CITY OF SOUTH JORDAN
PLANNING COMISSION MEETING
COUNCIL CHAMBERS
April 28, 2009
Present: Chairman Linda Auger, Commissioner Kevin Tominey, Commissioner Paul Pugmire, Commissioner Beverly Evans, Community Development Director George Shaw, Assistant City Attorney Ryan Loose, Deputy City Engineer Jeremy Nielson, City Recorder Anna West.
Absent: Commissioner David Wood
6:30 P.M.
REGULAR MEETING
I. GENERAL BUSINESS
A. Welcome and Roll Call
Chairman Linda Auger welcomed everyone and noted that all commissioners are present with the exception of Commissioner David Wood.
B. Motion to Approve Agenda
Commissioner Paul Pugmire made a motion to approve the April 28, 2009 Planning Commission Agenda. Commissioner Kevin Tominey seconded the motion. Vote was unanimous in favor, with Commissioner David Wood absent.
C. Approval of the Minutes from the Meeting held on April 14, 2009
Commissioner Kevin Tominey made a motion to approve the April 14, 2009 Planning Commission meeting minutes. Commissioner Paul Pugmire seconded the motion. Vote was unanimous in favor, with Commissioner David Wood absent.
II. INFORMATIONAL ITEMS AND OTHER BUSINESS
A. CALENDARING ITEMS
Community Development Director George Shaw said the potential date for the next General Plan meeting has been tentatively set or Tuesday, June 30, 2009. He said we need to get the date approved by City Council but would like you to keep this date open in your schedules. Hopefully we will be unveiling the Future Land Use Map of the City and a draft of the General Plan.
B. COMMENTS FROM PLANNING COMMISSION MEMBERS
Chairman Linda Auger noted the passing of Congressman Bill Orton.
C. STAFF BUSINESS.
None
D. NEW BUSINESS
None
III. CITIZEN COMMENT
None
IV OTHER BUSINESS
A.1 First Reading Section 17.112 of the Zoning Ordinance pertaining to wireless communication facilities.
Community Development Director George Shaw reviewed with the Commissioners the purpose for having First Readings. This gives Council a chance to look at any drafts that staff would be proposing and gives them a chance to express their concerns prior to it being placed on an agenda for a public hearing. We thought it would be a good idea for the Planning Commission to have the same opportunity. The intent is to have the information in front of you so you could contact staff with any questions or concerns.
Director Shaw reviewed the background information regarding Section 17.112 Zoning Ordinance pertaining to wireless communication facilities. This amendment was precipitated in part because of the issue with having monopoles in city parks. The ordinance as it is now written, monopoles have to be in commercial areas or if in residential areas they have to be on publicly owned property. Because of the way that the Jordan Ridge application has gone, we felt like we needed to have an ordinance in place to go a different direction if necessary. There are imminent changes in the telecommunication industry that could really change how communities regulate these kinds of facilities beyond what we have in our current code. This change is to address the current conditions in our community. In coming months or years we will be looking at this again that would address some of the new technologies coming out.
Director Shaw said the biggest change in this ordinance is in looking at the potential for public rights-of-way to be used for cell towers, particularly stealth situations, where you have power poles already existing. The applicant on the Jordan Ridge Park application has been looking along 2700 West public right-of-ways. Their favorite location was there at the school. It was not possible to negotiate a cell tower or stealth application at that location, so we looked at the option of having that done in a park strip, which would be part of the public right-of-way. Then, assuming some other public entity would allow the ground equipment to be placed on their property in a small structure. Without that possibility it would eliminate any major corridor in the city that has power lines as a possible cell tower location. This ordinance would allow the current or any new application to go in a public right of way or park strip in a stealth situation amongst other power poles and give them the option to negotiate a lease on private property to build a closed structure so the tower itself would be on public property but the equipment, as approved by the Planning Commission under the current circumstances, could be approved by this body to be on private property.
Commissioner Tominey asked about the extra expense in undergrounding the hardware.
Assistant City Attorney Loose said it is not only expensive to put the equipment underground but it is also very expensive to maintain it underground.
Commissioner Pugmire asked about the vaults, referring to paragraph C and paragraph J. In each case it refers to a vault below grade or completely enclosed within a solid decorative masonry building. Who will be the one to determine the “or”?
Director Shaw said the only place you really see vault’s is in a very urban environment, like in downtown Salt Lake City. You will see telecommunication equipment in vaults because there is really no other place to put it. Park strips are really too narrow for vaults. Because of some of the band width changes that are coming, we will be seeing more poles and applications.
Commissioner Pugmire said I prefer to see the decision rest with either the planning commission or City Council, rather than with the applicant. If that is adequately addressed with a conditional use permit, then I am willing to consider that; I don’t want to leave it with the applicant.
Assistant City Attorney Loose said it will only be addressed with a conditional use if there is a detrimental affect.
Commissioner Pugmire said I prefer control in every circumstance. He said I would like this reflected in the record. I think the direction we are going here is productive and I like it and support it. What concerns me is the question of a vault or not, I believe should ultimately be determined by the Planning Commission or the City Council, not by the applicant. I want to make sure that the language we have addresses that. As a sub-point to that concern, I would suggest and request that our report not make reference to T-Mobile’s cost. I don’t think that should be our concern. Our concern should be the planning for the well-being of the City of South Jordan in the long term. If T-Mobile has more costs, that should not be our concern and it should not be even remotely able to be inferred by someone reading this that it is a driving factor.
Commissioner Pugmire said I have one other concern. In paragraph A of 12.112.040, I am concerned about using the word “exclusively.” I believe that this kind of language comes back to bite you later. Some bright scientist, engineer or entrepreneur is going to get way out in front of our regulation lagging behind, I have seen it before, and this is a potential for it to happen again.
Director Shaw said that word “exclusively” in my mind could be dropped. It is basically boiler plate and we can just remove it; that is a simple fix.
Assistant City Attorney Loose asked what the rest of this body feel about the first issue of control for a vault versus leaving it. We can go back and re-word it and then it will come back to you again.
Director Shaw said this first reading is just for you to give us input and we will do our best to go back and tweak it. You will have the chance to do whatever in a motion later on. If there is a consensus right now on any desired changes, that would be helpful.
Chairman Auger asked if the concern is on these vaults that we are afraid that we are giving the applicant too much power to determine whether it’s a vault or a masonry building.
Commissioner Pugmire said yes. In most cases, above ground will work. In those cases where it is not, I would like either the Planning Commission or the City Council to be the ones making the decision.
Assistant City Attorney Loose said you do have some control the way it is currently written to regulate conditional use applications when you can clearly identify a detrimental affect. You don’t have the option to say we don’t like it above ground, put it below ground. All conditional use permits are always going to come before the Planning Commission so you have the opportunity to address any issues that you see as being detrimental.
Director Shaw said we may have to go back and check on the stealth applications but for sure the monopoles have to come to the Planning Commission for review; there is not option there. We will go back to verify what is permitted and what falls under conditional use.
Commissioner Pugmire said I would want to see at least conditional use; and would like to consider something more stringent on that.
Commissioner Tominey asked if it would be an effective prohibition if we used this club of “you have to put it underground”. At what point does the law tip there on the telecommunication act on an effective prohibition.
Commissioner Evans said I think that would be an opening for a law suit. I don’t think that legally we can do that. I also have concern with item J, where it says all ground equipment associated with a free standing monopole “shall” – That doesn’t give them an option does it.
Director Shaw said we will take all of your comments and make updates to the wording.
B.1. First Reading Section 16.04.200 of the Zoning Ordinance pertaining to Collector Street Fencing.
Community Development Director George Shaw reviewed the background information on Section 16.04.200 Zoning Ordinance pertaining to Collector Street Fencing. Due to the current construction of the 10400 South and 11400 South collector streets as well as other recently completed and ongoing collector street improvements occurring within the City, Staff has been researching various fencing locations, sizes, types and styles that may be appropriate along major streets for rear, side and front yard fencing. Additionally, portions of the current fencing ordinance are somewhat with respect to various uses emerging as properties continue to develop.
Outline highlights of the proposed text amendment:
· A maximum four feet (4’) high decorative wrought iron (or simulated wrought iron), post and rail fence made of steel, vinyl, or composite material would be permitted in front yards abutting collector streets.
· A maximum of two foot (2’) decorative solid masonry in combination of a maximum two foot (2’) decorative wrought iron or simulated wrought iron may also be used as front yard fencing.
· Any new fencing or modifications to existing single-family front, side, and rear yard collector street fencing shall be consistent in material, color, and design with adjacent collector street side and rear yard fencing; provided that the adjacent fencing currently meets the standard.
· The height of walls or fences adjacent to incompatible or hazardous uses such as railroads, canals, ditches, flood channels or other waterways may be increased from 6’ to 8’ tall. Although, fencing taller than 6’ may require berms and other landscaping materials in order to reduce the apparent mass of the taller wall. The material, location and height of fence as well as incompatibility between uses will be determined by the Planning Commission.
Findings:
· The fencing ordinance in other specific zones remains unchanged although, there may be some updates with these sections later on with the overall General Plan update.
· Only wrought iron fencing is currently permitted within the front yards of properties abutting collector streets. The proposed post and rail fence is primarily for consistency and aesthetics.
· The height increase from six feet to eight feet between incompatible or hazardous uses was added to address nuisance and safety concerns.
Assistant City Engineer Jeremy Nielson said there really have not been issues come up on the 10400 South as much as it has on 11400 South. They have a lot of grade issues with the existing front facing homes. When they have these grade issues, they need to decide whether to put in a retaining wall or a slope. If they do a retaining wall then they would need to put up a four foot fence for safety reasons. We have been talking with UDOT for over a month on these fencing issues. UDOT is willing to pay for chain-link fence but anything above and beyond chain-link is on the City’s dime as well as any liability issues that go along with it.
Director Shaw said these all of the roadways are an open window to our community and we want to do some things that brand the South Jordan look and feel.
Chairman Auger welcomed some scouts from Troop 1193 that entered the meeting and had them introduce themselves. She asked Director Shaw to briefly describe what is being discussed at tonight’s meeting.
V. PUBLIC HEARINGS AND POTENTIAL **ADMINISTRATIVE ACTION ITEMS
**Administrative Action = Less Discretion, Substantial Evidence (Objective Standard)
VI. PUBLIC HEARINGS AND POTENTIAL *LEGISLATIVE ACTION ITEMS
*Legislative Action = More Discretion, Reasonably Debatable (Subjective Standard)
None
Commissioner Paul Pugmire made a motion to adjourn the April 28, 2009 Planning Commission meeting. Commissioner Kevin Tominey seconded the motion. Vote was unanimous in favor, with Commissioner David Wood absent.
The April 28, 2009 Planning Commission Meeting adjourned at 7:30 p.m.
ADJOURNMENT
This is a true and correct copy of the April 28, 2009 Planning Commission meeting minutes, which were approved on May 12, 2009.
South Jordan City Recorder