Joint City Council Planning Commission
Public hearing/Meeting Minutes
City Council Chambers, Ephraim City Hall
5 South Main, Ephraim, Utah
March 30, 2016
5:30 pm
Call to Order
The Ephraim City Council and Planning Commission convened in a joint meeting on Wednesday, March 30, 2016, in the City Council Room. Mayor Squire called the meeting to order at 6:04 p.m.
Ephraim City Council/Planning Commission | May 4, 2016 | Page 1 of 6
Roll Call
Council Members Present Richard Squire, Mayor
Tyler Alder, Mayor Pro Tem
Margie Anderson
Alma Lund
Richard Wheeler
Members Excused
John Scott
Staff Present
Brant Hanson, City Manager
Marcus Gilson, City Attorney
Bryan Kimball, Community Dev.
Leigh Ann Warnock, City Recorder
Planning Commission Members
Lisa Murray
Lamar Hanson
Lyle Chamberlain
Larry Griffeth
Ephraim City Council/Planning Commission | May 4, 2016 | Page 1 of 6
Call to Order
The Ephraim City Council convened in a Special City Council Meeting on Wednesday, March 30, 2016, in the City Council Room. Mayor Squire called the meeting to order at 6:00 p.m.
Public Hearing
The Public Hearing was called for the purpose of discussing amendments to the City Zoning & Land Use Ordinance.
Open for public comment.
Abraham Hundepool asked which residential zones would be affected. Bryan explained it is for low-impact businesses, intended to be professional offices in R 2, 3 and 4 zones.
Councilmember Lund entered the meeting at 6:07 p.m.
The changes would require a site-obscuring fence to help with screening in the neighborhood as well as additional landscaping. Signs are permitted as per current ordinance in the residential zone. New businesses in the R-2 zone, whether professional office, counseling center, etc. they will have low impact as far as sights and sounds, etc. If we can accommodate a business in a residential area that is low impact, it is by Conditional Use Permit. All have to come in to get approval on a case-by-case basis. Additional requirements can be mandated at that time.
Abraham commented, “If you’re going to vote on new developments, why is a development in current process going to be allowed to change set-backs before the rules have been changed? In the past, developments have been declined because they did not meet regulations. We are now including new development and changing the rules to accommodate them.” Bryan explained what is proposed tonight is an amendment to setbacks and density in the R-4 zone. Tonight’s discussion results from a CUP application already discussed in City Council meeting. The Council liked the feel of the development which is badly needed and didn’t feel this was a misplaced development in that area. It is surrounded by multi-family developments on either side. The property line sits well back from the sidewalk. If this development had come in another zone, it would have met setbacks.
If there were to be any changes made, we would want to look at existing development and new development. Now we have a lot of structures in that 16 block sample, that don’t meet setbacks. If you measure from the edge of the street instead of halfway into your lawn, most of those structures would then come into compliance based on estimates. In new development, you measure from the back of the property line instead of the sidewalk, and their development will match the feel of the neighborhood.
The second part is a density allowance. There have been a number of recent inquiries about multi-family housing. All of the easy lots to develop are taken. All the rest have issues with existing structures, flood zone, etc. How do you deal with a college which is growing with not enough beds for the students? There is a need to add 16 buildings per year to accommodate that growth. Where do you put that? The City needs to change to accommodate inevitable growth from the College. The current density has served for a long time, but it is getting to point where growth will occur where it is financially feasible to do so. If there are not enough units, it will get pushed elsewhere, outside the City, or away from the College.
It has been proposed to increase density slightly, for now, which will allow an existing development to go forward. They have been approved for phase I. How much to we want to accommodate the College? What makes the most sense for our city? We don’t want to give away density without something in exchange. We deal with need, allow growth and allow density changes in exchange for upgraded developments and requirements.
Josh Peterson pointed out he was held to those setbacks at the time he built and rules were not changed for him. He could have built a bigger building. He is investing a million dollars to what he is doing. He said he built his to a higher standard which was very expensive, and now somebody with a lot of money comes in and we change the rules for them, it doesn’t seem very fair. He is now considering stopping his development just to see what happens when rules will probably get changed for future development. It does take money and risk to build in certain zones. That’s business. When I come back at a later date with a new development, I hope you change the rules for me, too. Bryan clarified that what is changing would not have affected his development. The only thing changing is the front setback. Josh says he could have put in a bigger building had the rules changed for him.
Mike Duncan commented he has lived in Sanpete for over 37 years. His concern is traffic. It’s going to be a big change on 100 South off 400 East. You are going to have structures closer to the road causing more risk of a vehicle going over the curb and hitting a building. If you’re going to change the setback, you need to have a wider street to accommodate the traffic, or you are creating more risk for injury and property damage. Perhaps consider a concrete wall for protection. Mike has been involved with traffic and parking at the College for a long time. He feels a big priority should be safety. He doesn’t want to change ordinances to build to try to get higher numbers in. It is all about safety for traffic, fire, etc.
Amy Hansen reiterated what Mike said and asked the Council and Planning Commission to take that into consideration. There were no students turned away because of lack of housing. Housing units were only 95% full at the beginning of the school year. Smaller complexes were full, but there was housing available. She is worried about rezoning this area to pave the way for a new developer to come in with 750 beds. If that happens, no current apartment complex will fill up. Planning Commission member Griffeth commented there definitely is a need for more housing. Several students terminated their tuition because of lack of housing. We have to project the current trends and the current trends are for growth and development. The College never dropped in enrollment, even when the LDS Church dropped the missionary age. Amy agreed, but wants them to take into consideration they are already building more. Josh’s complex is going in right now and another one is being built on 400 east.
Abraham asked if we start the setback from the curb, what happens to the streets with no curb. On his property, a surveyor says the property line goes to the ditch, but the City says it is in middle of his lawn. Bryan said the front yard setback definition will be changed.
Rachael Allen commented perhaps there could be some more flexibility in some of those options. They have a lot of part-time people. All employees are not there at the same time except when there is a staff meeting once a week with 5 therapists. Could there be some flexibility for parking on some of these developments regarding businesses in residential areas.
The Public Hearing was closed.
Planning and Zoning
Lyle wants to see universal setbacks and rules for all areas of the City. People come in and are excited to live the rural life and they don’t think to ask the City if all the setbacks are the same and what idiosyncrasies affect their property.
Larry agreed with Lyle. Some roads are uneven, which is the situation in this case. The City wants curb and gutter and some people don’t build. If its uniform, it’s uniform, but it needs to meet the grid system and it has to be done on a case-by-case basis. There should always be a flexibility, with as much rigidity as possible. We like to hear public comments and we try to be fair and equitable.
Considered changing the language to say an average of 4 employees in any given shift. Mayor Squire commented that is not enforceable. Complete verbiage needs to be in the ordinance so there is something to enforce. Brant commented we want to support our small businesses and what we are trying to do here is good, but we are blurring the line between what is residential and what is business. Not opposed to residential businesses but we are jumping the gun. What is best for the City? Don’t necessarily amend it for one particular business, but what is best for the City and this zone.
Is the number 4 a concrete number or was that an innocuous number? Discussion ensued as to whether that number ought to be altered. Maximum of 4 or as otherwise approved by the Planning Commission on a case-by-case basis.
Planning Commission Member Griffeth moved to recommend approval by the Council of the amended Zoning Land Use Ordinance, ECO 16-01, with additional language saying “Maximum of 4 or as otherwise approved by the Planning Commission on a case-by-case basis.” The motion was seconded by Planning Commission Member Chamberlain. A roll call vote was called: Voting yes: Members Chamberlain, Murray, Olson and Griffeth. The vote was unanimous. The motion carried.
City Council
Tyler commented he is against any changes because when it’s in a residential area, it always gets out of hand and what we do for one we have to do for everyone. He feels this is a different situation and it is still a business. Alma commented if it goes to 4 employees, it’s no longer eligible to be in a residential area. Margie feels the Planning Commission and Council need to be guardians of what happens in residential areas.
Councilmember Anderson moved to approve ECO 16-01, an ordinance amending the Zoning Land Use Ordinance as discussed and recommended by the Planning Commission to change 10-2-1. The motion was seconded by Councilmember Wheeler. A roll call vote was called: Voting yes: Councilmembers Lund, Wheeler, and Anderson. Voting no: Councilmember Alder. The motion carried 3-1.
Planning and Zoning
Planning Commission
Most rentals have multiple units to them. The maximum density does not account for setbacks, landscaping or parking requirements. That takes about 1/3 of your property. Whatever is left is where you build the building.
Brant feels some research should be done to determine the effects of traffic in different areas of the City. If we relax some of our standards to allow some more revenue generation, we want them to do something in return.
We could keep the density the same, but projects may be reviewed on a case-by-case basis by Planning Commission and City Council. As written it would still be okay.
It was suggested we change the third line if more than 8 units, drops to 1500 sq feet per unit. Trends are moving in this direction all over the state. One of the impacts will be for buildings to go vertical.
Planning Commission Member Chamberlain moved to approve a recommendation to Council to approve the Density and setbacks of the ordinance with the correction of 9+ additional units as opposed to the typo of 8+. The motion was seconded by Planning Commission Member Griffeth. A roll call vote was called: Voting yes: Members Chamberlain, Griffeth, Murray and Olson. The vote was unanimous. The motion carried.
City Council
When developers come in they are going to have to ask for the zone change. Right now it is R-1. It requires a zone change and ordinance changes. That is a lot of process to go through. Normally that’s enough for most people to give up. They are pushing forward and still have a lot of work to do. As the Planner, Bryan’s recommendation is that you have guiding documents, if you need to, go back and revisit the General Plan and ask what you want Ephraim to look like.
Councilmember Lund moved to approve ECO 16-01, an ordinance amending the Zoning Land Use Ordinance as discussed and recommended by the Planning Commission to change 10-2-1 and correct the typo as discussed. The motion was seconded by Councilmember Wheeler. A roll call vote was called: Voting yes: Councilmembers Lund, Wheeler, and Anderson. Voting no: Councilmember Alder. The motion carried 3-1.
Planning Commission
Zions Phase II
Bryan related the history on the 20 unit complex intended for housing. The developer previously came before the Commission who liked the layout of the development. Two of the three buildings did not meet setbacks. Phase I passed for him to go ahead with one of the buildings. With the changes tonight, the Council can approve Phase II.
Planning Commission Member Olson moved to recommend to Council approval of Zions M-13 Development Phase II according to staff specifications. The motion was seconded by Planning Commission Member Chamberlain. The vote was unanimous. The motion carried.
City Council
We have a recommendation for approval of Phase II by Planning and Zoning.