Francis City Planning Commission Meeting October 27, 2016
Francis City Planning Commission Meeting October 27, 2016 Francis City Planning Commission Meeting Thursday October 27, 2016 7:00 PM 2319 South Spring Hollow Road Francis, UT 84036 Present: Chair Kevin Cannon, Commissioner Shauna Bushman, Commissioner Lorraine Flygare, Commissioner Jason Averett, Commissioner Vorwaller, Planner Marcy Burrell and City Engineer Scott Kettle Excused: Commissioner Trent Handsaker and Secretary Susan Moses Other Present: Myra Housel, Jaren Housel, Dustine Housel, Dena Housel, Kyle Housel, Brent Gines, Jeff McNeil, Casen McNeil, Jack Walkenhorst, Mont Lundgreen, Stacy Lundgreen, Dianne Proctor, Polly Sato, Thomas Sato, Kent Johnson, Allene Brown, Nick Berry, Lauren Barry, Mike Johnston and Sergeant Andy Cernich Call Meeting to Order: Chair Cannon called meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. Public Hearing with Possible Action: Code Text Amendment – Repeal Flag Lots in Development Code Planner Burrell read staff report and explained what a flag lot was. Commissioner Flygare agreed we should repeal Flag Lots in the Development Code. Planner Burrell stated she had a letter from Franz and Patty Larsen who are against flag lots and she has spoken with Dixie Thompson who is also opposed flag lots. Commissioner Flygare stated Rex and Lynette Hallam are against flag lots. Planner Burrell stated she had received a letter from the Hallams for the next agenda Item. Public Hearing Opened Jeff McNeil commented it is interesting that we have this item on the agenda before my item which is a flag lot proposal. Commented he was not allowed to get this item on the September agenda because of a mess up by Francis Town and now this pops up. McNeil commented that LUDMA provides for flag-lots and that is your governing authority. McNeil commented the only reason you can deny that kind of situation is if there is a problem for public health, safety or welfare. McNeil commented to deny this it does not meet the test. McNeil commented you cannot deny on public clamor, personal whim, vendetta or personal dislike of applicant or be
Page 1 of 11
Francis City Planning Commission Meeting October 27, 2016 arbitrary, capricious or discriminatory. McNeil commented it feels like this is arbitrary and discriminatory at this point in time. McNeil stated as a land owner I have access rights. Jaren Housel commented he agrees with Jeff McNeil. Housel commented we are still a rural community and should stay rural as long as we can. Housel asked what is the different between Nick Berry’s storage units and Jeff McNeil’s property. Housel thinks they are both flag lots. Alene Brown stated she lives on Foothill Drive and she is not opposed to just Jeff’s flag lot but flag lots in general. Brown commented the necessity for flag lots has been created by the landowners themselves; they are the ones that landlocked the back portions of their property and now they are asking for flag lots so they can access it and build more homes. Brown commented she does not feel like it is neither the Cities responsibility nor the citizens of the town to compromise our zoning ordinances that were put in place for a reason. Public Hearing Closed Commissioner Bushman asked if the law Mr. McNeil sighted is valid and something we need to address before we vote on this. Attorney Powell stated this ordinance change is not for any particular landowner’s application to do something with their land. Powell stated when you are amending your Ordinances, the City has legislative discretion. You can make a law, not make a law, change a law or revise a law. Powell stated there are no findings that are required as to a particular piece of land or parcel. When you are considering a landowners application, there are certain standards that you have to consider when you are considering a particular application that someone submitted to do a business or build a home or do a conditional use ect… on their property. This type of agenda item is not that agenda item, it is a law making standard, it is you deciding what should be the law in Francis and that is wide open, you have complete discretion on that. You do not have to allow flag lots, there are hundreds of cities in Utah that don’t allow flag lots and there are many cities that do allow flag lots. It is a discretionary standard. Commissioner Flygare motioned to repeal flag lots in the Development Code. Commissioner Bushman seconded the motion. Voting in Favor Chair Cannon, Commissioners Flygare and Commissioner Bushman. Voting Nay Commissioner Averett. Commissioner Vorwaller abstained. Motioned Passed. Public Hearing with possible action: Code Text Amendment application to allow Flag lots on Foothill Dr. submitted by Jeff McNeil Planner Burrell read staff report and a letter from the Hallam’s objection to the flag lots. Attorney Powell clarified together with this agenda item there were some comments submitted about Mr. McNeil’s parcels. Powell reminded this is not an application for Mr. McNeil’s’ parcels, the way Mr. McNeil’s application was submitted he would be changing all of the zoning along Foothill Drive, it would apply to every landowner along Foothill Drive and you need to consider it that way as a general Code Text Amendment. Page 2 of 11
Francis City Planning Commission Meeting October 27, 2016 Public Hearing Opened Applicant Jeff McNeil commented if you look at LUDMA 10-9a-102 it talks about providing fundamental fairness in land use regulation. McNeil commented in the past the City has shown that flag lots have been useable and have been beneficial to the City and to the landowners; that is all I am asking for here. McNeil asked the Planning Commission to go back and review the regulation on Land Use Fairness. McNeil asked where does Public Safety, Health and Welfare come into play in this situation. McNeil commented we are denying him access to his land and does not think it is fair or equitable. Commissioner Averett asked Mr. McNeil if he meets the requirements for a flag lot. Mr. McNeil answered yes. Averett asked if he has a 60 foot right of way. McNeil answered yes. Chair Cannon commented, on a flag-lot fire trucks going down to save a house can’t get down the road and turn around. Cannon stated we have asked how big does a road need to be for a fire truck or snowplow or something like that. Cannon stated we are not against you, we are looking at the future of Francis and we do not want to look haphazard, we have codes and we are looking at the codes and we are following the codes. Mr. McNeil commented about another home on Foothill Drive that he felt was like a flag-lot because it was built on the back of the property and had a long driveway. Chair Cannon stated it was not a flag-lot. Planner Burrell explained the plat map shows Jeff McNeil’s property parcel # FT-3 shows an entrance that is only 22 feet wide, that is not an allowable width for an entrance for a flag lot. The lot we subdivided in August has the 60 foot right-of-way but he has designated that as a remainder parcel and land locked his property behind that as well. There could be a future road that would allow for growth. Burrell reminded Jeff McNeil that he already had a 5 lot subdivision his family could build on. Jeff McNeil responded it would cost him $250,000 in infrastructure. Dana Housel stated I understand you want to get rid of flag lots because you want the town to be connected and the road ways to connect. Housel commented the next agenda item is to eliminate two ingresses and egresses from businesses and by doing that you are creating that same problem, you will have businesses that are a one way in and not connect to anything else. Housel asked how can you justify allowing that for a business but not for a resident. Nick Berry responded commercial is on SR32 and UDOT wants 500 feet between drives for access and even though in theory you want two access UDOT overrides and says no. Alene Brown stated she lives on Foothill Drive and her property is adjacent to some of the McNeil property. Brown stated she purchased her home from the McNeil family and had a lot of property and boundary issues because of the way they developed. They have created this land locked issue and the need for a flag lot themselves by building on the entire frontage they Page 3 of 11
Francis City Planning Commission Meeting October 27, 2016 had on Foothill. Brown stated this is not our problem they have done that to themselves. Brown stated she is also concerned about the spring that is on the south end of the property where Mr. McNeil wants to put the flag lot. Brown stated that Mr. McNeil’s father told Brown that there were deeded spring owners to that spring including non-McNeil family members. Brown asked that the spring comes into play and is addressed as to what we are going to do with that spring, how is that going to be handled. Brown expressed concern about Foothill Road, feels it is at maximum capacity for a road and it is a narrow road. Brown stated as a resident we have a right to say no, you have done this to yourself, you shouldn’t be allowed an exemption to the rules. Public Hearing Closed Commissioner Bushman stated it is not the McNeil’s individually. Bushman stated she doesn’t like the idea of allowing flag lots all the way along Foothill drive and that is what is proposed before us. Commissioner Vorwaller asked currently if you have a 100 foot front access, it is not considered a flag-lot no matter how big the acreage is behind that. Planner Burrell answered yes, you have to have a 100 foot of frontage on a public road. Vorwaller asked anything short of that has been labeled as a flag-lot. Burrell answered yes. Commissioner Bushman motioned not to allow the Code Text Amendment for Flag-lots on Foothill Driver. Commissioner Flygare seconded the motion. Voting in Favor Chair Cannon, Commissioner Bushman, Commissioner Flygare, and Commissioner Vorwaller. Voting Nay Commissioner Averett. Motion Passed. Public Hearing with possible action: Code Text Amendment application to allow Storage Units in C-1 zone again, submitted by Nick Berry Planner Burrell read staff report Commissioner Bushman read from Code 18.45.010 “new construction should be in harmony with the characteristics of the surrounding developed commercial and residential areas. The uses characteristics of this zone shall be small retail and service stores and shops. Bushman stated that her opinion is that storage facility of any sort belongs in light industrial. Planner Burrell reminded that we have changed our use table to allow retail shops larger than 25,000 square feet. Chair Cannon stated Mr. Berry started off in good faith with the City and we were in the process of changing the zones and so forth. Cannon added that Mr. Berry took it off of the main drag and set it back because we did not want it on the main drag. Mr. Berry has done everything we have asked of him. Page 4 of 11
Francis City Planning Commission Meeting October 27, 2016 Attorney Powell explained Mr. Berry still has a storage unit application pending on the front parcel, which he is fully able to pursue if he is not able to have the storage units on the back parcel. Powell stated that application is pending and setting in the files in the Planners office, it is not moving forward right now because Mr. Berry is attempting to move forward with his application on the back parcel. The Planning Commission got to the point where it was recommended and approved and it was before the City Council where Mr. Berry promised he would abandon the storage units on the front parcel if he is approved for the storage units on the back parcel. Before the City Council could take final action neighboring property owners hired an Attorney who researched the Code and looked at the procedures and raised the argument that because of the timing of the fact that the City was going thru recodification, even though Mr. Berry’s original proposal was for storage units in commercial when storage units were allowed in commercial. Mr. Berry has that application pending, so he has a valid application to do storage units in Commercial with a Conditional Use Permit. The Neighbor’s Attorney has made the argument that because of the timing in which the City took the storage units out of Commercial and prohibited it on the back parcel at the same time, and know it is not allowed on the back parcel. Attorney Powell stated he has talked with both Attorneys and basically the position we are in, Powell doesn’t know who would win that argument and they are both willing to fight it on the back parcel. Mr. Berry’s attorney said the City promised that if Mr. Berry abandoned the front parcel the City would let him put it on the back parcel. The neighbors Attorney said we are going to stop that, you are not allowed to do storage units on the back parcel. Attorney Powell stated we have to decide what is best for the public and the City. Powell as the City Attorney has advised the City Council that if it was their intention to approve storage units on the back parcel, but the neighbors Attorney says because of a timing loop hole the City could be subject to a law-suit. Powell recommends go back and rezone this commercial with storage units allowed for the time being and in-order to allow the negotiation with Mr. Berry to allow storage units on the back parcel. Powell reminded the Planning Commission that at any time we can go back and take storage units back out of commercial. Commissioner Vorwaller asked if we disallow storage units on the back parcel, the front parcel still has a valid application that was under the old Code which allowed storage units. Chair Cannon answered correct. Vorwaller commented they are either going in the back or in the front, we get to decide which. Chair Cannon responded we decided the first time we wanted it in the back. Commissioner Vorwaller stated the reality is they are going in one way or the other and we can decide if the City is going to take a law-suit for it or not. Public Hearing Opened Dena Housel opinion the City was aware of the situation during the process and we got an Attorney because of Mr. Powell’s explanation of the law, it was clear the law was in place and the City knew the law was in place and they were trying to make an exception for Mr. Berry. Housel stated she is strongly opposed to the text amendment change. The only person who will benefit is the developer.
Page 5 of 11
Francis City Planning Commission Meeting October 27, 2016 Dusty Housel commented the applicant has been approved on the front piece and that is where he should build. Building more than twice the size of the original project does not benefit Francis Town. Housel is concerned about the risk that someone else could put in an application for storage units in commercial before the City repeals it. Housel is concerned the Town will not enforce the code and hours of operation. Brent Gines stated he is a neighboring property owner. Gines is concerned the developer could turn around and put in a new application for storage units in the front and have storage units on the front and back parcel. Gines commented developers are in it for the money and not the town. Jaren Housel commented everything is messed up. Housel urged the Planning Commission to abide by the Codes, if you start tromping on your codes you’re in trouble, you set a precedence. Diane Proctor commented she has seen so much change and so many codes changed because some rich developer. Proctor is against that many storage units. Kyle Housel commented he does not care how many trees they have in the front, anywhere you drive you will see the storage units. Housel would prefer to have less storage units on the front parcel. Mont Lundgreen commented he thinks it should go back to the front parcel, you can plant trees but you can’t hide that many storage units. Lundgreen stated he owns storage units and he feels the market is over saturated right now. Lundgreen is concerned they will sit empty and became an eye sore. Lundgreen recommended putting them up front with less units, put conditions that they look aesthetically beautiful, put setbacks on. Commissioner Bushman asked Attorney Powell – Mr. Berry has an existing application under the old code for the front property. Powell answered correct. Bushman asked if he could still use that under the Conditional Use Permit under the old code. Powell answered yes. Bushman asked we would not have to vote to allow storage units back in C-1 to make that happen. Powell answered correct. Nick Berry stated when he first came to the Planning Commission there was push back from the front and that is the reason he went to the back, last meeting you approved it to go to the City Council and the Housel’s wrote a letter that they did not like the RV storage on the south end and they did not like the setbacks and they wanted fencing. Berry stated the new plan has 46 foot setbacks no RV building and fencing all the way around. Berry stated he has met all three things that they wanted and you still can’t make everybody happy. Berry stated he will be building the units in phases. Stacy Lundgreen commented we are going to be over saturated with storage units and that will cause an eye sore in our Town. Lundgreen asked the Planning Commission if we had any rules about if they can be 1 story or 2 stories. Lundgreen asked about the area for snow removal.
Page 6 of 11
Francis City Planning Commission Meeting October 27, 2016 Lundgreen commented she grew up in this Town and wants to keep it beautifully. Lundgreen commented she would rather it be on the front parcel. Public Hearing Closed Commissioner Vorwaller asked if it went back to the front parcel what are the old setbacks in Commercial. Planner Burrell stated 30 feet all the way around. There was some discussion about front setbacks. Attorney Powell reminded the Planning Commission about the possible law-suits. Chair Cannon commented he was on the Planning Commission when we started with this and he remembers the discussion we had as to why we considered the back parcel, because we wanted the main drag to look aesthetically nice and have retail stores, commercial buildings and businesses and we thought if we set it back we won’t see it, but then the neighbors said they would see it. Cannon commented plans have evolved, Mr. Berry could have built them higher. Commissioner Vorwaller asked if the approval of the rear parcel was part of the vacation of the front parcel as storage units. Is that just for the pending permit or for any permit on top of that? Planner Burrell answered that was just for the pending application. Burrell explained part of the original motion was if the Conditional Use Permit was accepted on the back parcel he would withdraw his front application, he would not be able to do both. Commissioner Vorwaller expressed concern that he could withdraw his old application and the next day he could come in and submit a new application for the front parcel. Mr. Berry responded he owns the front parcel but has the front parcel under contract with a nursey and legally he can’t and he does not want to, added he has put his resources in the back parcel. Commissioner Vorwaller motioned to recommend the adoption of the proposed ordinance for commercial use including the new language in 18.120.80 #. Chair Cannon seconded the motion. Voting in favor Chair Cannon and Commissioner Vorwaller. Voting Nay Commissioner Flygare, Commissioner Bushman and Commissioner Averett. Motion did not pass. Zone Amendment for Parcel #FT-14, from Agriculture Ag-1 to Commercial C-1, submitted by Nick Berry Conditional Use Permit for Premier Storage, submitted by Nick Berry Lot Line Adjustment for Premier Storage Units, submitted by Nick Berry Planner Burrell read staff report. Burrell stated the staff report covers agenda items 5, 6 and 7. Burrell stated we will discuss the items together but take a separate motions on each agenda item. Page 7 of 11
Francis City Planning Commission Meeting October 27, 2016
Commissioner Bushman asked if the back parcel it is still zone AG-1. Chair Cannon answered correct. It will only be zoned Commercial C-1 if we allow the Conditional Use Permit. Planner Burrell answered yes. Bushman stated the majority just voted not to allow it to C-1. Burrell explained the last motion the majority disapproved the Code Text Amendment to allow storage units in the Commercial zone. Attorney Powell stated it is important to understand each of the separate agenda items. Powell explained the last agenda item and the next 3 agenda items. Powell explained if the City Council approves the Code Text Amendment and then starts doing a Conditional Use Permit do you want to have recommendations with conditions. Public Hearing Opened Jaren Housel asked about the doors and how will they face. Planner Burrell answered all storage doors and entrances and parking for the development shall be eternally located not located on a public street. These doors are eternally located. Housel is concerned some doors face his property and the light will be in his eyes. Jaren Housel asked if Mr. Berry will be bonded. Cannon stated what you are asking is not in the realms of what we are discussing right now. Dusty Housel thanked Mr. Berry for the concession he made on the new plan, it is a much better proposal. Dusty stated her objection is not against Mr. Berry but a project this size next to a residence. Dusty stated if a Conditional Use Permit were to be approved this is the best option, although she is against the project. Dena Housel stated her concern with the zoning you are creating the exact same situation that you just took out of the Code with Mr. McNeil it is a private drive going back and there is no connectivity to any other roads. Dena commented the General plan has the commercial along the roads not in the back ground and if you continue to change the zone in the back you will have a bunch of lanes. Mont Lundgreen commented in the County he was told he could not have any outside doors facing out to his neighbors. Lundgreen commented if we change Ag to Commercial it will keep happening, we were planning Commercial along the Highway Corridor we can make it look Commercial, make it look nice, it won’t be obtrusive, but if we change what should be a beautiful agriculture field and we have 300 or 400 units out there, that is not cohesive to the rural environment. Lundgreen asked that we keep commercial where it should be and not take up all of our agriculture. Brent Gines commented you need to be careful when you start zoning a piece C-1 and the next person comes and wants to rezone because you have set a precedence and you are going to do Page 8 of 11
Francis City Planning Commission Meeting October 27, 2016 it for me or you will have litigation. Setting a precedence is something you need to be careful with. Brent Gines commented he thinks it is backwards that we make a subdivision have a 60 foot right of way but a commercial business only needs a 30 foot right of way. Commissioner Vorwaller commented he did not know where the 30 and 60 feet come from, but fire access code is 20 feet. Sergeant Andy Cernich responded that came from the South Summit Fire Department, they have their own requirements. Commissioner Bushman asked about the fence and asked Mr. Berry to show her on the map. Mr. Berry showed on the map the perimeter fencing. Bushman asked if the fencing will be complete, not just waiting for you to do phase 2. Berry answered he has not gotten that far yet. Bushman stated we need to address that in-case phase 2 doesn’t happen. Berry replied he was okay with fencing all of the perimeter ground phase 2. Bushman wanted the landscaping done on both phases. Berry responded phase two has no landscaping, because the Housel’s did not want landscaping, so I have fencing. Berry stated if this doesn’t work he will go back to the old concept. Dena Housel stated they liked this plan best. Short discussion about number of units, height and layout. Public Hearing Closed Commissioner Vorwaller motioned to rezone parcel FT-14 from AG-1 to C-1. Chair Cannon seconded the motion. Voting in favor Chair Cannon and Commissioner Vorwaller. Voting Nay Commissioner Bushman, Commissioner Flygare and Commissioner Averett. Motion did not pass. Commissioner Bushman motioned that if the City Council decides to approve the Code Text Amendment application for storage units in C-1 and if the City Council approves the Zone Amendment for parcel FT-14 from AG-1 to C-1. And the City Council approves the Conditional Use Permit for Premier Storage as purposed here and with the stipulations, that fencing is included around phase 2 and proper safeguards are in place to insure the completion of phase 2 in a timely manner. That he puts security fencing around phase 1. Commissioner Vorwaller seconded the motion. Voting in Favor Chair Cannon, Commissioner Vorwaller, Commissioner Bushman, Commissioner Flygare and Commissioner Averett. Motion passed unanimously. Commissioner Flygare wanted to tell Mr. Berry how many units he could build. There was a discussion. The City Code does not state that we can dictate how many units he can build. Commissioner Vorwaller motioned to approve the Lot-Line Adjustment for Premier Storage Units pending that the City Council makes the approvals of the previous amendment applications. Commissioner Averett seconded the motion. Voting in Favor Chair Cannon,
Page 9 of 11
Francis City Planning Commission Meeting October 27, 2016 Commissioner Vorwaller, Commissioner Bushman, Commissioner Flygare and Commissioner Averett. Motion passed unanimously.
Public Hearing: Hilltop Ridge -Final Subdivision Process. Planner Burrell read staff report. Commissioner Bushman is very concerned about the safety on Hilltop Road. Bushman stated she believes the City will be acting irresponsibly if they do not widen out Hilltop Road, put a proper guard rail in, and make a proper trail. Engineer Kettle responded the Developer will widen the road in front of their section and put a trial in front of their subdivision. There was a discussion about the safety issues of Hilltop Road. Public Hearing Opened Mont Lundgreen asked if we could have drainage dips along Hilltop. He is concerned about speeding on Hilltop. Engineer Kettle responded the City does not like speed bumps or drainage dips because it is a problem when we snowplow and also a problem with kids speeding to go over speed bumps to catch air. Commissioner Vorwaller recommended going to the City Council with the Hilltop Road issues separate from the subdivision. Diane Proctor stated she lives on Hilltop and there is a problem with traffic. Proctor is concerned about their irrigation ditch, shown on the map; it runs parallel to the big ditch. She is concerned about who will maintain their ditch. Commissioner Vorwaller responded that in the report from the City Engineer Scott Kettle, it states “written approval from Irrigation Company to pipe and re-route the existing ditches”. Mike Johnston project Engineer stated they will pipe both ditches. Proctor is concerned about having enough drinking water. Kent Johnson stated he lives near the area and he does not like this project. Johnson commented we talk about all of the problems of Hilltop and one thing we can do is not allow 11 more houses that will dump traffic onto Hilltop. Stacy Lundgreen stated they live on the corner going into Wild Willow. Stacy is stated the ditch goes through her property and she is concerned about the ditch being piped, she likes her ditch and does not want it piped. Engineer Kettle stated the ditch will not be piped on her property. There was a discussion about the ditch and whose is responsible for the ditch. Stacy Lundgreen is concerned about having an opening to the park off of Hilltop. Page 10 of 11
Francis City Planning Commission Meeting October 27, 2016 Chair Cannon stated the concerns are Hilltop Road’s safety and condition. Cannon suggested the City Council come up with ways to make Hilltop Road safer and automobile friendly. Commissioner Vorwaller motioned to approve final subdivision for Hilltop Ridge Subdivision with the recommendation or conditions that the Francis City Council has some type of mitigation plan to improve Hilltop Road due to the increase volume that Hilltop Ridge Subdivision will impact. And include all of the conditions in the staff report and Horrocks Engineering report prior to construction. Commissioner Bushman seconded the motion. All voting in Favor. Motion passed in unanimously. Planner Update Planner Burrell reminded the Planning Commission the Christmas party is November 29 th. Approval of Minutes Commissioner Bushman motioned to approve the June 16, 2016 minutes. Commissioner Flygare seconded the motion. Voting in Favor Chair Cannon, Commissioner Bushman, Commissioner Flygare, and Commissioner Averett. Abstained Commissioner Vorwaller. Motion passed, Commissioner Vorwaller motioned to approve the August 18, 2016 minutes. Commissioner Bushman seconded the motion. All voting in favor. Motion passed. Adjourn Commissioner Vorwaller motioned to adjourn. All voting in favor. Motion passed. Meeting adjourned at 9:48 pm
The content of the minutes is not intended, nor are they submitted, as a verbatim transcription of the meeting. These minutes are a brief overview of what occurred at the meeting.
Page 11 of 11
Page 1 of 11
Francis City Planning Commission Meeting October 27, 2016 arbitrary, capricious or discriminatory. McNeil commented it feels like this is arbitrary and discriminatory at this point in time. McNeil stated as a land owner I have access rights. Jaren Housel commented he agrees with Jeff McNeil. Housel commented we are still a rural community and should stay rural as long as we can. Housel asked what is the different between Nick Berry’s storage units and Jeff McNeil’s property. Housel thinks they are both flag lots. Alene Brown stated she lives on Foothill Drive and she is not opposed to just Jeff’s flag lot but flag lots in general. Brown commented the necessity for flag lots has been created by the landowners themselves; they are the ones that landlocked the back portions of their property and now they are asking for flag lots so they can access it and build more homes. Brown commented she does not feel like it is neither the Cities responsibility nor the citizens of the town to compromise our zoning ordinances that were put in place for a reason. Public Hearing Closed Commissioner Bushman asked if the law Mr. McNeil sighted is valid and something we need to address before we vote on this. Attorney Powell stated this ordinance change is not for any particular landowner’s application to do something with their land. Powell stated when you are amending your Ordinances, the City has legislative discretion. You can make a law, not make a law, change a law or revise a law. Powell stated there are no findings that are required as to a particular piece of land or parcel. When you are considering a landowners application, there are certain standards that you have to consider when you are considering a particular application that someone submitted to do a business or build a home or do a conditional use ect… on their property. This type of agenda item is not that agenda item, it is a law making standard, it is you deciding what should be the law in Francis and that is wide open, you have complete discretion on that. You do not have to allow flag lots, there are hundreds of cities in Utah that don’t allow flag lots and there are many cities that do allow flag lots. It is a discretionary standard. Commissioner Flygare motioned to repeal flag lots in the Development Code. Commissioner Bushman seconded the motion. Voting in Favor Chair Cannon, Commissioners Flygare and Commissioner Bushman. Voting Nay Commissioner Averett. Commissioner Vorwaller abstained. Motioned Passed. Public Hearing with possible action: Code Text Amendment application to allow Flag lots on Foothill Dr. submitted by Jeff McNeil Planner Burrell read staff report and a letter from the Hallam’s objection to the flag lots. Attorney Powell clarified together with this agenda item there were some comments submitted about Mr. McNeil’s parcels. Powell reminded this is not an application for Mr. McNeil’s’ parcels, the way Mr. McNeil’s application was submitted he would be changing all of the zoning along Foothill Drive, it would apply to every landowner along Foothill Drive and you need to consider it that way as a general Code Text Amendment. Page 2 of 11
Francis City Planning Commission Meeting October 27, 2016 Public Hearing Opened Applicant Jeff McNeil commented if you look at LUDMA 10-9a-102 it talks about providing fundamental fairness in land use regulation. McNeil commented in the past the City has shown that flag lots have been useable and have been beneficial to the City and to the landowners; that is all I am asking for here. McNeil asked the Planning Commission to go back and review the regulation on Land Use Fairness. McNeil asked where does Public Safety, Health and Welfare come into play in this situation. McNeil commented we are denying him access to his land and does not think it is fair or equitable. Commissioner Averett asked Mr. McNeil if he meets the requirements for a flag lot. Mr. McNeil answered yes. Averett asked if he has a 60 foot right of way. McNeil answered yes. Chair Cannon commented, on a flag-lot fire trucks going down to save a house can’t get down the road and turn around. Cannon stated we have asked how big does a road need to be for a fire truck or snowplow or something like that. Cannon stated we are not against you, we are looking at the future of Francis and we do not want to look haphazard, we have codes and we are looking at the codes and we are following the codes. Mr. McNeil commented about another home on Foothill Drive that he felt was like a flag-lot because it was built on the back of the property and had a long driveway. Chair Cannon stated it was not a flag-lot. Planner Burrell explained the plat map shows Jeff McNeil’s property parcel # FT-3 shows an entrance that is only 22 feet wide, that is not an allowable width for an entrance for a flag lot. The lot we subdivided in August has the 60 foot right-of-way but he has designated that as a remainder parcel and land locked his property behind that as well. There could be a future road that would allow for growth. Burrell reminded Jeff McNeil that he already had a 5 lot subdivision his family could build on. Jeff McNeil responded it would cost him $250,000 in infrastructure. Dana Housel stated I understand you want to get rid of flag lots because you want the town to be connected and the road ways to connect. Housel commented the next agenda item is to eliminate two ingresses and egresses from businesses and by doing that you are creating that same problem, you will have businesses that are a one way in and not connect to anything else. Housel asked how can you justify allowing that for a business but not for a resident. Nick Berry responded commercial is on SR32 and UDOT wants 500 feet between drives for access and even though in theory you want two access UDOT overrides and says no. Alene Brown stated she lives on Foothill Drive and her property is adjacent to some of the McNeil property. Brown stated she purchased her home from the McNeil family and had a lot of property and boundary issues because of the way they developed. They have created this land locked issue and the need for a flag lot themselves by building on the entire frontage they Page 3 of 11
Francis City Planning Commission Meeting October 27, 2016 had on Foothill. Brown stated this is not our problem they have done that to themselves. Brown stated she is also concerned about the spring that is on the south end of the property where Mr. McNeil wants to put the flag lot. Brown stated that Mr. McNeil’s father told Brown that there were deeded spring owners to that spring including non-McNeil family members. Brown asked that the spring comes into play and is addressed as to what we are going to do with that spring, how is that going to be handled. Brown expressed concern about Foothill Road, feels it is at maximum capacity for a road and it is a narrow road. Brown stated as a resident we have a right to say no, you have done this to yourself, you shouldn’t be allowed an exemption to the rules. Public Hearing Closed Commissioner Bushman stated it is not the McNeil’s individually. Bushman stated she doesn’t like the idea of allowing flag lots all the way along Foothill drive and that is what is proposed before us. Commissioner Vorwaller asked currently if you have a 100 foot front access, it is not considered a flag-lot no matter how big the acreage is behind that. Planner Burrell answered yes, you have to have a 100 foot of frontage on a public road. Vorwaller asked anything short of that has been labeled as a flag-lot. Burrell answered yes. Commissioner Bushman motioned not to allow the Code Text Amendment for Flag-lots on Foothill Driver. Commissioner Flygare seconded the motion. Voting in Favor Chair Cannon, Commissioner Bushman, Commissioner Flygare, and Commissioner Vorwaller. Voting Nay Commissioner Averett. Motion Passed. Public Hearing with possible action: Code Text Amendment application to allow Storage Units in C-1 zone again, submitted by Nick Berry Planner Burrell read staff report Commissioner Bushman read from Code 18.45.010 “new construction should be in harmony with the characteristics of the surrounding developed commercial and residential areas. The uses characteristics of this zone shall be small retail and service stores and shops. Bushman stated that her opinion is that storage facility of any sort belongs in light industrial. Planner Burrell reminded that we have changed our use table to allow retail shops larger than 25,000 square feet. Chair Cannon stated Mr. Berry started off in good faith with the City and we were in the process of changing the zones and so forth. Cannon added that Mr. Berry took it off of the main drag and set it back because we did not want it on the main drag. Mr. Berry has done everything we have asked of him. Page 4 of 11
Francis City Planning Commission Meeting October 27, 2016 Attorney Powell explained Mr. Berry still has a storage unit application pending on the front parcel, which he is fully able to pursue if he is not able to have the storage units on the back parcel. Powell stated that application is pending and setting in the files in the Planners office, it is not moving forward right now because Mr. Berry is attempting to move forward with his application on the back parcel. The Planning Commission got to the point where it was recommended and approved and it was before the City Council where Mr. Berry promised he would abandon the storage units on the front parcel if he is approved for the storage units on the back parcel. Before the City Council could take final action neighboring property owners hired an Attorney who researched the Code and looked at the procedures and raised the argument that because of the timing of the fact that the City was going thru recodification, even though Mr. Berry’s original proposal was for storage units in commercial when storage units were allowed in commercial. Mr. Berry has that application pending, so he has a valid application to do storage units in Commercial with a Conditional Use Permit. The Neighbor’s Attorney has made the argument that because of the timing in which the City took the storage units out of Commercial and prohibited it on the back parcel at the same time, and know it is not allowed on the back parcel. Attorney Powell stated he has talked with both Attorneys and basically the position we are in, Powell doesn’t know who would win that argument and they are both willing to fight it on the back parcel. Mr. Berry’s attorney said the City promised that if Mr. Berry abandoned the front parcel the City would let him put it on the back parcel. The neighbors Attorney said we are going to stop that, you are not allowed to do storage units on the back parcel. Attorney Powell stated we have to decide what is best for the public and the City. Powell as the City Attorney has advised the City Council that if it was their intention to approve storage units on the back parcel, but the neighbors Attorney says because of a timing loop hole the City could be subject to a law-suit. Powell recommends go back and rezone this commercial with storage units allowed for the time being and in-order to allow the negotiation with Mr. Berry to allow storage units on the back parcel. Powell reminded the Planning Commission that at any time we can go back and take storage units back out of commercial. Commissioner Vorwaller asked if we disallow storage units on the back parcel, the front parcel still has a valid application that was under the old Code which allowed storage units. Chair Cannon answered correct. Vorwaller commented they are either going in the back or in the front, we get to decide which. Chair Cannon responded we decided the first time we wanted it in the back. Commissioner Vorwaller stated the reality is they are going in one way or the other and we can decide if the City is going to take a law-suit for it or not. Public Hearing Opened Dena Housel opinion the City was aware of the situation during the process and we got an Attorney because of Mr. Powell’s explanation of the law, it was clear the law was in place and the City knew the law was in place and they were trying to make an exception for Mr. Berry. Housel stated she is strongly opposed to the text amendment change. The only person who will benefit is the developer.
Page 5 of 11
Francis City Planning Commission Meeting October 27, 2016 Dusty Housel commented the applicant has been approved on the front piece and that is where he should build. Building more than twice the size of the original project does not benefit Francis Town. Housel is concerned about the risk that someone else could put in an application for storage units in commercial before the City repeals it. Housel is concerned the Town will not enforce the code and hours of operation. Brent Gines stated he is a neighboring property owner. Gines is concerned the developer could turn around and put in a new application for storage units in the front and have storage units on the front and back parcel. Gines commented developers are in it for the money and not the town. Jaren Housel commented everything is messed up. Housel urged the Planning Commission to abide by the Codes, if you start tromping on your codes you’re in trouble, you set a precedence. Diane Proctor commented she has seen so much change and so many codes changed because some rich developer. Proctor is against that many storage units. Kyle Housel commented he does not care how many trees they have in the front, anywhere you drive you will see the storage units. Housel would prefer to have less storage units on the front parcel. Mont Lundgreen commented he thinks it should go back to the front parcel, you can plant trees but you can’t hide that many storage units. Lundgreen stated he owns storage units and he feels the market is over saturated right now. Lundgreen is concerned they will sit empty and became an eye sore. Lundgreen recommended putting them up front with less units, put conditions that they look aesthetically beautiful, put setbacks on. Commissioner Bushman asked Attorney Powell – Mr. Berry has an existing application under the old code for the front property. Powell answered correct. Bushman asked if he could still use that under the Conditional Use Permit under the old code. Powell answered yes. Bushman asked we would not have to vote to allow storage units back in C-1 to make that happen. Powell answered correct. Nick Berry stated when he first came to the Planning Commission there was push back from the front and that is the reason he went to the back, last meeting you approved it to go to the City Council and the Housel’s wrote a letter that they did not like the RV storage on the south end and they did not like the setbacks and they wanted fencing. Berry stated the new plan has 46 foot setbacks no RV building and fencing all the way around. Berry stated he has met all three things that they wanted and you still can’t make everybody happy. Berry stated he will be building the units in phases. Stacy Lundgreen commented we are going to be over saturated with storage units and that will cause an eye sore in our Town. Lundgreen asked the Planning Commission if we had any rules about if they can be 1 story or 2 stories. Lundgreen asked about the area for snow removal.
Page 6 of 11
Francis City Planning Commission Meeting October 27, 2016 Lundgreen commented she grew up in this Town and wants to keep it beautifully. Lundgreen commented she would rather it be on the front parcel. Public Hearing Closed Commissioner Vorwaller asked if it went back to the front parcel what are the old setbacks in Commercial. Planner Burrell stated 30 feet all the way around. There was some discussion about front setbacks. Attorney Powell reminded the Planning Commission about the possible law-suits. Chair Cannon commented he was on the Planning Commission when we started with this and he remembers the discussion we had as to why we considered the back parcel, because we wanted the main drag to look aesthetically nice and have retail stores, commercial buildings and businesses and we thought if we set it back we won’t see it, but then the neighbors said they would see it. Cannon commented plans have evolved, Mr. Berry could have built them higher. Commissioner Vorwaller asked if the approval of the rear parcel was part of the vacation of the front parcel as storage units. Is that just for the pending permit or for any permit on top of that? Planner Burrell answered that was just for the pending application. Burrell explained part of the original motion was if the Conditional Use Permit was accepted on the back parcel he would withdraw his front application, he would not be able to do both. Commissioner Vorwaller expressed concern that he could withdraw his old application and the next day he could come in and submit a new application for the front parcel. Mr. Berry responded he owns the front parcel but has the front parcel under contract with a nursey and legally he can’t and he does not want to, added he has put his resources in the back parcel. Commissioner Vorwaller motioned to recommend the adoption of the proposed ordinance for commercial use including the new language in 18.120.80 #. Chair Cannon seconded the motion. Voting in favor Chair Cannon and Commissioner Vorwaller. Voting Nay Commissioner Flygare, Commissioner Bushman and Commissioner Averett. Motion did not pass. Zone Amendment for Parcel #FT-14, from Agriculture Ag-1 to Commercial C-1, submitted by Nick Berry Conditional Use Permit for Premier Storage, submitted by Nick Berry Lot Line Adjustment for Premier Storage Units, submitted by Nick Berry Planner Burrell read staff report. Burrell stated the staff report covers agenda items 5, 6 and 7. Burrell stated we will discuss the items together but take a separate motions on each agenda item. Page 7 of 11
Francis City Planning Commission Meeting October 27, 2016
Commissioner Bushman asked if the back parcel it is still zone AG-1. Chair Cannon answered correct. It will only be zoned Commercial C-1 if we allow the Conditional Use Permit. Planner Burrell answered yes. Bushman stated the majority just voted not to allow it to C-1. Burrell explained the last motion the majority disapproved the Code Text Amendment to allow storage units in the Commercial zone. Attorney Powell stated it is important to understand each of the separate agenda items. Powell explained the last agenda item and the next 3 agenda items. Powell explained if the City Council approves the Code Text Amendment and then starts doing a Conditional Use Permit do you want to have recommendations with conditions. Public Hearing Opened Jaren Housel asked about the doors and how will they face. Planner Burrell answered all storage doors and entrances and parking for the development shall be eternally located not located on a public street. These doors are eternally located. Housel is concerned some doors face his property and the light will be in his eyes. Jaren Housel asked if Mr. Berry will be bonded. Cannon stated what you are asking is not in the realms of what we are discussing right now. Dusty Housel thanked Mr. Berry for the concession he made on the new plan, it is a much better proposal. Dusty stated her objection is not against Mr. Berry but a project this size next to a residence. Dusty stated if a Conditional Use Permit were to be approved this is the best option, although she is against the project. Dena Housel stated her concern with the zoning you are creating the exact same situation that you just took out of the Code with Mr. McNeil it is a private drive going back and there is no connectivity to any other roads. Dena commented the General plan has the commercial along the roads not in the back ground and if you continue to change the zone in the back you will have a bunch of lanes. Mont Lundgreen commented in the County he was told he could not have any outside doors facing out to his neighbors. Lundgreen commented if we change Ag to Commercial it will keep happening, we were planning Commercial along the Highway Corridor we can make it look Commercial, make it look nice, it won’t be obtrusive, but if we change what should be a beautiful agriculture field and we have 300 or 400 units out there, that is not cohesive to the rural environment. Lundgreen asked that we keep commercial where it should be and not take up all of our agriculture. Brent Gines commented you need to be careful when you start zoning a piece C-1 and the next person comes and wants to rezone because you have set a precedence and you are going to do Page 8 of 11
Francis City Planning Commission Meeting October 27, 2016 it for me or you will have litigation. Setting a precedence is something you need to be careful with. Brent Gines commented he thinks it is backwards that we make a subdivision have a 60 foot right of way but a commercial business only needs a 30 foot right of way. Commissioner Vorwaller commented he did not know where the 30 and 60 feet come from, but fire access code is 20 feet. Sergeant Andy Cernich responded that came from the South Summit Fire Department, they have their own requirements. Commissioner Bushman asked about the fence and asked Mr. Berry to show her on the map. Mr. Berry showed on the map the perimeter fencing. Bushman asked if the fencing will be complete, not just waiting for you to do phase 2. Berry answered he has not gotten that far yet. Bushman stated we need to address that in-case phase 2 doesn’t happen. Berry replied he was okay with fencing all of the perimeter ground phase 2. Bushman wanted the landscaping done on both phases. Berry responded phase two has no landscaping, because the Housel’s did not want landscaping, so I have fencing. Berry stated if this doesn’t work he will go back to the old concept. Dena Housel stated they liked this plan best. Short discussion about number of units, height and layout. Public Hearing Closed Commissioner Vorwaller motioned to rezone parcel FT-14 from AG-1 to C-1. Chair Cannon seconded the motion. Voting in favor Chair Cannon and Commissioner Vorwaller. Voting Nay Commissioner Bushman, Commissioner Flygare and Commissioner Averett. Motion did not pass. Commissioner Bushman motioned that if the City Council decides to approve the Code Text Amendment application for storage units in C-1 and if the City Council approves the Zone Amendment for parcel FT-14 from AG-1 to C-1. And the City Council approves the Conditional Use Permit for Premier Storage as purposed here and with the stipulations, that fencing is included around phase 2 and proper safeguards are in place to insure the completion of phase 2 in a timely manner. That he puts security fencing around phase 1. Commissioner Vorwaller seconded the motion. Voting in Favor Chair Cannon, Commissioner Vorwaller, Commissioner Bushman, Commissioner Flygare and Commissioner Averett. Motion passed unanimously. Commissioner Flygare wanted to tell Mr. Berry how many units he could build. There was a discussion. The City Code does not state that we can dictate how many units he can build. Commissioner Vorwaller motioned to approve the Lot-Line Adjustment for Premier Storage Units pending that the City Council makes the approvals of the previous amendment applications. Commissioner Averett seconded the motion. Voting in Favor Chair Cannon,
Page 9 of 11
Francis City Planning Commission Meeting October 27, 2016 Commissioner Vorwaller, Commissioner Bushman, Commissioner Flygare and Commissioner Averett. Motion passed unanimously.
Public Hearing: Hilltop Ridge -Final Subdivision Process. Planner Burrell read staff report. Commissioner Bushman is very concerned about the safety on Hilltop Road. Bushman stated she believes the City will be acting irresponsibly if they do not widen out Hilltop Road, put a proper guard rail in, and make a proper trail. Engineer Kettle responded the Developer will widen the road in front of their section and put a trial in front of their subdivision. There was a discussion about the safety issues of Hilltop Road. Public Hearing Opened Mont Lundgreen asked if we could have drainage dips along Hilltop. He is concerned about speeding on Hilltop. Engineer Kettle responded the City does not like speed bumps or drainage dips because it is a problem when we snowplow and also a problem with kids speeding to go over speed bumps to catch air. Commissioner Vorwaller recommended going to the City Council with the Hilltop Road issues separate from the subdivision. Diane Proctor stated she lives on Hilltop and there is a problem with traffic. Proctor is concerned about their irrigation ditch, shown on the map; it runs parallel to the big ditch. She is concerned about who will maintain their ditch. Commissioner Vorwaller responded that in the report from the City Engineer Scott Kettle, it states “written approval from Irrigation Company to pipe and re-route the existing ditches”. Mike Johnston project Engineer stated they will pipe both ditches. Proctor is concerned about having enough drinking water. Kent Johnson stated he lives near the area and he does not like this project. Johnson commented we talk about all of the problems of Hilltop and one thing we can do is not allow 11 more houses that will dump traffic onto Hilltop. Stacy Lundgreen stated they live on the corner going into Wild Willow. Stacy is stated the ditch goes through her property and she is concerned about the ditch being piped, she likes her ditch and does not want it piped. Engineer Kettle stated the ditch will not be piped on her property. There was a discussion about the ditch and whose is responsible for the ditch. Stacy Lundgreen is concerned about having an opening to the park off of Hilltop. Page 10 of 11
Francis City Planning Commission Meeting October 27, 2016 Chair Cannon stated the concerns are Hilltop Road’s safety and condition. Cannon suggested the City Council come up with ways to make Hilltop Road safer and automobile friendly. Commissioner Vorwaller motioned to approve final subdivision for Hilltop Ridge Subdivision with the recommendation or conditions that the Francis City Council has some type of mitigation plan to improve Hilltop Road due to the increase volume that Hilltop Ridge Subdivision will impact. And include all of the conditions in the staff report and Horrocks Engineering report prior to construction. Commissioner Bushman seconded the motion. All voting in Favor. Motion passed in unanimously. Planner Update Planner Burrell reminded the Planning Commission the Christmas party is November 29 th. Approval of Minutes Commissioner Bushman motioned to approve the June 16, 2016 minutes. Commissioner Flygare seconded the motion. Voting in Favor Chair Cannon, Commissioner Bushman, Commissioner Flygare, and Commissioner Averett. Abstained Commissioner Vorwaller. Motion passed, Commissioner Vorwaller motioned to approve the August 18, 2016 minutes. Commissioner Bushman seconded the motion. All voting in favor. Motion passed. Adjourn Commissioner Vorwaller motioned to adjourn. All voting in favor. Motion passed. Meeting adjourned at 9:48 pm
The content of the minutes is not intended, nor are they submitted, as a verbatim transcription of the meeting. These minutes are a brief overview of what occurred at the meeting.
Page 11 of 11
