TOOELE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES April 13, 2011

Transcription

1 TOOELE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES April 13, 2011 Place: Tooele City Hall Council Chambers 90 North Main Street, Tooele Utah Commission Members Present: John Curwen, Chair Fran Garcia Ken Spence Phil Montano Chris Sloan Melanie Hammer Steve Dale Commission Members Excused: Bob Gowans Matt Robison City Employees Present: Rachelle Custer, City Planner Roger Baker, City Attorney Paul Hansen, City Engineer Cary Campbell, Public Works Director Others Present: Tim Gillie, Tooele Transcript Minutes prepared by Elisa Jenkins Chairman Curwen called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. 1. Pledge of Allegiance The Pledge of Allegiance was led by Commissioner Garcia. Agenda Item 4 was discussed first. 2. Public Hearing and Recommendation on Ordinance enacting Tooele City code section regarding apiaries. Presented by Rachelle Custer Ms. Custer explained that she has had requests from several residents in Tooele City requesting apiaries, some citizens already have apiaries not knowing that today s code does not allow them. The City would like to make them legal. They are presenting the Page 1 of 14

2 code to allow that any residential lot over an HDR zone may have apiaries on their lot. They are requiring some safety guidelines and are also requiring them to have a sufficient water source. Bees usually leave their apiaries to look for water so if there is sufficient water around the area they usually do not leave. They are requesting that they are allowed to have two colonies on any parcel of land in Tooele City that is less than one acre. More colonies may be allowed as the lot size increases. Commissioner Garcia asked if apiaries can be in any residential area? Ms. Custer said anything that is not zoned HDR. She said that bees are very important; they help with the alfalfa fields and many other things. Commissioner Garcia worried about people that are allergic to bees and some homes are very close together. Commissioner Sloan noted that the density changed and asked what the basis was for that and what the determination was for the fly away? Ms. Custer stated that it was taken from other ordinances from other cities that are enacted today and working. She spoke with a planner in a city in Colorado. Chief Kirby also helped with this ordinance he has a lot of knowledge about bees. The residents also helped provide her with information. The city in Colorado said that they enacted the flyaway to help the people that are afraid of the bees to feel more secure. Some citizens in Tooele actually requested to have more than what was proposed, which is why they changed the density. Staff and administration discussed this and did not find any detrimental affects to increase the density. Chairman Curwen stated that this is a public hearing if anyone from the audience would like to come forward and address the Commission on this issue. No one came forward. Commissioner Dale moved to close the public hearing. Commissioner Montano seconded the motion. All present voted Aye. The public hearing closed at 7:11 p.m. Chairman Curwen asked if apiaries are in big demand? Ms. Custer stated that there are a couple dozen. Commissioner Garcia asked how many homes in Tooele City have apiaries? Ms. Custer said she is not sure, she estimates about a dozen. Commissioner Dale asked what the smallest size lot is that may have apiaries. Ms. Custer said that it would be an R1-7. She said there may be smaller lots but she does not know. Page 2 of 14

3 Commissioner Hammer asked if this would affect any citizens right now that she is aware of. Ms. Custer said that it is possible; there could be some with more hives than are allowed. She does know of someone on the outskirts of town that have apiaries on his land that other farmers pay him to keep to help with the alfalfa. He has up to 20 and he has two acres. Commissioner Dale asked why the code was set that there were no lots under an HDR zone. Ms. Custer said that she was worried about apartment complexes with common ground having apiaries. Commissioner Dale asked what the city s smallest single family lot is? Ms. Custer said it is 7,000 square feet. Commissioner Dale had a concern that he doesn t want to be over restrictive to those who have apiaries but he doesn t feel that apiaries would be good on smaller lots. Ms. Custer indicated that the Planning Commission could recommend a minimum lot size be required. Commissioner Dale asked how many homes currently have apiaries in a R1-7 zone. Ms. Custer does not know. They have to be registered with the Utah Department of Agriculture to keep bees, she could possibly find out that way. Commissioner Montano asked if 5 ft is a standard setback. Ms. Custer said yes. Generally there is a 5 ft easement of property lines that would not allow a structure. Commissioner Montano said you would probably be 10 ft away. Commissioner Dale noted that they have been talking about a gentle strain of honey bees. There are worries of invasions of less friendly bees intermingling with friendly beehives and asked if that is a concern. Commissioner Hammer noted that is addressed under (7) regarding Queens. Ms. Custer said that the African honey bee will not survive our winter. Commissioner Dale moved to make a positive recommendation to the City Council on Ordinance , with the recommendation of having a minimum allowable lot Page 3 of 14

4 size of 7,000 ft. Commissioner Garcia seconded the motion. All members present voted Aye. 3. Public Hearing and Recommendation on Maverick subdivision a 3 lot subdivision to be located at 2000 N Hwy 36. Presented by Rachelle Custer Ms. Custer explained that Maverick would like to subdivide the lot they are situated on into three lots for future development. They intend to sell two lots. The store will remain on lot 1 with lot 2 and 3 for future development. The plat includes a shared access from 2000 North for lots 1 and 2. Access to lot 3 will have access from Aaron Drive. Included is a resolution that will be recorded with the subdivision plat. This resolution includes the history of the subdivision request pertaining to the Overlake development. Commissioner Montano noted that between lot 1 and 2 they have 62 feet of shared access. Ms. Custer stated that each lot can have a 30 ft access. When they come in with a site plan they will look at the development of the site and the access. The access easement is 62 ft not necessarily the curb cut. Commissioner Montano asked if both lots will share that. Ms. Custer said yes. Commissioner Dale noted that lot 2 has its own access and access but lot 3 has an easement across it. Ms. Custer noted that there is an easement in the back of Cottage Glen for fire access. Commissioner Dale asked if there is a proposal for someone to develop these lots? Ms. Custer said there is no development proposal at this time. Commissioner Dale noted that Lot 2 is viable, but Lot 3 is cut up by the access easement and the fire easement and asked if they are creating a lot that is not developable for anything? Commissioner Spence noted that the lot is.7 acres which includes the easements. Mr. Baker said that the lot is bigger than it looks and they still have a ½ acre development pad. Commissioner Montano said they are taking 24 ft of the south end of the lot which still leaves them 76 ft. Page 4 of 14

5 Commissioner Dale noted that the area of unencumbered easements is 208 ft by 84 ft. Chairman Curwen stated that this is a public hearing if anyone would like to come forward and address the Commission on this issue. Todd Meyers, with Maverick Inc. 880 Center Street in North Salt Lake addressed the Commission. Mr. Meyers stated that this property is larger than what they need for their store. They want to subdivide the lot. They decided to divide into three lots because it would give them the greatest flexibility. It could be one or two developers. He understands that the south lot does have limited access and if it doesn t sell they would keep it. Commissioner Montano moved to close the public hearing. Commissioner Garcia seconded the motion. All members present voted Aye. The public hearing closed at 7:25 p.m. Commissioner Spence moved to make a positive recommendation to the City Council on Maverick subdivision a 3 lot subdivision to be located at 2000 N Hwy 36. Commissioner Hammer seconded the motion. All members present voted Aye 4. Public Hearing and Motion on conditional use permit for a car wash and a drive thru coffee shop to be located at approximately 2400 N 400 E. Presented by Rachelle Custer Ms. Custer stated that the Pit Stop car wash is requesting a conditional use permit to construct a coffee shop with a drive thru window at 2400 N 400 E. The property is located in an LI zone. The car wash is permitted in an LI zone. The accessory drive thru facility for the coffee shop requires a conditional use permit. The developer will have to run all necessary utilities and complete the public improvements prior to beginning construction of the buildings. Staff recommends approval of the conditional use permit with the condition that there will be one access onto 400 East for the lot; to serve the car wash and the coffee shop. Commissioner Dale asked how far from 2400 N this will be located? Ms. Custer stated that it will be immediately south of the North Pointe Medical lot. There is some space left on the south of building three and it will be immediately southwest of that on the same side of the road. Commissioner Spence asked if this was the same business that was proposed at a different location. Ms. Custer said yes, it was originally to be by the Zion s bank. Page 5 of 14

6 Commissioner Dale asked if it is proposed to have a connection to the North Point property to the north? Ms. Custer said not at this time. Chairman Curwen stated that this is a public hearing if anyone from the audience would like to come forward and address the Commission. No one came forward. Commissioner Sloan asked if lighting is a concern? Ms. Custer stated that lighting was installed by the developer when the road was completed. Commissioner Dale asked what type of car wash it will be? Ms. Custer stated that it is a self serve tunnel car wash. Commissioner Garcia asked if a car wash is allowed in this area. Ms. Custer said yes. Commissioner Dale moved to close the public hearing. Commissioner Garcia seconded the motion. All present voted Aye. The public hearing closed at 7:36 p.m. Commissioner Spence moved to approve a conditional use permit for a car wash and a drive thru coffee shop to be located at approximately 2400 N 400 E. Commissioner Garcia seconded the motion. All members present voted Aye. 5. Motion parking requirement for 1983 Berra Blvd. Presented by Rachelle Custer Ms. Custer explained that this building was originally constructed as Jacks Market in the Overlake development. The Tooele Associates office is on the second floor. The main level floor has Arkos Bakery and JusTeeZn salon. Tooele City code does not have parking requirements for personal services which is the definition that the hair salon falls in. In previous personal services the city has asked for 3 parking spaces per station. Tooele City Code states that the engineer can make any parking determinations on any use that is not within the code. This business is in a P zone. Ms. Custer has included with the Commissioners packets requirements for the P zone, which also does not have any parking requirements for this particular use. Today they have 8 parking stalls and one handicap stall that are paved and large gravel area that is for future parking. Because they don t have any definite guidelines for the personal service parking there is a requirement in the code that any parking service that is not asphalt or concrete shall be approved by the Planning Commission. The owner is requesting to use the gravel area for staff parking and the paved areas for clients. She noted this morning that there were Page 6 of 14

7 three cars in the paved area and six in the gravel. This is being brought before the Planning Commission to make a decision as to whether the gravel parking lot is sufficient. Mr. Hansen confirmed that there are a total of 9 parking stalls including the handicap stall. Commissioner Dale asked if there is a staff recommendation. Ms. Custer indicated that it is up to the Planning Commission. Chairman Curwen verified that staff is asking the Planning Commission to decide if the gravel parking is sufficient to be used toward the required parking. Ms. Custer said yes. Mr. Baker said that staff s best interpretation of the code would require more parking stalls depending on the number of service chairs in the salon. They require three parking stalls per chair. The staff s recommendation would be based on the number of chairs currently in the salon which would require 3 additional paved stalls. He noted that although other surfaces are acceptable the city code requires a dustless surface. Ms. Custer said that as of today there are two style chairs and a nail technician in the salon which would add an additional three parking stalls to what is in the staff report for a total of six additional spaces. Commissioner Garcia said that she feels required parking should be paved. Commissioner Montano said there are a variety of applications that can be used to make the parking lot dustless. The chemical is usually sprayed on the road to keep the dust down. He is not sure how many times a year it has to be applied. Commissioner Dale commented that it is unusual to have sites developed but not be finished and asked if there is a plan to finish the parking and have it landscaped. Drew Hall, 1983 N Berra Blvd, addressed the Commission. Mr. Hall stated that he has been at this location for a long time and the gravel does not have any dust. He has a chemical company coming to spray the golf course road for dust and said he could have the gravel parking lot done as well. Commissioner Spence asked what the chemical is that will be used? Mr. Hall stated that it used to be called mag chloride. However there is a new product that is better and longer lasting. The County wants it used on their roads. He said that their employees park on the gravel and there is no dust. Page 7 of 14

8 Commissioner Spence asked Mr. Hall what the County s suggestion was on how often to apply the product. Mr. Hall said once a year. Commissioner Dale asked if this product has been used in the past on the golf course road in Overlake? Mr. Hall said that the mag chloride has been used on the golf course road. He said that there is not a dust problem because cars pull up and park they are not driving fast on this lot. He would be willing to spray the gravel for dust. Commissioner Montano said he believes the new product is called Calcium Chloride for dust control. Commissioner Garcia feels that if the gravel parking is used for employees it is fine but if it is used for customers it should be paved. She indicated that it is a safety issue. Mr. Hall said that actually gravel is better to walk on in the winter than concrete or asphalt because they can become icy in the winter. Commissioner Dale asked if there a plan to finish it off this future parking area so that it looks finished? Mr. Hall said that the plan is to finish it if the customer demand required it. They would do it if they needed it. He noted that there is grass around the building. Commissioner Hammer said that the gravel area is for parking, but in looking at the picture on the screen there is a truck parked in the dirt and a car parked on the grass. She stated that the parking area appears to be getting bigger. Mr. Hall said that he was allowing a snow plow truck to park there and he is not sure who the other vehicle belongs to. Commissioner Hammer stated that the parking should be designated so there are not vehicles parking on the dirt and on the grass. Mr. Hall indicated that the staff parks on the gravel. Commissioner Dale said that regardless of concrete, asphalt or gravel he felt like the parking area needs to be defined. Mr. Hall feels that it is not a problem. Commissioner Sloan asked Mr. Hall if it is not part of his plan to grow. Page 8 of 14

9 Mr. Hall said if he felt that if the tenants of the building were negatively impacted because of lack of parking, he would add more parking. He feels it is not necessary to add more parking stalls. He would be happy to spray the gravel for dust. Commissioner Dale asked that assuming this is fine would this approval be for this specific circumstance? He asked what the hours are for Arko bakery. Mr. Arko stated that bakery opens early and closes at 3:00 p.m. and then opens back up for dinner. Commissioner Dale said that because of the hours of operation there was not a lot of overlap between the two businesses and therefore was not a lot of parking demand. He asked if what is decided here at this meeting carries forward to future occupants of either place? Mr. Baker said that the original site plan approval does call for the gravel area to be future parking. As city staff they are wondering if the future is ever going to come. This parking question has come up repeatedly. It came up last month and the city found a way to work with Drew Hall s and Barb Knudson s interpretation of the parking code and not require any additional paved parking stalls for the 1 st salon chair, but now there is a second chair and a nail tech. Staff is tired of the question coming up but not seeing a resolution. If this is approved tonight it will be based on the facts before the Commission on the approval and a future change in the occupancy would affect the future parking. He would like to see the future parking issue taken care of so it is no longer future parking and is completed. Another possible approach would be for the owner to submit an amended site plan to resolve the issue. He doesn t know what the best long term resolution is. Commissioner Dale asked if this is based on the current occupancy? Mr. Baker said yes, it is based on the facts that the Commission has been presented with. Mr. Hall thought that there was not a staff recommendation and asked if Mr. Baker is considered the staff? Mr. Baker said there is a staff recommendation in the last paragraph of the staff report, and pointed out the recommendation for 3 additional paved parking stalls for each salon chair added. Mr. Hall realizes that as uses change they will have to get a business license and this will come back before the city. Chairman Curwen noted that this is not a public hearing. Page 9 of 14

10 Mr. Baker said that they traditionally allow the applicants; property owners, tenants, and those that are affected to speak but not open it to a public hearing for everyone to speak. The Chairman can use his discretion. Chairman Curwen asked if any of the tenants would like to address the Commission. Dave Arko, 1981 Berra Blvd, addressed the Commission. Mr. Arko stated that he owns the bakery. He feels that the gravel surface is fine and there is no dust problem. He is going to try to keep this bakery open and wants the property looking nice and beautiful. If parking becomes an issue he would do everything he could to have more parking installed. Barb Knudsen, 1979 Berra Blvd, addressed the Commission she owns the salon in this building. The salon she worked for before had a problem with parking especially in the downtown area. She said that here clients have commented how nice the parking is in this building. She has a petition signed by people that say there is no problem with parking and noted that a lot of people walk over to this building. A copy of the petition is included with the minutes as Exhibit A. Chairman Curwen asked what type of business was there before Ms. Knudsen s salon. Ms. Custer stated that it was also a salon. Chairman Curwen asked how many chairs were at the other salon? Ms. Custer stated that they only had one business license. Chairman Curwen asked if there was a problem with the parking before. Ms. Knudsen also noted that just because there is more than one chair doesn t mean there are people there all the time. There is a constant rotation. Commissioner Sloan asked why she would not want to see paved parking to make it look nicer. Ms. Knudsen said that they feel gravel is nicer in the winter. Commissioner Garcia said that if they allow required parking to be gravel all the parking in Tooele City would be gravel. She feels if the gravel is for employees it is fine but if it is for customers it needs to be paved. Commissioner Dale would like to see the perimeter of the parking area defined and what is not to be parking look nice and landscaped. The parking area seems to keep growing when vehicles park in the dirt and other places. Page 10 of 14

11 Commissioner Montano said that Tooele City Code does not have parking requirements for personal services. This creates a gray area when other businesses come in and want the same thing. He also says that the parking stalls are not a standard size. Commissioner Spence said that the design standard for a parking stall is 20 ft x 9 ft. Commissioner Montano stated that he doesn t have a problem if employees park on the gravel, but he also feels that the parking needs to be defined so it doesn t grow or shrink. He feels that the parking should be defined by the City it is such a gray area. Mr. Baker wanted to clarify that the fact that code does not specify a parking requirement for a hairstylist it does not mean that parking is not required at all. A bakery is not in the code either. Ms. Custer worked with Mr. Hall on classifying the bakery as a retail establishment as to which there are very specific guidelines on a certain number of parking stalls. It is not that the code does not require parking at all it is the code has specific guidance on how many. They have to look to other examples in the code to make the best estimation that they can based on floor area or the number of people that will visit the business and how many people it takes to run the business. Chairman Curwen stated that the Commission would like the parking lot to be defined and asked if they are allowed to require how it should be defined. Mr. Hall said he could place a white fence around the parking area. Mr. Baker said he doesn t generally encourage an active negotiation between the Planning Commission and the property owner, but if a member of the Commission wishes to make a proposal and receive the property owner s reaction, it is their prerogative to do so. Commissioner Hammer said that the white fence that is there now is not maintained. Mr. Hall was referring to the fencing as you come down 2000 North. Mr. Baker said the Planning Commission is here to make a recommendation on the parking surface. Commissioner Dale made a motion to require an amended site plan so the future parking area may be defined including landscaping. After the amended site plan Planning Commission could make a determination as to what the surface would be. Mr. Baker said they have a current site plan that does currently delineate the parking area it just says that some of it is future parking. Commissioner Dale would like the perimeter of the future parking with a landscaped plan defined. Page 11 of 14

12 Mr. Baker said the parking is delineated now. It is a question that if the businesses that are currently occupying the building trigger the need for more paved parking or if the Commission is satisfied with the surface that is there now. Mr. Baker said that he is not looking for an amended site plan tonight. That goes beyond the scope of the matter before them. They are looking for a decision from the Planning Commission if additional parking stalls are required and what the surface would be. Commissioner Dale asked if the Planning Commission requires additional parking stalls to be paved does that mean they put down asphalt or does it mean they put down asphalt and have it landscaped and curbed off to make it look nice? Mr. Baker said they would require striping. Commissioner Spence asked if the current site plan indicates curb and gutter. Mr. Baker said that the site plan does not identify precisely the number of stalls and exactly where the lines are it just identifies it as future parking. Commissioner Montano said that they need to decide if they are o.k to continue the way they are now or if they need more parking stalls. Mr. Baker stated that the ordinance says that the Planning Commission must approve any surface that is not in the code. The question is whether they need to pave the gravel and how many more parking stalls they need. Commissioner Dale stated that since there is a site plan that delineates the landscaping and curbing he asked what the trigger is to complete that site plan as previously approved. Mr. Baker said the site plan isn t as specific as they would like and the minutes are not as specific either. Chairman Curwen said that tonight they need to decide if they will allow gravel or if they need to do additional asphalt parking. Commissioner Spence asked if the site plan shows all of the area with gravel as future parking. Ms. Custer showed on the overhead where the future parking is proposed. Commissioner Dale asked if it is specific with landscaping. Mr. Hall showed the area of the future parking on the overhead screen; it is where the gravel is. Page 12 of 14

13 Commissioner Dale asked if portion on the northwest is part of the same parcel and is part of Jack s Market? Mr. Hall said there is a boundary but he is not exactly sure where it is. He indicated that where the gravel is now is where the future parking will be. Ms. Custer reminded the Commission that in the staff report it recommends 3 stalls but from what they have learned they need six additional stalls because of the extra chair at the salon. Commissioner Sloan made a motion that the Planning Commission requires the future parking area be paved similar to what is currently there and have it clearly delineated. Commissioner Garcia seconded the motion. Commissioner Montano verified that the motion says he needs to add six more parking stalls? Commissioner Sloan said that his motion is that he finishes the future parking lot, with no less than six stalls. Commissioner Montano said the motion needs to be defined so there is no confusion. Commissioner Sloan said that it is what is on the site plan. Mr. Hall noted that the requirement was for six more stalls and wanted to verify that he does not need to pave the whole parking lot. It does not make sense to him to pave the whole parking lot. Mr. Baker retrieved a large copy of the site plan from his office and showed it to the Commission. Chairman Curwen stated that there is a motion to pave the whole future parking lot. Commissioner Sloan amended the motion to require an additional six stalls to be paved. Commissioner Sloan noted that the site plan does call for future parking all the way around and exit to 2000 N. He asked Mr. Hall if he anticipates that. Mr. Hall said that when it was designed there was anticipation there would need to be additional development in Overlake. The future didn t happen and therefore it doesn t make sense to pave the whole lot. Commissioner Dale suggests whatever is determined the parking lot needs to be delineated. Page 13 of 14

14 Commissioner Montano wanted to clarify the motion. He stated that they need six more parking stalls which would be 1,080 ft that he is required to pave. He also noted that you need 27 ft x 20 ft to turn it, which is another 540 sq ft. They are asking them to pave 1,620 sq ft next to the current parking lot which will give them an additional six parking stalls. He feels that the gravel is fine. He noted that these are in tough times and they are impacting people greatly. Commissioner Sloan said that it is not his intention to put a hardship on anyone. Chairman Curwen stated that the city would determine the size of the parking stalls and what space is needed for the six stalls. Chairman Curwen asked Commissioner Sloan to repeat his motion. Commissioner Sloan repeated his motion to require six additional paved parking stalls consistent to what is already there at 1983 N Berra Blvd. Commissioner Garcia seconded the motion. The vote was as follows: John Curwen, Aye Fran Garcia, Aye Ken Spence, Aye Phil Montano, Nay Chris Sloan, Aye Melanie Hammer, Aye Steve Dale, Aye Commissioner Montano feels that they are impacting this business to much. He feels what is there is fine. 6. Review and Approval of Planning Commission minutes for meeting held March 23, Commissioner Sloan moved to approve the Planning Commission minutes for February 9, 2011 as presented. Commissioner Spence seconded the motion. All members present voted Aye. 7. Adjourn Commissioner Dale moved to adjourn the meeting. Commissioner Montano seconded the motion. All members present voted Aye. The meeting adjourned at 8:24 p.m. Approved this 27 th day of April 2011 Chairman John Curwen Page 14 of 14