Tooele City Council Work Session Meeting Minutes

Transcription

1 Tooele City Council Work Session Meeting Minutes Date: Wednesday, October 19, 2016 Time: 5:00 p.m. Place: Tooele City Hall, Large Conference Room 90 North Main St., Tooele, Utah City Council Members Present: Chairman Brad Pratt Scott Wardle Dave McCall Steve Pruden Debbie Winn City Employees Present: Mayor Patrick Dunlavy Glenn Caldwell, Finance Director Jim Bolser, Director of Community Development and Public Works Paul Hansen, City Engineer Michelle Pitt, Recorder Roger Baker, City Attorney Rachelle Custer, City Planner Randy Sant, Economic Development Director Brian Roth, Parks and Recreation Director Minutes prepared by Michelle Pitt 1. Open Meeting Chairman Pratt called the meeting to order at 5:00 p.m. 2. Roll Call Brad Pratt, Present Scott Wardle, Present Dave McCall, Present Steve Pruden, Present Debbie Winn, Present 3. Discussion: Page 1 Tooele City Council October 19, 2016

2 - Ordinance An Ordinance of Tooele City Prohibiting Roosters as Pets in the MDR, R1-7, R1-8, R1-10, R1-12, and R1-14 Zoning Districts Presented by Roger Baker Mr. Baker reminded the Council that the City had this discussion with the Planning Commission recently. Mr. Baker apologized for the procedural history of how this item came to the Council. He neglected to have a discussion with the Council before a public hearing was scheduled with the Planning Commission. Since the public hearing was already scheduled, it was decided to go ahead and hold the public hearing, rather than risk the public showing up and not being able to be heard on the issue. Mr. Baker indicated that no one appeared at the Planning Commission public hearing regarding this issue and that all Planning Commissioner comments were positive, including its unanimous favorable recommendation. Mr. Baker went on to say that Tooele City allows, as a matter of zoning, livestock to be located in rural areas. Areas such as MU-160, RR-1, RR-5, and RA1-30 allows a limited number of livestock. Livestock is also located on nonconforming lots, as a nonconforming use, historically. City Code currently allows some livestock type animals in areas such as the MDR zone, up to R1-14, to include chickens, ducks and rabbits. There is a limit of no more than 6 chickens, ducks, and rabbits, in any combination. Mr. Baker stated that, in his experience, roosters can be aggressive and loud. Mr. Baker said that the City experiences conflicts when a rural element is allowed in an urban environment. Many people want a rural feel, but they aren't able to purchase a five acre parcel, or don't want to. City administration is trying to find a balance between what people want - and there's no right or wrong answer to the balance. Mr. Baker explained that the City has received a number a complaints about roosters creating unbearable noise, causing the City to ask if the current balance is the correct balance. City administration suggests that hens are an acceptable element in an urban environment, but roosters tip the scale. The Council gets to decide, as a matter of policy, what the right balance is in the communities. The City is proposing an amendment to City Code, Section , to say "chicken hens," instead of "chickens." The City would no longer allow pet roosters. The other change is in the definition of farm animal, to clarify that the word fowl includes roosters. The Planning Commission recommended that the ordinance in the Council packet include information regarding nonconforming roosters. Mr. Baker further explained that if a rooster is on a piece of property today, it gets to stay there. The Planning Commission recommended that the use should be phased out upon the death of the animal, or if the animal is taken off the property by the owner. Mr. Baker has researched this issue over the years, and stated that the Council can phase out uses over a period of years. Phasing out uses gives people a time frame, to allow people time to enjoy their nonconforming use. With some nonconforming uses, people have invested time and money in the nonconforming use. Mr. Baker listed having a horse has an example, investing in the horse, tack, sheds, barns, feed, etc. There is not that level of investment with a rooster. In his legal opinion it is acceptable to phase out the rooster when it dies or the owner takes it off the property. Councilman Wardle stated that he liked that the use would be kept in the rural areas. He expressed concerns about enforcement. Councilman Wardle said that there are some people that buy chickens for the eggs, but when they get the chickens home they discover that they are roosters instead of hens. He asked how the City works out the fact that some people may buy Page 2 Tooele City Council October 19, 2016

3 chickens, not knowing if they are roosters or not. He asked if the City could notify Cal Ranch and ask them to let people know that roosters are not allowed in certain zones. He asked if a date should be added to Section so that in 5 or 10 years down the road, everyone knows when this has been put in to place. Chairman Pratt said that in his discussions with others, they realize that Tooele used to be more of a rural community, but now is more urbanized. The amendment goes along with the theory that the rural zoning is being pushed to the outskirts of the City, as the City grows. This amendment conforms to that trend. The Chairman felt the amendment was a good compromise and a good mix. Mr. Baker said that as far as the date goes, it could be set at January 1, Councilman McCall thought that would be a good time frame, to allow everyone time to be notified. Most of the purchases of these animals are in the Spring, in March and April. Councilwoman Winn stated that people have bought chicks and ended up with roosters when they didn't want them. People have no control over the noise a rooster makes which puts them in a tough position. This amendment would help people know what to do. - Conditional Use Permit Application Fees for Home Occupations Follow Up Presented by Jim Bolser Mr. Bolser stated that this item is a follow up from the initial discussion at the last meeting when the Council asked administration to look at fees and the Conditional Use Permit (CUP) process for certain types of applications. Mr. Bolser researched the processes and fees of other cities. He included a draft copy of how and administrative process would work. The change wouldn't eliminate public comment, because it allows a public process and a notification, as required by law. There would be the same appeal process and the same standard of review. The proposed process was specific to certain types of home occupations. The proposal is set up so that the Council could include other types of home occupations if they wanted. A suggested fee was also included. Mr. Bolser added that the Council had the right to set that fee, the suggested fee was intended to be a starting point for discussion and a demonstration of the degree to which the fee would cover the City s actual costs. Councilman Wardle asked if the fee would be paid only once, at the time of application for a home occupation. Mr. Bolser answered yes, it would be paid only once. Councilman Wardle said that he liked the process. Councilman Wardle asked Liz Hamilton how she liked this proposed process. Ms. Hamilton asked what the proposed fee was, then said that she felt the fee was very reasonable. Chairman Pratt liked the fact that the process had been adjusted to allow the fee to be more reasonable as compared to the process. It will no longer be an expensive process. Mr. Bolser reminded the Council that this item will go to the Planning Commission next week, with a public hearing, before returning to the Council for adoption. When it returns to the Council it will be in two separate items, an ordinance to adopt the language into the City Code and a resolution to adopt the fee into the fee schedule. - Fee Restructure for Dow James Building Presented by Brian Roth Page 3 Tooele City Council October 19, 2016

4 Mr. Roth said that the Dow James building gets used quite a bit. There is a fee associated with the use of the building, but it is not always charged. Whether a fee is charged has had a lot to do with whether people can afford to pay the fee, the various sports groups, etc. There hasn't been a set policy for when the fee is waived. Mr. Roth explained that he was not comfortable with the fee being waived sometimes, and sometimes not, especially since there was a fee schedule in place. Mr. Roth stated that there were a lot of groups requesting the fee be waived. Some people ask why groups are allowed to use fields or parks without a fee, but those same groups are charged for the use of the building. Mr. Roth explained that he felt that the use of a building was different because it involves power, lights, bathrooms, etc. He researched other entities, looked at who was using the building, and tried to devise a fair process. He felt that the $5 fee was reasonable. Community events or non-profit use is something that would have a minimal fee, of $50 maximum per day. He stated he felt that a minimal fee was reasonable. Councilman Wardle asked about the insurance requirement. Mr. Roth stated that the City's insurance requires it. Councilwoman Winn asked about the group of home schoolers who use the building, stating that they were concerned about having to provide insurance. Mr. Baker answered that a waiver of the liability was problematic. A parent cannot waive a child's right for injury. A waiver is not enforceable. Requiring groups to have insurance is the best way, but it is hard to ask for in some situations, like family reunions. Mr. Baker said that the City can ask for a waiver or indemnification and see how it goes. Mr. Roth felt that the City wanted to make the building available to use, and to provide access. Chairman Pratt stated that he felt the key deposit was a great thing because keys were lost or misplaced all the time. Requiring a deposit might prevent that from happening. Councilwoman Winn asked how the City handled someone getting hurt in a park. Mr. Baker answered that the injured party would have one year to file a claim. They would have to prove that the City was negligent. Mr. Baker said that the City has had very few claims from park injuries. Councilwoman Winn stated that she liked the fee schedule. Mayor Dunlavy said that he always gets requests for waiving fees. He was uncomfortable with waiving fees because it was difficult to decide when to waive fees. The Mayor asked previously Mr. Baker to research this issue and it was Mr. Baker s opinion that the Mayor can t waive fees, statutorily. Only the Council can waive fees. 4. Council Reports Councilman Wardle: Utah State University is restructuring. The director over the campus is the commissioner of the applied technology colleges. There is a meeting tomorrow. There will be a new chairman appointed at the next meeting. Councilman Pruden: nothing to report. Councilwoman Winn: The North Tooele City Special Service District has a couple of vacancies. They are waiting for names from the board. Communities that Care (CTC) is an awesome program. Councilwoman Winn stated that the City has great employees running the program, who are awesome people. Councilwoman Winn expressed appreciation for the support of the Mayor for this program. The Mayor said that yesterday he, Heidi Peterson, and Sandy Medina Page 4 Tooele City Council October 19, 2016

5 went to the schools. CTC felt it was important to recognize the importance of teachers and their involvement in the programs. They presented the schools with mini-grants of $500 for teachers to help them buy supplies. The schools were very appreciative of the grants. The school district also expressed appreciation for the City's support of education, and for creating educational opportunities for the public. Councilman McCall: the Library board selected a chair person. Councilman McCall also met the teen advisory council. Chairman Pratt: the next Council of Governments (COG) meeting is November 10th. There hasn't been a COG meeting this month. Mayor Dunlavy: nothing to report. 5. Close Meeting to Discuss Litigation, and Property Acquisition Councilman McCall moved to close the meeting. Councilwoman Winn seconded the motion. The vote was as follows: Councilman McCall Aye, Councilman Wardle Aye, Councilwoman Winn Aye, Councilman Pruden Aye, and Chairman Pratt Aye. Those in attendance during the closed session were: Glenn Caldwell, Roger Baker, Jim Bolser, Mayor Patrick Dunlavy, Paul Hansen, Michelle Pitt, Randy Sant, Brian Roth, Councilman McCall, Councilman Wardle, Councilman Pruden, Councilwoman Winn, and Chairman Pratt. The meeting closed at 5:51 p.m. No minutes were taken on these items. 6. Adjourn Councilwoman Winn moved to adjourn the meeting. Councilman McCall seconded the motion. The vote was as follows: Councilman McCall Aye, Councilman Wardle Aye, Councilman Pruden Aye, Councilwoman Winn Aye, and Chairman Pratt Aye. The meeting adjourned at 6:51 p.m. The content of the minutes is not intended, nor are they submitted, as a verbatim transcription of the meeting. These minutes are a brief overview of what occurred at the meeting. Approved this 2nd day of November, 2016 Brad Pratt, Tooele City Council Chair Page 5 Tooele City Council October 19, 2016