

 

APPROVED:

 

 

 

                               

_____________________________________     

Frank Smith, Vice Chairman                             

 

 

 

ATTEST:

 

 

 

 

______________________________________

Assistant Clerk

 

 

 

 

                                                      -Page 14-