Board of Zoning Adjustment

' ',. . "~·i ~ \ ! Millutes of the regular meetillg of the Ogden City Board of Zonillg AdJUStment held January 25, 2017 Meetillg was conducted by Actillg Chair Charles Casperson and began at 4 41 p m Members Present Charles Casperson Stephen Call Scott Larsen Members Excused Stephanie NIX Dustill Chapman, Alternate Staff Present Greg Montgomery, Plannillg Manager Joseph Srmpson, Planner J annette Borklund, Plannillg Techmcian Mara Brown, City Attorney Mark Stratford, Cuy Attorney, Plannmg Cornnussion Others Present Nefi Garcia Mehssa Reagan Kathryn Bradshaw LaDawn Coburn Pam Larson Gale Llvmgston MlkeWnght Keith Larson Tom Peterson Amy Wicks Zachary Fisher 1. Approval of Minutes of the] anuary 11, 2017 special meetillg 2. Election of ChairNice~Chair 3. Case #2017-l To appeal a decision of the Plannmg Cornnusswn to approve a condmonal use permit to allow a pille tree shaped cell tower at Sullivan Park at approXImately 772 Patterson Avenue 4. Case #2017-2: To reduce requrred street frontage from 60' to 30' at 5273 Willchester ill order to allow a separate residential lot 5. New Business: 1. Approval of Minutes of the January 11, 2017 special meetillg. A monon was made by Mr Casperson to approve the ,mmutes as prepared Monon was seconded by Mr Larson and passed unanrmously 2. Election of ChairNice~Chair A monon y;as made by Mr Call to nommate Mr Casperson as chair Motwn was seconded by Mr Larson and passed unammously It was determmed due to the people m attendance, consideration of Case #2017 ~ 2 would be heard first 3. Case #2017-2: To reduce requrredstreet frontage from 60' to 30' at 5273 Wmchester ill order to allow a separate residential lot Mr Mike Wnght stated he IS requestillg a vanance ill the lot width for the home to have access from Willchester so that It can be subruvtded from the use of the property for the assisted hvtng facility Mr Srmpson mrucated tills request Is to allow a reduced lot wtdth for the sillgle~famliy home which IS part of an overall project where an assisted hvmg complex IS beillg built The home has always had access from Wmchester, but also had frontage along Shadow Valley Dnve and Harnson "'1"' ., ' Boulevard The entrre property was rezoned several months ago to the R~ 3/CO zone to allow the development of the care center at which tune a development agreement was recorded which requrres the home to remarn as a srngle~fanuly home and not become an offrce use for the care center The owner IS now proposrng the home be split rnto Its own parcel, which would ehmrnate Its frontage on Harnson and Shadow Valley Dnve The eXIstrng 30' access from Wrnchester does not meet the lot width requrrements of the R~ 3 zone, and tlus request IS to allow a reduced lot Width from 60' to 30' Because this has functioned as the home's marn access, there will be little effect on other property owners The R~ 3 zone reqmres a mrniiDUm of 6,000 square feet for a srngle farruly lot, and the proposed subdiVIsion would retarn approXImately an acre of property for the home He stated the subdiVIsion as proposed by the applicant does not meet the reqmred setbacks for the home rn the R~ 3 zone Staff IS recommendrng the property lrne be shifted so that both the rear and side setback reqmrements are satisfied. In considenng a reduced lot Width, the Board must determrne there IS a physical hardship With the property not applicable to other homes rn the same zone He stated there IS topography Issues on this property precludrng access to the home from any other street, and Wmchester has acted as Its marn access for many years He stated the lot would technically become a flag lot With a 30' lor width along the frontage, but then open rnto a larger lot, stating flag lots are legal rn Ogden only when there are topography problems Staff feels the frndrngs can be made to satisfy the regulations of the Ordrnance and recommends approval of the reduced lot Width as requested Mr Keith Larson reVIewed the history of this property, statrng rn 2004 a proposal by Daywest for a seruor housrng proJect which never happened He expressed concern of the neighborhood that the home remarn as single~fanuly, and no other homes be built on the lot and were concerned about the potential of rncreased traffic along Wrnchester He asked il the home would be sold or rented, stanng It IS hoped the home will be used as srngle~fanuly and be rn harmony With the eXIsting neighborhood He expressed concern that the rncreased lot size would allow the home to be removed and apartments built on the property as It IS now zoned R= 3, and requested the home lot be rezoned back to R-1~10 rn order to keep the rntegrity of the neighborhood, statrng the use of the home should remarn srngle fanuly rn perpetUity regardless of Its zonrng Mr Simpson responded that the Board of Zonrng AdJustment has no authonty regardrng several of the Items Identified by Mr Larsen and has no power to rezone the property back to R~ 1~ 10 He stated the eXIsting development agreement regulates the use of both the home and the care center, rnrncatrng the home must contrnue berng used as a srngle~fanuly home The action of the Board is to determrne whether there IS an ability to create a 30' lot Width for the home to have Its frontage on Wrnchester He felt there IS good cause to reduce the frontage Width as requested, statrng the Staff recommendatiOn IS to approve the lot Width at 30' subject to the property lrnes of the subdiVIsion berng moved so the home would meet the requrred setbacks of the R~ 3 zone Mr Call asked about the subdiVIsiOn process clanfymg the subdiVIsion could not occur Without the vanance, and if the home were able to be subdivided and sold, there would be a better chance of u berng owner~occupied which would fit With the character of the area Mr Keith Larson rnrncated the Development Agreement states the home must be rented, and asked il the subdiVIsion would VIolate that agreement. Ms Brown suggested a condrnon of approval could be added to the motion to requrre the removal of the language rn the Developm~nt Agreement which requrres It to be rented, so that It could be either rented or owner occupied  Ms LaDawn Coburn expressed concern that the home has been vacant for a penod of tnne and IS hidden from VIew, and has become a location where illegal actiVIty has occurred She expressed concern about Its ability to be used as a home as It may have been trashed over tnne She stated while she Is ill favor of the subdiVIsiOn, there IS concern that the home could be torn down and muln~family use be constructed With the lnnited 30' frontage, and suggested a condition be added that the residential lot be rezoned back to R~ I MOTION A monon was made by Mr Call to approve the lot Width of 30' subJect to the subdiVIsion boundanes bemg relocated to assure the home meets the reqmred setbacks of the R~3 zone, a subdiVIsiOn applicatiOn beillg submitted and approved by Ogden City and be recorded at the Weber County Recorder's office, and the language of the Development Agreement bemg reVIsed to allow the smgle~family home to either be rented or owned but remam ill use as a sillgle~family home Approval Is based <?n the filldmgs the lot Width requrrement creates an unreasonable hardship ill meetillg the general purpose of the land use ordmance, the smaller lot Width IS consistent With the development pattern of the area, grantillg the vanance will allow the smgle family home to be on a separate lot from the developmg assisted livmg facility, which IS a substantial property nght, the variance will not affect the General Plan, the spmt of the Zonmg Ordmance IS observed, and the lot will meet ffilllliDUm lot area and setback requrrements If Staff recommendations are adhered to Monon was seconded by Mr Larsen and passed unarnmously, With Mr Call, Mr Larsen and Charr Casperson votillg aye 4. Case #2017,1 To appeal a decision of the Plannmg Commission to approve a conditiOnal use peimit to allow a pme tree shaped cell tower at Sullivan Park at apprmamately 772 Patterson Avenue Ms Brown stated tills request IS to consider an appeal to a deCision made by the Plannmg Commission, and the direction of the Board IS to detefffillle whether the Commission erred m therr apphcanon of the land use ordmance Ms Gale Livmgston, representillg property at 3041 Monroe stated tills family home was built m 1951 at which tnne her father leased a portion of the hillside from Ogden City and cared for It as an addition to ills garden_ She stated the hillside has not been cared for smce her father was takmg care of It, and the neighborhood has begun to degenerate She stated the proposed cell tower would be at the roof line of the home and stated there are concerns With the curb appeal of the home as well as potential health hazards of the proposed cell tower Mr Snnpson stated tills IS a hearmg to consider whether the Plannmg Commission decision to approve a conditional use peimit to allow a cell tower at Sullivan Park dunng Its December meeting By State law, a conditional use IS a use peimitted ill any particular zone, but may have some nnpacts on surroundmg land uses The role of the Plannmg Commission IS to Identify those impacts and Identify factors whereby they can be mitigated Only If Impacts cannot be mitigated, can a conditiOnal use peimit be derned The Planrnng Commission may establish conditions to be Implemented ill an effort to mitigate potential nnpacts of a particular conditional use The Commission determmed while there were some Impacts Identified, the style of the pole and Its locatiOn near a stand of eXIstmg mature trees, With the addition of additional trees to be approved by the Urban Forester would mitigate any potential nnpacts the pole would create It IS Staff's _,_ ... recommendatiOn that the Planrnng Comrmssion correctly apphed the standards of the land use code and State law, recommendmg demal of the appeal Mr Neft Garcia, representmg Venzon Wrreless stated he had apphed for a condmonal use penrut in November, and the apphcation had been reVIewed by City Staff and Plannmg Staff had recommended approval at Its December meetmg The Planmng Comrmssion then approved the Condmonal Use Penrut As the appeal has been requested, Plannmg Staff IS recommendmg demal of the appeal He felt the apphcat1on satisfies the City codes Ms Mehssa Reagan stated she IS legal Staff for VeriZon, mdrcatmg there has been no substantial eVIdence as to why the conditional use penrut should be derued She stated 75% of home buyers mdrcate a Wireless connection IS cntical to the purchase of a home and up to 90% of US homes have wrreless semces, With 48% usmg wrreless only With no land hne She stated the ability to proVIde 911 semce is rmportant to the commuruty and that 80% of the millenmal population mdrcates wrreless semce IS Important m the purchase of a home She stated efforts have been taken to blend the proposed tower With us surroundmgs With both the pme tree design and Its locatiOn near a stand of eXIstmg trees that are 40~50' m height The complex IS to be surrounded by a slatted fence and additional trees and shrubbery will be added to help buffer the pole She stated If Verrzon can demonstrate a need for the facility under the FCC regulations, and If the facility meets the Code requrrements the local JUnsdrction cannot prohibit the use She presented information regardmg the difference in coverage and capacity for the area, mdrcatmg It IS not typical for facilities to be built unless there IS a demonstrated need. She stated while the coverage may be adequate for telephone calls, there IS an mcreased need for data, there IS a need for these facilities m residential areas. She stated the US FCC regulates the health and safety for these facilities, and they are not allowed to be regulated or prohibited by local commuruties based on health concerns Mr Srmpson stated m the placement of cell towers and eqmpment m neighborhoods, the mtent is that they be away from homes, and may typically be mstalled on schools, churches or m parks When reVIewed by both the Staff and the Comrmssion, rmpacts are Identified and measures proposed whereby those rmpacts can be rrntigated He stated this particular tower will have access from the existmg cul~de~sac and will be an evergreen tree styled monopole which will blend With the eXIstmg trees m the park. The Planrnng Comrrnsswn requrred addrtwnal trees to be mstalled to proVIde a better screen of the facility Staff feels this IS a good location, and the eXIstmg trees and topography of the park shield the use from the surroundmg neighborhood He reVIewed the land use code regulations relative to condmonal use penruts, statmg surroundmg residents Withrn a 300' ramus were notified by mail and InVIted to the meetmg, and that measures are proposed which would mitigate any potential rmpacts of the proposed tower The Comrmssion considered the potential of nmse and hghts, fmdrng the secunty hghtmg will be lirruted, and the diesel generator will function only m the event of a power outage They found the 0~ l zone and park location IS an appropnate locatiOn for cell towers and as pubhc utility substations are listed as a conditiOnal use and there are means available whereby the rmpacts of the use can be rrnngated He stated the appellant has proVIded no eVIdence that the Plannmg Comrrnsswn erred in its decisiOn to approve the·condrnonal use penrut or that the use IS not comphant With the land use ordinance Mr Zachary Fisher, 750 Patterson, stated m Staff's recommendation for derual of the appeal, It was stated their fmdmg IS that the cell tower IS compatible With surroundmg development He stated while It could be aesthetically companble due to Its design and placement near existmg mature trees, there are other factors to consider He stated this park was designed With a storm water runoff system and contams a detention basm, With much of the park bemg saturated With water durmg the sprmgtune and when there are storms He stated the distance from the end of the cul~de~ sac IS less than 30', mdicatmg the requued setback IS not satisfied He felt the eqmpment would be better SUited to Monroe Park, mmcatmg due to ItS location a shorter tower nnght be an option, suggestmg an alternative to put panels on the tenrus court hghts He felt the City should consider a moratonum on cell towers m small parks, statmg both Sullivan and Orchard Park are too small to accommodate cell eqmpment and still proVIded the park semce to the commuruty, while they would not be as noticeable on eXIstmg 10~acre parks He felt no pernnt should be authonzed for cell towers m small parks Ms Kathryn Bradshaw, 3040 Monroe stated she had been m contact With preVIous Council member Amy Wicks, who gave her ImpressiOn that It was not the mtent of the City Council to allow the use of small pocket parks for cell towers at the tune all city parks were zoned to 0~ 1 m 2011, and that the Council currently IS pursumg prorubmng cell towers m the 0~ 1 zone She Is concerned with the locatiOn of the tower bemg 60' from a neighbor's kitchen Window, and Within 100' of her property She stated tills park IS m a gulley area, and typically cell towers have needed height, suggestmg the 60' height would be near the 30' height of homes due to the depressiOn where the tower IS proposed She felt the eXIstmg homes would block signals, and the anticipated semce would not be available She stated the apphcant had indicated there IS no current need for the tower, but It Is proposed for future use and suggested It not be built until It IS necessary and after the reVIew of the Council for use m the 0~ 1 zone She expressed concern the tower would affect the value of her home, and the fact tills park IS a watershed area, With httle area for grass use With the proposed tower takmg up valuable park space She also mdicated she had contacted the FCC who had mdiCated VeriZon IS not a pubhc utility, and so long as the zonmg regulations of the local junsmctwn are satisfied, they do not force the use m a particular location Mr Larsen asked about the location bemg m a gulley and whether the needed semce would be proVIded Mr Garcia answered while taller towers were needed m the past, the current technology requues the ability to commurucate with each other as well as proVIde semce to residential neighborhoods. He stated the needed semce IS for the residential area to the south Ms Gail Bradshaw mdicated while she understood the recommendations of both Staff and the Planrung Commission, mdicatmg while the proposed tower may meet the mtent of the City's regulations, tills IS not the nght location, and consideration should be giVen as to what IS the nght thing for Ogden and her cmzenry Zachary Taylor suggested a 30' tower at Monroe Park would proVIde a better semce to the neighborhood, Without the potential of eXIstmg homes m the gully blocking signals Mr Mark Stratford, Assistant City Attorney representmg the Plannmg CommissiOn, stated the Utah State Leg~slarure tells cmes what they can do m terms of land use For conditional uses, the State law mmcates a conditional use shall be approved If reasonable conditions are proposed or can be unposed to mitigate any reasonably anticipated detrunentalunpact of the use The Plannmg CommissiOn IS bound by that standard While there may be a better place m the mmds of the City or residents, the apphcant has the ability to present theu proposed location In conJunction w1th theu proposal, they also may Identify means whereby unpacts can be mitigated The CommiSSion considered the style of the pole as well as Its location Within Sullivan Park and found the mitigation proposed should be supplemented by addinonallandscapmg He stated nnnganon does not mean a 100% ehmmation of unpacts, but that means were unposed to reduce the Impact He stated while . . ~ the FCC allows cltles to consider unpacts of cell semces m makrng therr decisiOns The law does not allow cmes to make decision which would deny a earner an opporturuty to proVIde semce to the commuruty Federal law also mrucates the FCC deals With the wave length regula nons, and the health concerns are not under the power of the local commuruty He stated the power of the B'oard IS to determme whether the Planrung Commission erred m therr,unplementatwn of the Zonmg Ordmance under both City, State and Federal law Ms Brown suggested the Board take the matter under adVIsement and make therr deCisiOn at a later date - MOTION A monon was made by Mr Call to take the matter under adVIsement and take action at a later date Monon was seconded by Mr Larsen and passed unarumously With Mr Call, Mr Larsen and Charr Casperson votmg aye Ms Brown stated a follow~up meetmg will giVe the Board an opporturuty to reVIew the mformanon presented and to prepare a wntten order, statmg that deCisiOn for the record She stated this IS the last opportunity for public mput, that the decision meetmg does not anticipate adrunonal public mput It was mrucated both the appellant and the applicant would be notified for that special meeting, although no public input IS anticipated ' . 5. New Business: There bemg no adrunonal busmess before the Board, the meetmg was adJourned at 5 57 p m Respectfully subnntted, Jannette Borklund, Plannmg Technic1an Approved (date) Charles Casperson, Charr  the FCC allows cmes to consider rrnpacts of cell services ill makrng therr decisiOns The law does not allow cmes to make decision which would deny a earner an opportumty to proVIde service to the commumty Federal law also illmcates the FCC deals with the wave length regulanons, and the health concerns are not under the power of the local commumty He stated the power of the Board IS to determille whether the Plannmg CommissiOn erred ill therr rmplementanon of the Zonillg Ordrnance under both City, State and Federal law Ms Brown suggested the Board take the matter under adVIsement and make therr decision at a later date MOTION A monon was made by Mr Call to take the matter under adVIsement and take actiOn at a later date Monon was seconded by Mr Larsen and passed unarnmously with Mr Call, Mr Larsen and Charr Casperson votillg aye Ms Brown stated a follow-up meeting will give the Board an opporturnty to reVIew the information presented and to prepare a written order, statillg that decisiOn for the record She stated tills IS the last opportunity for public illput, that the decisiOn meetillg does not anticipate additional public illput It was rnillcated both the appellant and the apphcant would be notified for that special meetrng, although no public illput IS antiCipated 5. New Business: There beillg no additional busilless before the Board, the meetillg was adJourned at 5 57 p m Approved 5/24/17 (date)