1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
PLEASANT GROVE CITY
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
May 22, 2014
PRESENT: Chair Scott Richards, Commissioners James Malone, Julia Whetman, Drew
Armstrong, Amy Cardon and Eric Jensen (arrived at 8:08 p.m.). Commissioners Levi Adams, Dallin
Nelson and John Stevens were excused.
STAFF: Community Development Director Ken Young, Planning Intern Marcus Wager, Planning
Tech Barbara Johnson, Engineer Degen Lewis (arrived at 8:00 p.m.), and NAB Chairperson Libby
Flegal
The meeting started at 7:00 p.m.
Chair Richards welcomed those in attendance.
Commission Business:
a. Opening Remarks: Commissioner Drew Armstrong gave the opening remarks.
b. Agenda Approval:

MOTION: Commissioner Malone moved to approve the written agenda as
public record, noting that Item 8 would be moved to June 12, 2014.
Commissioner Armstrong seconded the motion.
The Commissioners
unanimously voted “Aye”. The motion carried. Commissioner Jensen was
not present for the vote.
It was noted that Commissioner Armstrong would be a voting member of the
Commission during this session.
c. Staff Reports:

MOTION: Commissioner Malone moved to approve the Staff Reports as
part of the public record. Commissioner Whetman seconded the motion. The
Commissioners unanimously voted “Aye”. The motion carried. Commission
Jensen was not present for the vote.
1
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
d. Declaration of conflicts and abstentions from commission members: There were
none.
ITEM 1 Public Hearing to the consider the request of Steven Howes for a conditional use permit for
a waiver of protest for street improvements City Code Section 10-15-41E-6 on property located at 67
South 2000 West in the Grove Zone. SAM WHITE'S LANE NEIGHBORHOOD
* Continued from May 8, 2014.
Planning Intern, Marcus Wager, presented the staff report and displayed an aerial map of the subject
property. He explained that Mr. Howe's home was built prior to the area being annexed into the
City. At that time, the installation of sidewalk was not required. The need for the request arose
when Mr. Howes inquired about tearing down his existing home in order to build a new one. Mr.
Wager explained that City Ordinance 10-15-41 states the following:
“When full street improvements have not been installed along the frontage of a property the City
will require the installation of the remaining improvements prior to the issuance of a building
permit.”
There are several reasons for the requirement, including the new construction of a house. The
intention of the ordinance is to have properties that do not meet the current street improvement
standards come up to standard at the time a significant improvement to the property is made.
The ordinance also allows for several exemptions from the requirement. Mr. Howes is applying
under number six which allows for approval by the Planning Commission for the signing of a
Waiver of Protest via the conditional use process. A Waiver of Protest does not remove the property
owner’s responsibility for the installation of the improvements and simply allows for the delay in
making the improvements. The waiver language allows the City to require the improvements at any
time, although this would typically be done with a larger project. It was noted that currently the
frontage of Mr. Howes's property does not have sidewalk, curb, or gutter improvements. A similar
situation also exists along the frontage of the surrounding properties. Staff recommended approval
of the proposed conditional use permit.
Commissioner Malone asked approximately how much it costs to install a sidewalk and curb.
Community Development Director, Ken Young, explained that curb, gutter, sidewalk, and partial
pavement of the street costs approximately $30,000. Commissioner Armstrong inquired as to what
is anticipated for this particular street in the future. Director Young replied that the subject home is
located in the Grove Commercial Sales Subdistrict, where normally a single-family home would not
be permitted. However, since Mr. Howes owned his property prior to the annexation, they are
permitted to rebuild their home and enjoy other rural residential uses. It was noted that the property
could potentially be redeveloped in the future as commercial.
Pete Blake was present representing Mr. Howes, and gave his address as 29 South 2000 West.
Mr. Blake reiterated that Mr. Howes's intention is to replace his old house with a new one. He
explained that it does not make sense to install a road in this particular area.
2
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
The public hearing was opened. There were no public comments. The public hearing was closed.
MOTION: Commissioner Whetman moved that the Commission approve a conditional use permit
for a waiver of installing street improvements on property located at 67 South 2000 West, and adopt
the exhibits, conditions, and findings contained in the staff report. Commissioner Cardon seconded
the motion. The Commissioners unanimously voted “Aye”. The motion carried. Commissioner
Jensen was not present for the vote.
ITEM 2 Public Hearing to consider Muirfield Estates Phasing Plan on property located at
approximately 1450 West 3300 North in the R1-20 (Single Family Residential) zone. MANILA
NEIGHBORHOOD
Mr. Wager presented the staff report and displayed an aerial map of the property. The applicant is
proposing a phasing plan, or 67-lot preliminary plat called Muirfield Estates. This project was
reviewed previously with various rezoning requests. On December 10, 2013, the zoning of the R120 on the property was approved by the City Council. The project will be phased into six areas, with
each phase coming forward to the Planning Commission. Staff recommended approval of the
proposed phasing plan.
Kyle Spencer was present on behalf of Northern Engineering. He was excited to move forward with
the phasing plan been presented. He noted that Northern Engineering intends to complete the phases
in pairs: A and B, C and D, and E and F. Chair Richards asked for an estimated timeframe on each
of the phases. Mr. Spencer anticipated each phase to take three or four months to complete.
The public hearing was opened. There were no public comments. The public hearing was closed.
MOTION: Commissioner Malone moved that the Commission approve the Phasing Plan, known as
Muirfield Estates, and adopt the exhibits, conditions, and findings contained in the staff report.
Commissioner Armstrong seconded the motion. The Commissioners unanimously voted “Aye”.
The motion carried. Commissioner Jensen was not present for the vote.
ITEM 3 Public Hearing to consider amending the Willow Tree Recovery site plan located at 145
South Proctor Lane in the SAM WHITE'S LANE NEIGHBORHOOD.
Mr. Wager presented the staff report as well as an aerial map of the subject property. He explained
that nothing has changed with the site plan other than the addition of a small building in the back of
the property for recreational and office space. The proposed building will be similar to the existing
building and will be one story in height. The parking and landscaping will also remain the same.
Staff recommended approval of the amended site plan.
Jacob Forsyth identified himself as the landowner and gave his address as 145 South 1500 West. He
reiterated that they are looking to complement the existing facility with additional office and
recreational space. The paraprofessional is not looking to increase the number of patients that need
to be treated.
3
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
Director Young noted that a site plan amendment would not need to move forward to the City
Council.
The public hearing was opened. There were no public comments. The public hearing was closed.
MOTION: Commissioner Whetman moved that the Commission approve the amended site plan for
Willow Tree Recovery, and adopt the exhibits, conditions, and findings contained in the staff report.
Commissioner Malone seconded the motion. The Commissioners unanimously voted “Aye”. The
motion carried. Commissioner Jensen was not present for the vote.
ITEM 4 Public Hearing to consider a proposal to amend Chapter 10-14-24-3, Permitted and
Conditional Uses, the Grove Zoning District, Interchange Subdistrict, of the Pleasant Grove City
Code, amending exhibit A, Project Areas Map where restrictions on the development of professional
office uses are applied in the Interchange Subdistrict. SAM WHITE'S LANE NEIGHBORHOOD
Director Young provided a brief background of the request and noted that it also came forward last
year. The City Council was concerned that some of the areas near the freeway had the possibility of
completely developing as professional offices, with no space for retail commercial. The Council
declared a moratorium for that area in order to review City ordinances and maps. Director Young
presented the Project Areas Map and explained that a request was submitted to revisit Exhibit A in
order to allow some variances. Director Young explained that there is a vacant piece of property at
the Interchange that the applicant and property owner would like to develop as professional offices.
Access points into the Grove Zone were discussed. It was noted that those points are limited. Other
potential areas for commercial retail development were identified. Chair Richards inquired about
Parcel 5 as listed on the Project Areas Map. Director Young referenced an agreement between
Pleasant Grove and American Fork, noting that if the area develops commercially it will be part of
Pleasant Grove City.
Dan Torfin was present representing Dennis Baker of D and B Investments. He described the Grove
Creek Campus Site Plan as having five buildings, two of which have already been built. He
expressed concern with having the professional office buildings reduced to 50%, and requested that
those restrictions be removed.
Commissioner Armstrong asked for further clarification on how lifting the restriction will affect
Parcel 5. Director Young explained that it would allow it to either develop entirely as a professional
offices or commercial retail. Commissioner Malone felt that lifting the restrictions would be the
logical decision and he made additional comments on issues relating to access points.
The public hearing was opened.
Pete Blake felt there was a lot of potential for development and that the proposed change would
provide more such opportunities.
There were no further public comments. The public hearing was closed.
4
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
Commissioner Armstrong felt that lifting the restriction would be fair for the B and D Investment
properties, since they have already begun construction on an approved site plan. He wasn't
convinced, however, that it should be lifted in the surrounding areas. While it might promote
development more quickly, it may not be the best type of development for the City. Commissioner
Malone was of the opinion that property owners should dictate what they want on their property.
Commissioner Whetman felt the restrictions should be lifted. Commissioner Cardon agreed.
MOTION: Commissioner Malone moved that the Commission recommend approval to the City
Council of the proposed text amendments to Chapter 10-14-24-3, Permitted and Conditional Uses,
the Grove Zoning District, Interchange Subdistrict, of the Pleasant Grove City Code, and approve
Map A and adopt the exhibits, conditions, and findings contained in the staff report. Commissioner
Whetman seconded the motion. The Commissioners unanimously voted “Aye”. The motion
carried. Commissioner Jensen was not present for the vote.
ITEM 5 Public Hearing to consider the request of Mike Miller to amend City Code Section 10-9B7-F5 rear and side yard setbacks on a corner lot. CITY WIDE * Continued from the May 6, 2014
City Council Meeting.
Mr. Wager presented the staff report and stated that the applicant is proposing a code text
amendment to the Pleasant Grove City Code to allow greater ability to construct a garage in his
corner lot rear yard area. The Commission recommended approval to the City Council on the item
on April 10, 2014. The City Council, however, decided that more clarifying verbiage was needed
with regard to clear vision areas on corner lots and the matter was remanded back to the Commission
for further review.
Mr. Wager explained that the Code currently states that on a corner lot, an accessory building needs
a 25-foot setback from the street, whether it is in the side or rear yard. The applicant would like to
change this requirement to 10 feet and the corner clear view area would also need to be met. The
proposed new verbiage to this code section was as follows:
"Additionally, all accessory buildings must be approved by the City Engineer and comply with the
Clear Vision Area; Corner lots, Section 10-15-10."
Staff felt that the issue of clear vision that arose at the City Council Meeting should be satisfied with
this new verbiage. Director Young and Engineer Lewis both felt that the proposal was fair and
should not create future problems with corner lots. Staff recommended approval of the proposed
text amendment.
The applicant, Mike Miller, was present but did not make any further comments.
The public hearing was opened. There were no public comments. The public hearing was closed.
MOTION: Commissioner Armstrong moved that the Commission recommend that the City Council
approve the proposed text amendments to Section 10-9B-7-F5, yard requirements in the R-1 SingleFamily Residential Zones, of the Pleasant Grove City Code, and adopt the exhibits, conditions, and
5
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
findings contained in the staff report. Commissioner Cardon seconded the motion.
The
Commissioners unanimously voted “Aye”. The motion carried. Commissioner Jensen was not
present for the vote.
ITEM 6 Public Hearing to consider the request of Wayne Beesley to amend City Code Section 1014-24-1C-3 amending provisions to allow temporary vehicle storage as a conditional use in a
specified area in the Grove Zone, Commercial Sales Subdistrict. SAM WHITE'S LANE
NEIGHBORHOOD * Continued from the May 6, 2014 City Council Meeting.
Mr. Wager explained that the above item was heard by the Commission who recommended approval
to the City Council. The Council, however, was concerned that the original proposal would include
similar vehicle storage throughout the Commercial Sales Subdistrict. A suggestion was made to
limit such use to the area created in Map 1 for Used Auto Sales and the matter was remanded back to
the Commission for review. Staff recommended approval of the proposed text amendments.
The applicant, Wayne Beesley, was present but made no additional comments.
The public hearing was opened.
Adam Olson was present representing American Fork City, and gave his address as 51 East Main, in
American Fork. He relayed that Mayor Hadfield of American Fork was not opposed to the request;
however, they would like to see Pleasant Grove's long-range plans address the matter so that it
doesn't turn into a salvage or tow yard. Mr. Olson also noted that American Fork City has a senior
housing residential facility located east of Mr. Beesley's property. Director Young responded to Mr.
Olson by reassuring him that the matter will be reviewed on an annual basis.
There were no further public comments. The public hearing was closed.
MOTION: Commissioner Armstrong moved that the Commission recommend that the City Council
approve the proposed text amendments to Section 10-14-24-1C-3, the Grove Commercial Sales
Subdistrict Conditional Uses, of the Pleasant Grove City Code, and adopt the exhibits, conditions,
and findings contained in the staff report. Commissioner Whetman seconded the motion. The
Commissioners unanimously voted “Aye”. The motion carried. Commissioner Jensen was not
present for the vote.
Director Young noted that the item will be reviewed by the City Council on May 27, 2014.
Mr. Beesley will then be required to come forward to the Planning Commission for approval of a
conditional use permit. The matter was scheduled for discussion at the June 12, 2014 meeting.
ITEM 7 Public Hearing to consider approval of a 17-lot preliminary plat called Walker Ridge Plat B
located at approximately 400 North 1350 East in the R1-12 (Single Family Residential) zone.
GROVE CREEK NEIGHBORHOOD * Continued from the May 6, 2014 City Council Meeting.
Director Young presented the staff report and reported that the request was initially reviewed by the
Commission in October 2013. At that time approval of the preliminary plat was granted based on
6
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
access being provided to the property to the north that is owned by DJKC Enterprises. In trying to
accommodate this condition, the developer sought two variances that were approved by the Board of
Adjustment on March 20, 2014. The first variance was to eliminate the construction of 400 South,
because it would have made the grade too steep. This made the block longer than what would
otherwise be allowed. The second variance was to allow for a flag lot to come off of a cul-de-sac so
that the property to the north could be accessed.
The request for approval of the final plat was then reviewed by the City Council on May 6, 2014.
Issues regarding the realignment of 1350 East and the soils stability in the area were of significant
concern. The item was ultimately remanded back to the Commission for additional review. Staff
reviewed the proposal for realignment of the road. An agreement was in place on the Matlock
property, which borders Lot 22 in the northern portion of the subject property. No further concerns
were anticipated. It was noted that two geotechnical soils reports were prepared for the property,
which were sent to the Commission Members for review.
Mark Greenwood, the developer's engineer, was present and explained that several residents voiced
concern with the soils at a previous City Council Meeting. Mr. Greenwood addressed how a
retaining wall would potentially affect a sport court located on the Allred property. He described his
efforts to find a solution by approaching the Matlock family about a potential release of property.
Mr. Greenwood reported that the last time the applicant approached the City Council, the Purchase
Agreement was not yet in place. Arrangements had since been made with the Matlock family.
Mr. Greenwood explained that several residents expressed concern with slope stability and various
issues on the hill. He noted that some of the pinhole soil issues, which were identified in the
geotechnical report are relatively common for this area. The geotechnical report also provided
several recommendations that were accepted by the developer. Further review was also performed
by the geotechnical engineer in order to assess the potential for landslides. Mr. Greenwood read a
letter from the geotechnical engineer, which explained that no indications for hazards such as
landslides were identified in their research. Mr. Greenwood stated that the developer feels that they
have taken every precaution in making this area as safe as possible.
Commissioner Malone asked for further definition of pinhole soils. Mr. Greenwood explained
several different types of soils, and noted that pinhole soil contains various air pockets. These types
of soils typically also contain a lot of moisture and any vibrations can cause the soil to collapse. In
most cases, however, these types of soils are excavated, and replaced with a more structural soil or
material to provide better support. Commissioner Armstrong asked about sulfite that is located in
one of the pits and listed in the geotechnical report. Mr. Greenwood explained that the same process
of excavating and replacing the soils also applies to this type of situation.
Chair Richards asked Mr. Greenwood what types of hazardous conditions could cause the soil to
move. Mr. Greenwood explained that earthquakes and floods can cause shifting soils. In response
to a question raised by Commissioner Whetman, Mr. Greenwood indicated that there is not expected
to be any further foundation settling. Commissioner Armstrong asked what the City is required to
do with the soils if the item is approved. Engineer Lewis explained that there is a note on Plat A that
calls attention to the geotechnical report.
7
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
The public hearing was opened.
Matt Erickson gave his address as 564 Dalton Drive, in Pleasant Grove. He indicated that he read
the geotechnical report, and understands the nature of pinhole soils. Mr. Erickson stressed the
importance of addressing the soil issues. He was appreciative of the letter from the geotechnical
engineer but he felt that some statements in the letter were vague. Mr. Erickson expressed concern
with the backfill behind his home, as well as how close together the homes will be in the current
configuration. He pointed out that three homes will have roads on three sides. In conclusion,
Mr. Erickson thanked staff for their efforts.
Commissioner Jensen joined the meeting.
Commissioner Armstrong noted that Mr. Erickson's home is built on this type of soil. He asked him
if his home, or any of his neighbors' homes were settling. Mr. Erickson answered affirmatively, but
stated that the significance of it is relative. Commissioner Malone asked about the lot sizes and
didn't feel they appeared to be jam packed as expressed by Mr. Erickson. Director Young added that
the homes exceed the 12,000 square-foot minimum requirement for the zone. There was additional
discussion regarding the geotechnical report.
Jaron Walker gave his address as 412 North 1380 East and stated that he built his home 14 years
ago. During that time it has not moved at all. He explained that the soils vary greatly from lot to lot.
He felt that having the engineer examine each lot individually would be appropriate. Mr. Walker
identified a nearby river bank and asked if there are plans to beautify it.
Jill Blat asked about a barricade and curbing and the plans for the road. She also felt that the lots
were packed in this development. She asked if the costs associated with the soil work would be cost
efficient for home buyers.
Mr. Greenwood addressed the barricade and issues relating to the grading of the road and explained
that they decided to place an easement over the road so that it could be eliminated. It was also noted
that there are underground utilities in this area, such as storm, sewer, and water lines. The easement
will still allow homeowners access and a shortened curb cut of 30 feet instead of 56 feet would be
installed. In response to a question raised by Commissioner Armstrong, Mr. Greenwood replied that
the property owner will be responsible to maintain the easement. Property owners and potential
maintenance projects of the easement were reviewed.
Patrick Moffett from the Boyer Company who owns the property and suggested the property be
divided, but the easement kept open at the same time. Fencing could also potentially help address
the issue.
Ms. Blat asked if the road will be left asphalted with curbing, so that homeowners can access it. It
was noted that a curb across the front of the road as well as a curb cut will be installed. The
Commission stressed that the road will be the homeowners' property and owners can make decisions
about landscaping, whether to include fencing, signs, or boulders.
8
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
Chris Hansen gave his address as 330 North 1300 East. Mr. Hansen stated that his home has not
settled, and it was built in 1975. However, his home sits on three quarters of an acre, so the lot is
much more spread out. Mr. Hansen asked what will be done with the asphalt that is currently on the
existing road. He referenced a previous meeting about two full roads being too heavy for this
development and explained that the slope of the roads are very steep around 250 North. Mr. Hansen
suggested building on 400 North because the area isn't as steep as other roads, such as dead man hill
or suicide road. Mr. Hansen asked who would be responsible if a landslide or some other occurrence
took place in the future.
Commissioner Malone reiterated Mr. Hansen's question about liability in the event of a landslide.
Mr. Greenwood was under the impression that the uphill property owner would be responsible.
Engineer Lewis felt this would ultimately be deferred to proper legal counsel. Mr. Hansen asked if
this was the best plat design based on the issues that were reviewed. He reiterated comments about
the layout feeling cramped based on the slope in the area. Commissioner Malone remarked that the
view from the development is beautiful.
Mr. Greenwood addressed the issues presented by Mr. Hansen. First, he explained that they will be
trenching down into the existing asphalt in order to install a storm drain line. The trench will likely
be patched rather than the entire road repaved. Mr. Greenwood explained that the easement has to
provide access to a lot, which by code is considered an orphaned piece of property. The ability to
develop this triangular piece of property is fairly low. The easement, however, was granted in order
to follow the letter of the law. Mr. Greenwood did not anticipate that a driveway will be built
through that area, although the option is available to the property owner. Mr. Greenwood noted that
the current owner doesn't have a desire to sell the lot and agreed to the easement. He explained that
the grade of the driveway will be 27%, which is too steep for it to be a legal street.
Mr. Greenwood explained that the Board of Adjustment has already granted a variance for 400
North. He addressed discussions that he has had with the Fire Marshall, and explained that the Fire
Marshall preferred to have the road removed. This would also remove the steepness of the grades of
a different road. Several options were discussed when making the decision. Commissioner Malone
asked if the lot configuration was affecting the property. Mr. Greenwood replied that from a
geotechnical standpoint it is not an issue. The lots are large enough to handle the structure of a
home. Chair Richards added that the homes will be approximately 2,800 square feet in size with a
maximum height of 35 feet.
Mr. Erickson asked the builder if any backfill will be needed for certain lots. He requested that the
trees remain. He also asked about the altitude change from one side of the property to another. Mr.
Erickson asked the Commission if the geotechnical report has covered all of the issues thoroughly.
Commissioner Malone asked about the legality of the geotechnical report and commented that the
expertise of the professional conducting the study needs to be trusted. Mr. Erickson asked for a copy
of the letter sent by the geotechnical engineer, and referenced a statement made in that letter.
Commissioner Armstrong added that the developer had the geotechnical engineer assess every hole
for each foundation in the development. Reports were then generated for each of the lots.
Commissioner Malone acknowledged that this is a sensitive issue and stressed the importance of
understanding the public's concerns so as to properly address them.
9
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
Mr. Greenwood thanked the public for taking the time to voice their concerns. He reassured those
present that it is not offensive to developers when residents express concern and ask questions. He
hoped their responsiveness in dealing with the issues has been evident to the neighborhood residents.
Mr. Greenwood explained that the homes for the area have not yet been decided but he predicted
they will have walk-out basements. He also noted that they will try to keep the trees, as they are the
most beautiful part of the property. Mr. Greenwood explained there is a small amount of material
that will be coming in for the edge of the road where backfill will be needed to support the road. It
will not, however, be enough for a retaining wall.
There were no further public comments. The public hearing was closed.
Commissioner Malone stressed the importance of trusting the soil engineer as presenting accurate
findings. He remarked that there wasn't anything of overwhelming concern to him. Commissioner
Armstrong commented that the area is currently an eyesore and will be very nice once development
is complete. He felt it would match the existing neighborhoods on both sides. Commissioner
Whetman agreed that the development will be a nice addition to the neighborhood and that the
geotechnical report meets the burden of proof. She was also sympathetic to the neighbors and
acknowledged that they want what's best for their community. Commissioner Cardon voiced her
support for the plat presented and stated that the questions and concerns of the community have been
well addressed. Commissioner Jensen read the soils report and stated that staff is willing to work out
solutions. Chair Richards added that staff made sure that the Commission had an opportunity to
study the geotechnical report in its entirety and the developer seems willing to listen and make all
necessary changes. The developer wants the development to be successful. Chair Richards felt
assured that what has been planned is the best solution.
Commissioner Malone stated that the Commission cannot dictate lot sizes or design because the City
Code already specifies those details. He thanked the public for taking the time to be in attendance.
MOTION: Commissioner Armstrong moved that the Commission reaffirm the approval of the
preliminary plat, known as Walker Ridge Plat B, and that the Commission recommend re-approval
of the subdivision of Lot 17 to the City Council in order to divide the back of the lot between the
neighbors, and adopt the exhibits, conditions, and findings contained in the staff report, and as
modified by approval of the modified Plat B. Commissioner Whetman seconded the motion. The
Commissioners unanimously voted “Aye”. The motion carried.
ITEM 8 Public Hearing to consider the request of Andy Larson for preliminary plat approval for a
42-lot subdivision called Palisades Plat B located at approximately Locust Avenue to 950 East 640
South in the R1-9 (Single Family Residential) Zone. SCRATCH GRAVEL NEIGHBORHOOD *
Continued to June 12, 2014.
ITEM 9 Public Hearing to consider the request of Scott Bishop to rezone a portion of Lot 7 in the
Canyon Brook Subdivision from an RR (Rural Residential) Zone to R1-20 (Single Family
Residential) Zone located at approximately 359 West 2900 North in the MANILA
NEIGHBORHOOD.
10
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
Director Young gave a brief summary and presented an aerial map of the subject property. He
explained that the request was initially heard by the Commission in April 2013, and recommended
approval to the City Council. The Council reviewed the request last year and continued it to May 6,
2014. They remanded the item back to the Commission to address the following items that the
applicant was asked to further review:
1. The possibility of acquiring sufficient acreage from either property owners to the north and
south, so that a rezone is required.
2. The feasibility and impacts of eliminating the emergency access easement across the north
side of the property.
3. The actual buildable area on the lot if the emergency access is to remain.
Additionally, if the acquisition of property is unsuccessful, the Council asked that the applicant seek
a variance on the minimum lot size from the Board of Adjustment before returning it to the Council.
Director Young presented a letter from the Fire Chief. (See attached)
Chair Richards pointed out that the biggest concerns relate to emergency access and zoning.
Director Young explained that the Council does not want to approve a zoning change, and wants all
other options to be explored. Even though the applicant has submitted an application to the Board of
Adjustment, it does not guarantee that the variance will be granted.
The applicant, Scott Bishop, gave his address as 2901 North 1230 West, in Pleasant Grove. Director
Young explained that the Commission has already recommended approval of the rezone to the City
Council but the Council has asked them to consider the three additional options listed in the staff
report. Mr. Bishop stated that he has made diligent efforts to address those three issues, such as
meeting with the Fire Chief about the easement, contacting the property owners, and offering well
above asking price for the property. However, no agreements have yet been made.
The public hearing was opened.
James Pruett gave his address as 2869 North Canyon Road, in Pleasant Grove. He stated that he has
enjoyed living in Pleasant Grove. He explained that while he is supportive of Mr. Bishop, he is not
in favor of the rezone because it would be out of place with the surrounding areas. Mr. Pruett stated
that he has been negotiating with Mr. Bishop to sell a piece of land in the back so that they can have
the acreage they need.
Mr. Pruett explained that there is a lien on Mr. Bishop's property and even if the property was
rezoned and given sufficient square footage, it still has a dirty title. He read a citation from the
County which states that violations related to the property are the responsibility of the property
owners to correct. In an effort to correct the situation, the Bishops approached the City on several
occasions to get the property rezoned. The responsibility of this correction, however, lies with the
Bishops and the problem they created. Mr. Pruett asked why the City is seeking approval of a
11
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
rezone that would blemish the neighborhood, when it is not the City's burden in the first place. Mr.
Pruett stressed his opposition to Mr. Bishop's rezone request.
Commissioner Malone asked Mr. Pruett if he felt that the Bishops created the problem either
intentionally or unintentionally. Mr. Pruett stated that he wasn't there when the deal was made. He
reiterated his intention to sell the Bishops a piece of property in the back, and stated that it is up to
them to reconcile with the other neighbors. If they can successfully do this, the problem will be
solved. However, if this cannot be accomplished, Mr. Pruett preferred that the property remain as it
is. Commissioner Jensen asked for clarification on the purpose behind selling the Bishops additional
property. Mr. Pruett explained that it is necessary to make the lot legal in the RR zone. He
described the details of their negotiations.
Director Young explained that in the letter from the Fire Chief, he recommended modifying the
easement to provide driveway access for the property to the north, and vacating any remaining
portion intended to provide access through the lot to 2900 North.
Andrea Bishop identified herself as the co-owner of the lot and gave her address as 2409 North 1230
West, in Pleasant Grove. Ms. Bishop explained that she has been the one primarily negotiating with
Mr. Pruett about the purchase of his property and she sent him a letter on the matter. Mr. Pruett
responded to Ms. Bishop and suggested that her family pay for the fence and sell the land at a lower
cost than what was offered. Ms. Bishop researched what a fence would cost, and received a bid of
$5,600, as well as attorney’s fees to draw up the paperwork. A release and appraisal would also be
needed from the mortgage company.
Ms. Bishop explained that the Cards, the property owners to the north, are not interested in selling
any of their land. This has been an ongoing, 10-year battle and Ms. Bishop acknowledged that they
know that they made a mistake. When the Bishops had their surveyor and engineer draw up the
contract, they were under the impression that the lot had sufficient square footage. Ms. Bishop
stated that Mr. Pruett made similar comments at the City Council Meeting. She didn't think he
realizes that the Bishops purchased the land at full market value and it has been sitting vacant for 10
years. The Bishops have also been paying taxes on the property at full market value. Therefore, for
Mr. Pruett to state that they shouldn't be able to get their money out of the land is unfair.
Ms. Bishop stated that some neighbors are worried that if the property is rezoned they will lose
animal rights. She identified a neighboring subdivision that does not have animal rights because it is
a PUD. She didn't know how not having animal rights on her lot would affect the existing
neighbors. Ms. Bishop explained that when they eventually sell the lot they will make sure to
communicate to the buyers that they cannot have animal rights. She asked the Commission to still
consider approval of the R1-20 zone.
Ms. Bishop relayed details of her correspondence with Melinda Gruwell noting that Ms. Gruwell is
open to communication. Director Young clarified for the Commission that creating a new plat with
Ms. Gruwell would resolve the issue. Ms. Gruwell would not lose any property and does not need
any financial consideration. Lastly, Ms. Bishop briefly described the fire easement. She stated that
the fire easement that currently exists on the property was never an issue in the rezoning process.
12
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
Commissioner Malone asked what would happen with the Card's property. Ms. Bishop explained
that with the easement there is a portion of driveway that cuts across the tip of their lot that the
Card's use to access their driveway. Therefore, the Bishop's proposal has always been to grant the
Cards the easement that runs across the Canyon Road portion of their property. There is 15 feet of
shared driveway at the top of the Bishop's lot, and the easement would grant access to both lots.
Commissioner Jensen asked Ms. Bishop if any surrounding neighbors have offered to buy their
property in the last 10 years. Ms. Bishop replied in the affirmative and noted that the Cards offered
to purchase the land for $6,500 to $10,000, and want the Bishops to finance the loan. The Bishop's
believe, however, that the lot is worth a lot more.
Commissioner Malone asked Director Young if the item has gone to the Board of Adjustment yet.
Director Young replied that it has been before the Planning Commission and City Council multiple
times. If the Commission recommends approval tonight, it will go to the Board of Adjustment
before it goes back to the Council.
Edith Benders gave her address as 2831 North Canyon Road, in Pleasant Grove. She stated that the
owners of 12 out of 13 homes along a walking path in her neighborhood have signed a petition
opposing the rezone. Other property owners that live north of 2600 North have also added their
names to the petition. She requested that the Commission give consideration to the wishes of
residents who live in the area and will be most affected by the zone change. Ms. Benders felt that if
one exception is granted others will follow. She expressed her desire to see the area maintain its
country feel.
Ken Card gave his address as 2899 North Canyon Road, in Pleasant Grove. Mr. Card was opposed
to the rezone and explained that they purchased their home in 2004. Mr. Card felt his lot was
illegally subdivided. He explained that he has approached the Bishops about making the temporary
easement permanent. Mr. Card referenced an email he received on May 7, 2014, from Jared and
Scott Bishop about installing a fence. It stated that if Mr. Card crosses the fence line he will be
trespassing. He stressed that this issue needs to be resolved before the lot becomes a pasture for
grazing animals.
Commissioner Armstrong was excused from the remainder of the meeting.
Chair Richards asked if Mr. Card was opposed to the proposed easement. Mr. Card was opposed to
the proposed easement because there is no other house that shares a driveway with other residents.
This is due to the fact that there isn't a shoulder on the road for parking. He suggested that an
alternative entry way into the Bishop property be created, but not have anything to do with the
permanent easement that Mr. Card needs established. There was continued discussion on the matter.
The Commission pointed out that the Bishops are trying to assist Mr. Card in the process with the
proposal presented.
In response to a question raised by Commissioner Malone, it was noted that the Bishops are off 256
square feet on the square footage. Director Young stated that there are very simple solutions to the
13
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
problem and the issue has become over-complicated. He felt that the City should simply move
forward. Mr. Bishop explained that Mr. Card wants the fire easement completely off of his property.
Mr. Pruett recommended that the Bishops and Gruwells continue to work to resolve matters. Andrea
Bishop interjected that the easement that will be given to Mr. Card and only granted upon plat
approval. Mr. Card added that there are two apricot trees he would like to remain.
Karen Card gave her address as 2899 North Canyon Road, in Pleasant Grove. She asked about
improvements made to Canyon Road. Engineer Lewis replied that Canyon Brook was approved
without improvements on Canyon Road. Curb and gutter will not be added until Canyon Road is
widened, which is dependent upon UDOT. Mrs. Card had questions about the irrigation ditches and
Murdock Canal and did not want them to flood their yard. The irrigation ditches will encroach on
the easement. A comment was made that the best solution would be to install a continuous pipe in
the area. In conclusion, Mrs. Card stated that they have not been creating more problems outside of
these meetings, but have been trying to resolve them. Commissioner Malone acknowledged that this
has been a frustrating ordeal for all involved.
There were no further public comments. The public hearing was closed.
Chair Richards noted that this item was discussed one year ago. He explained that the Council's
preference is to leave the lot Rural Residential and obtain a variance from the Board of Adjustment.
This option, however, is not guaranteed. Chair Richards voiced his preference to leave the lot as
Rural Residential as well. Commissioner Malone asked staff what the easy fix would be on this
item. Director Young felt that the Board of Adjustment variance would be the easiest route,
however, he wasn't sure they would be able to make findings according to the criteria they need to
assess. He also felt that a minor adjustment to property lines as determined by neighbors would have
been the simplest solution. It was noted that the intent was always for a home to be built on the lot.
Commissioner Malone felt that the easiest solution would be the rezone, because the difference of
256 square feet is so insignificant. His preference was to have it approved before it goes to the
Board of Adjustment. Commissioner Whetman agreed and added that this would benefit all
involved. She did not feel the rezone would pose any problems with animal rights. Commissioner
Cardon made additional comments regarding the Commission making a recommendation to rezone
the subject property. Commissioner Jensen agreed that the rezone will take care of everything and
that the 256 square feet will not be a big deal. He felt that 10 years was too long for the issue to
remain unresolved. Commissioner Malone commented that there are not any perfect cities and
errors happen. He was of the opinion that no one will recognize the difference in the zone. Chair
Richards added that citizens want Rural Residential for the animal rights, which is why they feel so
strongly.
MOTION: Commissioner Jensen moved that the Commission recommend that the City Council
approve the request of Scott Bishop to rezone easterly .494 acres of Lot 7 in the Canyon Brook
Subdivision located at approximately 359 West 2900 North from an RR (Rural Residential) zone to
R1-20 (Single Family Residential) Zone, and adopt the exhibits, conditions, and findings contained
in the staff report, and as modified by the conditions listed below:
14
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
1. Modifying the easement to provide driving access for the property to the north, and vacating
any remaining portion in order to provide access through the lot to 2900 North.
2. The Commission feels that this resolves an issue that has continued for many years, and will
be a good solution for both parties.
Commissioner Whetman seconded the motion. The Commissioners unanimously voted “Aye”. The
motion carried. Commissioner Armstrong was not present for the vote.
MOTION: Commissioner Whetman moved to adjourn. Commissioner Jensen seconded the motion.
The Commissioners unanimously voted “Aye”. The motion carried. Commissioner Armstrong was
not present for the vote.
The meeting adjourned at 10:38 p.m.
_______________________________
Planning Commission Chair
______________________________
Barbara Johnson, Planning Tech
___________________________
Date Approved
15