CITY OF OREM
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES
OCTOBER 15, 2003
STUDY SESSION
TIME -
3:00 p.m.
PLACE -
Orem City Main Conference Room
PRESENT -
Barry Graff, Nicea Gedicks, Richard Rawson, LaVar Richman, Yevon Romney, and
Deborah Spackman, Planning Commission members; Stanford Sainsbury, Director of
Development Services; Bob Moore, Planning Division Manager; Jason Bench, Planner;
David Stroud, Planner; Chris Tschirki, Private Development Engineer; Greg Stephens,
Legal Counsel; and Lori Merritt, Minutes Secretary
EXCUSED -
Ida Smith, Planning Commission member
The Commission members and staff reviewed the agenda items and adjourned at 3:55 p.m. to the City Council
Chambers for the regular meeting.
REGULAR MEETING
TIME -
4:00 p.m.
PLACE -
Orem City Council Chambers
PRESENT -
Barry Graff, Nicea Gedicks, Richard Rawson, LaVar Richman, Yevon Romney, and
Deborah Spackman, Planning Commission members; Stanford Sainsbury, Director of
Development Services; Bob Moore, Planning Division Manager; Jason Bench, Planner;
David Stroud, Planner; Chris Tschirki, Private Development Engineer; Greg Stephens,
Legal Counsel; and Lori Merritt, Minutes Secretary
EXCUSED -
Ida Smith, Planning Commission member
INVOCATION -
Ms. Gedicks
CONSENT ITEMS
BRETON WOODS WEST SUBDIVISION – PUBLIC HEARING - VACATING 10 & 11 OF
BRETON WOODS WEST SUBDIVISION, PLAT A – FINAL PLAT APPROVAL OF BRETON
WOODS WEST SUBDIVISION, PLAT B – 1087 EAST BRETON WOODS LANE – R8 ZONE
Applicant: Rogan Taylor
Project Manager: David Stroud
Neighborhood: Cascade, David Cherrington, Chair
Request: Rogan Taylor requests the Planning Commission approve the final plat for Breton Woods West
Subdivision Plat B, two (2) lots, at 1087 East Breton Woods Lane in the R8 zone. Final plat approval includes the
vacation of Lots 10 and 11 of Breton Woods West Subdivision, Plat A.
1
"Planning Commission Minutes of October 15, 2003"
Recommendation: The Development Review Committee has determined this request complies with all applicable
City codes. The project manager recommends that the Planning Commission approve the proposed final plat.
Background: The owners of the existing lots in this request are applying for the plat amendment to relocate a
portion of their common property line. Each lot and structure will meet current zoning requirements if the proposed
amendment is approved.
Representative: None
Planning Commission Discussion:
Ms. Romney opened the public hearing, when no one came forward, she closed the public hearing.
Public Input: None
Planning Commission Action: Mr. Rawson moved to approve this item. Mr. Richman seconded the motion.
Those voting aye: Ms. Gedicks, Mr. Graff, Mr. Rawson, Mr. Richman, Ms. Romney, and Ms. Spackman. The
motion passed unanimously.
KASPERSON SUBDIVISION - PRELIMINARY PLAT
SUBDIVISION – 243 WEST 400 NORTH – R7.5 ZONE
APPROVAL
OF
KASPERSON
Applicant: Keith Kasperson
Project Manager: David Stroud
Neighborhood: Suncrest, Rick Edwards, Chair
Request: Keith Kasperson requests the Planning Commission approve the preliminary plat for Kasperson
Subdivision, Plat A, two (2) lots, including one (1) deep lot at 243 West 400 North.
Recommendation: The Development Review Committee has determined this request complies with all applicable
City codes. The project manager recommends that the Planning Commission approve the proposed preliminary plat.
Background: The applicant is requesting subdivision for a legal lot of record with an existing house. Two lots will
be created, one being a deep lot. The existing house will remain and is located on Lot 1. An existing shed and
garage located on Lot 2 will be removed. Access will be provided by a twenty (20) foot access and public utility
easement. Lot 1 will be 7,585 square feet and Lot 2 will be 14,273 square feet.
Representative: Keith Kasperson
Planning Commission Discussion:
Ms. Romney opened the public hearing.
Keith Kasperson noted he was the applicant and informed the Commission of his intentions.
Ms. Romney closed the public hearing.
Planning Commission Action: Mr. Rawson moved to approve this item. Mr. Richman seconded the motion.
Those voting aye: Ms. Gedicks, Mr. Graff, Mr. Rawson, Mr. Richman, Ms. Romney, and Ms. Spackman. The
motion passed unanimously.
DENNIS SUBDIVISION – PRELIMINARY PLAT – 115 SOUTH 1000 EAST – R8 ZONE
Applicant: Daryl Rodgers
2
"Planning Commission Minutes of October 15, 2003"
Project Manager: David Stroud
Neighborhood: Cascade, David Cherrington, Chair
Request: Daryl Rodgers requests the Planning Commission approve the preliminary plat for Dennis Subdivision,
Plat A, two (2) lots, at 115 South 1000 East.
Recommendation: The Development Review Committee has determined this request complies with all applicable
City codes. The project manager recommends that the Planning Commission approve the proposed preliminary plat.
Background: The applicant recently was granted a rezone of this property to the R5 zone. This request involves
subdividing a lot of record into two (2) lots and the removal of the existing house. Lot 1 will be 8,817 square feet
and Lot 2 will be 8,774 square feet.
Representative: None
Planning Commission Discussion: None
Public Input: None
Planning Commission Action: Mr. Rawson moved to approve the preliminary plat. Mr. Richman seconded the
motion. Those voting aye: Ms. Gedicks, Mr. Graff, Mr. Rawson, Mr. Richman, Ms. Romney, and Ms. Spackman.
The motion passed unanimously.
COUNTRY COURT SUBDIVISION – PRELIMINARY PLAT – 282 SOUTH 760 WEST – R8
ZONE
Applicant: Glen Labrum
Project Manager: David Stroud
Neighborhood: Orem North, Linda Campbell, Chair
Request: Glen Labrum requests the Planning Commission approve the preliminary plat for Country Court
Subdivision Plat C, three (3) lots, at 115 South 1000 East.
Recommendation: The Development Review Committee has determined this request complies with all applicable
City codes. The project manager recommends that the Planning Commission approve the proposed preliminary plat.
Background: The applicant requests approval to divide a lot of record into two lots while amending a third lot in a
recorded subdivision. Final plat approval will come to the Planning Commission at a later date. Lot 1 will be
26,089 square feet. Lot 2 will be 10,630 square feet and lot 3 will be 10,812 square feet. Under the current zoning,
Lot 1 can still be subdivided using the deep lot ordinance. Lot 2 contains an existing house, which will remain.
Approval of this subdivision requires the extension of 760 West to be completed to the south property line of Lots 1
and 3.
Representative: None
Planning Commission Discussion: None
Public Input: None
Planning Commission Action: Mr. Rawson moved to approve the preliminary plat. Mr. Richman seconded the
motion. Those voting aye: Ms. Gedicks, Mr. Graff, Mr. Rawson, Mr. Richman, Ms. Romney, and Ms. Spackman.
The motion passed unanimously.
3
"Planning Commission Minutes of October 15, 2003"
AGENDA ITEMS
STEVENS-HENAGER OREM CAMPUS – SITE PLAN – 350 WEST 800 NORTH – C3 ZONE
Applicant: Kevin Scholz
Project Manager: Jason Bench
Neighborhood: Lakeview, Bill Rouse, Chair
Request: Kevin Scholz, agent for Stevens-Henager requests site plan approval for Stevens-Henager College at 1480
South Sandhill Road.
Recommendation: The Development Review Committee has determined that this request complies with all
applicable City codes. The project manager recommends that the Planning Commission approve the request for site
plan approval at 1480 South Sandhill Road.
Background: This item was continued from the October 1, 2003 Planning Commission in order to allow the
applicant to hold a properly noticed neighborhood meeting. The additional neighborhood meeting was held on
Tuesday, October 14, 2003 at the City Center. The Neighborhood Chair, Vice Chair, and Secretary in addition to
the neighbors within 300 feet of the subject property were notified of the meeting.
The proposed site will contain a new structure containing a total of 29,859 square feet in area. The main exterior
finishing materials proposed for the building is synthetic stucco and masonry veneer as shown on the elevations.
The overall building height is forty-two feet two and one half inches (42’ - 2-1/2”); the HS zone allows structures
up to 60 feet in height.
Parking for this project is based on one parking space per 250 square feet of gross floor area. Based on a total
building area of 29,859 square feet, one hundred-twenty (120) parking spaces are required for this project. The
applicant has provided a total of one hundred eighty (180) parking spaces which is 150% of the required parking.
Currently, Section 22-15-3(C) allows the Planning Commission to approve up to 150% of the required parking
based on the applicant demonstrating the need for additional parking. The applicant has indicated that the
increased parking is necessary in order to accommodate the students that will be arriving at different times of the
day due to differing class schedules. Staff has concluded that the additional parking would be appropriate and
would be in the best interest of the city to avoid potential parking problems in the area in the future.
In addition, the applicants desire to provide an additional 103 parking spaces in addition to the 180 provided, based
on the perceived need for adequate parking for the students. The additional parking will be added at a future date.
The future parking areas shown on the site plan will be landscaped.
Representative: Kevin Sholz
Planning Commission Discussion:
Mr. Sholz had a good neighborhood meeting with eleven in attendance. There were traffic concerns, but he was
able to talk to the neighbors. He has talked to staff about their concerns.
Public Input: None
Planning Commission Action: Mr. Richman proposed the Planning Commission had found this request was in the
interest of the public and moved to approve the site plan. Ms. Spackman seconded the motion. Those voting aye:
Ms. Gedicks, Mr. Graff, Mr. Rawson, Mr. Richman, Ms. Romney, and Ms. Spackman. The motion passed
unanimously.
4
"Planning Commission Minutes of October 15, 2003"
ZIONS BANK – SITE PLAN APPROVAL ADDITIONAL PARKING LOT – 350 WEST 800
NORTH – C3 ZONE
Applicant: Bruce Dickerson
Project Manager: Jason Bench
Neighborhood: Bonneville South, David Pentelute, Chair
Request: Bruce Dickerson requests site plan approval for additional parking for Zions Bank at 350 West 800 North.
Recommendation: The Development Review Committee has determined that this request complies with all
applicable City codes. The project manager recommends that the Planning Commission approve the request for
site plan approval at 350 West 800 North.
Background: The proposed site will contain a total of 68 new parking spaces. In addition, the site will contain a
future building pad. The parking will be in connection with the existing Zions Bank site and provide reciprocal
access between the two properties and the overall development. Landscaping will also be provided as shown on
the proposed site plan.
The pad site when developed in the future will be required to obtain approval through the Planning Commission.
Staff has concluded that the additional parking is appropriate and would be in the best interest of the city by
completing the parking and improving the overall access and circulation for the Pinehurst development.
Representative: Roger Dudley
Planning Commission Discussion:
Mr. Richman noted he had read in the paper about upcoming construction on 800 North. He wondered how this
would affect this project. Mr. Bench said the right-of-way issue has already been addressed in this development.
Ms. Romney asked if any future development would be dealt with later, Mr. Dudley replied when the pad site
develops it will come through the normal process. Ms. Gedicks inquired about the type of business that would go on
the pad. Mr. Dudley said a small facility like Red Hanger. The architecture has been controlled for the whole
project and anything new would have to conform.
Public Input: None
Planning Commission Action: Mr. Rawson proposed the Planning Commission had found this request complies
with all applicable City codes. Mr. Rawson moved to approve this site plan. Mr. Graff seconded the motion. Those
voting aye: Ms. Gedicks, Mr. Graff, Mr. Rawson, Mr. Richman, Ms. Romney, and Ms. Spackman.
The motion
passed unanimously.
MINUTES
October 1, 2003 Meeting Minutes
Ms. Spackman moved to approve the draft minutes of the October 1, 2003. Mr. Richman seconded the motion.
Those voting aye: Ms. Gedicks, Mr. Graff, Mr. Rawson, Mr. Richman, Ms. Romney, and Ms. Spackman. The
motion passed unanimously.
The Commission took a 45-minute break.
5
"Planning Commission Minutes of October 15, 2003"
NEWPORT VILLAGE – REZONING PROPERTY LOCATED AT 230 NORTH 1200 WEST
FROM THE R5 AND HS ZONES TO THE PRD ZONE AND SITE PLAN APPROVAL FOR
NEWPORT VILLAGE PRD
Applicant: Washburn & Associates
Project Manager: David Stroud
Neighborhood: Suncrest, Rick Edwards, Chair
Request: Washburn & Associates has requested the Planning Commission recommend approval to rezone property
at 230 North 1200 West from R5 and HS to PRD and approve the site plan for Newport Village contingent upon the
City Council approving the rezoning request.
Recommendation: The Development Review Committee has determined this request complies with all applicable
City codes. The project manager recommends that the Planning Commission approve the proposed preliminary plat.
Background: The City Council recently approved changes to the PRD ordinance. These changes permit any PRD
Zone between 1200 West and I-15 to build with a maximum density of twenty (20) units per acre. A bonus of three
(3) units per acre may be applied if existing homes are removed. However, the density may not exceed twenty (20)
units.
Washburn and Associates is requesting approval to construct 66 units (19.76 units per acre) under a PRD zone. Six
(6) buildings will be constructed, five (5) 12-plexes and one (1) 6-plex. All units will contain three (3) bedrooms
and have 1,425 square feet. Parking at 2.5 spaces per unit provides 165 total parking stalls. 56 parking stalls will be
underground, 62 will be covered with an awning-type structure, and the remaining stalls will be uncovered. The
Code requires 2.5 stalls per unit, one of which must be covered. Exterior materials will be brick, cultured stone, and
EIFS and the buildings will be forty- (40) feet high.
The Planning Commission is reviewing two separate requests at the same time. The first is a recommendation to the
City Council on rezoning the subject property to the PRD Zone. The second item is the site plan for Newport
Village, conditioned upon approval of the City Council for the rezone. The Planning Commission must make two
motions, one for each item.
Representative: Paul Washburn, Mark Greenwood, Kirk Williamson
Planning Commission Discussion:
Mr. Washburn noted the Kingston apartments were purchased a few years ago and last year there was another
proposal to develop the neighboring property for student housing. The neighbor’s did not think student housing was
appropriate, but agreed developing the property would be necessary. This proposal will not be student housing. The
buildings will be very nice and there will be added amenities to Kingston, which will be an improvement to them.
Ms. Romney opened the public hearing, when no one came forward she closed the public hearing.
Ms. Romney asked if there had been any input from the neighborhood meeting. Mr. Washburn indicated there had
been two meetings held. The first meeting was cancelled and only the neighborhood chair attended the second
meeting. Mr. Washburn had received some phone calls with different suggestions. One suggestion was to expand
the trailer court, but most of the calls were inquires into what will be happening.
Mr. Rawson asked if the upper floor units would be wheelchair accessible, Mr. Washburn said everything on the
main floor would be handicap accessible and the upper floors would have elevators and would also be handicap
accessible.
6
"Planning Commission Minutes of October 15, 2003"
Ms. Romney stated this was a well thought out project. She noted parking concerns were addressed and the
additional amenities were nice. She also pointed out there was no one from the neighborhood voicing concern.
Planning Commission Action: Mr. Richman proposed the Planning Commission had found this request is in the
interest of the public. Mr. Richman then moved to recommend the City Council approve this request. Ms. Romney
seconded the motion. Those voting aye: Ms. Gedicks, Mr. Graff, Mr. Rawson, Mr. Richman, Ms. Romney, and Ms.
Spackman. The motion passed unanimously.
BROOKLYN PLANNED DEVELOPMENT – CREATING A NEW PD ZONE AND REZONING
PROPERTY LOCATED GENERALLY AT 1600 SOUTH BETWEEN 693 EAST AND 717 EAST
FROM THE R7.5 ZONE TO THE NEW PD (24) ZONE ON 1600 SOUTH
Applicant: Chad Astle
Project Manager: David Stroud
Neighborhood: Hillcrest, Lon Bowen, Chair
Request: Chad Astle requests the Planning Commission recommend approval to the City Council the proposed
Brooklyn Planned Development text and rezone at 717 East 1600 South, known as PD-24.
Recommendation: The Development Review Committee has determined this request is appropriate and
recommends the Planning Commission forward a positive recommendation to the City Council for the PD24
development and rezone.
Background: The applicant is interested in developing a group of underdeveloped and deteriorating properties. A
proposal has been submitted to create a PD Zone with two multi-unit attached housing structures and several
duplexes. A park area has been located near the middle of the project at the request of Staff and stacked
condominium units have been changed to townhouses.
The applicant is proposing to build at a density of 12 units per acre. This calculates to 33 units, although the
applicant has shown 34 units on the overall site plan. A final site survey will determine whether the 33 or 34 units
will be built, based on 12 units per acre. In any case, the language in the proposed PD text is a maximum of 12 units
per acre.
The applicant was instructed by Staff to consider applying to rezone the property to the PRD Zone. This would have
allowed the applicant to construct 10 units per acre with attached or detached housing. The goal of the PRD Zone is
for retirement housing. This area for the proposed Brooklyn development was determined to not be a likely area in
which retired owners would live. This proposal by the applicant would hope to bring in younger families looking to
establish their residence for several years.
Representative: Chad Astle, Brady Dushere
Planning Commission Discussion:
Mr. Sainsbury noted the sewer water and traffic issues were raised in the City Council meeting and he asked Mr.
Stroud to address these items. Mr. Stroud said the problem with the sewer was upstream and would not affect this
project. Mr. Tschirki indicated that 1600 South Street was approximately 32 feet of asphalt, which is narrower than
other streets. The volume is 2500 car trips per day and this development would produce about 200 more car trips
per day. The development has 2.7 acres and if it were developed under R8 standards there would be 150 trips per
day, so the difference is around 50 trips. Mr. Sainsbury added he had visited with Mr. Chesnut, Director of Public
Works and the water department. He stated if there were problems it would be with laterals and nothing in this
project.
7
"Planning Commission Minutes of October 15, 2003"
Mr. Astle noted they had made significant changes after meeting with the neighbors. Ideally everyone wants singlefamily homes, but it is difficult because of the large number of multifamily units in the area. This design is
drastically different from the first project because of the negative reaction. He noted some of the changes
1.
They originally came in with 16 units to the acre and then they reduced to 13.5 units per acre and after
the City Council meeting and working more with staff 12 units to the acre was agreed upon.
2.
There will be 2.5 parking stalls to the acre.
3.
They have moved the park to the center of the project.
4.
They were able to widen the interior road, which would allow parking on the road and that is not
calculated in the 2.5 parking.
5.
The landscaping would be 36-percent, a reduction from the 50-percent requirement of the PRD.
6.
The major compromise was the stacked homes. They now will offer side by side with garages.
7.
There would be two buildings with eight units each.
8.
Another access was added into the property making two accesses.
9.
More land was purchased which helped square up the project. It did not really help the project, but did
complicate some aspects of the project.
Mr. Astle stated this would be a good compromise for the families in the neighborhood.
Ms. Gedicks left the meeting at 5:30 p.m.
Mr. Dushere said it would be developed with the PRD standards with the exception of four changes.
1.
Increase in density by approximately 4-5 units.
2.
The building height would need to be adjusted.
3.
The landscaping would need reduced.
4.
The open space would be consolidated and have different play areas.
All other PRD requirements would be enforced. The intent of this development was for young families and not
elderly people.
Mr. Richman asked about the 10-units per acre instead of the 12 units, Mr. Astle said that staff had changed it to 10units per acre. Mr. Stroud said staff suggested 10-units per acre with the bonus for removing old existing structures.
Mr. Graff asked if they had purchased more property, Mr. Dushere replied the development is 0.8 acres bigger than
before. Mr. Graff asked if there were fewer units than before, Mr. Dushere said there were still 34 units with the
bonus.
Mr. Rawson asked if the square footage minimum above grade was exclusive of any basement and what would be
the standard for fencing, and the pitch of the roof, Mr. Moore said those requirements are in the PRD standards.
Mr. Stroud said the standard fence was seven-foot solid fence. Mr. Astle stated they had not determined at this time
what fence, but would do whatever is required.
Mr. Rawson asked what was the minimum requirement for fencing, Mr. Moore said the minimum height was six
feet. Masonry, vinyl and chain link were examples of approved materials. Mr. Dushere stated they will not do
chain link. Mr. Moore said the type of fence must be the same throughout the project. Mr. Stephens said the fence
requirement could be placed in the PD agreement.
Mr. Graff asked how many total parking spaces they had, Mr. Astle said there were 93 parking spaces; 18 were in
garages. Mr. Graff then inquired how many cars would park along the street. Mr. Astle said each twin home has a
guest-parking stall along with the driveway and possibly 6-7 cars could park along the road.
Ms. Romney opened the discussion to the public.
Rosalie McOmber, 666 East 1600 South, said 1600 South is narrow and it is difficult when cars are parked on the
street. The developers have addressed some parking issues, but there is still a problem. She would prefer the zone
remain R7.5.
Nick McOmber, 666 East 1600 South, noted there was a traffic light at 1600 south and State. A lot of traffic uses
1600 South and the street is very narrow and cannot handle the traffic. He recently refinanced his home, which is in
8
"Planning Commission Minutes of October 15, 2003"
the area of development and it was appraised at $250,000. He is near the four-plexes that are supposed to lower the
value. He felt that single-family units would sell.
Craig Palmer, 835 East 1400 South, said the neighbors are not complaining about the quality of the development,
but their concern is based on the increased density. He did not agree that this is the only kind of development that
could happen in this area.
Kim Miller, 659 East 1650 South, said he liked garages. He lives in Bristol Pointe and has found that most of the
garages are used as storage space and so the parking remains to be a problem. This will cause safety problems
because there are 30 children who live along 1600 South. The park idea is nice, but parks are not being used
because kids would rather ride their bikes. He added the project has not changed it just has a different look.
Shane Gailushas, 1720 East 1500 South, stated this entire project has highlighted what should not happen.
1.
Neighborhood notices are delivered late.
2.
The neighbors need more input.
3.
There is an appearance if rushing through the process.
Mr. Gailushas noted the General Plan states that a PD zone should be used when all other options have failed. There
are two arguments that have been used to justify this development. (1) One argument to support this is the fact there
exist fourplexes then high density must be approved. This is a circular argument with no end. (2) The reason this
cannot fit into a PRD is because it is not as profitable. Money should not be a reason to change the zone. What
should be done is what is best for the neighborhood now and in the future. Keeping the zone designation as it stands
is the best for the neighborhood. Mr. Gailushas then wondered why the staff recommendation has changed from the
previous time.
Kevin Down, 843 East 1450 South, said he had built his home when it was four units per acre. It later increased to
seven units per acre and now the proposal is 12 units per acre. He would prefer it be returned to four units per acre.
He also wondered when it would end.
Christine Gailushas, 1720 East 1500 South, said the plans are beautiful and the developers have made concessions in
their eyes, but this project is not good for the neighborhood. The neighborhood does not need additional density and
so she recommended denial.
Bruce Higlee, 1456 South 760 East, said he has a tough time believing this cannot be developed with out making all
these changes. He expressed concern about the sewer capacity. There are a lot of times the City comes and flushes
out the sewer line. He recommended denying this application.
Peggy Porter, 683 East 1700 South said she had watched two other developments come in and the children are far
and few between. Homes would bring in families who would stay. Hillcrest Elementary is struggling and these
homes would attract very small families and it would not be beneficial to the area. Orem city prides itself on having
single-family dwellings and affordable housing. These homes are a little spendy.
Arlen Goodrich, 627 East 1600 South, said there are a lot of cars that speed on his street. His basement has flooded
once and the City people were able to get him some compensation, in fact there was a sewer truck out there today.
This development would not fix the problem or please the community.
Linda Parker, 1543 South 630 East, agreed traffic is a problem and increasing it will make movement more difficult
through the neighborhood.
Fran Pyle, 676 East 1600 South, said there was a reason why the city planners put the zone at R7.5 possibly to
control the growth. The current zone would be beneficial to the neighborhood. This project would not be beneficial
to the neighborhood. It would increase traffic and pollution. If developed under current regulations there would
only be 15-16 homes instead of 34 units. The only one who would benefit from this development would be the
developer’s pocketbook.
Phyllis Kelly, 675 East 1600 South, also agreed with her neighbors about 1600 South being too narrow for such a
development.
9
"Planning Commission Minutes of October 15, 2003"
Mr. Gailushas mentioned the sewer was being pumped on a weekly basis. The City had not been aware there was a
problem, but was now looking at the concerns.
Ms. Romney closed the public hearing.
Mr. Rawson said he was not convinced this is a necessary project and that all options have not been exhausted, this
has come to bear because of the vocal neighbors.
Mr. Graff stated he lived close to this property and it could use development. It seems like the density issue is
excessive for the rest of the neighborhood. He encouraged continued exploration to reduce density and still have
profit. He was concerned about setting future precedence.
Ms. Spackman said she had been down there recently and was stuck in a string of eight cars. There is a real
problem. She is hesitant about changing the General Plan and she is not convinced this could not be developed under
the current zoning.
Mr. Richman asked about the neighborhood meeting. Mr. Astle said the City Council minutes would show that
there are many in support or do not care and so they are not compelled to attend the meeting. There are a lot in
support not just the 20 or so vocal negative people. Everyone is focusing on the R7.5 zone and this development
was designed very close to the PRD ordinance with a few changes. A PRD would be allowed in the General Plan
and this is similar to the PRD.
Ms. Romney noted she is in support of the development.
1. There are R5 zones and high-density developments already. This would bring in a lot of vitality to the
neighborhood. The developers have addressed the parking concerns with the higher number of parking
stalls even without the garages. The parking problem is already there probably because the four-plexes do
not have enough parking spaces.
2. The architectural design is beautiful.
3. There are unsafe conditions throughout the City and not just in this area.
4. The sewer and water concerns are being dealt with.
5. PD vs. PRD. The PD zone would allow more young families. This area would be better for young families
instead of elderly people.
6. Hillcrest is expanding and would be ready for an influx of students.
Ms. Romney said she was in favor of giving a positive recommendation.
Mr. Graff wondered if there was an opportunity to reduce the density any more. He stated the neighborhood is the
community and the Commission needs to weigh both sides. Mr. Astle replied that they had never been given an
ideal number of occupants from the neighbors. The City Council agreed this area was not a good area for elderly
people. The density is close to what would be allowed in a PRD. Historically this area has not developed in the
current zone. Some of the allowances would allow better amenities. The street is narrow and any development will
impact the neighborhood. Mr. Dushere added the proposal has changed. They have come down from 49 units to 34
units. With the additional land, the project has become a PRD with a few more units.
Ms. Spackman asked if staff changed their recommendation because of the additional land. Mr. Moore said this
item went to City Council and the Council thought it was too dense. They did indicate it would be better with
around 12 units per acre, but there were no guarantees. There are pluses and minuses to the project. Staff felt it was
good to give bonuses for removal of existing older homes. April Apartments to the north are nice apartments, but
the old home was left in front and it looks like the apartments were an afterthought. Taking out the existing home
would be a benefit to the neighborhood.
Ms. Spackman then wondered if it would be possible to make it so that no one can park on 1600 South. Mr.
Tschirki said that red curbing is a sensitive issue. People will generally park just past the red curb and infringe on
other’s parking stalls. Mr. Moore added that restricting on street parking creates problems for those who live in the
neighborhood and usually just compounds the problem.
10
"Planning Commission Minutes of October 15, 2003"
Mr. Rawson stated his son had purchased a home in Arizona and there was a covenant stating the garage could not
be used for storage. Mr. Moore said that would be considered a restrictive covenant and the City could not enforce
it. Mr. Rawson than asked if the City could create a specific zone and try to control the problems. Mr. Moore said
this development would be around 6.5 acres. Recognizing the willingness of the applicants to take out three
structures, the neighborhood would be better than before and fit in the neighborhood.
Planning Commission Action: Ms. Romney proposed the Planning Commission had found:
1.
The sewer and water in the area would not be severely affected.
2.
Parking would be handled within the project.
3.
The density is not completely out of line because there is similar zoning surrounding the project.
Ms. Romney then moved to recommend the City Council approve this rezone and PD zone. Mr. Richman seconded
the motion. Those voting aye: Mr. Richman and Ms. Romney, Those voting nay: Mr. Graff, Mr. Rawson, and Ms.
Spackman. The motion received no recommendation.
VERONA ESTATES DEVELOPMENT – CREATING A NEW PD ZONE AND REZONING
PROPERTY LOCATED GENERALLY AT 800 SOUTH AND 800 EAST FROM THE R8 ZONE
TO THE NEW PD (25) ZONE
Applicant: Ivory Homes
Project Manager: David Stroud
Neighborhood: Scera Park South, Duane Herbert
Request: Ivory Homes requests the Planning Commission recommend approval to the City Council for the proposed
Verona Planned Development at 600 South 800 East, known as PD-25.
Recommendation: The Development Review Committee has determined this request complies with the General
Plan and recommends the Planning Commission recommend approval of the proposed PD25 development and
rezone.
Background: Ivory has purchased part of the LDS Church’s south orchard to construct a residential development.
The proposal contains 60 lots, all exceeding the minimum 8,000 square feet of the underlying zone. The applicant
has requested the PD Zone to customize setbacks and decrease the required minimum lot width.
The minimum rear setback is requested to be fifteen (15) feet for all lots except Lots 37-49. These lots will have a
minimum of twenty (20) feet because they will abut existing single-family residential units. Side setbacks have
been requested to be six (6) and eight (8) feet with the later on the garage side of the house. The front setback to the
garage must be thirty-two (32) feet on interior lots and thirty-three (33) feet on corner lots. The living area of the
structure will be a minimum of twenty-five (25) feet to the front property line.
The proposed minimum lot width is seventy (70) feet. However, this will only affect approximately four (4) lots.
The remaining lots will all meet or exceed the eighty (80) foot lot width requirement of the R8 Zone.
Representative: Chris Gamvroulas, Roger Dudley
Planning Commission Discussion:
Mr. Gamvroulas said they noticed homes within 600 feet of the project and the neighborhood meeting was held at
their Provo model home. There were 250 people in attendance. The majority of people were curious about the
development and many wanted to purchase a lot. This property is unique because of its proximity to the mall.
They are very cognizant of the history of the property and thus are proposing a high quality project. The lots will be
developed utilizing the R8 zone, but the PD zone will come into play to give a larger building envelope, larger
setbacks and improve traffic circulation. A pedestrian walkway will be constructed between the lots and the LDS
chapel to the north. The two chapels to the south will be for BYU students and will not need access to the
11
"Planning Commission Minutes of October 15, 2003"
neighborhoods. Mr. Gamvroulas said the City has been very helpful to work with. He added there would be a nice
monument sign to the development. There will be landscaped frontage on 800 East for future widening.
Mr. Graff asked if the last two lots that abut the LDS church parking area would have any kind of barrier to separate
them from the asphalt. Mr. Gamvroulas indicated there would be a fence all the way around the church parking lot.
Ms. Spackman asked how many ball diamonds would be in the open field, Mr. Stroud replied there would be two
ball fields.
Mr. Rawson asked if Ivory had worked with the church on the pedestrian access, Mr. Gamvroulas said they were
agreeable to the idea. They had told the church they would close it off if they wanted them to. The applicant hoped
the vast majority of neighbors would use the walk through. Mr. Graff noted they had a walk through in his
neighborhood and it has worked well.
Mr. Rawson noted the south access will not have paved access to the church, Mr. Gamvroulas said the purpose was
to give the neighborhood access to the open space facility.
Mr. Rawson asked if all their homes are available in any subdivision, Mr. Gamvroulas said Ivory Homes picks
around 25-28 of the 34 plans for the development. A buyer could then choose any of these for any lot. Mr. Rawson
then wondered why propose smaller frontages, Mr. Gamvroulas said the design was still within the 8,000 square
foot zone requirements. The PD would allow for larger homes and only four to five of the 60 lots need the setback
adjustment.
Ms. Romney opened the discussion to the public.
Mike Barker, 216 South Inglewood Drive, said he was excited to see something like this be developed because there
are not any similar developments. He was interested in purchasing a lot.
Mr. Stroud noted this was a rezone and text change, but Ivory will need to return for the site plan. He then inquired
about the price range of the homes. Mr. Gamvroulas said they would start at $210,00 and go well over $400,000.
Mr. Rawson said he remembers working on the stake farm over 40 years ago, he had spent over 200 hours on the
farm growing up. Back then he could not imagine it being anything but an orchard, but this will be a nice
development and be good for the area.
Planning Commission Action: Mr. Rawson proposed the Planning Commission had found this request is:
1.
Reasonably necessary.
2.
In the interest of the public.
3.
In harmony with the General Plan.
Mr. Rawson then moved to recommend the City Council approve the request for creation of a PD zone and rezoning
of the property. Ms. Spackman seconded the motion. Those voting aye: Mr. Graff, Mr. Rawson, Mr. Richman, Ms.
Romney, and Ms. Spackman. The motion passed unanimously.
ADJOURN
Mr. Graff moved to adjourn the meeting. Mr. Richman seconded the motion. Those voting aye: Mr. Graff, Mr.
Rawson, Mr. Richman, Ms. Romney, and Ms. Spackman. The motion passed unanimously.
Adjourn: 7:11 p.m.
Stanford Sainsbury
Planning Commission Secretary
Approved: November 5, 2003
12