April 27, 2004
Minutes of the Regular Meeting of the Riverdale Planning Commission held Tuesday, April 27, 2004 at 6:30 p.m. at the Riverdale Civic Center.
Donna Walker Patricia Nay
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 Hunt moved to approve the minutes of the preplanning work session of April 13, 2004 as proposed; and for approval of the regular meeting of April 13, 2004 as proposed; and to waive the reading. Commissioner Coleman seconded the motion; the motion passed unanimously.
Conditional Use Permit / Home Occupation Application
Chris Perrins CLP Landscaping
Ms. Chris Perrins was not present at the meeting to discuss her conditional use permit; no action was taken.
Abdinasir Abdulle Suban Express Transportation
Mr. Abdinasir Abdulle was not present at the meeting to discuss his conditional use permit; no action was taken.
Single Lot Subdivision located at 880 West 4400 South
Mr. A.K. Walker was present at the meeting to discuss the proposed single-lot subdivision located at 880 West 4400 South. Mr. Daily informed the Commission that Mr. Walker is requesting to subdivide the property into two lots for the purpose of placing a modular home on the newly created lot, and the newly created lot would be in excess of 8,000 square feet. Mr. Daily went on to say when a home is placed on the lot; the home will have to meet all the setback requirements of the R-2 zone.
Mr. Daily noted that the only requirement the proposed lot does not meet is the required lot width of 70 feet. Mr. Daily explained that Mr. Walker discussed this matter with Mr. Geilmann and himself, and Staff agreed that the proposed lot width met the requirements of a noncontroversial variance, and Staff granted Mr. Walker a variance based on §10-4-2 (b) Organization and Meetings: B. Routine, Uncontested Matters, which states:
The mayor, with the advice and consent of the city council, may appoint a zoning administrator to decide routine and uncontested matters of the board of adjustment, as designated by the board, and pursuant to its established guidelines.
Commissioner Farr indicated during the preplanning work session, the Commission discussed the variance, and he pointed out that in the Commissions packet of information, it suggested that the subdivision could be approved with the variance as a part of the motion. Mr. Daily stated that the variance had been approved by Staff following a review of surrounding properties with less than the required lot width. He went on to say the subdivision meets the minimum lot area requirements, and the house must meet the minimum setback requirements. The motion could make reference to the variance if that is what the Commission so desires. Mr. Howard added that after the subdivision is approved, Mr. Walker still has to come back to the building department with a site plan to obtain a building permit.
Commissioner Farr questioned if there are any restrictive covenants surrounding the proposed lot. Mr. Walker indicated that he is not aware of any; he explained that all of the land at one time was zoned agricultural. Mr. Daily informed the Commission that Mr. Walker never requested to rezone his property; the rezoning was always City initiated. Mr. Daily went on to say that there might be restrictive covenants in the Call Subdivision; however, if the covenants have never been reviewed and renewed, they are probably not active anymore.
Commissioner Farr indicated that his concern is if a modular home is put on the lot, there will be an impact on the surrounding area. Mr. Daily stated that he does not think there would be an impact. Commissioner Hunt pointed out if there were any restrictive covenants in the surrounding area, it would not pertain to this particular lot.
Mr. Daily inquired why Mr. Walker did not subdivide the remaining property and run 4375 South Street through. Mr. Walker replied that they want to leave the property the way it is; they like it the way it is. Chair Limburg stated that Commissioner Farr made a point earlier in the evening. He noted if Mr. Walker waits another five to ten years to subdivide his property, the property might not be worth as much because of the deterioration of the surrounding subdivisions. Mr. Walker reiterated that he is not interested in subdividing his property nor did he care if the propertys value increased if it were subdivided.
Discussion followed regarding the Walkers plans for the newly created lot. Mr. Walker informed the Commission that there are stairs in their older home, and they would be moving into the new dwelling, which would not have any stairs. Mrs. Walker indicated that the adjacent property to their existing home is still rental property; however, the renter has moved out.
Motion: Commissioner Tanner moved to recommend to
the City Council approval of the single-lot subdivision located at 880
West 4400 South. Commissioner
Eskelsen seconded the motion. The
motion passed unanimously.
Preliminary Site Plan Review for RTTA, Inc. Riverdale Retail Center located at 985 West Riverdale Road
Mr. Curtis Miner was present at the meeting to discuss the preliminary site plan for the Riverdale Retail Center located at 985 West Riverdale Road. Mr. Miner informed the Commission that they are stable with the building shape and size; now they are attempting to solve the access issues with the adjoining properties and an access off Riverdale Road.
Discussion followed regarding the two submitted proposals. Proposal A, which has a proposed access off Riverdale and Proposal B, which has a proposed access through Chilis east parking area. Mr. Miner pointed out that the property line of the new development is 12 feet behind the current property line to account for the UDOT widening project of Riverdale Road. Mr. Daily noted that there are several of lot lines involved with the development, and when the property is redeveloped, the lot lines will have to be removed and one lot needs to be created.
Discussion followed regarding a cross-access easement into the Home Depot property. Mr. Miner indicated that they have been trying to speak with Home Depot for the past several months; however, they have been unsuccessful. It appears that Home Depot is not very anxious to speak with them. Mr. Daily explained when Bill Furniss owned the property in question, Home Depot looked into purchasing the property from Mr. Furniss, and the price was too high for them; and Mr. Daily believes there are some hard feelings associated with those previous negotiations.
It was pointed out that IHOP has a cross-access agreement with Home Depot, and it was inquired if the petitioner could get an agreement with IHOP. It was explained that Home Depot actual owns the frontage parcel in between IHOP and McDonalds.
The Commission questioned if Mr. Miner has discussed the cross-access easement with Chilis. Mr. Miner indicated that he has spoke with them; however, he has not spoken with them in the last couple of days. Chair Limburg informed Mr. Miner that the City does not know what the State is going to do with Riverdale Road. He went on to say that he does not think the State can landlock a parcel of land, but he does believe they can direct them to get together with other property owners and figure out an access. Chair Limburg inquired if that was correct. Mr. Daily acknowledged that UDOT could require an individual to access their development through another business access from Riverdale Road. They have the authority to do this through Access Management.
Commissioner Hunt stated that ultimately the developer is going to push for what they want; and without the approvals they need, they dont know what proposal they are going with. Mr. Miner indicated that was correct; that is why they are showing the two different scenarios. Mr. Daily informed the Commission that the petitioner has to know what proposal they are presenting for final with their cross-access agreement approvals and/or UDOT approvals prior to coming back to the Commission for final approval. Commissioner Hunt mentioned that he wasnt sure what motion the Commission should make; what plan does Staff think is the superior plan. Mr. Daily stated that the proposal with the access though Chilis is the best alternative; however, Chilis would lose some parking.
Commissioner Hunt inquired what plan Mr. Miner would be pushing for. Mr. Miner stated that he understands Mr. Dailys perspective; however, the owners interests are to try to push for an access on Riverdale Road because they do not want to depend on the adjacent property owners for access. He went on to say it is possible for an easement to disappear, which is not likely if it is prepared properly, but they would like to avoid those risks for the property owner.
Mr. Daily informed the Commission that UDOT refers to access openings on Riverdale Road as conflict points, and when access points are eliminated, there is less conflict. He went on to say that the Citys desire is to make things work, and if an individuals does not have to go out onto Riverdale Road to get to an adjacent business that is the Citys preference. Chair Limburg added that it benefits all the businesses involved. He went on to say that he understands the animosity between Home Depot and Mr. Furniss, but one would think that Home Depot would understand the property has changed ownership.
Mr. Daily stated that he could try to negotiate the situation before things were viewed as intimidation. He went on to say he could express to Home Depot the Citys vision and how it would work as a benefit for all the businesses involved. Chair Limburg inquired if the City could talk to Home Depot and ask them to work with the developer.
Commissioner Farr questioned if Mr. Miner has thought about Chilis overflow parking, which could go over into their development. It was explained that Chilis parking tends to go outside their parking area during their busy part of the day, and their customers vehicles could potential go into the proposed development. Mr. Daily stated if it became common parking, they could specify parking for specific businesses like those that they are by Olive Garden.
Discussion followed regarding landscaping. Chair Limburg noted that in years of drought, the Commission is in favor of drought tolerant, indigenous plants, but not weeds. Mr. Daily added that a drip irrigation system would be favorable as well. Commissioner Tanner requested that the landscaping be an attractive landscaping plan.
The Commission inquired if Mr. Miner has contacted UDOT. Mr. Miner indicated that he has not; the next step is to contact UDOT to find out their position on the access for the development.
The Commission confirmed what Mr. Dailys preferred proposal is Proposal A or Proposal B. Mr. Daily indicated that he preferred to utilize an access that already exists on Riverdale Road; its good for the State and it works for the business if the developer can get it to work. Mr. Miner stated if they had 100 percent confidence with the access easement, they wouldnt have a problem with that scenario.
Motion: Commissioner Eskelsen moved to approve the preliminary site plan for the Riverdale Retail Center located at 985 West Riverdale Road with the provision that the developer obtain cross-access easements from existing businesses and/or an approved entrance from UDOT for the development of the property. Commissioner Miller seconded the motion.
Discussion followed regarding the motion. Commissioner Tanner stated that she would like to include in the motion the Commissions preference is Proposal B; however, if Mr. Miner does not obtain the needed cross-access easements, and UDOT does approve an entrance off Riverdale Road, the Commission would approve Proposal A.
Amendment: Commissioner Eskelsen accepted the amendment to the original motion. Commissioner Miller seconded the amendment. The motion passed unanimously.
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. Howard discussed the proposed amendments to the fence ordinance with the Commissioner. He informed the Commission that the Council and Mr. Geilmann suggested the proposed amendments, and they referred the amendments back to the Commission for their review and direction. It was explained that URMMA has reviewed the Citys proposed amendment to the fence ordinance, and they did not not see any additional risk to the City in regards to the amendment.
Mr. Howard pointed out that he drafted an alternate version of the ordinance, which specifically excludes cul-de-sacs. Cul-de-sac lots would not be able to utilize the new provision of having a six-foot fence because of the impact on the adjacent property owners.
It was questioned which property owner would have the right to utilize their property the way they wanted to, the property owner that wanted a six-foot fence or the property owner that wanted a drive approach or RV pad adjacent to their neighbors property. Mr. Howard indicated that the way the ordinance is drafted now, it would be first come, first serve. The adjoining neighbor would not be able to pour an additional driveway or RV pad if the other neighbor already had a six-foot fence. Mr. Daily clarified there could not be a curb cut; at the sidewalk line there would have to be 20 feet between a driveway approach and the six-foot fence. It was pointed out that there could still be an RV pad, which snaked to the existing driveway, as long as there was not a curb cut and the RV pad would still be within the ordinance regulations. Mr. Daily questioned how much snaking one would want to allow.
Chair Limburg referred to the minutes of April 13, 2004, which read:
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.
Chair Limburg stated that two weeks ago the Commission was unanimous to leave the ordinance as it stands. He inquired if from two weeks ago with the additional information from Staff regarding URRMAs advice, has it changed the Commissions opinion.
Commissioner Hunt indicated that it would create conflict between neighbors. Commissioner Miller agreed. He commented that he was not in favor of a property owner being able to put up their fence first, which would limit the adjacent property owner from utilizing their property for a RV pad or driveway.
Chair Limburg stated that he understands that Staff is doing what the Planning Commission and City Council directed, and the City Council sent the issue back to the Planning Commissioner for further review; however, he is unsure of the proposed amendments.
Mr. Daily stated from the April 13 meeting, he questioned the Commission 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. It was his understanding that the Planning Commission would be in favor of reviewing it again.
Mr. Howard offered his counsel to the Commission. He stated that the Council is leaning toward adopting something; and since they are leaning toward adopting something, the Commission could stay where they are, or they could see that the Council is leaning and have some influence and recommend something.
Commissioner Hunt reiterated that the proposed amendment could create tension and conflict between property owners. Mr. Daily noted if a property owner wants to pour concrete in an area, it still has to meet the landscaping ratios; however, they would have to check the ordinance first, and who is going to check the ordinance on pouring concrete. Chair Limburg agreed with Commissioner Hunt; he stated the situation will create neighbor against neighbor, and he does not know if his opinion has changed.
Mr. Daily reminded the Commission when they make their motion, to base their motion on findings of fact; the reasons that support their motion. Commissioner Tanner stated that the potential contention between neighbors is a big issue. She went on to say the City has ordinances for a reason, and the City should not be changing ordinances to accommodate the people who violate them.
Mr. Daily indicated that the attitude of the City is they want what is good for the majority of the citizens. With the proposed amendment, the City Council wanted URMMAs recommendation and the Planning Commission recommendation to go along with it.
Commissioner Tanner noted that another issue is the majority of the citizens of the City are following the fence ordinance in regards to the four feet, and it would be an additional expense for them to change their fence. Chair Limburg added that another issue is the cul-de-sac situation; property owners will not know cul-de-sacs are excluded from this provision.
Motion Commissioner Farr moved to recommend to the City Council that Title 10, Regulations Applicable to All Zones, Fence Height; Obstruction of View §10-14-7 remain the same for the following reasons: one, amending the ordinance could potential create contention between neighbors; two, the City should not be accommodating people that have violated City ordinances; and three, the majority of the citizen have complied with the ordinance and amending the ordinance could place a financial strain on them and create a conflict between them and adjoining neighbors. 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 Eskelsen moved to adjourn the meeting. Commissioner Miller seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously. The meeting adjourned at approximately 7:50 p.m.
Attest: Approved: May 25, 2004