LOGAN CITY U NIT E 0 INS E R V ICE. LOGAN CITY COUNCIL AGENDA November 15,2011

Transcription

1 LOGAN CITY U NIT E 0 INS E R V ICE LOGAN CITY COUNCIL AGENDA November 15,2011 ELECTION CANVASS: The Logan Municipal Council will meet to complete a ofthe November 8,2011 General Election Results. The meeting will be held at 5:00 in MUllicipal Council Chambers, 290 North 100 West, Logan, Utah. Notice is hereby given that the Municipal Council will hold regular beginning 5:30 p.m. on Tuesday, November 15, 2011, m Logan Municipal Chambers located at West, Utah. p.m. ESTIMATED time of consideration 5:35 6. REGULAR MEETING AGENDA 1. Call to Order - Chairman Herm Olsen 2. Opening 3. r""'''ij'''''''a of Minutes; Approval 4. 20ll meeting I'! & 3 rd Tuesdays, 5:30 p.m.: Next meeting: December 6,2011 **NOTE: There will not be a Council Meeting OIl December 20,2011** QUESTIONS AND COMMENTS FOR MAYOR AND COUNCIL: Any person wishing to comment on any item not otherwise on the Agenda may address the Council al this point by 10 Ihe microphone and giving his or her name and address for the record. Comments should be limited 10 nol more (3) minutes, unless additional time is authorized by the Council Chair. Citizen groups will be asked to appoint a spokesperson. This is the time and for any person who wishes to comment on non-hearing, non-agenda items. Some items brought forward 10 the allc'nti<m of the City Council will be turned over to staff to provide a response outside of the City Council meeting. Council Update and Oath of Office - Mayor Randy Watts 20 II Recounaissance Level - Kristen Clifford and Korral Broschinsky 5:45 7. Annual Financial (CAFR) - Curtis Audit Committee Chair and B. Presentation: Hillcrest Preservation Zone Concept - Benjamin Utah State (15 min.) C. OPEN HOUSE: The is invited to an open house on December 6, 2011 from 4:30-5:30 p.m. for Council Members Laraine Swenson and Jay Monson D. JOINT MEETING: Logan Municipal Council and Logan City School District will hold a in the Hall Public Conference Room on Tuesday, November 20 II at 5:30 p.m. 6:15 8. A. PUBLIC HEARING Adjustment FY appropriating: $9,318 for the reimbursement of the Teclmical Rescue Program; $7,831 for the reimbursement from Cache County Emergency Medical Services (CCEMS) for flfefighting expenses Resolution B. PUBLIC HEARING - Consideration ofan amendment to Section of the Logan Municipal Code Animal Waste - ~~=~~.!:!::::. C. PUBLIC HEARING - Consideration ofa resolution authorizing signature of the Cache Community Watershed (CCEWP) Cost Share D. PUBLIC HEARING - Consideration of a rezone of the Royal Point Subdivision from Mixed Residential Medium (MRM) to Mixed Residential (MRH) at 1360 North 200 West-=.:..:==:::...::..:-= CONTINUED ON OPPOSITE II

2 7:00 9. WORKSHOP ITEMS: A. Budget Adjustment FY appropriating: $6,600 for the K9 Training Program provided by the Police Department; $50,000 to transfer budget from Public Works improvements to fife buildings within the capital project fund to address storm water management issues and provide engineered fill under footings of Fire Station 72; $28,000 of Police Capital Equipment fund reserve for the purchase of police patrol vehicles for Fiscal Year 2012; $170,000 for the purchase of a Track Loader for the Landfill- Resolution Richard Anderson B. Downtown Specific Plan - Glen Goins 10. OTHER CONSIDERATIONS: 8: ADJOURN On Thursday, November 10,2011, at 5:00 p.m. a copy ofthe foregoing notice was posted in conspicuous view in the front foyer oflogan City Hall, Logan, Utah. A copy ofthis notice was faxed to the Herald Journal. The Agenda was also posted on the Logan City website at and the State Public Meeting Notice website at hllp:llpmn.utah.gov. DATED THIS 10th OF NOVEMBER 2011 Teresa Harris, City Recorder Council Member's may participate in the meeting via telephonic communication. Ifa Council Member does participate via telephonic communication, the Council Member will be on speakerphone. The speakerphone will be amplified so that the other Council Members and all other persons present in the Council Chambers will be able to hear all discussions. In compliance with the American with Disabilities Act, individuals needing special accommodations or assistance during this meeting shall notify Teresa Harris, City Recorder, at , at least 24 hours prior to the meeting. Logan Municipal Council Meetings are televised live as a public service by Channel 17 Council--In Progress: Time of Day Electric Power Rates (Laraine Swenson ) Anti-Idling Ordinance (Herm Olsen ) Coullcil--Budget Issues Impact Fees (Laraine Swenson ) Future Council Agenda Item (List revised 0111 I) Randy Watts, Mayor Holly H. Daines, Council Member Jay A. Monson, Council Member /~ Herm Olsen, Council Member LOGAN Dean W. Quayle, Council Member Laraine Swenson, Council Member CITY U NIT E DIN S E R V ICE

3 CITY OF LOGAN, UTAH RESOLUTION NO BE IT BY THE LOGAN MUNICIPAL COUNCIL THAT THE FOLLOWING ADJUSTMENTS MADE TO THE 201 BUDGET: 1. appropriate funds the reimbursement Technical Rescue Training Program. Miscellaneous FUND- DEPARTMENT $7,335 Travel and Training $1,983 a of CCEMS firefighting expenses. FUND- Revenue CCEMS Ambulance DEPARTMENT $7,831 Salaries and Overtime $7,831 RESOLUTION adopted upon this day, 2011 by the following vote: Absent: Herm Olsen, Harris, City

4 CITY OF LOGAN, UTAH 1 AN ORDINANCE AMENDING OF LOGAN MUNICIPAL CODE REGARDING ANIMAL WASTE state legislature has general welfare nrn"ar to the City Council, independent, from, and in addition to, its specific legislative authority, which '"'...n',... City oflogan to pass ordinances as are and proper to provide promote the improve the order, comfort, and ofthe City and of property in the the City Council has determined that the following ordinance is in NOW BE IT BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF LOGAN, UTAH, ] : : ANIMAL WASTE; REMOVAL A. The owner or person having control over or charge ofany shall be responsible the removal ofany deposited by In any public place, including, but not limited to, streets, planting parking lots, parks, recreational areas or on private not in the ownership or control of the f'1"\t'h't'1"\ or purporting to over or or animal. B. Any person the foregoing shall be guilty ofan infraction and shall be subject to a not less than Q!!!~J.llil~~LlliJruMillLLl.QilJS!!!~Q.illI!Q!1.HHe1:ffi: dollars ($15.00) nor more than fifty dollars ($50.00). publication. become upon ADOPTED LOGAN MUNICIPAL COUNCIL --- DAY OF NOVEMBER 2011, THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: NAYS: ABSENT: ATTEST: lsi Teresa Harris, Recorder

5 PRESENTATION TO MAYOR Mayor for foregoing ordinance was presented by the Logan Municipal Council to the or disapproval this day ofnovember, lsi Olsen, Chair MA YOR'S APPROVAL DISAPPROV AL foregoing ordinance is approved ofnovember, lsi Randy Warts, Mayor

6 CITY OF LOGAN RESOLUTION NO A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING SIGNATURE OF THE CACHE COMMUNITY EMERGENCY WATERSHED PROJECT (CCEWP) COST SHARE AGREEMENT the NRCS has completed the Environmental Impact Study and reconstruction WHEREAS, Logan some stormwater benefit flow through the through Logan; and :..JTT:..Jr,.",,, CCEWP Cost Share Agreement sets terms for City of NOW BE IT RESOLVED THAT THE LOGAN MUNICIPAL COUNCIL hereby authorizes Mayor Randy Watts to sign the cost share agreement and will support of funding as set forth in the attached cost agreement. This authorization is subject to City of Logan agreeing to an for the CCEWP with Cache Highline Water This resolution shall take effect immediately upon its adoption. PASSED BY THE LOGAN MUNICIPAL COUNCIL THIS DAYOF DECEM 2011 Herm Council Chairperson ATIEST: Teresa Recorder

7 CITY OF LOGAN, UTAH ORDINANCE NO AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE ZONING MAP OF LOGAN CITY, UTAH BE IT ORDAINED BY THE MUNICIPAL COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF LOGAN, STATE OF UTAH AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1: That certain map or maps entitled "Zoning Map of Logan City, Utah" is hereby amended and the following properties are hereby zoned from Mixed Residential Medium (MRM) to Mixed Residential High (MRH) TIN # (portion) Also identified as, Lot #6 of the Royal Point Subdivision at 1360 N 200 Wand more particularly described as Exhibit A attached hereto. SECTION 2: This ordinance shall become effective upon publication. PASSED BY THE LOGAN MUNICIPAL COUNCIL, STATE OF UTAH, THIS DAY OF,2011. AYES: NAYS: ABSENT: ATTEST: Herm Olsen, Chair Teresa Harris, City Recorder PRESENT A DON TO MAYOR The foregoing ordinance was presented by the Logan Municipal Council to the Mayor for approval or disapproval on the day of, Herm Olsen, Chair MA YOR'S APPROVAL OR DISAPPROV AL The foregoing ordinance is hereby this, day of Randy Watts, Mayor

8 EXHIBIT A BOUNDARY DESCRIPTION Legal Description

9 L CAN MEMORANDUM TO MUNICIPAL COUNCIL DATE: October 29, 2011 FROM: Russ Holley, Senior Planner, Community Development SUBJECT: Jed Willets Rezone Summary of Planning Commission Proceedings Project Name: Project Address: Recommendation of Planning Commission: Jed Willets Rezone 1360 N 200 W Denial On Oct. 13, 2011, the Planning Commission, by majority vote (5-1), recommended that the Municipal Council deny the Jed Willets Rezone of 1360 N. 200 W. from Mixed Residential Medium (MRM) to Mixed Residential High (MRH) Planning Commissioners, unanimous vote (5-1): Recommend Denial: Allison Hale, John Kerr, Heather Hall, Dave Adams, Amanda Davis Recommend Approval: Konrad Lee Attachments: Staff Report Ordinance Plat Maps & Aerials Meeting Minutes (to be distributed at Council Meeting)

10 LOGAN Project # Jed Willets Rezone Located at 1360 North 200 West REPORT SUMMARY... Project Name: Proponent/Owner: Project Address: Request: Type of Action: Submitted By: Jed Willets Rezone Jed Willets/Jed Willets 1360 North 200 West Rezone Legislative Russ Holley, Senior Planner RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the Planning Commission recommend Denial to the Municipal Council for a Rezone of the property located at 1360 North 200 West. Background In 1992 the logan City Planning Commission approved the six (6) lot Royal Point Subdivision located south of 1400 North between 200 and 400 West. Each lot was approximately 1.30 to 1.80 acres in size. lot #6 is associated with this request. In 1992 the zoning was R4, which allowed multi-family structures at a rate of one unit per every 6,000 square feet (SF) and an additional 1,000 SF for each subsequent unit (4-plexs would require 9,000 SF). Multiple residential structures were permitted on one lot. In 1993 the first 4-plex was built and over the course of the following two (2) years seven 4-plexs were built on lot #6 (1.8 acres). In 1995 tax identification number (TIN) boundaries were divided around the existing seven 4-plexs at the county. The creation of the seven (7) boundaries left the original parent TIN as a vacant.24 acre area in the southwest corner. Application for proper subdivision (to create legal building lots) was never made with logan City. The City has never recognized these additional TIN boundaries. lot #6 under the R4 zoning ordinance could have allowed for additional units, but were never constructed (reason unknown). Access easements were established at the county to access interior structures. In 2000 zoning designations and densities changed to "Multi Family High" and the project became "legally existing nonconforming". Request The proponent is requesting a re-zone of lot #6 from Mixed Residential Medium (MRM) to Mixed Residential High (MRH). This would achieve a higher density allowing for a proper logan City subdivision to occur and thus creating recognized building lots. It would then be the intention of the proponent to build a multi-family structure (up to 4 units for.24 acres) in the vacant area in the southwest corner. The MRM zone allows 11 units per acre. The IVIRH zone allows 20 units per acre. Currently, lot #6 is developed at 15.5 units per acre. General Plan The Future land Use Plan (FlUP) identifies this area as Mixed Residential. It does not distinguish between medium and high. In Chapter 5 "Growth vs. land Availability" it states the problem being that the per capita land consumption is increasing while available quality Project # Jed Willets Staff Report for the Planning Commission meeting of Oct. 27, 2011

11 developable land is decreasing. The solutions identified are compact growth, infill and redevelopment. Reasons for zoning the area MRM rather than MRH as part of the revised Land Development Code (LDC) and Zoning Map in February of 2011, were the increased densities in the Mixed Use, Town Center and Campus Residential zones to satisfy growth demands and that the northwest area of town has been over saturated with multi-family structures exceeding the balance of diverse housing options outlined for the Mixed Residential zones in the General Plan. PUBLIC COMMENTS As of the time the staff report was prepared, one comment had been received. It expresses opposition to the requested rezone. AGENCY AND CITY DEPARTMENT COMMENTS As of the time the staff report was prepared, no comments had been received. RECOMMENDED FINDINGS FOR DENIAL The Planning Commission bases its decisions on the following findings: 1. Because of increase densities in other areas of the city, including the Town Center, Mixed Use and Campus Residential zones the population growth demands identified in the General Plan can be fulfilled. 2. Because Lot #6 was never properly subdivided into smaller parcels around the seven (7) 4-plexs by the City, some of the current TIN boundaries configured at the county are insufficient in size and lack adequate usable open space, landscaping and setbacks. 3. Adjacent land uses, especially the single family neighborhood to the south, would be negatively impacted by the increased density. 4. The request is inconsistent with the General Plan because additional multi-family structures would increase the imbalance of housing variety; the northwest is already oversaturated with 4-plex style structures. The General Plan calls for a variety and mix of housing options for all stages of life and levels of income. This staff report is an analysis of the application based on adoptad city documents, standard city development practices, and avallai:xe Infonnalion. The report is 10 be used to review and consider the mefi1s of the application prior to and during the course of the Planning Commission meeting. Additional infonnation may be revealed by participants at the Planning Commission meeting which may modify the staff report and become the Certificate of Decision. The Director of Community Developm&nt reserves the right to supplement the materiel in the report with additlonallnfonnation at the Planning Commission meelll'lq. Project # Jed Willets Staff Report for the Planning Commission meeting of Oct. 27,

12

13 (Page 2 of 6) OYA POI. T UBD TAX UNIT 21 F THE NORTH HALF OF LOT 6, BLOCK 3, HE--NO HALF SECTION 28. TOWNSHIP 12 NORTH, RANGE 1 OF THE SALT LAKE E AND MERIDIAN. Pc l\ 043 FILED 13 ocr 1992 NO/ SITE AAGE /d;fip NO o N

14 (Page 1 of 1) 1t'll~$28 ~ 1 ORAPliIC SCAJ..E o I I I PART THE NORTH HALF Of LOT BLOCK 3, PLAT LOGAN FARM SURVEY OF NORTH HALF TOWNSHIP 12 NORTH, RANGE EAST Of THE LAKE BASE AND MERIDIAN. Su~vt:YOII'S Cl:lIllflCATI: BOUttOARY OCSCRiPliOH "*Alllj(~rtflt'G~('JN hiitcltioc...:notiloil.fqr wrll. ti.tjqi;.t. ~'(f'.~ t"'*» ~1~l(8&1~s.:, ii-q-w otalljorcc W~ lry, 3: o N COUNTY SURVEYOR'S CU'TrtCAT PLANNING COWMlSSlON. APPROVAl.. t+cilh R'S CERTIfICAtE COONCIl. APPROVAL AND ACCEPTANCE ow",cr's otdication ~~I==~:!...=~;;u;=~. 1 ed:nrr~ I ~~ n...s ii't.al'n«! f'n)ltro"t~"it)~.<~ IIa1fl M!I'If~'" Ort h.c m I'W:i QIfFU. '!wi bt'f'r':' """', COUNTY ftecorocr"s Ho...mm '" APPROVAL AS TO rorhtii KC!.!.U':..LU R..mKfIl(CW'"",,n ""'.d "n'«"i14.ij ACKH<>WU;OOEIiEHT 00<Jt.'t'i~ ilo~i2s

15 noted that considerations must be looked at from the adjacent road and dwell time(s) may need to be adjusted accordingly. Commissioner Lee, Commissioner Hall and Mr. Holley discussed some sign measurements, using the Bank of Utah sign as an example. Commissioner Hall expressed concern with the basis for the changes. There is no public clamor and so she is unsure where the instrument of change is coming from. Commissioner Lee agreed and said he was also concerned that this seems to be more of a political move and whether the Commission should be responding forcefully to that. Mr. Holley explained that this proposal is a result of a meeting with the City Council in June. Mr. Holley noted that there is a neighborhood plan being conducted within the Adams area and an independent survey about EMD signs was done with the results being evenly split with mostly aesthetic related concerns (Mr. Holley said that he would give the Commission the survey results). Safety issue is a very difficult argument. Mr. Holley said of the 24 electronic signs installed, the ones which pre-date 2008 do not have any requlations; the 14 signs installed from 2008 to present have more guidelines. Mr. Holley said that 60% of the signs have been installed within the last three years and the City Council is concerned with the spike of signs. Commissioner Lee applauded the Municipal Council's desire to investigate this issue, but wondered if the regulations are over-reaching in an effort to respond to a trend. Commissioner Hall suggested breaking the issue into more specific segments. Commissioner Lee agreed and said it would also be helpful to have factual data. Mike DeSimone, the Community Development Director, suggested establishing a task force to look at particular segments of the EMD ordinance. Commissioner Lee asked about the noticing requirements, as some of the citizens expressed some concerns. Mr. Housley said that the minimum noticing requirements are met. Chairman Simmonds asked if all sign owners could be notified. Staff agreed and also said that Sandy Emile could assist as a resource to help with notification to retailers. MOTION: Commissioner Kerr moved that the study of the sign ordinance be continued in components in November/December/January with Definitions section to be held on November 10, Commissioner Hall seconded the motion. [Moved: Commissioner Kerr Seconded: Commissioner Hall Passed: 6,0] Yea: D. Adams, A. Davis, A. Hale, H. Hall, J. Kerr, K. Lee Nay: Abstain: PC Jed Willets Rezone. Zone Change. Jed Willets, authorized agent/owner, requests a zone change of Lot #fj of the Royal Point Subdivision from Mixed Residential Medium (MRM) to Mixed Residential High (MRH) to achieve a higher density allowing for proper Logan City subdivision to occur and thus creating recognized building lots with the intention to build a multifamily structure in the vacant area in the southwest corner at 1360 North 200 West; TIN # STAFF: Mr. Holley reviewed the Staff Report as written recommending denial for the rezone request. Planning Commission Minutes October 27, 2011 Page 5 of 14

16 Mr. Holley explained the history of the property. In 1995 identification number (TIN) boundaries were dived around the existing seven 4-plexs at Cache County. The creation of the seven (7) boundaries the parent TIN as a.24 acre area in southwest corner. Application for proper subdivision (to create building lots) was never made with Logan City. City has never recognized these additional TIN boundaries. Lot #6 the R4 zoning could allowed for additional units, but were never f'r>r.cotr.,",1.,.',,<::;..';:) easements were established the County to access interior structures. In zoning designations and changed to Multi-Family High (MFH) and project became legally existing nonconforming. In August the applicant came to City and when Mr. Holley spoke with him originally, he the of relying on the G system (that identifies the with a red-flag layer which indicates parcels). Mr. Holley clicked on area acres located in the MRM zone told the applicant that a duplex would be allowed in this zone. When the applicant made application. realized that this was never legally subdivided. The solution would be to rezone entire area of Lot #6. then a new subdivision occur, creating a City recognized buildable lot. Once it was rezoned. would a possibility of other built. has this and compared it the General Plan and the Future Land Use Plan (FLUP) which identifies this area as Mixed-Residential (does not distinguish between high or density which is the difference 11 per acre and 20 per acre). The GP varied housing and structures for this zone to successful. Based on the studies in the General that densities to account future population to Town Center (TC), Campus Residential (CR), and Mixed-Use zones. feels that those population demands can be met and the lack of housing variety in is a reason for recommending denial for rezone request. PROPONENT: Jed Willets explained that prior to purchasing the property he with Mr. Holley was under the impression that a 4-plex unit could be put on the lot. It was later discovered that could not be done. Mr. Willets noted that in 2006 a project to have a 28-unit corr>r~rlo complex was Mr. Holley said that storage would still possible; however. it would have to be accessory to the units on lot. Mr. Willets said desire was try and a simple duplex. to the buildings are there. thought had done due diligence prior to the purchase the lot. Currently is a small storage shed. dumpsters and on property. which is not the best use the area he his proposal would not be an use. Chairman Simmonds about the access point and/or commonly owned road. Mr. Holley explained there is a right-of-way that connects 200 West every 4-plex. Mr. advised that in 1996, Logan City had a with title company in City advising them not to issue insurance any of these units in the Royal Subdivision. it were a legally recognized lot. There had been a problem with title insurance being obtained due to a tax identification number, without the lot property subdivided. PUBLIC: Charlie North, recommended condemning the lot. She said pictures are quite deceiving. brought some pictures to show the Commission how small the property is. is concerned with vandalism and in the area. She personally reported three cases. has had fence torn apart. her car damaged. smoking in the vacant lot, children throwing rocks over the and believes more rentals in the area will only add the problem. She concern that or gutter along 200 West. advised that since infill has a 20% which has flooding problems. LeeAnn Wilkins, North. is the original owner her home. enjoys has seen many over years. said the proponent approached Planning Commission Minutes October Page 6 of 14

17 selling part of her property; she declined and recommended the property not be purchased. The original owner of the property wanted to build a 6-plex, but the neighbors were opposed to it. There is not enough parking in the area now and additional tenants would create more of a problem. She has had a problem with water draining into her yard. She said she would like to see a fence put up. Jennifer Carroll, 215 West 1330 North, has lived in the area for 19 years. She chose the area because it is conveniently located close to schools, stores and the hospital. The realtor told them that the subdivision would continue to the north, however, a 4-plex was built 10ft. from her property line. She said the tenants in the apartments have created trouble over the years. She would not like to see anything developed there and would like to see it become a nice open space area for local families to enjoy, rather than more high-density housing in northwest Logan. Mr. Willets clarified that he did approach the two owners to the south to see if more acreage could be obtained to put in a triplex, which was the original intention. COMMISSION: Commissioner Hall asked if the other owners within Lot #6 have been made aware of this request. Mr. Holley advised that public notices were sent out to adjacent property owners within 300 ft. of the property. The other units are considered grandfathered at this point - as far as the City is concerned this is seven (7) duplexes on one (1) lot which was an allowable development pattern in He pointed out that each one was divided differently; some were condominimized and divided just around the building footprint with some open areas as overall common space. Lots #1 and #3 are divided similar to Lot #6. Currently Lot #1 is developed at 17 units/acre; Lots #3, 4, and 5 are at 14 units/acre; and Lot #6 is at 16 units/acre (right in between the medium and high densities of 11 and 20). Lot #6 has seven (7) 4-plexs (1.8 acres) but the County recognizes.25 acre lots inside of Lot #6. Kymber Housley, the City Attorney, pointed out that the County does not necessarily recognize the lots; they have been given tax identification (TIN) numbers; however they do not have the ability to create a legal lot. Mr. Holley pointed out the entire area of Lot #6 would have to be rezoned to create a recognized, buildable lot for the area in question. Commissioner Lee agreed with Commissioner Hall about ownership problems and asked Mr. Housley if a rezone would facilitate legitimizing the lot. Mr. Housley advised that it is a legitimate lot, the zone could be changed to increase the density; however that would then be city-wide. Commissioner Lee clarified that at this point, only the zone change is being considered, not the proposed duplex. Mr. Housley advised this was correct. Commissioner Lee advised that he thought the rezone would help clean up the whole area and maybe "fix" part of the problem. Chairman Simmonds said she had a problem with "fixing a lot that isn't a lot" until the underlying issue with the parcel is taken care of. It seems as if the original owners misled buyers. Mr. Housley reminded the Commission that the zone change would not be changing just this particular lot. He advised that this area has been an issue for over 10 years and a good example of what "we don't want to happen in other areas of the City" and the addition of another unit will be a very hard sell to the Municipal Council. Mr. Holley clarified for Commissioner Davis that Lot #6 currently has 28 units on 1.8 acres. Commissioner Kerr advised that there was no way to expand the legally existing nonconforming nature of lot within the Code. Any rezone would have to at least extend to the entire Lot #6, Planning Commission Minutes October 27, 2011 Page 7 of 14

18 however, that would be spot zoning, which is specifically prohibited and he recommended denial of the request. Mr. Housley pointed out that the law has changed where the spot zone is not defined by the size of lot or the fact that it is not surrounded by similar type zoning, therefore, it could be rezoned legally but whether it fits with the General Plan is a different issue. A decision should not be based on the idea that this would be an illegal spot zone. Commissioner Lee felt that resolving the issue of this whole subdivision is part of the Commission's duty and this should be fixed, rather than "punting the issue". Mr. Housley advised that this is a self-imposed problem and was done intentionally by previous owners, not in good faith. He agreed that it is a problem but did not think the City has an obligation to "fix it". Not increasing the density may be "the fix". Commissioner Lee advised that the concerns of the neighbors are valid. He felt like having a home built there might be a positive change for this orphan lot and a rezone might be a good solution. Commissioner Hale worried that this would be opening the door for other lots to want to do the same thing. She thought open space was the best idea for this area. MOTION: Commissioner Kerr moved that the Planning Commission forward a recommendation for denial to the Municipal Council for requested zone change with the findings as listed below. Commissioner Hale seconded the motion. FINDINGS FOR DENIAL The Planning Commission bases its decisions on the following findings: 1. Because of increase densities in other areas of the city, including the Town Center, Mixed Use and Campus Residential zones the population growth demands identified in the General Plan can be fulfilled. 2. Because Lot #6 was never properly subdivided into smaller parcels around the seven (7) 4 plexs by the City, some of the current TIN boundaries configured at the county are insufficient in size and lack adequate usable open space, landscaping and setbacks. 3. Adjacent land uses, especially the single family neighborhood to the south, would be negatively impacted by the increased density. 4. The request is inconsistent with the General Plan because additional multi-family structures would increase the imbalance of housing variety; the northwest is already oversaturated with 4-plex style structures. The General Plan calls for a variety and mix of housing options for all stages of life and levels of income [Moved: Commissioner Kerr Seconded: Commissioner Hale Passed: 5,1] Yea: D. Adams, A. Davis, A. Hale, H. Hall, J. Kerr Nay: K. Lee Abstain: PC Cache Valley Bible Fellowship. Conditional Use Permit. Eldon Peterson, authorized agenuowner, request to use the existing building, located on the east side of 200 West, to be used for religious meeting space. The lot on which the building sits is approximately 1.25 acres in size. The gross floor area to be occupied by the church is approximately 11,500 square feet (SF). The remaining space of the building (approximately 1,300 SF) is occupied by another business (Creative Communication) and is mainly used for office and warehouse space. Meetings are proposed to be held during daytime hours on Saturdays and Sundays, and during a few weeknights at 1488 North 200 West in the Mixed Use (MU) zone; TIN # Planning Commission Minutes October 27, 2011 Page 8 of 14

19 CITY OF LOGAN, UTAH RESOLUTION NO BE IT RESOLVED BY THE LOGAN MUNICIPAL COUNCIL THAT THE FOLLOWING ADJUSTMENTS BE MADE TO THE BUDGET: 1. To appropriate funds for the K9 Training Program provided by the Police Department. GENERAL FUND - POLICE DEPARTMENT Revenue Police Department $6,600 Fees Expense Police Patrol $6,600 Travel & Training 2. To transfer budget from public works improvements to fire buildings within the capital project fund to address storm water management issues and provide engineered fill under footings of fire station 72. CAPITAL FUND- FIRE DEPARTMENT Expense Public Works ($50,000) Improvements Expense Fire Capital $50,000 Buildings 3. Use of Police Capital Equipment fund reserve for the purchase of police patrol vehicles for Fiscal Year2012. CAPITAL FUND-POLICE DEPARTMENT Revenue Capital Equipment $28,000 Fund Reserve Expense Police Capital $28,000 Other Equipment-Rolling Stock

20 4. To appropriate funds for the purchase of a Track Loader for the Landfill. ENTERPRISE FUND-ENVIRONMENTAL DEPARTMENT Revenue Environmental Health $170,000 Fund Reserve Expense Environmental Health $170,000 Other Equipment-Rolling Stock THIS RESOLUTION duly adopted upon this day of, 2011 by the following vote: Ayes: Nays: Absent: ATTEST: Herm Olsen, Chair Teresa Harris, City Recorder

21 November 8, 2011 Logan City Council W Logan, UT FOR EQUIPMENT BUDGET ADJUSTMENT Environmental Department would like to fonnally request a budget adjustment for the purchase of a Caterpillar 963 D track loader to used at the City Landfill. The track loader is at the landfill for pushing garbage and construction demolition materials designated locations as well as covering the waste materials with dht. Occasionally the track loader is used for excavation projects. Environmental Department currently two track loaders that are not perfmming at an effective level for obvious reasons of age and use. We recommend the purchase of this machine during this year for the following reasons: 1. The John Deere track loader was scheduled for replacement in 2010 and the Cat Both loaders are over 6 years old 3. Cat track loader has over 12,000 hours (typical replacement occurs at 10, John Deere foader tends to suffer more repaired than operating 5. John loader is rapidly (current value $30,000) 6. Using older equipment means maintenance costs 7. Our Compactor this year will cost us approximately $100,000 than We have completed the bidding process track loader which Wheeler won with a bid of $287,500 less value of $32,000 a total $255, 500. an additional $170,000 transferred to our consideration have any our equipment or at the landfill Director : 1