Last Thursday, the City’s Planning and Zoning Commission met for a public hearing, as well as scheduled meeting, during which language for a new ordinance regarding “twin homes” was discussed.

Hess Lumber Special Use Permit

The longest portion of the Planning and Zoning Commission meeting involved the request by Hess lumber for a special use permit concerning a recently purchased property on 162 N. 100 W., to be used as a parking lot for employees, as well as a potential staging/storage area for materials related to seasonal items.  

In the three plus years since Hess Lumber has been operating their pallet business, the level of discomfort expressed by those residents whose homes are impacted by the operation—which involves the large scale storage of material as well as the frequent large truck traffic—has only increased.  The hearing itself focused on the special use permit, rather than the larger issues involved, but many residents took the opportunity to raise some of those larger issues surrounding the ongoing situation.

To open the hearing, Jared Crowther explained that Hess Lumber has seen a major uptick in the volume of business it has been contracted for.  In Crowther’s view, the COVID pandemic has caused other regional lumber businesses to focus on large scale projects, leaving the smaller work orders to be contracted by smaller, more local outfits like Hess.  As a result, both the pallet business and the general contractor services of the company have required a more significant amount of space to handle the volume.  Owing to this, the delivery and storage demands have created a much busier atmosphere near the store’s location.  

The recently purchased property is intended to be used as an employee parking location, which will free up current commercial space for additional storage.  Long term, Hess Lumber is seeking to relocate parts and potentially the entirety of their operation south of town, which will significantly reduce the amount of truck traffic in the downtown area.  The outlook for such a move is on the scale of years, with the hope that it may be completed as early as 2023.  

The hearing then turned to residents of the area, who expressed their frustration with the current business traffic on the street, as well as some problems with the storage facilities.  Annette Elcock raised the issue of semis and large vehicles creating a potentially dangerous situation for children who often use the route to access the swimming pool during the summer.  She reported witnessing a number of near-accidents involving children and vehicles on the road.

Kim Jenkins, who lives near the Hess property, expressed a similar concern about the safety of the area.  He also expressed his frustration with what he sees as the encroachment of Hess Lumber into the residential section of the neighborhood.  He acknowledged that the growth of Hess Lumber was potentially unforeseeable and a problem that needed to be addressed, but he also stated that “their business issues are not our problem to solve.”  Jenkins expressed his belief that Hess had been expanding beyond what their original statements about the business expansion had indicated.  “This is destroying our neighborhood,” he said.  

Jenkins also raised the issue of the potential fire hazard posed by the accumulation of wood products near residential dwellings.  

Other residents spoke about the potential reduction in property values created by the pallet operation, although the subject was deemed to be outside the scope of the public hearing.  Throughout the hearing, comments and questions were directed back to the immediate issue at hand, which was the special use permit allowing Hess Lumber to use the property on 100 W. as an employee parking lot.

Debbie Jenkins suggested that for her part she “did not want a parking lot there, because it’s one more step taking us away from a quiet residential neighborhood.”  Jared Simpson responded that in his view, “They’re doing everything they can to fix the situation, and this is just a temporary variance they’re asking for.  They are actively in the process of moving it all out of town.”  

The number of employees who would be utilizing the parking facility if the special use permit were to be granted was estimated at seven to eight.  The Crowthers further explained that the area would solely be used for parking, and no storage outside of seasonal materials would occur west of the garage, which is in place at the property.  A number of residents expressed concern that allowing the special use variance would lead to an inevitable encroachment of the business further into residential areas, which is how the property in question is currently zoned.

The public hearing was closed at that point to allow the commission to discuss the issue.  The commission discussed potential qualifications it saw as important to accompany any recommendation to the city council for approval.  Chief among them were a timeframe for the variance to be in effect, a gate to prevent open access to the street, a restriction against large material storage and semi traffic, and a restriction against commercial activity of any kind west of the garage.  

The motion to recommend the special use permit to the city council for approval passed on a 3-1 vote.

Cedar Ridge Phase 2

The next issue taken up by the Commission was the matter of Bryce Gooden’s request for approval of the Phase 2 element of the Cedar Ridge development south of town.  Gooden had presented the plans to the commission a number of times in the past, but was required to have a final authorization for recommendation to the city council.  A motion to recommend Phase 2 of the development was approved unanimously by the commission.

Language for a new “twin homes” ordinance

The current construction boom in the county has led to a number of ordinance issues that are currently not covered by the city’s development code.  One of these, which has emerged several times over the last year, is the idea of “twin homes.”  Twin homes are essentially the same as “townhouses,” which are homes sharing a common wall, but constituting separate properties with separate owners.  Since the development code for Malad City deals with single owner plots, the language regarding such things as setbacks (the amount of space between one home and another, the street, property boundaries, etc.) don’t fully apply.  The shared wall of twin homes, for instance, does not physically allow for a setback at the shared demarcation.  Up to present, developers building such homes have had to apply for a variance to account for this discrepancy.  

The new ordinance under discussion by the commission would clarify the setback regulations for the plots involved as well as provide a more specific set of definitions for the construction parameters.  One of the primary points of discussion was the width/size of the plots involved in twin home construction.  Currently, a single dwelling requires a seventy foot width, with accompanying setback requirements around the perimeter.  The width requirement for each plot within the twin home arrangement was discussed, with the commission largely deciding to maintain the plot width for standard single home dwellings, with the exception of waiving the setback requirements for the shared wall.  

The commission planned to continue refining the language of the proposed ordinance, then submit it to the city council for consideration during the next council meeting.  It is hoped that a clearer readout of the development issues involved with these types of residential structures will streamline building and development in the future across the city.  A motion to recommend the completed ordinance draft to the city council was passed unanimously.