wednesday, october 4, 2017 planning commission meeting · wednesday, october 4, 2017 planning...

Wednesday, October 4, 2017Planning Commission Meeting

Planning Commission Agenda PUBLIC NOTICE is hereby given that the Planning Commission of Spanish Fork, Utah, will hold aregular public meeting in the Council Chambers in the City Office Building, 40 South Main Street,Spanish Fork, Utah, commencing at 6:00 p.m.

Planning Commissioners

Bruce Fallon Treaci Tagg Brad Tanner Brad Wilkinson Richard Davis Kevin Oyler

1. Preliminary Activities

Please note: Twenty minutes will be set aside each meeting for public comment. In order to be considerate ofeveryone attending the meeting and to more closely follow the published agenda times, public comment will be limitedto three minutes per person. A spokesperson who has been asked by a group to summarize their concerns will beallowed five minutes to speak. Comments which cannot be made within these limits should be submitted in writing.The Mayor or Council may restrict the comments beyond these guidelines.

Subject A. Pledge of Allegiance

Meeting Oct 4, 2017 - Planning Commission Meeting

Category 1. Preliminary Activities

Access Public

Type Procedural

Subject B. Public Comment



Access Public

Type Information

Subject C. Approval of Minutes: August 2, 2017; August 17, 2017; September 6, 2017



File Attachmentsdraft PC minutes 08-02-2017.pdf (123 KB)draft PC minutes 08-17-2017 ws.pdf (687 KB)draft PC minutes 09-06-2017.pdf (104 KB)

2. Preliminary Plat

File AttachmentsEagle Cove RPP.pdf (957 KB)staffreport.eaglecove.10-4-2017.pdf (595 KB)

File AttachmentsRiver Point RPP.pdf (545 KB)staffreport.riverpoint.10-4-2017.pdf (1,358 KB)

3. Zone Change (Public Hearing) and Preliminary Plat

File AttachmentsPerez Townhomes PP.pdf (839 KB)Perez Townhomes ZA.pdf (1,502 KB)staffreport.perez.10-4-2017.pdf (1,334 KB)

Access Public

Type Action, Minutes

Subject A. Eagle Cove


Category 2. Preliminary Plat

Access Public

Type Action, Discussion

Subject B. River Point


Category 2. Preliminary Plat

Access Public


Subject A. Perez Townhomes


Category 3. Zone Change (Public Hearing) and Preliminary Plat

Access Public


https://www.boarddocs.com/ut/spanishfork/Board.nsf/files/ARSSH8703F26/$file/draft%20PC%20minutes%2008-02-2017.pdf

https://www.boarddocs.com/ut/spanishfork/Board.nsf/files/ARSSHA703F4A/$file/draft%20PC%20minutes%2008-17-2017%20ws.pdf

https://www.boarddocs.com/ut/spanishfork/Board.nsf/files/ARSSHC703F59/$file/draft%20PC%20minutes%2009-06-2017.pdf

https://www.boarddocs.com/ut/spanishfork/Board.nsf/files/ARMPWJ6421FD/$file/Eagle%20Cove%20RPP.pdf

https://www.boarddocs.com/ut/spanishfork/Board.nsf/files/ARSVM48158EB/$file/staffreport.eaglecove.10-4-2017.pdf

https://www.boarddocs.com/ut/spanishfork/Board.nsf/files/ARCK3V4FF49E/$file/River%20Point%20RPP.pdf

https://www.boarddocs.com/ut/spanishfork/Board.nsf/files/ARSVME8165B2/$file/staffreport.riverpoint.10-4-2017.pdf

https://www.boarddocs.com/ut/spanishfork/Board.nsf/files/ARCK2C4FB72F/$file/Perez%20Townhomes%20PP.pdf

https://www.boarddocs.com/ut/spanishfork/Board.nsf/files/ARMQR6684337/$file/Perez%20Townhomes%20ZA.pdf

https://www.boarddocs.com/ut/spanishfork/Board.nsf/files/ARSVMN816F19/$file/staffreport.perez.10-4-2017.pdf

4. Title 15 Amendment (Public Hearing)

File AttachmentsNorth Star Printing - Zone Text Amendment.pdf (461 KB)memo.northstar.10-4-2017.pdf (66 KB)

File Attachmentsmemo.highdensity.10-4-2017.pdf (112 KB)

File Attachmentsmemo.landscaping.10-4-2017.pdf (78 KB)

5. Other Business6. Adjourn

Subject A. Setbacks


Category 4. Title 15 Amendment (Public Hearing)

Access Public


Subject B. R-5 zone



Access Public

Type

Subject C. Landscaping



Access Public

Type

https://www.boarddocs.com/ut/spanishfork/Board.nsf/files/ARSVMS8172C3/$file/North%20Star%20Printing%20-%20Zone%20Text%20Amendment.pdf

https://www.boarddocs.com/ut/spanishfork/Board.nsf/files/ARSVMV817420/$file/memo.northstar.10-4-2017.pdf

https://www.boarddocs.com/ut/spanishfork/Board.nsf/files/ARSVMX817863/$file/memo.highdensity.10-4-2017.pdf

https://www.boarddocs.com/ut/spanishfork/Board.nsf/files/ARSVN4817B9F/$file/memo.landscaping.10-4-2017.pdf

Planning Commission Minutes August 2, 2017 Page 1 of 14

Draft Minutes 1

Spanish Fork City Planning Commission 2

August 2, 2017 3

4

5

Commission Members Present: Chairman Bruce Fallon, Treaci Tagg, Brad Tanner, Richard 6

Davis, Kevin Oyler. Absent: Brad Wilkinson. 7

8

Staff Members Present: Dave Anderson, Community Development Director; Cory Pierce, 9

Staff Engineering; Kimberly Brenneman, Community Development Department Secretary. 10

11

Citizens Present: 12

13

Chairman Fallon called the meeting to order at 6:00 p.m. 14

15

16

PRELIMINARY ACTIVITIES 17

Pledge of Allegiance 18

Chairman Fallon led the pledge. 19

20

21

PUBLIC COMMENT 22

There was no comment. 23

24

25

MINUTES 26

27

May 3, 2017 28

June 7, 2017 29

July 12, 2017 30

31

Commissioner Tanner moved to approve the above Planning Commission Minutes. 32

33

Commissioner Tagg seconded and the motion passed all in favor. 34

35

36

PLANNING COMMISSION TRAINING 37

38

Dave Anderson stated the City has hired a consultant to help designate what sites would work 39

for retail development. Commercial development generates sales tax revenue. 40

41

Steve Bowler stated he has worked with Dave Anderson for the last few years. He has seen a 42

great push from the City for planning for the future. He often works with retail developers. 43

With a development, there needs to be the consideration of the end user, tenants and the 44

configuration of the site. A lot of retailers are looking to add more services to their site. Food 45

services are huge right now, from quick serve to sit-down restaurants. Grocery stores are still 46


doing well, some are offering online ordering and customer pick-up with the potential of moving 47

towards home delivery of groceries. There is 1.2 million square feet of commercial 48

development under construction in Utah County with 794,000 square feet in Salt Lake County. 49

50

Commissioner Tanner asked about the difference in industrial development. There is much 51

more in Salt Lake County than in Utah County, which is opposite of commercial development. 52

53

Steve Bowler stated that is because of the I-15 and I-80 interchange as well as the new 54

location of the jail that spurred development. 55

56

Steve Bowler stated that retail is the most particular about sites. They consider visibility, 57

signage, existing traffic patterns, future traffic patterns and access. Commercial has a place 58

next to residential, but it has to be well planned 59

60

Chairman Fallon thanked Steve Bowler for his time. 61

62

CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT (Public hearing) 63

350 South Generator Addition to existing cell site 64 65

Dave Anderson stated that the Planning Commission is the approving body for a Conditional 66

Use Permit. He explained that the modification is to add a back-up generator to the cell site. 67

Staff recommends that the Conditional Use Permit be approved. 68

69

Dave Anderson explained the difference between a Use with Conditions and a Conditional Use 70

Permit. 71

72

Chairman Fallon asked if the footprint of the fenced area would change. 73

74

Dave Anderson stated that it would not. 75

76

Commissioner Tanner asked about sound. 77

78

Dave Anderson stated that it will turn on every 30 days for maintenance. He stated that there 79

is already an existing generator within the enclosed fence. 80

81 Commissioner Davis made a motion to move into public hearing. 82 Commissioner Oyler seconded and the motion passed all in favor at 6:24 p.m. 83 84 There was no public comment. 85 86 Commissioner Oyler made a motion to move out of public hearing. 87 Commissioner Tagg seconded and the motion passed all in favor at 6:24 p.m. 88

89

Commissioner Tanner moved to approve the 350 South Generator Addition to existing cell site 90

Conditional Use Permit. 91

92

Commissioner Davis seconded and the motion passed all in favor. 93


94

95

ZONE CHANGE AND PRELIMINARY PLAT (Public hearing) 96

Weaver’s Vineyard 97

98

Dave Anderson stated there are two components to the proposed Zone Change. The applicant 99

wishes to change the C-2 property along Arrowhead Trail to R-1-12 as well as some land in the 100

southwest corner of the development that is currently zoned R-R. The property was rezoned 101

from Industrial to R-1-12 in 2009. The property has been zoned that way since. The current 102

proposal is for 207 lots within the development. The primary point of access would be Del 103

Monte Road and Arrowhead Trail, until adjacent properties develop. There is a second access 104

along Cal Pac Avenue that connects to Arrowhead Trail that could be utilized. There is a 105

proposed park within the development that will be dedicated to the City that is about 3.5 acres 106

in size. 107

108

Chairman Fallon asked Cory Pierce if Del Monte has the capacity to handle the proposed 109

residential traffic. 110

111

Cory Pierce stated it would and the road would need some widening to do so. 112

113

Dave Anderson stated that currently the General Plan coincides with the existing zoning, 114

Commercial and Low Density residential. He feels there are better sites along Arrowhead Trail 115

that would be earmarked for commercial development. Over time, the intersection of Mill Road 116

and Arrowhead Trail will be larger than Del Monte and Arrowhead Trail. Dave Anderson stated 117

that it would be beneficial to meet as staff and invite Salem City to discuss potential retail 118

development along Arrowhead Trail towards the I-15 interchange. Staff recommends that the 119

Zone Change be approved. 120

121

Dave Anderson stated there is a Growth Boundary for Spanish Fork City. The majority of the 122

proposed development fits within the Growth Boundary but there is a small portion that does 123

not fit. There is a significate investment that will be put into place that would allow for more 124

growth in the region. He feels the time is right to make a broad Growth Boundary adjustment. 125

Dave Anderson showed a concept plan that was submitted with the Zone Change application in 126

2009. 127

128

Dave Anderson sated the City has been working with the applicant for several months. In 129

short, there is a sewer lift station that would need to be constructed near the Revere Health 130

building that would pump the waste to the existing infrastructure that would then travel to 131

South Lane and then to the wastewater treatment plant. This would be a game changer for 132

future development toward the I-15 interchange. 133

134

Commissioner Oyler asked if the Zone Change is not approved would the lift station still be 135

constructed. 136

137

Dave Anderson stated that his understanding of the sequence is once the project is approved 138

then the design of the lift station would be sent out for construction bids. 139


140

Cory Pierce stated that this development is one of a few that will have three or more parties 141

involved in the cost of the lift station. If the project is not approved then it would not move 142

forward for development. 143

144 Commissioner Tanner made a motion to move into public hearing. 145 Commissioner Davis seconded and the motion passed all in favor at 6:43 p.m. 146 147 Paul Washburn addressed the Commission stating he is the developer of the property. He has 148 worked closely with the property owner to the east regarding development. They have worked 149 to see if there is a retail use that would utilize the C-2 zone. After looking, they feel retail 150 would be better suited for the property to the east on Main. The lift station is a very large 151 project with a projected million-dollar off site investment. 152 153 Clint Argyle had a few questions regarding the density. He would like clarification of the R-1-154 12 zone. 155 156 Dave Anderson stated that with a Master Planned Development the average lot size needs to 157 be 12,000 square foot lots. 158 159 Clint Argyle stated that there are water rights that are accessed via Cal Pac Avenue. 160 161 Cory Pierce stated that water rights are protected and the City has the developer work with 162 the canal company to continue existing irrigation. If the canal is to be abandoned the City 163 requires a letter stating such. After 50 units develop, the City does require a secondary loop 164 for pressurized irrigation. 165 166 Clint Argyle asked about secondary water connections. 167 168 Cory Pierce showed on the map where the service would be located. 169 170 Clint Argyle asked for clarification of the sewer connection that would be made. 171 172 Cory Pierce showed on the map the route of the development for the sewer line and clarified 173 that it would not go along Cal Pac Avenue. 174 175 Clint Argyle asked how many trips would be generated for the homes each day. 176 177 Cory Pierce stated an average single-family home generates 10 trips per day, spread out 178 throughout the day. The road improvements that have been discussed are the widening of Del 179 Monte with curb and gutter on the side of the development plus 10 feet on the other. There 180 has been substantial grading that has been done to help make the development close to one 181 elevation. 182 183 Clint Argyle asked about debris on the site. 184 185 Cory Pierce stated that is addressed in the geotechnical report. 186 187 Paul Washburn stated everything that is collected would be hauled off and crushed. They have 188 identified the areas that would have the potential debris. This project will be a 3 to 5-year 189


project to be fully completed. He would like to clean up the site and not leave any debris on 190 site. 191 192 Commissioner Tagg made a motion to move out of public hearing. 193 Commissioner Tanner seconded and the motion passed all in favor at 6:57 p.m. 194

195

Commissioner Tanner stated he is comfortable with the R-R Zone Change but not with the C-2. 196

He is nervous about being in favor of letting the commercial area go. 197

198

Paul Washburn stated they do not feel there would be the development of retail on that site. 199

He did offer the concession of leaving 2-3 acres of the C-2 zone to allow for a gas station; 200

however, he just does not feel that it is the best option. 201

202

Commissioner Tanner stated that the idea of a portion of the property remaining commercial is 203

a good idea. 204

205

Dave Anderson stated that Paul Washburn has done many commercial developments in his 206

career, and that he believes a 200-foot by 300-foot parcel would be well configured for 207

commercial development. 208

209

There would be no access from the commercial property onto Arrowhead Trail and it would be 210

off of Del Monte. 211

212

Commissioner Davis asked if Paul Washburn would be willing to modify the proposal to 213

accommodate that smaller portion of commercial. 214

215

Paul Washburn stated that he could modify his plat before the City Council meeting and that 216

he would lose about 7-8 lots, but he is willing to do that. 217

218

Commissioner Tagg stated her concern is if a small portion of property is kept commercial, if 219

down the road there is no development would high density housing be developed. She does 220

not want to see that and feels it would be better to have single-family homes. It would be 221

better to designate the property to the east as commercial. She gave the example of the 222

property along Canyon Road that was zoned C-1 and after 10-15 years of no development; it 223

was then rezoned to R-3. 224

225

Dave Anderson stated that it is a possible scenario. He feels if they set aside 200 feet of width 226

and 300 feet of length if it is not developed as commercial, down the road it could be developed 227

with high density housing. 228

229

Paul Washburn stated that he does not plan to build high density housing. If the majority of the 230

C-2 is not changed to R-1-12, then he will not move forward with the development and he will 231

sell the property. 232

233

Jim Dewberry addressed the Commission asking if high density is better suited for this area or 234

for the area on the General Plan designated as High Density. 235


236

Commissioner Tagg stated that her concern is the little pockets of high density and not the 237

high density that has been designated on the General Plan. 238

239

Commissioner Tagg asked about the designation of Mixed Use instead of Commercial on the 240

General Plan. 241

242

Dave Anderson stated that would have been helpful a few years ago. 243

244

Chairman Fallon stated that his thoughts are to have it be residential and focus their energy on 245

other commercial sites that are more viable. 246

247

Commissioner Davis stated that he agrees with Commissioner Tanner and that those existing 248

commercial uses along Arrowhead Trail have the opportunity to stay. He can see a small 249

service station being developed there. He still thinks the commercial zone serves a purpose, it 250

might be ten or twenty years, and he does not feel the City is asking for too much by keeping it 251

commercial. 252

253

Commissioner Tagg asked if the Commission would make a recommendation for the R-R Zone 254

Change to R-1-12 and continue the commercial Zone Change. 255

256

Paul Washburn stated they need to move forward. They have worked with UDOT to do an 257

open cut to get the sewer across Arrowhead Trail and they have a very short window to do that 258

in the next 2 weeks. 259

260

Commissioner Tagg asked if there could be a work session prior to the City Council meeting to 261

discuss the potential of the Commercial zone. 262

263

Chairman Fallon asked if Commissioner Davis would feel okay with reducing the commercial 264

zone to the 200-foot by 300-foot parcel. 265

266

Commissioner Fallon asked for Cory Pierce to show the full General Plan map showing 267

potential commercial locations. 268

269

Dave Anderson explained the sites where there would be the potential for the large 270

intersections as well as the thought that was given with the last General Plan update. 271

272

Commissioner Oyler’s concern is that as more commercial develops along Arrowhead Trail that 273

this commercial site becomes less desirable and developable as commercial. 274

275

Commissioner Tanner moved to recommend approval to City Council of the Weaver’s Vineyard 276

Zone Change and Preliminary Plat with the condition that the developer exclude a 200x300-277

foot portion of the Commercial-2 Zone along Arrowhead Trail from the R-1-12 Zone Change. 278

279

Commissioner Davis seconded and the motion passed. 280

281


Commissioner Oyler and Chairman Fallon voted Nay. 282

283

284

ANNEXATION 285

DAC-Swenson Annexation 286

287

Dave Anderson believes there is value in annexing lands that are in the vicinity of the 288

Salem/Benjamin interchange. Staff recommends that the annexation be approved. There are 289

about 26.5 acres included in the proposal. Staff is very concerned about implementing the R-4 290

zone and making sure that the design is what the City expects to see. The applicant has asked 291

that the R-4 and C-2 zone be assigned at the time of annexation. The frontage along 292

Arrowhead Trail would be C-2 with R-4 behind. The R-4 zone has not been implemented 293

anywhere within the City and staff is concerned about assigning that zone with this annexation. 294

Dave Anderson and staff is willing to discuss commercial zoning at the time of annexation, but 295

not residential. His preference would be to change the General Plan first and then the City 296

could initiate a Zone Change for the property to commercial after the revision to the General 297

Plan. 298

299

Dave Anderson stated that the proposed annexation is outside the Growth Boundary but noted 300

that staff will be recommending that the boundary be expanded to coincide with areas that can 301

be served by the new lift station. 302

303

Chairman Fallon asked for Dave Anderson to walk through the Annexation process. 304

305

Dave Anderson stated when an Annexation Application is submitted Kimberly Brenneman 306

reviews the application to make sure it is a legal annexation application. It is then placed on a 307

City Council agenda for the City Council to accept it for further study. Then, service providers 308

and the property owners within the annexation are notified of the proposal. There is also a 60 309

to 90 day protest period. During that protest period, staff compiles a feasibility study for 310

development annexation. The City has historically taken Annexation applications to the 311

Planning Commission for a recommendation on zoning after the protest period. The City 312

Council will then hold a public hearing regarding the proposed annexation. Once comment is 313

received from the public, the Council can then move on the annexation proposal. 314

315

David Cloward addressed the Commission. He is struggling with the idea of conveying 316

property to the City for a lift station. David Cloward believes there is some portion of his 317

property that might be designated wetlands. He is in the process of delineation, but said that 318

can take years. He does not believe a club house, commercial development and a lift station go 319

together. 320

321

Commissioner Oyler asked what a lift station might look like. 322

323

Chairman Fallon stated he has seen nicely designed lift stations. He asked Cory Pierce how 324

much land is needed for a lift station. 325

326


Cory Pierce stated that the City would need about a quarter of an acre. Most of the 327

infrastructure would be located underground. 328

329

Dave Anderson stated that, as part of the annexation process, the City will need property for 330

roads or in this circumstance a lift station. The City would pay for the property that the lift 331

station would be located on. The City prefers to work with property owners and not condemn 332

property. 333

334

Cory Pierce stated that as part of the lift station project, other utilities would be brought to the 335

area. 336

337

Chairman Fallon asked what David Cloward anticipated for development. 338

339

David Cloward stated that he would like to move forward quickly. He stated that the demand 340

for the high-density units is high. 341

342

Commissioner Oyler asked if the annexation has been submitted, at what point can an 343

applicant withdraw the application. 344

345

Dave Anderson stated at any time until the Council moves to approve the annexation. 346

Typically, City staff looks to the Planning Commission for a recommendation on the annexation 347

and whether it should be approved and what zoning designations should be assigned. 348

349

Commissioner Davis stated that annexing the property as R-R is the soundest reasoning so 350

that the annexation can be approved and the applicant can work on a design for the property. 351

352

Dave Anderson stated that he agrees and feels most comfortable with that. He feels it would 353

be best to address the General Plan update and then address the zoning. 354

355

Commissioner Tagg moved to recommend approval to City Council of the DAC-Swenson 356

Annexation with R-R zoning. 357

358


360

361

Warner Annexation 362

363

Dave Anderson addressed the Commission stating this is an annexation that has been 364

discussed many times in a Planning Commission meetings and staff has been working with the 365

applicant for several years. He showed a map that defined the annexation boundary that has 366

been modified from when the Planning Commission last saw the application. Staff is most 367

concerned with the overall configuration of the Annexation. As a general rule, staff tries to 368

make sure changes to the City Boundary are logical and configured so that it is easy for the 369

City to provide services. The City has worked to scale back the boundary to what it is today, 370

when listening to the property owners who wished to not be annexed into the City. The 371

boundary has now been re-drawn to almost match the original proposal submitted in 2015. The 372


City has worked through many issues with the applicant. The annexation area is general 373

planned for Medium and High Density Residential uses. The applicant has about 4 units per 374

acre for their proposed subdivision concept. The development is targeted for 55+ older 375

occupants. The applicants have provided a traffic study. The study stated the existing South 376

Lane and Main Street Intersection can function with up to 50 lots in the development. The City 377

would require a second access to the development before the 51st home could be constructed. 378

379

Dave Anderson showed where Volunteer Drive might connect through to the River Bottoms 380

area. Staff feels comfortable with what the applicants are proposing. There are a couple 381

outstanding items that need to be addressed that would involve Utah County for the Mill Race 382

Canal, Bradford Lane and River Bottoms Road. To allow for the proposed residential 383

development, the zoning would need to be R-1-6. 384

385

Chairman Fallon asked how the east boundary is configured. 386

387

Vicki Bradford addressed the Commission stating that the property owners who really wished 388

to not be in the City, are not proposed to be annexed. There is a property owner within the 389

annexation that really would like to sell her home and being within the City would help her sell 390

and allow her to move. 391

392

There was discussion from the public of those who wished to be in the annexation and who 393

wished to not be within the annexation. 394

395

Wilbur Stephenson stated that this has been going on for years. He was told the annexation 396

would include all the properties to the east. Several years ago, there was a feud with the 397

County. In the meeting, the property owners supported the Bradford’s. To date the issue is 398

still not solved. 399

400

Mark Warner is an applicant. In the original application, the boundary went along Bradford 401

Lane. The City then asked that the boundary be expanded along River Bottoms Road. After 402

50 percent of the property owners had signed a letter stating they wished to be in the 403

annexation, the Bradford’s/Warner’s stopped contacting property owners for consent. He has 404

no preference of the annexation boundary as long as his property is within the City. It is the 405

City Council’s ultimate decision of the boundary. 406

407

Wilbur Stephenson stated he got a letter a few days ago about the City Council meeting. He 408

said he would just like the annexation to move forward. 409

410

Matt Johnson stated that he has lived in his home for 20 years. He lives in the old Vincent 411

home. Bradford Lane is like a driveway to him and no one really should be driving on River 412

Bottoms Road. 413

414

Dennis R. Sorenson addressed the Commission stating his mother owns property in the 415

proposal and she would like to be annexed to the City. She wishes to be in the City for power 416

and garbage pickup. The cost of utilities is lower in the City. 417

418


Johnna Dewberry asked if the property within the annexation is in a flood plain. 419

420

Cory Pierce pulled up the FEMA Flood Plain which is the 100-year flood line. There is also a 421

shaded area that is for a 500-year storm. Cory Pierce stated any land that is potential wetland 422

property; it would be the developer that would be responsible for working with the canal 423

companies and the Army Corps. 424

425

Johnna Dewberry asked about the safety of River Bottoms Road. 426

427

Commissioner Oyler stated that roads and canals are not modified at the time of annexation; it 428

is when a property owner develops. 429

430

Dave Anderson stated that is typical. At the time of annexation, the City Council can require 431

what they feel is needed for improvements along River Bottoms Road, prior to any 432

development occurring. Staff believes the intersection that requires immediate attention is the 433

intersection of Bradford Lane and River Bottoms Road. 434

435

Chairman Fallon stated that the City can only react to that which is within the City. In short, 436

nothing will be done if the property is not annexed to the City and remains in the County. 437

438

Johnna Dewberry sated she moved to the County for the environment and to be able to home 439

school her children with a hobby farm. If this is intended to be developed, it ruins everyone’s 440

views in the area. She is not sure of the benefits of having high density for the area. She was 441

under the impression that the City did not have plans for development for the next 20 years, 442

but now that the Bradford’s want to develop, the neighbors now have to adjust. River Bottoms 443

Road is one of the jewels of Spanish Fork, and it is beautiful. It is not compacted with 444

commercial uses. Spanish Fork has been very viable with the animal industry and it is an asset. 445

Why not expand the parking of the fairgrounds? She does not understand the logic of any of 446

the owners who wish to annex into the City. The City should take advantage of what is there 447

today and preserve it. 448

449

Jim Dewberry addressed the Commission reiterating the concerns his wife, Johnna Dewberry, 450

expressed. 451

452

Commissioner Davis stated in about 2009 the General Plan designated the property in the area 453

as High Density blending the Commercial Use along Main Street to larger single-family homes. 454

It was a discussion between the City Council and Planning Commission. This area has been 455

talked about with open space planning. Things change as city councils change and property 456

owners have different desires for their property. 457

458

Chairman Fallon stated conceptually there needs to be a transition from the commercial use 459

and the density gets stepped down as it moves away from the commercial uses; the higher 460

density is a buffer. Chairman Fallon referred to the current General Plan and current Zoning 461

Map where there are densities being stepped down from high to lower. 462

463

Jim Dewberry stated he will do whatever he can to not be annexed into the City. 464


465

Mark Warner stated that there are benefits to being within the City. All that green space is 466

beautiful and is glad his neighbors enjoy it; the property is his families and it is his decision as 467

to what he does with his property. The property has been owned by the family for many years, 468

longer than some that have just moved to the City. River Bottoms Road will be improved to 469

accommodate the traffic as development occurs. He and his family would like to develop their 470

property with senior living so that it can be enjoyed by more with the amenities of the City. 471

The owners that don’t want to be in the City should not be allowed to dictate what he can do 472

with his property. 473

474

Diane Garcia had a lady who works for the County address the Commission. The lady stated 475

she reviews annexations and works under the Utah County Surveyor. She feels the language 476

is sloppy and does not follow property owners and roads. 477

478

Diana Garcia stated that some of her property would be acquired to fix the intersection. The 479

problem of the intersection is the City residents that cut through the area to access the east 480

bench that can get to their destination faster than driving through the City. Diane Garcia 481

stated that she owns River Bottoms Road. She stated that the road can be vacated and cut off 482

all access to the eastside residents that cut through the River Bottoms area. She is concerned 483

that the fairgrounds will become dilapidated. When discussing the zoning upon annexation, if 484

she is included in the annexation she would like to be A-E not R-R. She would like to know how 485

the Planning Commission will follow the Envision Utah study that was completed regarding 486

keeping agriculture and open spaces. Diane Garcia mentioned that the Days of ‘47 has such a 487

great facility and that the City should strive for that caliber of facility. 488

489

Chairman Fallon stated that the City Council just approved a budget for improvements to the 490

fairgrounds. 491

492

Dave Anderson stated that the City has talked about purchasing land for expansion. It has 493

nothing to do with annexation and development and those efforts will still move forward 494

regardless. The City works with Utah County and continues to invest in the fairgrounds. The 495

facility is top notch and the City has not had legislatures donate millions of dollars to have a 496

facility like Salt Lake City, it is the facility it is with donations by residents of the City. 497

498

A resident of the River Bottom area stated he respects everyone’s rights to do what they want 499

with their property. With development, there is impact to the residents. He has a horse farm 500

in the area and there is dust and flies that come with the use of the property. He has semis 501

that need to access the area to drop off hay. Does the Planning Commission look at his impact 502

to the area? Will he be put out of business with the new development and be run out? 503

504

Chris Ellsworth lives across the street from the Warners. She is concerned that she will be 505

impacted with the road running north and south through her property. The residents from the 506

east side have increased the traffic on River Bottoms’ area roads. Does the study take into 507

account that traffic? 508

509


Chairman Fallon stated that improvements to her property would be when she wishes to 510

develop. 511

512

David Ellsworth asked if the City has any interest with owning property in the County for the 513

annexation to be approved. 514

515

Cory Pierce stated the City does not have any plans at this time with that property. The 516

property is used as a trail connection and that was the intent. It provides trail head parking and 517

access to the road. The property is also not within the proposed annexation nor has it ever 518

been considered to be part of the proposed annexation. 519

520

Commissioner Oyler asked how many acres are required for building lots in the A-E and R-R 521

zones. 522

523

Commissioner Tagg stated that she has a concern along South Lane and the bend. 524

525

Dave Anderson stated that block length of development is key for the City to provide 526

connectivity of subdivisions. He spoke regarding the property owner to the north of the 527

Bradford’s and that they have no desire to develop. The City is fine with that and there will be 528

a temporary cul-de-sac that would connect the property to the North, when it develops. Dave 529

Anderson speculated that the likelihood of a connection to the west to Main Street is pretty 530

high. 531

532

Commissioner Tagg stated that South Lane and River Bottoms Road are public roads and 533

citizens of Spanish Fork should be allowed to travel on those roads. The idea is that it is safe 534

and that the County and City need to work together to make sure safety is addressed. 535

536

Johnna Dewberry said it would be beneficial to have a trail connection from the Fairgrounds. 537

538

Cory Pierce stated that the City has been working with Mountainland Association of 539

Governments (MAG) to create a trail connection from the fairgrounds to the river trail along 540

with a couple other connections. The money has been allocated for that but the exact location 541

and design has not been completed. 542

543

Wilbur Stephenson does not know why everyone is so down on the rodeo grounds. The rodeo 544

is full every year. There needs to be more parking but the citizens need to enjoy it and love it 545

and that is it. 546

547

Commissioner Oyler asked if there should be a park in this area of town. 548

549

Dave Anderson stated that the Parks Master Plan does not call for a park in the area, but it 550

does call for trails. Dave Anderson recapped the property owners who wish to be within the 551

annexation, Mrs. Sorenson, Wilbur Stephenson and the Robertson estate. 552

553

Chairman Fallon asked about the boundary including or excluding River Bottoms Road. 554

555


Dave Anderson stated that the road would be improved as development occurred. 556

557

Commissioner Davis asked how Volunteer Drive would connect. 558

559

Cory Pierce stated the traffic study stated once the development reaches 50% a second 560

connection would need to be made. 561

562

Chairman Fallon stated that the applicant would be limited to 50 units before they would need 563

to have that second access. 564

565

Cory Pierce confirmed that is correct, but the City would classify access to the north. He 566

stated it is hard to say how South Lane will be improved until the property owners develop. 567

The traffic study deals more with intersections and not road width. 568

569

Dave Anderson stated that there is not a difference of A-E and R-R in terms of the number of 570

animals that someone could have on a property. The applicant would need R-1-6 zoning to 571

allow for the concept plan of 4 units to the acre. 572

573

Commissioner Oyler moved to recommend approval to the City Council of the Warner 574

proposed subdivision as R-1-6 with the remaining Warner Annexation including Mrs. Sorenson, 575

Wilbur Stephenson and the Robertson estate with the zone designation R-R with the following 576

conditions: 577

578

Conditions 579

1. That the applicant follows the proposed concept plan for the Warner Annexation 580

when a Preliminary Plat is submitted. 581

2. That the applicant makes the required improvements to the Mill Race Irrigation 582

Canal as determined by the Engineering Department. 583

3. That the applicant limits the development to that identified in the Traffic Impact 584

Study completed in March 2017. 585

4. That the applicant works with the City on the MAG trail project to provide the 586

necessary easements or deeds connecting the trail from the Fairgrounds, South Lane 587

and the Cemetery. 588

589


591

592

OTHER BUSINESS 593

594

Dave Anderson stated that a work session would be good to discuss the General Plan revision 595

and Growth Boundary adjustment, inviting the Salem Public Works Director. 596

597

There was discussion of having a meeting with City Council. 598

599

Dave Anderson gave information on projects that will be coming up in future meetings. 600

601


Chairman Fallon moved to adjourn meeting at 10:04 p.m. 602

603

604

Adopted: 605

Kimberly Brenneman 606

Community Development Department Secretary 607


Draft Minutes 1

Spanish Fork City Planning Commission – Work Session 2

August 17, 2017 3

4

5

Commission Members Present: Kevin Oyler, Brad Tanner, Brad Wilkinson. Absent: Bruce 6

Fallon, Treaci Tagg, Richard Davis. 7

8

Staff Members Present: Dave Anderson, Community Development Director; Bruce Fallon, 9

Salem City; Steve Bowler, CBC Advisors. 10

11

The meeting commenced at 7:10 AM. 12

13

There was discussion about plans to modify the General Plan to rearrange Commercial 14

designations between Main Street and the Salem/Benjamin interchange. Salem’s plans for 15

commercial development and Utah County’s plans to construct Elk Ridge Drive were 16

discussed. 17

18

Steve Bowler advised the Commission on retail trends and what retail expects to see in viable 19

sites. 20

21

The Commission directed Dave Anderson to refine the proposal before bringing it back to the 22

Commission. 23

24

Dave Anderson presented the latest concept for the Rees property to the Planning 25

Commission. Several aspects of the proposal were discussed including building orientations, 26

access, parking, building height and density. 27

28

The Commissioners commented that 18 units to the acre seemed to be a better fit than what is 29

proposed. They suggested that the applicant drop the density to 18 units per acre and 30

reconfigure the parking. 31

32

There was lengthy discussion about whether the landscaping next to the adjacent uses should 33

be 5 feet, 10 feet or something else. Those present did not seem to have strong feelings but 34

direction was given to have them match the City’s current 10-foot standard with trees every 35

thirty feet. 36

37

There was discussion about whether balconies or juliets should be required. The 38

Commissioners present did not have strong feelings about which should be required or allowed 39

and they agreed to defer to others that might have stronger feelings. 40

41

Dave Anderson described a proposal to modify the Growth Boundary. He said the proposal 42

would be on the next agenda. 43

44

There was more discussion about retail development. 45

46


The meeting adjourned at 8:45 AM. 47

48

Adopted: 49

Dave Anderson 50

Community Development Director 51

Planning Commission Minutes September 6, 2017 Page 1 of 11

Draft Minutes 1

Spanish Fork City Planning Commission 2

September 6, 2017 3

4

Commission Members Present: Chairman Bruce Fallon, Treaci Tagg, Brad Tanner, Brad 5

Wilkinson, Richard Davis. Absent: none. 6

7

Staff Members Present: Dave Anderson, Community Development Director; Cory Pierce, 8

Staff Engineering; Kimberly Brenneman, Community Development Department Secretary. 9

10

Citizens Present: Joe Warren, Lisa Harwood Warren, Max Colton, Tyler Cope, Diane Garcia, 11

Jim Dewberry, Julie Smith, Karen Christensen, Blake Ottesen, Chris Childs. 12

13

Chairman Fallon called the meeting to order at 6:10 p.m. 14

15

16

PRELIMINARY ACTIVITIES 17

Pledge of Allegiance 18

Commissioner Wilkinson led the pledge. 19

20

21

PUBLIC COMMENT 22

There was no comment. 23

24

25

ZONE CHANGE (Public Hearing) 26

Anderson Zone Change 27 28

The applicant wishes to change the zoning from Rural Residential to General Commercial. 29

Staff recommends that the Zone Change be approved. 30

31 Commissioner Davis made a motion to move into Public Hearing. 32 Commissioner Tagg seconded and the motion passed all in favor at 6:10 p.m. 33 34 There was no public comment. 35 36 Commissioner Oyler made a motion to move into Public Hearing. 37 Commissioner Wilkinson seconded and the motion passed all in favor at 6:10 p.m. 38

39

Commissioner Oyler asked if the land owner wants the Zone Change to market the property as 40

commercial to increase the value and that there is no end developer at this time. 41

42

Dave Anderson stated that is what he believes. 43

44

Commissioner Tagg moved to recommend approval of the Anderson Zone Change from R-R to 45

C-2. 46

47


48


50

51

SIGNAGE PLAN 52

Walmart Signage Plan 53 54

Dave Anderson stated the applicant has provided a lot of information and detail of what they 55

wish to have regarding signage. Their project includes the Neighborhood Market, Gas Station 56

and additional pads ready for development to the north. Walmart committed to, because of 57

close proximity to homes, only one multi-tenant pylon sign for the project. The one proposed 58

pylon sign meets the current sign requirements. The proposed monument sign would be 9 feet 59

tall, where the ordinance currently allows for a 6-foot tall sign. This is why the applicant has 60

applied for the Project Signage Plan. 61

62

Commissioner Oyler asked if the approval of this Project Signage Plan sets a precedent for 63

other projects. 64

65

Dave Anderson stated this case is unique with the perspective that the applicant needs an 66

additional 3 feet of sign on the monument, which would be considerably smaller than the pylon 67

sign that could go along that frontage of the project. Ultimately, there is much less sign copy 68

area with the proposed signage plan then if the applicant constructed the max amount of sign 69

copy area as allowed by the City ordinance. 70

71

Commissioner Wilkinson moved to recommend approval of the Walmart Neighborhood Signage 72

Plan. 73

74

Commissioner Tanner seconded and the motion passed all in favor. 75

76

77

TITLE 15 (Public Hearing) 78

Title 15.4.12.070 79 80

Cory Pierce stated as Building Permits are issued, impact fees are charged and those fees go 81

to build larger facilities. With that, the developer can qualify for reimbursements. Those 82

reimbursements are paid in part once a year. This change would allow for developers to apply 83

to get in line for reimbursement, once the project is bonded for. Depending on the timing of 84

infrastructure installation the change allows developers to get in line quicker, as sometimes 85

they would not qualify to be reimbursed that first year. 86

87

Commissioner Tanner asked what drove this change to Title 15. 88

89

Cory Pierce stated it was partially driven by developers. 90

91 Commissioner Wilkinson made a motion to move into Public Hearing. 92 Commissioner Davis seconded and the motion passed all in favor at 6:28 p.m. 93 94


There was no public comment. 95 96 Commissioner Tagg made a motion to move into Public Hearing. 97 Commissioner Oyler seconded and the motion passed all in favor at 6:28 p.m. 98

99

Commissioner Tanner moved to recommend approval of the Title 15.4.12.070 Amendment. 100

101


103

104

GENERAL PLAN (Public Hearing) 105

Growth Boundary Amendment 106 107

Dave Anderson explained the Growth Boundary outlines where the City can and cannot 108

efficiently provide services. 109

110

Chairman Fallon clarified that the Growth Boundary does not automatically annex property into 111

the City. 112

113

Dave Anderson stated that is correct. 114

115

Chairman Fallon asked about properties that are within the City but outside the Growth 116

Boundary. 117

118

Dave Anderson explained that limited services can be provided to those areas. 119

120

Dave Anderson stated there are 5 different areas proposed where the Growth Boundary will 121

expand. The first area is located off the Benjamin/Salem Interchange and is driven by 122

development from Salem, the Revere Health Building, and the lift station proposed to be built 123

in the area. Area 4 is to include area recently annexed within the City, the Warner Annexation. 124

Area 5 is to include property with potential for non-residential development off of Highway 6. 125

Area 2 is more of a clean-up of the boundary line along I-15. The properties have development 126

issues but there is no reason to not include the properties. Area 3 has utilities near or on the 127

property and the City initiated an annexation a few years ago to allow for industrial growth. 128

With the annexation approval there was never a Growth Boundary adjustment. 129

130 Commissioner Davis made a motion to move into Public Hearing. 131 Commissioner Tagg seconded and the motion passed all in favor at 6:40 p.m. 132 133 Jim Dewberry addressed the Commission. He lives in the River Bottoms area and asked what 134 Spanish Fork’s vision is when speaking about growth. He asked if the development is reactive 135 based on what a developer wants to do. 136 137 Chairman Fallon stated the General Plan is the vision for the City. The designations are 138 general and do not have hard lines in order to allow for some flexibility with zoning. There have 139 been adjustments to the General Plan based on the needs of the Community over the years. 140 141 Dave Anderson stated there are hard copies of previous versions of the General Plan. In the 142


last 10 years there have only been about 2 substantial changes to the General Plan. 143 144 Jim Dewberry asked why the River Bottoms area needs to be developed, and why there is not 145 as much agriculture in that same area. 146 147 Dave Anderson stated that area on the General Plan has changed less in the last 30 years than 148 anywhere else in the City. 149 150 Chairman Fallon stated that there is balance in the General Plan for future generations to move 151 and to allow for growth. 152 153 Jim Dewberry stated there needs to be homes, but there also needs to be an area to grow 154 food. There is a self-sustaining element that is needed when times are bad, but it is not a 155 thought when times are good. He stated there is a huge contamination within the River 156 Bottoms area. Jim Dewberry feels the developers are dictating development as they go and 157 the City has no control and there is not a real planning operation. Developers will conform to 158 the City’s requirements or they will move along. It is going to be a mess with the current 159 direction; it is going to be Orem. 160 161 Tyler Cope stated he is a former Planning Commissioner and a real estate broker. What he 162 notices is reactionary policy instead of policy leading the market. With the market today, there 163 is no such thing as a starter home. The City is not able to be responsive to the market with 164 layers of restrictions; namely the Growth Boundary and General Plan. These things should be 165 more administrative. Tyler Cope is in favor of seeing the Growth Boundary going away to allow 166 for more development. His concern is the layering of everything so it is so cumbersome that 167 only the large developers can develop. 168 169 Commissioner Tagg made a motion to close the Public Hearing. 170 Commissioner Tanner seconded and the motion passed all in favor at 6:52 p.m. 171

172

Richard Davis stated there were 5,000 people when he was born in Spanish Fork. There have 173

been many developers who have come and spoken to the City about developing the River 174

Bottoms area. He agrees with Jim Dewberry in that there are areas that need to be protected, 175

and he hates to see farm land go away, but his children and grandchildren need a place to live. 176

Some of that high density is coming back to the cities with multi-unit living. People are 177

becoming more mindful of protecting the farm lands and proposing some high density in areas 178

he would have never thought of. In the River Bottoms area, there will be open space it won’t 179

be what it is today but you might see 5 acre lots. The American dream of having a home with a 180

large yard is shifting to smaller lots or complexes. Commissioner Davis’s big concern with 181

growth is safety; with infrastructure and such. As of today, with the current infrastructure, the 182

City could support 80,000 residents. 183

184

Jim Dewberry stated that there comes a point when the City should not welcome new people 185

and growth should not be a priority. Any new development should be to tear down existing 186

structures and build new, re-development; but not touch the parks and open space. There are 187

other communities to live in, not just Spanish Fork. 188

189


Chairman Fallon stated that the word is discomfort, and Utah is unique in people staying in the 190

same City where they grew up. Chairman Fallon gave the example of his neighbor across the 191

street from him, in that he now lives a few blocks from his childhood home. 192

193

Commissioner Oyler stated it is a balance of limiting what property owners can do with their 194

property based on the size of the property and the zoning. When it comes to growth, if the 195

development meets the conditions of the City Ordinance, who is he as a Commissioner to tell 196

the property owner they cannot develop? The more input from the community, the better the 197

community will be. 198

199

Commissioner Tagg stated that the process can be cumbersome at times, but she has great 200

respect for it. She hopes that there is enough evaluation to make the process smooth. 201

202

Commissioner Davis moved to recommend to approve the Growth Boundary to the City 203

Council as discussed. 204

205

Commissioner Tagg seconded and the motion passed all in favor. 206

207

208

General Plan Amendment 209 210

The proposal for the General Plan amendment is based on some proposed development, in the 211

process of reviewing a residential development. 212

213

There is a high probability of Elk Ridge Drive connecting to 1900 South; Arrowhead Trail. The 214

timing on some of these things is hard to predict. There are some dramatic changes in retail 215

uses now and moving forward to the future. Retail sites might be substantially smaller then 216

what the need has been or even required today. There are sites along the corridor that have 217

high probability of supporting retail development. The City has consulted with the City’s retail 218

consultant and they feel there is a high likelihood of non-residential development at the 219

intersections of Woodland Hills Drive/Arrowhead Trail and Del Monte/Arrowhead Trail. The 220

idea is for the Amendment is a functional land use pattern. The message with the General Plan 221

is to adjoin land uses that are compatible and by stepping down the use and density. The 222

Development Review Committee has reviewed this proposal and recommends it be approved. 223

224

Dave Anderson stated Utah cities are required to have a comprehensive General Plan if they 225

have zoning regulations. These are advisory plans. Typically, the City uses this with any Zone 226

Change application. The City has not made it a habit of deviating from that plan; however, 227

there have been times when the General Plan is modified. It is a blueprint of future land uses 228

of the City at full build out. 229

230

Chairman Fallon explained the process the Commission goes through when evaluating a Zone 231

Change application. 232

233 Commissioner Tanner made a motion to move into Public Hearing. 234 Commissioner Wilkinson seconded and the motion passed all in favor at 7:22 p.m. 235 236


Tyler Cope addressed the Commission stating that this is precisely what these meetings are 237 for; making revisions as needed. This is great with the high density residential, but there is 238 inconsistency with the plan. Currently, there is a very urgent need for residential development. 239 As leaders in the community, there is a duty to curb that. Policy needs to stay ahead of the 240 curve. The City is behind the ball in high density residential and in front of the ball with 241 commercial uses. 242 243 Commissioner Oyler asked for Tyler Cope to point out on the current General Plan the 244 inconsistency. 245 246 Dave Anderson stated there are two areas where the Urban Density General Plan designation 247 is assigned. There are reasons why those areas are not in any current neighborhood. Single-248 family homes on individual properties are the product Spanish Fork offers and that is just a 249 reality of the area. The City has not planned aggressively for High density but that is not by 250 accident. 251 252 Tyler Cope stated that is an issue and the Council and Commission should re-evaluate that and 253 designate more high density. It needs to be done and is setting the stage for future 254 developments. 255 256 Commissioner Davis stated that property owners do not want the higher density zoning as the 257 property tax rates increase. 258 259 Commissioner Tanner asked in looking at the map, if there are many that are shovel ready. 260 261 Tyler Cope stated that there are some outlying areas that will not develop for years and the 262 area in the original City grid system is all In-fill Overlay projects and that is slow moving. He 263 believes there could be 200-300 acres ready with utilities to do high density. 264 265 Chairman Fallon stated that if the Commission feels there should be action taken, then that is 266 something that should be done, but as the General Plan is shown, they have purposefully 267 assigned designations to areas for higher density residential development. 268 269 Dave Anderson stated the reality is these projects do not happen overnight and there needs to 270 be funding and a viable project. That is the reality regardless of Spanish Fork City’s land use 271 regulations. The demand will exist well before the demand can be met and the lag will always 272 be there. Predicting that and adjusting the land use for what exists today, is impossible and to 273 some extent a mistake. The City is predominantly single-family homes, with a recent change to 274 the General Plan to allow for larger lower density areas, the Estate Zoning designation. 275 276 Jim Dewberry stated he has no issue with property value going up. Having a shortage of high 277 density does not create a crash for the market, if nothing else it helps to stabilize it. He does 278 not see a problem with restricting high density. For the residents who are here for the long 279 term they want their property value to go up, they want to have a restriction of high density, 280 the City Council does not let growth go rampant and does not let the culture and character of 281 the City going away. Not every developer’s desire should be met. 282 283 Joe Warren lives on Mill Road and Arrowhead Trail. The General Plan is changing for his 284 property from Residential to Commercial Designation, if he wants to develop the property 285 residential can he still do that? 286 287


Commissioner Oyler stated that Joe Warren could work with a developer to lay out a proposed 288 subdivision and the Development Review Committee and Planning Commission would make a 289 recommendation to the City Council to approve or deny it as a residential development. 290 291 Commissioner Tagg stated there is a proposed revision to the General Plan, in part, based on 292 Weaver’s Vineyard. The Commercial designation was reduced, but not eliminated. She stated 293 the location of Joe Warren’s property is prime for commercial uses. 294 295 Cory Pierce stated the City has requested a warrant study for a lighted intersection at Mill 296 Road and Arrowhead Trail. At this time, UDOT’s study found the intersection did not warrant a 297 signal. There are a lot of things in play as development moves forward. 298 299 Commissioner Oyler asked Dave Anderson if there are ever property owners that bring plans 300 to the City that the Planning Commissioner never sees; because the City says what is 301 proposed would not work. 302 303 Dave Anderson stated about half of the proposals eventually come before the Planning 304 Commission. 305 306 Joe Warren asked what the Planning Commission can do to help with traffic on Mill Road. 307 308 Dave Anderson stated that as development happens, the right-of-way will be expanded, but the 309 traffic is typically there before the improvements are done. The City is not aggressive, until the 310 property owner comes to the City with a proposal for development and then, at that time, the 311 frontage of the development is brought to current standards. 312 313 Commissioner Tagg made a motion to close the Public Hearing. 314 Commissioner Oyler seconded and the motion passed all in favor at 7:52 p.m. 315

316

Commissioner Tagg stated at one time there was a report provided for affordable housing. In 317

that report, Spanish Fork City has the required amount, where a lot of other cities do not. 318

319

Dave Anderson stated there was a requirement for moderate income housing. Simply put, with 320

the aging housing stock and diverse land uses, many of which are several decades old. That is 321

what helps meet the suggested number of moderate-income housing units. Most of the 322

neighboring cities are not even close to the requirement and celebrate that. Cities are not 323

compelled to provide a certain amount of moderate income housing, but compelled to provide a 324

report of what is available. He believes the cities are required to update that plan every couple 325

of years. 326

327

Commissioner Tagg felt that information would be appropriate for those who have made 328

comments in the meeting today. 329

330

Commissioner Oyler stated, tonight the area that is in discussion is all farmlands. Imagine this 331

plan and idea to where there are existing uses; he would hope the room would be packed. He 332

asked rhetorically why there are not more citizens in the room tonight, in looking at the plan 333

and what is proposed makes sense. Commissioner Oyler stated that tonight, with the 334

amendment to the General Plan and Growth Boundary, the City is making a plan for 335

development, addressing Jim Dewberry’s concern that the City has a lack of vision. 336


337

Commissioner Tagg moved to recommend to approve the General Plan as discussed to City 338

Council. 339

340

Commissioner Tanner seconded and the motion passed all in favor. 341

342

343

OTHER BUSINESS 344

345

Chris Childs addressed the Commission regarding a proposed development. He has been 346

working on a layout for a few years. The proposal is along Spanish Fork Parkway and Highway 347

51. The proposal has commercial units facing Spanish Fork Parkway and high density 348

residential within the interior. In one version of the development, the proposed residential units 349

would be similar to the Outlook Apartments near the north end of Main Street in Springville. 350

Chris Childs stated that 80% of the buildings would have garages with front and rear load units 351

available. He is working to fit the project within the Urban Village zone or the R-4 zone. 352

Currently, there is a land study being completed on the property by a multi-family designer. He 353

felt that there is a lot of pavement on the interior of the units, and the design was taken to a 354

Land Planner who re-worked the project to have more green space. In the second design, 355

garages would be on the outlining edges with open parking spaces available. The commercial 356

aspect is similar in both renditions. There is a trail running along the perimeter of the 357

residential green space in the second version. The design allows for 50% of the units to have 358

garages and the remaining is covered parking, so every unit has some sort of covered parking. 359

The density on each design is identical. The commercial would be strictly professional office, 360

similar to the ones he built in Springville off 400 North. 361

362

The current project General Plan designation is Mixed Use. The first design, similar to the 363

Outlook Apartments, meets the zoning. Chris Childs stated that if he was to live in one of the 364

designs he would like the second design. He is looking for feedback of the possibilities of what 365

needs to happen. The second design would require a change to either the Urban Village zone 366

or R-4 zone. 367

368

Dave Anderson stated with the Urban Village zone, an adjustment to the commercial 369

requirement would need to be made. The current language in the R-4 zone would not allow for 370

the second design. 371

372

Chairman Fallon is hesitant to make any modifications to the R-4 zone. 373

374

Commissioner Tanner asked if Chairman Fallon has an issue with the second design. 375

376

Chairman Fallon stated the garage issue, with a separation from the units; the buildings 377

addressing the frontage of the street and not turning inward. 378

379

Commissioner Tagg asked about the Urban Village zone and if it was intended to be for this 380

large of a project. 381

382


Dave Anderson stated, potentially. There are no parameters with scale. The density is the 383

issue with the zone of only 12 units per acre. 384

385

Chris Childs stated the net density is not far off to work under either zone. 386

387

Commissioner Tagg feels it is a bad idea to change the R-4 zone. 388

389

Dave Anderson stated that the decision should be on the character of the complex and not the 390

zoning mechanism as in either zone it is apartments. 391

392

Commissioner Tagg said she does not want this project. 393

394

Dave Anderson stated now is the time to make the decision as this is what every other 395

developer will propose. 396

397

Commissioner Oyler stated the green space is just not useable in the first design that is similar 398

to the Outlook Apartments. 399

400

Chairman Fallon likes the Outlook Apartments and the feel of the streets with the sidewalk. 401

402

Commissioner Davis likes the second design better with all the open green space. 403

404

Commissioner Oyler asked why Chairman Fallon likes the first design better than the second 405

design. 406

407

Chairman Fallon stated he does not feel invited to that community in the second design, where 408

in the first deign he feels it is welcoming to even those that do not live within the development. 409

410

Dave Anderson stated when entering the project of the second design, the vision is only 411

parking lot. All the green space is interior and there is the lack of the street lined trees. 412

413

Commissioner Tagg stated it is interesting how on paper one looks better than the other, but 414

then when imagining driving though the development it is the opposite. 415

416

Commissioner Oyler feels the first design is safer for pedestrians. 417

418

Chris Childs said he would like to break ground in December and begin building in Spring 2018. 419

He thanks the Commission for their feedback. 420

421

422

Karen Christensen addressed the Commission with regard to the Rees Apartments proposal. 423

She stated the hardest part moving forward is not having language for the zone. She stated 424

the design is heavy on 1-bedroom units. There is more parking than what is required. The 425

dimensions of the green space on the interior of the lot are 70 feet by 160 feet; overall there is 426

29% green space. The proposal equals 19.21 units per acre. She thinks it is important to open 427


up the conversation to higher density housing. Of the housing available in Spanish Fork, this 428

type of housing makes up only about 18% of housing per the BYU inventory study. 429

430

Julie Smith stated if the density is too high, the building foot print would stay the same and the 431

units would be larger, reducing the number of units per acre. They feel the 10-foot setback 432

from the garage to the property line is unnecessary. The architect has drawn 5 feet of space 433

between the garage and the wall. The height of the building ranges 25-33 feet with the corner 434

lobby/unit being 45 feet tall. Julie Smith stated there are 2.5 parking spaces per unit. 435

436

Karen Christensen asked for feedback, whether to have a juliet or a balcony. 437

438

Chairman Fallon stated the balcony breaks up the depth of the flat face building. He likes 439

balconies and it is an amenity to get outside the units, instead of standing inside looking out at 440

a Juliet. 441

442

Commissioner Davis asked Karen Christensen, why when the Commission stated to keep the 443

units at 18 per acre, she brought a proposal that is 19 units per acre. 444

445

Karen Christensen responded that she was under the impression that more units would be 446

allowed if the design was right. She is able to reduce the units, if that is what the Commission 447

wants. 448

449

Dave Anderson stated that Karen Christensen is right that she was told, if the design is right 450

then more units would be allowed, but in the most recent work session that Commission asked 451

to reduce the units back to 18 units per acre. 452

453

There was clarification that the 10-foot buffer between the garages and the wall is for the 454

neighbors. 455

456

Karen Christensen stated the idea was the 10 feet was wasted space and would collect 457

garbage and mischief. 458

459

Dave Anderson stated that the carports and garages can be designed such that the 10 feet of 460

landscape can be an asset. 461

462

Chairman Fallon stated he is glad it is now down to three items. 463

464

Commissioner Oyler’s phone rang at 9:00 p.m. 465

466

Commissioner Davis stated this project will really open up for more projects and Karen 467

Christensen is opening up the door for many more to follow and there are boundaries that need 468

to be followed. 469

470

Commissioner Tanner stated it is all about the appearance of the project and how it will look in 471

20 years. 472

473


474

Dave Anderson stated most of the land around the airport is zoned Industrial. This is more for 475

the fact of not having residential uses around the Airport. He stated that a property owner has 476

come to him and wishes to have the Zoning and General Plan amended to allow him to build a 477

home on his property that is currently zoned and has the General Plan Designation of 478

Industrial. 479

480

Chairman Fallon stated that the buffer around the north-west end of the airport is much smaller 481

than that to the south of the airport. 482

483

Dave Anderson agrees and feels that maybe there should be a standard buffer distance that 484

should go around the airport. He would be more concerned if the property owner was 485

requesting anything but one house on the property. Dave Anderson stated he feels a Zone 486

Change and General Plan update would be appropriate. 487

488

Commissioner Davis said to look into the change. 489

490

Commissioner Davis moved to adjourn meeting at 9:12 p.m. 491

492

493

Adopted: 494

Kimberly Brenneman 495

Community Development Department Secretary 496

File #: 16-000318

Preliminary Plat Re-approval

21.20 Acres

File Name: Eagle Cove

Eagle Cove

Applicant: Ivory Homes

Number of Lots: 67

Address: 969 South 1400 East Permit #: RPP17-000005

Application Approved: Pending Application Date: 09/25/2017

REPORT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION PAGE 1

PRELIMINARY PLAT

REPORT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION

EAGLE COVE PRELIMINARY PLAT REAPPROVAL REQUEST

Agenda Date: October 4, 2017.

Staff Contacts: Dave Anderson, Community

Development Director.

Reviewed By: Development Review Committee.

Request: Ivory Homes has proposed a Master

Planned Development with 67 lots on the subject

property.

Zoning: R-1-12.

General Plan: Low Density Residential.

Project Size: 21.20 acres.

Number of lots: 67.

Location: 1400 East 1100 South.


Background Discussion

The proposed Preliminary Plat is a Master Planned

Development with 67 lots. This project was most

recently approved in 2016 and the majority of the

improvements for the project have been installed

and dozens of homes have already been

constructed.

Staff is in the process of completing its review of

the plans to determine if anything needs to be

changed to meet the City’s current development

standards. That being said, staff does not

anticipate any significant changes will need to be

made and recommends the plat be reapproved.

Budgetary Impact

Staff anticipates no budgetary impact with either

the approval or denial of this proposal.

Recommendation

Staff recommends that the proposed Preliminary

Plat be approved based on the following findings

and subject to the following conditions:

Findings

1. That the proposal meets the requirements

for Master Planned Developments,

including the number of lots proposed.

Conditions

1. That the applicant conform to all conditions

imposed with previous approvals.

2. That the applicant address any redlines

provided by the Engineering Department.

File #: 17-001085

Preliminary Plat Re-approval

17.27 acres

File Name: River Point

River Point

Applicant: David Adams

Number of Lots: 40

Address: 1208 West 900 South Permit #: RPP17-000004


REPORT TO THE PLANNING COMMISION PAGE 1

PRELIMINARY PLAT

REPORT TO THE PLANNING COMMISION

RIVER POINT PRELIMINARY PLAT APPROVAL REQUEST





Request: The applicant is requesting and approval

of a preliminary plat.

Zoning: R-1-12.

General Plan: Low Density Residential.

Project Size: 17.27 Acres.

Number of lots: 40.

Location: 1208 West 900 South.


BELLA VISTA ZON


This project received Preliminary Plat approval in

2015 and its approval expired in 2016.

Some of you will recall that this site had been used

as a dump for construction debris. When

construction on the project commenced, it became

apparent that there was more debris on the site

than what we had anticipated.

The volume and nature of the material uncovered

led staff to be concerned about the project and

ensuring that all necessary precautions were being

taken to protect structures on the site and future

residents. Construction in the project halted in the

summer of 2016 and has not yet restarted.

Staff has spent many hours this past year

investigating the site, the nature of the debris and

best practices for moving forward. The city has

employed the services of an environmental expert

to help in our evaluation and the development of

plans to reclaim the property.

Staff and the applicant have agreed to a process

and standards that will be followed when

construction recommences. Key elements of the

standards involve having all structures constructed

on native soil or engineered fill and the removal of

all debris for the majority of the development. Staff

understands it will be very costly for the applicant

to adhere to these provisions but believes it is very

important to address any real and perceived

concerns related to the property’s history.

Development Review Committee

The Development Review Committee Reviewed this

request in their September 27 meeting and

recommended that it be approved. Draft minutes

from that meeting read as follows:

River Point Rail Re-approval

Chris Thompson stated that Cory Pierce had

told him prior to the meeting about a floodway

issue the developer needs to work through.


Dave Anderson stated that he will be meeting

with the applicant to address the concerns

raised with the previous use of the property,

and making it suitable for a residential

development.

Dave Anderson stated if he made a

recommendation it would be that the applicant

comply with the original conditions of approval

and that the applicant continue to work with

staff to develop an acceptable plan regarding

constructing in landfill environments.

There was discussion of the property adjacent

to the river being deeded to the City for a

maintenance trail.

Kelly Peterson stated that the applicant still

needs to work with SESD for the powerlines in

the area.

Chris Thompson stated that the floodway

cannot be altered at all and that it is better to

not have the floodway within any lot.

There was discussion of the rear setback for

the zone versus the setback for the floodway.

Dave Anderson moved to recommend re-

approval of the River Point Preliminary Plat

based on the following conditions:

Conditions

1. That the applicant comply with the

original conditions of approval for the

project.

2. That the applicant comply with any new

stipulations being developed with regard

to the property history and the property

being re-developed for residential use.

3. That the applicant address any redline

comments.

Seth Perrins seconded and the motion passed

all in favor.

Budgetary Impact

There is no anticipated budgetary impact with this

proposal.

Recommendation


Plat be reapproved.

File #: 17-000789

Zone Change

1.59 acres

File Name: Perez Townhomes

Perez Townhomes

Applicant: Atlas Engineering

Number of Lots: 1

Address: 1060 East 400 North Permit #: ZA17-000014


File #: 17-000789

Preliminary Plat

Acres: 1.59

File Name: Perez Townhomes

Perez Townhomes

Applicant: Atlas Engineering

Number of Lots: 15

Address: 1060 East 400 North Permit #: PP17-000005

Application Approved: Pending Application Date: 07/072017


PRELIMINARY PLAT & ZONE CHANGE


PEREZ TOWNHOMES PRELIMINARY PLAT & ZONE CHANGE APPROVAL REQUEST





Request: The applicant is requesting Preliminary

Plat approval and a Zone Change to employ to the

Infill Overlay.

Zoning: R-3 existing, R-3 with the Infill Overlay

proposed

General Plan: Medium Density Residential.

Project Size: 1.59 Acres.

Number of lots: 15.

Location: 1060 East 400 North.


BELLA VISTA ZON


Other townhome projects have been approved for

this site. In fact, several years ago a project was

approved that would have allowed for the

development of some 24 townhomes on this site.

The zoning of the property was changed to R-3

when that development was approved.

The subject properties shape, limited frontage and

lack of connectivity to neighboring properties make

it very difficult to utilize efficiently.

The project that is before the Commission at this

time has, in staff’s view, been designed to better

address concerns about access and the

configuration of dwellings. Staff has recommended

that the project be approved.

Development Review Committee

The Development Review Committee Reviewed this

request in their September 27 meeting and

recommended that it be approved. Draft minutes

from that meeting read as follows:

Perez Townhomes

Dave Anderson stated this proposal was

discussed in detail last week. The application

was continued because the applicant needed to

apply for the Infill Overlay Zone.

There was discussion of parking and whether

the two-car garage would be used for the

parking of two vehicles.

Seth Perrins is concerned that the property is

not subdivided for condos. He would prefer

that the applicant plat the property such that

the units can be sold individually at a later date.

Dave Anderson stated that the developer

would not be able to sell the units separately

and would have to sell it as a whole the way it

is shown today. If the applicant wishes to sell

an individual unit, he would have to go through

the Preliminary Plat and Final Plat process.


Junior Baker said he would like for the odd

triangle property to the south of the

development be incorporated into the

development. It will be a perpetual weed patch

if not.

Seth Perrins recommended that the property

be left alone.

Dave Anderson stated he does not see a good

solution at this time for that property.

Seth Perrins moved to recommend approval of

the Perez Townhomes Infill Overlay Zone

Change and Preliminary Plat to the City

Council based on the following conditions:

Conditions

1. That the applicant meet the current

development standards.

2. That the applicant show on the plat the

ground drain enhancement as discussed

in the DRC meeting 9-20-2017.

3. That the applicant provides greater

clarity of the open space plan with the

enhancements for the residents.

Junior Baker seconded and the motion passed

all in favor.

There was discussion of the landscape and the

turf under the tot lot. Discussion was also held

concerning a pavilion for gatherings.

Budgetary Impact

No budgetary impact for the City is anticipated

with this project.

Recommendation


Plat be approved.


PAGE 3


PAGE 4


PAGE 5


PAGE 6


PAGE 7

September 14, 2017 Dave Anderson Community Development Director Spanish Fork City 40 South Main Street Spanish Fork, Utah 84660 Re: NorthStar Printing Building Expansion – Roadway Dedication & Setback Requirements Whereas, parcel 24:046:0056 was purchased at great expense with the intent of expanding the North Star Printing facilities; and Whereas, it has come to our attention in preparing to build on said parcel that the City has plans for the eventual widening of North Main Street and expects the dedication of a 29.5-foot (= 0.28 acre) wide strip along the front of our parcel for said roadway widening, and Whereas, said future widening would extend the road right-of-way into or near the building fronts of several of the existing business along the North Main Street corridor, thus requiring the demolition of several buildings and would leave very little or no setback for others. Whereas, the date of the said widening is not known and may or may not ever occur, and Whereas, the roadway dedication includes a 12-foot swale, a 10-foot trail, and a 4-foot planter with a 6-foot masonry wall, which combined seem excessive, and Whereas, said widening and dedication will also push the 15-foot street-side or corner setback further into the property further minimizing the area where our building expansion may occur. In consideration of the above, and with a desire to make use of the remaining portion of our investment, we propose that the City amend the street side or corner set back from 15 feet to zero (0) feet for its I-1 Zone. We also propose that the street dedication only include the 25.5 feet strip as indicated as needed by City staff rather than 29.5 feet strip, which includes an additional 4 feet planter. We hope that some consideration by the City can be made for a business that would like to continue to grow in Spanish Fork. Sincerely, Leon Van Sickle, President North Star Printing

Spanish Fork City LAND USE Title 15

42

(Ord. No. 10-09, Amended 06/17/2009) (Ord. No. 15-15, Amended 09/15/2015) (Ord. No. 14-16, Amended 09/20/2016) (Ord. No. 03/17, Amended 02/07/2017)

15.3.16.050 C-O Commercial Office

This district is intended to provide for general office development. It may serve as a transition between commercial uses and residential areas, or it may be designed as a concentration of similar uses intended as an employment center.

A. Permitted Uses: 1. Child Care Centers. 2. Churches. 3. Financial Institutions. 4. Funeral Homes. 5. Instructional Studios. 6. Medical and Dental Laboratories, Clinics, Emergency Medical Care Facilities. 7. Municipal Facilities required for local service. 8. Nursing or Retirement Homes. 9. Offices. 10. Supervisory Care Facilities. 11. Veterinary Offices for small animals with no outside boarding of animals.

B. Uses Subject to Conditional Use Permit (see §15.3.08.060):

1. Emergency Medical Care Facilities. 2. Hospitals. 3. Medical and Dental Clinics.

Table 2 - Commercial and Industrial Development Standards

District Minimum District Size

Minimum Setback1 Max Building Height

Front Rear Side Corner Principal Building

Accessory Building1

C-O N/A 15’4 -25’ 0-25’ 0-10’ 10’5-15’ 30’ 20’

C-UV 5 acres 25’ 0-25’ 0-20’ 15’ 35-48’1 20’

C-D N/A 0’ (10’ max) 0-25’ 0’ 0’ (10’ max) 48’ 20’

C-1 1 acres (5 acres max) 25’ 0-25’ 0-20’ 15’ 30’ 20’

C-2 N/A 15’4 -25’ 0-25’ 0-20’ 10’5-15’ 35-48’2 20-25’2

S-C 5 acres 25’ 0-25’ 0-20’ 15’ 35-48’2 20’

B-P 10 acres 25’ 0-25’ 0-25’ 15’ 120’ 20’

I-1 10 acres 25’ 0-25’ 0-25’ 15’ None None

I-2 20 acres 50’ 50’ 50’ 50’ None None

1 - Where range is indicated, side or rear setbacks are when the adjacent parcel is a residential use or district. 2 - Lower heights shown are for buildings and structures within 50 feet of a residential district or use. Note: There is no minimum lot size, width, or lot frontage requirements. However, any new building or development must have permanent access on a paved road or driveway with a minimum width of 24 feet, with proper base material. Other improvements, such as curb and gutter, sidewalk, and additional pavement width or thickness may be required depending upon the nature of the business. (Ord. No. 07-04. Amended Industrial Zones Height Restrictions, 05/04/2004) 3 - The setback for self-storage units in the I-2 Industrial Zone may be reduced by the Planning Commission as noted

in §15.3.16.130(E)(1). 4 - Fifteen feet, provided there is 30 feet from the building to the back of curb, otherwise 25 feet. 5 - Ten feet, provided there is 20 feet from the building to the back of curb, otherwise 15 feet.

sfullmer

Line

sfullmer

Line

sfullmer

Text Box

0'

26

'

10

'1

2'

2.5

'6

'1

1'

15

'4

'

76

'

12

3'

TR

AIL

SW

AL

EL

AN

E

ME

DIA

N

PL

AN

TE

RS

IDE

WA

LK

℄2

%2

%2

%

4'

SH

OU

LD

ER

11

'

LA

NE

21

'

12

'2

.5'

6'

11

'

SW

AL

EL

AN

E

2%

SH

OU

LD

ER

11

'

LA

NE

MIN

OR

AR

TE

RIA

L 5

LA

NE

ST

RE

ET

- 1

23

' RO

W

NO

TE

S:

1.

CIT

Y E

NG

INE

ER

MA

Y W

AIV

E T

HE

RE

QU

IRE

ME

NT

FO

R A

MA

SO

NR

Y W

AL

L.

2.

SE

E S

TA

ND

AR

D D

RA

WIN

GS

FO

R T

RA

ILS

AN

D S

IDE

WA

LK

S.

3.

TR

AIL

MA

Y B

E I

NS

TA

LL

ED

ON

EIT

HE

R S

IDE

OF

ST

RE

ET

AS

AP

PR

OV

ED

BY

TH

E C

ITY

EN

GIN

EE

R.

SID

EW

AL

K S

HA

LL

BE

IN

ST

AL

LE

D O

N T

HE

OP

PO

SIT

E S

IDE

.

4.

PL

AN

TE

RS

, B

EH

IND

SID

EW

AL

K O

R T

RA

IL,

SH

AL

L H

AV

E S

HR

UB

S W

ITH

BA

RK

MU

LC

H O

R X

ER

ISC

AP

E A

S A

PP

RO

VE

D B

Y T

HE

CIT

Y.

SP

RIN

KL

ER

SY

ST

EM

S

SH

AL

L B

E I

NS

TA

LL

ED

AC

CO

RD

ING

TO

CIT

Y S

TA

ND

AR

DS

.

5.

SW

AL

E M

AY

BE

GR

AS

S O

R X

ER

ISC

AP

E,

AS

AP

PR

OV

ED

BY

TH

E C

ITY

EN

GIN

EE

R.

SE

E S

TA

ND

AR

D D

RA

WIN

GS

FO

R L

ID S

WA

LE

S.

6.

SU

B-B

AS

E A

S S

PE

CIF

IED

IN

TH

E C

ON

ST

RU

CT

ION

ST

AN

DA

RD

S A

ND

SO

ILS

RE

PO

RT

.

7.

MIN

IMU

M O

F 8

" U

NT

RE

AT

ED

BA

SE

CO

UR

SE

UN

DE

R S

TR

EE

T P

AV

EM

EN

T A

ND

CU

RB

& G

UT

TE

R.

8.

AL

L U

TIL

ITY

BO

XE

S A

ND

EQ

UIP

ME

NT

SH

AL

L B

E L

OC

AT

ED

ON

TH

E S

TR

EE

T S

IDE

OF

MA

SO

NR

Y W

AL

L.

9.

AL

L P

LA

NT

ER

AR

EA

S B

ET

WE

EN

TH

E C

UR

B A

ND

SID

EW

AL

K S

HA

LL

BE

LA

ND

SC

AP

ED

WIT

H P

ER

VIO

US

MA

TE

RIA

LS

UN

LE

SS

OT

HE

RW

ISE

AP

PR

OV

ED

BY

TH

E

CIT

Y E

NG

INE

ER

OR

DE

SIG

NE

E.

PL

AN

TE

RP

LA

NT

ER

5"

BIT

UM

INO

US

SU

RF

AC

E C

OU

RS

E

WIT

H A

N A

PP

RO

VE

D C

RA

CK

SE

AL

&

PR

ES

ER

VA

TIO

N C

OA

T A

FT

ER

1 Y

EA

R

MIN

. 4

" U

BC

SE

E L

OW

IM

PA

CT

DE

VE

LO

PM

EN

T (

LID

)

SW

AL

E S

TA

ND

AR

DS

MIN

. 8

" U

BC

SU

B-B

AS

E

SE

E N

OT

E 6

SE

E T

AB

LE

1 F

OR

TB

C

RA

DIU

S A

T C

OR

NE

R

TA

BLE

1M

INO

R A

RT

ER

IAL

ST

RE

ET

INT

ER

SE

CT

ION

RA

DIU

S

INT

ER

SE

CT

ING

RO

AD

TB

C R

AD

IUS

MA

JO

R A

RT

ER

IAL

35

'

MIN

OR

AR

TE

RIA

L3

5'

MA

JO

R C

OL

LE

CT

OR

30

'

MIN

OR

CO

LL

EC

TO

R3

0'

CO

MM

ER

CIA

L L

OC

AL

30

'

RE

SID

EN

TIA

L L

OC

AL

25

'

INTERSECTING ROADM

INO

R A

RT

ER

IAL

MIN

. 8

" U

BC

SU

B-B

AS

E

SE

E N

OT

E 6

5'

6' M

AS

ON

RY

WA

LL

WIT

H

CO

NC

RE

TE

MO

W S

TR

IP

SE

E

AR

TE

RIA

L/C

OL

LE

CT

OR

TR

AIL

DE

TA

IL

SE

E L

OW

IM

PA

CT

DE

VE

LO

PM

EN

T (

LID

)

SW

AL

E S

TA

ND

AR

DS

6' M

AS

ON

RY

WA

LL

WIT

H

CO

NC

RE

TE

MO

W S

TR

IP

SPANISH FORK CITY40 SOUTH MAIN STREET

SPANISH FORK, UT 84660

(801) 804-4550

DRAWN:

DESIGN:

CHECK:

DATE:

JLR

CJP

CMT

6/21/17

STANDARD DRAWINGSCALE:

NONE

STANDARD

ST-9MINOR ARTERIAL 5 LANE STREET

sfullmer

Line

sfullmer

Line

sfullmer

Line

sfullmer

Line

sfullmer

Line

sfullmer

Text Box

0'

sfullmer

Line

sfullmer

Line

sfullmer

Line

sfullmer

Line

sfullmer

Line

TO: Planning Commission

FROM: Dave Anderson, Community and Economic Development Director

DATE: October 4, 2017

RE: Proposed Setback Reduction

The attached proposal would potentially eliminate the corner setback requirement for projects in

the Industrial 1 Zone. The Development Review Committee reviewed this request and

recommended that it be approved provided the setback is reduced from 15 feet to 5 feet, rather

than 0 as the applicants have proposed. One item that influenced the DRC’s willingness to

reduce the setback was the understanding that the applicant would make architectural upgrades

to the façade. Those upgrades have not yet been fully defined but staff believes they are an

integral part of making any changes to the setback.

Draft minutes from the September 27, 2017 DRC meeting read as follows:

Industrial Zone Setbacks

Shelley Hendrickson exited the meeting at 10:48 a.m.

The applicant is proposing a zero setback in the Industrial zone.

Junior Baker asked if the sight triangle can be maintained with the zero setback.

Shon Fullmer said it will be maintained.

The proposed cross section has the trail up against the wall of the building.

Chris Thompson stated that the City did not like the look of the trail next to the wall and

that is why the 4-foot buffer was added between the wall and the trail.

Dave Anderson suggested reducing the side setback to 5 feet.

John Little entered the meeting at 10:51 a.m.

Leon Van Sickle asked if the trail can meander, which would allow him to have a zero

setback with the trail not abutting the building.

Chris Thompson stated with a corner lot it is important to maintain the parkstrip incase

right turn lanes are needed.

Cory Pierce stated that the parkstrip is used for the utilities and it becomes a problem if

the trail meanders.

Dave Anderson stated that he does not see the Planning Commission entertaining the

zero-setback that Leon Van Sickle has proposed.

Junior Baker agreed and stated there needs to be something between the wall and the

trail.

There was discussion of right-of-way and setback when discussing the possible new cross

section.

Leon Van Sickle stated the problem is the cost of moving the equipment to another

location which takes time, about a month, and is very expensive. They need to be able to

expand to the full extent of the land they are located on. The setback hurts and every foot

that the city asks for is critical.

Dave Anderson stated that anything less than 5 feet becomes a hard sell to the Planning

Commission and City Council.

John Little exited the meeting at 11:01 a.m.

Seth Perrins stated that the corner needs to be able to accommodate the traffic.

John Little returned to the meeting at 11:03 a.m.

Seth Perrins stated in the last meeting Leon Van Sickle expressed he will be building a

steel building, and he wonders why he would not do a block building like what has been

done for the rest of the building. The look of the building is important the closer it gets to

the right-of-way.

Dave Anderson stated the Planning Commission will bring up that concern as well.

Leon Van Sickle stated that the cost of brick has gone up substantially in one year.

Seth Perrins is looking for continuity of the addition to the existing building.

There was discussion of some architectural features for the building.

Leon Van Sickle stated that would be fun and he agrees.

The trail is to stay 10 feet wide and to be located on the west side of Main Street.

Dave Anderson recommends the setback be reduced to 5 feet from the back of the trail.

Leon Van Sickle asked if the setback could be 4 feet.

It was agreed that would be sufficient.

Dave Anderson moved to recommend approval of the Title 15 Amendment of the Industrial

Zone Setbacks with the following conditions:

Conditions

1. That there is a component of architectural enhancement to the proposed buildings that

close to the right-of-way.

2. That the side setback be reduced to 4 feet.

Junior Baker seconded and the motion passed all in favor.

A public hearing has been scheduled for your October 4 meeting.

attachment: proposed changes to Title 15




RE: High Density Residential Zoning District

This proposed language would create a new zoning district that would allow for higher density

development than what is currently allowed on sites located in certain parts of the community on

sites that are 2 acres in size or larger. You are aware that this proposal has been discussed many

times in recent months and staff believes it is close to being ready for adoption. To that end, the

Development Review Committee reviewed this draft language on September 27 and

recommended that it be approved with the understanding that there are still a couple of issues

they look to the Planning Commission to address. Among these issues are the parking standard

and height limit.

A public hearing has been scheduled for your October 4 meeting and staff anticipates presenting

an updated concept plan for the Rees development for your review in that meeting.

15.3.16.032. R-5 Residential District

This district is intended to allow for the redevelopment of parcels located in the central part of

the community. It is anticipated that the majority of the dwellings in this zone will be in multi-unit

structures arranged primarily in a stacked configuration. The R-5 zone may only be utilized in the

original plats of the City between 300 West, 1000 North, 800 East and 400 South. Also, the R-5

zone shall only be used where properties have the Mixed Use, High Density Residential or Urban

Density designations.

A. Permitted Uses:

1. Single-family dwellings.

2. Twinhomes.

3. Duplexes.

4. Townhomes.

5. Stacked flats.

6. Recreation and other support facilities connected to housing developments.

7. Municipal facilities required for local service.

8. Churches (when located on a collector or arterial street).

B. Uses Subject to Conditions:

1. Home Occupations (as described in 5.40.010 et seq.).

2. Master Planned Developments (as described in 15.3.24.030 et seq.).

3. Subdivision Model Home Complexes (as described in 15.3.24.060 et seq.).

4. Temporary office or construction trailers (as described in 15.3.24.040 et seq.).

C. Uses Subject to Conditional Use Permit (see 15.3.08.060):

1. Wireless communication facilities on existing structures, with the intent to make

them stealth facilities, which are not noticeable to a degree greater than the

structure to which it is attached; or new stealth facilities which are camouflaged

into its surroundings.

D. Accessory Buildings and Uses (see 15.3.24.090).

E. Development Standards.

1. Density shall not exceed 18 units per acre. For purposes of calculating allowed

density, sensitive lands, church sites, school sites and sites for other

non-residential uses may not be counted in the density calculations.

2. Minimum project size is 2 acres.

3. Minimum street frontage for a development is 80 feet.

4. Maximum impervious surface in the R-5 zone shall be 75% of the project area.

5. Minimum parking shall include 2.5 spaces for each unit in the development. One

covered parking space shall be provided for each unit and enclosed garages shall

be provided for fifty percent 50% of the units.

6. Minimum finished living space shall be provided as follows:

a. Single-family residence, 1,000 square feet.

b. Twinhome, 900 square feet, each unit.

c. Duplex, 900 square feet, each unit.

d. Townhome, 900 square feet, each unit.

e. Other multi-family units, 600 square feet for each studio unit, 720 square

feet for each one-bedroom unit, 900 square feet for each two-bedroom

unit, 1,200 square feet for each unit with three or more bedrooms.

f. All projects must have an average dwelling unit size of 900 square feet or

larger.

7. Curb, gutter, and sidewalk shall be provided in accordance with the City’s

Development Standards.

F. Development Design.

1. Building Design: multi-family projects shall include design features that

differentiate adjoining units and create identity for each unit by meeting the

following requirements:

a. Multi-family projects shall include a variety of unit sizes.

b. Multi-Family projects shall include elements that engage public right-of-

ways and common areas.

i. Where possible, units shall have direct access to the public right-of-

way.

ii. Balconies and porches shall be provided adjacent to public rights-

of-way and common areas.

c. Multi-family projects shall include a variety of heights with a maximum

height of thirty-five (35) feet.

d. Long, continuous rooflines and ridgelines greater than forty (40) feet shall

not be permitted.

e. The front facade of multi-family structures shall exhibit visual relief through

an array of architectural features such as roof dormers, hips, gables,

porches, wall projections and fenestration.

f. Multi-family projects shall include a variety of building colors and materials.

A minimum of three (3) colors per elevation is required. Multi-family

project proposals may be required to submit a sample board containing

examples of all exterior surfacing materials and colors.

g. Side-by-side multi-family dwelling units, that are attached horizontally,

shall not exceed six (6) attached units per building.

h. Exposed foundation walls shall not exceed four (4) feet above finished

grade at any point.

2. Project Design: multi-family projects shall meet the following requirements:

a. All exposed sides of multiple-family structures shall have framed windows.

b. Side and rear elevations that are visible from public and private streets

shall match the architectural detailing of the front facade.

c. Building materials for multiple-family structures shall consist of at least

fifty percent (50%) brick, stone or synthetic stone on all sides of the

structure.

d. Street oriented facades shall protrude beyond the garage door by at least

five (5) feet.

e. Shared entrances for multiple-family structures shall be centrally located,

accentuated with architectural detailing and well lit.

f. Utility and mechanical equipment extending from multiple-family structures

shall be clustered and screened. When the project architecture contains

pitched roofs, the roof mounted utility equipment shall be situated on the

back side of the roof pitch.

g. Carports and garages shall complement the project architecture in terms of

design, materials and colors.

3. Building Placement and Orientation: multi-family projects shall meet the following

requirements:

a. All multi-family structures shall front onto a right-of-way.

b. Where the R-5 zone abuts any R-1 or R-3 zone, the setback for primary

buildings adjacent to the R-1 or R-3 zoned properties shall match or exceed

building heights. Otherwise, setbacks shall be as follows for all primary

buildings:

a. Front yard, 10 feet from public right-of-way or shared driveway to living

space. The maximum front setback to living space in multi-family

buildings is 20 feet.

b. Corner side yard, 15 feet to living space.

c. Interior side yard, 10 feet, provided 15 feet exists between residences.

d. Rear yard, 15 feet.

e. Accessory buildings, 5 feet to property lines and other structures.

f. Garage doors, 20 feet from public right-of-way.

c. Interior fencing for multi-family projects shall be limited to encourage

shared open space, pedestrian access and project integration into the

surrounding neighborhood. Private fencing (owned by an owner of an

individual unit) shall only be permitted when the fence extends directly

from the unit to delineate between common and private space. Fencing

shall be uniform in design and construction.

d. Parking should generally be located behind multi-family structures. This

includes rear loaded garages, auto courtyards and parking lots.

e. Required guest parking shall be evenly distributed throughout multi-family

projects and be easily accessible.

f. Landscaping strips in the middle of driveways (between parking spaces)

should be used to break up expanses of impervious surface.

g. Parking areas shall be broken into smaller parking clusters of twelve (12)

spaces or less.

4. Open Space: no less than twenty-five percent (25%) of the gross project area,

shall be open space. Applicants shall submit landscape plans for all open space.

Landscape plans shall include a plant schedule, planting plan, irrigation plan,

fencing plans, planting details and plans for any proposed structures or features.

Required open space may include the following:

a. Open space areas shall be available to everyone residing in the boundaries

of a development.

b. Open space may include pathways and outdoor amenities.

c. Open space excludes private balconies, decks, patio areas, recreation

buildings, indoor amenities, vehicle parking, streets and streetscape

sidewalks.

e. Open space should be clustered to create the most beneficial and efficient

use of space.

5. Amenities: centrally located amenities shall be provided for multi-family projects.

a. Projects of fewer than fifty (50) dwelling units shall provide an amenities

package appropriate for the project size and location.

i. Multi-family projects shall include at least one amenity per fifty (50)

units from the following list.

a) Tot lot with play structure.

b) Community garden.

c) Courtyard with benches.

d) Picnic tables and BBQ area with shade structures.

e) Swimming pool (indoor or outdoor).

f) Sports courts (i.e., tennis, basketball, volleyball).

g) Other active or passive recreational areas that meet the intent of

this guideline.

ii. Projects of fifty-one (51) to one-hundred (100) dwelling units shall

include the following amenities in addition to those required in

subsection 15.3.16.032(F)(5)(a)(1) of this section.

a) A minimum of one indoor, centrally located, fully functional social

area, no less than one-thousand (1,000) square feet in size, or a

minimum of one outdoor social function area, no less than two-

thousand (2,000) square feet in size.

iii. Projects of one-hundred-one (101) or more dwelling units shall include

the following amenities in addition to those required in subsection

15.3.16.032(F)(5)(a)(1 and 2) of this section.

a) A minimum of one indoor, centrally located, fully functional social

area, no less than one-thousand (1,000) square feet in size.

b) A minimum of one outdoor social function area, no less than two-

thousand (2,000) square feet in size.

6. Access: street connectivity should be enhanced with R-5 development and

connections to surrounding neighborhoods.

a. A traffic impact study may be required for multi-family projects.

b. The number of road connections and access points for a multi-family

project shall be proportional to the number of units.

c. Pedestrian pathways shall be provided between access points, entryways,

public gathering nodes, and parking areas. Pedestrian access points

should be installed between the project and the surrounding neighborhood.

d. All multiple-family projects shall submit a photo-metric lighting plan.

7. Development Agreements: In order to ensure conformity to approved plans and

conditions of approval, and to give assurance that any successor in interest is

bound by the same plans and conditions, the City may require applicants to enter

into project-specific development agreements with covenants which run with the

land, a notice of which will be recorded.

15.4.16.130 Landscaping, Buffering, Walls and Fences

A. Purpose: The purpose of these requirements is to enhance, conserve, and stabilize

property values by encouraging pleasant and attractive surroundings and to provide

proper separations between uses. Landscaping should also contribute to the reduction

of heat and glare through the proper placement of plants and trees.

B. Multi-family residential uses:

1. Minimum of twenty-five (25) percent on-site landscaping as a percentage of

total site area in the R-3, and R-4 developments. Minimum of twenty (20)

percent on-site landscaping as a percentage of total site area in the R-5

developments.

Table 1 - Residential Development Standards

District Base or Maximum

Density Per Acre

Minimum lot dimensions Minimum Setback Max Building Height5

Lot Area Width Depth Front6 Rear

7 Side Corner Principal

Building

Accessory

Building1

A-E not applicable 40 acres 400’ 400’ 50’ 50’ 50’ 50’ 35’ 35’

R-R not applicable 5 acres 200’ 200’ 50’ 50’ 25’ 50’ 35’ 35’

R-1-80 .4 units (base) 80,000 sf 180’ 200’ 40’ 80’ 20’ 30’ 35’ 20’

R-1-60 .54 units (base) 60,000 sf 160’ 200’ 40’ 60’ 20’ 30’ 35’ 20’

R-1-40 .81 units (base) 40,000 sf 140’ 200’ 30’ 40’ 20’ 30’ 35’ 20’

R-1-30 1.07 units (base) 30,000 sf 130’ 150’ 40’ 40’ 15’ 25’ 35’ 20’

R-1-20 1.61 units (base) 20,000 sf 125’ 150’ 30’ 30’ 15’ 25’ 35’ 15’

R-1-15 2.15 units (base) 15,000 sf 100’ 125’ 20-25’2

25’ 10’ 15-25’4

35’ 15’

R-1-12 2.69 units (base) 12,000 sf 100’ 100’ 20-25’2

25’ 10’ 15-25’4

35’ 15’

R-1-9 3.58 units (base) 9,000 sf 85’ 90’ 20-25’2

25’ 10’ 15-25’4

35’ 15’

R-1-8 4.03 units (base) 8,000 sf 75’ 90’ 20-25’2

25’ 10’ 15-25’4

35’ 15’

R-1-6 5.37 units (base) 6,000 sf 50’ 90’ 20-25’2

25’ 5-10’3

15-25’4

35’ 15’

R-3 8 units (maximum) 6,000 sf 50’ 90’ 20-25’2

25’ 5-10’3

15-25’4

35’ 15’

R-4 18 units (maximum) 6,000 sf 50’ 90’ 20’ 15’ 15’ 15’ 45' 15’

R-5 18 units (maximum) 6,000 sf 50’ 90’ 10-20’8

15’ 15’ 15’ 45' 15’

R-O not applicable 6,000 sf 50’ 90’ 20-25’2

25’ 5-10’3

15-25’4

35’ 15’

1 - Refer to 15.3.24.090(A) for accessory buildings.

2 - 20 feet to living areas, 25 feet to garages or carports, and 20 feet to the front of a side entry garage.

3 - 5 feet on one side, 10 feet on the other side for single family dwellings; 10 feet for non-residential uses.

4 - 15 feet to living area, 25 feet to garages or carports, and 20 feet to the front of a side entry garage.

5 - Flagpoles are limited to the height of principal buildings in a residential zone.

6 - Maximum setback is 250 feet, with an all-weather driveway, capable of supporting a fire truck, and with adequate turn around space for a fire truck

at the end of the drive. Greater distances may be allowed if a fire hydrant is installed within 250 feet of the principal building.

7 - On corner lots, the setback is reduced by 5 feet.

8 - 10 feet minimum front setback, 20 foot maximum front setback.




RE: Landscape Requirements

This proposal is still something of a work in progress. Staff presents this to the Planning

Commission now to start gathering input on the proposal but will likely ask the Commission to

continue it so staff can spend some additional time making adjustments. A public hearing has

been scheduled for the Commission’s October 4 meeting and the Development Review

Committee has recommended that it be approved with the understanding that additional changes

might be necessary.

15.4.16.130 Landscaping, Buffering, Walls and Fences

A. Purpose: The purpose of these requirements is to enhance, conserve, and stabilize

property values by encouraging pleasant and attractive surroundings and to provide

proper separations between uses. Landscaping should also contribute to the reduction of

heat and glare through the proper placement of plants and trees.

B. Residential Uses:

1. Multi-family Uses:

a. Minimum of twenty-five (25%) thirty percent (30%) on-site landscaping as a

percentage of total site area, except in the R-5 Zone where twenty (20%) on-site

landscaping is required.

b. Parking lots shall include planter areas within the parking lot, with a minimum of

108 square feet of planter area for every ten (10) parking spaces. Required

planter areas shall be individual islands of landscaping and shall be at least six (6)

feet wide. Required planter areas shall include Shade Trees parking lot trees, as

identified on the City’s approved list of Shade Trees parking lot trees, with a

maximum spacing of thirty (30) feet.

c. Minimum of fifteen (15) foot wide planter area adjacent to all public streets, which

shall include trees with a maximum spacing of thirty (30) feet. The planter area

may be partially or completely within the street right-of-way area. The specific

trees used shall be selected from the City’s approved Shade Tree Street Tree list.

On streets included in the Shade Tree Street Tree Master Plan, the trees selected

shall include the mix of trees as prescribed by the Plan. Shade Trees Street Trees

must be planted within thirty (30) feet of the public street curb; wherever possible,

fifty percent (50%) of the required Shade Trees Street Trees must be planted in

the park strip.

d. Minimum of ten (10) foot wide planter area and six (6) foot high decorative block

wall, where any multi-family use abuts a single-family residential use or district.

The planter area shall include trees with a maximum spacing of thirty (30) feet.

i. The DRC may waive or modify this requirement, if it is determined that this

requirement does not further the intent of this ordinance.

e. The total number of required trees and shrubs for every 1,000 square feet of

required landscaping shall equal two (2) three (3) trees and ten (10) shrubs.

f. In cases where it is determined that utilizing tree species found in the approved

Shade Tree list would adversely impact electric power lines, the use of substitute

tree species can be approved by the Community Development Department. Trees

planted in close proximity to electric power lines may be subject to height

limitations that will be imposed as part of the development review process.

2. Single Family and Twin Home Uses:

a. All single family residential lots shall have the front yard, side-street yards for

corner lots and park strips landscaped within one (1) year of receiving a certificate

of occupancy. Interior side and back yards must be landscaped within two years of

receiving a certificate of occupancy.

b. Required landscaping shall be comprised of live turf grass with a sprinkler

(irrigation) system, xeriscape improvements, other manicured vegetative

groundcover or a combination of them all.

c. All portions of a lot that are not improved with impervious materials must be

landscaped within the above described timelines. Weeds do not qualify as

required landscaping.

d. No more than 70% of a lot shall be surfaced with impervious materials. No more

than 80% of the front and side-street setback areas can be improved with

impervious surfaces.

e. In order to ensure landscaping requirements are met, Spanish Fork City shall

require applicants to provide a deposit with the construction of new homes. The

deposit amount shall be determined in the City budget and will be returned to the

property owner when the required front and side-street yard landscaping has been

installed. In the event that the required landscaping has not been installed within

four (4) years after the certificate of occupancy has been issued, the deposit will

be forfeited to the City.

C. Professional Office and Non-residential or Non-commercial Uses:

1. Minimum of twenty percent (20%) twenty-five percent (25%) on-site landscaping as a

percentage of total site area.

2. Parking lots shall include planter areas within the parking lot, with a minimum of 108

square feet of planter area for every ten (10) parking spaces. Required planter areas

shall be individual islands of landscaping and shall be at least six (6) feet wide.

Required planter areas shall include Shade Trees parking lot trees, as identified on the

City’s approved list of Shade Trees parking lot trees, with a maximum spacing of thirty

(30) feet.

3. Minimum of fifteen (15) foot wide planter area adjacent to all public streets, which

shall include trees with a maximum spacing of thirty (30) feet. The planter area may

be partially or completely within the street right-of-way area. The specific trees used

shall be selected from the City’s approved Shade Tree Street Tree list. On streets

included in the Shade Tree Street Tree Master Plan, the trees selected shall include

the mix of trees as prescribed by the Plan. Shade Trees Street Trees must be planted

within thirty (30) feet of the public street curb; wherever possible, fifty percent (50%)

of the required Shade Trees Street Tree must be planted in the park strip.

4. Minimum of ten (10) foot wide planter area and six (6) foot high Wall where the site

abuts a residential use or district. The planter area shall include trees with a maximum

spacing of thirty (30) feet.

a. The DRC may waive or modify this requirement, if it is determined that this


5. The total number of required trees and shrubs for every 1,000 square feet of required

landscaping shall equal two (2) three (3) trees and ten (10) twenty (20) shrubs.

6. In cases where it is determined that utilizing tree species found in the approved Shade

Tree list would adversely impact electric power lines, the use of substitute tree species

can be approved by the Community Development Department. Trees planted in close

proximity to electric power lines may be subject to height limitations that will be

imposed as part of the development review process.

D. Commercial Uses:

1. Minimum of fifteen percent (15%) on-site landscaping as a percentage of total site

area.






(30) feet.


shall include one Shade Tree Street Tree for each thirty (30) feet of frontage along all

public streets. The specific trees used shall be selected from the City’s approved

Shade Tree Street Tree list. On streets included in the Shade Tree Street Tree

Master Plan, the trees selected shall include the mix of trees as prescribed by the

Plan. Shade Trees Street trees must be planted within thirty (30) feet of the public

street curb; wherever possible, fifty percent (50%) of the required Shade Trees Street

Trees must be planted in the park strip.




a. The DRC may waive or modify this requirement, if it is determined that this


5. The total number of required trees and shrubs for every 1,000 square feet of required

landscaping shall equal three (3) trees and twenty (20) shrubs.






E. Industrial Uses:

1. Minimum of ten percent (10%) on-site landscaping as a percentage of total site area.






(30) feet. The planter area may be partially or completely within the street right-of-

way area.


shall include trees with a maximum spacing of thirty (30) feet. The specific trees used

shall be selected from the City’s approved Shade Tree Street Tree list. On streets

included in the Shade Tree Street Tree Master Plan, the trees selected shall include

the mix of trees as prescribed by the Plan. Shade Trees Street Trees must be planted

within thirty (30) feet of the public street curb; wherever possible, fifty percent (50%)

of the required Shade Trees Street Tree must be planted in the park strip.




1. The DRC may waive or modify this requirement, if it is determined that this


5. All other landscaped areas shall include at least one (1) Shade Tree non-ornamental

tree and ten (10) shrubs for each 1,000 square feet of landscaped areas. Natural

vegetation may be included if materials are appropriate for the setting and location.

The total number of required trees and shrubs for each 1,000 square feet of required

landscaping shall equal one (1) Shade Tree non-ornamental tree and ten (10) shrubs;

and






wednesday, october 4, 2017 planning commission meeting · wednesday, october 4, 2017 planning...

Documents