RIVERTON CITY PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING AGENDA. March 9, 2017

Transcription

1 RIVERTON CITY PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING AGENDA March 9, 2017 Notice is hereby given that the Riverton City Planning Commission will hold a meeting beginning at 6:30 p.m. on Thursday, March 9, 2017 at Riverton City Hall, located at South 1700 West, Riverton, Utah. CALL TO ORDER AND ROLL CALL 1. PUBLIC HEARINGS 6:30 p.m. or as soon after as practicable A. MULTI-FAMILY SITE PLAN, DANSIE PLACE, MULTI-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT AT SOUTH REDWOOD ROAD, C-D ZONE, 35 TOWNHOME STYLE UNITS, KEYSTONE CONSTRUCTION, APPLICANT. 2. DECISION ITEM B. RETENTION POND LANDSCAPING, AUTUMNWOOD ESTATES PHASE 2, SOUTH 3600 WEST, R-3 SD ZONE, IVORY DEVELOPMENT LLC, APPLICANT. 3. MINUTES A. FEBRUARY 23, ADJOURNMENT The City Office is an accessible facility. Individuals needing special accommodations or assistance during this meeting shall notify the City Recorder s Office at , at least two business days in advance of the meeting. Accessible parking and entrance are located on the south end of the building with elevator access to the City Council Chambers located on the second floor. Certificate of Posting I, Virginia Loader, the duly appointed and acting Recorder for Riverton City certify that, at least 24 hours prior to such meeting, the foregoing Agenda was ed to the Salt Lake Tribune, Deseret News and the South Valley Journal. A copy of the Agenda was also posted in the City Hall Lobby, on the City s Website at and on the Utah Public Meeting Notice Website at Dated this 7th Day of March, 2017 Virginia Loader, Recorder

2 Item 1.A Dansie Place

3 RIVERTON CITY MEMORANDUM TO: FROM: Planning Commission Planning Department DATE: March 7, 2017 SUBJECT: PL NO.: MULTI-FAMILY SITE PLAN, DANSIE PLACE, MULTI-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT AT SOUTH REDWOOD ROAD, C-D ZONE, 35 TOWNHOME STYLE UNITS, KEYSTONE CONSTRUCTION, APPLICANT Dansie Place Multi-family Site Plan PROPOSED MOTION: I move that the Planning Commission APPROVE the Dansie Place multi-family site plan proposed at South Redwood Road, application # PL , with the following conditions: 1. Fix minor Riverton City Engineering Division redline comments on the plans. 2. Storm drainage systems and accommodations comply with Riverton City Standards and ordinances, and with the recommendations of the Riverton City Engineering Division. 3. Applicant complete a Long Term Stormwater Management Plan according to Riverton City standards and ordinances. 4. A Land Disturbance Permit must be issued by the City prior to any construction or grading on the site. 5. The site and structures comply with any and all applicable Riverton City standards and ordinances, including the International Building and Fire Codes. 6. The applicant must obtain final approval from utility providers. 7. The applicant must obtain approvals and/or permits from other agencies or owners for access onto state roads, and/or storm water discharge into a facility owned or controlled by an entity other than Riverton City. 8. Submit executed copy of access easement and agreement for south shared access. BACKGROUND: Grant Lefgren of Keystone Construction has submitted this application requesting site plan approval for proposed development at South Redwood Road. The property is currently zoned RM-14-D and is vacant land. Properties to the south and west are zoned C-D (Commercial Downtown) and are utilized as a retail shopping center and a church meetinghouse. To the north properties are zoned R-4 (Residential 10,000 Square Foot Lots) and C-D. It should be noted that these two properties are zoned C-D but are currently utilized as single-family residential. To the east on the adjacent side of Redwood Road properties are zoned RR-22 (Rural Residential ½ Acre Lots) and are utilized as such. The applicant is proposing to construct a multi-family residential development with town home style units similar, if not identical, to the development located on the northwest corner of South 1300 West. Keystone Construction is the developer of both projects. The proposed development will contain 35 units, some two story and some single story with the single story units located as bookend type units sandwiching the two story style units. Access into the site will be gained from Redwood Road, the only public street available to provide access. The northern access will connect directly to Redwood Road. The southern access is a little more unique in that it will first access South before it connects to Redwood Road. Report by: AA 1 of 2 3/7/2017

4 12530 South is a private road, owned and maintained by the owner of the retail shopping center. The applicant has had to work with the owner of the lane to formulate an agreement for use and maintenance of the road as an access to the development. One of those conditions for the agreement is that the southern entrance into the development be gated where it accesses South. The gate will be opened only by residents with the correct code. The fire authority has approved this gate. The proposed site plan has reviewed against Riverton City s RM-14-D zoning ordinance and the development does meet or exceed all requirements for building setbacks, building separation, required landscaping, required trees and so forth. Riverton City s Engineering and Water divisions have also reviewed the proposed site plan and are recommending approval with conditions 1 through 9 shown above. The applicant will be installing 8 foot solid masonry fencing around the entire project except where adjacent to the church meetinghouse where there already exists an 8 foot solid masonry wall. The only residential uses adjacent to the proposed project are along the northwest corner where the fencing is proposed to be constructed. The RM-14-D zoning ordinance does have specific design standards that read as follows: Exterior materials for all buildings in the RM-14-D zone shall include brick, stucco, stone, or other decorative masonry products including fiber-cement siding as approved by the city council upon recommendation from the planning commission. A minimum of 25 percent of the exterior shall be brick or stone. Vinyl and wood siding are not permitted. Proposed building exteriors feature a brick wainscot and columns, stucco above with accented areas of fiber cement siding. The architecture as proposed does comply with the requirements as found in the RM- 14-D zone. Riverton City Planning, Water and Engineering divisions are recommending approval with the conditions listed in this staff report. The Unified Fire Authority has also reviewed the proposed plan and is recommending approval. ATTACHMENTS: The following items are attached for your review: 1. An copy of the Zoning and Aerial Views. 2. Site Plan materials. Report by: AA 2 of 2 3/7/2017

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13 Item 2.B Autumnwood Retention Pond Landscaping

14 RIVERTON CITY MEMORANDUM TO: FROM: Planning Commission Development Review Committee DATE: March 9, 2017 SUBJECT: RENTENTION POND LANDSCAPING, AUTUMNWOOD ESTATES PHASE 2, SOUTH 3600 WEST, R-3 SD ZONE, IVORY DEVELOPMENT LLC, APPLICANT PL NO.: PROPOSED MOTION(s): Motion #1: I move that the Planning Commission APPROVE of changes to the storm water retention pond as requested by the applicant, with the elimination of the trees while retaining the sod and irrigation system on the upper edges of the perimeter of pond. Motion #2: I move the Planning Commission APPROVE the proposed retention pond with the trees as shown on the Landscape Plan Exhibit #2. Motion #3: I move the Planning Commission APPROVE the proposed retention pond be constructed without trees, sod or the irrigation system and that the entire parcel be landscaped in cobble with commercial grade weed barrier fabric for weed control. BACKGROUND: On January 14, 2016 the Riverton City Planning Commission approved Phase 2 of the Autumnwood Estates subdivision. Included within that phase was the approval of a stormwater management pond at the south east corner of the proposed subdivision. At that meeting it was explained to the planning commission that the pond was going to be a detention pond and would be landscaped with sod, trees and an irrigation system. See exhibit #1 for the landscape plan that was originally submitted and approved. Since that time some issues arose regarding permits to discharge storm water into Salt Lake County water systems and the applicant was denied the right to do so. Therefore the stormwater management pond changed from detention to retention, the difference being the pond no longer will drain into another system. The water will now stand until it has percolated into the soil below. This change required that the pond no longer be landscaped with sod and trees as there could be standing water in the pond that would kill any grass or trees located therein. The applicant resubmitted a landscape plan, shown as Exhibit #2 in your packet that replaced the bottom of the pond with a certain depth of gravel but retains the grass, trees and irrigation system on the side and upper slopes of the perimeter of the pond. Staff determined at that time that with the trees and the landscaping that there may still be some recreational use to the pond even if limited to only leisure activities. The changes at that time were determined not significant enough to warrant Planning Commission approval. Report by: AJA 1 of 2 3/7/2017

15 Since that time and as the pond has been engineered to deal with storm water retention the applicant has indicated that there will be a thick vertical membrane installed throughout the area of the pond to eliminate the horizontal migration of water to neighboring properties and homes and cause the water to percolated vertically into the soil. The membrane does run the risk of being penetrated by the roots of the proposed trees and thereby damaging and negating the purpose of the membrane. The applicant has proposed that the trees be eliminated from the plan to protect the membrane but to keep and maintain the sodded slopes and sides around the perimeter of the pond. So, with the elimination of the trees from the pond the recreational potential of the limited landscaped areas is even less as there will be no shade for someone to enjoy during the outdoor months of the year. Essentially, there is no recreational value. So, the question needs to be raised and brought before the Commission as to whether it serves the City any viable or reasonable purpose to landscape the pond with sod and an irrigation system at all? Does the City want to mow and maintain a system that serves no viable recreational purpose other than to collect and hold onto storm water? Therefore, would it serve the City better to eliminate the sod and irrigation system and replace to cobble mulch and weed barrier systems? If the City eliminates the landscaping elements and the pond is nothing more than a hole in the ground to hold water, should there be a fence and a gate placed around the pond for safety purposes? Or, does the Planning Commission want the trees in there regardless of what may happen to the membrane. Please keep in mind that his pond will be or has been turned over to Riverton City and that all liability related to the pond in the future will be the City s responsibility. Ordinarily the Planning Department prefers these ponds to be landscaped and as beautiful as possible in order to gain some recreational use from the pond. However, that is not going to happen in this situation. Therefore, staff is presenting this to the Planning Commission and requesting direction regarding the best way to deal with what has become a large hole in the ground for holding water. Staff has included some sample motions for the Planning Commission to consider. The Planning Commission may also formulate its own motion if it so desires. ATTACHMENTS: The following items are attached for your review: 1. A copy of the Site Plan application 2. An 8½ x11 copy of the Zoning Map 3. An 8 ½ x11 copy of the Aerial Views 4. An 11 x17 copy of the Site Plan and Landscape Plans. 5. An 11 x17 copy of the building elevations Report by: AJA 2 of 2 3/7/2017

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23 Item 3.A February 23, 2017 PC Meeting Minutes

24 RIVERTON CITY PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES February 23, 2017 The Riverton City Planning Commission convened at 6:30 p.m. in the Riverton City Municipal Building, South 1700 West, Riverton, Utah. Planning Commission Members: Staff: Brian Russell, Chair Andrew Aagard, City Planning James Endrizzi Casey Taylor, City Attorney Kent Hartley Brian Moore, Engineering Dennis Hansen James Webb Cade Bryant Chair Russell called the meeting to order. Commissioner Endrizzi led the Pledge of Allegiance. I. PUBLIC HEARING A. REZONE, REZONING 5.91 ACRES AT SOUTH 1830 WEST, SOUTH 1830 WEST, AND SOUTH 1860 WEST FROM R-4 (RESIDENTIAL 10,000 SQUARE FOOT LOTS) TO RM-8 (RESIDENTIAL MULTI-FAMILY 8 UNITS PER ACRE), JAMES WITHERSPOON, APPLICANT. City Planner, Andrew Aagard, presented the staff report and stated that the proposed rezone will facilitate a new townhome development on the property. The subject property fronts both 1830 West and South, both of which are public streets. Mr. Aagard presented an aerial map of the subject property and stated that all of the surrounding properties are zoned R-4. He explained that the main difference between the R-4 and the RM-8 zoning is density. The subject property was designated at medium density residential in the Riverton City General Plan, so an amendment to the Plan would have to be made if the rezone application were approved. Although this was not a site plan request, Mr. Aagard noted that if the rezone were granted, the developer would be required to install eight-foot solid masonry fencing between the multi-family development and the singlefamily housing surrounding it. Staff received several comments from the neighboring residents with most of the concerns involving increased traffic. The applicant submitted a traffic study that showed that the streets surrounding the development would be able to accommodate the increased traffic load. Chair Russell opened the public hearing.

25 Riverton City Planning Commission Meeting 2 February 23, Lucille Page gave her address as South 1830 West and addressed the Commission with her sister, Gwen Page. They expressed concern about the current traffic issues on 1830 West and expressed opposition to high density development in the area. They also questioned whether the developer would be required to install detention ponds to deal with the drainage issues. Mr. Aagard explained that all drainage concerns would be addressed if the development goes through the site plan review process. Lucille Page commented that she did not want to see low-income housing on the property. Delmas Johnson, who resides at 1941 Rips Court, was opposed to the rezone because it would disrupt the continuity of the neighborhood and an amendment to the General Plan would be required. He also expressed concerns with traffic, particularly the safety of the school-age children. Talmage Ence gave his address as South 1950 West and spoke on behalf of himself and his neighbors, Jacob and Angel Sevisa. They were also worried about the increase in traffic, particularly with UDOT revising the medians on South. Cameron Sullivan gave his address as South Sugar Pine Circle and explained that many of the neighbors moved to the area for the environment and the feel of the neighborhood, especially with the library within walking distance. He worried that the library will not be able to service such a large, high density development. Holly Lepley, who resides at 1898 West South, commented that two sides of her property will be affected by the proposed development. Her primary concerns pertained to traffic and she commented that there is already a problem with speeding. She had spoken to the City on several occasions about having a speed bump installed or increased police monitoring, but her requests were denied. Ms. Lepley also stated that the property value of the surrounding homes would be negatively affected by a townhome development. Nancy Gault gave her address as 1830 West South and stated that she moved into the neighborhood just six months earlier but she had noticed traffic problems on 1830 West. She was opposed to the rezone request. David Whitaker gave his address as 2116 West South. He was not opposed to development in general, but stated that increasing the density on the subject property was unwise. He argued that a townhome development would not be consistent with the surrounding R-4 neighborhoods. Mitchell Lepley, who resides at 1898 West South, indicated that he is an elementary school student and he walks along 1830 West every day. Crossing the street is dangerous and scary for him because cars go too fast and drivers don t pay attention.

26 Riverton City Planning Commission Meeting 3 February 23, Commissioner Hansen asked if there are sidewalks on both sides of 1830 West. Mitchell Lepley stated that there are sidewalks on only one side of the street. Larry Thayn gave his address as 1915 West Park Avenue and reported that he lives across the street from another new townhome development. He stated that a lot of construction debris collected in his rain gutters. The subcontractors began work far too early in the morning and created a lot of excess noise. Mr. Thayn echoed the comments regarding traffic on 1830 West and stated that the road is too narrow for two cars to pass if cars are parked along the street. Nick Bowman gave his address as South 2038 West and presented a letter from his neighbor, Andrew Field. The letter sited traffic issues and concerns about the validity of the traffic study. Robert Gault, who resides at 1830 West South, asked if there was enough property at the east entrance for a full-sized road. Chair Russell explained that the applicant had not gone through the site plan review process so they did not yet know the answer to that question. Todd Nelson gave his address as South Morning Glory Circle and stated that the neighbors were under the impression that 60 to 70 units were planned for this development and it was obvious that those units would be taller than all of the surrounding single-family homes. He stated that the only person who would benefit from the rezone was the developer. Heather Ence, who resides at South 1950 West, stated that she has enjoyed having the townhome developments in the area and they have added to the neighborhood. The proposed location, however, was a poor location for townhomes. Mrs. Ence also feared an increase in traffic on 1830 West. Chad Barker gave his address as 2047 West South and indicated that he is a contractor by trade. He was not opposed to multi-family housing, but he stated that the proposed location is not a good fit for high density. Julie Johnson gave her address as 1941 Rips Court and agreed with Mrs. Ence s comments regarding the existing townhome development. She was not opposed to townhomes in general, but the subject property was surrounded by an R-4 community. Mrs. Johnson expressed appreciation for Mr. Witherspoon, as he reached out to the neighbors in the area regarding the proposal. Scott Osborne, the Owner of Osborne Engineering located at South 1875 West, stated that he has been in Riverton for 62 years. Several years ago, the Mayor decided to focus on revitalizing the downtown area and felt that the best way to support commercial was to provide enough rooftops. Mr. Osborne recognized the safety concerns with 1830 West but trusted the professionals who performed the traffic study. The subject property

27 Riverton City Planning Commission Meeting 4 February 23, had been and continued to be an issue in terms of infill. Mr. Osborne hoped that the Planning Commission would make the right decision to make the property an asset to the City. January Saddler gave her address as 1867 West Park Heights Drive in the new townhome community. She stated that she has enjoyed living there. She was. However, also opposed to the rezone request. Commissioner Bryant asked Ms. Saddler about the demographics of the townhome development. She stated that the ramblers were mostly occupied by seniors and the townhomes were occupied by young families with children. There were no further public comments. Chair Russell closed the public hearing. Chair Russell addressed the City s efforts to revitalize the Downtown District and believed the City had accomplished that vision. The subject property did not front a major road like the other higher density developments, which was of concern to him. Scott Carlson, the Project Civil Engineer, addressed some of the concerns raised by the residents. He confirmed that the access from 1830 West would be 50 feet wide and fully improved, as would the access from South. With regard to the traffic study, Mr. Carlson explained that the information was gathered during peak traffic hours such as school drop-off/pick-up times. Chair Russell asked when the study was performed. Mr. Carlson reported that it was completed in December of He explained that the development team coordinated with the Traffic Engineer that week and asked him if any of the traffic conditions had changed since the report was finalized. The Traffic Engineer confirmed that the conditions were the same as those modeled in the original traffic analysis. The traffic study concluded that the surrounding roads, including 1830 West, will not reach full capacity with the addition of the proposed development. Mr. Carlson described the type of townhomes they intend to construct and their approximate value. Commissioner Bryant asked how many units would be required to exceed the traffic capacity for 1830 West. Mr. Carlson explained that this number was not calculated in the traffic study. Commissioner Hansen noted that the 2015 traffic study shows that the number of dwellings would be 47, however, the developer was unlikely to be able to fit that many units on the property. This made him question the credibility of the report. James Witherspoon, the property owner, was surprised by the negative response from the neighbors. He had walked the neighborhood and informed them of his intentions, but did not receive any negative feedback. Mr. Witherspoon stated that the City s efforts to revitalize the area has been very successful but he did not believe they had achieved their

28 Riverton City Planning Commission Meeting 5 February 23, goal completely. He stated that the proposed development will fit in well with the other RM-8 development. In response to Commissioner Hansen s comments, Mr. Witherspoon explained that the maximum number of units was 47, but they would not be constructing that many. Their intention was to keep 40% of the project as open space and plant more than 120 new trees. This would be an upscale townhome development that would provide affordable homes for new families. If the property were developed as R-4, the homes would cost more than $400,000. Mr. Witherspoon did not think the neighborhood would support such prices. Commissioner Hansen commented that the location of the development would not be consistent with the surrounding uses and he believed there were enough RM-8 developments in the area already. Commissioner Hansen moved that the Planning Commission recommend DENIAL of Application # , keeping the property zoned R-4 (Residential 10,000 square foot lots). Commissioner Webb seconded the motion. The motion carried with unanimous consent of the Commission. II. MINUTES A. FEBRUARY 9, Commissioner Hansen moved that the Planning Commission APPROVE the minutes of the February 9, 2017 Planning Commission Meeting with the correction discussed. Commissioner Hartley seconded the motion. The motion carried with unanimous consent of the Commission. III. ADJOURNMENT The meeting adjourned at approximately 7:27 p.m.