PENDING MINUTES
Attendance: Mark Woods, Bryan Allred, Stuart Krukiewicz, Curt Lund, Jerime Ivory, Tyler Smith, Alyson Strait, Aimee Goble
Excuse: Clint Hansen
Citizens in Attendance: Laura & Jim Beagley (for Zooming), Matt Brown, Willard Wood
• Bryan calls the meeting to order and asks the Planning Commission members if they have any corrections to make to the minutes for the August 10, 2023 regular meeting of the Planning Commission that was emailed to them. Mark motions to approve the minutes as written. Tyler seconds the motion and all approve with Stuart abstaining because he was not present at that meeting.
• Jerime has a suggestion for the “Action Items” on the Agenda – list Chapters 2 and 10.2 D as ready for a Public Hearing rather than an “action item” needing more discussion.
• Cindy Franson has come with an application for a hay shed on their 0.50-acre lot at 265 West 400 South, serial #18314×1, in the Residential Agriculture (RA) Zone – not in the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) Special Flood Hazard Area (SFHA). The hay shed will not have utilities. There is an irrigation head on Alice Bailey’s property, but no irrigation lines on the Franson’s property. The hay shed will measure 18’x24’ (432 sq.ft.) with an eave height of 15’ (much less than the 21’ maximum). The setbacks will be 62’ on the front/north towards the existing house (greatly exceeding the 12’ fire safety minimum), 4’ on the rear/south (exceeding the 2’ minimum behind the midpoint of the property), 64’ on the east side towards an existing shed (greatly exceeding the 12’ fire safety minimum), and 20’ on the west side (exceeding the 2’ minimum behind the midpoint of the property). Curt Nielson has already measured the setbacks. Jerime motions to approve the permit application for the Fransons to build a hay shed as described above. Curt seconds the motion and all vote in favor. The Fransons will need to submit their City permit application and plans to the County on-line.
• Curt C. Lund has submitted an application for a permit to put up a carport on his 1.0-acre corner lot at 175 South 600 West, serial #17975×1, in the RA Zone – not in the FEMA SFHA. The carport will not have utilities, but Mr. Lund did not think he needed to include plans with his application since the carport is a kit. The carport will measure 20’x22’ (440 sq.ft.) and the County usually requires building plans for structures over 200 sq.ft.. Jerime motions to table consideration of the application because of the lack of building plans. Stuart seconds the motion and all vote in favor with Curt agreeing.
• David Hill has submitted an application for a permit to place solar panels on the roof of his existing house at 785 West 100 South, serial #18156×1, in the RA Zone – not in the FEMA SFHA. Some of the members of the Planning Commission don’t see that the Commission needs to even look at solar panel applications – their approval is entirely up to the Power Company and the County. Heather refers them to Chapter 11.31 and Bryan asks Curt to read the requirements aloud. Currently, our Ordinance requires that the City issue an accessory building permit for solar panel installation. Stuart reminds them that the County requires a permit from the City before they will even consider an application for a County permit. Jerime, Tyler, and Stuart note that their Chapter 11.31 is not current and ask Heather to make updated copies for them. The Commission would also like Heather to put discussion of solar panel permitting on the October Agenda. The Commission notes that solar panel installation on the ground may have different requirements than solar panel installation on a roof-top. Tyler asks if the Commission has prepared for applications for wind turbines. We have not and he expects that they are coming and we need to incorporate requirements for them in our Ordinances. Jim Beagley introduces himself and explains that he is an electrical engineer. He reports that the Power company installs a new meter when it hooks up a solar energy system so that when the system is creating electricity the meter runs backwards. He also notes that the Power company limits the number of panels an individual home is allowed to install. Alyson offers to ask the “City Administrator” for his input on permitting for solar panel systems. Jerime motions to approve the permit application for Mr. Hill to have solar panels installed on the existing roof of his home as described above. Stuart seconds the motion and all vote in favor. Mr. Hill’s application and plans now need to be submitted to the County on-line. • Brady Walker has submitted a letter requesting an extension of the time allowed on his current conditional use permit for a home occupation business in the RA Zone. He cites high interest rates as the reason he has not begun construction yet. He reports that he has paid the impact fees for a new home and has included an 8 ½” x 11” set of house plans to show that he is in compliance with the condition that a house is “in process” of being built. His current conditional use permit expires September 17, 2023. Tyler notes that when Mr. Walker’s current conditional use permit expires, the business building will become a non-compliant structure. He suggests that maybe the Commission should be looking at Chapter 8 (Noncomplying Uses and Noncomplying Structures) rather than Chapter 3 (Administration and Enforcement). Bryan refers the Commission Chapter 3.6 H – he stresses that when the condition(s) of the conditional use permit has (have) been violated, the Planning Commission “shall cause the permit holder to specify how the holder will promptly comply” or the permit shall be revoked. The question then becomes how the City Council can enforce the permit condition. Curt points out that the current Ordinance requires annual review of ALL conditional use permits by January 31st . The Commission agrees that the Ordinance needs some changes. Tyler suggests enforcement should begin with a warning, then progress to increasing fines, and finally (as a last resort) placing a lien against the property. Stuart reminds the Commission of Chapter 3.18 (Appeals and Reconsideration Process). Jerime motions to recommend extension of the conditional use permit expiration date to the City Council. He suggests that the permit should expire January 31st of 2024 with annual review each year after that if necessary. He cites the conditional use permit that the Papenfusses renew each year as an example. Mark and Tyler point out that the conditions of the permit can be modified. Stuart suggests a performance date of completion, but Jerime counters with a completion percentage requirement. All the members of the Planning Commission agree that conditional use permits should be avoided. Tyler seconds Jerime’s motion (see above). Curt, Jerime, and Aimee vote in favor. Stuart and Mark vote to oppose. The motion carries.
• Bryan asks Heather for the Planning Commission members’ Term End Report and Attendance Record. After reviewing the report, Alyson asks for suggestions of potential alternates to replace Riley. Jim Beagley and Matt Brown both volunteer and Alyson remembers that Chandler Malichanh was considered last year. She also remembers that both Bryan and Stuart are willing to renew their terms. Heather will submit the Report and Attendance Record to the City Council next week with the suggested potential alternates. Jerime notes that his Chapter 4 is also outdated.
• Jacob Rynes of Vertical Bridge/Coal Creek Consulting, LLC contacted Tyler to ask about putting up a cell phone tower in the Fountain Green area. Alyson reports that the Mayor asked her to have the Planning Commission table consideration of this request until the City Council can discuss it. Tyler explains that he doesn’t know where Mr. Rynes would like to place the tower, but he would lease the land, put in utilities, and allow other cell phone companies to use the service (paying him for the access). Tyler suggests that we should see what other cities have in place to deal with this issue. The Mayor doesn’t want a tower within City limits, but would like it either at the head house or near the water tanks. Matt Brown introduces himself and explains that he is concerned about health risks from the 5G of a cell tower. He is worried that it might even contaminate the City culinary water if placed near the water tanks. Jerime points out that the City should also check Mr. Rynes’ reputation.
• Todd Robinson, Fire Chief, is on the Agenda for advice about fire safety lane minimums, but is not in attendance. Bryan and Stuart propose letting the County oversee fire safety lane requirements in accordance with the International Building Code (IBC). Stuart explains that the City must first adopt the IBC into our City Ordinances and Bryan asks Heather to put this on the October Agenda. Stuart provides a sample from Eagle Mountain. Laura interjects that she is working on updating the City Ordinances – especially those that are ambiguous or contradictory.
• Bryan asks Jerime to explain his reasons for welcoming annexation. Jerime feels that growth is coming and the City needs to be prepared to accommodate the growth – not necessarily welcome it. He also thinks that some annexation would provide income to the City. Curt agrees. Mark and Stuart were working on a rough draft of an annexation policy, but needed results of the sewer and water studies to finish the paper. The City Council is now in possession of the annexation policy and Alyson reports that the sewer and water studies are approximately 2/3 complete. All the Planning Commission members agree that annexation must benefit the City – economically.
• Tyler reports on his homework to study setbacks in other similar-sized cities. He hands out a paper showing setbacks in Levan, Gunnison, and Feron. He actually looked at setbacks in ten comparable cities. He feels that Fountain Green is pretty much in line with them. He also reports that he attended a Land Trust Reliance Rally in Portland, Oregon in conjunction with his work with conservation easements. One of the break-out sessions dealt with the definitions of temporary v. permanent. He learned that it is the intent which determines if a structure is temporary or permanent. If a structure is attached to utilities or anchored with cement footings, that implies that it is permanent rather than temporary. Stuart notes that utility companies require easements to allow them to service their utilities. People are not allowed to build permanent structures in these easements and they must have permission before building even a temporary structure there. Jerime concludes that the tubular-framed carports that claim to be temporary are actually permanent if they have concrete footings. Mark suggests that if a property with a temporary structure changes hands (is sold), the temporary structure must come down. Curt adds that a portable structure may also be temporary or permanent as determined by its intent.
• Stuart motions to adjourn the meeting. Jerime seconds the motion and all vote in favor. The meeting adjourns at 9:57 pm.