Excused: Planning Secretary Susan Moses

Transcription

1 Francis City Planning Commission Meeting Thursday, November 19, 2015 Francis City Community Center 7:00 p.m South Spring Hollow Road Francis, Utah Present: Chair Jill Jacobson, Co-Chair Kevin Cannon, Commissioner Shauna Bushman, Commissioner Trent Handsaker, Commissioner Loraine Flygare, Planner Marcy Burrell, Engineer Scott Kettle and Attorney Kraig Powell Excused: Planning Secretary Susan Moses Others Present: Steve Brown, Paul Watson, Mike Crittenden, Jack Prescott, JoLynn Atkinson, Jaren & Myra Housel, Nick Berry, Linda Muir, Lori Allen, Elaine Atkinson, Roy Atkinson. Tanya Odenbach, William Crystal, Brad & Mary Holbrook, Jeff Camp, Mont & Stacy Lundgreen, Dena Housel, Rex Campbell, Dean Prescott, Richard Kennedy, Stella Tavilla, Eric Averett, Jislel and Robert Clawson Call Meeting to Order: Chair Jacobson called meeting to order at 7:00 pm Public Hearing: Uinta Shadows II annexation Petition Planner Burrell presented the staff report. Opened to Public Louise Brown asked if there was any consideration for putting in trails. Planner Burrell responded that is something we can negotiate with the Developer. Steve Brown asked if this was the final plat. Planner Burrell answered no, this is the very beginning. Steve Brown asked if it could be changed from 21 lots to 42 lots. Planner Burrell responded no it will not increase in density. Burrell stated that they are proposing what they want. Attorney Powell stated as staff we do not like to do annexations in the dark, we ask the Developer what they would like to build at the time of annexation and then we start the discussion from there, we start asking how are you going to get the utility to the property, what kind of a subdivision is it going to be, where are the road ect. Powell added that Planner Burrell is correct when she said we do not anticipate the density going higher than 21 lots. They have to follow City Codes. Page 1 of 14

2 Steve Brown asked are the roads similar to the Wild Willow subdivision or are there going to be sidewalks. Engineer Kettle answered the new City standard is like what is in the River Bluffs subdivision where we have a walking trail on one side, that is something we will have to look at. Commissioner Flygare asked if they will have open spaces in the development. Planner Burrell answered we have not gotten that far, basically what we are looking at is just the annexation. We have not gone through the subdivision process. Commissioner Bushman asked if we approve the annexation can we make stipulations on the annexation such as lot size, type of homes that compliment the subdivision next to it ect... Attorney Powell answered the Development Code provides the basic requirements and it is not possible for a City to micro-manage to decide what kind of homes or what they look like or what sort of construction. Utah Land Use Development Code only regulates: lot size, setbacks, uniformed building code standards, once they have meet that it is up to the developer to decide what sort of home to build, the only exception is planned unit developments were the developer will get a density bonus, so they can put in condominiums in tightly packed and some cities will have an ordinance that says if we give you these lots of extra units in this project then in exchange our codes says you have to look a certain way. Commissioner Bushman asked what about a requirement to have CC&Rs. Attorney Powell answered that is a decision of the developer, they do not have to have a homeowners association or CC&Rs, if they do decide to have them, the City does asks to review them so we can make sure there is nothing in the CC&Rs that conflict with City code. The City does not and cannot enforce them. Louise Brown asked what is the advantage to Francis City to having an annexation and adding more houses. Attorney Powell answered Eastern Summit County Planning Commission has been meeting recently with consideration to significantly change zoning in Eastern Summit County, to allow much more building and development than is currently allowed in the unincorporated areas of the County, and Francis City staff and Council attended these meetings to express concern, there is a reason to have cities and counties. Counties regulate large open areas of space, roads, fire protection, water resources and those sort of things. If a landowner wants to develop and the City does not annex then what happens is we begin to have inefficient development in the County, because the County does not have sewer or water and the County does not have roads that they pay for and connect in a way that can develop for example with parks, cul-de-sacs versus through roads. What Cities are for is to plan that growth and have it happen in an orderly fashion. Powell showed the Francis City annexation declaration map and explained Francis City boundaries look like an H and it is anticipated that Francis eventually should be some form of a rectangle, that would be normal City planning. If it does not happen that way then those residences who live in Francis right now will end up with Page 2 of 13

3 lots of homes and a lot of development next to them, but they will not pay taxes to Francis City, they will not plan their roads through Francis. They will not build roads they just build driveways; they will be in the County. They will not be connected to the sewer they will have septic tanks and as that continues with more and more septic tanks the Health Department begins to have real concerns, they will all build wells and the City s water aquifers will become compromised. So the answered to the question is if development is going to happen good planning principles say that developments need to happen within Cities and that is why we have annexations. Monte Lundgreen commented when River Bluffs subdivision was developed they were required to put in so much affordable housing. Lundgreen asked if in a development this size do they have to have low income housing and how much. Lundgreen expressed his concern was property values. Attorney Powell answered River Bluffs requested a type of zoning that does not exist any were else in the City, which is R-2 zoning. They wanted to put in smaller houses on smaller lots for affordable housing that is not typically required for R-1 zones or on subdivisions this size. Planner Burrell stated there is an affordable housing requirement. 0 to 9 units no affordable housing required units 10% are deed restricted for affordable housing. Burrell stated that is something we will have to discuss when we get to the subdivision process. Steve Fitzgerald commented River Bluffs subdivision did not start out as affordable housing, it was approved different and then it changed. Fitzgerald opinioned when you approve it you need to hold them to it. Roy Atkinson asked where are they going to come up with the water and what are they doing with their sewer. Rex Campbell explained he was the developer and he lived on Hallam Road. Campbell explained they tried to annex in several years ago and there was an issue with the sewer capacity, so we did not get very far. This is the beginning. The sewer will be hooked on to the Francis sewer; and we will hook onto Francis water. Roy Atkinson asked where will you get the water shares. Rex Campbell answered he has shares he will have to transfer. Engineer Kettle explained the City requires South Kamas and Washington Irrigation water shares to be turned into our well. Kettle added we cannot turn in Beaver Shingle water shares because they are in the Provo River drainage. Rex Campbell stated he thinks tying sewer and water together it will help loop our existing system. Engineer Kettle stated it will help out with our water system because it will create a loop through Wild Willow and the sewer already goes through the proposed annexation. Page 3 of 13

4 Roy Atkinson expressed concern about the lift station. Engineer Kettle stated that is one of the things we will consider, and what we have to do to make it work for everyone. Steve Brown commented on the proposed annexation plat it shows two lots as.25 and that is not in the City Code. Rex Campbell responded the first time we come to City the Planning Commission and City Council required us to do that for affordable housing, we would prefer not to have anything smaller than.50 acre lot. Engineer Kettle clarified the density has to average.50 acre lots. It was shown on the proposed annexation map the three lots with homes that will not be included with the annexation. Planner Burrell explained the three homes not being annexed in, share a well and the well is in the annexation portion, therefore one of the conditions we need to put on this annexation is to abandon the well and to dig a new well on one of the non-annexed properties. Commissioner Flygare asked who would be responsible for digging the new well. Rex Campbell answered the developer. Chair Jacobson asked if the three homes not in the annexation will tie into the sewer. Engineer Kettle answered no they have to be in the City to connect to the sewer and water. Steve Fitzgerald expressed concern that an annexation cost the City money, and his sewer rates have been raised to expand the sewer capacity, so he ask the Planning Commission to come up with a plan that the developer pays for whatever it cost to provide sewer, so in ten years it does not cost him. Engineer Kettle explained part of financing the sewer is based on the City collecting impact fees. Attorney Powell stated if the City does not grow any more than you will not have more people to help pay for the sewer. Steve Fitzgerald disagreed. Bill Crystal asked if this subdivision was in our annexation proclamation, is this something the town has said we want this. Planner Burrell answered yes it is in our annexation declaration area. Public Hearing Closed Commissioner Flygare commented she thinks it should not come back on the town s people to pay for upgrades of everything. Flygare wants Rex Campbell to have the water shares turned over to the Town before they are annexed in. Engineer Kettle explained they are required to turn in water shares as part of the annexation. Page 4 of 13

5 Attorney Powell explained the annexation and subdivision process: 1) Public hearing at Planning Commission for annexation. 2) Public Hearing at City Council for annexation. 3) Goes to the Lieutenant Governor s Office to get certified. 4) back to the Planning Commission for public hearing on preliminary approval. 5) City Council public hearing for preliminary approval 6) Planning Commission public hearing for final approval. 7) City Council public hearing for final approval. Planner Bushman asked is this step just for the Planning Commission to either approve or deny that the annexation can go forward. Attorney Powell explained if the Planning Commission decides the annexation is appropriate: the Planning Commission would motion to recommend to approve with any recommendations you would like the City Council to consider. The Planning Commission is a recommending body, so your motion will be in the form of a recommendation, it does not have any binding effect. The City Council has to prepare the annexation agreement, all of the things that we negotiate with them; for example payment of the annexation fee, tendering of the proper water rights, any public amenities or infrastructure that is all written in the annexation agreement. There is another public notice that goes out, and the City council has to pass an annexation ordinance. Commissioner Flygare asked how many shares each house has to turn in. Engineer Kettle explained we don t base it on shares we base it on acre feet; they have to turn in an average of 1 acre foot per ½ acre lot. They have to do a change application with the State; we get the water changed to our well in acre feet. Attorney Powell stated that determination comes from the State Division of Water Rights. Commissioner Handsaker commented he would like to see trails and open space considered. Engineer Kettle asked when you say open space are you saying parks that the City maintains. Commissioner Flygare commented if they have a park, they need to put it in and maintain it at their expense. The City should not have to be responsible for it. Commissioner Flygare optioned all new subdivisions coming in should have to pay for, not the town s people. Commissioner Handsaker motioned to move the Annexation forward to the City Council with the recommendations of public amenities of trails, open space, with the developer contributing money to the City Park or open space within the subdivision, also having the water rights turned into the City, and annexation fees. Commissioner Cannon second the motion. Voting in favor Commissioners Jacobson, Cannon, Handsaker, and Bushman. Voted against Commissioner Flygare. Motion Passed Page 5 of 13

6 Public Hearing: Francis Summit Self Storage CUP Planner Burrell presented the staff report Nick Berry stated he has 2.5 acres under contract, set backs are 30 foot on the front, sides and rear. Code states you have to have trees to block the view from the road. Doors will not be facing the road, they are offset 35 degrees. Colors are open for discussion. For security will have chain link fence, kiosk, electronic gates, it will be secure. Commissioner Flygare commented she has been to that site and there is a great big swell that comes through there, that swell is feed through the snow melt on the foothills. We have not had much snow the last few years, but when it comes back it is going to hit us. It drains all the way down through the fields and they are flooded. Flygare opinioned the wetland delineation should be done in June. Mr. Berry responded Mr. Hopkins from the Army Corp of Engineers come out, he did the certified wetlands delineation. Berry stated he had a 42 page report. Commissioner Flygare expressed concern about building a storage unit there because of flooding. Flygare is concerned those who use the storage units will get flooded. Nick Berry responded part of the process will be working with an Engineer; I will have to provide drainage for a 99 year flood, so there will be proper drainage on this facility when it is built. Open to Public Jaren Housel commented he lives two houses down from this project. Housel stated he has lived in his home for 40 years and he has seen the good, the bad and the ugly with this drainage. It drains into the canal and last year his daughter s home was flooded. If you go down SR 32 headed to Kamas there are three lakes there in the spring. Housel stated he hays the property owned by Mrs. Atkinson and he has to be careful because the water subs from that ditch and it constantly runs through there. Housel stated when he irrigates you will have a full ditch running through the swell. Housel stated the ditch is the problem, it has so many pot holes and muskrat holes, when they turn the water in, it puddles and runs down the swell, and we need to take a hard look at it. Housel expressed his concern that the drainage is done right, so he and others are not flooded. Jaren Housel stated he wants to go on record that he thinks that is a poor piece of ground to put this project on. Deana Housel stated she is concern about the water; she has already been flooded out. Miss Housel wants to know who will be liable if she floods again. Deana stated she would prefer privacy fencing, not chain link, is concern about the lights. Nick Berry responded the lighting will Page 6 of 13

7 be down lodge, pointing down, the facility will be closed at dark and they will be half-light, so they will not be shooting into your house. JoLynn Atkinson stated she owns the property behind this proposed project and she has a 30 foot right of way through there. Atkinson commented she could have 4 or 5 nice building lots on her property but no one will want to live behind storage units. Glade Prescott commented we have a problem in this Town, the development is going crazy. Prescott stated we can t stop it but we can put stipulations on the developers to protect ourselves. Prescott recommended that the storage units buy and provide flood insurance for eight homes and that will protect those eight homes. Lori Allen asked if there are height restrictions. Planner Burrell answered there is a height restricting for buildings in the Development Code of 30 feet and fence height is 6 feet. Lori Allen asked the Planning Commission to consider how we want our Town to be seen, do we want the first thing you see to be storage units. Allan is also concern about this project devaluing her and others homes. Chair Jacobson asked will there be another building besides the storage units. Nick Berry answered there will be a 6x6 kiosk. Jaren Housel asked looking at the plan, where are you putting the trees. Nick Berry stated along the front of the property line. Deana Housel asked if a traffic study would have to be done. Engineer Kettle answered he will be required to go to UDOT and get an access and they will require him to do something. Nick Berry stated he was meeting with UDOT next week. Jaren Housel asked if another lane will have to be added. Nick Berry answered that was up to UDOT. Louise Kirkham asked if it would be opened 24 hours. Nick Berry answered no, basically dusk to dawn. Louise Kirkham asked if people will have a key to get in. Nick Berry answered no key, there will be a kiosk. After dark it will locked. Roy Atkinson expressed his concerns 1) His property being flooded; want to know where the water will go. 2) No trees are going on that property because it is too wet. 3) Does not want lights, he wants his grandkids to be able to see the stars. Page 7 of 13

8 Monte Lundgreen commented the City does not get any tax revenue from storage units, does not like the idea of chain link fence, need total privacy fence. Lundgreen stated if we can t stop it from going in then let s do it right. Lundgreen would like the setbacks to be more than 30 feet. Monte Lundgreen asked if there would be any outdoor storage. Nick Berry answered no. Monte Lundgreen asked the Planning Commission to consider requiring a total privacy fence. Commissioner Cannon stated his concerns 1) A 6 foot fence is not secure enough and a chain link fence you can go through like butter. 2) Wants something that is pleasing to people coming into the community; the esthetic value very important especial on a main road. He does not like metal buildings. 3) Flooding and drainage to the neighbors. Cannon suggested we table until a later date. Commissioner Flygare commented we should table until June or July when the water is there and then have it tested. Engineer Kettle responded that the Army Corps of Engineers will look at maps, look at studies, because people are watering that is irrigation not wetlands. They try and get away from irrigation so it does not affect the wetland determination. Commission Flygare commented that the ground subs so much over there, it is spongy. Kettle stated they will have to do something to improve it so they can build on it. Kettle stated we will have to make sure the water that goes through that property can get through. Kettle stated when you irrigate you are responsible to keep your water on your property and once it leaves your property you are responsible. Kettle stated there is irrigation water and there is flood water the runoff and that has to all be dealt with. Glade Prescott commented on the water situation it is not a matter of if it happens but when it happens. You aren t going to stop it. Commissioner Bushman asked do we have to allow storage units on this piece of property. Attorney Powell answered there are two different distinctions. First if you do not want storage units in your City tell your City Council to change the code. Currently it is allow in the commercial zone as a Conditional Use. Second this is a Conditional Use Permit, Utah law states you have to allow something that is listed as a Conditional Use in your City, you have to allow it as long as the applicant is able to address any of the legitimate concerns that are listed in your code, in our code there is a section on storage development, trash and waste storage, landscaping, grading and drainage, utilities, architectural design and materials, buffers, fences and walls. All of these thing that are listed in your code the developer will have to show how he Page 8 of 13

9 is going to address these issues. Powell stated this is a process and since this is the first time this has been before you, it is appropriate to say we would like to continue this to a future meeting. As Legal Counsel Powell stated I would be concerned about a motion that would indefinitely postpone something like this. Roy Atkinson asked what happened to the last storage units on Lambert Lane. Engineer Kettle they went away because the economy tanked. Roy Atkinson asked if the wetlands were where they wanted to put the storage units. Engineer Kettle answered the wetland are deed restricted and you cannot build on the wetlands, they were going to build around the wetlands. Monte Lundgreen asked does Francis have a storm drain and does he have to contain the water so it does not run off to the neighbors. Engineer Kettle answered Francis does not have a storm drain and by law the amount of water that runs off of his property now that is all that can run off in the future. Anything that causes water to run off roof tops and roads he will have to maintain that on site. Lundgreen asked how is that going to happen. Kettle answered he will have to look into some kind of storm drain pond; he will have to keep snow on his property. Commissioner Cannon concerned about the landscaping, the architectural design and materials, and the buffers, fences and walls. The chain link fence is not apropos. Cannon asked if there were options on the architectural designs and materials. It was suggest looking at something like the wall around then gravel pit Nick Berry answered if he puts in a privacy fence and bushes and trees, the storage units will be behind all of that. Commissioner Cannon again expressed concern for the architectural design and materials. Nick Berry responded if you look at the design it is staggered and it will give it a better look. Commissioner Cannon stated Francis is a Frontier Town and esthetical, we would like something that would look along those lines. Commissioner Handsaker asked Mr. Berry if he could come back with different facades and give them options. Commissioner Handsaker commented if we tell him to put trees around the whole thing, that is great right now but in twenty to thirty year when the tress block everybody s view, we need to balance now and later. Public Hearing Closed Page 9 of 13

10 Commissioner Cannon motioned to continue this discussion with these considerations 1. Wetland study complete with results 2. UDOT study complete with results 3. Plan for snow removal and storage of snow on lot 4. Drainage plan and how will you mitigate water issues from flooding your neighbors 5. Front view and façade options 6. Privacy fencing options other than chain link fence and taller than 6 feet, something low maintenance that will look nice over the years. 7. Landscaping options, evergreens, bushes something pleasing to the eye. Commissioner Handsaker seconded the Motion. Voting in favor Commissioners Jacobson, Cannon, Handsaker and Bushman. Voting against Commissioner Flygare. Motioned passed. Public Hearing: Annexation Policy Plan Amendment Planner Burrell presented the staff report Proposed changes: Page Take out Francis City sanitation district 2. Add sanitation sewer system 3. Up-date Utah Codes 4. Under #6 take out sewer 5. Take out 6 a. Law enforcement protection Page Update Utah Codes 2. Repeal 9.c Page 1-10 Bottom of page 3 c. take out Identification of useable water rights to be transferred to Francis City to serve the proposed development. (Duplication of 3 a.) Planner Burrell explained the City Council looked at changing the annexation fee of $8,000 per lot, but after discussion the Council felt they can justify this fee. Page two of staff report shows added cost to City due to possible annexations. Engineer Kettle explained the cost to the City due to annexations. Commissioner Handsaker asked what are these growths based off of, and how many lots anticipated. Engineer Kettle explained we are looking at hiring another full time employee that Page 10 of 13

11 will probably happen in the next couple of year especially with the sewer treatment plant coming on line. A lot of the subdivision to date we have not had to plow because they are not 50% occupied, they are getting to that point, if we take on more roads we will need another employee and truck. Commissioner Handsaker asked what the $8,000 annexation fee per lot covers. Engineer Kettle explained these are all cost that cannot be paid with impact fees. These are operational and maintenance cost. Commissioner Bushman asked if there were any grants we could get to cover some of the cost. Engineer Kettle answered maybe on something, but he did not know of any grants that would cover the cost of trucks. Attorney Powell explained the process when you make changes to the Annexation Plan. Engineer Kettle showed the Annexation Declaration Map and explained the boundaries. Opened to Public No Public Comment Commissioner Hundsaker motioned to approve the changes made with the recommendation of not changing annexation fee and forward to the City Council. Commissioner Bushman seconded the motion. All voting in favor. Motion passed Parks Plan Planner Burrell presented the staff report Commissioner Flygare commented we need to fix our City Park for example the ball diamond, more flowers. Commissioner Bushman would like to see a new façade around the town hall. Jaren Housel asked are we trying to get grants to pay for a walking trail. Planner Burrell answered yes. Mont Lundgreen suggested 1. When commercial goes in have the developer give up so much for an easement for a trail. 2. Instead of having developers put in new parks have them give money to the City Park so we have one nice park. Attorney Powell stated both the annexation fee and in addition on top of that we have a park impact fee, any new developments will pay both of those fees that can be used for park improvements. Page 11 of 13

12 Public suggested new restrooms up by the arena Commissioner Cannon agrees we need more restrooms. Maybe more picnic areas for families. Weed/Junk Ordinance Planner Burrell presented the Staff Report Commissioner Flygare stated some of the weeds listed are ridiculous, like Johnson grass, quack grass and timothy, that is what the farmer s hay, which is what they feed their animals. We need to control thistle and mustard, white top. We can t tell the farmers they can t bring any hay in with a noxious weeds, who would regulated it. Planner Burrell agreed. Burrell stated this was a copy of Oakley City s ordinance; this is just for an example of what we can do. We can adopt the County Ordinance and let the County be over it, or we can let it go and do nothing or we can come up with our own ordinance. Commissioner Flygare commented the county has had this ordinance for 40 years to spray weeds. We do not need to go that for with our ordinance with our farmers. We need to take care of our thistles and stuff like that. Glade Prescott commented my family has fought weed for 5 generations. Nobody likes weeds. Prescott opinioned if the Town does not want weeds it should be the Towns responsibility to kill the weeds not the property owners. Commissioner Flygare commented in Wild Willow the vacant lots are covered with thistle. Flygare asked whose responsibility is it to spray. Planner Burrell answered the property owner, but in certain areas they have an HOA and they would be responsible to enforce weed control. Commissioner Bushman commented she likes Midways definition of Junk and Rubbish. Elaine Atkinson stated she lives on Lambert Lane and the property across the road needs weed control, so she would like to see some weed control, that requires the property owner to clean it up. Tanya Odenbach stated she lives on Lambert Lane and expressed concern about the vacant lots being a fire hazard. Attorney Powell stated we need to put a weed maintenance provision during the build out for approved subdivisions in the development agreement. Eric Averett if we don t have it we don t have to enforce it. If we do decide to have an ordinance we should do our own not follow the County and make sure we can enforce it. Page 12 of 13

13 Commissioner Bushman stated she likes Midways Junk and Weed Ordinance and would like the Planning Commission to look at that. Commissioner Cannon read the Midway Declaration of Policy. There was some discussion about the Midway Ordinance on Junk and Weeds Planning Commission would like to put the Weed and Junk Ordinance on next month s Agenda. City Business Planner Burrell gave an update. 1. Stewart Ranch Annexation has been accepted for further consideration 2. Mountainlands will be helping with General Plan Revision 3. Developer interested in putting in Commercial along with Multi-Family Housing and Hotel 4. Jill Jacobson has been approved to serve on the Planning Commission for another 2 year term. 5. Next Planning Commission Meeting January 21, 2016 Approval of Minutes September 17, 2015 Commissioner Flygare wanted her comments about Francis in the minutes. Adjourn Meeting Adjourned at 10:00 am 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. These minutes were X approved as presented. Approved as amended at the meeting held on February 18, Page 13 of 13