Home

RIVERDALE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION
MEETING MINUTES

March 12, 2002

Minutes of the regular meeting of the Riverdale Planning Commission held Tuesday, March 12, 2002 at 6:30 p.m. at the Riverdale Civic Center.

Members Present:           
Shelly Jenkins, Chair
Brent Coleman
David Hurst
Don Farr
Sheila Noe
Kathy Tanner

Members Excused:           
Greg Limburg

Others Present:           
Mayor Bruce Burrows
Councilor Ron Dille
Councilor Nancy Brough
Councilor Bruce Richins
John Geilmann, CAO
Randy Daily, Community Development Administrator
Mike Junk, City Prosecutor
Michelle Douglas, Deputy Recorder

Steve Knudson           Brent Smith                Kathy Smith
Larry Bouwhuis          Golden Bingham         Cora Bingham
David Gibby                Lael Gibby                 Blanch Gibby
Don Gibby                  Andy Bilanzich           Brent Ellis
Roger Gibby               Stuart Gibby               Carl Cook
Hal LaFleur

                                                                       

Commissioner Jenkins called the meeting to order and welcomed all those in attendance. She excused Commissioner Limburg.

Consideration of Minutes

Motion      Commissioner Hurst moved to approve the minutes of the February 26, 2002, preplanning work session and regular Planning meeting as written and to waive their reading.  Commissioner Coleman seconded the motion.  The motion passed unanimously.

                       

Pubic Hearing Regarding Proposed Amendments to Riverdale City’s General Plan, Land Use Master Plan, Specifically to Amend the Parcels Located between Interstate 15 and Interstate 84 and approximately 4800 South to Riverdale Road from Special Use District – Light Industrial/Business Park and Light Industrial Business Park/Hotel Node to Landmark Development

            Public Hearing

Commissioner Jenkins called the Hearing to order at 6:35 p.m. She explained that the purpose of the hearing was to receive and consider public input regarding proposed amendments to the Riverdale City General Plan, Land Use Master Plan, specifically to amend the parcels located between Interstate 15 and Interstate 84 and approximately 4800 South to Riverdale Road from Special Use District – Light Industrial/Business Park and Light Industrial Business Park/Hotel Node to Landmark Development  Commission Jenkins acknowledged that she had proof of publication, and the public hearing was properly posted.

Prior to opening the public hearing to public input, Mr. Daily explained that the purpose for the public hearing was to receive public comment to determine if the property in question should be amended in the City’s General Plan, Land Use Master Plan.  He went on explain that the underlying zone and the uses would not be changed.  Mr. Daily informed those in attendance that the General Plan is an advisory tool and a vision as to what the City foresees as far as development and growth.  The Planning Commission hears and evaluates the public comment and makes a recommendation to the City Council.

David Gibby – Property owner 1450 West Riverdale Road (Whitewell York LLC 08‑098-0038)

Mr. David Gibby was present at the meeting to express his concern regarding the proposed amendments to the General Plan that would affect his property and the other surrounding properties.  Mr. Gibby indicated that the City has been pushing development of Riverdale Road for decades; however, no incentives for local businesses have been offered. He went on to say that these policies have made fair competition impossible, and these very same practices have made losses for them in the seven figure area.

Mr. Gibby referred to the Landmark ordinance and pointed out that he interprets the ordinance to say that no use may be considered without the permission of the Planning Commission and retail may only be allowed as an “incidental” use to the primary use.  Mr. Gibby expressed that there is absolutely no way anyone would consider developing his property or anyone else’s property with these types of restrictions.  He went on to discuss the site development standards, which he calculated for his property, and he informed the Commission that he would only be able to build 20 percent of his property if the Landmark ordinance were imposed on his property.  Furthermore, if the Landmark ordinance were enacted on his property, it would kill any type if funding source that could be available.  Mr. Gibby asked the Commission that no further consideration be given to the Landmark ordinance or pursuing amendments to the City’s General Plan.

Don Gibby – Property owner 4857 South 1550 West (Donald J & Roselyn Lael Gibby 08-103-0010 & 08-103-0068)

Mr. Donald Gibby was present at the meeting to inform the Commission that he believes it’s important for them to know that he would like his property to remain as it is.  He explained that when he purchased the property it was zoned A-1, and he was told that at some time in the future it would be light industrial, and that fits into his plan.  He does not want that changed.   Mr. Gibby also expressed concern that there are individuals on the Planning Commission that have a conflict of interest with the proposed amendments and perhaps they should not be included in the discussion at hand.

Cora Bingham – Property owner 4890 South 1550 West (Golden A & Cora S Bingham 08-103-0007)

Mrs. Cora Bingham’s property is already designated as Landmark development on the City’s proposed Land Use Master Plan.  She referred to a parcel of property that she believes is already zoned industrial, which at the time of the rezone the citizens made their wishes known that they did not want the area rezoned industrial; however, the citizens were never informed of the Council’s decision.  Mrs. Bingham’s recommendation to the Planning Commission is that the City should keep its citizens informed; she went on to say it is not a very good feeling to not know what is going on.  Mrs. Bingham indicated that if the Landmark ordinance is what she heard it was suppose to be that last time she heard of it, then it is the best zone the City could have.  She concluded by stating the only thing she is objecting to is not being informed.

Steve Knudson – Property owner approximately 4900 South 1500 West (Elden H Knudson Tr 08-098-0032)

Mr. Steven Knudson was present at the meeting to express his concern regarding the proposed amendments.  He indicated that he agrees with Mr. David Gibby, and he does not want to be included in the Landmark Development area.  He went on to say his disagrees with the way the ordinance precludes what he can use his land for, and it’s too restrictive for what he could sell his property for.  Commissioner Jenkins inquired if the Landmark ordinance were less restrictive, would he be more favorable to the General Plan proposed Land Use Master Plan designation of Landmark Development.  Mr. Knudson and Mr. Gibby both indicated they would have to review an amended version of the ordinance first; the elimination of retail as an “incidental” use would be a key factor.  Mr. Knudson stated that the area in question is a logical place for retail.

Hal LaFleur – Property owner corner of Riverdale Road and 1500 West (Bighorn Inc. multiple parcel I.D. numbers)

Mr. Hal LaFleur was present at the meeting to discuss the proposed amendments.  Mr. LaFleur’s property is currently designated as Landmark development.  Mr. LaFleur agreed with Mrs. Bingham and stated that he thought people do need to be better informed.  He went on to say that his concern is that the economy is up and down and as property owners, individuals need flexibility to utilize their property.   Mr. LaFleur indicated that he doesn’t want to see a “blanket” put over his property; he wants to see friendliness from the City and see what the City can do in working with the property owners.  He would like the City to reconsider the whole situation.

Brent Ellis – Property owner 4804 South 1500 West (Brent Don Ellis Etal 08‑092‑0024)

Mr. Brent Ellis indicated that he came to the rezone meeting when Don Farr’s property was rezoned.  He stated that if all of the property in the area were owned by one property owner, then he thought the Landmark designation was a great concept; however, that is not the case.  There are a lot of small lots owned by separate individuals, and the property owners will not be able to sell or develop their properties.  He believes that the Commission has not considered the smaller properties, and he personally will not be able to meet the zoning restrictions.  Mr. Ellis went on to say that he applauds the idea of trying to have something different than commercial, but taking away the rights of the property owners in the area is not appropriate.

Mr. Ellis inquired why the Commission wants to designate the area in question to Landmark development.  Commission Jenkins explained that the General Plan recommends the area in question be designated as the gateway to the City, and that it be something other than high-impact commercial.  Mr. Ellis indicated that he agrees with the concept; however, there are so many different property owners and the ordinance is too restrictive.   Mr. Gibby added that what the City will end up with is weedy fields, and it will be impossible to do anything with the area with the way the ordinance is written.

Mr. Hal LaFleur indicated that many of the property owners were wondering if the amendment would enhance or decrease the value of the properties in question.  Commissioner Jenkins stated that the Commission sees a lot of interesting things and a lot of the times they see a large developer purchases a lot of small individual properties at one time and develops all of them at one time.  Mr. David Gibby inquired are we suppose to put up with these restrictions until this mythical individual comes along and purchases and develops these properties? 

Mr. Ellis questioned if it wouldn’t be better to wait and designate the area Landmark development until a potential developer came into the City and requested development of the area.  Commissioner Jenkins explained that the idea is to have a plan and a vision for the future of the City.  Mr. David Gibby stated that the Plan is totally inconsistent with what has already happened.  The City has allowed Wal-Mart and the other large retail stores, but the City won’t let the Gibby family or the Knudson family do anything.

Mr. Stuart Gibby indicated that when you speak of dreams and plans, the Commission is crushing dreams of lifetime residents. He went on to say that residents have dreams and plans, and through this (amendments to the General Plan and the Landmark ordinance) you are crushing them.

Mrs. Blanch Gibby stated that she loves Riverdale City, and she would like to know how soon the property owners would know the Planning Commission’s decision.  Commissioner Jenkins thanked all those in attendance for coming to the public hearing and their input.  She indicated that it is an interesting process trying to figure out what is in the best interest for the City as a whole.  She went on to explain that the Commission has 30 days to make a recommendation the City Council; and following their recommendation, the City Council will hold a public hearing.

Motion      Commissioner Tanner moved to close the public hearing.  Commissioner Coleman seconded the motion.  The motion passed unanimously.  The public hearing closed at 7:24 p.m.

Recommendation to the City Council Regarding Proposed Amendments to Riverdale City’s General Plan, Land Use Master Plan

Motion      Commissioner Tanner moved to postpone recommendation to the City Council regarding proposed amendments to Riverdale City’s General Plan, Land Use Master Plan for further discussion.  Commissioner Hurst seconded the motion.  The motion passed unanimously

Consideration of URMMA Training – Due Process and Takings Video and Test (Approximately 1.5 hours) presented by John Geilmann, CAO

Mr. Geilmann stated he would like to present a video regarding the importance of due process and property takings.  He stated this URMMA training helps with insurance premiums, and the City will receive a certificate of completion.  Those present viewed the video presentation, followed by a test of the knowledge gained

There were questions pertaining to the training and zoning designation of properties within the City.  It was questioned if the City could change the zoning designation or the Proposed Land Use Master Plan without crossing over into takings.  Mr. Geilmann explained that the court would look heavily at the three prong test, and could the City justify a public purpose for their actions.  Mr. Geilmann went on to explain that when the Planning Commission moves forward with proposed amendments, they are looking at it from a planning aspect; however property owners look at it from an individual aspect.  The issues for the Planning Commission are balance and the General Plan.

With no further business to come before the Commission at this time, Commissioner Farr moved to adjourn the meeting.  Commissioner Tanner seconded the motion.  The motion passed unanimously. The meeting adjourned at approximately 8:55 p.m.

Attest:                                                                                      Approved: March 26, 2002

______________________________                             ______________________________

Michelle K. Douglas                                                               Shelly Jenkins
Planning Commission Chair                                                    Chair


RIVERDALE CITY
4600 S. Weber River Dr.
Riverdale, Utah 84405-3764
E-Mail: info@riverdalecity.com
Phone: 801-394-5541
Fax: 801-399-5784
Hours: 8:00 AM - 5:00 PM