1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
NORTH OGDEN PLANNING COMMISSION
MEETING MINUTES
March 2, 2011
The North Ogden Planning Commission convened in a regular meeting on March 2, 2011 at 6:02
pm in the North Ogden City Municipal Building, 505 E. 2600 N. North Ogden, Utah. Notice of
time, place and agenda of the meeting was furnished to each member of the Planning
Commission, posted on the bulletin board at the municipal office and posted to the Utah State
Website on February 25, 2011. Notice of the annual meeting schedule was published in the
Standard-Examiner on January 1, 2011.
COMMISSIONERS:
David Hulme
Jon Bingham
Joan Brown
Steve Quinney
Ken Kiser
Chairman
Commissioner
Commissioner
Commissioner
Commissioner
EXCUSED
Allan Dalpias
Commissioner
STAFF:
Craig Barker
Jennifer Thomas
Gary Kerr
Community Development Director
Planning Technician
Building Official
VISITORS:
Mary Jones
Charles Crippen
Kent Greenwood
Dan Lee
Gwen Lee
Dale Swenson
REGULAR MEETING
Commissioner Hulme called the regular meeting to order at 6:00 pm. Commissioner Bingham
offered the invocation and led the audience in the Pledge of Allegiance.
3.
CONSIDERATION AND APPROVAL OF A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO
OPERATE A SMALL REPAIR AND TOOLING SHOP OUT OF A RESIDENTIAL
GARAGE AS A HOME OCCUPATION AT 2288 N. FRUITLAND DRIVE.
Planning Commission March 2, 2011
Page 1
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
Mr. Barker explained the property is on the corner of Fruitland Drive and the Fish Farm. Mr.
Barker said the property is zoned residential RE-20 and it does allow for home occupations. He
explained that home occupations conducted in a garage has to have a Conditional Use Permit.
Mr. Barker explained that the business owners have been running this business for a number of
years out of their garage. Mr. Barker said the applicant was told years ago she didn’t need a
business license. He said City staff has informed the applicant a number of times she needed to
get a business license. Mr. Barker stated the City has not received any complaints and they have
notified surrounding property owners. Mr. Barker said it isn’t clear what the application does and
he suggested the Planning Commission quiz the applicant to determine if there are any effects on
the neighborhood or the environment. He said this has the potential to be controversial and he
recommends the Planning Commission set a date for a public hearing.
Mr. Barker said they have informed people of this Conditional Use Permit application and they
will see some familiar people here tonight. He said staff has provided the Commission with a
copy of the email from Mr. Crippen (attached). He said they need to be aware the argument Mr.
Crippen gives is the same that he and Mr. Greenwood sent to the City’s Mayor. He said their
opinion is that the City is operating the conditional use regulations and the uses of residential
garages wrongly. Mr. Barker stated the City Attorney said their opinion is not correct and what
the City is doing is correct. Mr. Barker said the Planning Commission needs to be aware of that
and understand they are not there to argue the use of garages. Mr. Barker said the City Attorney
feels that if the individuals are not directly affected they have no standing in this argument.
Mr. Barker stated the Planning Commission may decide they want to hear from individuals and
they can quiz the applicant about their business. He said he suggests they hold a public hearing.
He said if that is the case there is no need for them to take public comments at this time.
Commissioner Bingham asked if there is a definition for what constitute a home occupation. Mr.
Barker replied yes. Mr. Barker said he would read it for them. Mr. Barker read Chapter 16 of the
North Ogden Zoning Ordinance (on file).
Commissioner Brown said that in the packet she is confused there is a North Ogden City
Corporation application for a Home Occupation. She said the year isn’t there, but she can tell by
the addresses and the signature on the bottom it is old. She asked if she came in and applied
some years ago for a home occupation; Mr. Barker interrupted stating that to his knowledge he
doesn’t think she applied and said the date may be wrong. Commissioner Brown replied that the
date is whited out. Mr. Barker said he cannot answer that, they are just aware that this submitted
within the last couple of weeks.
Commissioner Brown said one reference listed on her business license is Gary Harrop and the
applicant listed his Fruitland Drive address. Commissioner Browns stated that he hasn’t lived
there for quite some time. She said if she came in and made an application for a home occupation
they should have been made aware of this quite some time ago. Mr. Barker replied that she is
referring to a business application not a Conditional Use Permit. Mr. Barker said the applicant is
at the meeting and they can ask her.
Planning Commission March 2, 2011
Page 2
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
120
121
122
123
124
125
126
127
128
129
130
131
132
133
134
135
136
137
138
Commission Brown said staff is saying that she has been practicing her business in her garage
for many years and the applicant indicated that she was told she didn’t need a license.
Commissioner Brown said she was confused and she does realize one is a Conditional Use
Permit and the other is a Home Occupation License, but there is a big difference in the years on
the papers.
Commissioner Hulme said they would like to hear from the applicant. Mr. Barker said there is no
reason for the Planning Commission to take any public comments if they are going to holding a
public hearing.
Mary Jones, 2288 North Fruitland Drive, she said they are the applicants. Commissioner Brown
asked about the application for a home occupation. Mrs. Jones said she was contacted by the City
and informed that they needed to apply for a Home Occupation License. Mrs. Jones said her
husband became ill and they were not sure if they were going to continue their business. She said
her husband had back surgery and is doing much better, so they decided to go forth with the
business. Mrs. Jones said their business is very small and they only have about two or three jobs
a month.
Commissioner Bingham asked what exactly they do. Mrs. Jones said her husband is the one who
runs it and could explain it better, but he isn’t there tonight. She said it is a machine shop. She
said he makes shafts, fixes shafts. She said they fix a lot of things for the neighbors. She said
they do a lot of work for their neighbors like the Trout Farm; they fix tractors and things like
that.
Commissioner Brown asked if their work requires metal sanding. Mrs. Jones said they lathe the
metal. Commissioner Brown asked if they are using a mill. Mrs. Jones replied yes. Mrs. Jones
said they take safety precautions. She said there is no plumbing in there. She said there usually
isn’t oil, but if there is they dispose of it properly. Commissioner Brown asked if there are any
solvents. Mrs. Jones replied no, they just use the tooling oil.
Commissioner Kiser asked if it is more of a hobby and it isn’t their livelihood. Mrs. Jones
replied no, she is a teacher and her husband works at Cornerstone. Commissioner Kiser asked if
it is just part-time after-hours type of a business. Mrs. Jones said her husband doesn’t do it fulltime and never has. Commissioner Kiser asked if they depend on the income from the business.
Mrs. Jones said they have not shown a profit for more than $2,000 annually since they have
begun this business. She said they usually do work for Johnson’s Electric and that is their major
customer. Commissioner Kiser asked if there is any painting or the use of chemicals.
Commissioner Bingham asked if there is much noise from the machinery. She said her husband
may turn the radio may be too loud in the summer. Commissioner Kiser asked the difference
between a home occupation and a hobby; is there any way to distinguish that. Mr. Barker replied
if there is any deriving income then it is no longer a hobby and is considered a home occupation.
Commissioner Kiser asks if they report the income on their taxes. Mrs. Jones replied yes and
explained that because it is registered as a business they have an accountant that does their taxes.
She explained the income pays for the electricity, parts, and sometimes the phone bill.
Planning Commission March 2, 2011
Page 3
139
140
141
142
143
144
145
146
147
148
149
150
151
152
153
154
155
156
157
158
159
160
161
162
163
164
165
166
167
168
169
170
171
172
173
174
175
176
177
178
179
180
181
182
183
184
185
Commissioner Quinney asked if they were not aware they needed any permit or licensing. Mrs.
Jones replied that when they registered with the State and came to the City, she was told by an
employee that their business would not fit the zoning and to take the application back. They
could just do it because the business is small. She said they have tried to do everything legally.
Commissioner Quinney asked what made them come in now for an application. Mrs. Jones
replied that the City called to inform them they needed to get licensed. She said they want to be
legal.
Commissioner Hulme asked if there were other questions. Commissioner Bingham asked Gary
Kerr, Building Official, if he has visited this site. Mr. Kerr replied no, but Brandon Boydston, the
Building Inspector, has been taking care of this. Commissioner Bingham asked if anyone from
the City has inspected it for compliance with the home occupation requirements. Mr. Kerr
replied no, the Conditional Use Permit must be approved first before they do any inspections.
Commissioner Bingham said he just wonders if there have been any evaluations of noise, odor,
or anything like that. Mr. Kerr said if it the Conditional Use Permit is approved then they will
inspect.
Commissioner Hulme asked the Commission what they want to do. Commissioner Brown asked
if there have been any complaints. Mr. Barker said he hasn’t received any from the neighbors.
Commissioner Hulme said the email from Mr. Crippen is a complaint. Commissioner Bingham
said the only thing causing it to be controversial is the fact that the City has had similar home
occupations that have been approved in the past few months. With that in mind he agrees with
Mr. Barker that they ought to schedule a public hearing. Commissioner Kiser agreed.
Commissioner Hulme asked how soon they can schedule that. Mr. Barker replied that they can
do it at their next meeting.
Commissioner Bingham made a motion to schedule a Public Hearing on March 16, 2011
for the application of a Conditional Use Permit to operate a small repair and tooling shop
out of a residential garage as a home occupation located at 2288 N. Fruitland Drive.
Commissioner Kiser seconded.
Voting on the motion:
Ken Kiser
Steve Quinney
Joan Brown
Jon Bingham
Dave Hulme
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
Motion passed.
4.
CONSIDERATION AND APPROVAL OF AN AMENDMENT TO THE FINAL
DEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR THE NORTH OGDEN COVE PLANNED
RESIDENTIAL UNIT DEVELOPMENT.
Planning Commission March 2, 2011
Page 4
186
187
188
189
190
191
192
193
194
195
196
197
198
199
200
201
202
203
204
205
206
207
208
209
210
211
212
213
214
215
216
217
218
219
220
221
222
223
224
225
226
227
228
229
230
231
232
233
Mr. Barker said item four has been pulled from the agenda because there is an issue with
ownership that hasn’t been resolved at this point. Mr. Barker explained that the bank establishes
a time period for the potential owner to do their research on whether they want to continue with
their purchase. Mr. Barker explained that because this is a PRUD the applicants must approach
the City if they want to make any amendments to the plan. Whenever there is a change they have
to send out proper notification to meet all the legal requirements. He said if everything went
through as planned they would have been the owners at this time, but it didn’t happen that way.
He said staff tries the best they can to give adequate notice but they were informed Tuesday the
1st of March, 2011 that this item would have to be pulled and there wasn’t enough time to send
out any notification.
Commissioner Bingham said Mr. Barker may want to pass on some information to the applicant.
If they make the same application in the future, he would be inclined to not vote for approval. He
said he feels that the application is not complete enough. He said if they are looking at an
amendment to the landscaping plan they need to have a much more detailed plan than what they
have submitted. Mr. Barker advised Commissioner Bingham to refrain from any of that
discussion during this meeting because the applicants have no jurisdiction. Commissioner
Bingham said that information is for Mr. Barker to pass on to the applicants. Mr. Barker said
they have no idea what will transpire or who the owners will be at this time. He added that he did
advice the applicants to provide more detail in their landscape plan.
Voting on the motion:
Steve Quinney
Joan Brown
Jon Bingham
Dave Hulme
Allan Dalpias
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
Motion passed.
5.
CONSIDERATION AND APPROVAL OF RULES AND PROCEDURES FOR THE
PLANNING COMMISSION.
Mr. Barker said the Rules and Procedures the City Attorney drafted for the Planning
Commission mirrors the ones the City Council adopted. Mr. Barker said they do have some
comments from Mr. Crippen regarding the Rules and Procedures. He asked if the Planning
Commission wants to go through all of the items together. He said the City Attorney expects the
Planning Commission to go over the draft and provide feedback so he can make those changes
by the next meeting.
Commissioner Hulme said he has read through the Rules and Procedures and would rather not
read it again tonight. He asked the Commission if everyone is prepared to have a discussion or
do they need time to read Mr. Crippen’s email.
Commissioner Kiser said he has read through it and doesn’t have any concerns or issues. He said
he doesn’t think they would follow all the rules in every situation and asked if that would be a
Planning Commission March 2, 2011
Page 5
234
235
236
237
238
239
240
241
242
243
244
245
246
247
248
249
250
251
252
253
254
255
256
257
258
259
260
261
262
263
264
265
266
267
268
269
270
271
272
273
274
275
276
277
278
279
big deal. Mr. Barker said they didn’t have any to follow in the first place, but now they do it will
be incumbent on the Chair and Vice-Chair to follow and ensure all Members are following them
as closely as possible.
Commissioner Quinney said since the Commission is not ready to address the issues, at this time
Mr. Crippen input is not welcome. Mr. Barker said he is a citizen of the City and he thinks they
should read through his comments and relate it to the items that he points out. Mr. Barker said he
has read through his comments and thinks there are some issues with what he is requesting on
the public notices and publishing those. Mr. Barker explained that what they have before them is
what State law requires. Mr. Barker gave the example of how the Chair can call a “Special
Meeting” with 24 hour notice. He said Mr. Crippen doesn’t like that, but that is what the State
law requires.
Commissioner Quinney said he is not saying Mr. Crippen should not have opposition, but this is
not the right time for it. He said they need to do what they need to do as a Commission and this
is their responsibility.
Commissioner Bingham said they have had a chance to look through the rules, but he hasn’t had
a chance to look through Mr. Crippen’s suggestions in relationship to those rules. Commissioner
Bingham said he didn’t see any problems with the rules, but he hasn’t compared his take on it
with Mr. Crippen’s suggestions.
Commissioner Quinney said his problem is that some of his input is his opinion and some of it
needs to address by legal counsel. Mr. Barker said the City Attorney will be present at the next
meeting. Commissioner Bingham said he suggests they table it until the next meeting to allow
the City Attorney time to look through Mr. Crippen’s suggestions and see if any of those are
valid considerations. Mr. Barker stated the City Attorney has already looked over Mr. Crippen’s
email.
Commissioner Bingham said he would invite anyone else who wants to make a comment on the
Rules and Procedures to make their comments known. Commissioner Quinney said right now all
they have is a draft so it’s not a completed article and not ready to be criticized. Commissioner
Bingham disagreed. He said it is a draft and they should take a look at some of the suggestions
before they come up with a final one.
Commissioner Quinney said they need to let the Commission do their job first and then they can
take all the criticism afterwards. He said his point is that they shouldn’t rely on someone’s
opinion that is not even part of the Commission.
Commissioner Brown said she has some questions. Mr. Barker said he can try to address her
questions, but she may need to wait for the City Attorney. Commissioner Brown said the agenda
always states the meeting is at the Municipal Building, but on the Rules and Procedures it states
the meeting is at the City Hall and she said she thinks it should match.
Commissioner Brown said it indicated that there can be electronic participation. She asked if
they are going to do this because it would be nice. She added that some of them have to be out of
Planning Commission March 2, 2011
Page 6
280
281
282
283
284
285
286
287
288
289
290
291
292
293
294
295
296
297
298
299
300
301
302
303
304
305
306
307
308
309
310
311
312
313
314
315
316
317
318
319
320
321
322
323
324
325
town. It indicated there can be electronic participation. Commissioner Hulme said he likes that
these rules puts them in line with the City Council. Commissioner Brown said she thinks the
electronic participation is a great idea.
Mr. Barker said there may be issues that would prohibit electronic participation. He said one
example would be if information is presented to them at the meeting that the person participating
electronically would not be able to review. He suggests the Commission discuss that further.
Commissioner Brown said the Rules and Procedures were really enlightening. She said she
didn’t realize that prior to the tally of the vote you can change your mind. She said she spent
quite a bit of time going over it and felt a good job was done. Commissioner Hulme said he has
never seen that happen, but where they have to select a particular order to vote, it gives the
person selected first a chance to change their vote.
Commissioner Brown said it talks about how soon the recorded minutes need to be made
available, but it does not specify anything about the printed minutes that the Commission
receives. Mr. Barker said he isn’t aware of any requirement made by State law. He said the issue
they need to consider is the capabilities of staff when they have two meetings a month. He said
our attempt is to get the minutes out on the Wednesday, Thursday, or Friday prior to the meeting.
He said they try to get them out prior to the weekend so they have that time plus Monday,
Tuesday, and Wednesday to review them before the meeting.
Commissioner Brown said she would like to read the minutes as close to the meeting as possible
because it refreshes her memory rather than not having them for a month. Commissioner
Quinney said they approve the minutes every other meeting. Commissioner Brown said they do
not have the minutes tonight. Mr. Barker said they usually do. He said sometimes because of the
length of the minutes or other reasons, the Commission may not always get them at the following
meeting. He said probably 80 or 90 percent of the time they do get them as close to the meeting
as possible. Commissioner Kiser said that is probably true. Commissioner Quinney said this is
the first time he remembers not having them.
Commissioner Hulme said page 8, line 4, it says “minutes to the A Planning Commission”. He
suggested taking out “A”. Commissioner Hulme asked if they Commission wants to table this
tonight so they have time to look over Mr. Crippen’s comments and have legal counsel look at
them.
Commissioner Kiser asked if they will need to go through it line-by-line. Commissioner Hulme
said he wants everyone to go through it and they will only address sections they have issues with.
Commissioner Brown said on page 14 it says the packets will be delivered to the Commission by
Thursday. She asked if that is a change. Commissioner Hulme said it is usually on Friday.
Commissioner Brown said she wants to know if it will be Thursday or Friday. She said she is not
trying to argue about it. The Rules need to reflect the way they are going to do it.
Commissioner Bingham suggested saying a certain number of days because if the day of the
Planning Commission changes they will not have to change the rules. Mr. Barker asked if they
want to have them three or four days prior. Commissioner Bingham suggested four days prior.
Planning Commission March 2, 2011
Page 7
326
327
328
329
330
331
332
333
334
335
336
337
338
339
340
341
342
343
344
345
346
347
348
349
350
351
352
353
354
355
356
357
358
359
360
361
362
363
364
365
366
367
368
369
370
371
372
373
Commissioner Brown said she would like to see the weekend included because she does a lot of
her research on the weekends. Commissioner Bingham said he is suggesting a certain number of
days just in case the day of the meeting changes. Commission Brown said she has no objection;
it just needs to state it.
Commissioner Quinney asked if the Planning Commission’s Rules and Procedures follow the
City Council’s Rules and Procedures. Mr. Barker said they are very similar. Commissioner Kiser
asked if there is a statewide standard. Mr. Barker replied there is not statewide standard; it only
allows cities to adopt standards.
Commissioner Hulme said he wonders if it states the packets are due Thursday because that is
when City Council packets are due. Commissioner Brown said she just thinks it should be stated.
Mr. Barker said because of workloads the Rules need to stick with having the packets due on
Friday. Commissioner Quinney asked how long the City Council has had these types of rules.
Mr. Barker said he really doesn’t know. Commissioner Hulme said these rules are very critical
because of the questions that have come up. Mr. Barker said there are options the Commissioners
need to think about when it comes to voting, but there are not requirements under State law.
Commissioner Quinney motioned to table the item until the next meeting. Commissioner
Bingham seconded.
Voting on the motion:
Jon Bingham
Joan Brown
Steve Quinney
Ken Kiser
Dave Hulme
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
Motion passed.
Commissioner Hulme asked if Mr. Barker would speak to the City Attorney about Mr. Crippen’s
email. Mr. Barker replied that he already has the email and he will be here to address any
concerns. He said he doesn’t know if he will incorporate any of Mr. Crippen’s suggestions, but
he will highlight any changes made.
6.
CONSIDERATION AND APPROVAL OF AN AMENDMENT OF FREESTANDING SIGN REGULATIONS SECTION 11-22-7C IN THE CITY ZONING
ORDINANCE.
Mr. Barker said this is the third time the Planning Commission has reviewed this ordinance. He
said this ordinance discusses free-standing signs for single businesses on sign parcels. Mr.
Barker said the Economic Development Committee had an intense discussion about changeable
copy. They discussed flashing lights and reader boards. He said the original discussion about
changeable signs was to allow commercial businesses to have electronic reader boards.
Commissioner Kiser said it looks good. Commissioner Brown asked about item four on the last
page where it talks about a hardship being demonstrated. She asked what constitutes a hardship.
Mr. Barker said the Planning Commission will have to decide that. Commissioner Kiser said it is
Planning Commission March 2, 2011
Page 8
374
375
376
377
378
379
380
381
382
383
384
385
386
387
388
389
390
391
392
393
394
395
396
397
398
399
400
401
402
403
404
405
406
407
408
409
410
411
412
413
414
415
416
417
418
419
420
421
422
423
424
425
426
427
428
not just a financial but any kind of hardship. Mr. Barker said they will have to determine that.
Mr. Barker said if they want to pass this along they can make a motion to forward it to City
Council. Commissioner Quinney said he is ready to move forward with this.
Commissioner Bingham made a motion that they recommend to the City Council an
amendment to the free-standing sign regulations section 11-22-7C in the City Zoning
Ordinance as it’s been presented. Commissioner Kiser seconded.
Voting on the motion:
Dave Hulme
Jon Bingham
Joan Brown
Steve Quinney
Ken Kiser
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
Motion passed.
7.
CONSIDERATION AND APPROVAL OF AN AMENDMENT TO SECTION 11-1027B “SITE PLAN APPROVAL REQUIRED”.
Mr. Barker said this item goes along with what they just approved. He said in the present
ordinance there is not a requirement that the Planning Commission approve a sign plan with the
site plan approval. He said this amendment will require the applicant to bring in their sign plan in
the beginning. Commissioner Brown said it provides protection to the City.
Commissioner Kiser made a motion to recommend to City Council an amendment to
section 11-10-27B “Site Plan Approval Required” to City Council. Commissioner Brown
seconded.
Voting on the motion:
Dave Hulme
Jon Bingham
Joan Brown
Steve Quinney
Ken Kiser
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
Motion passed.
8.
CONTINUED DISCUSSION ON ENTERTAINMENT OVERLAY ZONE DESIGN
SIGN STANDARDS.
Mr. Barker said they have created a three-tier standard for free-standing signs that is based on
building square footage. He said they need to discuss how much signage can be on a building.
He said currently the ordinance allows 40% of the front wall of the building and subtracting the
area for the windows and doors. Mr. Barker said they are proposing that they don’t subtract the
area for the signs and the windows when calculating the total square footage. They will get 40%
of the total frontage of the building or 200 square feet, whichever is less. Mr. Barker asked if the
Commissioners want to use those same regulations or if they want to make changes.
Mr. Barker said currently roof signs and any signs that extend past the roof line are prohibited.
He said there are some signs for entertainment type businesses they may want to consider. Mr.
Barker gave an example of the Boondocks’ Sign.
Planning Commission March 2, 2011
Page 9
429
430
431
432
433
434
435
436
437
438
439
440
441
442
443
444
445
446
447
448
449
450
451
452
453
454
455
456
457
458
459
460
461
462
463
464
465
466
467
468
469
470
471
472
473
474
475
476
477
478
479
480
481
482
483
484
485
486
Commissioner Bingham said if the purposed sign ordinance changes go through then he would
be fine keeping things the same. He suggested adding a definition for unique signs so they can
allow the creative signs. Commissioner Hulme said he thought they already created a definition
for unique signs. Mr. Barker replied that the definition he is referring to is for free-standing
signs. He said they could include something similar to that for signs on the building.
Mr. Barker said they would have to come up with a way to determine the area on a building. He
said right now they take the least rectangle that will enclose the dimension of the sign. Mr.
Barker gave the example of the fireworks signs on the Junction. He said the least rectangle on
that would be huge. Mr. Barker suggested making a statement that those types of signs can be
allowed under a Conditional Use Permit approved by the Planning Commission.
Commission Kiser said he would hate to stifle someone’s creativity. Commissioner Brown said
you have to be careful with that because what someone thinks is creative another individual may
not. Commissioner Bingham said that is why they would allow it under a Conditional Use
Permit.
Mr. Barker said they need to talk about the lighting that would be allowed for signs.
Commissioner Bingham asked if he is referring to flashing lights or strobe lights. Mr. Barker
replied yes and said the Commission should consider where those lights are allowed. He said
they would want to make sure there is plenty of distance from roads so there is not any
distraction.
Commissioner Brown said they need to be because they have a business, Noah’s, sitting there
with a fenced yard that he puts animals out into in the evenings. She asked what they are doing to
his business when they allow all of these brilliant strobes. Mr. Barker replied that they would
take into account where the lights need to be in relation to his property. Commissioner Brown
said that would need to be included. Mr. Barker said that would be part of the site plan process.
Commissioner Bingham said they could say they allow unique signs under a Conditional Use
Permit and consideration for the impact on the neighbors should be taken into account.
Commissioner Hulme said if they are considering it as a Conditional Use Permit then they would
have a public hearing and that would give people the opportunity to address how it will affect
them.
Commissioner Brown said the impact on the existing commercial businesses also needs to be
considered. Commissioner Bingham said the areas that abut residential areas should also be
considered. Mr. Barker said they can talk about having the landscaping buffer some of the lights.
He said the Commission can require landscaping that would cause a fair amount of screening. He
said they may have to require the trees to be 15 to 20 feet high because there are the two-story
condominiums on the south and east side of a commercial zone.
Mr. Barker said he has been in contact with a sign guy who is also on a Planning Commission for
another city. Mr. Barker said the gentleman would be willing to come in if they want to talk
about those types of signs. Commissioner Brown said it would also depend on what the person
putting the sign in can afford. Commissioner Bingham said the fact that they allow those signs
doesn’t mean people will be installing them.
Mr. Barker said staff can come up with some language to consider at the next meeting.
Commissioner Bingham asked if everyone agrees the amount of signage shouldn’t change. The
Commission agreed. Mr. Barker said they also need to consider the use of Conditional Use
Permits for anything that might exceed that.
Mr. Barker said the Planning Commission can always have a public hearing. Commissioner
Brown said that would be worthwhile because it is their community. Commissioner Hulme asked
if they want to have a public hearing now or wait until this gets closer to the end so the
Commissioners have a chance to read the whole thing. Commissioner Bingham said they might
want to have a purposed ordinance before they schedule a public hearing.
Planning Commission March 2, 2011
Page 10
487
488
489
490
491
492
493
494
495
496
497
498
499
500
501
502
503
504
505
506
507
508
509
510
511
512
513
514
515
516
517
518
519
520
521
522
523
524
525
526
527
528
529
530
531
532
533
534
535
536
537
Commissioner Quinney asked what the latest was from the Economic Development Committee.
Commissioner Hulme said they are working on the vehicle sign ordinance. Mr. Barker said the
Economic Development Committee is not doing anything with the entertainment overlay zone.
Mr. Barker said Jennifer Thomas is completing a chart on what the Economic Development
Committee has completed. Mr. Barker said he is aware that Kerry Walker wants to have his sign.
He said until they create the entertainment overlay zone, he won’t be able to have it.
Commissioner Hulme said he did provide City Council with an update on the ordinances the
Economic Development has worked on and what the Planning Commission has worked on. Mr.
Barker said he believes there are about seven ordinances that have been amended or created.
Commissioner Hulme said it seems some Council Members perceive that the Economic
Development Committee isn’t making progress, but when you put it down on paper you can see
just how far they have come.
Commissioner Brown asked when they will be discussing vehicular signs. Commissioner Hulme
said they will be taking a final look at the next meeting. Mr. Barker said they will provide the
Commission with the draft once the Economic Development Committee is finished with it.
Commissioner Quinney said he made an observation about the Walker Theater sign. He said if
you are driving from the south there are trees that would block that sign. He asked what would
happen if Kerry Walker wanted to remove the trees. Mr. Barker said the City would have to
make that decision. Commissioner Hulme said he wouldn’t categorically say no because he may
have another spot for them. Commissioner Brown said she would rather see the sign than the
trees, because it made such a dramatic difference when Wells Fargo took out their trees.
9.
PUBLIC COMMENTS:
Commissioner Hulme invited anyone with a public comment to come forward to speak. He did
ask that if anyone had any comments about the Conditional Use Permit for the Home Occupation
that they would hold those comments until the public hearing.
Charles Crippen, 3576 North 575 East, introduced himself to the Planning Commission. He said
he respects the effort and the time that the Planning Commission takes. He said he is impressed
with the amount that some of them put into some of the other committees they sit on. He said he
understands where Commissioner Quinney is coming from and he respects that. He said he did
staff work at the agency headquarters where he worked and he always tried to gather as much
information as he could before he brought it for consideration by his bosses or the agency
direction or the senior executives. Mr. Crippen said what he sees here is consideration and
approval on their agenda. He said they went through item six and seven and did their
consideration and went to their votes. He said he would have to assume that that’s what was
going to happen tonight and that is why he provided the comments. He said perhaps they may
want to change the agenda if they are only going to do considerations. Or perhaps in the Rules
and Procedures the Commissioners may want to put in there when they are going to receive input
from the public not necessarily in the form of a public hearing. He said going through their Rules
and Procedures he would ask them to keep in mind the City’s residents are their customers. He
said they should make their process as user friendly for the citizens as possible. He said that is
why he made some of the comments about when they receive input from citizens before they go
and make determinations or rulings. He said if they are going to rule on something tonight that
first appeared on their agenda on Friday, there is very little time to do the research and make
preparation to provide logical and well thought out input on the part of the citizens. He said he
understands the State laws say they only need to provide a 24 hour notice, but that is the
Planning Commission March 2, 2011
Page 11
538
539
540
541
542
543
544
545
546
547
548
549
550
551
552
553
554
555
556
557
558
559
560
561
562
563
564
565
566
567
568
569
570
571
572
573
574
575
576
577
578
579
580
581
582
583
minimum standard. He said they could invoke a better standard that more accommodates their
customers.
Commissioner Brown said she got a chuckle out of the article in the newspaper about the City
Council meeting over their chicken issue and they went back to whether they wanted to have
roosters or not. She said she thought the rooster had its head cut off. Commissioner Hulme said
he thinks they removed it from consideration with any property under an acre.
Commissioner Brown said she is seeing quite a few tacky banners throughout the community.
She referred to the Great Clips sign. She said the Mexican restaurant has a banner up too. She is
curious about how that preceded because last time they met they had not asked for a building
permit yet. Mr. Barker said they don’t have to have a building permit, but they have come in for
a business license.
Mr. Barker said at the last meeting he asked the Commission to look at the paint job on the
Mexican restaurant and if they looked at the lights at Bach Self Storage. Commissioner Brown
said she doesn’t care for the paint job and she did take a tour through the storage units.
Commissioner Quinney said he thinks the lighting is ok.
Mr. Barker said the Commission needs to tell him whether the lights are ok because he needs to
report back to the owner. He asked if the rest of the Commission had a chance to look through
the storage units. Commissioner Hulme said he wasn’t present during the time they discussed
this at the last meeting. Mr. Barker explained the site plan said the lights would be hooded and
shine down. He said the lights are recessed. He said he went in there at night and didn’t think
they meet that requirement because they were shining too brightly on the adjacent property. He
said the end units closest to the condominiums on the north side are hooded and look nice, but
the rest of them are not.
Commissioner Bingham asked if they could solve that by putting hoods on the remainder of the
lights. Mr. Barker said they could put hoods on the lights that are the second closest to the
condominiums. Mr. Barker told the owner he would talk with the Commission and get back to
him. He said they have been very good to work with. Commissioner Brown said whatever
decision they make they need to call the person that made the complaint and make sure they
resolved the issue. Mr. Barker said he has been in contact with him.
Mr. Barker said he has heard Commissioner Brown’s opinion on the Mexican restaurant. He
asked what everyone else thought. Commissioner Bingham replied that he didn’t find it all that
offensive. Mr. Barker replied that it isn’t a matter as to whether it is offensive or not; it is a
matter of whether it meets the designs standards. He said the issue is that the ordinance isn’t
clear on whether new businesses with no new construction are subject to the regulations.
Commissioner Brown said that is not how she remembers it and she was on the Design
Committee.
Mr. Barker said there is a statement that talks about expansion that exceeds 50% of the building
value. Commissioner Brown said that paint job does cover 50%. Mr. Barker replied its 50% of
the value of the structure. Commissioner Brown said what makes her most discouraged about it
Planning Commission March 2, 2011
Page 12
584
585
586
587
588
589
590
591
592
593
594
595
596
597
598
599
600
601
602
603
604
605
606
607
608
609
610
611
612
613
614
615
616
617
618
619
620
621
622
623
624
625
626
627
628
629
630
631
is that he painted the building before he even made any contact with the City to say he was
putting in the restaurant.
Commissioner Bingham asked if the color of the paint job on the Mexican restaurant is included
in the Design Standards. Commissioner Brown said it isn’t included. Mr. Barker said that
depends on how it is interpreted and that is why he asked everyone to take a look at it.
Mr. Barker asked the Commission to please let him know if the paint job on the restaurant is
acceptable within the week. Commissioner Hulme said his opinion is that it looks like a Mexican
restaurant. He asked what standing body is in charge of enforcing the design standards. Mr.
Barker said the Zoning Ordinance is enforced by the Building Official. He said if they don’t like
his interpretation of the ordinance then the restaurant owner could go to the appeal authority who
is the City Council. Commissioner Quinney said his opinion is that it looks a lot like Taco Time.
Mr. Barker said he thinks its edging, but thinks it fits in the color scheme allowed in the Design
Standards.
Commissioner Brown asked what is happening with the P&C Auto shop. She mentioned they are
laying new pipe down in that area. Mr. Barker explained that Bona Vista is the one laying the
pipe. He went on to explain Bona Vista’s plan for connecting their line. Commissioner Brown
said she is concerned about P&C auto shop. Mr. Barker said he has spoken with the owner and
that is in process as well.
Commissioner Brown asked about the other one auto lot (K & M Investment Enterprises). Mr.
Barker said he has been in contact with the owner and he is aware he is in violation. Mr. Barker
explained that these things take time. He said he went down to the Mexican restaurant four times
before he was able to talk to the owner. Commissioner Hulme said an operational business with
those colors is superior to a nonoperational business with their favorite colors. Commissioner
Brown said Jiffy Lube made their changes. Commissioner Hulme asked for other comments.
10.
ADJOURNMENT:
Commissioner Bingham moved to adjourn. Commissioner Brown seconded.
Voting on the motion:
Jon Bingham
Joan Brown
Steve Quinney
Ken Kiser
Dave Hulme
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
Motion passed.
The meeting adjourned at 7:33pm.
Planning Commission March 2, 2011
Page 13
632
633
634
635
636
637
638
639
640
641
642
643
644
645
_______________________________________
Planning Commission Chair
_______________________________________
Planning Commission Secretary
_______________________________________
Date approved
Planning Commission March 2, 2011
Page 14
646
Planning Commission March 2, 2011
Page 15
647
Planning Commission March 2, 2011
Page 16
648
Planning Commission March 2, 2011
Page 17
649
650
Planning Commission March 2, 2011
Page 18
651
Planning Commission March 2, 2011
Page 19
652
Planning Commission March 2, 2011
Page 20