Document Ogden_doc_6e6a14505a

OGDEN CITY PLANNING COMMISSION 2549 WASHINGTON BOULEVARD OGDEN, UTAH AGENDA October 4, 2017 There will be a meeting of the Ogden City Planning Commission held October 4, 2017, at 5:00 p.m. in the City Council Chambers on the 3rd Floor of the Ogden City Municipal Building, 2549 Washington Boulevard. Commission members are invited to attend a work session field trip which will leave the Municipal Building Parking Lot at 4:00 p.m. The following items will be discussed during the work session as well as in the regular meeting. However, formal consideration, open discussion and decision making process will be limited to the regular meeting. Approximate Start Time* Agenda Item Recommendation to: PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE – led by Janith Wright PRESENTATION BY CITY COUNCIL – NATIONAL PLANNING MONTH 5:00 p.m. 1. Approval of the Minutes, of the regular meeting held September 6, 2017 and work session held September 20, 2017 2. Common Consent a. Amended Conditional Use Permit, to allow additional cell panels on existing monopole at approximately 771 3rd Street. (Attachment A) b. Amended Conditional Use Permit, to allow additional cell antennas on existing monopole at approximately 551 Lincoln Avenue. (Attachment B) c. Amended Conditional Use Permit, to replace and install additional cell panels at approximately 2716 S 1760 W. (Attachment C) d. Conditional Use Permit, to allow cell equipment on a billboard sign at approximately 2817 G Avenue. (Attachment D) e. Conditional Use Permit, to allow cell panels on a billboard sign at 2511 Water Tower Way. (Attachment E) f. Conditional Use Permit, to allow expansion of reception center at 916 7th Street. (Attachment F) Final Action Final Action Final Action Final Action Final Action To be Continued 5:05 p.m. 3. Public Hearing, Plat Vacation/Preliminary Subdivision Approval, to consolidate lots at approximately 3850 Harrison Boulevard. (Attachment G) Mayor – 10/6/17 5:10 p.m. 4. Public Facility Site Plan, to allow parking lot expansion at approximately 525 W 2nd Street. (Attachment H) Mayor – 10/6/17 5:25 p.m. 5. Public Hearing, Petition to Rezone, from R-5 to C-3 property at 485 E 2nd Street. (Attachment I) City Council* 5:35 p.m. 6. CBD Site Plan, Model Linen Supply, 124 22nd Street. (Attachment J) Mayor – 10/6/17 Reports: Ogden Trails Network – need new member Review of Meeting Mayor’s Administrative Review Meeting - Friday October 6, 2017 - 10:00 a.m. 3rd Floor, Municipal Building *The City Council meets the first, third and fourth Tuesdays of each month. Please contact the City Council Office at 629-8153 for agenda information *Start times are approximate – item may be discussed before or after identified start time In compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act, persons needing auxiliary communicative aids and services for this meeting should contact the Management Services Department at 629-8701 (TTY/TDD: 711 or [PHONE REDACTED]) or by email: [EMAIL REDACTED] at least 48 hours in advance of the meeting. CERTIFICATE OF POSTING The undersigned, duly appointed City Recorder, does hereby certify that the above notice and/or agenda was posted in accordance with Utah State Code Annotated 52-4-202(3) on this 29th day of September, 2017 in the following places: 2nd floor foyer of the Ogden City Municipal Building; the Utah State Public Notice website, the Ogden City website, and provided to the Standard-Examiner. Tracy Hansen, Ogden City Recorder ---PAGE BREAK--- Page 1 of 16 Unofficial draft of the proceedings of the regular meeting of the Ogden City Planning Commission held September 6, 2017. This draft does not constitute official minutes of the Planning Commission, and will not, until approved by the Commission. Official minutes may vary significantly from these draft proceedings. Meeting was conducted by Chair Herman and began at 5:01 p.m. Members Present: Robert Herman, Chair Cathy Blaisdell Dave Graf Lillie Holman Jenny Sandau Bryan Schade Janith Wright Members Excused: Rick Southwick, Vice-Chair Staff Present: Greg Montgomery, Planning Manager Clint Spencer, Assistant Planning Manager Eric Daems, Planner Joseph Simpson, Planner Jannette Borklund, Planning Technician Mark Stratford, City Attorney Others Present: Thomas D. Marcheschi Karen Lofgreen Reed Loveland Tracy Zitting Val Lofgreen Cheryl Loveland Mike Zitting Jack McDonald Chase Choi Troy Bonson Bonnie McDonald Mike Nelson Nefi Garcia Rick Safsten Trevor Hightower Lynelle Carson Lisa Goff Bryan Gilbert Rickie Hunsaker Stephen Richey Ann Gilbert Kelly Hunsaker Blaine Richey Ray Christian Connie Collins Brent J. Belnap Norman Nield Jaime Ponce de Leon Tim Lane Sandy Nield Leo Stephenson Jeni Lane Eric Waterfall Donna Stephenson Bill C. Self Max Thompson Tod Foson LaRue Beardall Marci Matonis Cyndi Marcheschi Lisa Bradshaw M. Sneddon Shari Combe Fran Slacoikas Matt Robinson Delaney Stephens Cub Scouot Pack 175 1. Approval of the Minutes, of the regular meeting held August 2, 2017 2. Common Consent a. Public Hearing, to vacate Lot 1, Coleman Subdivision and to grant Preliminary Subdivision Approval for Vision Subdivision at approximately 3475 Harrison Boulevard. b. Conditional Use Permit, to allow cellular light pole antenna and equipment at approximately 1241 E 20th Street 3. Public Hearing, Petition #2017-10 to Amend Zoning Ordinance 15-9-3, to revise front yard setback requirements for cluster subdivisions. 4. Amended Conditional Use Permit, to allow reception center expansion at approximately 916 7th Street. ---PAGE BREAK--- Page 2 of 16 5. Conditional Use Permit, to allow 68’cell tower monopole at 2977 Lincoln Avenue. 6. Public Hearing, Petition #2017-9 to Amend Zoning Ordinance 15-15-2 to eliminate Accessory Dwelling Units (ADU’s) in the Southeast Ogden Planning Community, and amending 15-35-2 to correct redundancy in the Code. 7. Public Hearing, Petition #2017-11 to rezone from M-1 to CP-3 property at approximately 450 W 12th Street. Review of Meeting 1. Approval of the Minutes, of the regular meeting held August 2, 2017. Commissioner Schade noted a word change from improving to approving on page 2. Commissioner Blaisdell identified a misplaced opening time of the meeting in the introductory paragraph. MOTION: A motion was made by Commissioner Wright to approve the minutes as corrected. Motion was seconded by Commissioner Sandau and passed unanimously. 2. Common Consent a. Public Hearing, to vacate Lot 1, Coleman Subdivision and to grant Preliminary Subdivision Approval for Vision Subdivision at approximately 3475 Harrison Boulevard. Mr. Spencer reported the Commission had previously considered rezoning this parcel from R-4 to C-1 in response to an application for expansion of an existing vision center. Since that time, an application for site plan approval has been submitted, and found they are in separate subdivisions. In order for the site plan to be approved, the initial subdivision must be vacated and a new subdivision recorded. The existing home will be required to be removed prior to the subdivision plat being recorded. He reviewed the standards for review of both the vacation and subdivision, indicating the proposed vacation and subdivision will be consistent with the regulations of both the Subdivision and Zoning Ordinances. Staff recommendation is for approval subject to all Staff comments being satisfied as well as the removal of the existing home prior to the subdivision plat being recorded. MOTION: A motion was made by Commissioner Schade to recommend approval of the subdivision vacation and preliminary approval as proposed based on the findings the action does promote the health, safety, convenience and general welfare of the inhabitants of the City, is in the best interest of the public and in harmony with good neighborhood development, there is good cause for the vacation of Lot 1 of Coleman Subdivision, and the request is in full compliance with both the Subdivision and Zoning Ordinances. Approval is subject to all staff comments and requirements being satisfied, and the existing residential structure being removed before the plat is recorded. Motion was seconded by Commissioner Wright and passed unanimously, with Commissioners Blaisdell, Graf, Holman, Sandau, Schade, Wright and Herman voting aye. b. Conditional Use Permit, to allow cellular light pole antenna and equipment at approximately 1241 E 20th Street Mr. Simpson reported this request is for the installation of an antenna on a new light pole within a shopping center parking lot. The width of the light pole is expanded 10’ more than ---PAGE BREAK--- Page 3 of 16 existing light poles to support the antenna. A utility cabinet also is proposed to be installed at its base. The intent of the antenna is to improve use capacity for cell signals in the area. He reviewed the conditional use standards and indicated the proposal can be made to be compliant with these if the antenna and cabinet are painted and evergreen shrubs are installed to screen the equipment cabinet from the ground level. Staff recommendation is for approval, subject to the cell antenna being painted the same color as the light pole and the equipment cabinet a dark green or brown color, evergreen shrubs being planted around the equipment cabinet to screen it form ground-level view, the new light pole match the design and color of the existing light pole, and all departmental staff comments be satisfied. MOTION: A motion was made by Commissioner Schade to approve the conditional use permit based on the findings the design of the cell antenna, pole and equipment cabinet on the site can be compatible with surrounding properties and will be in compliance with regulations of the land use ordinances so long as Staff recommendations are satisfied. Approval is subject to the following conditions: 1. The cell antenna be painted the same color as the light pole and the equipment cabinet be painted either a dark green or brown color; 2. Evergreen shrubs be planted around the equipment cabinet to screen it form ground-level view; 3. The new light pole is to match the design and color of the existing light pole; and 4. All departmental Staff comments be satisfied. Motion was seconded by Commissioner Wright and passed unanimously, with Commissioners Blaisdell, Graf, Holman, Sandau, Schade, Wright and Herman voting aye. 3. Public Hearing, Petition #2017-10 to Amend Zoning Ordinance 15-9-3, to revise front yard setback requirements for cluster subdivisions. Ms. Lynelle Carson stated she has petitioned to amend the Cluster Ordinance to allow a reduced front yard setback. She indicated it would reduce the amount of pavement required for driveways and could create a better overall project as homes would be more visible from the road. She stated the Ordinance currently allows a 25% reduction for side yards and felt this should also be applicable to front yards. Mr. Montgomery indicated the Cluster Subdivision regulations may be used in R-1 or R-2 zoned property, so long as there is a minimum of 25 lots. The current regulations allow reduced side yards in a cluster subdivision which then becomes common open space within the development, but requires the front yard regulations to be consistent with the underlying zone. The applicant is requesting the front yard be allowed to be reduced in the R-1 zone from the required 30’ up to 25%, which would require a homes to be at least 22.5’ from the property line. This standard would identify a typical front setback line at 11.5’ from the curb line, allowing space for vehicle parking within the front yard, but not in the setback area. He further reviewed the intent of the Cluster Subdivision and indicated it appears the proposal is consistent with its intent as well as the provisions of the General Plan. He expressed concern that the standard may not be applicable to all residential zones, as some already have a lower front yard setback, and a minimum of 18’ should be required to assure parking is not in the setback area. Staff recommendation is for approval of the proposed amendment, so long as standards are included which clarify a minimum of 18’ is required between the property line and any structure. ---PAGE BREAK--- Page 4 of 16 Commission asked if the proposal would increase the number of homes within a cluster subdivision project. Mr. Montgomery stated this standard would not affect the spacing of homes, and typically would not increase the density of a project, but would reduce the space in front of homes. Commission asked if it may create future parking issues. Mr. Montgomery responded a typical home would have two spaces within the garage, and then space for two additional spaces in the setback area, which would not extend into the right-of-way. As there were no additional comments, a motion was made by Commissioner Blaisdell to close the public hearing. Motion was seconded by Commissioner Wright and passed unanimously. MOTION: A motion was made by Commissioner Holman to recommend approval of the proposed Ordinance amendment based on the findings it is consistent with the purpose of the cluster subdivision regulations, provides adequate room for driveway use and vehicle parking, and is consistent with the General Plan. Motion was seconded by Commissioner Sandau and passed 6-1 with Commissioners Blaisdell, Graf, Holman, Sandau, Wright and Herman voting aye and Commissioner Schade voting no. Commissioner Schade felt the amendment would result in homes too close to the street, stating he feared vehicles will be parked over the sidewalk within the cluster subdivision. 4. Amended Conditional Use Permit, to allow reception center expansion at approximately 916 7th Street. Mr. Jamie Ponce de Leon stated he is the owner of this building, and the tenant desires to expand the use of the reception center in an effort to accommodate more weddings and events. He stated while he is aware there is a concern with noise and lighting, these can be contained within the property boundaries. Mr. Daems indicated the Commission had previously approved a reception center in a portion of this building, and the business owner has since expanded into an additional space within the building and is now seeking approval for that expansion. In considering a conditional use permit, the Commission is to identify whether the use is compatible with the existing neighborhood and whether impacts from the proposed use can be mitigated by the addition of conditions of approval. He also indicated the site needs to be in compliance with standards of the existing Zoning Ordinance. Some required trees are missing and need to be replaced, and landscaping needs to define parking areas. The proposal is to add 5,780 square feet of space for events on the interior of the building. This area is separated from the original reception area, and both areas would typically not be used at the same time. He stated the dumpster should be screened, and shrubs and trees added to enclose parking areas, as well as street trees being installed where missing. Addressing potential impacts of an events center, he indicated guests may linger in the parking lot following an event, which could create additional noise and litter. He suggested hours of operation be limited in order to reduce the effect of parking lot noise to neighboring residents. Because there has been concern of noise from inside the building from the existing reception center, Staff is suggesting an inner vestibule be constructed to create an additional barrier from the doorway to where the events occur. He stated while the City does have noise ordinance standards, the enforcement is from the Police Department, and typically a fine is to be paid, but the problem may not be resolved. He suggested the Commission also may consider adding a ---PAGE BREAK--- Page 5 of 16 condition of approval for the use that requires the use to be compliant with the noise ordinance, giving the opportunity for the use permit to be revoked. He stated neighbors have indicated the noise is a problem when doors are propped open. Staff recommendation is for approval, subject to the following conditions: 1. Vestibules be constructed at the main entrances to the reception center to contain noise and lights during entry and exiting; 2. Landscape island be installed at the end of parking row on the south side of the building, including one 2” caliper tree per island; 3. Street trees (minimum 2” caliper) be re-installed in the landscape area along Monroe, spaced no further than 30’ apart and each parking lot landscape island where currently missing; 4. Hours of operation cease by midnight and 5. Noise levels to be in full compliance with the provisions of the Ogden City Noise Ordinance. Commissioner Graf asked if there are other situations where a condition of approval was compliance with the noise ordinance. Mr. Daems responded it has been done in the past, particularly in situations where the noise affects the surrounding neighborhood. He stated due to the close proximity of residential uses to this building, the quality of life can be affected by noise. He also indicated both areas have been operating without approval for some time, and there have been noise complaints from neighboring residents. Commissioner Sandau asked if it would be appropriate to limit the hours of operation on weeknights, stating a midnight closing may only be appropriate on the weekends. Commissioner Graf expressed concern about the overflowing dumpster and suggested additional landscaping might be required to provide additional screening. Commission further discussed the implementation of the noise ordinance, the hours of operation as well as bringing the site into compliance with the standards of the NC ordinance. Commissioner Holman asked about the noise once people are outside the building. Mr. Daems stated there was concern about the noise within the building, and has had no complaints about noise in the parking lot. He felt the vestibule would serve to reduce the noise coming from inside the building. Mr. Mike Zitting, 925 7th Street, expressed concern about the noise, stating while there have been many businesses which have occupied this property. He stated there is no problem during the week, but the noise is excessive on Saturday evenings. He also indicated his driveway often has been blocked by vehicles. He stated he and his wife have contacted the police department about the noise, and they have not required noise to be reduced at 10pm due to the conditional use permit allowing the use to operate until midnight. They have indicated to him they felt the noise ordinance was being violated but had no decibel reader to provide such evidence. He stated the noise is contained when doors are closed, but there are several doors to the establishment which are opened during events. He also indicated other neighbors had asked him to represent their concerns about the noise as they were unable to attend. Ms. Rikki Hunsaker, 658 Gramercy Avenue, stated she sees much trash from the use. She also has contacted police regarding the noise. She stated the stated the fire escape area is full of trash and is a fire hazard. She stated children are often shaking the fence, and suggested a solid fence be required. She is opposed to the expansion. There also is unkempt landscaping on the property. Ms. Veronica stated she is the business owner and apologized to the neighbors regarding the noise. She stated she maintains officers inside the building during events in an effort to control the noise, has turned off lights to quiet people, while trying to maintain a business. She stated events happen only on Saturday evenings, and there are often complaints ---PAGE BREAK--- Page 6 of 16 even when there has not been live music, such as a baby shower. She expressed willingness to work with residents to solve the problems. Ms. Tracy Zitting stated there are noise problems on Saturday nights and is concerned the use should not expand to other nights. She stated she has often called the police department to enforce the noise ordinance and until she made contact with the Planning Staff, the 10pm noise regulation was not enforced. She expressed concern about the thumping of the bass which can be heard in the neighborhood even when the doors are closed. She stated often the sound is turned down and then later it again becomes loud. Mr. Jamie Ponce de Leon he could change the trash pick-up date to Mondays so the trash is removed soon after the events and would not be overflowing during the week. He indicated he has been contacted because of noise and there have only been a few people complaining. He stated he has not been cited for noise violations. Commissioner Schade expressed concern about the lateness of events, stating even if the doors were locked at 10pm or 11pm, patrons will often remain for an additional hour or two. He stated due to the surrounding residential neighborhood, care should be taken that a small commercial use should be for their benefit. Commission asked how the noise ordinance is enforced, and whether the business owner is responsible to monitor and report noise levels. Mr. Daems indicated he had contacted the Police Department and had not received an answer. He stated decibel readers can be downloaded for free on any smart phone. He stated it is the function of the police department to enforce the noise ordinance and the hours of operation of a particular conditional use permit does not supersede the nose ordinance. Commission asked about the process of revoking a conditional use permit. Mr. Daems indicated if there were complaints, an additional hearing would be held and the Commission could determine the conditional use permit had been violated and revoke the permit. At the same time, they might choose other avenues whereby the regulations might be solved such as interior sound walls. He stated the business should be self-regulating in terms of both noise and trash and debris. Commission asked about the fire escape. Mr. Daems stated the proposed expansion is towards 7th Street, but the original event center does have fire escape, which would then be regulated by the Fire Marshal. Mr. Stratford stated the noise ordinance is not always enforced by decibel evidence, but is often enforced by a sound that is “clearly audible” at the property line, but there is confusion as to whether that means words can be understood, or only heard. The Ordinance also identifies “impulsive sound” which could also be added as a condition of approval if heard at the property line. Commissioner Graf stated a vacant building is not desirable in the neighborhood, and asked the owner to be responsible to the neighborhood, feeling both the community and the business owner should be able to work together so that both can be good neighbors. Mr. Mike Zitting stated while some businesses in this building have benefited the surrounding community, a party venue does not, but brings people from other areas and disrupts the ambiance of the neighborhood. Mr. Stratford reminded the Commission the conditional use standard allows the Commission to identify any potential impacts created by a particular business and may add conditions to mitigate ---PAGE BREAK--- Page 7 of 16 those impacts. He stated it is appropriate to connect the noise ordinance to the conditional use permit, and stated the Commission also might define both “clearly audible” noise and “impulsive” noise, and state that neither can be heard at any neighboring property line after 10pm. He defined impulsive noise as “a sound having a duration of less than one second with an abrupt onset and rapid decay”. Commission discussed the responsibility of the business owner to monitor and regulate and contain noise within the building. It also was suggested the Commission might ask the applicant to research about how the problem can be addressed prior to the use being approved. It also was indicated the vestibule may reduce some sound, but the lower bass noise might still be audible. Commissioner Blaisdell asked about the occupancy requirement for the building, and if that were also regulated. It was indicated the number of people allowed in the building at one time is based on the Fire Code, and considers both the building size and the number of exits. MOTION: A motion was made by Commissioner Graf to recommend approval of the amended conditional use permit based on the findings with changes recommended, the proposed expansion can be compatible with surrounding development, does not create circulation problems, can adequately mitigate potential impacts on nearby properties, and can meet the intent of the General Plan and requirements of the Zoning Ordinance. Approval is subject to the following conditions: 1. Vestibules be constructed at the main entrances to the reception center to contain noise and lights during entry and exiting; 2. Landscape island be installed at the end of parking row on the south side of the building, including one 2” caliper tree per island; 3. Street trees (minimum 2” caliper) be re-installed in the landscape area along Monroe, spaced no further than 30’ apart and in each parking lot landscape island where currently missing; 4. Hours of operation cease by 11pm and 5. Noise levels to be in full compliance with the provisions of the Ogden City Noise Ordinance; 6. A masonry wall be constructed around the dumpster to fully screen the dumpster from the public, suggesting that the pick-up be changed to Mondays; 7. The subwoofer bass be turned off to eliminate impulsive noise after 10pm until closure; 8. A 6’ privacy wooden fence on the northwest side of the building be installed in the rear; Motion was seconded by Commissioner Schade. SUBSTITUTE MOTION: A motion was then made by Commissioner Holman to table action until the October meeting in an effort to allow the property owner and business owner can address the concerns identified and come to a solution to rectify these concerns. Motion was seconded by Commissioner Blaisdell and passed unanimously with Commissioners Blaisdell, Graf, Holman, Sandau, Schade, Wright and Herman voting aye. Mr. Daems indicated Staff would schedule a meeting during the next few weeks to address the concerns of the Commission and would send another postcard to residents to inform them of the date and time. ---PAGE BREAK--- Page 8 of 16 5. Conditional Use Permit, to allow 68’cell tower monopole at 2977 Lincoln Avenue. Mr. Nefi Garcia stated this proposal is for a 68’ tall evergreen tower ono the Red Duck property. He stated the City has two existing evergreen tree towers which are both located in public parks. This proposal would place the antennas 6’ from the top of the treetop. He identified other location for Verizon antennas, stating there is a need for additional service in this particular area. He expressed concern about the Staff requirement for a solid block wall, stating it could be an attraction for graffiti and/or a hiding place. Mr. Spencer stated the Commission has previously reviewed applications for a cell tower in this neighborhood. In April, a request for a 100’ tower was denied, and in June an 80’ tower was denied. At that time Staff had recommended a 60’ stealth tower be approved. This request is for a 68’ tree with antennas 9’ from the top. He stated the property is zoned NC-2 and the surrounding residential community is zoned R-4. In considering a conditional use permit, the Commission is to identify potential impacts from the use and determine whether those impacts can or cannot be mitigated. He stated existing trees are in the area at a height of 50-55’ and the proposed tree-shaped tower would stretch above existing vegetation, creating an impact of the view shed of this area. Staff is suggesting at least seven additional trees be added around the proposed tower, including some evergreen trees to help the tower better blend with the surrounding community. Street trees also are required to be installed along Lincoln Avenue in the public right-of-way. He stated there is a foot path crossing this property and suggested sidewalk be installed along both the west and south property lines to direct pedestrians from the community to the convenience store. He also suggested bushes be installed along the fence which would have no more than a 1’ separation at maturity. He stated chain link is not allowed in the NC zones, and suggested the fence be masonry and the gate be metal. He stated the lots have now been combined to become one parcel and a financial guarantee will be required for all landscaping improvements. Staff recommendation is for approval, subject to the following conditions: 1. Gate enclosure be solid metal gate; 2. Landscape the corner area west of the proposed cell tower enclosure as follows: a. Provide groundcover plantings similar to existing; b. Provide seven trees with a minimum of three evergreen, with species approved by the City Urban Forester; c. Landscape parking strip and provide street trees; d. Include shrubs/bush plantings around the proposed enclosure. 3. Complete sidewalk from single family homes to drive on the east side of Pingree; 4. All equipment in the enclosure be screened from view; 5. Enclosure must be beige colored split faced block or similar feature; 6. Width of branches not to extend beyond 15’ 6: as shown ion plans; 7. Antennas shall not extend beyond the branches; 8. Maintain existing hedge on northern property line; 9. Provide paved pedestrian access to Pingree Avenue; 10. Complete lot combination application process. Commissioner Graf commented it may be desirable to also pave the existing foot path through the vacant property. It was noted this location proposed is closer to Pingree and may be a better location in consideration of the view of the tower. Commissioner Schade suggested the access gate be moved to be on the east side so as to not be open to the public street, indicating a wrought iron gate might then be acceptable. ---PAGE BREAK--- Page 9 of 16 MOTION: A motion was made by Commissioner Schade to approve the conditional use permit based on the findings that with Staff modifications, the design of the cell tower and equipment shed can be compatible with surrounding development and can be in compliance with the Zoning Ordinance. Approval is subject to the following conditions: 1. Gate enclosure be solid metal gate, or if relocated to the east side so as to not be open to a public street, it may be wrought iron; 2. Landscape the corner area west of the proposed cell tower enclosure as follows: a. Provide groundcover plantings similar to existing; b. Provide seven trees with a minimum of three evergreen, with species approved by the City Urban Forester; c. Landscape parking strip and provide street trees; d. Include shrubs/bush plantings around the proposed enclosure. 3. Complete sidewalk from single family homes to drive on the east side of Pingree; 4. All equipment in the enclosure be screened from view; 5. Enclosure must be beige colored split faced block or similar feature; 6. Width of branches not to extend beyond 15’ 6: as shown ion plans; 7. Antennas shall not extend beyond the branches; 8. Maintain existing hedge on northern property line; 9. Provide paved pedestrian access to Pingree Avenue; 10. Complete lot combination application process. Motion was seconded by Commissioner Holman and passed unanimously with Commissioners Blaisdell, Graf, Holman, Sandau, Schade, Wright and Herman voting aye. 6. Public Hearing, Petition #2017-9 to Amend Zoning Ordinance 15-15-2 to eliminate Accessory Dwelling Units (ADU’s) in the Southeast Ogden Planning Community, and amending 15-35-2 to correct redundancy in the Code. Mr. Spencer first described what constitutes an Accessory Dwelling Unit, indicating while the online survey gave a brief description, there still is confusion as to how they can and cannot operate. An accessory dwelling may be operated if a home is owner occupied and the second unit is less than 40% of the total floor area. While the homeowner may occupy either the main portion or accessory portion, the second unit is limited to two adults and their minor children. The typical student housing of three unrelated tenants is NOT allowed in an accessory dwelling unit. These are required to be inspected and licensed, with permits renewed annually, and permits are not transferable to new property owners. Each new owner is required to re-apply for the use as an accessory dwelling unit. These are currently allowed throughout the City, excepting areas where specifically prohibited by the community plan. The application before the Commission is to prohibit any accessory dwelling unit in the entire Southeast Ogden community. Mr. Tom Marcheschi, 4517 Fillmore, stated there is a growing concern of area residents about noncompliant basement apartments close to WSU. He has obtained 127 signatures from area residents opposing these in the Southeast Ogden Community. He stated these should rather be located in areas which need to be revitalized, and indicated it creates a situation where the whole home becomes a rental over time. He stated this is a stable community and there is no need for basement apartments. He felt existing legal ADU’s can be grandfathered and allowed, and stated the use is not conducive to the R-1-8 and R-1-10 neighborhoods. He stated while some community ---PAGE BREAK--- Page 10 of 16 plans exempt particular areas where accessory dwelling units are not allowed, the Southeast Ogden Plan is silent and does not address accessory dwelling units. He felt the Plan is due to be updated so options for housing can be discussed by property owners. He stated existing homes were built and intended for single-family use which could be lost if ADU’s became prevalent. He felt the single-family area should remain stabilized. Mr. Spencer stated his review considers two provisions in the Code. The first is to respond to the request to prohibit Accessory Dwelling Units in the Southeast Community, and the second is to correct redundancy in the Code relating to Accessory Dwelling Units. He stated over 2,500 post cards were sent to area property owners inviting them to respond to an on-line survey relating to ADU’s. He reviewed the history of the Southeast Community Plan, stating it was first adopted in 1987, with an amendment as recent as 2009 to allow Accessory Dwelling Units in the Country Hills subdivision area. He reviewed the history and concept of accessory dwellings, stating it was first considered in 2000 at which time the City Council felt reluctant that it be established City-wide. It was then again considered in 2008 at which time they were was allowed as petitioned. Accessory dwellings encourage home ownership by allowing a small portion of a home to be rented creating additional income and secure the investment in the home by the owner. They also allow existing residents to remain in their homes and neighborhoods longer by adding tenants that can assist with house and yard work which may not otherwise be possible. He then reviewed the definition of a mother-in-law apartment, as an apartment which is occupied by a family member and no rent is obtained. A duplex use is still not allowed, and the City is unable to govern whether a home is owner-occupied or not. He stated the enforcement of zoning regulations is accomplished by Code Enforcement, manned by three enforcement officers serving over 32,000 households. While enforcement may be difficult, the City depends on residents to report violations, which may be done anonymously. If residents are aware of any particular Code violation, such as more than three unrelated tenants in a dwelling unit, they are encouraged to contact Code Enforcement who would then work with the property owner to bring it into compliance. Mr. Spencer then reviewed the results of the survey, indicating there were 396 responses, constituting 16% of households. He stated there are three licensed ADU’s, while the respondents indicated there are 28 legal ADU’s and 13 illegal ADU’s. He stated the response of the survey is about 50% of the community being in favor of Accessory Dwelling Units. Staff recommendation is to approve the amendment to remove redundancy from the Ordinance but to deny the prohibition of ADU’s in the entire Southeast Ogden Community. He also clarified that when the ADU language was recently adopted to be applicable to the entire City, the Council had directed Staff to work with the Mt. Ogden and East Central Community Plans where they are restricted in an effort to remove that restriction. Mr. Montgomery addressed the potential for updating the Southeast Ogden Plan, stating the City Administration had directed Staff to focus on updating existing ordinances rather than updating community plans. The petition before the Commission is to amend the Zoning Ordinance to exclude the potential of ADU’s in the Southeast Ogden Community, rather than to Amend the Community Plan. As the Commission considers the petition, Staff has suggested the concern of area residents may warrant consideration of particular neighborhoods within the community rather than dis-allowing them throughout the entire Southeast Ogden Community. Ms. Dani Nels, 4357 Bobwhite Court, asked about the concept of allowing two-family dwellings rather than single-family homes. She felt homes should remain as single-family and felt the City should be promoting single-family residences over basement rentals. She was concerned that the ---PAGE BREAK--- Page 11 of 16 second dwelling unit would house 15 college students. She felt single-family homes should be preserved and if residents desire to rent their basements, they should then seek a permit by Ogden City. Ms. Bonnie McDonald, 1061 Edgewood Drive, felt the proposed amendment would destroy the integrity of neighborhoods, stating rentals tend to degrade neighborhoods. She stated homeowners have invested in their community and have an expectation for homes to remain single-family. She expressed concern of homes being rented to college students which disturbs and degrades the neighborhood. Mr. Bill Self, 3845 Van Buren, felt the petition should be denied, stating there are a large number of these existing in the community, and are beneficial to both the homeowner and the students. He stated students prefer the atmosphere of a home and neighborhood, and also feel safer than in an apartment. He felt these are an asset to the neighborhood, and felt a single-family area with basement apartments are better than an apartment complex. Widows desire to stay in their homes and feel safer with a student or two living in the basement. He stated developers are often looking to purchase these residential properties, but felt the single-family neighborhood should be protected. He felt the ability to house students in neighborhoods helps to stabilize the area. Mr. Brent Belnap, 1592 Oakcrest Drive, expressed concern about the survey and the ability for residents to respond more than one time, which might change the results. He stated there are many existing ADU’s which are not registered. He stated he would not like up to 50% of his neighborhood to be rentals, and felt the ADUs would decrease the market value of homes, stating existing areas zoned ADU have experienced a decline in housing stock. He stated there are other housing options, and felt ADU’s are appropriate in some locations, but not in this community. He suggested the area has the potential of being advertised as multi-family. He stated he had reviewed many of the comments from the survey and felt some valid points were made. He didn’t feel the residents should be responsible to enforce the City’s regulations. Mr. Rick Safsten, 4499 Fillmore, stated the concept of ADU’s is not bad, and may be appropriate in other areas. He felt it is a soft way to introduce two-family dwellings in the R-1 zones, suggesting if the City desires two families per unit, areas should be rezoned to R-2. He expressed concern that many ADU’s are not registered or licensed, and the existing ordinance is being ignored and not adequately enforced. He felt R-2 uses in R-1 zones destroys the character of existing single- family neighborhoods. He felt there is no benefit to the ADU regulations and felt there are enough vacant homes available for multi-family and felt this area was not meant to be multi- family. Mr. Alex Boyer, 1010 40th Street felt the petition should be denied. He felt residents and realtors should be better educated regarding accessory dwelling units. He felt there is some confusion, indicating a rental is not an ADU, if homes are rented, these are not legal ADU’s. He felt ADU’s would encourage home ownership, allowing grandparents to remain in their homes and increase the ability for the purchase of homes. Ms. Marcie Matonis, 1545 Pinecrest Drive, indicated they had relocated to Ogden from Florida, stating they chose this neighborhood due to its single-family character. She felt adding ADU’s would increase traffic and add children to the school system. She was concerned with the potential increase in vehicular traffic as well as impact on the local schools. She expressed concern that there was no ability for City-wide input when the ADU regulations were passed. She ---PAGE BREAK--- Page 12 of 16 felt people should not purchase homes if they need tenant income in order to make payments, and expressed concern with enforcement. Mr. Chase Troy, 3642 Van Buren, expressed favor of the petition, stating Code Enforcement is more proactive in other communities and felt Ogden could do better, and felt neighbors should not have to be the enforcement avenue of the City. Mr. Eric Waterfall, 4453 Fillmore, expressed appreciation for the clarification of what is and is not an ADU. He stated the bigger problem is the rental of homes in the community, but the homeowner living on site brings a protection from any effect to other properties. He stated ADU’s are an essential part of the makeup of Ogden’s communities. He stated there are dozens of operating ADU’s in the Forest Green community. He stated the status quo has been to allow ADU’s, stating he had lived in a basement apartment in Forest Green and was then able to purchase a home there, stating these provide diversity and provides a stable and desirable neighborhood. He felt ADU’s are the embodiment of the “Start in Ogden/Stay in Ogden” mantra. He felt owners would not rent their basements to those not desirable in the neighborhood. He felt ADU’s work and provide a better and cheaper alternative to apartment living for students and non-students. He felt the allowance of Accessory Dwelling Units could only serve to improve the value of the neighborhood. Ms. Ann Gilbert, 4910 Apache, stated most homes would not qualify as a legal ADU as there is no separate entrance. She stated homes were built as single-family, indicating additional off-street parking may be necessary. She stated she is seeking to maintain the integrity of the single-family neighborhood, and felt enforcement is a problem, indicating residents should not have to confront neighbors when violations occur. She felt existing ordinances are unenforceable as there are already ADU’s in the community and expressed favor of the petition. Mr. Trevor Hightower, 1303 Country Hills Drive, stated he had lived in an ADU on Taylor Avenue as a student where there were two separate dwelling units as well as the owner living there. Later, after he married, he again lived in an ADU, and now he has purchased a home had hoped to be able to rent a basement unit but had been told it was not in an area where these were legal, and had not been aware of the 2016 amendment allowing them throughout the City. He felt these are not a nuisance to the neighborhood but can be a benefit. He expressed he felt there could be better regulations for ADU’s and enforcement near WSU could be better. He stated the College purchases homes and rents them to professors which also should be enforced. Mr. Gary Bell, 4551 Taylor, stated he is in favor of the petition. He felt accessory units create excessive noise, parking problems, traffic problems and tenants have no respect for either the home or the property. He felt there is no benefit for an ADU. Mr. Val Lofgreen, 4278 Edgehill Drive, stated parents often purchase homes for their children to live in while attending WSU and they become rentals, where neither the home or the yard are cared for. He felt ADU’s would then become rentals over time, and would be difficult to enforce. Mr. Max Thompson. 4151 College Drive, stated he is in favor of the petition. He felt ADU’s are single family areas converted to R-2 zoning. The proper use of an ADU is an exception rather than the rule, indicating these cause deterioration of neighborhoods. He stated Ogden City is unable to monitor ADU’s and it is unlikely they would be done correctly and rentals affect the surrounding community. ---PAGE BREAK--- Page 13 of 16 Mr. Matt Scalen, 4842 Ridgedale Drive suggested there is not enough information and would like to see a better response rate for the survey. Ms. Gloria Burcher, 1785 Seven Oaks Lane, stated she chose to come back to Ogden and chose a private residence, and felt an ADU is difficult to regulate and there is a loss of pride when rentals are allowed. She stated those not in compliance are causing a loss of revenue by Ogden City. Ms. Lorinda Belnap, 1592 Oakcrest Drive, expressed support of the petition and felt it is fair in that it excludes new ADU’s, allows those that are legally existing and exempts the area which was zoned specifically to allow them. Ms. Jane Kramer, 4284 Edgehill Drive stated the commonality is that everyone wants a nice neighborhood. She stated these are now happening and not enforced, whether the action is approved or not. She stated the bigger problem is that of people renting homes. Ms. Cyndi Marcheschi, 4517 Fillmore, expressed support of the existing single family neighborhoods surrounding WSU, as well as the WSU campus and students, but in other areas surrounding universities where rentals are allowed quickly deteriorate. She stated there are limited areas still zoned for single-family and felt high density housing should be confined to commercial areas and not allowed in neighborhoods. She felt allowing higher density in these neighborhoods would commercialize the area and it would then deteriorate. She felt there might be a solution to protect neighborhoods, allowing ADUs only in other areas, and exempt them in this particular neighborhood, indicating those that are legal operating could be grandfathered. Mr. Steve Richey, 4281 Edgehill Drive, stated he built his home in this community at a time when it was truly a first class neighborhood, but the area has since deteriorated as properties are sold and then become rentals. He stated he had been informed at that time there was no ability for rentals in these homes. He stated there are litter problems in the area, and it appears there is a lack of control of rentals in this neighborhood, which is a threat to the existing residents and their safety. He asked enforcement take a special look at the area between the WSU tennis courts and Country Hills Drive. Ms. Vickie Thompson stated there is a problem with homes being rented in this community. The home is in bad condition and there are ongoing problems, making residents feel unsafe. She stated both Ogden City and WSU police have been informed of the problems and have not responded. Mr. Tom Marcheschi stated there was no public comment relating to ADU’s at either the Planning Commission or City Council meeting when the Ordinance was considered for adoption. He stated the representatives of the community have expressed a common feeling they care about their community and the surrounding neighborhood. He felt most in the neighborhood desire to do the right thing, and while those now operating may have not been aware of the licensing requirement. He stated the existing units operating are not a problem but was concerned if two unit dwellings might become more prevalent in the neighborhood. As there were no additional comments, a motion was made by Commissioner Schade to close the public hearing. Motion was seconded by Commissioner Wright and passed unanimously. Mr. Spencer recognized there are various opinions, and while Staff is sympathetic to entire homes being rentals, there are no regulations or requirements indicating homes must be owner- ---PAGE BREAK--- Page 14 of 16 occupied. He acknowledged code enforcement is a daunting task, and it is difficult for the three officers to keep up with the problems throughout the City. He stated an accessory dwelling unit may or may not have a separate entrance, but it cannot be at the front of the home and must be either on the side or rear. As long as the single-family home has the required legal parking, additional parking is not required for an accessory dwelling. He stated while an extreme situation might create many within an area, these are typically not desirable for every homeowner, and if approved, there is no requirement that owners have a second unit. He stated the survey results indicated 59% would not be interested in creating an accessory dwelling in their home while only 16% said they might. He stated while there may be some ability for people to access the survey more than once, affecting its accuracy, Staff feels it is an important tool when considering the proposed amendment. He felt the survey is close to accurate as it reflected about the same results as phone calls he received relating to the petition. He stated while National vacancy rates were cited in the public comment, these numbers may or may not typical of either Utah, Ogden or this community. He again reviewed the existing regulations, stating a single family home may legally only accommodate up to three unrelated individuals, which could not have an accessory unit as it would not be owner-occupied. Single-family home with an ADU is required to be occupied by the owner, and the second unit may only be occupied by up to two adults, whether related or not. Minor children are not restricted, but adult children would count. Commission asked if there are homes in the community which might have been built to accommodate a second unit. Mr. Spencer indicated while a single-family home may have a separate entrance, it may or may not have been intended for two units. He stated there is no data to indicate whether homes were initially built with the idea that a second unit might be established at some time. He stated for the most part, this option would not be used by residents, but felt a spattering of accessory dwelling units throughout the community is not damaging to its character. Chair Herman stated the recommendation of Staff is two-fold, to correct, some redundancy in the Code relating to ADU’s, and second, to consider whether the amendment to restrict these from the Southeast Ogden Community. He suggested these be considered separately. MOTION: A motion was made by Commissioner Schade to recommend amending the R-3EC chapter to eliminate redundancy relating to accessory dwelling units. Motion was seconded by Commissioner Graf and passed unanimously, with Commissioners Blaisdell, Graf, Holman, Sandau, Schade, Wright and Herman voting aye. Mr. Montgomery suggested the Commission may consider several options relating to Accessory Dwelling Units. He stated while the Southeast Ogden Plan has been amended several times, it has not been comprehensively reviewed since its adoption in 1987. At that time the focus was on growth and new development in the area, which now has mostly been built out. He stated the City Council has asked Staff to work with the community and with WSU relating to the issue of student housing, and suggested the first option would be to do a comprehensive update of the Southeast Ogden Plan at which time property owners may suggest areas within the community where ADU’s are or are not appropriate. The second option might be to table action and identify the real issues, weigh out concerns and then come to a consensus. He stated the concept of ADU’s require annual licensing so that the owner and the City are both aware and to prohibit the ---PAGE BREAK--- Page 15 of 16 ability of grandfathering illegal uses. Although a license may be granted at one time, there is no proscriptive right or guarantee for it to be maintained. A third option might be to exclude particular areas within the Community. Other options would be to either approve or deny the petition as it was submitted. Staff is recommending the item be continued and allow time for the Commission to have a work session at which time the Commission could discuss the various options. Chair Herman asked about the timing for consideration of a comprehensive review of the Community Plan. Mr. Montgomery stated the community plan process typically takes between eight months and one year. He also indicated as there are several physical barriers in the Southeast Ogden community, it may be desirable to meet with residents of particular neighborhoods within the community and update the Plan by sections. Commissioner Graf felt the ADU concept may be a good fit in some areas of Southeast Ogden, but felt they also could affect the quality of existing single-family neighborhoods, as it could serve to create a loophole whereby duplexes could be allowed. Commissioner Blaisdell commented there appears to be much misinformation as to what constitutes accessory dwellings, stating a rented home is more of the problem, but is not illegal. Chair Herman stated as there is some confusion both among the Commission and the public it may be well to allow some time until a plan could be reviewed which would address the issues identified until such a time specific neighborhoods within a community plans could be identified indicating where these may and may not be appropriate. Commissioner Schade expressed concern about the community plan process, and felt there should be some action on the petition rather than waiting for the plan to be updated. MOTION: A motion was made by Commissioner Schade to table action until the November meeting and request a work session can be held and a proper plan worked out relating to the petition. Motion was seconded by Commissioner Holman and passed 6-1 with Commissioners Blaisdell, Holman, Sandau, Schade, Wright and Herman voting aye and Commissioner Graf voting no. 7. Public Hearing, Petition #2017-11 to rezone from M-1 to CP-3 property at approximately 450 W 12th Street. Mr. Mike Nelson stated they are proposing multi-family with commercial uses and are requesting the property to be rezoned to CP-3. He indicated they are in the process of doing market research for the community, and have not yet prepared specific details on the number of units and/or amount of commercial space. The intent is for mixed use with both commercial and multi-family residential. Mr. Montgomery reviewed the existing zoning of the area, stating much of 12th Street has been rezoned to C-3 over time, and this 17-acre parcel remains in the M-2 zone. It has historically been used as a cornfield, and the request is for it to be rezoned to CP-3 in order allow mixed uses. He reviewed both the 12th Street Corridor Plan and the Lynn Community Plan, indicating the 12th Street Corridor Plan recommended properties which front 12th Street should be rezoned from manufacturing to commercial. He also reviewed the Community Policies, stating the property is along an arterial street, would blend with the character of the area, the rezoning request is based on market patterns, and would not cross property boundary lines. Staff recommendation is for approval. ---PAGE BREAK--- Page 16 of 16 Ms. Diana Alvord indicated she is the property owner and supports the request for CP-3 zoning. As there were no additional public comment, a motion was made by Commissioner Wright to close the public hearing. Motion was seconded by Commissioner Graf and passed unanimously. MOTION: A motion was made by Commissioner Wright to recommend approval of the rezoning of the property from M-2 to CP-3 based on the findings it is consistent with both the 12th Street Corridor Plan and the Community Plan, and is consistent with community policies. Motion was seconded by Commissioner Graf and passed unanimously, with Commissioners Blaisdell, Graf, Holman, Sandau, Schade, Wright and Herman voting aye. Review of Meeting Mr. Montgomery stated he felt the discussion on accessory dwelling units was productive and felt a work session would clarify some of the issues which were brought up by the public. Mr. Stratford indicated the work session would clarify the process and the Commission could later choose to either approve or deny the petition, but also could recommend the use be considered in greater detail during a community plan process. Mr. Montgomery indicated a petition has been received to consider allowing chickens in residential zones. This item will be discussed at the upcoming work session. Discussion continued relating to the fact-finding meeting of the City Council and the public process will proceed. Mr. Montgomery indicated the recent presentation from Joe Minicozzi is available on YouTube and encouraged the Commissioners to view it if they desire. The Power Point presentation is unavailable at this point due to its size. Mr. Minicozzi discusses the re-thinking of land use relating to cost of development relating to the land use process. There is a benefit of increased density. Mr. Montgomery reminded Commission members of the upcoming Fall APA Conference on October 5-6 and asked them to contact Staff if they desire to attend one or both days. There being no additional business before the Commission, the meeting was adjourned at 9:14 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Jannette Borklund, Planning Technician Approved: (date) Robert Herman, Chair ---PAGE BREAK--- 1 Minutes of the regular work session of the Ogden City Planning Commission, with the Ogden City Council. Meeting was conducted by Chair Herman and passed unanimously. Members Present: Robert Herman, Chair Rick Southwick, Vice-Chair Cathy Blaisdell Dave Graf Lillie Holman Jenny Sandau Bryan Schade Janith Wright Council Members Present: Marcia White, Chair Richard Hyer, Vice-Chair Bart Blair Neil Garner Doug Stephens Staff Present: Greg Montgomery, Planning Manager Mark Stratford, City Attorney Janene Eller-Smith, Council Executive Director Glenn Symes, Council Policy Analyst Amy Sue Mabey, Council Policy Analyst Brittany Griffin, Council Communications Manager Jannette Borklund, Planning Secretary Lee Ann Peterson, Deputy Recorder Others Present: John Christiansen JOINT WORK SESSION WITH CITY COUNCIL: 1. Discussion, Annexation and recent annexation law changes. Mr. Symes indicated this is the annual land use training work session with the Council and Planning Commission. He stated the State Legislature had recently passed legislation relating to annexation of islands and peninsulas Montgomery discussed why cities incorporate, and how property becomes within a city boundary. He stated cities are charged to provide services to properties within its boundaries such as police and fire protection, sewer, water, snow removal and other municipal services. Properties may annex in an effort to avoid double taxation, particularly if they are within a special service district. He stated while many property owners are reluctant to annex into the City due to the higher tax rates, many are already receiving City services which they do not pay for, but are subsidized by citizens. When property is already developed and services such as sewer and water are in place, there is no trigger whereby the City can require annexation. He stated the City recently improved a water and sewer line along Midland Drive, at which time properties were connected, but there was no requirement at that time for them to annex. While they previously had received services from Bona Vista Water, pressure was inadequate and they switched to Ogden City water. Since that time, they have still been paying the lower rate of Bona Vista to Ogden City, but have not been required to annex. The new State law allows counties to recommend properties which already are developed be ---PAGE BREAK--- 2 annexed into adjacent cities, and Weber County has since held public hearings to consider the recommendation these island parcels be annexed. They have recommended to Ogden City that consideration be given to annexing property in the southwest section to include all properties between the corporate boundaries and 1900 West. Mr. Stratford then reviewed the process whereby consideration of this area could occur. He stated, given the recommendation of Weber County, the next step would be for the City Council to adopt a resolution which identifies the intent of properties to be considered for annexation. While there is no State regulation requiring hearings by the Planning Commission, Ogden’s ordinances ask for a recommended zoning designation to be recommended by the Planning Commission. He discussed the timing of annexations as well as the appeal process and potential problems if property is annexed on a piecemeal basis. Mr. Montgomery reviewed information from the Weber County hearings, stating many property owners are opposed to being annexed due to higher tax rates. But they often may not understand benefits of being annexed. Existing nonconforming uses in Weber County may become legal uses if annexed in the City. It is acknowledged the City tax rates and school district rates are higher than those of Weber County, but by removing properties from special improvement districts such as Bona Vista Water, the net cost may not be that different. Some property owners feel their being annexed would make the business no longer profitable. Services often are being provided by Ogden City to these properties, particularly water, sewer and snow removal, yet no funds are received from the property owners to cover these services. It was indicated as the County has adopted a resolution to recommend the City consider annexing particular properties, the next step if the City desires react, would be for the City Council to adopt a resolution to identify properties the City feels should be annexed, which may include those recommended by Weber County. The City also could adopt a resolution to consider annexation of properties not recommended by Weber County. PLANNING COMMISSION DISCUSSION 1. Discussion: Petition to allow urban chickens. Mr. Montgomery discussed the history of chickens in Ogden City, stating they were allowed prior to 1964 in both A-1 and M zones, at which time they were considered under the definition of family food production. In 1972 the A-1 and F zones were eliminated and the family food production definition was allowed only in manufacturing zones. Since 1986, the definition has been removed and the use removed from the Ordinance completely. He stated later in 1986 a petition was submitted to allow ducks, which was denied by both the Planning Commission and City Council. Then in 2009 a petition was submitted to allow chickens north of 12th Street which was denied by both bodies, and in 2010 another request for chickens throughout the City also was denied. In 2012 a petition was submitted, but withdrawn before any meetings were held. The current petition was submitted following the City Council’s fact finding meeting on August 21st. He then reviewed information provided to the City Council, indicating many of the Commission members had attended. Proponents for chickens cite self-sufficiency, teaching responsibility to children, insect control and fertilizer as reasons chickens should be allowed. The petition also might make existing uses legal and satisfy a current market trend. Representatives from other various groups spoke, and while some indicated chickens as pets, others indicated they are not the type of animal to be cuddled and fondled. Representatives from USU and Weber/Morgan Health cited health and safety issues relating to raising chickens. He stated one concern is the carrying capacity of an individual plot of land. ---PAGE BREAK--- 3 He then reviewed provisions of the General Plan, stating it indicates there should be a focus on the revitalization of community, enhancing neighborhoods, and providing a safe, livable and attractive community. The Plan does not address family food production in any way. Other concerns relating to chickens is the potential of increased pests such as rats, mice, raccoons and hawks which are predators for fowl. It was indicated many homes have only a 15’ rear yard, which would limit any potential location for chickens. Mr. Montgomery stated many communities have recently adopted language to allow urban chickens, and indicated he has found their regulations and presented them for the information of the Commission. While some cities license chickens, they are aware there many owners who do not license them, and its enforcement is difficult. Many cities regulate the number of chickens based on the lot size, while others do not. Each requires a fenced yard, and some address coop size and outside area where chickens can be maintained. Most identify minimum distances from property lines and/or existing residential structures. While Ogden does not allow chickens, the animal section of the Ordinance relating to pens indicate they must be 75 from any dwelling. He presented data from North Ogden, Roy, Layton, Provo, Orem, Brigham. Salt Lake City and Weber County. He stated a typical hen is able to lay for three years, and lay four eggs per week. Most cities prohibit slaughtering of chickens on the property, and there are no specific regulations relating to noise. While roosters are typically not allowed, it is difficult to determine the sex of a chick when they are purchased young. He stated while the raising of urban chickens is a current trend, as citizens begin to raise chickens, there is concern the added responsibility might be difficult to maintain over time. He stated there is difficulty in enforcing regulations, and some feel noise odors and other results of chickens would degrade the surrounding community over time. As with pet owners, some are more responsible than others, and while some chickens would be well cared for, there is concern others may not. Staff feels while the Commission may recommend either approval or denial of the petition, it is suggested the Commission direct Staff to prepare language which would be appropriate to consider where chickens can be located on residential lots, addressing existing development patterns, lot sizes and setbacks. The Ordinance may define a chicken, may or may not include other fowl, consider the total number of animals/pets, identify distances from property lines and residences, identify a coop size maximum, and consider a sunset provision for the Ordinance, in that it would expire in three years allowing Staff to consider the costs/benefits of the Ordinance to the City and its residents. Commission asked Staff to also contact other recreation-oriented communities and find whether they allow chickens, including Ketchum, Idaho and Park City. Mr. Montgomery asked what additional information is desirable for the Commission in an effort to consider the petition. Commissioners felt it is important to consider the carrying capacity of a particular lot and if there is any way to determine what it can and cannot handle. They felt it important to have a three-year sunset, and asked for information about whether chickens can be at large in a yard, confined to a coop, or a mixture of the two as well as whether there is a minimum or maximum coop size. Commission expressed concern a 6’ fence may not be adequate to restrain birds. Language should address a minimum available area for chickens while still maintaining adequate setbacks from property lines and the on-site residence. Commission felt many of these concepts are appropriate to be considered in ordinance language and suggested tenants obtain approval from the property owner due to the long-term ---PAGE BREAK--- 4 ramifications of the chicken area. They also felt it appropriate to address the disposal of chickens which are no longer producing eggs, as well as fees and the cost of the City to enforce. Commission felt it is appropriate to require a license, and felt fees should be established in an effort to address the cost of enforcement. It also was suggested the number of licenses or permits might be limited. There being no additional business before the Commission, the meeting was adjourned at 8:08 p.m. Respectfully submitted Jannette Borklund, Planning Technician Approved: (date) Robert Herman, Chair ---PAGE BREAK--- OGDEN CITY PLANNING COMMISSION October 4, 2017 AGENDA ITEM - A Page 1 of 19 Agenda Name: AMENDMENT OF CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT #00- 152 TO INSTALL AN ADDITIONAL CELLULAR ANTENNA ON THE EXISTING CELL TOWER AT 771 3RD STREET Petitioner/ Developer: Craig Chagnon Crown Networks LLC 2055 South Stearman Drive Chandler, AZ 85286 Petitioner/ Developer’s requested action: Approval of the proposed conditional use permit amendment to install a microwave dish and associated equipment to the existing cell tower. Cellular towers and antennas are conditional uses throughout the city, and are subject to the criteria outlined in 15-7-4, which are the basis for issuing conditional use permits. The applicable criteria the Commission must review would relate to the visual implications of the proposed cell antenna and equipment to the surrounding uses. As part of the criteria for issuing and amending conditional use permits, the use will also need to comply with the regulations and conditions of the land use ordinances. Commission action is the final action needed for use approval. The applicant will still need to complete the necessary building and site reviews and obtain the necessary permits. 1. The proposed use is / is not compatible with the surrounding development. 2. The proposed use will/ will not comply with land use ordinances. Staff recommends approval of the conditional use permit amendment subject to satisfying department staff comments. Report by Joseph Simpson Planning Staff’s Recommended Action What Planning Commission reviews Planning Commission’s determination for action ---PAGE BREAK--- OGDEN CITY PLANNING COMMISSION October 4, 2017 AGENDA ITEM - A Page 2 of 19 Vicinity Map ---PAGE BREAK--- OGDEN CITY PLANNING COMMISSION October 4, 2017 AGENDA ITEM - A Page 3 of 19 This proposal is to install a diameter microwave dish on the existing 70’ tall tower. The dish is to be located 60’ from the ground level. All of the equipment to support the new dish will be on the ground in the enclosed equipment area (see attached plans). Conditional Use Requirements: 1. The proposed use will not, under the circumstances of the particular case and the conditions imposed, be detrimental to the health, safety and general welfare of persons, nor injurious to property and improvements in the community, existing surrounding uses, buildings and structures. It shall be demonstrated that the use and property development: 2. Does not introduce hazards or potentials for damage to neighboring properties that cannot be mitigated; The proposed microwave dish and associated equipment will be well confined on the site by being located on the 70’ tall tower and in the equipment enclosure on the ground, and will not introduce hazards or potentials that could damage neighboring properties. 3. Is in keeping with the type of existing uses surrounding the property and development as proposed will improve the character of the area by encouraging reinvestment and upgrading of surrounding properties. The proposed cellular antennas and equipment is a minimal addition to the existing tower, and will not affect the school property when considering the overall impact. The proposal could also be considered a driving force for encouraging reinvestment and the upgrading of surrounding properties since the networks at this location would increase the efficiency of wireless devices associated with this site. 2. The proposed use will comply with the regulations and conditions specified in the land use ordinances. Utility towers and antennas are exempt from height regulations, and therefore regulations for the use and height are not exact. The goal when locating antennas for a cellular use has been to place them on existing structures, which prevents the construction of the more cell towers, and reduces impacts to surrounding uses. This proposal follows this concept by placing the microwave dish on the existing cellular tower. Description of request Factors for consideration of action ---PAGE BREAK--- OGDEN CITY PLANNING COMMISSION October 4, 2017 AGENDA ITEM - A Page 4 of 19 1. Project Summary 2. Applicant Letter 3. Site/Elevation Plan 4. County Plat 5. Site Location Photo 6. Utility Plans (2 pages) 7. Department Staff Comments (3 pages) 8. Public Notice (4 pages) Attachments ---PAGE BREAK--- OGDEN CITY PLANNING COMMISSION October 4, 2017 AGENDA ITEM - A Page 5 of 19 Property Address: 491 Gramercy Avenue Zone: R-1-6 Planning Community: Hillcrest Bonneville Property Size: 13.26 acres Existing Use: Cell tower on Highland Jr. High School campus November 2016- Conditional use permit approval to install three additional cell antennas on the tower. July 2000- Conditional use permit approved to install a 70’ tall cell tower and six, 6’ tall antennas. Past Actions Project Summary ---PAGE BREAK--- OGDEN CITY PLANNING COMMISSION October 4, 2017 AGENDA ITEM - A Page 6 of 19 2. Applicant Letter (2 pages) ---PAGE BREAK--- OGDEN CITY PLANNING COMMISSION October 4, 2017 AGENDA ITEM - A Page 7 of 19 ---PAGE BREAK--- OGDEN CITY PLANNING COMMISSION October 4, 2017 AGENDA ITEM - A Page 8 of 19 3. Site/Elevation Plan ---PAGE BREAK--- OGDEN CITY PLANNING COMMISSION October 4, 2017 AGENDA ITEM - A Page 9 of 19 4. County Plat ---PAGE BREAK--- OGDEN CITY PLANNING COMMISSION October 4, 2017 AGENDA ITEM - A Page 10 of 19 5. Site Location Photo ---PAGE BREAK--- OGDEN CITY PLANNING COMMISSION October 4, 2017 AGENDA ITEM - A Page 11 of 19 6. Utility Plans (2 pages) ---PAGE BREAK--- OGDEN CITY PLANNING COMMISSION October 4, 2017 AGENDA ITEM - A Page 12 of 19 ---PAGE BREAK--- OGDEN CITY PLANNING COMMISSION October 4, 2017 AGENDA ITEM - A Page 13 of 19 7. Department Staff Comments (3 pages) ---PAGE BREAK--- OGDEN CITY PLANNING COMMISSION October 4, 2017 AGENDA ITEM - A Page 14 of 19 ---PAGE BREAK--- OGDEN CITY PLANNING COMMISSION October 4, 2017 AGENDA ITEM - A Page 15 of 19 ---PAGE BREAK--- OGDEN CITY PLANNING COMMISSION October 4, 2017 AGENDA ITEM - A Page 16 of 19 8. Public Notice (4 pages) ---PAGE BREAK--- OGDEN CITY PLANNING COMMISSION October 4, 2017 AGENDA ITEM - A Page 17 of 19 ---PAGE BREAK--- OGDEN CITY PLANNING COMMISSION October 4, 2017 AGENDA ITEM - A Page 18 of 19 ---PAGE BREAK--- OGDEN CITY PLANNING COMMISSION October 4, 2017 AGENDA ITEM - A Page 19 of 19 ---PAGE BREAK--- OGDEN CITY PLANNING COMMISSION October 4, 2017 AGENDA ITEM - B Page 1 of 20 Agenda Name: CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AMENDMENT TO INSTALL ADDITIONAL CELLULAR ANTENNAS ON THE EXISTING CELL TOWER AT 551 LINCOLN AVENUE Petitioner/ Developer: Jared White Sprint 1894 West 1690 South Woods Cross, UT 84087 Petitioner/ Developer’s requested action: Approval of the proposed conditional use permit amendment to install three cell antennas and associated equipment to the existing cell tower. Cellular towers and antennas are conditional uses throughout the city, and are subject to the criteria outlined in 15-7-4, which are the basis for issuing conditional use permits. The applicable criteria the Commission must review would relate to the visual implications of the proposed cell antenna and equipment to the surrounding uses. As part of the criteria for issuing and amending conditional use permits, the use will also need to comply with the regulations and conditions of the land use ordinances. Commission action is the final action needed for use approval. The applicant will still need to complete the necessary building and site reviews and obtain the necessary permits. 1. The design of the cell antennas, pole, and equipment on the site will / will not be compatible with surrounding properties with staff recommendation of installing new fencing/wall and modifying landscaping around the site. 2. The cell antennas, pole, and equipment will / will not be in compliance with the regulations and conditions in the land use ordinances with staff recommendation to screen the equipment enclosure with more substantial fencing/wall. Report by Joseph Simpson What Planning Commission reviews Planning Commission’s determination for action ---PAGE BREAK--- OGDEN CITY PLANNING COMMISSION October 4, 2017 AGENDA ITEM - B Page 2 of 20 Staff recommends approval of the proposed cell antennas and equipment, subject to: 1. The chain-link fence surrounding the tower be replaced with either a 6’ masonry wall or 6’ metal screening fence (type approved by staff). 2. The steep planter and sidewalk on the south side of the tower enclosure be removed and concrete stairs be installed. 3. Four to five large trees be planted east of the tower per the Ogden City Forester specifications and installed under a financial guarantee contract with Ogden City. 4. Satisfying all department staff comments. Vicinity Map Planning Staff’s Recommended Action ---PAGE BREAK--- OGDEN CITY PLANNING COMMISSION October 4, 2017 AGENDA ITEM - B Page 3 of 20 This proposal is to install a cellular antenna, two cellular antennas, and equipment to support the antennas on this existing 100’ cell tower (see attached plans). There are no other proposed modifications to the site, however there are several issues with landscaping and the screening fence on the site. These issues and staff’s recommendations to address the issues are discussed in the section below. 1. Design Compatibility: The proposed site and building design and placement at the particular location is compatible with: a. The character of the site in relationship with the surrounding uses which includes buildings and site uses integrating with the topography of the site, retaining trees of value, using natural features as site amenities, developing landscaping along the public areas of the property to create an improved streetscape, reducing expanses of large areas of asphalt or concrete, and screening objectionable views that may exist on the site from all surrounding property owners: The proposed antennas and equipment are a small addition to the 100’ tall tower and should have little impact to the site or surrounding properties. However, the overall tower, antennas, and equipment do present a visual impact to the site. Attempts have been made previously to mitigate these impacts in previous amendments by installing landscaping around the tower and a chain-link screening fence around the equipment area. Every time an amendment has been proposed with the tower it has been discovered that shrubs and trees have died off and many of the screening slats in the chain-link fence have been removed. Each amendment these items are replaced. As shown on the attached photos, once again several of the shrubs and trees have died around the site and screening slats have been removed from the chain-link fence. In talking with the Parks and Public Ways Department, it seems that the damage is done to these items with the general use of the public park and vandalism. Additionally, the planter area along the south side of the enclosure is too steep to maintain plants and groundcovers. As a solution to the steep planter area on the south side of the enclosure, staff is recommending that the planter and sidewalk be removed and replaced with stairs. The shrubs that have been required on the north, east, and south sides of the tower could be eliminated by installing a more substantial screening fence/wall, as these were required mainly to soften the appearance of the chain-link fence. This type of fence/wall would address the issue of the screening slats being removed from the chain-link fence as well. Staff is recommending that the fence/wall either be a metal screening fence similar to the attached metal fence options, or a masonry wall. Description of request Factors for consideration of action ---PAGE BREAK--- OGDEN CITY PLANNING COMMISSION October 4, 2017 AGENDA ITEM - B Page 4 of 20 The large trees that were planted east of the tower that have died are required to reduce the visual impact of the tower from a distance. Staff is recommending that the applicant work with the City Urban Forester to replace the four to five missing trees. 2. Compliance with Regulations: The proposed use will comply with the regulations and conditions specified in the land use ordinances: Though there is no set height standard for cellular antennas or towers, it is ideal to locate them on existing structures. The proposal to add the antennas on the existing tower is in-line with this provision. The ordinance does direct the need to screen utility equipment from view. Staff’s recommendations will better screen this large utility from the park users and surrounding properties. These improvements will also be more durable to the uses of the park and vandalism. 1. Project Summary 2. Elevation Plan 3. Site Plan 4. County Plat 5. Site Location Photos (3 pages) 6. Metal Fence Options (2 pages) 7. Antenna Plan 8. Department Staff Comments (2 pages) 9. Public Notice (4 pages) Attachments ---PAGE BREAK--- OGDEN CITY PLANNING COMMISSION October 4, 2017 AGENDA ITEM - B Page 5 of 20 Property Address: 551 Lincoln Avenue Zone: O-1 Existing Use: Cell tower in the 4th Street Ball Park June 2012- Conditional use permit approval to allow collocation of the cell tower. July 2005- Conditional use permit approval to allow collocation of the cell tower. May 1999- Conditional use permit approval to allow collocation of the cell tower. August 1996- Conditional use permit approved to install a 100’ cell tower. Past Actions Project Summary ---PAGE BREAK--- OGDEN CITY PLANNING COMMISSION October 4, 2017 AGENDA ITEM - B Page 6 of 20 2. Elevation Plan ---PAGE BREAK--- OGDEN CITY PLANNING COMMISSION October 4, 2017 AGENDA ITEM - B Page 7 of 20 3. Site Plan ---PAGE BREAK--- OGDEN CITY PLANNING COMMISSION October 4, 2017 AGENDA ITEM - B Page 8 of 20 4. County Plat ---PAGE BREAK--- OGDEN CITY PLANNING COMMISSION October 4, 2017 AGENDA ITEM - B Page 9 of 20 5. Site Location Photos (3 pages) ---PAGE BREAK--- OGDEN CITY PLANNING COMMISSION October 4, 2017 AGENDA ITEM - B Page 10 of 20 ---PAGE BREAK--- OGDEN CITY PLANNING COMMISSION October 4, 2017 AGENDA ITEM - B Page 11 of 20 ---PAGE BREAK--- OGDEN CITY PLANNING COMMISSION October 4, 2017 AGENDA ITEM - B Page 12 of 20 6. Metal Fence Options (2 pages) ---PAGE BREAK--- OGDEN CITY PLANNING COMMISSION October 4, 2017 AGENDA ITEM - B Page 13 of 20 ---PAGE BREAK--- OGDEN CITY PLANNING COMMISSION October 4, 2017 AGENDA ITEM - B Page 14 of 20 7. Antenna Plan ---PAGE BREAK--- OGDEN CITY PLANNING COMMISSION October 4, 2017 AGENDA ITEM - B Page 15 of 20 8. Department Staff Comments (2 pages) ---PAGE BREAK--- OGDEN CITY PLANNING COMMISSION October 4, 2017 AGENDA ITEM - B Page 16 of 20 ---PAGE BREAK--- OGDEN CITY PLANNING COMMISSION October 4, 2017 AGENDA ITEM - B Page 17 of 20 9. Public Notice (4 pages) ---PAGE BREAK--- OGDEN CITY PLANNING COMMISSION October 4, 2017 AGENDA ITEM - B Page 18 of 20 ---PAGE BREAK--- OGDEN CITY PLANNING COMMISSION October 4, 2017 AGENDA ITEM - B Page 19 of 20 ---PAGE BREAK--- OGDEN CITY PLANNING COMMISSION October 4, 2017 AGENDA ITEM - B Page 20 of 20 ---PAGE BREAK--- OGDEN CITY PLANNING COMMISSION October 4, 2017 AGENDA ITEM - C Page 1 of 15 Agenda Name: CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AMENDMENT TO REPLACE AND INSTALL ADDITIONAL CELLULAR ANTENNAS ON THE EXISTING CELL TOWER AT 2716 SOUTH 1760 WEST Petitioner/ Developer: Eric Shaw American Tower/Verizon c/o Powder River Development 219 South Wooddale Ave. Eagle, ID 83616 Petitioner/ Developer’s requested action: Approval of the proposed conditional use permit amendment to replace and relocate six existing cell antennas and install an additional cell antenna and three remote radio heads with associated equipment on the existing cell tower. Cellular towers and antennas are conditional uses throughout the city, and are subject to the criteria outlined in 15-7-4, which are the basis for issuing conditional use permits. The applicable criteria the Commission must review would relate to the visual implications of the proposed cell antenna and equipment to the surrounding uses. As part of the criteria for issuing conditional use permits, the use will also need to comply with the regulations and conditions of the land use ordinances. Commission action is the final action needed for use approval. The applicant will still need to complete the necessary building and site reviews and obtain the necessary permits. 1. The proposed use is / is not compatible with the surrounding development. 2. The proposed use will/ will not comply with land use ordinances. Staff recommends approval of the conditional use permit amendment subject to satisfying department staff comments. Report by Joseph Simpson Planning Commission’s determination for action What Planning Commission reviews Planning Staff’s Recommended Action ---PAGE BREAK--- OGDEN CITY PLANNING COMMISSION October 4, 2017 AGENDA ITEM - C Page 2 of 15 Vicinity Map ---PAGE BREAK--- OGDEN CITY PLANNING COMMISSION October 4, 2017 AGENDA ITEM - C Page 3 of 15 This proposal is to upgrade and relocate six existing cell antennas and install an additional cellular antennas and associated equipment on the existing 112’ tall monopole on this vacant lot (see attached site plan and elevation plans). Among the associated equipment will be three remote radio heads (RRH) on the antenna arrays (see attached utility plans). The new antennas and RRHs would match the existing white antennas on the monopole. The other equipment will be located in the equipment enclosure on the ground. Conditional Use Requirements: 1. The proposed use will not, under the circumstances of the particular case and the conditions imposed, be detrimental to the health, safety and general welfare of persons, nor injurious to property and improvements in the community, existing surrounding uses, buildings and structures. It shall be demonstrated that the use and property development: 2. Does not introduce hazards or potentials for damage to neighboring properties that cannot be mitigated; The proposed cellular antennas and associated equipment will be well confined on the site by being located on the 112’ tall tower and in the equipment enclosure on the ground, and will not introduce hazards or potentials that could damage neighboring properties. 3. Is in keeping with the type of existing uses surrounding the property and development as proposed will improve the character of the area by encouraging reinvestment and upgrading of surrounding properties. The proposed cellular antennas and equipment is a minimal addition to the existing tower and antenna arrays, and will not affect the property when considering the overall impact. The proposal could also be considered a driving force for encouraging reinvestment and upgrading of surrounding properties since the network that this location would be connecting to will increase the efficiency of wireless devices associated with Verizon. 2. The proposed use will comply with the regulations and conditions specified in the land use ordinances. Utility towers and antennas are exempt from height regulations, and therefore regulations for the use and height are not exact. The goal when locating antennas for a cellular use has been to place them on existing structures, which prevents the construction of the more cell towers, and reduces impacts to surrounding uses. This proposal follows this concept by placing the antennas on the existing cellular tower. Description of request Factors for consideration of action ---PAGE BREAK--- OGDEN CITY PLANNING COMMISSION October 4, 2017 AGENDA ITEM - C Page 4 of 15 1. Project Fact Sheet 2. Proposed Site Plan 3. Proposed Elevation Plan 4. County Plat 5. Utility Plans (3 pages) 6. Department Staff Comments (2 pages) 7. Public Notice (2 pages) Attachments ---PAGE BREAK--- OGDEN CITY PLANNING COMMISSION October 4, 2017 AGENDA ITEM - C Page 5 of 15 Property Address: 2716 S. 1760 W. Community Plan: OCIP Zone: OCIP Existing Use: Cell Tower, Vacant Lot Property Size: 1.96 acres Lease Space: 15’x 20’ (300 square feet) Project Fact Sheet ---PAGE BREAK--- OGDEN CITY PLANNING COMMISSION October 4, 2017 AGENDA ITEM - C Page 6 of 15 2. Proposed Site Plan ---PAGE BREAK--- OGDEN CITY PLANNING COMMISSION October 4, 2017 AGENDA ITEM - C Page 7 of 15 3. Proposed Elevation Plan ---PAGE BREAK--- OGDEN CITY PLANNING COMMISSION October 4, 2017 AGENDA ITEM - C Page 8 of 15 4. County Plat ---PAGE BREAK--- OGDEN CITY PLANNING COMMISSION October 4, 2017 AGENDA ITEM - C Page 9 of 15 5. Utility Plans (3 pages) ---PAGE BREAK--- OGDEN CITY PLANNING COMMISSION October 4, 2017 AGENDA ITEM - C Page 10 of 15 ---PAGE BREAK--- OGDEN CITY PLANNING COMMISSION October 4, 2017 AGENDA ITEM - C Page 11 of 15 ---PAGE BREAK--- OGDEN CITY PLANNING COMMISSION October 4, 2017 AGENDA ITEM - C Page 12 of 15 Department Staff Comments (2 pages) ---PAGE BREAK--- OGDEN CITY PLANNING COMMISSION October 4, 2017 AGENDA ITEM - C Page 13 of 15 ---PAGE BREAK--- OGDEN CITY PLANNING COMMISSION October 4, 2017 AGENDA ITEM - C Page 14 of 15 Public Notice (2 pages) ---PAGE BREAK--- OGDEN CITY PLANNING COMMISSION October 4, 2017 AGENDA ITEM - C Page 15 of 15 ---PAGE BREAK--- OGDEN CITY PLANNING COMMISSION OCTOBER 4, 2017 AGENDA ITEM- D Page 1 of 11 Agenda Name: CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO ALLOW CELL EQUIPMENT ON A BILLBOARD LOCATED AT 2817 G AVENUE IN THE M-2 ZONE. Petitioner/ Developer: Bill Johnson 5225 Wiley Post Way, Ste. 410 SLC, UT 84116 Petitioner’s requested action: Approval to install two new cell antennas on the existing billboard support poles including the necessary ancillary equipment at 2817 G Ave. Cell towers are classified as a conditional use in the M-2 zone and are subject to the conditional use requirements as defined in 15-7-4. The Planning Commission reviews new or amended proposals for cell towers to assure that they meet the requirements of the zoning code. Included in the Planning Commission review is the potential impact on adjacent residents. The Planning Commission action will be the final action needed for use approval. The applicant will still need to complete the necessary site and building plan reviews to obtain the necessary permits. 1. The design of the cell antennas and associated equipment is / is not compatible with surrounding development. 2. The cell antennas and associated equipment is / is not in compliance with the zoning ordinance. Staff recommends approval subject to the following: 1. Comply with all city staff review comments 2. Paint all equipment attached to poles the same color as the poles. 3. No equipment shall extend higher that the billboard sign. Planning Staff’s Recommended Action Report by: Clinton Spencer, AICP Planning Commission’s findings for action What the Planning Commission Reviews ---PAGE BREAK--- OGDEN CITY PLANNING COMMISSION OCTOBER 4, 2017 AGENDA ITEM- D Page 2 of 11 Vicinity Map ---PAGE BREAK--- OGDEN CITY PLANNING COMMISSION OCTOBER 4, 2017 AGENDA ITEM- D Page 3 of 11 The applicant is proposing to attach two new cellular antennas to the existing pole of the billboard located at the address above to provide improved cellular service in the area. The billboard is adjacent to I-15 and is fifty-four (54) feet tall. There are three attachments that will be located on the existing billboard pole which include one attachment with two four foot long cell antennas, and two other ancillary equipment attachments located lower on the pole. The antennas will be located higher on the existing pole, at thirty-two (32) feet. No ground equipment is proposed with this application. All equipment will be mounted directly to the pole. As part of the proposal, the applicant will paint the cell equipment the same color as the exiting pole to help it blend in more. Conditional Use Requirements 1. The proposed use is in keeping with the type of existing uses surrounding the property. The proposed cell tower is located in the M-2 zone. The nearest building to the location where the cell equipment will be mounted is sixty-one (61’) feet away. The surrounding area consists of several industrial buildings. The equipment is placed ideally adjacent to I-15 to provide improved service to the travelling public. With the cell equipment being mounted on an already existing structure, and painted the same color, there will be little to no impact on the surrounding area. 2. The proposed use and site design at the particular location is compatible with the character of the site, adjacent properties, surrounding neighborhoods and other existing development. The parcel the billboard sign is located on is largely undeveloped except for the existing sign. The surrounding area is made up of industrial type uses and buildings. The method proposed to provide better cellular service to the area by utilizing an existing structure is preferred by staff as it causes little to no impact on the surrounding area. Description of request Factors for consideration of action ---PAGE BREAK--- OGDEN CITY PLANNING COMMISSION OCTOBER 4, 2017 AGENDA ITEM- D Page 4 of 11 3. The proposed use will comply with the regulations and conditions specified in the land use ordinances. The utilization of an existing billboard structure located in the M-2 zone along I-15 complies with all regulations and conditions in the land use ordinances. Staff Review Comments The application is subject to review by city staff. This proposal has been reviewed by the city departments and the comments are attached to the report. 1. Fact sheet 2. County parcel maps 3. Proposed site plan 4. Cell equipment diagrams 5. Pictures of existing billboard 6. Staff review comments 7. Public 1. Fact sheet: Street Address: 2817 G Ave Zone: M-2 Acres: Parcel size = 0.07 Acres Attachments ---PAGE BREAK--- OGDEN CITY PLANNING COMMISSION OCTOBER 4, 2017 AGENDA ITEM- D Page 5 of 11 2. County parcel map 3. Proposed site plan ---PAGE BREAK--- OGDEN CITY PLANNING COMMISSION OCTOBER 4, 2017 AGENDA ITEM- D Page 6 of 11 4. Cell equipment diagrams ---PAGE BREAK--- OGDEN CITY PLANNING COMMISSION OCTOBER 4, 2017 AGENDA ITEM- D Page 7 of 11 ---PAGE BREAK--- OGDEN CITY PLANNING COMMISSION OCTOBER 4, 2017 AGENDA ITEM- D Page 8 of 11 5. Photo of existing billboard 6. Staff review comments ---PAGE BREAK--- OGDEN CITY PLANNING COMMISSION OCTOBER 4, 2017 AGENDA ITEM- D Page 9 of 11 7. Public Notice ---PAGE BREAK--- OGDEN CITY PLANNING COMMISSION OCTOBER 4, 2017 AGENDA ITEM- D Page 10 of 11 14-036-0009 CARGILL INC PO BOX 5626 MINNEAPOLIS MN 55440 14-053-0019 F & T INVESTMENT LIMITED PARTNERSHIP 1/2 ETAL PO BOX 1304 OGDEN UT 84402 14-053-0019 Occupant 2772 H AVE OGDEN UT 84401 14-053-0017 RODNEY J ANDERSEN TRUST 31 HILLSBOROUGH DR PLEASANT VIEW UT 84414 14-053-0017 Occupant 2824 H AVE OGDEN UT 84401 14-053-0015 GUTIERREZ RICKY 411 W 17TH ST OGDEN UT 84404 ---PAGE BREAK--- OGDEN CITY PLANNING COMMISSION OCTOBER 4, 2017 AGENDA ITEM- D Page 11 of 11 14-053-0015 Occupant 2832 H AVE OGDEN UT 84401 14-053-0010 JAVELIN ENTERPRISES LLC 2811 G AVE OGDEN UT 84401 14-036-0008 CARGILL A.M. HOLDCO LLC PO BOX 06019 CHICAGO IL 60606 14-053-0008 JPL INVESTMENTS L C 1764 W 2900 S OGDEN UT 84401 14-053-0005 CHRISTENSEN LAYNE PO BOX 404 EDEN UT 84310 14-053-0004 VOYAGER PROPERTIES LLC 2811 G AVE OGDEN UT 84401 ---PAGE BREAK--- OGDEN CITY PLANNING COMMISSION OCTOBER 4, 2017 AGENDA ITEM- E Page 1 of 11 Agenda Name: CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO ALLOW CELL EQUIPMENT ON A BILLBOARD LOCATED AT 2511 WATER TOWER WAY IN THE M-2 ZONE. Petitioner/ Developer: Bill Johnson 5225 Wiley Post Way, Ste. 410 SLC, UT 84116 Petitioner’s requested action: Approval to install two new cell antennas on the existing billboard support poles including the necessary ancillary equipment at 2511 Water Tower Way. Cell towers are classified as a conditional use in the M-2 zone and are subject to the conditional use requirements as defined in 15-7-4. The Planning Commission reviews new or amended proposals for cell towers to assure that they meet the requirements of the zoning code. Included in the Planning Commission review is the potential impact on adjacent residents. The Planning Commission action will be the final action needed for use approval. The applicant will still need to complete the necessary site and building plan reviews to obtain the necessary permits. 1. The design of the cell antennas and associated equipment is / is not compatible with surrounding development. 2. The cell antennas and associated equipment is / is not in compliance with the zoning ordinance. Staff recommends approval subject to the following: 1. Comply with all city staff review comments 2. Paint all equipment attached to poles the same color as the poles. 3. No equipment shall extend higher than the billboard sign. Planning Staff’s Recommended Action Report by: Clinton Spencer, AICP Planning Commission’s findings for action What the Planning Commission Reviews ---PAGE BREAK--- OGDEN CITY PLANNING COMMISSION OCTOBER 4, 2017 AGENDA ITEM- E Page 2 of 11 Vicinity Map ---PAGE BREAK--- OGDEN CITY PLANNING COMMISSION OCTOBER 4, 2017 AGENDA ITEM- E Page 3 of 11 The applicant is proposing to attach two new cellular antennas to the existing pole of the billboard located at the address above to improve cellular service in the area. The billboard is adjacent to I-15 and is fifty-seven (57) feet tall. There are four attachments that will be located on the existing billboard pole that include one attachment with two four foot long cell antennas, and three other ancillary equipment attachments located lower on the pole. The antennas will be located higher on the billboard pole, at thirty-five (35) feet. No ground equipment is proposed with this application. All equipment will be mounted directly to the pole. As part of the proposal, the applicant will paint the cell equipment the same color as the exiting pole to help it blend in more. Conditional Use Requirements 1. The proposed use is in keeping with the type of existing uses surrounding the property. The proposed cell tower is located in the M-2 zone. The nearest building to the location where the cell equipment will be mounted is 462’ feet away. The equipment is placed ideally adjacent to I-15 to provide improved service to the travelling public. With the cell equipment being mounted on an already existing structure, and painted the same color, there will be little to no impact on the surrounding area. 2. The proposed use and site design at the particular location is compatible with the character of the site, adjacent properties, surrounding neighborhoods and other existing development. The site is largely undeveloped. The parcel the billboard resides on contains no buildings, with portions of it serving as storage. The method proposed to provide better cellular service in the area by utilizing an existing structure is preferred by staff as it causes little to no impact on the surrounding area and reduces the need for other cell towers. Description of request Factors for consideration of action ---PAGE BREAK--- OGDEN CITY PLANNING COMMISSION OCTOBER 4, 2017 AGENDA ITEM- E Page 4 of 11 3. The proposed use will comply with the regulations and conditions specified in the land use ordinances. The utilization of an existing billboard structure located in the M-2 zone along I-15 complies with all regulations and conditions, as proposed by staff, in the land use ordinances. Staff Review Comments The application is subject to review by city staff. This proposal has been reviewed by those departments and the comments are attached to the report. 1. Fact sheet 2. County parcel maps 3. Proposed site plan 4. Cell equipment diagrams 5. Pictures of existing billboard 6. Staff review comments 7. Public 1. Fact sheet: Street Address: 2511 Water Tower Way Zone: M-2 Acres: Parcel size = 9.57 Acres Attachments ---PAGE BREAK--- OGDEN CITY PLANNING COMMISSION OCTOBER 4, 2017 AGENDA ITEM- E Page 5 of 11 2. County parcel map ---PAGE BREAK--- OGDEN CITY PLANNING COMMISSION OCTOBER 4, 2017 AGENDA ITEM- E Page 6 of 11 3. Proposed site plan ---PAGE BREAK--- OGDEN CITY PLANNING COMMISSION OCTOBER 4, 2017 AGENDA ITEM- E Page 7 of 11 4. Cell equipment diagrams ---PAGE BREAK--- OGDEN CITY PLANNING COMMISSION OCTOBER 4, 2017 AGENDA ITEM- E Page 8 of 11 5. Photo of existing billboard ---PAGE BREAK--- OGDEN CITY PLANNING COMMISSION OCTOBER 4, 2017 AGENDA ITEM- E Page 9 of 11 6. Staff review comments 7. Public Notice ---PAGE BREAK--- OGDEN CITY PLANNING COMMISSION OCTOBER 4, 2017 AGENDA ITEM- E Page 10 of 11 ---PAGE BREAK--- OGDEN CITY PLANNING COMMISSION OCTOBER 4, 2017 AGENDA ITEM- E Page 11 of 11 14-031-0030 APEX OIL VENTURES 8823 S REDWWOD RD STE D-1 WEST JORDAN UT 84088 14-031-0030 Occupant 900 W 26TH ST OGDEN UT 84401 15-067-0032 STATE OF UTAH DIVISION OF FACILITIES CONSTRUCTION 4110 STATE OFFICE BLDG SALT LAKE CITY UT 84114 14-031-0048 RICH & DAVE GRANT PROPERTIES LLC 910 W 24TH ST OGDEN UT 84401 14-030-0022 DAVE R GRANT FAMILY PARTNERSHIP (THE) 910 W 24TH ST OGDEN UT 84401 14-031-0043 DIAMOND INVESTMENT COMPANY 4598 S 700 W #C OGDEN UT 84405 14-031-0036 Occupant 948 W 26TH ST OGDEN UT 84401 14-031-0042 Occupant 1000 W 24TH ST OGDEN UT 84401 14-030-0022 Occupant 910 W 24TH ST OGDEN UT 84401 14-031-0039 OREGON SHORT LINE RAILROAD CO. PO BOX 10402 OGDEN UT 84409 14-031-0036 KITCHCO PROPERTIES LLC 2795 N 1385 E NORTH OGDEN UT 84414 14-030-0015 Occupant 1021 W 24TH ST OGDEN UT 84401 ---PAGE BREAK--- Memo To: Planning Commission From: Eric Daems- Planning Staff Date: 9/29/17 Re: PC Agenda Item F: Conditional Use Expansion- Reception Center- 916 7th Street Commissioners, The proposed Conditional Use expansion for the reception center at 916 7th Street was tabled at the Planning Commission meeting held Sept. 6, 2017 until Oct. 4, 2017. This was to allow time for the applicant, business owner, and city staff to meet with the neighborhood to better understand and formulate a plan to mitigate impacts created by the use. A neighborhood meeting took place on Wednesday Sept. 20th. That meeting was attended by neighbors, the building and business owners, Councilman Hyer, two Ogden City police officers, and myself. The meeting was very productive and all issues were brought to light. The prevailing sentiment was that the reception center could be a viable business and addition to the community, but communication channels would need to be improved and the business owner would need to implement greater controls to curtail neighborhood impacts. The impacts identified include:  Controlling noise levels at all times, including no amplified music or instrumental music after 10 PM  Overcrowding- controlling maximum occupancy for an event  Greater alcohol controls for intoxication, serving minors, or allowing alcohol in uncontrolled areas  People congregating in the parking lot or areas where they could start trouble, fighting, or be too loud  Maintaining security and overall order during events  Maintaining all emergency exits unblocked  Making sure doors aren’t being propped open  Avoiding trash overflow  Maintaining communication between Veronica (business owner) and neighbors At this time, the mitigation plan has not been presented to City Staff, however it is anticipated that the applicant will provide them in time to be heard at the November Planning Commission meeting. A motion is needed to continue this item to the November 1st meeting. Respectfully, Eric Daems, AICPI Senior PlannerI Ogden City [EMAIL REDACTED] I801-629-8921 I www.ogdencity.com Planning Division 2549 Washington Blvd. Suite 140 Ogden, Utah 84401 ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- OGDEN CITY PLANNING COMMISSION October 4, 2017 AGENDA ITEM- H Page 1 of 14 Agenda Name: PUBLIC SITE PLAN FOR A PARKING LOT EXPANSION AT 525 WEST 2ND STREET Petitioner/ Developer: Blake Wahlen Boyer Company/Ogden City 1150 South Depot Drive #100 Ogden, Utah 84404 Petitioner/ Developer’s requested action: Approval of the public parking lot expansion. The development of public land is required to be reviewed by the Planning Commission to determine conformance to the Ogden City general plan. The Commission’s recommended action is then forwarded to the Mayor for final action. The applicant will still need to complete the necessary site plan review and obtain the necessary permits. 1. The parking lot use and design is/is not consistent with the policies outlined in the general plan and Business Depot of Ogden (BDO) district plan, with staff’s recommendations. Staff recommends approval of the proposed public parking lot expansion, subject to: 1. The barrier proposed at the south end of the parking lot transition into the planter at the west end and incorporate trees and 2’-3’ tall evergreen shrubs. 2. Landscaping be installed between the fence along the east property line and the proposed parking lot. 3. The applicant work with staff to design and incorporate landscaping along 2nd Street to enhance the streetscape. 4. 2” caliper deciduous trees be installed in each end of the landscaped islands in the parking lot. 5. Satisfying all department staff comments. Report by Joseph Simpson Planning Commission’s determination for action Planning Staff’s Recommended Action What Planning Commission reviews ---PAGE BREAK--- OGDEN CITY PLANNING COMMISSION October 4, 2017 AGENDA ITEM- H Page 2 of 14 Vicinity Map Project fact sheet ---PAGE BREAK--- OGDEN CITY PLANNING COMMISSION October 4, 2017 AGENDA ITEM- H Page 3 of 14 The applicant, Boyer/Ogden City is proposing to develop a public parking lot on this vacant piece of land. The parking lot is to provide an additional 85 parking stalls for the businesses in the area. The property is adjacent to the Standard Examiner’s north parking lot. The owners of the Standard Examiner have indicated that they wish to change their site landscaping to a drought tolerant design. In anticipation of this, the proposed new parking lot is to have a drought tolerant landscape design that is to consist of rock mulch, trees, and shrubs so that the two adjoining parking lot have a similar design. The applicant’s landscape plan excludes installing landscaping along 2nd Street, but staff has included this landscaping as a requirement (see attached landscaping plan, areas in color). As shown on the attached site photo and landscaping plan there is a portion of this vacant lot that has a BDO entry sign and some landscaping. The development of this parking lot would require the remaining street frontage to be landscaped. Additionally, the applicant is proposing install a narrow landscaped barrier to the south in the Standard Examiner’s parking lot. The purpose of this barrier is to prevent vehicles from racing through the parking lot to try and beat the train crossing on 2nd Street. The applicant has indicated that this has been an issue and safety hazard for pedestrians in the parking lot. 1. General Plan 5.D.2.c: Targeting appropriate business incentives to promote the balanced development of the Business Depot Ogden (BDO) area, according to the existing redevelopment plan. The proposed parking lot expansion is meant to provide additional parking for the businesses in the area. Parking is a critical component for businesses and the proposed parking lot will provide incentives for existing businesses to remain and grow, as well as encourage new businesses in the BDO. 2. BDO District Plan 15.C.1.1.b: Develop and adopt appropriate implementing mechanisms which appropriately address the following concerns for the various land use categories at the DDO site: attractive and appropriate landscaping, attractive facades, materials, colors, siting and appearance of parking, and attractive and functional signage. a. 15-23-4.J: Public Transportation: Businesses or land uses which are primarily engaged in uses of public transportation: 1. Stand alone parking lot: Public parking, not to exceed twenty four (24) consecutive hours, shall be shared for different sites. The intent of the new parking lot is to provide additional parking for the businesses in the surrounding area of the district. The parking lot will be located next to Description of request Factors for consideration of action ---PAGE BREAK--- OGDEN CITY PLANNING COMMISSION October 4, 2017 AGENDA ITEM- H Page 4 of 14 2nd Street, which has pedestrian street crossings so that surrounding buildings and not just the Standard Examiner building can use the parking lot. The proposed barrier that is to be south of the new parking lot will also increase pedestrian safety in both the new parking and existing parking lots. Presently vehicles are racing through the parking lot to try and beat the trains at the 2nd Street Crossing. This behavior is particularly bad during rush hour. Staff is recommending that the barrier be widened at the west end so it ties with the existing landscaping and that trees and 2’-3’ tall evergreen shrubs be installed in the barrier to make it attractive and also visible parking lot traffic when there is snow-fall (see attached landscaping plan). 3. BDO District Plan 15.C.2.1.c: Special attention needs to be given to site and building improvements along the perimeter of the DDO property to ensure that attractive corridors and edges are developed. This property is located at the 2nd Street entrance to the BDO (formally referred to as the DDO). Staff is recommending that landscaping be installed along 2nd Street and the east property line and not just in the parking lot (see attached landscaping plan, staff recommendations in color). These improvements recommended by staff will help complete the streetscape on 2nd Street and will tie in with the existing entrance sign and surrounding landscaping. These improvements will also enhance the entire site and will ensure that this provision will be met by providing attractive corridors and edges along the perimeter of the district. 1. Project Fact Sheet 2. Site Plan 3. Landscaping Plan 4. County Plat 5. Department Staff Comments (3 pages) 6. Site Photo 7. Notice (2 pages) Attachments ---PAGE BREAK--- OGDEN CITY PLANNING COMMISSION October 4, 2017 AGENDA ITEM- H Page 5 of 14 Property Address: 1241 20th Street Community Plan: Business Depot Ogden (BDO) Zone: MRD (public parking lots are a permitted use with special regulations) Existing Use: Vacant lot, with entry sign and some landscaping for the BDO at 2nd Street (No past actions on file) Project Fact Sheet ---PAGE BREAK--- OGDEN CITY PLANNING COMMISSION October 4, 2017 AGENDA ITEM- H Page 6 of 14 2. Site Plan ---PAGE BREAK--- OGDEN CITY PLANNING COMMISSION October 4, 2017 AGENDA ITEM- H Page 7 of 14 3. Landscaping Plan ---PAGE BREAK--- OGDEN CITY PLANNING COMMISSION October 4, 2017 AGENDA ITEM- H Page 8 of 14 4. County Plat ---PAGE BREAK--- OGDEN CITY PLANNING COMMISSION October 4, 2017 AGENDA ITEM- H Page 9 of 14 5. Department Staff Comments (3 pages) ---PAGE BREAK--- OGDEN CITY PLANNING COMMISSION October 4, 2017 AGENDA ITEM- H Page 10 of 14 ---PAGE BREAK--- OGDEN CITY PLANNING COMMISSION October 4, 2017 AGENDA ITEM- H Page 11 of 14 ---PAGE BREAK--- OGDEN CITY PLANNING COMMISSION October 4, 2017 AGENDA ITEM- H Page 12 of 14 6. Site Photo ---PAGE BREAK--- OGDEN CITY PLANNING COMMISSION October 4, 2017 AGENDA ITEM- H Page 13 of 14 7. Notice (2 pages) ---PAGE BREAK--- OGDEN CITY PLANNING COMMISSION October 4, 2017 AGENDA ITEM- H Page 14 of 14 ---PAGE BREAK--- OGDEN CITY PLANNING COMMISSION OCTOBER 4, 2017 AGENDA ITEM- I Page 1 of 11 Agenda Name: PUBLIC HEARING - PETITION #2017-13 TO REZONE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 485 EAST 2ND STREET FROM R- 5 TO C-3. Petitioner/ Developer: Korbin Smoot 1110 E. Eaglewood Dr. North Salt Lake, UT 84054 Petitioner’s requested action: Approval of rezoning 1.06 acres from R-5 to C-3 to allow commercial and multi-family development. The Commission is required to review any change to the zoning map and hold a public hearing when a change to the zoning map is proposed. The Commission will need to determine if: 1. The rezoning is consistent with the policies of the general plan. 2. The rezoning is consistent with the Hillcrest/ Bonneville Community plan. The Commission provides a recommendation to the City Council. The City Council will make the final decision pertaining to this rezone request. The Commission will need to determine the following: 1. The rezoning is/ is not consistent with the Hillcrest/ Bonneville Community plan. 2. The rezoning is/ is not consistent with the general plan policies of commercial zoning being along collectors, zoning establishing edges, and reflecting the prevailing character of the area. Staff recommends approval of rezoning the 1.06 acres from R-5 to C-3 to allow for more consistent development requirements along 2nd Street and to comply with the community plan. Planning Staff’s Recommended Action Report by: Clinton Spencer, AICP Planning Commission’s findings for action What the Planning Commission Reviews ---PAGE BREAK--- OGDEN CITY PLANNING COMMISSION OCTOBER 4, 2017 AGENDA ITEM- I Page 2 of 11 Vicinity Map ---PAGE BREAK--- OGDEN CITY PLANNING COMMISSION OCTOBER 4, 2017 AGENDA ITEM- I Page 3 of 11 The applicant is proposing to rezone the property mentioned above from R-5 to C-3 to allow for a more consistent development along 2nd Street. The applicant owns the property being considered for rezone as well as the property directly to the west, which contains 1.34 acres and is already zoned C-3. Although the applicant has discussed marketing their two properties for a multi- family project, other commercial developments permitted in the C-3 zone could also occur if the rezoning is approved. The property is located along major arterial streets and has sufficient access to utility and transportation services. 1. Consistency with the Hillcrest/ Bonneville Community Plan: The Hillcrest/ Bonneville plan was adopted in 2004. As part of the plan three major commercial nodes were identified to provide basic goods and services to the community. One of the commercial nodes included the area around Washington Blvd at the five points intersection. The applicant’s property is located less than a block east of the intersection and is identified in the plan to support the commercial node area (see attached map). Where the applicant is combining more than two acres in their site, utilizing the property for multi-family is supported by the community plan. In 14.D.5.C of the plan it states, “As large tracts are created, consider the development of quality multi- family units as the area’s population needs and densities increase”. The property to be rezoned is paved and has been vacant for several years. It originally served as part of an elementary school site. Currently the two properties owned by the applicant are zoned C-3 and R-5. While both of those zones allow for the same amount of residential density under the Group Dwellings requirements, there are Description of request Factors for consideration of action ---PAGE BREAK--- OGDEN CITY PLANNING COMMISSION OCTOBER 4, 2017 AGENDA ITEM- I Page 4 of 11 different setback requirements and combining the two properties into the same zone will allow for a more consistent development area. Zoning the property to the C-3 zone complies with the community plan and provides commercial and multi-family development options for the community. 2. Consistency with the General Plan: The proposed rezone to C-3 complies with many of the General Plan Land Use policies. It creates a definitive edge to development (policy reflects the commercial nature of the overall five points area (policy establishes the use of the property as commercial based on the primary frontage along 2nd Street (policy and draws edges on types of uses as the adjacent multi-family development (senior apartments) provides a transition from single family homes east of Adams to the proposed commercial site (policy The rezone also complies with the general plan land use policies to locate commercial zoning on arterial and collector streets. Current zoning ordinances are in place to help protect the surrounding residential uses in the case that the property develops as a commercial site instead of the applicant’s desired multi-family project. 1. Fact sheet 2. County parcel map 3. Petition 4. Hillcrest/ Bonneville Community plan map 5. Pictures of existing site 6. Public notice 1. Fact sheet: Street Address: 485 E 2nd Street Zone: R-5 to C-3 Acres: Parcel size = 1.06 Acres Attachments ---PAGE BREAK--- OGDEN CITY PLANNING COMMISSION OCTOBER 4, 2017 AGENDA ITEM- I Page 5 of 11 2. County parcel map ---PAGE BREAK--- OGDEN CITY PLANNING COMMISSION OCTOBER 4, 2017 AGENDA ITEM- I Page 6 of 11 3. Petition ---PAGE BREAK--- OGDEN CITY PLANNING COMMISSION OCTOBER 4, 2017 AGENDA ITEM- I Page 7 of 11 4. Hillcest/ Bonneville Community plan map ---PAGE BREAK--- OGDEN CITY PLANNING COMMISSION OCTOBER 4, 2017 AGENDA ITEM- I Page 8 of 11 5. Site photos LOOKING SOUTHWEST LOOKING SOUTH ---PAGE BREAK--- OGDEN CITY PLANNING COMMISSION OCTOBER 4, 2017 AGENDA ITEM- I Page 9 of 11 6. Public notice ---PAGE BREAK--- OGDEN CITY PLANNING COMMISSION OCTOBER 4, 2017 AGENDA ITEM- I Page 10 of 11 ---PAGE BREAK--- OGDEN CITY PLANNING COMMISSION OCTOBER 4, 2017 AGENDA ITEM- I Page 11 of 11 ---PAGE BREAK--- OGDEN CITY PLANNING COMMISSION OCTOBER 4, 2017 AGENDA ITEM- J Page 1 of 13 Agenda Name: CBD SITE PLAN FOR MODERN LINEN EXPANSION AT 124 22ND STREET IN THE CBD ZONE. Petitioner/ Developer: Gary Hunt 1594 W Park Circle, Ste. 101 Ogden, UT 84404 Petitioner’s requested action: Approval of building design and site plan in the CBD zone. The CBD ordinance requires the Planning Commission to review site plans and exterior building elevations to determine compliance with the following issues: - Building material compatibility with surroundings - Architectural lines of the building and relationship to surroundings - On and off site landscaping and sidewalk treatments - Traffic circulation on and off site - Screening of utilities and containers from public view and adjacent properties. The Commission makes a recommendation to the Mayor for final determination. 1. The proposed building materials are/ are not compatible with the design guidelines and the surrounding buildings. 2. With staff’s recommended changes, the architectural design of the building is/ is not consistent with the design guidelines and the relationship of the other Model Linen buildings. 3. The proposed landscaping is/ is not consistent with the CBD ordinance. 4. With staff’s recommendations the overall development does/ does not comply with the standards of the CBD and the design guidelines. Staff recommends approval subject to the following conditions: 1. Complete and comply with all city staff review comments 2. Connect sidewalk on west of building to sidewalk along Wall Ave. 3. Change the elevations of the building as follows: a. Utilize different material/ finish on architectural window feature of west elevation to differentiate from main building façade and place over all west facing windows. b. Provide a parapet along the west elevation of the building frontage to give the appearance of a level roofed building, similar to the existing buildings. Planning Staff’s Recommended Action Report by: Clinton Spencer, AICP Planning Commission’s findings for action What the Planning Commission Reviews ---PAGE BREAK--- OGDEN CITY PLANNING COMMISSION OCTOBER 4, 2017 AGENDA ITEM- J Page 2 of 13 c. Remove the blue color from the west facing portion of the building and color the building similar to other buildings on the campus. (White with possible striping) d. Provide larger stucco finished panels to reduce/eliminate the appearance of the seams between panels. e. Turn paneling horizontal to match existing building lines and orient better with the proposed building. f. Provide façade breaks in the north facing wall along with proposed color differences g. Locate landscaping on the north side of the building to help soften the appearance of the large flat wall. i. Ivy, or narrow growing trees 4. Provide landscaping similar to existing along Wall Ave. 5. Landscaping reduction approval from Planning Commission 6. Complete and record a lot line adjustment application for the proposed parcel changes including a shared access agreement for the gas station to the north. 7. Obtain parking reduction from Planning Commission to allow twenty-three (23) stalls where thirty-seven (37) are required. Vicinity Map ---PAGE BREAK--- OGDEN CITY PLANNING COMMISSION OCTOBER 4, 2017 AGENDA ITEM- J Page 3 of 13 The applicant is proposing to construct a new automated laundry processing building to meet growing needs. Currently there are three buildings on the Model Linen property. The proposed building will be detached from other buildings and includes 18,500 square feet. The building is proposed to be thirty-one (31) feet tall at the peak of the parapet and the exterior finishing materials the applicant is proposing are CMU (gray), and blue and white colored architectural metal panels with a stucco finish. There are five roll up doors located on the south elevation of the building, and two others on the east side of the building for deliveries (see attachments). Windows and doors are located on the west façade of the building facing Wall Ave. The gray CMU wraps around the front of the building on three sides, but doesn’t extend the entire length of the building. The north side of the building is shown to include a portion of the CMU base, and the stucco appearing architectural metal panels. The bottom portion of the stucco appearing wall is painted gray to match the lines where the CMU is located on the front and sides of the building, but no other features are present on a wall that is very visible from Wall Ave. and the adjacent business. The landscaping for the project will be a continuation of the existing landscaping recently installed along Wall Ave. with trees, shrubs, and grass. The existing wrought iron fence will remain and a portion of the building will be located behind the fence. Parking for the addition has previously been provided with the parking lot improvements adjacent to Pingree approved and completed in 2015. The parking lot improvements were part of a proposed 10,887 square foot addition that was never constructed. The applicant installed twenty-three (23) stalls at the time the previous building was proposed, but again, never constructed. The existing sidewalk will remain intact along Wall Ave. and the applicant is providing another sidewalk along the west facing portion of the building. 1. Need for lot line adjustment and access easement for adjacent property: Description of request Factors for consideration of action ---PAGE BREAK--- OGDEN CITY PLANNING COMMISSION OCTOBER 4, 2017 AGENDA ITEM- J Page 4 of 13 The applicant is proposing to change the property lines for the proposed building. The lot line adjustment will better accommodate the proposed building, and extends into a portion of the access from Wall Ave. An access agreement between the two property owners will be required to ensure adequate access and circulation through the properties. No building permits can be issued for the project until the lot line adjustment has been recorded by the County. 2. The proposed building materials and architectural lines All of the existing Model Linen buildings have flat roofs, or parapets, and are white with blue and red striping. The proposed building has a much different look with sloping rooflines, and a large portion of the building’s façade being colored blue. The red and blue striping is continued in the cap of the building, but the sloped roof and solid blue portion of the building do not follow the existing building design and are not compatible as proposed. In the applicant’s previous building proposal in 2015 the proposed building was constructed of block and colored to match the existing buildings. In order for the proposed building to be compatible with the existing buildings the following changes should be made: (see changes in attachments) 1. The blue colored portion of the façade needs to be removed and painted white. 2. The roof parapet should be flat, and not sloped as proposed, to tie in better with the existing flat roofed buildings. The striping from the other buildings should also be incorporated into the building design. 3. Rotate the paneling horizontal to be more consistent with existing architectural lines. 4. Move architectural window feature above all windows facing Wall Ave. and color differently or use different material. 5. Increase the size of the proposed windows. 6. On the north side of the building add building relief lines and/or landscaping to break up the proposed design. 3. On and off site landscaping and sidewalk treatment The proposed landscaping complies with the landscaping plan approved for Model Linen in 2014 and will continue the existing landscape design along Wall Ave. Three trees, shrubs and grass will be installed along the proposed building’s frontage. Currently the entire Model Linen site meets the ten percent (10%) landscaping requirement. The new site plan includes approximately 1,600 square feet of ---PAGE BREAK--- OGDEN CITY PLANNING COMMISSION OCTOBER 4, 2017 AGENDA ITEM- J Page 5 of 13 landscaping where 2,550 square feet is required (10% of site). Where there has been an overall landscaping plan previously approved, and the proposed landscaping creates interest for pedestrians, is complementary of the CBD, and is attractive (See 15-34- staff recommends a landscape reduction for the proposed building. 4. Parking and traffic circulation The proposed site plan maintains the access on Wall Ave. and situates the building so that access can be gained to the roll up doors using the existing interior accesses. Parking for the proposed 18,500 square foot building requires thirty-seven (37) stalls. The previously proposed building required twenty-two (22) stalls, and twenty-three (23) were provided although the building was never constructed. In speaking with the applicant, the new building will include automated processing and will require fewer employees to operate it. Due to the automation of the processing in the new building, the provided twenty-three (23) stalls installed from the previous building proposal will meet the parking demand for the new building. A sidewalk is also provided along the setback portion of the building facing Wall Ave. Staff recommends an extension of the sidewalk to connect into the sidewalk adjacent to Wall Ave. to provide better pedestrian circulation. Also, the existing drive on Wall will remain, but because the property lines extend into the drive access, an access agreement is required between the gas station and Model Linen to maintain access to the properties. Staff review comments: This project has been reviewed by city department staff and the review has been attached to this report. All corrections will need to be satisfied before any permits are obtained by the applicant. 1. Fact sheet 2. County parcel map 3. Proposed lot line adjustment 4. Proposed site plan 5. Proposed building elevation & staff recommended changes 6. Staff review comments 1. Fact sheet: Street Address: 2511 Water Tower Way Zone: M-2 Acres: Parcel size = 9.57 Acres Proposed Use: Automated laundry processing Attachments 124 22nd Street CBD 0.58 Acres Automated laundry processing ---PAGE BREAK--- OGDEN CITY PLANNING COMMISSION OCTOBER 4, 2017 AGENDA ITEM- J Page 6 of 13 Land Utilization: Open Space Building Hard surface 6% 72% 22% Building Sq. Footage: 18,500 sq. feet Building height: 31’ Onsite parking: 23 stalls previously installed in 2015 Previous Developments: 2014 – Approval granted for parking & landscaping improvements along Wall Ave. 2015 – Site plan approved for new building and parking (parking installed; building not built) 2. County parcel map ---PAGE BREAK--- OGDEN CITY PLANNING COMMISSION OCTOBER 4, 2017 AGENDA ITEM- J Page 7 of 13 3. Proposed lot line adjustment ---PAGE BREAK--- OGDEN CITY PLANNING COMMISSION OCTOBER 4, 2017 AGENDA ITEM- J Page 8 of 13 4. Proposed site plan Sidewalk Connection ---PAGE BREAK--- OGDEN CITY PLANNING COMMISSION OCTOBER 4, 2017 AGENDA ITEM- J Page 9 of 13 5. Proposed elevations & staff changes ARCHITECTURAL INSULATED METAL PANELS WITH STUCCO FINISH (WHITE) ARCHITECTURAL INSULA PANELS WITH STUCCO F ARCHITECTURAL INSULATED METAL PANELS WITH STUCCO FINISH (BLUE) ARCHITECTURAL METAL FASCIA (STEPPED - BLUE AND RED) ARCHITECTURAL METAL FASCIA (STEPPED - BLUE AND RED) ARCHITECTURAL METAL FASCIA (STEPPED - BLUE AND RED) ARCHITECTURAL INSULATED METAL PANELS WITH STUCCO FINISH (WHITE) ---PAGE BREAK--- OGDEN CITY PLANNING COMMISSION OCTOBER 4, 2017 AGENDA ITEM- J Page 10 of 13 ---PAGE BREAK--- OGDEN CITY PLANNING COMMISSION OCTOBER 4, 2017 AGENDA ITEM- J Page 11 of 13 6. Staff review comments ---PAGE BREAK--- OGDEN CITY PLANNING COMMISSION OCTOBER 4, 2017 AGENDA ITEM- J Page 12 of 13 ---PAGE BREAK--- OGDEN CITY PLANNING COMMISSION OCTOBER 4, 2017 AGENDA ITEM- J Page 13 of 13