Garden City Planning and Zoning Meeting

Randall Knight, Reporter

Rich Civic Times

GARDEN CITY, Utah.  March 5, 2014. The Planning and Zoning meeting was held as scheduled at 5:00 p.m.  The board members in attendance were: Lance Bourne, Jim Stone, Mike Schiess, Susan House, Pat Argyle and Nate Gracey.   Dewayne Gifford was absent.  There were 12 topics for discussion and the meeting adjourned at 8:30PM.

David Wiser asked for guidance on how to get a business license for Scooter Rentals and Sales in a location outside a commercial zone.   Wiser was told the process requires him to go to the Variance Board.  Board Member Pat Argyle recommended he check into renting current commercial buildings or lots in commercial zones.   Wiser stated he had asked a few owners, and they want $1600-1800 per month rent and that was to high for a startup venture.

Darin Pugmire asked the board what they had decided in regard to his request last month about excessive parking spaces and the need to consider employee parking areas.  Lance Bourne said he liked the recommendations Pugmire made, and the ordinance needs to be updated to be more reasonable. Argyle said the companies need to require their employees to park at locations away from the main parking spaces closest to the entrance to the respective establishment.  Pugmire shared some information about discussions with Merlin’s and Hometown to allow an easement for a road west of their businesses to create additional parking off  Hwy 89/30.  He said the city would pave the road if they agreed to the recommendation.  The road would be two lanes wide to provide better movement and allow for oversized vehicle parking.   Pugmire restated how the current requirement for him to have 18 parking spaces because that would surmise that 65 people would be in his building because the ordinance is based on an average of 3.5 people per car.  Not only is his facility not large enough to safely handle 65 people but it most likely exceeds the fire code limits.  Pugmire stated he is the liaison officer between the P&Z and the town counsel.

Riley Argyle updated the board on the latest information he has in regard to the bonding ordinance after talking to several towns and finding they all have different requirements.  Riley Argyle asked  Pugmire to join him in the discussion since he has also discussed the subject with some surrounding cities.  They reported the contacts require cash deposits for 125% of the cost of completing the infrastructure of the development in the first year.  If the time to complete the infrastructure takes longer than a year, 150% of the cost is required for the second year.  Since that is hard for a developer to come up with that sum of money, they may allow developers to work in phases.   Larger developments that will take several years to complete will be handled in the same manner--a phase at a time.  The board agreed that they should never go back to performance based bonding again, and accept only cash deposits. The board also agreed the definition section needs to list specific infrastructure improvements as:  ingress/egress, water, sewer, power, roads, sidewalks, and landscaping.  They also agreed a business license should not be given to a developer until the agreed infrastructure is completed and an extension will not be given until the basic infrastructure (roads, sewer, water, power) is completed.

George Peart, the building inspector, said 3 new building permits have been requested so for this year.

A discussion took place on PUDs and PRUDs.   The ordinance needs to state the height limits are not negotiable, and references stating otherwise need to be removed.  The board agreed the wording needs to be stronger and replace “may” with “shall” to ensure no negotiations exist to exceed the 35 ft or 25 ft limits from average grade level in the various zones.  They also agreed development plans need to show the height of buildings.  It was pointed out that conditional use permits are required before somebody can start developing beach front property. 

The board discussed the need for a new commercial zone to allow for businesses requiring additional heights above the 35 ft limit.  The recommended locations would be on the north and west side of 300 West.  The board decided to have the each member bring in their recommended locations, and they would take a field trip to look at the various recommendations to make real time pro/con decisions.

The next discussion was about adding a comment for phasing in subdivisions, PUD/PRUD and commercial developments to be stand-alone improvements.  This would require each phase to be completed before the next phase could start.  For example, the developer cannot dig up existing parking spaces for future construction, because the required number of parking slots would no longer be met.

The board discussed the eye-sore next to the Chevron station and feel those issues are covered in the nuisance, garbage, and litter and abatement of garbage ordinance.   Bourne distributed pictures of the building and clutter as an example of the city ordinance not being complied with.  He also stated this disregard of an ordinance overflows into the county ordinance, so it is not just a city issue.   It was recommended that more specific language needs to be added to the ordinance to remove any vagueness.  Peart recommended the reference to Building Inspector be changed to Ordinance Officer.  The board agreed.  They also agreed a business license will not be given to noncomplying businesses.

The sign ordinance was discussed again in regard to the set back limits and how they need to be changed and include a statement requiring any variances need to go to Variance Board for authorization.  If the person requests a conditional use permit and it is given, then a variance is not required. It was recommended more time be given to the board to review the set back requirements.

The last topic discussed was in regard to ingress/egress roads not be kept open year round. The entrances can’t be locked or impassable and Lochwood and Shundahai were used as examples.