April 13, 2004
Minutes of the Regular Meeting of the Riverdale Planning Commission held Tuesday, April 13, 2004 at 6:30 p.m. at the Riverdale Civic Center.
Bud Latturner Tom Gilbert Jennifer Henstra
Chair Limburg called the meeting to order and welcomed all those in attendance. He acknowledged that all members were in attendance and welcomed Staff.
Consideration of Minutes
Motion Commissioner Tanner moved to approve the minutes of the preplanning work session of March 9, 2004 as proposed; and for approval of the regular meeting of March 9, 2004 as proposed; and to waive the reading. Commissioner Eskelsen seconded the motion; the motion passed unanimously.
Conditional Use Permit / Home Occupation Application
Bud Latturner Monster Hauler, LLC
Mr. Bud Latturner was present at the meeting to discuss his conditional use application for a home occupation business license for ATV racks for the back of pickup trucks sales over the internet. Mr. Latturner informed the Commission that he either delivers the ATV racks or has them directly freighted to his customers. Mr. Latturner went on to explain that he keeps two racks at his dwelling for people to see or to sell if someone wants a set of racks without waiting for delivery.
Mr. Daily inquired if Mr. Latturner does any of the work on the racks at his dwelling. Mr. Latturner indicated that he contracts the all of the construction out to a manufacturer; he does not do any of the manufacturing at the dwelling.
Motion Commissioner Eskelsen moved to grant the conditional use permit for a home occupation located at 860 West for Bud Latturner, Monster Hauler, LLC, as requested. Commissioner Hunt seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously.
Discussion for .92 acres of property located in a C-3 zone located at 985 West Riverdale Road
Mr. Daily informed the Commission that the owners of the property are proposing to demolish the existing building and building a new facility to meet setback requirements. There are five (5) parcels associated with the proposed site, which contains approximately .92 acres, and to redevelop the site all the boundary lines need to be removed, and the site needs to be plated as one parcel. Mr. Daily went on to explain that the building would be approximately 10,000 square feet, and it could possible be two stories.
Mr. Daily indicated that with the redevelopment of the property, the property owner would like to relocate the check cashing business; in addition, the petitioner would like to put in a bank with a drive-up window, which would limit the access to the development because of the cross-access agreement with IHOP or Home Depot.
Chair Limburg pointed out that the information packet indicates part of the property is in the Riverdale Redevelopment Area. Mr. Daily acknowledged that part of it is. He went on to say if part of the building is in the RDA area, the City would want to capture the RDA funds; however, if the building is not located in the RDA area, the property could be released from the RDA area. Mr. Daily explained that the property owner would have to go before the RDA Agency to request the property to be released from the area; it cannot just be arbitrarily released from the area.
It was inquired how many curb cuts the development would have. Mr. Daily informed the Commission the development currently has two curb cuts; however, he informed the developer that they would be limited; he told him that they may not get any. They may have to go in through McDonalds. He went on to say that he informed the petitioner that UDOT is totally redoing the intersection of Riverdale Road and 1050 West, and UDOT will be eliminating the merge lane. Mr. Daily indicated that UDOT would evaluate the site plan, and UDOT may tell them to get an agreement with McDonalds.
Mr. Daily stated that the issue is, will the Commission require an agreement with McDonalds or Home Depot so there is a way for cross access without going out onto Riverdale Road. Chair Limburg pointed out in the past the Commission has made such requirements. Mr. Daily indicated that the developer has to get the adjacent property owners to agree to the cross-access agreement, and Home Depot does not look at it as a benefit; they look at it as a little guy trying to take advantage.
Chair Limburg noted that there has to be some give and take on both sides. If Home Depot wants the City to allow certain concessions, they should accommodate needs of the City.
Mr. Daily indicated that the best place for a cross-access easement would be somewhere in Home Depots parking lot, and the petitioner will have to work that out on their site plan to the Commissions satisfaction. Mr. Daily stated that he would discuss the issue with UDOT and discuss the possibility of a central access point for all of the businesses. Mr. Daily added that there would be a developers agreement, which would include things that the Commission believes are important to protect; such as the integrity of the property and/or adjacent properties.
Mr. Curtis Miner, RTTA, Inc. addressed the Planning Commission. Mr. Miner presented the Commission with a conceptual site plan of the development area, which is a strip mall with five units. Mr. Miner informed the Commission that the site plan shows a curb cut into Home Depots property; however, he has not been able to make contact with Home Depot regarding the cross access. Mr. Miner went on to say Mr. Daily has offered his assistance in negotiating a cross-access agreement with the adjacent property owners.
Chair Limburg questioned if Mr. Miner was aware of the Citys 20 percent landscaping ratio for commercial developments. Mr. Miner indicated that he is, and he believes he meets that requirement now. He informed the Commission that he has already accounted for a 12-foot loss of property due to the UDOT widening property on Riverdale Road, and if that property is not obtained by UDOT, it will be landscaping.
Chair Limburg pointed out that that property is already zoned C-3, which is an appropriate zone for the requested use; he finalized the discussion by noting that he believes cross-access agreements for the development are the number one priority.
Discussion pertaining to the properties located on 4450 South between 700 West and 900 West
Chair Limburg noted that the Commission discussed this agenda item in detail during their preplanning work session. Mr. Daily presented three photographs he provided the Commission, which provides various distances from 4400 South and 4450 South. He explained that they are some basic distances and points that he believes are appropriate.
The first photograph is a picture of the area with the measurements of the area. The next photograph presents a boundary line, which provides a 227-foot residential boundary from 4400 South then jogs up to 130-foot because that is the existing commercial boundary line. The last photograph provides a 130-foot residential boundary from 4400 South all the way across, which is equal to the existing commercial boundary line.
Commissioner Tanner stated that she believes they owe the residents more than 130 feet. She noted that anytime commercial abuts up against residential, no matter how much of a buffer is provided, it still impacts the residents. Commissioner Tanner went on to say that she does not think 130 feet is a lot of room. She pointed out that closer to 700 West is already an existing commercial boundary line but other than that, they need to give the residents as much room as possible.
Commissioner Eskelsen concurred with Commissioner Tanner. She pointed out if the lots are larger, there is the possibility of nicer homes or redevelopment in the area. Mr. Daily agreed. He indicated that the area could even have the opportunity of having an additional road in the area sometime in the future.
Chair Limburg inquired if the Commission needed to discuss the Judkins property (Jerry Watkins) at this time. He went on to say that Mr. Watkins wants the property in question (corner lot located at 4400 South and 700 West) as a commercial parcel. He questioned if the property would remain as residential unless he razed the existing residential structure. Mr. Daily acknowledged that Mr. Watkins does want to utilize the dwelling for a commercial use; however, he would recommend that the dwelling not be utilized commercially. He would recommend that the dwelling be razed and the parcel be utilized in conjunction with an overall commercial development or utilize it as a residential dwelling as current zoning permits.
Discussion followed regarding the proposed roundabout at 700 West and 4400 South. It was asked if it would impact Mr. Watkins parcel. Mr. Daily informed the Commission that the roundabout may be constructed in the next year. Mr. Daily went on to say, per discussions with Public Works Administrator Lynn Moulding, the property to the east is the property that will probably be affected.
Commissioner Hunt clarified what the petitioner for Mrs. Mitchell was requesting. Mr. Daily explained that the Mitchell parcels are split diagonally between the R-2 and C-3 zones and amending the boundary would clean up Mrs. Mitchells parcels.
Chair Limburg questioned if the Commission members were in favor of a transitional zone or an overlay zone for the area in question. The Commission members agreed that they were in favor of an overlay zone. Mr. Daily indicated that he would put together a developers agreement to go with the overlay zone and have the Commissioners review it.
Chair Limburg inquired if the Commission wanted to include the Watkins parcel in the commercial boundary area. It was pointed out that the Watkins parcel is included in the commercial boundary area. The Commission revisited the concept that the dwelling should not be allowed to be utilized for a commercial use; however, the property itself can be zoned commercially. In addition, if the dwelling remains, it can be rented only as a residential dwelling. The Commission agreed with Staffs perspective, and agreed that they wanted this recommendation to go forward to the City Council.
Motion Commissioner Miller moved to recommend to the City Council that Exhibit A be utilized to determine an Overlay Zone for a 227-foot residential boundary from 4400 South with a 130-foot jog up to the existing commercial boundary line between 4400 South and 4450 South and 700 West and 900 West; in addition, to incorporate the comments regarding the Jerry Watkins parcel. Commissioner Eskelsen seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously.
Commissioner Tanner pointed out that following this recommendation to the City Council, the agenda item would need to come back to the Planning Commission so appropriate amendments could be made to the General Plan.
Discussion and Recommendation to the City Council regarding proposed amendments to Title 10, Regulations Applicable to All Zones, Fence Height; Obstruction of View (§10-14-7), specifically to add language to the corner lot provision.
Mr. Daily informed the Commission that the City amended the fence ordinance several years ago because at that time URMMA indicated there were risks involved with small children not being visible with a six-foot fence on a corner lot where the side of the lot faces the street. He went on to say that a fence cannot be over four-feet beyond the side yard setback on the side of the lot that faces the street. (Note: the ordinance was amended August 1994)
It was inquired why Mr. Daily was presenting the Commission with an amendment to revise the fence ordinance. Mr. Daily explained that he had a request from a City Council member to review the current fence ordinance. He went on to say that in River Glen Subdivision, a homeowner spoke to Councilor Jenkins regarding her lot, and many of the corner lots are configured differently. In addition, in the last week, there have been two instances of violations of the fencing ordinance.
Discussion followed regarding the current fencing provisions and the proposed draft. Mr. Daily stated that the proposed draft indicates if the rear street corner of a corner lot is at least 20-feet from any adjacent drive approach, a six-foot fence one-foot from inside of the sidewalk may be permitted after review by the Community Development and Public Works Directors. However, one of the issues is it could prevent the adjacent neighbor from having an RV pad or another drive approach on their property next to the fence. Mr. Daily raised the question of how it would be determined who would have the right to utilize their property in a manner they wanted. Would the fence have to be lowered to allow the adjacent property owner an additional drive approach or would it be first come, first serve?
Mr. Tom Gilbert, 430 West Cherry Drive, addressed the Planning Commission. He informed the Commission that he lives in a cul-de-sac and in a cul-de-sac, an adjacent individuals backyard is basically his front yard. If the ordinance is amended to allow corner lots to fence their lots in such a manner, it will in essence fence his front yard.
Chair Limburg stated that they appreciated Mr. Gilberts concern, and as a Commission, they have to look out for all of Riverdales citizens. He stated Mr. Gilberts situation is a legitimate concern. Mr. Daily indicated anyone that would propose a six-foot fence would have to have it reviewed by Public Works and Community Development first. Mr. Howard stated legally that is where the City needs to make a rule that can be enforced and enforced fairly; however, you cannot make everyone happy. He noted the best thing to do, if the Commission is leaning toward adopting the amendment, would be to exclude corner lots in cul-de-sacs.
Lieutenant Hansen informed the Commission that he lives on a corner lot, and when he bought his lot, he got the lot for less money because there are restrictions associated with corner lots; and he knew that when he bought the lot. He went on to say he does not have a fence on the side of his lot because of the safety issues associated with a fence. Mr. Daily added in addition to the fences on the side, individuals also put up shrubs along the fence and this is an issue that has not been regulated but is a possible safety concern. Commissioner Hunt noted that individuals are putting up vinyl fences not chain link fences and that is even more of an obstruction, which this section is entitled, Obstruction of View.
Chair Limburg inquired what Mr. Daily does when an individual installs an illegal fence. Mr. Daily replied that Staff tells the resident the fence is too high, and they have to remove it. He indicated this is not pleasant, and it does create some conflict. However, some residents do not check with the City prior to putting the fence up.
Chair Limburg questioned if the Commission wanted to table the issue and have Staff send the proposed amendment to URMMA to determine if there are any liability issues associated with the amendment.
Commissioners Miller, Eskelsen, and Farr indicated that they thought the ordinance should be left as it is. Commissioner Hunt agreed. He noted that the ordinance is a matter of the community as a whole and not just a few residents, and it is a safety issue; the safety of the community. Commissioner Tanner agreed, and she stated that the primary duty of the Planning Commission is health, safety and welfare.
Mr. Daily indicated that as of right now, the City does not regulate vegetation within the fenced area; in addition, boats and vehicles are not regulated within the driveway or approach area and similar situations are created because vehicles and boats can be parked out to the property owners side of the sidewalk. Chair Limburg stated that he believes the Planning Commission is unanimous on their thinking with the fence issue; however, these are not the issue at hand, but maybe a problem.
Mr. Daily inquired if URMMA reviewed the proposed amendment to the fence ordinance, and it eliminated risk, would the Planning Commissions view be different about amending the ordinance. Mr. Gilbert pointed out that an individual would not always being coming from the adjacent driveway; an individual could be coming from anywhere and the proposed draft does not eliminate the risk of a six-foot fence on a corner lot. Chair Limburg indicated if Mr. Daily wants URMMA to review the proposed amendment; and they indicate the risks are reduced, they would be in favor of reviewing the proposed amendment again.
Motion Commissioner Miller moved to recommend to the City Council to leave §10-14-7, Regulations Applicable to All Zones, Fence Height; Obstruction to View, as it is. Commissioner Tanner seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously.
There was no discretionary business discussed at this time.
With no further business to come before the Commission at this time, Commissioner Hunt moved to adjourn the meeting. Commissioner Eskelsen seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously. The meeting adjourned at approximately 7:50 p.m.
Attest: Approved: April 27, 2004