Home

RIVERDALE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION
MEETING MINUTES

May 11, 2004

Minutes of the Regular Meeting of the Riverdale Planning Commission held Tuesday, May 11, 2004, 2004 at 6:30 p.m. at the Riverdale Civic Center.

Members Present:
Greg Limburg, Chair
Kathy Eskelsen
Don Farr
Allen Miller
Kathy Tanner

Others Present:
Randy Daily, Community Development Administrator
Mike Howard, Assistant City Attorney
Michelle Douglas, Planning Commission Secretary

Tory Nelson Abdinasir Abdulle John-Daniel Julander
Kent Hill Lorin Parks

Chair Limburg called the meeting to order and welcomed all those in attendance. He acknowledged that Commissioners Coleman and Hunt were excused all members were in attendance and welcomed Staff.

Conditional Use Permit / Home Occupation Application

Chris Perrins – CLP Landscaping

Mr. Tory Nelson was present at the meeting to discuss his and Ms. Perrins’ conditional use permit for a home occupational business license for lawn care. Mr. Nelson and Ms. Perrins live in an R-2 zone, and they own their home.

Mr. Nelson informed the Commission that he and Ms. Perrins would like to operate a small lawn care company, and they would keep all of the equipment utilized in conjunction with the business in the garage. The equipment consists of a lawn mower, trimmer, and an edger. Commissioner Tanner noted if Mr. Nelson utilizes a trailer for his equipment, he cannot park it on the road; it has to park on his property. It was inquired if Mr. Nelson would have any employees. Mr. Nelson indicated that he would not

Motion Commissioner Tanner moved to grant the conditional use permit for a home occupation located at 1102 West 4200 South for Chris Perrins and Tory Nelson, CPL Landscaping, as requested. Commissioner Eskelsen seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously.

Abdinasir Abdulle – Suban Express Transportation

Mr. Abdinasir Abdulle was present at the meeting to discuss his conditional use permit for a home occupational business license for common/contract carrier services. Mr. Abdulle lives in an R-2 zone, and he owns his home.

Mr. Abdulle informed the Commission that he would utilize the internet or call individuals to get a specific load to carry, and he would deliver the load for his client. Mr. Abdulle indicated that he would utilize a compute, phone and fax machine in conjunction with his home occupation.

Motion Commissioner Eskelsen moved to grant the conditional use permit for a home occupation located at 10704 West 4175 South for Abdinasir Abdulle, Suban Express Transportation, as requested. Commissioner Miller seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously.

John-Daniel Julander – Digital Definition

Mr. John-Daniel Julander was present at the meeting to discuss his conditional use permit for a home occupational business license for wedding videos and other field videograph. Mr. Julander rents his dwelling; however, he rents it from his parents so he is not required to obtain a letter of approval indicating he can utilize his dwelling for a home occupation.

Mr. Julander indicated that he is a sole proprietor. He went on to say he would utilize a video camera, computer, and DVD and VHS taps in conjunction with his home occupation.

Motion Commissioner Tanner moved to grant the conditional use permit for a home occupation located at 5100 South 1050 West #F60 for John-Daniel Julander, Digital Definition, as requested. Commissioner Eskelsen seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously.

Subdivision of Property located at 5433 South 600 West

There are still some outstanding issues pertaining to Mr. Combes’ subdivision of property; no discussion or action took place.

Conceptual Discussion of residential development of approximately nine acres of property located at approximately 5650 South 1200 West (Craig Dale Subdivision area)

Mr. Kent Hill and Lorin Parks were present at the meeting to discuss their conceptual idea of residential development of nine acres, which is located at approximately 5650 South 1200 West. The property consists of five parcels, is zoned R-2, and is located adjacent to and above the last row of houses in the Craig Dale Subdivision. A portion of the property is situated on a hillside with a slope equal to or greater than 20 percent; therefore, the City’s Hillside Ordinance 10‑13F1 would apply to this development if the petitioners were to move forward with preliminary site plan review.

Mr. Hill informed the Commission that his concept is to develop a residential gated PRUD subdivision with the price range of the homes from $350,000 to $500,000. Mr. Hill presented the Commission with a colored sketch, which represented the elevation of the property, and he indicated that their concept would be to bring in a 30-foot wide private road behind the existing homes at the 4,500 foot elevation; and from there, they will develop the homes. Mr. Hill went on to say, they would like to utilize a 20-foot front setback and a 40-foot area for the home; and the homes would be in the 20 to 30 percent grade area. He noted in the southern portion of the development, there would be a couple areas where they would have to do some fancy construction (upgraded foundations), but other than that, the homes would be built in the 20 to 30 percent grade area.

Mr. Hill stated that they believe the development would be an asset to the community and bring up the value of the area.

Chair Limburg informed Mr. Hill and Parks that the Planning Commission has some concerns in regards to the proposed development and at this time, they addressed those concerns.

Commissioner Eskelsen inquired if the 30-foot road would be a private road and not a dedicated road to the City. Mr. Hill acknowledged that the road would be a private road. Commissioner Eskelsen inquired how the road would be accessed. Mr. Hill explained that the road would be access on the south side of the development. In addition, they would have to purchase another home on north end and remove the home so there would be two access points. Mr. Hill indicated that he has spoken to three property owners in the area.

It was question how the petitioners planned on marketing that price range of dwellings in the proposed area even though the development will be a gated community. Mr. Hill stated that they would buy the last house in the Craig Dale subdivision and incorporate it into the new subdivision. Commissioner Tanner pointed out that the new homes would be looking down into the older subdivision. Mr. Hill indicated that he did not believe that would be the case. He noted that when you go up onto the property, one could not see down onto the properties below.

Chair Limburg stated there were other issues of concern. He inquired if the petitioners have addressed the UP&L easement. He noted that the UP&L poles would have to stay where they are. He noted that there are two poles on the Glen Cooley property, and they told him he would have to rebuild his house further to the west. Mr. Hill indicated that he did not get that feedback from UP&L. Mr. Daily informed Mr. Hill that it is not an easement issue; it is a clearance issue. Mr. Hill responded that there is a 10-foot clearance required from the top of a home.

Chair Limburg questioned how much of the hillside the petitioners were proposing to develop. Mr. Hill stated that they were not planning on going into the hillside that much; however, they would go in enough to get west of the power lines. Chair Limburg mentioned that it appeared to him the homeowners would not have much of a back yard.

Chair Limburg pointed out that the Davis-Weber Canal is above the proposed property. Mr. Hill stated that you could not see the canal from the property. It was mentioned that seeing the canal is not the concern.

Commissioner Eskelsen inquired if there would be an issue on the hillside where the soil does not hold vegetation. Commissioner Farr indicated in the Pinebrook Subdivision there is a lot adjacent to the hillside, where an individual could not build on a certain portion of his lot because when he when dug his footings it filled with water. Mr. Hill acknowledged there has been some major problems with water associated with the hillside.

It was inquired how many lots and what size lots the petitioners were proposing. Mr. Hill indicated that they were proposing one-third to one-half acre lots; and they envisioned approximately 18 to 25 lots; however, they do not know for sure because they have not had the property surveyed as of yet.

It was questioned how much retention the petitioners would have to put in for the existing lots below the proposed subdivision. Mr. Hill indicated that they do not want to change a lot of the existing landscaping. (Note: retention would be established by the geotechnical and engineering study)

Commissioner Farr suggested that Mr. Hill and Mr. Parks determine a rough estimate for what the project will cost them and determine if it will be worth their effort. Mr. Hill stated that they have gone through the numbers, and they think it will be; furthermore, they think it will be an asset to the community.

Chair Limburg reiterated that the Commission has some concerns, and the petitioners should keep them in mind as they look at the development. He went on to say the Commission is given a charge in their oath of office that they will look out for the citizens of Riverdale. He stated what concerns him is the Davis-Weber Canal.

Commissioner Farr added that he believes the Davis-Weber Canal is a concern as well. He went on to say that the integrity of the hillside, the proposed road, the existing homes and yards, the slope, and soils are all concerns. He informed Mr. Hill and Parks that they would need a geotechnical study as well for their development. Mr. Hill indicated that they have planned on all of those things, and they are aware of the requirement for the geotechnical study. In addition, they have spoken to engineers regarding the project; and they plan on having the engineers on-site at all times.

Commissioner Miller inquired what type of geotechnical study they would have completed. Mr. Daily indicated that the study would have to cover soils reports, liquefactions, what type of structures could be built, the weight of the structure, etc. The report has to cover everything; everything from slope stability to water issues.

Commissioner Limburg inquired if the petitioners owned the property or if they are developing it for someone else. Mr. Hill indicated that they have the property under contract for purchase. It was inquired who would be responsible for the road, waterlines and sewer in 10 to 15 years when things started to deteriorate. It was indicated that they would have to have an association that would take care of all of those issues.

Commissioner Farr noted when Pinebrook Subdivision was developed, the developer had to do a sensitivity study; he inquired what came about with that study. Mr. Daily stated there were areas that were considered sensitive and those areas required testing.

Commissioner Farr reiterated to the petitioners that they consider redoing their figures. He stated that he has personally dug a few homes on that hillside, and there are nature springs in the hillside. Mr. Hill noted that with the piping of the canal, there appears not to be a problem with water in the hillside. Commissioner Farr stated that there is still water in the hillside. He informed Mr. Hill that he personally has a natural spring under his home even though the canal is encased in an 8-foot cement block. In addition, the property in question is in the Hill Air Force Base’s contamination area, and that has to be disclosed when the property is sold.

Chair Limburg reiterated that there are multiple issues associated with the property in question: the Davis-Weber Canal, the close proximity of the existing properties, the natural springs in the hillside, and the others previously discussed. He went on to say, as far as a PRUD development, it is a good space because there is no potential for a cut through.

Chair Limburg informed Mr. Hill and Parks a PRUD development does require a public hearing; in addition, a PRUD requires open space as well. He concluded the discussion by informing the petitioners that their next step would be to pursue a geotechnical study and to keep in mind that the Planning Commission has addressed their concerns.

Discretionary Business

Mr. Daily informed the Commission that the City Council set a public hearing to discuss the proposed amendments to the fence ordinance. He went on to say he had a thorough discussion with a Council member, and he let her know that his opinion regarding the proposed amendment has changed; he is not in support of amending the ordinance. He cannot support the amendment because of the Planning Commission’s feelings. He added that he thinks the amendments will open the situation to more problems. At first, he thought it was a good thing, but then the Planning Commission made some good points in regards to the contention between neighbors and amending the ordinance because of violations is not a valid reason to amend the ordinance.

With no further business to come before the Commission at this time, Commissioner Miller moved to adjourn the meeting. Commissioner Eskelsen seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously. The meeting adjourned at approximately 7:10 p.m.

Attest: Approved: May 25, 2004

______________________________ ______________________________
Michelle Douglas Greg Limburg
Planning Commission Secretary 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