PAYSON CITY PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES. May 9, 2012

REGULAR SESSION CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS CALL TO ORDER: 7:00 p.m. PAYSON CITY PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES May 9, 2012 ROLL CALL: Chairman John Cowan, Commissioners Blair Warner, Harold Nichols, Todd Cannon, Robert Baird & George Van Nosdol; City Councilmembers Kim Hancock and Mike Hardy; Planner Jill Spencer, Administrative Secretary Debra Bushnell. Absent Ted Fitzgerald INVOCATION: Commissioner Harold Nichols CONSENT AGENDA - APPROVAL OF MINUTES April 25, 2012 Motion by Commissioner Warner to approve the consent agenda. Motion seconded by Commissioner Cannon. Motion carried. PUBLIC FORUM No public comment. REVIEW ITEMS REVIEW AND POTENTIAL RECOMMENDATION REGARDING A REQUEST FOR APPROVAL OF A BOUNDARY LINE ADJUSTMENT BETWEEN TWO (2) PARCELS IN THE R-2-75, RESIDENTIAL ZONE. Planner Spencer presented information from the following staff report. Background The applicant, Roger Knell, representing the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is requesting a recommendation of approval from the Planning Commission and approval from the Hearing Officer to adjust the boundaries of two (2) parcels of land located at 341 West 100 South and 348 West 200 South in the R-2-75, Residential Zone. The parcels affected by the proposed adjustment are owned by the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (LDS Church) and Aaron and Jenny Tischner. The LDS Church recently purchased two (2) parcels of land adjacent to the existing church located at 110 South 300 West to accommodate additional parking for the facility (Parcel A and Parcel B on the attached map). The dwellings previously located on the parcels were recently demolished and the LDS Church is preparing to complete the necessary site improvements. To connect the parking area proposed west of the church building with the existing parking lot south of the building, the LDS Church has approached an adjacent landowner (Tischner) to acquire additional property. As indicated on the Parcel Exchange Survey prepared by A.L.M. & Associates, Inc. (attached) the landowners have agreed to modify the property line to increase the size of the LDS Church parcel and decrease the backyard area of the Tischner parcel by twenty (20) feet. The adjusted parcel owned by Tischner satisfies the minimum zoning requirements of the R-2-75 Zone. The City Council has appointed the Development Services Director as a Hearing Officer to hear and determine if proposed boundary line adjustments are appropriate. Because each boundary line adjustment is unique, each application is reviewed on a case by case basis to ensure that the boundary line adjustment will not negatively impact any property owners in the area or the utility service providers. Before the Hearing Officer can reach a final decision, it was necessary for the Planning Commission to formulate a recommendation following consideration of the information provided by the applicant. Page 1

The boundary line adjustment process does not require a public hearing or notification of any property owners because the adjustment is not intended to affect any parties other than the owners of property that share the boundary line. On occasion, when staff determined the request would affect adjacent property owners, staff has provided notice to the adjoining property that could be affected by the modification. In this case, it has been determined that approval of the boundary line adjustment will have little or no impact on surrounding property owners. Analysis Boundary line adjustments between two adjacent parcels are allowed provided the adjustment will not result in new dwelling lots or create a violation of the development ordinances. Section 20.9.1 of the Payson City Subdivision Ordinance includes the Utah Code requirements and adds that remnant parcels cannot be created, utility easements must be provided, the adjustment will not impede the provision of public utilities, and that any new or modified easements are recorded in the office of the Utah County Recorder. A boundary line adjustment is an issue of property ownership, not the use of property. A boundary line adjustment does not allow any action that would circumvent or be in violation of the Zoning Ordinance or any other law, ordinance or resolution of Payson City. In essence, the request of the applicant is rather uncomplicated and straightforward. Upon review of State statute and the development ordinances of Payson City, staff has identified a few issues that will need to be addressed by the applicant. 1. A public utility easement will need to be provided around the perimeter of each parcel. The easement will need to be a five (5) foot easement around the perimeter of the parcel and ten (10) feet along any public right-of-way. Furthermore, the applicant is required to maintain any existing easements or right-of-ways that have been recorded on the property. 2. The applicant has provided drawings that indicate the proposed configuration of the parcels. The map and legal descriptions will be reviewed by the City Surveyor to ensure proper adjustment of the property line will occur without the creation of any remnant parcel of property. Following a recommendation by the Planning Commission and approval by the Hearing Officer, the appropriate legal deeds will need to be prepared and recorded in the office of the Utah County Recorder. 3. Utah Code and City ordinance requires the applicant to contact the public and private utility providers to provide an opportunity to evaluate the impact the adjustment may have on any existing services. Staff has determined the proposed adjustment will not negatively impact the public utility systems (i.e. power, wastewater, drinking water) in the area. However, the applicant is awaiting response from the private utility providers (e.g. Questar, CenturyLink, Comcast, and UTOPIA) regarding any exiting utility corridors on the property. The applicant will be responsible to satisfy the conditions indicated on the acknowledgment letters from the utility service providers. 4. Improvements to the site must be consistent with the requirements of the development ordinances and construction standards of Payson City. 5. Modifications to existing site conditions such as sprinkling systems, fences, landscaping, etc. will be an issue between the adjoining property owners. Approval of the adjustment does not obligate Payson City to be involved in the resolution of any private property issues. The boundary line adjustment process was created to allow agreeable property owners to modify adjoining property lines without the need to complete the subdivision process. Rather than create new parcels, State statute allows for the common property line to be altered if the regulations of State and local ordinances are satisfied. Recommendation After considering the request of the applicant and the provisions of Utah Code and the Payson City development ordinances, the Planning Commission may recommend approval, approval with the conditions proposed by staff, or denial of the proposed boundary line adjustment to the Hearing Officer. The recommendation of the Planning Commission should include findings that indicate reasonable conclusions for the recommendation. Planner Spencer explained the applicant is in need of additional off street parking on the property of the LDS Church at 300 W 100 N. They recently purchased and demolished two homes to increase the parking. As they were designing they felt it was necessary to have a connection between the two parking lots and had to purchase some property from Aaron and Jenny Tishner to acquire the additional property to accomplish this. There is approximately 20 feet they need to acquire from the Page 2

Tishner s to get enough property to connect the two parking lots. The Tishner s parcel will actual exceed the minimum requirement of the underlying zones. Planner Spencer mentioned Rick Broadbent is here representing Neal Architects to answer any questions they may have. Commissioner Warner asked what the Church was doing about the property to the west that has an elevation issue. Rick Broadbent stated they will bring up the property to the level of the existing drive approach of the church and grade it to the west and collect it into a drainage system. Motion by Commissioner Warner recommending approval that the Hearing Officer approve the boundary line adjustment. Motion seconded by Commissioner Cannon. Motion carried. REVIEW OF AMENDMENTS TO A NEW OVERLAY ZONE TO ADDRESS ACCESSORY APARTMENTS IN SINGLE FAMILY DWELLINGS. Planner Spencer mentioned she made the changes based on the recommendation of the Planning Commission from last meeting. They did not propose changes in every section because some of the general changes that need to be made required some additional amendments. They talked about it being a revitalization tool, so she updated the purpose and zone characteristics to further the goals with reinvestment in the older parts of the community. Planner Spencer stated she used the term accessory apartment because she could not come up with something better but it s up for discussion. She defined what an accessory apartment would be which is a single family dwelling but with a portion being used for a second dwelling unit. This is different than a conversion of a single family dwelling to accommodate a duplex. Planner Spencer stated as requested she took out that language of the effective date because of some concern with this. Under project plan approval she made some changes to this to be consistent with the other overlay zones. She indicated she relocated some of the verbiage in some of the section. In building alterations, we want it to remain the look of a single family home. We did not want someone to come in and alter the exterior of the home to make it look like a duplex. There may be some minor modifications to the exterior, but we re not anticipating that this ordinance will be used so someone adds onto a home to create a duplex. We still want it to remain a single family home. Commissioner Cowan stated that under the ordinance, where possible, there will be separate utilities like power, heating and air conditioning and questioned having a separate sewer because it could be very disruptive to require a separate sewer and also pressurized irrigation system. Planners Spencer stated as she was making the changes she contemplated taking this out of the ordinance, because we are looking at it as an accessory unit to a single family dwelling. It was not in their recommendations so she left it in. She doesn t know if we want to suggest that those additional items be done because it would look more like a duplex. She stated maybe we want this to be more of an accessory use, instead of converting the home and the utility systems to accommodate that accessory unit on a long term basis. You may see someone who wants to rent that part of the home or the new owner may not want that additional unit and would like to abandon the unit. We want to give them the ability to abandon that unit and then if they want to convert it again they would have to go through the process again. Commissioner Nichols asked what happens when it comes to the City Council and it is up for approval. Are they going to say this is suggested and we are going to make you do it or is this just a suggestion? He asked will we turn around and say this is suggested but then require them to do it. Planner Spencer explained in this particular situation with the utilities it is just a suggestion. She explained this is still a legislative decision so if the Planning Commission and City Council felt it was appropriate for that particular application then you could still require it. She could still see the applicant having that argument even if you were requiring it as a legislative act. It depends on what we are looking at, if we are looking at duplexes and they are going to remain rental Page 3

units, it should still be in there. If we are looking at a dwelling unit with an accessory apartment for an undetermined amount of time, then we may not want it in the ordinance. Commissioner Cowan stated he likes the requirement about having separated outside entrances because it is a life safety issue. He feels that this should be a strong suggestion or a requirement. Planner Spencer explained that in section five it states that proper exiting from each structure must be independently provided and must not depend upon the residents of the second unit. If the second unit is in the basement the residents must be able to independently exit the structure from an exit that cannot be locked by the residents on the first unit. Commissioner Nichols likes the fact we call it an accessory apartment. Planning Spencer stated there was some concern with upkeep of the yards so for the benefit of Commissioner Nichols; she added a reference in section two to address this issue. We do have the beautification ordinance also that we could use to enforce certain violations on the site. Commissioner Nichols mentioned he has driven around and looked at some of these places. He is worried about the transient nature of the people coming and going. He understands that people are in a situation where they may need extra income but he is worried about the upkeep of the property. He mentioned in his own area, the house that are rented have the worst yards. He knows it is hard to control it. Planner Spencer stated if we want to look at this as not a long term situation, we may want to consider an abandonment clause in the ordinance. There was an issue where there was a home with two meters, upstairs and downstairs apartments, but for the last 20 years it was used as a single family home. Even though years ago they had two meters and they were using if for more than one, they converted it back to a single family. She said for consideration, before it goes to the City Council, direct staff to possibly look at abandonment clause. She suggested maybe we apply this few times to see how it goes. Commissioner Warner stated he likes the clause because it gets difficult to say if they did or did not have two meters. He explained it s easier to establish what the last guy did instead of going back and say what happened 20 year ago. This will take us back to the last use. Commissioner Van Nosdol asked how long a property has to be vacant before it is considered abandoned. Planner Spencer stated typically with a non-conforming use is 12 continuous months. Commissioner Cowan asked if change of ownership creates abandonment. Planner Spencer explained she would use the non- conforming language as a template for this. Councilman Hancock stated he feels like apartment rather than accessory living unit suggests transient. It carries a stronger sense of what we are trying to do then accessory apartment. Commissioner Cowan stated in his area there are approximately 10 homes where people are renting single family homes. Most people are transient by nature and they don t take care of their yards, but we don t restrict single family homes. Commissioner Baird stated he had talked with some members of the City Council and they were hesitant that this be applicable to any zone. In most the zones you can rent. Commissioner Cowan stated that it could be difficult and maybe unconstitutional to say you cannot rent that house. Commissioner Warner mentioned you have to have a different tool, like a rental commission, that comes in to keep things up to standard. You cannot put in a zoning ordinance to make sure that a renter is going to keep up the yard. Commissioner Van Nosdol mentioned in some instances a resident who lives out of state but rents their house, will hire a management company to keep the home up. The Commissioners like the term assessor living unit instead of apartment. Page 4

Commissioner Baird stated there is no limit on this date is passed. Planner Spencer explained this was for enforcement issue with staff. She stated it was proposed to be removed. Commissioner Baird asked by having this a legislative thing it almost protects anything we need by some extent. However they would like to make more things administrative. What issues do we see making it administrative? Planner Spencer stated the ordinance would have to be fined tuned, it would have to be tightened up. For the comfort level of staff you would have to be very specific of the applicability of when it can be applied, what circumstances, what you are trying to accomplish and the minimum requirements. When it becomes an administrative issue, it s only what is in your ordinance; if they meet the check list they can have it. Commissioner Cowan asked if it would be appropriate to have the hearing officer review this instead of the City Council. Planner Spencer said this will go to the City Council because it is a legislative decision and they cannot delegate their legislative capacity. Commissioner Cowan stated he is more comfortable with the legislative decision. Planner Spencer mentioned at one time everything went to the City Council, but over time some of the things have gone to be reviewed by staff. It could be a time where if the check list is fine tuned it could go to staff. Commissioner Baird asked if there is a difference of fees if it is administrative or legislative. He would like us to feel like that is the goal to quickly move it on. Planner Spencer stated there is no difference in fees. She mentioned that about a month ago she brought ordinance amendments to the board with the suggestion that boundary line adjustment be done at a staff level. They used to go to the City Council, then we backed it off then it came to the Planning Commission for recommendation then went to the hearing Officer. The ordinance is such that if they have all requirements are met there should be no reason why the community development director couldn t approve it. Commissioner Nichols asked what it would do for home values. He mentioned he has been told that his property value is less because he lives across from a multifamily development. Planner Spencer said she cannot answer the question. But maybe some other communities that have implemented this type of ordinance may have determined that. Commissioner Cowan mentioned this will be a work in progress for quite some time and asked what are we comfortable in asking the City Council to do at this point or do we have Planner Spencer work on it more. Commissioner Cannon asked if it was remanded to staff could changes still be done before it goes to City Council. Planner Spencer mentioned ordinance amendments have been noticed to go to the City Council next week. Any changes would have to be made for the packets to go out tomorrow. She has listed to change the name accessory unit, possible take out the suggested language of having separate utilities and add an abandonment clause. Planner Spencer stated in some cities it is a conditional use permit but it has to be updated every three years. We need to put it in place and not give up on it but keep talking about how it could impact areas of our community and make those adjustments. Planner Spencer stated the Planning Commission shares with the City Council the concern of the pioneer neighborhoods of the community and we want to keep those areas of the city strong and not have them be just rental areas. Commissioner Baird is concerned the City Council is not going to be happy with this applied to all the zones. He wonders if an owner occupied might help them feel better about it. He wants the Planning Commission to do their jobs to help the City Council do their job. Commissioner Nichols asked if we did the owner occupied over all the zones is that saying that you feel that would help that situation. Commissioner Warner said that would be more restrictive so if they want to do it, it would be done behind our back. Commissioner Van Nosdol stated that some of the owners are just as bad as the renters. Page 5

Planner Spencer stated we need to develop another tool to deal with this. Councilman Hancock asked is there something there that addresses about not conforming uses. Is there anything in the document that addresses how a non-conforming use can apply the new ordinance to become conforming? It should not be automatic; it should be on a case by case basis. Planner Spencer asked Councilmember Hancock if he doesn t want the enactment of this ordinance to give amnesty to everyone that has an improper use. Councilman Hancock explained you lose case by case, but there should be the opportunity for someone who recognizes they are not legal, to come in and apply to conform. Planner Spencer stated it shouldn t give any sort of amnesty to those prior to the effective date of May 16, 2012, but it may not be a bad idea to put something in there stating that. Councilmember Hancock stated this exists and happens now because citizens were good enough to come in and talk about it. Part of the discussion about these illegal applications was the fact that they re there and we know they are there and the only reason we don t respond is because we don t have a complaint. If a developer was going to be difficult, all he would have to do is bring in several complaints. We need a way to fix this without responding to a complaint. Planner Spencer stated we know this exists and how do we take care of it. What are we going to do if we get a complaint and raises the issue without having the research done, without having a policy. There are a lot of holes to the benefit of the illegal units in the city. Commissioner Nichols asked if we could send a letter to those residents that are not in compliance and let them know we have a new ordinance that you can now apply for that will bring you into compliance. We could take action to those that are not complying. We give them a specific amount of time to come in like 6 months. Planner Spencer said we could do this but we need to have a base line and an inventory first. There are a couple of different types like ones that have separate utilities and the ones that don t so maybe you treat them different. We need to understand how vast the problem is first, because there may be more than one ordinance to address it. And then how does the City Council address this, are we trying to get rid of them or try to make them a safe environment. Planner Spencer explained that in some communities like Holladay, they get rid of them and actively enforce it because they do not want them in their community. Most of it was occurring in older homes which involves issues with ingress and egress, lead based paint, size of windows and old faulty electrical wiring. In Provo they need student housing, so they are going to get a handle on it. They need to come into compliance; they had several building code requirements they have to meet. Commissioner Baird stated the reason we have not done this is we have not had the tool. With what we have now with the few changes we have done, maybe we give it a year, make a few changes and after we are more comfortable with it then we send out a letter. He doesn t feel we have the political will or the resources to enforce it right now. Commissioner Warner suggested once the City Council approves the ordinance, a simple thing may be to have the Chronicle put an article in the paper to explain things. Commissioner Van Nosdol stated making these units come into compliance may help the property owner insurance better. Commissioner Cowan asked about property taxes. Planner Spencer stated she has not made that call yet. She talked with a planner in South Jordon who classifies them it as accessory apartments and they file that with Salt Lake County as a single family dwelling with an accessory unit. She is not sure how that changes the tax structure. She is not sure if Utah County does this. She will check with Lindon to see how they classify assessor units. Commissioner Cowan stated if we move forward with what we have now, we have a tool we can use but we may need to sharpen it to be more effective. Planner Spencer stated she will provide a follow-up after the City Council meeting. Page 6

OTHER BUSINESS Planner Spencer gave an update of the 2012 legislative session. Some changes may need to be made so that our current ordinance corresponds with state code. Planner Spencer presented information regarding duties and responsibilities of the Planning Commission. COMMISSION AND STAFF REPORTS Planner gave an update of upcoming City Council agenda items. Commissioner Nichols stated we could get people to this meeting is to announce that we are building an 85 story skyscraper in Payson. Planner Spencer mentioned we met with the LDS Temple for their pre-construction meeting last Thursday. Within a week and a half they will be mobilized and working on site. They have been working to finalize contracts with Wadman their General Contractor. They will have some Sr. Missionaries on site to help answer any questions for anyone that stops by. Commissioner Nichols asked if we have every talked about having a rec center in Payson. He would like to be able to have a center to go to in Payson. Planner Spencer explained that there have been a lot of discussion about a rec center but when it came down to it that there were so many recreation needs in the community. They felt the improvements to the Golf Course and the Swimming Pool better fit the needs of the community at the time. Planner Spencer explained the owner of the gym downtown came to those meetings and felt this is something that should only be done in the private sector. Commissioner Nichols stated he read in the minutes there will be a traffic light by the Huish and has seen a concrete piling and wonders if this is for the signal. Planner Spencer explained the concrete pedestal is for a street light. The intersection warrants the traffic light but they have not acquired the land for the poles yet. There are some concerns with this because it is a tight intersection and will eliminate parking on the street which will cause issues to the some of the businesses. Staff has a meeting with UDOT tomorrow to discuss the issue. Commissioner Nichols asked if there is anything we can do to eliminate drug us in the community. Planner Spencer explained that one of the new things that the City Council did recently was to join forces with Utah County to create Communities That Care Program. Kim Lefler has a network with other communities, the school district and other people trying to find ways at the school level to break this cycle. This new program is working well. Commissioner Nichols heard near the tunnel under the highway there have been drug deals going on. She said she would forward those concerns on and ask if there is something he could do to help. Planner Spencer mentioned in regards to the next meeting she heard from five of the Commissioners would be here to the next Planning Commission Meeting. There will be a two lot subdivision on the property of Maddi Rocks, the Chinese Restaurant and Pacific Horizon. The owner would like subdivide a small portion on the south end to construct a standalone commercial building. She has received one concern from the neighborhood with some of the impacts they have with the existing commercial building. She hopes to work through those issues. Commissioner Van Nosdol asked is there anyone going to the UTA meeting on the 10 th. Planner Spencer said she is not sure; it is in the middle of the day so it is hard to go. She will ask if there is any staff going. ADJOURNMENT Motion by Commissioner Cannon to adjourn at 9:00 pm. Meeting adjourned at 9:00 p.m. Page 7