|
Home » Departments » About Us » Planning and Zoning Minutes » September 13, 2006
September 13, 2006
PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING
September 13, 2006
The Milford City Planning and Zoning Commission meeting was called to order by Chairperson Thieme at 7:00 p.m.
Present were, Chair: Bob Thieme. Members: Lisa Carter, Cullen Carter and Bonnie Hardy. Zoning Administrator: Arden Fowles, City Attorney Leo Kanell and City Engineer April McKeon. Visitors: Mary Thomas and Clark Dalton.
1. Review and approval of the Public Hearing Minutes of June 14, 2006 and August 9, 2006 and the regular meeting minutes of June 14, 2006. Commissioner Cullen Carter made a motion to approve the minutes as written, Commissioner Hardy seconded the motion and all were in favor. The motion passed unanimously.
2. Review, discussion and action regarding pre-application by Larry & Leona Shurtliff to sub-divide land at and near (south of) 600 south and (west of) 700 west. Mary Thomas representing the Shurtliff’s interest in a small (5 lot) sub-division of land as mentioned above declared that she was looking for guidance only, in how to proceed prior to making an application for a subdivision on these particular lots. April McKeon relayed some history on the project, which has been before the city on at least two previous occasions. She explained the problem with the shallowness that a fiber- optic cable is buried in the area and it is inhibiting the building of a curb, gutter and sidewalk on the west side of 700 west. Ms. Thomas asked if there would be a chance of moving forward if they were to sub-divide only the four western most lots. Chairman Thieme briefly reviewed the requirements of the Milford City Subdivision Code relating to submittal requirements. Ms. Thomas then questioned the commission on the exceptions section of the same code, which allows the sale of lots by metes and bounds if the subdivision of land is six (6) lots or less. Chairman Thieme stated that in their history, these particular lots have brought a wastewater (drainage) issue with them. Engineer McKeon related that she thought the development could be accomplished by routing the wastewater from 600 south, then east across 700 west then southward on 700 west and leave the corner lot undeveloped for now. Chair Thieme said that until he was able to look at an engineering design of where the water is going to go we are not going to do any more. Attorney Kanell mentioned that the city in dealing with the Shurtliffs before has just been waiting for them to come with a plan and explained the city’s right to require a drainage plan and whether that requires curb and gutter or some other way, but we (the city) would have to be convinced, he said we feel badly that the land is sitting there and nothing happening. Ms. McKeon asked if they are able to resolve the drainage without including that corner lot is that feasible? Mr. Kanell responded that that was a question where you would have to convince the planning commission. The conversation drifted toward the fiber optic cable and its lack of depth in that area and whether or not they (fiber optic company) could be required to bury the cable deeper. Mr. Kanell stated that if the Shurtliffs pursued the engineering plan to that result, the city would support you with the concept that it is not reasonable there is nothing specific in our
regulations that lets them be that shallow. Mr. Kanell further explained that the Fiber-Optic cable was buried around the city, that the route was not at that time in the city boundaries and the city didn’t have any real involvement in it.
Ms. McKeon stated that they (the Shurtliff’s) should get an engineering plan prepared that shows it all and that it’s Planning and Zoning that is requiring a drainage plan. Chairman Thieme asked Ms. Thomas if she was clear with the requirements, she answered yes.
3. Review, discussion and action relative to a preliminary sub-division (Fox Hollow) plat, a request from Red Stone Land Development LLC. April McKeon representing Fox Hollow developers related the constraints on the sub-division application due to the annexation process. She also mentioned that they had some issues or challenges with meeting the requirements of submittal one of which is to get the fire authorities to sign off, she said they have had the plans for a couple of months and the primary issue was that under the original plan the lots were to be much larger and the fire hydrant spacing needs to be redesigned in order to meet requirements for the smaller lot sizes. She said she had also asked them to look at the cul-de-sac design to make sure they met their requirements. She also stated that another issue is that the developer wants to have a separate irrigation system apart from the culinary system without costing the city anything. Chairman Thieme restated the commissions stand on having all the information as outlined in the code under preliminary plat submittal and approval sections. Mr. Kanell mentioned the need for interest in and resolution of the now “county road” and it’s involvement in the sub-division planning plus some kind of determination regarding water rights, how much and the best methods of usage for the city. He also mentioned that he got the impression from the city council that they would appreciate the commission’s input on what it thought on these issues (water rights and roads). Ms McKeon said there were 200 acre feet of water with the property. Mr. Kanell stated that what he has in mind is that you get all the information that you need by the next meeting then what I would like is your approval with your recommendations on these issues, then the city can incorporate it into a contract to be included in the final plan. Mr. Thieme recapped the issues under discussion as water pressure issues, irrigation water for lots, amount of water rights to be included, county road improvements, collector roads from previous discussions, everyone agreed that these were the prominent issues to consider for the next meeting.
4. Review, discussion and action regarding a proposed amendment to zoning ordinance section 13.37 relating to legal non-conforming uses and structures. Administrator Fowles explained that there had been a motion to recommend for adoption to the city council a rewrite of section 13.37 in its entirety and it has since proven to be unnecessary to do a wholesale amendment and that two simple changes to the existing ordinance would serve the same purpose. Commissioner Cullen Carter made a motion to rescind the original motion of April 12, 2006 item #3 for 13.37.050 and to motion to recommend for adoption the changes as written in this present proposal. Commissioner Hardy seconded the motion and all were in favor. Motion passed unanimously.
5. Review, discussion and action regarding pre-zoning areas within the Milford City Annexation Policy Plan Map pursuant to Milford City Code, sections 13.08.080 and 13.38.010 & 020. This was presented to the commission for information that pre-zoning methods were available to the commission should the need arise. Generally the zoning will be included in the annexation petition as they are required.
6. Conditional Use Permit review, discussion and actions. After discussions Commissioner Lisa Carter made a motion to rescind and make null and void any and all Conditional Use Permits past and present attached to; 353 S. Main, Warby’s Automotive (failure to comply, nuisance, etc.), 533 S. Industrial Loop Road, Basin Perlite and Harborlite of Milford (failure to comply, Utah State Dept. of Environmental Quality letter is attached to these minutes), 45 W. Center Romero’s, etal. (failure to comply & time constraints), 680 W. 300 S. Taylor etal, Crossroads, Integrity House, etc.(failure to comply, time constraints, no activity, nuisance, etc.). Commissioner Hardy seconded the motion. All were in favor. The motion passed unanimously.
With no further business or comments Chairperson Thieme adjourned the meeting at approximately 8:20 p.m.
|
|
|
