· Web view5. The maximum number of dogs on the property at any one time for IKT, inclusive of the owners' personal dogs, shall be sixteen (16). Domestic dogs of customers shall

1MINUTES

OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THETOOELE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION

HELD DECEMBER 03, 2014

Chairman Bryan Coulter called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. The time, place and agenda of the meeting had been provided to the Tooele Transcript Bulletin and to each member of the governing body by delivering copies of the notice and agenda at least two days before to each of them.

1. ROLL CALL The Chairman called the roll which showed Marite Leo, Anita Dalrymple, Todd Castagno, Lynn Butterfield, Matt Peterson, and Bryan Coulter attending. Julie Pawlak came in late. Also present were Mark Nelson Tooele County Deputy Recorder, and Blaine Gehring Tooele County Planner. Those attending in the public were Lincoln Hobbs, Jack Tillery, MaryAnn Tillery, Joy Peters, Jonathan Peters, Randall Jones, and Tooele County Commissioner Shawn Milne.

2. APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES. The minutes of January, March, April, May, June and November 2014 meetings were approved. Minutes for January had an addition of Bryan Coulter being excused from the voting on his cottage industry. Motion of approve by Martie Leo with Lynn Butterfield second. All concurred.

3. APPROVAL OF 2015 MEETING SCHEDULE. The motion of accept the 2015 Planning Commission Schedule was made by Lynn Butterfield with Todd Castagno second. All concurred.

4. VAC 2014-02. Vacation of the existing roads located in part of the Southeast quarter and the Southwest quarter of Section 16, and part of the Southeast quarter of Section 17, both of Township 2 South, Range 6 West, Salt Lake Base and Meridian, Tooele County, Utah. Motion to Open the Public Hearing made by Bryan Coulter with Matt Peterson second, all concurred. Julie Pawlak joined the meeting at this time. Blaine Gehring gave the staff report. Blaine reminded everyone of the meeting held in August and talked about realignment of Little Mountain Road. There were several small stub roads which were using Little Mountain Road for access. Ordinance 2012-07 was adopted vacating some of those stub roads but it has since been found out that some of those stub roads were not included. The purpose is to now vacate those stub roads which were not vacated at that time. Staff recommends a favorable recommendation to vacate the remaining roads. Discussion took place on how some of the roads were created. Blaine mentioned that by vacating those roads they would no longer be county roads and we would not have to maintain them. Bryan asked for comment from the public. No comment was made by the public and the motion to close the public hearing was made by Todd Castagno with Lynn Butterfield second. All concurred. A motion was made to approve the vacation by Todd Castagno with Lynn Butterfield second. A vote was taken with all concurring.

5. DISCUSSION AND DECISION ON CUP 2014-07. A Conditional Use Permit for a dog kennel and training facility at 1382 E Erda Way, Greg and Darnell Ghidotti. Bryan Coulter and Lynn Butterfield excused themselves and turned the meeting over to Martie Leo the Vice Chairman. Blaine Gehring reviewed what the Conditional Use Permit was for. Staff came up with a list of conditions to be met by the applicants if the conditional use permit were approved.

1. Limit the number of uses on the property to dog training, In Kennel Training (IKT), and retail sale of training equipment.2. The owners or an agent for the owners reside on the property.3. Odors be controlled and not detectable beyond the property line.4. Flies and other vectors be controlled.5. The maximum number of dogs on the property at any one time for IKT, inclusive of the owners' personal dogs, shall be sixteen (16). Domestic dogs of customers shall be confined to the

indoors at all times except for (a) regular periodic stays in fenced outdoor yard or (b) supervised training sessions.

6. No appointments for any conditional use outside the hours of 10:00 A.M. to 7:00 P.M. daily.

Blaine mentioned that the CCR's of the subdivision were not enforceable by the county. The county could issue a CUP based on the county code if reasonable conditions could be imposed to mitigate the concerns of the public. The CCR's are enforced by the homeowners association and is a separate issue. Julie pointed out that all of the conditions for the kennel were the same as the conditions for the previous kennel except for item number 5. She wanted to strike the word domestic and customer so that the condition started with the word Dogs. Then she wanted to discuss the number of dogs. Anita wanted further information about what was discussed at the last meeting. She wanted to know how the surrounding neighbors felt about the conditions put upon the kennel. Julie explained that on the comments from the public at the last meeting they were happy with the conditions that were put in place on the last kennel. Anita asked about the control of the odor. Julie explained that it was not that big of a deal if sanitized daily. Sound was the biggest issue. You controlled that by having them indoors. Anita asked about the sound ordinance. Julie explained that it was the commission's job to place conditions on the permit to mitigate the impact to the neighborhood. That is the point the commission is at this time. That is the point of the list and the conditions imposed. Martie asked if decorative fencing was discussed with the applicant. Julie explained that this

applicant would have a wall around the exterior of the kennel. Martie asked if they were looking at the number of animals. Julie answered that the conditions allowed 16. Martie was concerned about the number animals because last month the commission only allowed 3 and a previous CUP. Todd Castagno explained that the CUP's were different in that the previous one was submitted as a hobby while this one was not. Anita wanted more information to be able to compare what had been done previously and what was being done now. Julie Pawlak explained the conditions and why they were placing the conditions on this current applicant. Discussion took place on the number of dogs. Blaine explained that impact of training dogs would not have the impact of a breeding kennel. Martie Leo asked where the training would take place and Julie Pawlak answered that it would be indoors and outdoors and that all 16 would not be trained at the same time. Martie Leo called for any other comment on the number of dogs from staff. She was having a hard time with the number of dogs. Julie did not think 3 was enough and that was why the number was 16. Everyone had a problem with the number of dogs. Matt Peterson made a motion to deny the CUP. Discussion took place that if the CUP were denied the applicant could take it to the County Commission. It was explained that the conditions placed on the permit would mitigate the issues to meet the county code. There was more discussion on the number of dogs. There was not a second on the motion. A roll call was taken on the motion to deny. Todd Castagno voted no Matt Peterson and Anita Dalrymple voted yes, Julie Pawlak and Martie Leo voting no. Motion to deny fails. Further discussion took place about the number of dogs. Julie stated that the barking could be controlled. Matt Peterson brought up the CCR's and the public opinion. Martie Leo stated that the only thing the planning commission could do was send it the County Commission or accept the permit. She also stated that she hated to see a business go into a residential area but they were obligated by law to approve the permit if they could mitigate the conditions to meet the code. She would be more comfortable with a smaller number of dogs allowed by the permit. Anita agreed that she would also like to see a smaller number of dogs. Julie asked the applicant how many dogs they personally owned. The applicant stated that they had 8 dogs. Julie stated that because of the number of dogs they owned restricting them to 10 dogs would not give them enough dogs to operate their business. Martie Leo stated that they were exceeding the number of dogs allowed for a residential area. She then called for another motion. There was further discussion on the number of dogs. Todd Castagno moved to approve the CUP with the removal of the aforementioned words. The motion was seconded by Julie Pawlak. A roll was taken with Martie Leo, Julie Pawlak, Todd Castagno voting yes and Anita Dalrymple and Matt Peterson voting no. A second motion was made by Julie Pawlak changing number 5 to say 12 dogs. Todd Castagno seconded the motion. A vote was taken with the same results as the previous vote. Motion passed with the change to number 5 condition and the number of dogs changed to 12. Time was given to the applicants to ask questions. Darnell Ghidotti stated that she did not have any questions. Bryan Coulter rejoined the meeting and there was further discussion on the Tooele County Land Use Ordinance regarding kennels.

6. DISCUSSION ON AMENDING SECION 15-5.3.1(j) TOOELE COUNTY LAND USE ORDINANCE. Blaine gave some background on previous discussions. The main concern was the number of animals and the business use of residential areas. It was asked that the commission define what would be reasonable as to the number of animals and the size of lot animals would be allowed on. Lynn Butterfield stated that the purpose of a Rural Residential Zone was to stop the encroachment of commercial businesses into residential areas. He felt that allowing commercial businesses into residential areas was inappropriate. His opinion that no kennels should allowed in residential areas. He felt it was a mistake to pass the permits that had been passed. Julie asked to see the table in the ordinance of the permitted uses. Anita Dalrymple stated that her concern was the number of animals people had as personal animals. Most of them exceed the number of animals allowed. She was concerned about the enforcement issue. Blaine Gehring explained that 3 dog and/or cats were allowed and that the county did not have the personnel to enforce all violations. We investigate when we receive a complaint. Lynn Butterfield stated that the problem was that the Planning Commission had allowed 2 kennels to go into Rural Residential neighborhoods, where other people will move in an see the large number of dogs and assume they are allowed the same. He felt that they were allowing people to do things that could not be enforced. He felt that the commission had thrown away their own ordinance in allowing commercial businesses to operate in a residential area. Bryan Coulter brought up the fact that there were a lot of small business owners in every one of their residential areas. He felt that you could not simply say that if you were a business owner and work out of your home we don't want you either. He felt that it was difficult to say that we want this type of a worker but not this other type of a worker. He felt that we had CUP's to listen to what was happening and make the best decision based on the facts presented. Blaine Gehring gave a ruling given by the attorney that if reasonable conditions could be made on the permit then the permit had to be passed. He stated that they had followed the ordinance and the law in passing the permits. He stated that from the discussion that has taken place the commission recognizes that some changes need to be made and that is what was happening with the discussion that was taking place. The commission needs to move forward and not keep going

over what has happened in the past. Discussion took place about the table which is included in the ordinance. They talked about the permitted uses. Julie Pawlak felt that the distinction between private kennels and a commercial kennel should be maintained because there were differences. Blaine Gehring stated that a private kennel might include those who had hunting dogs and such. He also stated that in other counties he has worked in they had a sportsman's permit. Julie wanted to know what type of breeds were included in a sportsman permit. Blaine explained that the type of dogs were not given. It was just a sportsman permit for those who wanted more animals for a sport such as hunting. Bryan Coulter wanted to know the limit of animals allowed with that type of permit. Blaine did not know the number. Martie Leo asked Blaine Gehring to clarify what it was he was asking the planning commission to do. Blaine Gehring explained that there had been a concern about the way the ordinance now allows conditional use permits without much definition of a boarding or breeding kennel. It has been found through the public hearing that there is great concern about these types of uses. Kennels specifically within RR zones. The discussion tonight is to define what are appropriate uses in RR zones in regards to kennels. Where should they be allowed? Julie Pawlak asked if he had the text in the ordinance that talked the number of permitted dogs. She could not remember if it had an age restriction in there. Blaine stated that he did not have it with him. Julie Pawlak felt that the commission should start at that point. Blaine stated that the ordinance did not have a definition of domestic animals. Julie Pawlak felt that needed to be added. Bryan Coulter asked if they were talking about a litter of puppies and the time limit they would be allowed to be at the residence. Blaine Gehring stated that most ordinances he dealt with in the cities stated 6 months. Martie Leo felt that the definitions were very important to have in the ordinance. The other thing that needed to be clarified was the home business and the use of the outdoors in that business. Julie Pawlak felt that was taken care of with the types of businesses clarified in the ordinance. Blaine Gehring gave the three types of businesses listed in the county ordinance. He felt that kennels were not defined within any of the 3 defined types of businesses. They require their own type of conditional use. Anita Dalrymple stated that they needed to consider what rules would apply for each types of businesses specifically kennels. Julie Pawlak would like to see in the definition of animals especially for dogs an age restriction of 6 months younger than that defined as puppies. Martie Leo felt that a bigger piece of property was required. Bryan asked if the commission was comfortable with the number of dogs on a 10 acre piece. Julie Pawlak felt that kennels should not be allowed on an RR-5. Martie Leo asked if any type of study had been done about effective land use and how dogs are affected. Julie Pawlak stated that this was based on public opinion and the public clearly does not want more than 3 dogs on a 5 acre piece. Bryan Coulter felt that it would be better to state that there would be no kennels allowed on 5 acres. Lynn Butterfield felt that more than 3 dogs in any RR zone was inappropriate. Todd Castagno stated that right now kennels were the hot issue; he also spoke about the number of horses on 5 acre lots. Blaine stated the ordinance right now talks about animals is called personal agriculture and it does not specify the number of animals per acre. It states 4 large animals per lot and or fowl. Blaine Gehring would like the answer to the question of what is a reasonable amount of animals per acres. He would like to find some research to define the issue. Bryan Coulter felt that the commission should take into consideration the water issue when considering the number of animals. Anita Dalrymple felt that another issue to consider was the greenbelt issue which gave a minimum number of animals needed to qualify. Domestic animals are not defined in the ordinance. Julie asked what needed to be addressed at this time. Blaine stated that kennels needed to be addressed at this time. Julie felt that everyone agreed that a dog should be defined as over 6 months or older. All agreed. Todd felt they needed to consider the whole county. Julie agreed. Todd also brought up the fact that if you change the acres someone who lives in a RR-5 but has 52 acres could not have a kennel. Blaine suggested that a moratorium be placed until this issue could be settled. The attorney Scott Broadhead advised that moratoriums were difficult and we should work to solve the problem. Martie Leo stated that she would like to see the commercial kennels removed from all RR zones and that it should be in the mixed use zone. She felt that 5 dogs as a number for a private kennel was a good number. Anita Dalrymple asked if a dog number per acre would make sense. Julie said the more complex the ordinance was made the harder it would be to enforce. Anita asked how do you remain flexible in this situation. The answer was to keep it undefined and have discussion every time. Julie proposed that commercial kennel be removed from all RR zones and Anita Dalrymple agreed with the comment. Blaine has been asked to create a new zone called rural agricultural which would include areas like Vernon and Ibapah which would allow for the kinds of uses that are not appropriate for RR zones. Julie Pawlak questions the amount of time that would take. Blaine stated that it would be a long process. It was decided to strike the commercial kennel from Rural Residential zones with limits on setbacks. Julie Pawlak stated that Kennel breeding needs to be taken completely out. Private kennel is for people who want to breed their own dogs with no more than 3 dogs. Blaine will type up the changes and send out for the commission to look over the changes.

PRESENTATION AND DISCUSSION ON PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENTS

Blaine asked for their definition of a Planned Unit Development. Several gave their definitions. Saying it was a variance from the ordinance. Blaine stated that a Planned Unit Development was an actual subdivision where the structure was owned but the rest of the area is held as common and is an open space. He mentioned that we would be seeing a planned unit development of this nature in Stansbury Park. The Links are also a planned unit development like this. The concept of PUD's came as a result of a need for housing following World War II. The building ordinances were not flexible. So the ordinances needed to be changed. Everything was very cookie cutter with a lot of unusable space. Open space was part of the concern. Open space was defined as space for the use of the public. The ordinance was and PUD's were defined as intended to provide overall development design, taking into consideration special land features and the need for open space and amenities in exchange for the homes being clustered allowing for larger areas of open space and amenities. Chapter 3 in our general plan talks about clustering. Lynn Butterfield and Blaine Gehring visited some PUD's in Midway. A slide show was presented showing how PUD's were used in Heber Valley. The slides showed the clustering of homes and the use of trails and open spaces. Lynn Butterfield explained how these trails were being used in Park City and the Heber Valley. It was mentioned that the open space within the PUD was maintained by the homeowners association. Blaine read what was in the Tooele County Land Use Ordinance relating to PUD's. He stated that PUD's could be mixed use. Blaine stated that most PUD's in Tooele County do not comply with the definition of a PUD. Lynn Butterfield stated that most people think that the purpose of the PUD is to increase density, but that is not the real purpose of the PUD. The real purpose is to cluster the houses and preserve more open space, instead of having homes spaced on more acres. Todd Castagno felt that the county would benefit from having homes clustered because they would have less public dedicated areas to take care of. Randy Jones stated that we need to consider water when approving PUDS. Todd Castagno stated that open space does not necessarily need water. Lynn Butterfield stated that in Park City some of the yard has to be natural habitat. He felt that the homeowners associations needed to be partly responsible for maintaining the open areas in order to help the county. Randy stated that all aspects of the PUD needed to be considered when reviewing a PUD. The planning commission needed to review how the open space would be maintained and how it would be used and if it would be in the best interest of the county. Blaine talked about drought tolerant landscaping to use less water. Martie Leo talked about preserving the wet lands through PUD's. Blaine talked about the General Plan and incorporating some of the things talked about for PUD's into the General Plan. Lynn spoke about the statistics of five acre lots. He also stated that there is a demand for PUD's. Lynn stated that we need to make plans within the county to preserve the open space. Blaine stated that there were all kinds of things that could be done with a PUD in order to preserve the open space if used in the right way and that this needed to be incorporated into the General Plan. A PUD is not a trick to increase density but a better use of land.

The appeal for the breeding kennel conditional use permit was discussed.

No further public concerns.

Meeting adjourned