Home

RIVERDALE PLANNING COMMISSION
MEETING MINUTES

May 25, 2004

Minutes of the Regular Meeting of the Riverdale Planning Commission held Tuesday, May 25, 2004 at 6:30 p.m. at the Riverdale Civic Center.

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

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

Ted Combe              Mrs. Ted Combe                    Sterling Howes

                                   

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 April 27 and May 11, 2004; and for approval of the regular meeting of April 27 and May 11, 2004, with the amendments as made during the preplanning work session; and to waive the reading.  Commissioner Miller seconded the motion; the motion passed unanimously.

Conditional Use Permit / Home Occupation Application

Macklin Stocks – Stokes Cable

Mr. Stokes was not present at the meeting; no action was taken.

Single-Lot Subdivision located at 5425 and 5437 South 600 West

Mr. Ted Combe was present at the meeting to discuss the subdivision of his property located at 5425 and 5437 South 600 West.  Mr. Combe owns a 16.48 +/- acre parcel of land, which is zoned R-4 & R-2 (the house and fourplexes are in the R-4 zone). The parcel of land has a home and two fourplexes on the parcel, which is currently considered a legal non-conforming use; however, the home and both fourplexes meet all setback requirements. Mr. Combe explained that he would like to subdivide the portion of his property with the two fourplexes out of his farm property so he may sell the two fourplexes.

It was inquired if Mr. Combe has intentions of selling the fourplexes to one or two individuals.  Mr. Combe indicated that he is selling the fourplexes to one individual.  It was pointed out that the two fourplexes are on one parcel and in order to sell the buildings separately, the parcel would have to be further subdivided at some point, which would require approval by the City.

Discussion followed regarding the access lane to the fourplexes.  Mr. Combe indicated that the access lane to the fourplexes is 25 feet to the west side of the asphalt (to the fence); the actual asphalted lane is approximately 18 to 20 feet wide.  Commissioner Farr inquired if Mr. Combe is installing curb and gutter.  Mr. Combe said that he was not planning on installing curb and gutter.  Commissioner Farr questioned where the runoff goes.  Mr. Combe explained that the run off goes into the ground; he went on to say that he has had the fourplexes for 30 years, and he has not had any problems in those 30 years.  Chair Limburg added that he believes the runoff goes down the asphalt and into the storm drain on 5400 South.  Commissioner Farr inquired if there could be any potential problems between the new owner and Mr. Combe in regards to runoff between the fourplexes and the home in front of the fourplexes.  Commissioner Hunt mentioned that he would think that would be taken care of in a seller’s disclosure.  Chair Limburg pointed out that the way it appears to him, is the white house sits slightly above the fourplexes and everything else slopes away from the house.

Commissioner Farr questioned if the Commission could place some conditions upon the subdivision if the City were to approve it.  Mr. Daily reminded the Commission that the lot, with the fourplexes and access lane, is a legal nonconforming use.  If the Commission is asking for unreasonable things; no, they cannot.   However, they can impose conditions that are necessary and reasonable for the sake of safety or for protection of adjacent properties, or to comply with requirements of zoning.  He went on to explain that Mr. Combe’s property fronts on a dedicated street and the improvements are on the street.  This is a flag lot by means of a right-of-way.

Commissioner Eskelsen questioned if Mr. Combe would need to make the access lane a permanent right-of-way to the property with the two fourplexes.  Mr. Daily stated that Mr. Combe has to record the permanent right-of-way, and it is included in the legal description.  Mrs. Combe explained they have not recorded the easement as of yet because it cannot be recorded until the City approves the subdivision of property.

Motion      Commissioner Hunt moved to recommend to the City Council approval of the Ted Combe subdivision located at 5425 and 5437 South 600 West as proposed.  Commissioner Miller seconded the motion.

Discussion followed regarding the motion.  Commissioner Tanner suggested as a part of the motion, that the Commission recommended a permanent recorded 25-foot right-of-way easement as a part of the subdivision.  

Amendment     Commissioner Hunt accepted the amendment to recommend a permanent recorded 25-foot right-of-way easement as a part of the subdivision.  Commissioner Miller seconded the amendment.  The motion passed unanimously.

Discussion pertaining to proposed amendments to the approved Brook Haven site plan located at 4925 South 1500 West

Commissioner Farr indicated that he would need to remove himself from the Commission at this time due to a conflict of interest.

Mr. Farr informed the Commission that in trying to get his project underway financially, he needs to proceed with the future buildings first instead of the reception center at this time.  He went on to say, in order to start with the future buildings, he needs to phase the project so he can go forward with the project.

Commissioner Tanner inquired how far Mr. Farr would go with the landscaping; she question if any of the landscaping toward 1500 West would be a part of the first phase.  Mr. Farr indicated that part of the landscaping along 1500 West is his intention.  He explained that he will not do the right-of-way; however, he will do the signage on the rock wall, and he wants to start with the vegetation with pond, which is his overflow and that has to be completed so the storm drainage can go into that area.  It was inquired what landscaping Mr. Farr would install in conjunction with the office buildings.  Mr. Farr stated that he would finish all of the landscaping outside the outlined area that is denoted on the outlined plan.  Commissioner Miller inquired if the landscaping ratio for phase 1 would still meet the required 20 percent.  Mr. Farr indicated that phase 1 would have more than 20 percent, and when the entire site is completed, it would have 30 to 40 percent landscaping.

Commissioner Limburg inquired what Phase 2 would be in the meantime; if it would be graded.  Mr. Farr explained that the reception center could happen at any time; however, until it does happen, it will be graded dirt with all of the drainage installed.

Commissioner Tanner questioned what Mr. Farr essentially was requesting.  Mr. Farr stated that irregardless, he was before the Commission because of economics, and he needs to have his site plan phased.  Commissioner Tanner inquired if he was before the Commission with a conceptual, preliminary or final plan.  Mr. Daily informed the Commission that Mr. Farr already has an approved final site plan, and what he is presenting is amendments to what has been approved.  The office buildings were shown as future buildings on the final site plan.

Commissioner Tanner inquired where the dumpsters would be located.  Mr. Daily point out that the office buildings are a separate entity from the reception center, and dumpster locations were not designated for the future buildings.  Mr. Farr will have to designate an area.  Mr. Farr indicated that he would select an area.

Commissioner Tanner questioned what type of lighting and security Mr. Farr would have for the office buildings.  She noted that there would not be a problem in the summer; however, it would be dark in the winter.  Mr. Farr explained that the entire property has an approved lighting plan, and he would be installing the lighting for that portion of the plan.

Commissioner Tanner explained that she just wants to make sure Mr. Farr has all of the necessary things to support this portion (phase 1) of the property.  Mr. Farr stated that he has everything that supports phase one; and he had everything that supported the entire property as well. 

Commissioner Limburg recalled when the Commission approved the overall site plan, nothing was approve for the future buildings; he questioned if that was correct. 

Mr. Daily pointed out that each building is two-stories and approximately 5,500 square feet for a total of approximately 11,000 square feet for each building.  That would equal to approximately 22,000 square feet of office space, which would require just over 100 parking spaces; however, the Planning Commission can recommend the parking ratio.  He inquired if Mr. Farr had 100 parking spaces in phase one?  Mr. Farr indicated that he has 200 parking spaces.   

Mr. Daily noted that one of the problems with phasing a project is one phase gets completed; however, there is no guarantee that the next phase will be completed.   He went on to say that he doesn’t know that the landscaping meets the 20 percent requirements.  He doesn’t know what the lot coverage is; the lot coverage looks good, but he doesn’t know what the land area is.  There is the issue with the dumpster.  The site could lose parking because of the placement of the dumpster, and it could visually impact the site.

Mr. Daily said there are questions to the amended site plan that still needs to be answered.  He explained that the amendment has to go to the City Council to be approved, and he does not want it to go to the Council and the Council not have the answers.  Mr. Daily stated that the reality is Mr. Farr could do phase one and phase two could be bought out or the office buildings might work out and Mr. Farr could want to build more office buildings.  He just wants to make sure the Commission has all of the answers.

Commissioner Limburg questioned if Mr. Farr should come back before the Commission when all of the outstanding questions can be answered.  Mr. Daily stated that he does not want an agenda item to go before Council and have questions come up that cannot be answered.

Mr. Farr indicated that he would have all of the drainage stubbed in and the lighting in place with the future buildings; however, he has to phase the project if he has a partner to keep the two projects separate.

Commissioner Tanner questioned if Mr. Farr was phasing the project or subdividing the project.  Mr. Farr explained that the office buildings would be joint ownership due to finances, and he would be the sole owner of the reception center.  As of right now, he does not know what he is doing with the parking and the access drive; he will have to discuss that with his attorney.

Discussion followed regarding approval of the amendments to the site plan.  The Commission could postpone approval, and have Mr. Farr come back with all of the ratios, the distinction of phase one and two, the dumpster location, etc. On the other hand, the Commission could approve the amendments contingent upon him showing all of the ratios, the distinction of phase one and two, the dumpster location, etc. prior to him going to the City Council.  

It was pointed out that there are concerns with ownership of property and joint ownership of property and who has rights to the parking as well.   Commissioner Eskelsen questioned if it would be better to determine these types of things first, before the Commission gave their approval to the amendments.  She pointed out that she thought it would be in Mr. Farr’s best interest to get all of these issues determined first.  Mr. Farr indicated that he would own all of the property; however, he would have a partner with the office buildings and shared parking too.

Mr. Daily informed the Commission that this would not be an issue if Mr. Farr were not trying to phase his project; but when an individual starts phasing parking, lighting, and drainage, it becomes an issue. In addition, when you have parking adjacent to undeveloped dirt, it becomes an issue with drainage and vehicles in the dirt area.

Commissioner Farr inquired what would happen if he did not phase the project at all, and he just built the entire project; what would he have to do to have separate ownership for the office buildings.  Mr. Daily informed Mr. Farr depending on how he decided to do the ownership; he could go about it a couple different ways.  Mr. Daily explained there would have to be separate water and sewer, and someone would have to control who pays for the utilities.  In addition, there would have to be an ownership line drawn around the building, which would be separate from the property, and the Planning Commission would have to approve the subdivision of property.

Mr. Daily indicated that he was not trying to complicate Mr. Farr’s amendments to his site plan, but he does not want the City Council to have multiple questions and ask why the Planning Commission did not address issues.  Commissioner Tanner noted that when the project is phased, she believes all of the issues need to be addressed.  Commissioner Tanner went on to say that what she sees is all of the amenities of the entire site plan being pulled away, and what she needs to know is if phase one can stand on its own; she can’t see any of phase I ratios to substantiate that it can stand on its own without phase II.

Mr. Daily informed Mr. Farr if he wants to proceed with phasing his project, he would have to put everything on the site prior to the office buildings being occupied, which would include all of the parking and all of the improvements for the site.

Commissioner Limburg stated if Mr. Farr would like to proceed with phasing his project, he knows what he has to do; and at this point, the agenda item is being treated like a conceptual discussion with no motion.

Discretionary Business

Mr. Daily informed the Commission that there would be a City party on July 15, 2004; and following the party, individuals can get tickets to go to a Raptor’s game.

Discussion followed regarding Mr. Kent Hill’s proposed development.  Mr. Daily informed the Commission that he went to a neighborhood meeting on Saturday, May 22, 2004, to discuss the proposed development, and the meeting was very emotional.  He went on to explain that he told the residents that the designated zoning of R-2 does not guarantee Mr. Hill anything; it allows him reasonable use of the land.  Mr. Daily advised Mr. Hill that his development may be a battle, and the City Council could deny it without it being considered a taking based on numerous issues and the safety concerns.

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 7:35 p.m.

Attest:                                                                          Approved:  June 8, 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