Document Ogden_doc_e6231e132f

OGDEN CITY PLANNING COMMISSION 2549 WASHINGTON BOULEVARD OGDEN, UTAH AGENDA March 1, 2017 There will be a meeting of the Ogden City Planning Commission held March 7, 2017, at 5:00 p.m. in the City Council Chambers on the 3rd Floor of the Ogden City Municipal Building, 2549 Washington Boulevard. Commission members are invited to attend a work session field trip which will leave the Municipal Building Parking Lot at 4:00 p.m. The following items will be discussed during the work session as well as in the regular meeting. However, formal consideration, open discussion and decision making process will be limited to the regular meeting. Approximate Start Time* Agenda Item Recommendation to: PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE – led by Cathy Blaisdell 5:00 p.m. 1. Approval of the Minutes, of the regular meeting held February 1, 2017 and work session held February 15, 2017. 2. Common Consent: a. Public Hearing, Preliminary/Final Subdivision Approval for Garden Hills Subdivision, approximately 540 22nd St. (Attachment A) b. Public Hearing, Preliminary/Final Subdivision Approval, for Shupe approximately 3225 Midland Dr. (Attachment B) c. Public Hearing, Plat vacation of Lots 27-289, BDO Plat 11/Preliminary/Final Subdivision Approval, for BDO Plat 11, First Amendment, approximately 641 W 400 N. (Attachment C) Mayor – 3/3/17 Mayor – 3/3/17 Mayor – 3/3/17 5:05 p.m. 3. Public Hearing, Petition to Amend BDO Street Master Plan, by removing Amidan Street as a public street. (Attachment D) City Council* 5:10 p.m. 4. Public Hearing, Preliminary/Final Subdivision Approval, for BDO Plat 29, approximately 400 S Depot Dr. (Attachment E) Mayor – 3/3/17 5:15 p.m. 5. Public Hearing, Petition #2017-2, to amend Zoning Ordinance, to define and establish requirements for student housing options in the R-5 zone. (Attachment F) City Council* 5:35 p.m. 6. CBD Site Plan, for Ogden Art Garage/Commercial Spacer, 455 25th St. (Attachment G) Mayor – 3/3/17 5:50 p.m. 7. Amended CBD Site Plan, for Argo House, 529 25th St. (Attachment H) Mayor – 3/3/17 6:10 p.m. 8. CBD Site Plan, for buildi8ng façade remodel at 2024 Washington Blvd. (Attachment I) Mayor – 3/3/17 6:20 p.m. 9. Amendment to Ogden River Bend Phase 1, site and development agreement located at 20th & Grant by adding carports. (Attachment J) RDA* 6:30 p.m. 10. Public Hearing, Petition #2017-5, to amend West Ogden Community Plan to consider an option for C-3/CO between 800 W-924 W 27th St. and both sides of Binford between F & G Ave. (Attachment K) City Council* 6:50 p.m. 11. Public Hearing, Petition #2017-4, to rezone property at approximately 1800 E Canyon Rd. to be included in the 12th St. Corridor Overlay Zone. (Attachment L) *City Council Reports: Landmarks Commission – Lillie Holman Citizen Advisory – Rick Southwick Ogden Trails Network – Ross Patterson Review of Meeting Mayor’s Administrative Review Meeting - Friday March 3, 2017 - 11:00 a.m. - 3rd Floor, Municipal Building *The City Council meets the first, third and fourth Tuesdays of each month. Please contact the City Council Office at 629-8153 for agenda information. The RDA typically meets the second Tuesday of each month. *Start times are approximate – item may be discussed before or after identified start time In compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act, persons needing auxiliary communicative aids or services for these meetings should call Ogden City Management Services at 629-8701 (TDD# 629-8949) or by e-mail: [EMAIL REDACTED] giving at least 48 hours advance notice. CERTIFICATE OF POSTING The undersigned, duly appointed City Recorder, does hereby certify that the above notice and/or agenda was posted in accordance with Utah State Code Annotated 52-4-202(3) on this 24th day of February, 2017 in the following places: 2nd floor foyer of the Ogden City Municipal Building; the Utah State Public Notice website, the Ogden City website, and provided to the Standard-Examiner. Tracy Hansen, Ogden City Recorder ---PAGE BREAK--- Page 1 of 19 Unofficial draft of the proceedings of the Ogden City Planning Commission meeting held February 1, 2017. This draft does not constitute official minutes of the Planning Commission, and will not, until approved by the Commission. Official minutes may vary significantly from these draft proceedings. Meeting was conducted by Chair Herman and began at 5:03 p.m. Members Present: Robert Herman, Chair Rick Southwick, Vice-Chair Cathy Blaisdell Dave Graf Lillie Holman Ross Patterson Bryan Schade Janith Wright Staff Present: Greg Montgomery, Planning Manager Clint Spencer, Assistant Planning Manager John Mayer, Planner Joseph Simpson, Planner Jannette Borklund, Planning Technician Mark Stratford, City Attorney Taylor Nielsen, Engineering Others Present: Jennifer Graham Jane Herndon Lincoln Dygert Greg Fitzgerald Mike Sanders Kathy Everett Casey Skeller Shane Sanders Steve Everett Larsen Quick Dan Stevens Ben Nadalski Geoff Grayson Bob Davis Richard Hyer Raymond Delgado Jill Davis Jeff Spencer Charlotte Jordan Brad Bower Thomas Daniels Edd Bridge Ryan Randall Lori Daniels Curt Bentley Roy Randall Ron Hales David Blake Mike Strand Pat Burns Tony Pantone Emily Strand Treston Sadler Worth Petersen Dave DeYoung Brandy Anderson Mancy Petersen Bob Lower 1. Approval of the Minutes, of the regular meeting held January 4, 2017 and work session held January 18, 2017 2. Common Consent: a. Consideration of Amendment CIP, 2017-2021 to allow futsal courts at Marshall White Center. b. Consideration of Amendment to Amend CIP 2018-2022, to allow upgrade of fuel tanks c. Conditional Use Permit Amendment, to allow additional antennas on Ben Lomond Hotel, 2510 Washington Boulevard. 3. Request for Encroachment Permit, to allow marquee sign at 2550 Washington Boulevard in CBDI zone. 4. Public Hearing, to consider amending the T O Smith Community Plan, to allow a C-1 option for property at 3475-3495 Harrison Boulevard. ---PAGE BREAK--- Page 2 of 19 5. Public Hearing, Petition to Rezone, from R-4 to C-1 property at 3475-3495 Harrison Boulevard. 6. Public Facility Site Plan, to allow outdoor archery range at 2840 F Avenue. 7. Amended CBD Site Plan, Imagine Jefferson Phase 2 at 510 25 th Street. 8. Conditional Use Permit, to allow Plum Creek Private Subdivision #3 at approximately 770 E. 7 th Street. 9. Public Hearing, Preliminary Subdivision Approval, for Plum Creek #3 at approximately 770 E 7 th Street. 10. Public Hearing, Petition to Rezone, from R-1-6 and PI to R-5/CO property at approximately 3850 Harrison Boulevard. 11. Public Hearing, Petition to Amend Zoning Ordinance, to allow more than three unrelated adults in the R-5 zone. Reports: Landmarks Commission – Lillie Holman Ogden Trails Network – Ross Patterson Review of Meeting 1. Approval of the Minutes, of the regular meeting held January 4, 2017 and work session held January 18, 2017. A motion was made by Commissioner Blaisdell to approve the minutes as prepared. Motion was seconded by Commissioner Wright and passed unanimously. 2. Common Consent: a. Consideration of Amendment CIP, 2017-2021 to allow futsal courts at Marshall White Center. Mr. Montgomery reported this CIP amendment is to allow for the construction of futsal courts with financial assistance now available from REAL Salt Lake. The proposal is to convert a tennis court area to a futsal court. The Commission must approve any amendment to the CIP to determine its compliance with the General Plan. The Jefferson Community Plan suggests there could be better use of property at the Marshall White Center as well as a greater need for soccer venues. Staff recommendation is for approval. MOTION: A motion was made by Commissioner Holman to recommend approval of the amendment as proposed based on the findings it is consistent with the General Plan. Motion was seconded by Commissioner Blaisdell and passed unanimously, with Commissioners Blaisdell, Graf, Holman, Patterson, Schade, Wright and Herman voting aye. b. Consideration of Amendment to Amend CIP 2018-2022, to allow upgrade of fuel tanks Mr. Montgomery reported this request is to upgrade Ogden City fuel tanks to be compliant with EPA regulations and become part of a State-wide fuel system. The proposal is to replace tanks at 29 th and Reeves ns well as at 1875 Monroe. The Commission must approve any amendment to the CIP to determine its compliance with the General Plan. The General Plan indicates the City should provide resources for public buildings and facilities, and it is felt this upgrade is consistent with the Plan. Staff recommends approval. MOTION: A motion was made by Commissioner Holman to recommend approval of the amendment as proposed based on the findings it is consistent with the General ---PAGE BREAK--- Page 3 of 19 Plan. Motion was seconded by Commissioner Blaisdell and passed unanimously, with Commissioners Blaisdell, Graf, Holman, Patterson, Schade, Wright and Herman voting aye. c. Conditional Use Permit Amendment, to allow additional antennas on Ben Lomond Hotel, 2510 Washington Boulevard. Mr. Spencer reported this request is to replace three existing antennas on the roof of the Ben Lomond Hotel as well as to add three additional 8’ tall antennas. He identified the proposed placement and indicated Staff is recommending the antennas be painted to match the existing antennas and equipment on the brook, and those to be attached to the wall be painted to match the color of the brick. Staff recommendation is for approval of the conditional use permit subject to the antennas and visible equipment be painted to match the brick color of the building, and all Staff review comments be satisfied. MOTION: A motion was made by Commissioner Holman to approve the conditional use permit based on the findings the design of the antennas on the building and site will be compatible with surrounding properties so long as Staff recommendations are complied with, and that the antennas will be in compliance with the regulations and conditions of the land use ordinances. Approval is subject to the antennas on the north side of the building being painted to match the brick color of the building, all antennas and visible equipment be painted to match existing equipment, and all Staff review comments being satisfied. Motion was seconded by Commissioner Blaisdell and passed unanimously, with Commissioners Blaisdell, Graf, Holman, Patterson, Schade, Wright and Herman voting aye. Rick Southwick arrived at 5:08 p.m. 3. Request for Encroachment Permit, to allow marquee sign at 2550 Washington Boulevard in CBDI zone. Mr. Geoff Grayson, representing Allied Signs, stated the owners desire to install a marquee sign to advertise the new business. It would extend 4’7” from the face of the building and would extend over the public sidewalk. There is historic evidence of marquee signs on this building during the 1950’s. Mr. Spencer stated this request is for an encroachment permit for a sign for a business which has recently opened in this building. He presented old photos of the building showing marquee signs were historically present on the building. While the building has some historic features, it is not on the Local or National Register. He reviewed the sign regulations, stating the sign is allowed 240 square feet of signage and now has 18 square feet. The proposed marquee sign would add 66 square feet of signage and is within the allotment of signs for the building. The height of the sign is 10’ 4” from the sidewalk and encroaches 4’ 10” into the public right-of-way. City codes require a minimum of 10’ from the sidewalk. Staff recommendation is for approval subject to all Staff review comments being satisfied. MOTION: A motion was made by Commissioner Schade to recommend approval of the encroachment permit based on the findings there is good reason for the encroachment, it will not interfere with the use of the public way by either vehicular ---PAGE BREAK--- Page 4 of 19 or pedestrian travel, or with utilities legally installed in or over the public way, is an appropriate use of public property, and does comply with all applicable zoning ordinances. Approval is subject to all Staff review comments being satisfied. Motion was seconded by Commissioner Southwick and passed unanimously, with Commissioners Blaisdell, Graf, Holman, Patterson, Schade, Southwick, Wright and Herman voting aye. 4. Public Hearing, to consider amending the T O Smith Community Plan, to allow a C-1 option for property at 3475-3495 Harrison Boulevard. Mr. Lincoln Dygert stated he desires to extend his existing building at 3475 Harrison and the increased size extends to the adjacent property, which is not currently zoned to allow the use. Mr. Tony Pantone stated the proposed building will extend from the existing building to the south. He stated the owner has contacted UDOT regarding access and the proposed site design will close three existing approaches while keeping the existing approach further to the south. Mr. Simpson stated this is the first step to allow consideration of rezoning of the property. Because the TO Smith Community Plan which must occur if the property is to be rezoned. The TO Smith Plan was adopted in 1994 at which time this area remained zoned as R-4 with an option to become PI, but C-1 was not identified as an option. At that time, the regulations and standards for PI uses were different than now, and the property would not have adequate lot area to develop as a PI use. The desire is to expand the existing optician office, but both properties will still be less than the required acre for a PI use. The TO Smith Plan also indicates existing uses on Harrison should be supported. The applicant is seeking C-1 zoning for his property, and Staff has included property extending between 3475 to 3495 Harrison. In determining whether a plan amendment is justified, the Commission is to consider whether changes have occurred in the community since the plan was adopted, and whether the proposed amendment meets the objectives and intent of the plan. While there has not been a lot of physical change in the area, Harrison has become more and more busy, and the use of single- family homes along Harrison, particularly in this area, had decreased. The PI regulations have changed, making that zone not viable for the construction proposed. The C-1 zoning would allow the proposed office use, yet protect the area from the potential of becoming a full-scale commercial facility. He reviewed the sections of the TO Smith Plan proposed to be amended, and recommended approval of the amendment as proposed. Commissioner Schade clarified the request is applicable only to properties along Harrison boulevard and not into the west on Brinker Avenue. Ms. Marci Peterson stated she owns property at 1135 38 th Street and asked if her property were being considered as part of the project. Mr. Simpson stated the 38 th Street neighborhood was invited to attend the meeting considering a rezoning further on the agenda, and this project would affect from 34 th to 35 th Street on the west side of Harrison. Multi-family zoning exists between the commercial property on Harrison and the residential neighborhood to the west. As there were no additional public comments, a motion was made by Commissioner Wright to close the public hearing. Motion was seconded by Commissioner Southwick and passed unanimously. ---PAGE BREAK--- Page 5 of 19 Commissioner Patterson disclosed he owns property to the west, which is diagonal to this property and asked if he should be excused from voting. Commission felt there was no conflict of interest. MOTION: A motion was made by Commissioner Blaisdell to recommend approval of the proposed plan amendment based on the findings the plan amendment will be consistent with physical changes that have occurred in the area, will meet the intended objectives of the plan, and will support the community perspective of the plan. Motion was seconded by Commissioner Patterson and passed unanimously, with Commissioners Blaisdell, Graf, Holman, Patterson, Schade, Southwick, Wright and Herman voting aye. 5. Public Hearing, Petition to Rezone, from R-4 to C-1 property at 3475-3495 Harrison Boulevard. Mr. Dygert stated he desires the property to be rezoned to allow his business to expand. Mr. Simpson stated once the TO Smith Plan allows the option for commercial C-1, the Commission can proceed with consideration of the zoning of the property to C-1. He stated in order to consider rezoning property, the Commission first determines it is consistent with the General Plan, and then considers the Community Policies. With the previous action, the proposed rezoning becomes consistent with the TO Smith Community Plan. He reviewed applicable policies stating an edge is created and the use is buffered from other types of uses, the zoning will reflect the prevailing character of the area, zoning will not cut across property lines or developments, the primary frontage and land use is on a corner lot, appears to be based on market patterns and allows for the expansion of an existing commercial use, commercial zoning should be located on collector and arterial streets with access avoiding residential areas. He stated the site plan would be reviewed at a later date, but care would be taken to assure there is buffering to protect adjacent land uses. He stated the owner has contacted UDOT and received approval for an existing access to remain onto Harrison, with a second access to the site coming from 35 th Street. He stated the area to the west has many multi-family projects which provide a transition area between the commercial and single-family residential area to the west. Staff recommendation is for approval of the rezoning, stating the use appears appropriate along Harrison Boulevard, and is consistent with the TO Smith Plan and the Community Policies. Commissioner Southwick stated it appears to be appropriate to extend commercial zoning along Harrison, and asked if direction could be given to consider continuing the trend to other parts of Harrison. Mr. Simpson answered the Commission could consider the individual community plans, indicating the TO Smith Plan was adopted in 1994. Consideration also might be given to prepare a corridor plan for Harrison Boulevard. Commissioner Schade clarified it would be best if front of the building and its presence would remain on Harrison. Ms. Charlotte Jordan, 3836 Eccles Avenue, expressed concern that the family atmosphere of Harrison Boulevard is becoming lost to businesses, that it’s losing its friendly appearance. She felt it is unfortunate that homes be torn down, suggesting businesses should go into vacant commercial space and not intrude into neighborhoods. Mr. Tom Daniels, 3835 Van Buren stated the main intent of the Ogden City master plan is to promote home ownership, and the proposed rezoning does not do that. ---PAGE BREAK--- Page 6 of 19 As there were no additional comments, a motion was made by Commissioner Wright to close the public hearing. Motion was seconded by Commissioner Blaisdell and passed unanimously. MOTION: A motion was made by Commissioner Holman to recommend approval of the rezoning as proposed based on the findings it is consistent with the TO Smith Plan, and the policies of the General Plan. Motion was seconded by Commissioner Graf and passed unanimously, with Commissioners Blaisdell, Graf, Holman, Patterson, Schade, Southwick, Wright and Herman voting aye. 6. Public Facility Site Plan, to allow outdoor archery range at 2840 F Avenue. Ms. Jennifer Graham, representing Weber County, stated this request is to build a field archery range at the Weber County Landfill site, now named Observatory Park. She stated other plans for the area include additional trails, a picnic bowery, and trailhead parking. In addition, the parking gate on A Avenue will be refinished, and a walking path access to the area will become available at E Avenue. The archery is partially funded by RAMP grants in addition to matching County equipment and manpower as well as volunteer work. She stated the County also has procured a pitch-roofed equipment shed which will better match the surrounding residential environment. Mr. Montgomery stated the request is for the archery range on the west end of Observatory Park. It is in a ravine area with the use of some existing trails as well as some new trails to access the area. He stated the targets are spaced to provide various skill levels and distances, with shooting going into the hillside or downhill. He stated the Commission review is to assure its compliance with the Ogden City General Plan. The proposal meets the requirements of the Ordinance given that overflow parking for events is often allowed on grass. There are 15 parking spaces on dirt, with the improved asphalt parking lot being 2,200 feet from this area, but can be counted for the required parking for this use. He stated the facility should not be allowed to add more dirt parking, stating if more parking is desirable that it should be hard surfaced. The applicant may either use existing dirt area or regrade the area and provide a hard- surface parking area for its patrons, which would be an amenity for this area. Staff recommendation is for approval subject to the installation of a minimum of ten hard-surfaced parking spaces if general parking is proposed or graded next to the archery range. MOTION: A motion was made by Commissioner Graf to recommend approval of the site plan based on the findings it is consistent with the General Plan and the West Ogden Community Plan. Approval is subject to a minimum lf ten hard-surfaced parking stalls be installed if general parking is proposed or graded next to the archery range. Motion was seconded by Commissioner Southwick and passed unanimously, with Commissioners Blaisdell, Graf, Holman, Patterson, Schade, Southwick Wright and Herman voting aye. 7. Amended CBD Site Plan, Imagine Jefferson Phase 2 at 510 25 th Street. Mr. David Blake, representing Imagine Jefferson stated after the completion of the multi-family apartments at Adams and 25 th Street, it was determined a secured parking lot is desirable due to vandalism that was occurring. At the suggestion of the OPD, the owners built a fence with a gate allowing access into the lot to tenants only. They later learned the approval of the City was required, and is here seeking that approval. He stated tenants have the ability to open and close ---PAGE BREAK--- Page 7 of 19 the gate with a garage door opening device or “clicker”, with the gate remaining open only during daytime hours and closing after dark. He felt there is adequate stacking for tenants on private property and presented video footage of a vehicle approaching the gate and gaining access to the parking lot. Mr. Montgomery stated the fence and gate were not shown on the site plan which was approved by the Commission several months ago. He expressed concern for the ability of non-tenants using the gym facility, as the fence encloses parking which was designated for that facility, but agreed the needs of the tenants were satisfied by the stacking area available. Ten parking spaces were designated for the use of the gym as well as an additional 32 shared spaces for gym users. He referred to a letter from the applicant asking how tenants or users of the gym building would maintain access to the parking area. He stated if the Commission finds there is adequate stacking space for users, the gates may remain as they currently exist, but tenants and users of the gym building should be accommodated, as this was the approved parking for that building. If the Commission finds the gates should be moved to accommodate stacking of vehicles on private property, some parking near the access would be eliminated, but there would remain adequate on-site parking to accommodate the needs of the apartments and the maker space building. He stated the designated 10 stalls are on gym property, and the shared parking but is accessed only through this project. The City required signage to identify these spaces for users of the gym. He also indicated an access easement agreement needs to assure parking remains for the use of the gym building which indicates the parking cannot be revoked. Staff recommends approval of the fence, so long as they find stacking is adequate and clickers are provided for both users and tenants of the gym and that signage be installed for the gym stalls and the shared stalls within the project and the access easement agreement be amended so as to not be revocable. In order to meet typical stacking regulations, the gates should be 20’ inside the property line, which would relocate one fence 6’ towards the parking lot and the other 12’. However, if the Commission feels the approach to the gate provides adequate space for maneuverability and stacking, the gates may remain as they have been installed. Mr. Montgomery also stated when Phase 2 of Imagine Jefferson was approved, the applicant had provided Staff with a proposed scheme of what the gym building would be used for in order to determine its need for parking. Since the initial phase, the Commission had expressed concern that parking for the gym building be accommodated in the design of the rest of the block. He stated if the Commission feels the gate remaining open during daytime hours retains adequate access to the gym building, and the distribution of clickers to gym users and tenants provides the needed access to the facility, they could approve the gate and fence as it has been installed. Commission felt with the gate remaining open during the day, access is available for tenants. It was expressed the amount of parking required for the gym building already had been reduced and it would be unfortunate if it were unable to be used in the future due to the lack of parking because of concession made for the new buildings. Mr. Blake stated clickers will be given to appropriate users of the parking lot. He stated the gate can be programmed to stay open for evening activities in the gym facility. He stated much of the stacking is within the public right-of-way and could increase the stacking distance to 17’ rather than 12’. He stated the requirement of the Commission for the parking lot for the gym has been complied with and agreements signed by various entities, indicating those agreements ---PAGE BREAK--- Page 8 of 19 cannot be changed. The practical concern is that it could be revocable only if the owners or tenants do not pay taxes or in some other way do not comply with the agreements. The building is required to be insured, maintained and taxes be paid. Mr. Stratford stated the recorded document did not meet the requirements of the Planning Commission, stating the City is concerned that on-site parking for the gym, while on the gym property, its only access is through the Imagine Jefferson property, indicating the recorded document does not guarantee ongoing access to these parking spaces and does not comply with the City’s requirements. He stated at the time the document was recorded and provided to the City, the City informed the owners were notified it did not meet the requirements of the City and were informed the document was not for the approval of the City, but to indicate the requirements of the Planning Commission had been satisfied, but the requirements of the Planning Commission were not in fact met. While this is not the forum of this discussion, he is concerned the document should be amended as recommended by Staff. Mr. Curt Bentley stated there is no intent to restrict parking for users of the gym building, but if the gym tenants do not pay taxes or maintain their parking the right to use the shared parking spaces for the gym’s use can be suspended for up to a year or until payments are made. He felt a reasonable request for amendment would be entertained by the owners. Commissioner Blaisdell asked if the fence and gate might be approved this evening and that the negotiations for access to the parking might be resolved by staff. Mr. Stratford indicated that would be appropriate. MOTION: A motion was made by Commissioner Blaisdell to approve the fence and gate as they currently exist, subject to the gate being open during daytime hours and access provided to users and tenants of the gym building to allow access to their designated and shared stalls by either the gate being programmed to remain open during evening events or devices provided to owners and tenants of the building so they can gain access during evening hours as presented by the applicant, and allowing details of the access easement document to be worked out between Planning Staff, Legal Staff and the owner and their attorney to satisfy the intent of the Commission that the parking be perpetually available for the use of the gym building, and that signage be installed to identify the parking dedicated to the gym use and the shared parking spaces as recommended by Staff. Approval is based on the findings the amendment as proposed will comply with the regulations of the Development Code, the parking requirements of the earlier approval will be impacted by the proposed amendment, and the approval requirements are not met and do require additional conditions. 8. Conditional Use Permit, to allow Plum Creek Private Subdivision #3 at approximately 770 E. 7 th Street. Mr. Pat Burns indicated he is the owner of the property and is seeking approval. Mr. Mayer stated this project began in 1999 and while some phases were constructed, the most recent conditional use approval was in 2015 and has now lapsed. The design of the buildings is the same as wax approved for the group dwelling project in 2004. The proposal is for phases 3- 10 which will extend Plum Creek Drive and allow the construction of 36 additional units as four duplexes and seven four-plexes. Additional common open space has been proposed and will ---PAGE BREAK--- Page 9 of 19 be maintained by the HOA. He referred to a 2004 geotechnical study which identifies means to stabilize the hillside, and while the methodology may still be valid, it needs to be re-approved as the geologic features may have changed since that time. There may have been movement on the hillside since 2004. He stated the elevations meet the requirements of the original approval as well as the group dwelling ordinance. He stated this is a two-step approval process, and the conditions of approval are required to be addressed prior to final approval by the Planning Commission. Staff recommendation is for approval, subject to the following conditions: 1. The geotech solution for the retaining wall (using Redi-Rock system) be continued through the phases as necessary; 2. A geo-tech technician be present during the fill placement phase of construction; 3. The decorative street light theme be continued for future phases; 4. The placement of a minimum of five additional street trees minimum caliper) with irrigation along the north side of 7 th Street, and approved by the City Forester; 5. The fence along the 7 th Street right-of-way be repaired; and 6. New building elevations shall show less than 50% vinyl exterior, the batten and board exterior element and the wrapping of the stone/masonry wainscot around all four sides. Commission asked about the access to units in Phase 7 and expressed concern there is no turn- around proposed. Mr. Mayer responded while the cul-de-sac terminates before Phase 7, a private driveway extends from the cul-de-sac to service these lots. Discussion continued regarding fire access and the needed turning radius for fire equipment. MOTION: A motion was made by Commissioner Wright to approve the conditional use permit and phasing plan for the Village of Plum Creek #3-7 based on the findings the proposed development will not be detrimental to persons or property, is compatible with the intent, function and policies established in the General Plan, the use will conform to the character of the site, adjacent properties, surrounding neighborhoods and other existing development, the proposed site and building plan design is compatible with the character of the site, adjacent properties, surrounding neighborhoods and other existing development, and will comply with regulations and conditions for a group dwelling. Approval is subject to the following condition: 1. The geotech solution for the retaining wall (using Redi-Rock system) be continued through the phases as necessary; 2. A geo-tech technician be present during the fill placement phase of construction; 3. The decorative street light theme be continued for future phases; 4. The placement of a minimum of five additional street trees minimum caliper) with irrigation along the north side of 7 th Street, and approved by the City Forester; 5. The fence along the 7 th Street right-of-way be repaired; 6. New building elevations shall show less than 50% vinyl exterior, the batten and board exterior element and the wrapping of the stone/masonry wainscot around all four sides; and 7. A temporary turn-around be constructed for the use of fire safety equipment as directed by the Fire Department, to be in place until the cul-de-sac is available and completed. Motion was seconded by Commissioner Blaisdell and passed 7-1 with ---PAGE BREAK--- Page 10 of 19 Commissioners Blaisdell, Graf, Holman, Patterson, Southwick, Wright and Herman voting aye and Commissioner Schade voting no. Commissioner Schade indicated his vote is based on his concern about the safety of the hill, the lack of fire access, and the project proposes too many units in the space available. 9. Public Hearing, Preliminary Subdivision Approval, for Plum Creek #3 at approximately 770 E 7 th Street. Mr. Pat Burns stated he is working with the Home Owner’s Association and feels they will have the ability to support the project as it further develops. He stated it was his intent to sell the units as they were built, but some units within the project are rented. Mr. Mayer stated this request is for the abili8ty to subdivide the third phase of the Village at Plum Creek. He stated the initial owner had financial problems, and a subsequent owner in 2008 also was unable to complete the third phase. He stated as Phase 3 develops, the HOA will be responsible for the added area, including the gazebo, bridge, masonry for the volleyball court area. It is felt the additional funds coming into the HOA by new owners would allow the additional area to be serviced by them. Mr. Ray Lucero, 671 Plum Creek Drive, stated he represents the HOA which was recently reorganized as it had previously disbanded. H and his wife took care of all of the HOA requirements for a few years without compensation. He stated the type of fence is easily damaged and has been repaired and re-damaged. He expressed concerned about the liability the proposed volleyball court may produce for the HOA, particularly if it is available for use of the public. He felt if anyone is injured there, the HOA would be responsible, indicating the HOA is small and it could take time for homes to be built and their membership increased. He felt the location of the volleyball area invites use by others in the community and it would be difficult to be monitored or enforced by the HOA. He stated the existing sign and fence is not a deterrent to neighborhoods. As there were no additional comments, a motion was made by Commissioner Wright to close the public hearing. Motion was seconded by Commissioner Southwick and passed unanimously. Mr. Stratford indicated the project is required to provide open space in order to attain the density, and how it is managed is up to the residents. He stated while a “No Trespassing” sign may not deter neighborhood use of the volleyball courts, if someone were injured, it’s being there may provide some protection to the HOA. MOTION: A motion as made by Commissioner Holman to recommend approval for Phase 3 of the Village at Plum Creek based on the findings the lots as prop0osed will satisfy the requirements of both the Subdivision Ordinance and he Development Code. Approval is subject to service provider comments being satisfied, correction of the lot lines on the plat and the resolution of the second party interest in the property. Motion was seconded by Commissioner Wright and passed 7-1 with Commissioners Blaisdell, Graf, Holman, Patterson, Southwick, Wright and Herman voting aye and Commissioner Schade voting no. Commissioner Schade explained his vote is based on the concern about the safety of the hill, the lack of fire access, and he felt the project proposes too many units in the space available. ---PAGE BREAK--- Page 11 of 19 10. Public Hearing, Petition to Rezone, from R-1-6 and PI to R-5/CO property at approximately 3850 Harrison Boulevard. Mr. Dan Stevens stated it is his desire to construct a student housing complex, stating the enrollment at WSU has increased and is expected to continue to increase over the next several years. He stated WSU has the lowest price per student and is attracting more and more students. He felt the proposed housing would fill a need for the campus, stating WSU’s off- campus housing and dorms are between 75% and 95% occupied. He stated while the community has housing, there are few options for students this close to the campus, and this project would encompass a dilapidated lot, which would be an improvement to the overall City. He stated while it is typical to build the biggest and best project, there have been concerns expressed by the neighborhood residents, and the project has been scaled back to better blend with the community. He felt now is a good time for this scale of project, being four stories and 40 total units. Mr. Mayer stated this request is to consider the rezoning of property from PI and R-1-6 to R- 5/CO. The Commission previously considered amending the Southeast Ogden Plan to allow an option for R-5 with the condition that it develop as a conditional overlay with a development agreement to assure the project would blend with the community. He stated the existing Harrison Heights apartment building is currently zoned R-5 and in 2003 a proposal to rezone this property to R-5 was denied. Mr. Mayer stated the Ordinance defining family was changed in 2004 at which time the number of unrelated adults was changed from five to three. Then in 2006, a petition was submitted which asked for up to five being allowed so long as apartments are within 2,000 feet of the campus and was denied, based on its being contrary to the strengthening of neighborhoods. The Southeast Ogden Community Plan amendment approved in May 2016 was contingent upon approval of a specific site plan with a development agreement to assure any project would fit with the surrounding community. Additionally, the applicant is seeking to amend the ordinance to allow up to five unrelated adults in a student housing complex. He reviewed the proposed site plan, building plan and attached development agreement in relation to what was viewed previously. While the previous proposal was made by a different applicant, it proposed five stories with 130 units. This project is proposing three stories, consisting of 40 rental units and a manager unit. He reviewed the materials proposed, stating the building would have a pitched roof and while it shows some brick, Staff feels additional brick is warranted. The development agreement indicates a minimum of 50% of the building would be brick. He stated the design and placement of the building would blend better with the community to the west, and while it will diminish the view of the mountain for some residents, the height is reduced and it’s east-west configuration reduces the blockage of the view. He stated residents had previously indicated the project would impact sewer, water and traffic in the community. He provided information on water and sewer lines and acknowledged the project would increase traffic both on 3850 South and through the residential neighborhood. One solution proposed by Staff and incorporated in the development agreement is that access on Brinker be restricted to emergency only. A 4’ berm is proposed along the frontage with a ---PAGE BREAK--- Page 12 of 19 wrought-iron fence surrounding the property. Twenty bike racks also will be provided. No signs are proposed on 3850 South, and the facility would have continuous on-site management. The proposal is for 40 four-bedroom units. In considering zoning amendments, the Commission is to consider both compliance with the General Plan and the Community Policies. The proposed rezoning is consistent with the amendment approved in 2016 so long as the associated development agreement provides the protection to the neighborhood anticipated at the time the amendment occurred. Community Policies indicate a definite edge should be created between higher density residential areas and single-family neighborhoods, and that zoning lines should not cross property lines. He felt an edge can be created with the proposed berm and landscaping. Commission asked if a better screen is warranted, suggesting the wrought-iron fence might be replaced with a more solid fence. Mr. Mayer explained the 4’ berm is proposed as an effort to screen the parking lot and to shield the cars from the view of the public right-of-way. He stated the site and building design both are incomplete and warrant a final design approval by the Planning Commission. He felt the applicant has made an effort to meet the basic concepts identified in the items discussed when the plan amendment was approved. He stated the proposed development agreement identifies roof pitch, the use of building materials as a means to address the concerns about the design of the building. Commissioner Southwick stated this project is an improvement over the previous proposal, but is still concerned about its potential impact to the residential community to the west. He acknowledged a need for student housing, but wondered if other locations might be a better fit. He also stated the use of stucco as a finish material is not conducive to the climate here as it deteriorates and needs to be replaced more often than other materials. It also was suggested a traffic study might be warranted. Mr. Bill Self, 3845 Van Buren, stated the potential impact of a use such as this is unknown. He expressed concern with the existing sewer and water lines, stating pipes are old, and felt the increased demand on the sewer system would cause the sewer to back up into residential homes. He suggested a waste water study be completed and also expressed concern about storm water runoff. He stated traffic would increase up to 700% onto Harrison Boulevard, and many tenants would choose to drive through the neighborhood rather than the busy Harrison. He presented additional information which was accepted for the record. Mr. Tom Daniels, 3835 Van Buren stated Staff had recommended denial of the project in August, and asked what has changed so that the zoning now becomes something Staff is now recommending approval for. He felt the proposed rezoning is not consistent with the Southeast Ogden Plan and expressed concern of increased traffic into the neighborhood, stating up to 75% of the neighborhood residents are young families that need to be protected. He felt the additional construction will affect the flavor of the community. Mr. Robert Lower, 1128 E 3850 S stated he purchased his home due to the small family neighborhood. He stated he had contacted Ogden City and was told there is an 8” sewer line along 3850 South and asked about the life expectancy of the existing water system including sewer, water and storm. He expressed concern that a project of this size needs more than one entrance/exit, and they should be spread to different streets. He preferred the main access be provided to Harrison and that only one-way traffic be allowed on 3850 South, as its width is often reduced due to student parking. ---PAGE BREAK--- Page 13 of 19 Ms. Jill Davis, 1164 East 3850 S. expressed concern that the property at 3801 Harrison has become an eyesore and over the past several years it has further deteriorated affecting the quality of life of the neighborhood and wanted to be assured it is encompassed in the proposed project. Mr. Steve Everett, 3805 Harrison expressed concern with the existing traffic on 3850 South, stating during winter months it is often difficult to gain access onto Harrison due to its being slippery. He felt 3850 should be widened to accommodate the increased traffic the project would create, stating visibility onto Harrison often is limited due to the placement of snow piles. He stated some of his property was taken by UDOT when Harrison was widened and asked how much more would be taken if 3850 is widened. Ms. Charlotte Johnson, 3836 Eccles Avenue, stated this is a family neighborhood and felt the proposed project would ruin the atmosphere of the community. She suggested the vacant property to the south owned by IHC would be a better place for this type of project. She felt there is abundant student housing in the neighborhood already and the creation of additional units is unneeded. She felt the buffering proposed is not enough to make up for the loss of view to the east. She stated there is no need for bigger buildings to accommodate students who will likely never become residents of Ogden City, stating the project proposed does not fit with the neighborhood. Ms. Lori Daniels, 3805 Van Buren, expressed concern that if this project were to be approved that it would set a precedent and invite additional student housing into the neighborhood. This could, over time, remove the entire residential neighborhood and become an area for student housing, indicating a similar action had occurred at USU. She presented a petition with 45 signatures opposed to the zoning request which was accepted for the record. She stated residents are not opposed to apartments, but are opposed to this project and the number of units as proposed. Mr. Mike Strand, 3853 Van Buren, expressed concern about vehicles exiting onto 3850 South. He stated this street is often icy and as snow melts, the road becomes more hazardous. He stated this neighborhood has limited access as there are no connections to the south due the IHC property. He felt while 3850 could provide access, egress should be directed to Harrison. Mr. Marcus Peterson stated this area has had sewer problems, and the storm system is overloaded during the spring runoff. He stated many homes have sump pumps, and there are locations where front yards are sinking. Mr. Brian Jordon, 3835 Eccles stated there has been dust from construction as the adjacent surgical center was constructed, stating this has affected the value of the residential neighborhood. Mr. Dave DeYoung, 1176 E 3850 S, stated the developer has tried to make this a better project for needed student housing. He stated the design allows a better view due to the orientation of the building and its placement on the site. Mr. Adam Allred, a partner with the project, 2586 S 1825 E stated he had lived at 3705 Eccles while a student at WSU. He stated any use will increase traffic, but there is a problem with on- campus parking and many students would prefer walking to class from the neighborhood. He ---PAGE BREAK--- Page 14 of 19 stated even if a parking permit is purchased, there is no guarantee a space will be available when needed. He acknowledged most students also will have a vehicle, as they need to drive to jobs. He stated the developers are sympathetic to the desires of the neighborhood. He stated there is a need for additional housing for the campus and felt the proposal is the best solution available. Mr. Casey Keller, owner of Harrison Heights as well as two duplexes on 3850 South. He stated he anticipates building additional housing once the market improves. He stated he currently has four access points onto Harrison for the use of his tenants. He stated Harrison Heights is not filled, and there is up to 50% vacancy for on-campus housing. He stated WSU is losing money in its housing endeavors, and is pushing the burden to private developers. He stated while it is true there are 26,000 students enrolled at WSU, many attend at various campus locations and not at the Ogden campus. He stated 90% of students live at home with their parents and commute to class. He expressed concern that proposed parking is inadequate, suggesting .9/unit or one stall per tenant would be better than the proposed .75/unit. He agreed the proposed design is more to scale with the community than earlier designs. Mr. Ken Burton, owner of the office building to the north, suggested this project may be premature. He felt the addition of a few additional properties would make a better project, stating there is a lot of parking lot and cement and suggested a better overall design might be considered. He also expressed concern that the design pushes the building against his property line with air compressors will be against his building. He felt a project could become a statement for the City, and provide a better vision of Harrison Boulevard stating more study should be completed prior to this size of project being approved. As there were no additional comments, a motion was made by Commissioner Wright to close the public hearing. Motion was seconded by Commissioner Patterson and passed unanimously. Commission asked Mr. Mayer to respond to the questions and comments voiced. He stated there is an 8” concrete pipe with the water being a 6” cast iron pipe. The utility system will be analyzed as part of the project by the City Engineering division and any remedies for upgrading will be taken care of prior to development. He stated the dilapidated property will be encompassed by the project. He stated the cited sewer back-up problems were actually storm drains backing up, and he has been informed the situation has since been remedied. He stated the building is set back from existing residential properties, which will have little effect on the privacy of existing homes. He stated there is little buffer to the property to the north, but the zoning standards are satisfied and the required 10’ setback is proposed. Along streets there is a requirement for a 20’ landscaped setback. Discussion continued concerning options for rooftop compressors rather than as proposed. Mr. Mayer stated in conversation with WSU, he has found students prefer apartment style living rather than dorms. Commissioner Southwick indicated dorms are packed too tight and are uncomfortable and have never been a preferred housing style, but are used mainly for one year until students can afford better housing. He stated in conversations he has had with UDOT, he was informed they desire at least 200’ from the intersection to allow access. He suggested the project could be redesigned to allow access onto Harrison. Mr. Stevens indicated he would consider other options for the location of the air conditioning ---PAGE BREAK--- Page 15 of 19 units, including fencing. Mr. Stratford stated there should be a final review of materials and colors with the Planning Commission. Mr. Stevens stated he would prefer this to be worked out with Staff. Mr. Ron Hales, contractor, stated he is comfortable with placing a note on the approval plans that the Commission will have final review of the colors and materials, as well as the amount of brick, which would then not hold up the approval process of the project. Commissioner Schade stated the Commission should determine their comfort level with the development agreement as proposed. He stated if they feel it is adequate they can consider a motion to approve the rezoning. Otherwise, they should determine what needs to be changed and allow the applicant and Staff to do more work on the agreement and site plan/building design. Chair Herman expressed concern that the height limit is not defined, and stated while the document specifies there are 40 residential units, there is no definition of their size or function. There is no defined footprint of the building showing how the units would be defined, with no reference to the volume of residents. Mr. Mayer stated the proposed concept plan is part of the development agreement, and the Commission has the authority to add standards if they so desire. He stated the proposed floor plan and building elevation are shown on the concept plan but not clearly defined in the written document, but are as binding as they are part of the agreement itself. Commission again reviewed the building elevation, and Mr. Mayer clarified there will be 40 units for rent as well as an on-site manager unit, so the total number of units is 41. Commissioner noted the building will have a presence on Harrison Boulevard with an east-west orientation. It was clarified each four-bedroom apartment would have approximately 1,100 square feet. Commission further asked about the traffic impact and whether a traffic study should be required. Mr. Mayer responded the Engineering Staff may or may not require a traffic study, but the Commission could add a condition of approval that a traffic study be completed. Commissioner Blaisdell stated while she recognizes the need for student housing, a project of this scope does affect the residential neighborhood to the west. Commissioner Southwick stated the property at 3801 has been vacant and for sale for more than a few years, and an improvement to that property would benefit the neighborhood. He stated there are water table issues for homes in the neighborhood and asked about the storm water runoff, water retention and soils tests. It was indicated there have been some soils tests, and the Engineering Staff will require their standards to be satisfied in terms of water, sewer and storm capacity. Commissioner Schade stated while this is a nice single-family residential community, there also are many homes which have been converted to multi-family uses to accommodate students. He stated it may be as well to have a centralized location for student housing rather than allowing them in what should be single family homes in the neighborhood. He felt the development agreement gives some good direction for the establishment of the proposed facility. He stated while it was suggested the vacant lot owned by IHC might be a better location for student housing, it is not available for sale, and IHC will likely continue to expand and fill the space it occupies adjacent to this neighborhood. He felt a structure such as this could create an edge between the IHC uses to the south and the residential area to the west. Commissioner Southwick stated he has attended economic updates for the Wasatch Front, and indicated there is a severe lack of housing due to the recession. He stated there is a need for 10-12,000 additional units along the Wasatch Front to accommodate projected growth. He stated the area will continue to grow and there is a need for both rental units and homes, stating ---PAGE BREAK--- Page 16 of 19 a rental complex that is well managed could fill a niche, indicating the proposal before the Commission appears to be a responsible solution, and would be better for the community than a large office building as is allowed in the PI zone. The design preserves much of the view, and could become an asset to the area. Commissioner Patterson stated it appears the building is set too close to the property to the north. He felt while the style of the building is appropriate, but felt it could be better placed on the site. He preferred the east-west orientation of the building but had no specific design recommendations for the relocation of the building. Commission felt an addition should be made to the development agreement that the building height be limited to 44’ from the ground level. They also would like language added to require a traffic study be conducted by the developer prior to final approval being granted, the number of units being limited to 41, and the applicant create a visual buffer to the property to the north due to the placement of the air conditioning compressors. The language currently requires a minimum of 50% brick, but other materials are not defined. Commissioner suggested stucco not be allowed as a finish material, and that some other finishes might be restricted as well. MOTION:A motion was made by Commissioner Schade to recommend approval to recommend approval of the rezoning of the property to R-5/CO subject to language being added to the development agreement to limit the height of the structure to 44’ to the top of the building, a traffic study be required, the number of units being limited to 41, and additional buffering be added to the north side of the building to screen the view of the compressors/ condensers. Motion was seconded by Commissioner Wright and passed unanimously, with Commissioners Blaisdell, Graf, Holman, Patterson, Schade, Southwick, Wright and Herman voting aye. 11. Public Hearing, Petition to Amend Zoning Ordinance, to allow more than three unrelated adults in the R-5 zone. Mr. Dan Stevens stated in order to make the housing project more cost effective, he is asking that a provision be made for more than three students to be allowed in a dwelling unit. While the complex will have four bedrooms, one is oversized, and he is seeking approval for up to five students per unit. Mr. Mayer stated the family definition was changed in 2004 at which time the number of unrelated adults was reduced from five to three. A time period was allotted for compliance. Since that time, there has been a positive benefit throughout the community as density of residents was reduced. He stated as the student population grows, there may be consideration for a difference in apartments serving the campus in relation to other residential neighborhoods. In response to the proposed amendment, Staff feels they can support language which would limit student housing to be within 1,200 feet from the Weber State Campus, where students would be willing to walk, and be allowed only in the R-5 zone. He presented a map showing the area around WSU which would be within the proposed distance. The language also would require a minimum of ten dwelling units in the building and have at least 50% brick on all exterior surfaces. The proposal also addresses parking for these, with a minimum of .7 parking spaces per bedroom and projects with more than 50 units require 2 stalls per bedroom with a ---PAGE BREAK--- Page 17 of 19 maximum of 3 stalls per bedroom. He stated the proposal will create the ability to accommodate the increased need for student housing and at this time would be available only to the Harrison Heights Apartments, and potentially the pending rezoning of the property at 3850 Harrison to R-5. Commission asked if the boundaries include all property owned by WSU including the Dee Events Center or whether it should be restricted to the main campus. Mr. Mayer responded the proposed map includes all property owned by WSU. Commission expressed concern the amendment should not allow existing residential areas to be demolished and replaced with student housing. Mr. Mayer stated any rezoning to R-5 would require Planning Commission approval, compliance to the General Plan and in most cases an amendment to the General Plan. Commission felt specific student housing complexes may reduce the number of students residing in neighborhoods. Commission felt there should be a limit on what can be done in neighborhoods to increase the density for individual residential lots. It was indicated the boundary map shows areas around the campus which could potentially be accommodate more than three adults in a complex if the property were to be rezoned to R-5. He felt each community around the campus should be treated the same, and there should not be a concentration of apartments in a given area or neighborhood, but they should be spread out. Consideration also should be given to their location being on arterial street’s so traffic can be accommodated and traffic through the residential community be limited and bus service is available. Mr. Steve Everett felt the proposed language does not accommodate the need for either tenant parking or guest parking. Overflow parking will extend into the neighborhood and affect the residential quality of life. Increasing the number of tenants per unit will have the effect of increasing traffic and parking in the neighborhood. He stated the existing road widths are inadequate, but the widening of 3850 South would take some of his property. Mr. Dave DeYoung, 1186 E 3850 S stated he has rented to students, and they are able to walk to school. While they have jobs and classes, they are at random various times, and there is not an influx of vehicles at any given time. Mr. Tom Daniels, 3835 Van Buren stated there had been many area residents in attendance earlier in the meeting, but due to the lateness of the hour, they were unable to stay. He stated there is more public outcry for both the ordinance and the rezoning. He stated this proposal is creating a new zoning designation which does not exist in either the General Plan or the Southeast Ogden Plan. He expressed concern that the ordinance amendment affects the area around the campus, and not just this neighborhood, suggesting all property owners within the 1,200-foot radius of the campus should be notified of the proposed amendment. He felt the new zoning designation does not promote Ogden City’s plan for home ownership. He presented information presented at a previous Planning Commission work session, stating a projected need for student housing is based on the fact that WSU’s housing is inadequate and they are looking to private developers to provide close housing. He stated the family definition amendment in 2004 was based on the fact that five unrelated occupants created problems with parking, noise and the impact of rentals on existing single family neighborhoods. He stated these situations still exist and the number should not be increased. He stated WSU has been compared to other colleges in Utah, stating other communities had vacant property available for student housing, which is not available around WSU and if housing is to be developed ---PAGE BREAK--- Page 18 of 19 around the campus, existing housing communities might be sacrificed. He stated students are transient, and may or may not remain in Ogden, while most homeowners in the area are long- term residents and their needs should have more weight than the needs of WSU or the transient student population. Ms. Lori Daniels, 3825 Van Buren, expressed concern about the potential of a precedent being set by the proposed language, indicating while now the language would limit the area around the campus to 20’, over time the City may be pressured to increase the radius and allow more neighborhoods to be affected. She stated residents in these communities are active in the community and with the schools and are taxpaying citizens, stating their voices should be heard. She expressed frustration with the lack of consideration of the community by the Planning Commission. Ms. Charlotte Jordon, 3836 Eccles Avenue stated there already are a multitude of apartment buildings within five blocks of this area. They are typically not cared for and become a burden to the community. She stated residents are trying to preserve their single-family way of life and are concerned that these apartments also would not be cared for over time. She stated by adding density of residents will serve to further deteriorate this struggling community. She stated the college is not at full capacity, and its needs should not be favored over citizens of the community. She felt the addition of more apartments does affect the neighborhood. Citizens have reported violations of basement apartments and have had ongoing concerns with their effect on the single-family community. While some have established a nonconforming right, those which are not need to be better enforced. She sated there is no need to bring in more students in this community, indicating there are shuttles available for existing student housing and students would be better directed to live in those neighborhoods. She felt the needs of long-term residents should be preferred over four-year college students. She stated apartments of athletes are not family oriented, but there often are problems where many students live together. Mr. Adam Allred, 2582 S 1825 E, stated he is familiar with student housing in both Logan and Provo. He stated the apartment complexes typically do not destroy neighborhoods. He felt it is counter-intuitive to limit the number of students given the smaller footprint of the proposed housing project. If the number is limited to three, there would be a need for more buildings in other neighborhoods. He felt there is a need to provide a place for students and felt the reduced size of the building should be allowed to accommodate more students per room. As there were no additional comments, a motion was made by Commissioner Blaisdell to close the public hearing. Motion was seconded by Commissioner Wright and passed unanimously. Commissioner Blaisdell indicated the enrollment at WSU has dramatically increased over time, and the role of the Commission is to determine what is best for the overall community in the long run. She stated WSU will continue to grow and it students need to be accommodated. While WSU has been a commuter school, it is changing. The proposal refers to all areas around the campus rather than just this community. Commissioner Southwick felt the language proposed creates a limited area where these can be located, indicating if the Commission fails to support this language, there may be potential of increasing the illegal creation of basement apartments in single family neighborhoods. He felt increasing density in a limited area with the standards is a good policy, looking forward creates quality growth patterns for the community. The intent is not to destroy neighborhoods, but to allow for ---PAGE BREAK--- Page 19 of 19 growth in a responsible way for multiple types of population. He expressed it is important that the infrastructures need to be studied to assure the apartment project can be accommodated. Commissioner Graf stated while he understands there is a need for student housing and the proposed project appears to be a quality project, he is concerned with five residents per unit, stating the increased density is too much for the community. He felt the project could work in other ways, but felt the ability for five students per unit is not healthy for the neighborhood or the community. He also expressed concern that there may be difficult finding five students to live together, that there may be difficulty as they may be strangers. It also was suggested four per unit might be more balanced. Mr. Stratford reminded the Commission is considering long-term ordinance language, and not for a single development. Discussion continued regarding whether the number of bedrooms should be considered, indicating if there is adequate space of both bedrooms and bathrooms, students can be accommodated. Commission expressed concern that there may be a future project which would limit the number of bedrooms but still desire the five tenants per dwelling unit where the letter of the ordinance is satisfied, but the intent is not. MOTION:A motion was made by Commissioner Schade to table action until the regular March meeting and the Commission schedule a work session so that the Commission can further discuss the proposed ordinance, and the issues resolved. Motion was seconded by Commissioner Wright and passed 7-1 with Commissioners Blaisdell, Graf, Holman, Patterson, Schade and Wright voting aye and Commissioners Southwick voting no. Commissioner Southwick stated he felt the ordinance language proposed was well thought-out and provided specific language to address concerns of crowding, and felt it was ready to be sent to the Council. Reports: Landmarks Commission – Lillie Holman Ogden Trails Network – Ross Patterson Review of Meeting There being no additional business before the Commission, the meeting was adjourned at 9:32 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Jannette Borklund, Planning Technician Approved: (date) Robert Herman, Chair ---PAGE BREAK--- Page 1 of 3 Minutes of the regular work session of the Ogden City Planning Commission held February 15. 2017. Meeting was conducted by Chair Herman and began at 5:31 p.m. Members Present: Robert Herman, Chair Rick Southwick, Vice-Chair Cathy Blaisdell Dave Graf Lillie Holman Ross Patterson Bryan Schade Janith Wright Staff Present: Greg Montgomery, Planning Manager John Mayer, Planner Jannette Borklund, Planning Technician Mark Stratford, City Attorney Others Present: Dan Stevens 1. Discussion, Petition to Amend Zoning Ordinance, to allow more than three unrelated adults in the R-5 zone. Mr. Mayer stated the Commission had tabled action at its previous meeting and requested a work session where they could discuss in detail the concept of student housing and determine a number of students for multi-unit complexes near the university. He reviewed information from other college communities in Utah, including Provo, Orem, St. George and Logan, stating some allow up to 5 students per dwelling unit in their student housing zones. He reviewed the history of the definition of “family” which had allowed up to five unrelated adults per dwelling unit until 2004 when it was reduced to three. In 2007 an amendment was requested to allow a student housing area near the campus allowing five students which was denied. He stated those cities which allow more students have found some things which diminish the effect, such as the size of the bedrooms and the parking ratio available. He stated Provo requires .7 parking spaces per student in a student housing complex. He stated while the Building Code requirement for sleeping room is 70 square feet per individual, the typical student unit would typically be 100-125 square feet. He stated the current trend is one student per bedroom, but there could be a case where a larger bedroom could accommodate more than one student. Or, a student might pay a little more in rent if allowed to have more living space. In reviewing the proposed student housing regulations, Staff feels the number of students should be limited to four, and maintain the parking ratio of .7 per bedroom. Staff also is asking the Commission for their input as to whether the provision should extend from the R-5 zone within 1,200 feet from the University campus to include C-2 zoned areas within that area. Commissioner Schade expressed the distance works on the west and north sides of campus, but suggested the distance of 1,200 feet to the south of the Dee Events Center would likely not work as most classes are on the main campus. He felt students would walk 1,200 feet to classes to the main campus, but felt 1,200 from the south campus would be difficult. Mr. Mayer responded there is a ---PAGE BREAK--- Page 2 of 3 proposed location for a BRT stop near the Dee Events Center, which could bring more students to that end of campus, and that there are more PE classes moving to the Dee building. Commission asked how the density can be controlled and/or enforced. Mr. Mayer indicated some communities have a signed agreement between the landlord and the City indicating their acknowledgement of the regulations. Commission also expressed concern that in allowing student housing, the City would be accommodating the needs of the university and asked if there is some tradeoff that the University would be willing to assist in their control. Discussion continued relating to year-round service, as there are limited summer classes, and often students are in Ogden for the school year, and then return to their homes for the summer. In other situations, students may desire to stay in Ogden during the summer, but the landlord has made arrangements to accommodate conferences, booking the rooms and forcing students to find summer accommodations. Economically, it is difficult for the owner to have a facility occupied only nine months of the year. Mr. Mayer felt the student housing provision is consistent with the General Plan as it creates different housing options. He stated the community to the west of the campus has 55% of the homes which are owner-occupied, and some of these may have legal or illegal basement apartments, stating this area may be in transition. Commissioner Wright was excused at 6pm. Commissioner Schade asked if there should be language to identify a minimum size for dwelling units, stating some owners may try to cram too much in a small area. He felt there is a need for on- site amenities for students such as laundry, common area, etc. He expressed concern the project previously discussed at 3850 Harrison has no yard space for its tenants and while the berm provides some aesthetic relief to the surrounding area, there is no on-site recreation available for students. Discussion continued relating to other apartment building projects in other areas and amenities provided. Mr. Mayer responded that there is an abundance of green space in play fields on the WSU campus. It was indicated some of the apartments downtown have interior areas such as a gym rather than open green space due to the more urban setting of the downtown. Commission expressed concern about the number of students in relation to parking and what will work. It was expressed the previous plan had shown underground parking, which would be a better option than all surface parking. Commission noted if the number of students were limited to three, the effect of parking would be reduced. Mr. Mayer stated many college communities allow four or more students in their student housing areas. He stated the proposal is for .7 parking spaces per tenant, which would require 115 spaces while the proposal shows 118 spaces. The parking areas also would need to provide the required relief of landscaped islands as required by the parking provisions of the Ordinance. Mr. Stratford stated Ogden is one of a few cities in the State of Utah which can restrict to three adults per dwelling unit. He stated only university cities are allowed to limit residents to less than five. Commission noted the size of the units, and size of the bedrooms are key factors as to how many adults are appropriate in a given structure. Commissioner Schade suggested consideration might be given to limiting the use to properties along Harrison rather than allowing a 1,200’ radius of the campus. Discussion continued regarding the distance from the campus to other residential streets, as well as whether to include only the main campus, or the entire WSU property including ---PAGE BREAK--- Page 3 of 3 the Dee Event Center. Mr. Mayer stated a BRT transit stop is proposed near the Dee Center, and felt this area also might be a prime location for alternative housing options. Commission felt the O-1 property should be eliminated as well as any property outside the City limits. It was indicated Harrison is mostly built out, but a higher density may be reasonable along the corridor, but there is concern about its effect on the surrounding residential neighborhood. Commission felt bedrooms should be over 130 square feet, and parking should be based on the number of tenants. Commission indicated students want to live where it’s fun to live, and sometimes being downtown where there are more activities might be as desirable as being near the campus. It was indicated the quality of the surrounding neighborhood also needs to be considered, and amenities should be provided by the apartment owner. It was suggested occupancy alternatives be presented at the meeting, with consideration given to bedroom size if housing more than one student, with .75 parking spaces provided per bedroom as well as alternatives as to where student housing would be available. As it had been suggested to also include C-2 properties along Harrison, Commission felt while many commercial uses are existing, the C-2 zone already allows apartment uses and to increase density for these to accommodate student housing also would be applicable. Commission felt it may be desirable to consolidate student housing to a particular area rather than allowing it to spread all around the campus, as it would create a synergy of activity, making the units more desirable for students. Review of Meeting. Commissioner Blaisdell asked if there were any comments about the previous meeting as it had adjourned due to the lateness of the hour without this discussion. Mr. Stratford said the most important thing to remember is to follow the Rules of Procedure, requiring each person to come to the microphone, and the after the public hearing portion is closed, to be vigilant about not allowing additional comments. Other Information: Mr. Montgomery announced WFRC is holding some workshops to update the Envision Utah Plan, and there is an open house scheduled for March 2nd between 4-6pm at the Riverdale Community Center. There being no additional business before the Commission, the meeting was adjourned at 7:20 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Jannette Borklund, Planning Technician Approved: (date) Robert Herman, Chair ---PAGE BREAK--- OGDEN CITY PLANNING COMMISSION March 1, 2017 AGENDA ITEM- A Page 1 of 6 Agenda Name: PUBLIC HEARING FOR PRELIMINARY AND FINAL SUBDIVISION APPROVAL FOR GARDEN HILL SUBDIVISION AT APPROXIMATELY 550 22ND STREET Petitioner/ Developer: Ogden City Community Development Jeremy Smith 2549 Washington Blvd #120 Ogden, UT 84401 [EMAIL REDACTED] Petitioner/ Developer’s requested action: Approval of the proposed 21 lot residential subdivision. Staff recommends approval of the proposed subdivision subject to: 1. Existing drive approaches between lots 11 and 12 and at lot 18 to be removed and replaced with new curb, gutter, and park strips. 2. Include buildable area envelope for lots 4-15 to create 28’ of no-build area over the shared access easements to ensure that future detached structures would not encroach on the maneuverable space for vehicles. 4. Combine Parcel A and B for purpose of common green space and pedestrian access easement. 5. Satisfy all department comments. 1. The subdivision does/ does not promote the health, safety, convenience, and general welfare of the inhabitants of the city. 2. The subdivision is/ is not in the best interests of the public and in harmony with good neighborhood development. 3. The subdivision is/ is not in full compliance with zoning ordinances. 4. The subdivision is /is not in full compliance with the requirements of the subdivision ordinance. Report by Eric Daems Planning Commission’s determination for action Planning Staff’s Recommended Action ---PAGE BREAK--- OGDEN CITY PLANNING COMMISSION March 1, 2017 AGENDA ITEM- A Page 2 of 6 Vicinity Map ---PAGE BREAK--- OGDEN CITY PLANNING COMMISSION March 1, 2017 AGENDA ITEM- A Page 3 of 6 Concept Layout Porter Property Address: 550 22nd Street Zone: R-2EC District Plan: East Central Property Size: 4.11 acres (proposed to be subdivided into 21 residential lots ranging from 5,017- 8,199 square feet. Existing Use: Former Dee Elementary School site (currently being demolished) Jeremy Smith of the Ogden City Community Development Department is proposing a 21 lot residential subdivision on 4.11 acres at approximately 550 22nd Street. The property is the site of the former Dee Elementary School, which is currently being demolished. The proposal is to create single-family residential lots ranging from 5,017 – 8,199 square feet. The subdivision also includes the creation of a new section of Porter Avenue, which will bisect the property. Lots 1-3 and 19-21 will front and be serviced by the newly created Porter Avenue. Lots 11-18 will front 22nd Street, but only lots 16-18 will be serviced from 22nd Street, as lots 11-15 will be serviced by a 20’ access easement located to their rear. Lots 5-10 will also be serviced by a rear 20’ access easement, but will face each other and front a 44’ shared landscaped pedestrian easement. In November of 2016 the Board of Zoning Adjustment approved lots 6, 7, 9, and 10 to front each other and be accessed by the rear easements, rather than a public street. Description of request Project Summary ---PAGE BREAK--- OGDEN CITY PLANNING COMMISSION March 1, 2017 AGENDA ITEM- A Page 4 of 6 Common Green Space Concept Porter Ave Cross Section The interior lots are between 42.75’ and 64.42’ wide. The widths of the corner lots are: 83.09’ (lot 45.5’ (lot 15), and 60’ (lot 16). Lots 1 and 2 are 81.38’ deep, while the lots 3-21 are at least 110’ deep. Unique to this subdivision is the proposal for a 44’ pedestrian access easement (parcels A and B) that would serve as a common green space for the development and connect from Porter Avenue to Adams Avenue. Lots 5-10 would front to that open space. The area may also be used for additional storm water detention. The proposed right-of-way for Porter Avenue is 49.5’ wide. It will include 28’ for travel lanes, curb and gutter, and a 7’6” landscaped park strip and 7’ sidewalk on the west side. ---PAGE BREAK--- OGDEN CITY PLANNING COMMISSION March 1, 2017 AGENDA ITEM- A Page 5 of 6 The Commission is required to review subdivision plats. As part of this review the Commission is to determine that the subdivision is in the best interest of the public and in harmony with good neighborhood development. The Commission will need to determine that the subdivision is in compliance with City ordinances, specifically current zoning and subdivision ordinances. Once the Commission takes an action regarding the proposed subdivision, the recommendation is then forwarded to the Mayor for his determination of the final action the city should take regarding the subdivision. There are several key factors for consideration with this proposal: 1. Promotes safety, convenience and welfare of the community and is in the best interests of the public and in harmony with good neighborhood development The proposed subdivision is an infill project at the site of the former Dee Elementary. The subdivision is designed to incorporate into the existing area and bring additional families and activity into the neighborhood. The proposed homes will all be single-family homes, which relates well to the existing uses. The addition of Porter Avenue through the center of the block will allow for the lots to be similar in size and shape to those existing, while reducing dead space in the center of the block. It will also improve traffic circulation in the area. Lots 5-15 will be serviced by access easements located to their rear and will not have driveways facing the public street. This will contribute to abundant landscaping and less clutter facing the public rights-of-way. The access easements will also reduce traffic interference along 22nd Street as the properties will not have driveways along 22nd. The subdivision will also include a unique shared easement which will make a pedestrian connection from Adams Avenue to the new Porter Avenue. The area will be a common space and will be landscaped and will help with storm water detention needs. Lots 5-10 will face this common open space, which will help ensure that the area stays monitored and safe. In an effort to ensure the perpetual open space and connectivity intended with the 44’ common area, parcel A and B should be combined on the plat. 2. Compliance with zoning and subdivision code requirements The subdivision follows the principles of infill development as established by Chapter 11 (residential Infill Developments) of the zoning code. The purpose of that chapter is to ease the constraints which would discourage well designed developments to be incorporated into the vacant inner blocks of the East Central Community. That code allows for reductions in lot area, lot widths, and setbacks for single-family and two-family development. It also allows for reductions to right-of-ways. What Planning Commission reviews Factors for consideration of action ---PAGE BREAK--- OGDEN CITY PLANNING COMMISSION March 1, 2017 AGENDA ITEM- A Page 6 of 6 According to the subdivision standards, minor residential streets are to be at least 56’ wide. The proposed right-of-way for Porter Avenue is 49.5’ wide. The reduced width allows for the new lots to be sized similar to those existing on the block. Porter Avenue will also only have homes on both sides of the street on the southern half of the block. The northern portion will have homes on the west side only as the LDS church borders it on the east. The subdivision standards require the right-of-way to include a minimum 7’ wide landscaped park strip, 4’ sidewalks, curb and gutter, and 28’ of pavement. The supplied cross sections for the street include 28’ of pavement, a 7.5’ park strip on the west side, curb and gutter, and a 7’ sidewalk on the west side. As this is an infill development it is appropriate to consider variations from our typical standards. In this case, vehicular and pedestrian traffic will still be able to maneuver and landscaping will be maintained on one side of the street. The proposed 20’ shared access alleys meet the minimum requirement of the subdivision ordinance. Since lots 11-15 will be rear accessed it is appropriate that the developer remove the existing driveways along 22nd street and replace them with curb and gutter and landscaped park strips to match the existing. The subdivision code typically requires a minimum lot depth of 100’. With this proposal, lots 1 and 2 would only be 81.38’ deep. This is still appropriate as the lots are much wider than would typically be required and it allows for a lot size and configuration that is more compatible with the neighborhood. Lot 15 is a corner lot and would normally be required to be 60’ wide. It is proposed as 45.5’ wide, which is appropriate as it still meets the required 6,000 square feet requirement for a corner lot and will have the added feature of being serviced from the rear. The mix of lot sizes meet all other requirements of the subdivision code. Lots 6, 7, 9, 10 do not abut a dedicated street and for this reason they received a variance through the Board of Zoning Adjustment to abut the public pedestrian easement. NOTE: As shown in the attached Department Staff comments, the Engineering and Legal reviews still need to be completed, so staff is recommending that the comments from these reviewers be obtained in addition to satisfying the comments which have already been provided. 1. Proposed Subdivision 2. Parcel Map 3. Department Staff Comments 4. Legal Notice Attachments Attachments ---PAGE BREAK--- PP PP PP PP PP PP PP PP PP PP PP PP PP PP PP PP PP PP PP PP PP PP PP PP PP PP C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C W W G G G G G G P P P P P P P P P G G G C C C C C C C C SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS 4350 4360 4342 4344 4346 4348 4352 4354 4356 4358 4362 4364 4340 4350 4360 W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W WM WM WM WM WM WM WM WM WM WM WM WM WM WM WM WM WM W WM WM WM WM SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS EX. 6" CI WATER LINE EX. 6" CI WATER LINE EX. 6" CI WATER LINE EX. 6" DI WATER LINE EX. 8" CLAY SS LINE EX. 12" CLAY SS LINE EX. 8" CLAY SS LINE EX. 8" CLAY SS LINE 4360 4358 4362 4364 4366 4350 4346 4348 4352 4354 4356 4352 4354 4356 X X X X X X X X X X X X S88°42'25"E 31.42' S88°42'25"E 33.50' N1°18'18"E 44.03' N88°42'25"W 166.56' N1°18'22"E 44.00' S88°42'25"E 166.56' S88°41'31"E 48.09' N88°42'36"W 424.19' N1°18'22"E 132.02' N1°18'18"E 66.00' N1°18'18"E 230.25' N1°18'22"E 147.51' S88°41'13"E 130.88' S88°41'58"E 186.27' S1°18'10"W 397.87' S1°18'06"W 193.19' N88°41'44"W 6.00' S88°41'50"E 81.38' S88°41'31"E 129.48' S88°41'50"E 129.48' N88°41'50"W 129.48' 42.74 42.74 44.00 120.00 S1°18'10"W 120.00' S1°18'10"W 120.00' N1°18'16"E 110.01' N88°42'25"W 70.80' N88°42'25"W 75.87' 44.55 44.55 44.55 44.55 45.50 N1°18'16"E 132.02' N1°18'16"E 132.01' N1°18'16"E 132.01' 45.50 44.55 44.55 44.55 44.55 132.01 42.37 45.60 4.61 N88°41'50"W 131.07 S88°41'50"E 129.49 42.75 120.00 51.00 N1°18'16"E 110.02' N1°18'16"E 136.61' N1°18'10"E 397.87' 81.38 55.13 55.12 64.42 N1°18'16"E 131.96' 83.09 55.12 55.12 120.00 S88°41'55"E 178.53' S88°41'55"E 161.85' N88°41'44"W 157.00' 44.63 44.63 44.63 24.75 59.29 24.75 46.00 60.00 45.00 60.00 46.00 C4 N1°18'16"E 131.97' 131.98 S1°18'16"W 72.65' 4.62 64.41 83.10 81.39 S1°18'18"W 44.00' 24.75 24.75 C1 C10 C2 C11 C3 C5 42.74 20.13 C7 C8 C9 C12 S88°42'25"E 763.80' S1°18'22"W 763.02' N1°18'02"E 762.82' 49.49 49.69 LOT 1 6762 SF 0.16 AC LOT 2 5242 SF 0.12 AC LOT 3 7137 SF 0.16 AC LOT 4 7137 SF 0.16 AC LOT 5 5280 SF 0.12 AC LOT 6 5129 SF 0.12 AC LOT 7 5129 SF 0.12 AC PARCEL A 5710 SF 0.13 AC LOT 8 6447 SF 0.15 AC LOT 9 5017 SF 0.12 AC LOT 10 6872 SF 0.16 AC LOT 11 5881 SF 0.14 AC LOT 12 5881 SF 0.14 AC LOT 13 5881 SF 0.14 AC LOT 14 5881 SF 0.14 AC LOT 15 6006 SF 0.14 AC LOT 16 7919 SF 0.18 AC LOT 17 6070 SF 0.14 AC LOT 18 6294 SF 0.14 AC LOT 19 7071 SF 0.16 AC LOT 20 7565 SF 0.17 AC LOT 21 8199 SF 0.19 AC PARCEL B 7329 SF 0.17 AC C6 43.10 44.00 N88°42'25"W 45.60' N1°18'16"E 132.02' APPROX. DETENTION AREA C13 C14 C15 8.40 20.13 64.27 65.85 LOT 5 LOT 6 LOT 8 LOT 9 C6 PARCEL A OGDEN CITY MONUMENT AS NOTED SET 24" REBAR AND CAP MARKED GARDNER ENGINEERING SET SURVEY MONUMENT SUBDIVISION BOUNDARY LOT LINE ADJACENT PARCEL SECTION LINE EXISTING FENCE EASEMENT X GARDEN HILL SUBDIVISION LOCATED IN THE NORTHWEST QUARTER OF SECTION 28, TOWNSHIP 6 NORTH, RANGE 1 WEST, SALT LAKE BASE AND MERIDIAN, OGDEN CITY, WEBER COUNTY, UTAH JANUARY 2017 LEGEND OGDEN CITY ENGINEER I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS PLAT COMPLIES WITH THE MINIMUM CONDITIONS OF THE OGDEN CITY ORDINANCES THIS OFFICE IS REQUIRED TO REVIEW AND APPROVE. SIGNED THIS____DAY OF 2017. OGDEN CITY ENGINEER OGDEN CITY APPROVAL THIS PLAT AND ANY DEDICATIONS OFFERED HEREIN ARE APPROVED AND ACCEPTED BY THE MAYOR OF OGDEN CITY SIGNED THIS____DAY OF 2017. MICHAEL P. CALDWELL, MAYOR CITY RECORDER OGDEN CITY COMMUNITY AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS PLAT COMPLIES WITH THE MINIMUM REQUIREMENTS OF THE SUBDIVISION ORDINANCE OF OGDEN CITY, AND CONFORMS WITH THE APPROVED PRELIMINARY PLAT, AS REVIEWED AND APPROVED BY THE OGDEN CITY PLANNING COMMISSION AND THE MAYOR OF OGDEN CITY, PRE-REQUISITE TO THE FINAL PLAT APPROVAL BY THE MAYOR OF OGDEN CITY. SIGNED THIS____DAY OF 2017. MANAGER, PLANNING DIVISION OWNER'S DEDICATION I, THE UNDERSIGNED OWNER OF THE HEREON-DESCRIBED TRACT OF LAND HEREBY SET APART AND SUBDIVIDE THE SAME INTO LOTS AND STREETS AS SHOWN ON THIS PLAT, AND NAME SAID TRACT: GARDEN HILL SUBDIVISION AND HEREBY DEDICATE, GRANT AND CONVEY TO OGDEN CITY ALL THOSE PORTIONS OF SAID TRACT OF LAND DESIGNATED HEREON AS STREETS, THE SAME TO BE USED AS PUBLIC THOROUGHFARES FOREVER; AND FURTHER DEDICATE, GRANT AND CONVEY TO OGDEN CITY THOSE CERTAIN STRIPS DESIGNATED HEREON AS PUBLIC UTILITY EASEMENTS (PUE), THE SAME TO BE USED FOR DRAINAGE AND CROSS DRAINAGE PURPOSES AND THE INSTALLATION, MAINTENANCE, AND OPERATION OF PUBLIC UTILITIES AS MAY BE AUTHORIZED BY OGDEN CITY. OGDEN CITY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE APPROVED BY THE OGDEN CITY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE SIGNED THIS____DAY OF 2017. OGDEN CITY ATTORNEY ACKNOWLEDGEMENT STATE OF UTAH ) ) § COUNTY OF WEBER ) On this day of 2017, the signer of the foregoing Owner's Dedication, personally appeared before me, and did duly acknowledge to me that he did execute the same STAMP NOTARY PUBLIC DATE SURVEYOR'S CERTIFICATE I, KLINT H. WHITNEY, DO HEREBY CERTIFY THAT I AM A LICENSED PROFESSIONAL LAND SURVEYOR IN THE STATE OF UTAH AND THAT I HOLD CERTIFICATE NO. 8227228 IN ACCORDANCE WITH TITLE 58, CHAPTER 22, OF THE PROFESSIONAL ENGINEERS AND LAND SURVEYORS ACT; I FURTHER CERTIFY THAT BY AUTHORITY OF THE OWNERS I HAVE COMPLETED A SURVEY OF THE PROPERTY AS SHOWN AND DESCRIBED ON THIS PLAT, AND HAVE SUBDIVIDED SAID PROPERTY INTO LOTS AND STREETS, TOGETHER WITH EASEMENTS, HEREAFTER TO BE KNOWN AS GARDEN HILL SUBDIVISION IN ACCORDANCE WITH SECTION 17-23-17 AND HAVE VERIFIED ALL MEASUREMENTS; THAT THE REFERENCE MONUMENTS SHOWN HEREON ARE LOCATED AS INDICATED AND ARE SUFFICIENT TO RETRACE OR REESTABLISH THIS SURVEY; AND THAT THE INFORMATION SHOWN HEREIN IS SUFFICIENT TO ACCURATELY ESTABLISH THE LATERAL BOUNDARIES OF THE HEREIN DESCRIBED TRACT OF REAL PROPERTY. SIGNED THIS DAY OF 2017. KLINT H. WHITNEY, PLS NO. 8227228 VICINITY MAP NOT TO SCALE S1 NARRATIVE THE PURPOSE OF THIS SURVEY WAS TO CREATE A TWENTY ONE LOT SUBDIVISION ON THE PROPERTY AS SHOWN AND DESCRIBED HEREON. THE SURVEY WAS ORDERED BY OGDEN CITY. THE BASIS OF BEARING IS THE LINE BETWEEN THE OGDEN CITY MONUMENT AT 21ST STREET AND ADAMS AVENUE AND THE OGDEN CITY MONUMENT AT 21ST STREET AND JEFFERSON AVENUE WHICH BEARS SOUTH 88°41'31" EAST, WEBER COUNTY, UTAH NORTH, NAD 83 STATE PLANE GRID BEARING. 1 NOTES 1. ZONE R-2EC CURRENT YARD SETBACKS: FRONT-20' SIDE-5' WITH 2 SIDE YARDS NOT LESS THAN 15' - CORNER 15' STREET SIDE REAR-30'. 2. SUBJECT PROPERTY FALLS WITHIN FEMA FLOOD ZONE - AREAS DETERMINED TO BE OUTSIDE THE 0.2% ANNUAL CHANCE FLOODPLAIN. PER FEMA MAP NO. 49057C0427E WITH AN EFFECTIVE DATE OF DECEMBER 16, 2005. 3. 5 8" REBAR AND CAP MARKED "GARDNER ENGINEERING" SET AT REAR LOT CORNERS. NAIL IN CURB AT LOT LINE EXTENSION SET AT FRONT LOT CORNERS R:\1502 - OGDEN CITY\1602 - DEE ELEMENTARY SUB\SURVEY\DWG\DEE ELEMENTARY_ADDITIONAL BOUNDARY.DWG COUNTY RECORDER ENTRY NO. FEE PAID FILED FOR AND RECORDED AT IN BOOK OF OFFICIAL RECORDS, PAGE RECORDED FOR COUNTY RECORDER BY: MICHAEL P. CALDWELL, MAYOR CITY RECORDER SIGNED THIS OF 2017. 49.50 49.50 49.50 24.75 24.75 49.50 49.50 S88°41'31"E 263.01' 763.73 S0°00'00"E 49.70' BOUNDARY DESCRIPTION PART OF LOTS 2, 3, 4, 5, 7 AND 8, BLOCK 44, PLAT A, OGDEN CITY SURVEY, MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: BEGINNING AT A POINT BEING LOCATED SOUTH 88°41'31" EAST 263.01 FEET ALONG THE LINE BETWEEN THE OGDEN CITY MONUMENT AT 21ST STREET AND ADAMS AVENUE AND THE OGDEN CITY MONUMENT AT 21ST STREET AND JEFFERSON AVENUE AND SOUTH 0°00'00" EAST 49.70 FEET FROM THE OGDEN CITY MONUMENT AT 21ST STREET AND ADAMS AVENUE; RUNNING THENCE SOUTH 88°41'13" EAST 130.88 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 1°18'10" WEST 397.87 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 88°41'58" EAST 186.27 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 1°18'06" WEST 193.19 FEET; THENCE NORTH 88°41'44" WEST 6.00 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 1°18'16" WEST 72.65 FEET; THENCE NORTH 88°42'36" WEST 424.19 FEET; THENCE NORTH 1°18'22" EAST 132.02 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 88°42'25" EAST 31.42 FEET; THENCE NORTH 1°18'18" EAST 66.00 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 88°42'25" EAST 33.50 FEET; THENCE NORTH 1°18'18" EAST 44.03 FEET; THENCE NORTH 88°42'25" WEST 166.56 FEET; THENCE NORTH 1°18'22" EAST 44.00 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 88°42'25" EAST 166.56 FEET; THENCE NORTH 1°18'18" EAST 230.25 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 88°41'31" EAST 48.09 FEET; THENCE NORTH 1°18'22" EAST 147.51 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING. CONTAINING 178,907 SQ.FT. OR 4.11 ACRES, MORE OR LESS. P.O.B. 21ST STREET 22ND STREET ADAMS AVENUE JEFFERSON AVENUE 20' SHARED ACCESS EASEMENT 20' SHARED ACCESS EASEMENT FOUND OGDEN CITY MONUMENT FOUND OGDEN CITY MONUMENT ADDRESS ADDRESS ADDRESS ADDRESS ADDRESS ADDRESS ADDRESS ADDRESS ADDRESS ADDRESS ADDRESS ADDRESS ADDRESS ADDRESS ADDRESS ADDRESS ADDRESS 10' P.U.E. 10' P.U.E. PORTER AVENUE 21ST STREET 22ND STREET 23RD STREET 24TH STREET 20TH STREET ADAMS AVE WASHINGTON BLVD JEFFERSON AVE MADISON AVE GRANT AVE PROJECT LOCATION FOUND OGDEN CITY MONUMENT FOUND OGDEN CITY MONUMENT SURVEY MONUMENT AT P.I. (TYP) SCOTT DELLAMORE 010380026 CHRISTOPHER & VICKY JENKINS 010380027 HOBBLE CREEK LLC 010380030 RODOLFO CEJA ETAL 010380031 LORENA ALEJANDRE ETAL 010380033 ALEJANDRO & NEYDA BANUELOS 010380034 ALEJANDRO & NEYDA BANUELOS 010380035 NORTH FACE PROPERTIES LLC 010380041 DEL GRIFFIN 010380042 THE OLSON JOINT TRUST AGRMT 010380002 ERIC & SHARYL DEJESUS 010380056 KIMBERLY MALAN 010380057 MEGAN & JOHN WETENDORF 010380058 WARREN BUCHANAN 010380059 CORP OF THE PRES. BISHOP OF LDS 010380009 BOARD OF EDUCATION OF OGDEN CITY 010380062 ADDRESS ADDRESS ADDRESS ADDRESS (BASIS OF BEARING) PEDESTRIAN ACCESS EASEMENT (SEE DETAIL) DETAIL 1"=30' 5.00 5.00 5.00 5.00 33.00' 15.50' 7.00' 7.50' DEVELOPER: Ogden City Corporation 2549 Washington Blvd. Ogden, UT 84401 (801) 629 - 8000 514 522 530 538 546 552 560 568 529 [PHONE REDACTED] 2170 2178 544 [PHONE REDACTED] 2125 2117 541 2109 ---PAGE BREAK--- LOT 6 LOT 13 LOT 18 LOT 16 LOT 17 LOT 21 LOT 19 LOT 5 LOT 12 LOT 11 LOT 14 LOT 10 LOT 2 LOT 4 LOT 3 LOT 7 LOT 20 LOT 1 LOT 15 LOT 8 LOT 9 PORTER AVENUE ---PAGE BREAK--- 01-045-0004 NOELANI ENTERPRISES LLC ETAL 13256 CICERO WAY POWAY CA 92064 01-038-0009 CORPORATION OF PRES BISHOP CHURCH OF JESUS CHRIST LDS 50 E NORTH TEMPLE ST FL 22 SALT LAKE CITY UT 84150 01-045-0012 DANG LIEM & CHAD LUND 2209 MISTY RIDGE DR NORTH LAS VEGAS NV 89032 01-045-0003 572 21ST LTD 2730 WASHINGTON BLVD #6231 OGDEN UT 84402 01-035-0044 GRANITE PEAK COMPANY LLC 2227 JEFFERSON AVE OGDEN UT 84401 01-039-0047 HUETON IAIN H 4305 HARRISON BLVD # 6 PMB 532 OGDEN UT 84403 01-035-0045 GRANITE PEAK COMPANY LLC 2227 JEFFERSON AVE OGDEN UT 84401 01-039-0058 OGDEN CITY CORPORATION 2549 WASHINGTON BLVD STE 522 OGDEN UT 84401 01-039-0040 DEREK GARDNER LIVING TRUST 2121 ADAMS AVE OGDEN UT 84401 01-038-0042 GRIFFIN DEL JASON 525 21ST ST OGDEN UT 84401 01-045-0008 MARTINEZ JUAN C 532 E 21ST ST OGDEN UT 84401 01-038-0058 WETENDORF MEGAN E & HUS JOHN P WETENDORF 2159 S JEFFERSON AVE OGDEN UT 84401 01-039-0066 FINCH BRUCE J 2163 ADAMS AVE OGDEN UT 84401 01-038-0029 DONOHUE FRANCIS 14 ORCHARDS NORWICH CT 06360 01-038-0031 CEJA SR RODOLFO ETAL 2138 ADAMS AVE OGDEN UT 84401 01-038-0035 BANUELOS ALEJANDRO & WF NEYDA V BANUELOS 4883 S 3000 W ROY UT 84067 01-038-0060 01-034-0066 STELLHORN SKIP & WF AMY STELLHORN 105 S STATE ST OREM UT 84058 01-038-0038 DEMARS HENRY & WF JESSICA GAUTHIER 2108 ADAMS AVE OGDEN UT 84401 01-045-0006 QUINTAL JUAN & WF MICHELLE R QUINTAL 544 21ST ST OGDEN UT 84401 01-038-0059 BUCKANAN WARREN R 2155 JEFFERSON AVE OGDEN UT 84401 01-035-0059 MC OGDEN RESIDENTIAL LLC 4488 N 4150 E LIBERTY UT 84310 01-038-0041 NORTH FACE PROPERTIES LLC 395 E HORSE CREEK DR MIDVALE UT 84047 01-038-0034 BANUELOS ALEJANDRO & WF NEYDA V BANUELOS 4883 S 3000 W ROY UT 84067 01-038-0037 HUGHES WILLIAM M & WF LORI L HUGHEN ETAL 2230 S ELAINE DR BOUNTIFUL UT 84010 01-036-0039 OGDEN CITY CORP 2549 WASHINGTON BLVD STE 120 OGDEN UT 84401 01-035-0075 SMRT HOLDINGS LLC 2427 WOODLAND DR OGDEN UT 84403 01-038-0033 ALEJANDRE LORENA ETAL 2134 ADAMS AVE OGDEN UT 84401 01-045-0013 BEASLEY THEODORE & WF DOROTHY BEASLEY 504 21ST ST OGDEN UT 84401 01-039-0002 A + PROBLEM SOLVERS PO BOX 3051 OGDEN UT 84409 ---PAGE BREAK--- 01-045-0001 HOLT GAYLEN 2030 W MARK ST LAYTON UT 84041 01-038-0002 OLSON JOINT TRUST AGREEMENT (THE) 5627 ELKHORN DR EDEN UT 84310 01-036-0067 MC OGDEN RESIDENTIAL LLC 4488 N 4150 E LIBERTY UT 84310 01-039-0048 WEBER COUNTY (RD) (ROW OFF ADAMS) 01-038-0023 LONGFELLOW REECE L & WF SHERYL LONGFELLOW 5486 W 2050 N PLAIN CITY UT 84404 01-045-0010 KIRKLIN PAUL EDWARD & WF KATIE KIRKLIN 520 21ST ST OGDEN UT 84401 01-035-0043 SHEGRUD HEIDI 631 W APPLEWOOD DR CENTERVILLE UT 84014 01-039-0069 OGDEN CITY CORPORATION 2549 WASHINGTON BLVD STE 522 OGDEN UT 84401 01-038-0040 CARDENAS PATRICIA 2102 ADAMS AVE OGDEN UT 84401 01-039-0003 DURAN JR JOE V 5305 191ST AVE CT E LAKE TAPPS WA 98391 01-039-0001 DORRITY RICHARD G & MEGAN DORRITY 482 22ND ST OGDEN UT 84401 01-038-0025 ALLEN MINDY & HUS JARED ALLEN 541 E 26TH ST OGDEN UT 84401 01-038-0026 DELLAMORE SCOTT FRANCIS 2166 ADAMS AVE OGDEN UT 84401 01-045-0005 SMITH DEVON C & WF MALORIE G SMITH 552 21ST ST OGDEN UT 84401 01-035-0037 T8 REAL ESTATE LLC 859 E KENSINGTON AVE SALT LAKE CITY UT 84105 01-045-0002 578 21ST LTD 2730 WASHINGTON BLVD #6231 OGDEN UT 84402 01-039-0067 FINCH BRUCE J 2346 E 2050 N LAYTON UT 84040 01-045-0053 NORDGREN ALAN NEPHI & WF LYNETTE NORDGREN 540 21ST ST OGDEN UT 84401 01-037-0017 AVELINA MARIE AVILES TRUST 1/2 ETAL 2170 JEFFERSON AVE OGDEN UT 84401 01-039-0064 OGDEN COMMUNITY FOUNDATION PO BOX 185 OGDEN UT 84402 01-037-0026 SHINNEY LARRY A 2128 JEFFERSON AVE OGDEN UT 84401 01-038-0024 GUTIERREZ FERNANDA 502 22ND ST OGDEN UT 84401 01-039-0068 DURAN GILBERT R 4898 S 1075 E OGDEN UT 84403 01-038-0022 HOWEN ROBERT C 4414 ORCHARD AVE SOUTH OGDEN UT 84403 01-038-0049 CORPORATION OF THE PRESIDING BICHOP CHURCH JESUS CHRIST LDS 50 E NORTH TEMPLE ST FL 22 SALT LAKE CITY UT 84150 01-038-0052 CORP OF THE PRES BISHOP OF THE CHURCH OF JESUS CHRIST LDS 50 E NORTH TEMPLE ST FL 22 SALT LAKE CITY UT 84150 01-035-0078 HC & BETTY P MASSEY TRUST PO BOX 10153 OGDEN UT 84409 01-038-0030 HOBBLE CREEK LLC 19406 CLUSTER OAKS DR HUMBLE TX 77346 01-039-0056 OGDEN COMMUNITY FOUNDATION PO BOX 185 OGDEN UT 84402 01-045-0051 CHAVID ENTERPRISES LLC 5858 S WILLOW WOOD LN OGDEN UT 84403 ---PAGE BREAK--- 01-035-0029 MCINTIRE AMY BROOKE & HUS JAKE ALEX MCINTIRE 2218 ADAMS AVE OGDEN UT 84401 01-035-0035 THOMAS STEVEN C & WF LISA THOMAS 527 E 22ND ST OGDEN UT 84401 01-038-0050 CORP OF THE PRESIDING BISHOP OF CHURCH OF JESUS CHRIST LDS 50 E NORTH TEMPLE ST FL 22 SALT LAKE CITY UT 84150 01-037-0027 RAMOS ELAINE & LEONARDO B BAPTISTA SAO PAULO SP BRAZ IL 03324 01-035-0031 2206 ADAMS LC 12032 S LAMPTON COVE RIVERTON UT 84065 01-039-0038 CHIEF REAL ESTATE LLC 5608 S 800 E SOUTH OGDEN UT 84405 01-038-0027 JENKINS CHRISTOPHER & WF VICKY ANN JENKINS 2158 ADAMS AVE OGDEN UT 84402 01-045-0015 WISE RICHARD WESLEY ETAL 2074 ADAMS AVE OGDEN UT 84401 01-035-0041 HC & BETTY P MASSEY TRUST PO BOX 10153 OGDEN UT 84409 01-039-0046 OGDEN CITY REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY 2549 WASHINGTON BLVD STE 420 OGDEN UT 84401 01-037-0018 MITCHELL JULIE 2164 JEFFERSON AVE OGDEN UT 84401 01-038-0053 CORPORATION OF THE PRESIDING BISHOP CHURCH JESUS CHRIST LDS 50 E NORTH TEMPLE ST FL 22 SALT LAKE CITY UT 84150 01-037-0016 OUDERKIRK CORT & WF CHERYL OUDERKIRK 253 N 2475 W PROVO UT 84601 01-045-0009 CALDWELL INVESTMENTS LLC 2661 S WASHINGTON BLVD STE OGDEN UT 84401 01-035-0079 MIDTOWN COMMUNITY HEALTH CENTER 2240 ADAMS AVE OGDEN UT 84401 01-039-0039 LELLA ANTHONY & WF KIMBERLY DIANE LELLA 2117 S ADAMS AVE OGDEN UT 84401 01-045-0007 NORDGREN ALAN NEPHI & WF LYNETTE NORDGREN 540 21ST ST OGDEN UT 84401 01-038-0061 01-038-0057 MALAN KIMBERLY 2167 JEFFERSON AVE OGDEN UT 84401 01-035-0046 PETERSON KIMBERLY 1/2 ETAL 2670 JEFFERSON AVE OGDEN UT 84401 01-035-0033 JENKINS ANDRIA & TYLER JORDAN SYME 517 22ND ST OGDEN UT 84401 01-035-0032 DAY JASON 2202 ADAMS AVE OGDEN UT 84401 01-035-0034 FLORES MIGUEL A 523 E 22ND ST OGDEN UT 84401 01-038-0056 DEJESUS ERIC & SHARYL MINTER DEJESUS 2177 S JEFFERSON AVE OGDEN UT 84401 01-038-0001 HALL JEREMY R & WF ALISHA L HALL 2185 JEFFERSON AVE OGDEN UT 84401 01-039-0037 THOMAS DOROTHY 2103 ADAMS AVE OGDEN UT 84401 01-039-0057 ADAMS BLANE 2149 ADAMS AVE OGDEN UT 84401 01-037-0073 OGDEN CITY SCHOOL DISTRICT 1950 MONROE BLVD OGDEN UT 84401 01-045-0017 PILCHER PEPE 2046 ADAMS AVE REAR #3 OGDEN UT 84401 01-039-0004 PROPERTY SOURCE UTAH INC 897 N 2000 W FARR WEST UT 84404 ---PAGE BREAK--- 01-035-0030 OGDEN COMMUNITY FOUNDATION PO BOX 185 OGDEN UT 84402 01-039-0065 ROYCE HOLDINGS LLC 14939 WINGED BLUFF LN DRAPER UT 84020 01-045-0014 GUTIERREZ ARMANDO 276 15TH ST OGDEN UT 84404 01-035-0036 MC OGDEN RESIDENTIAL LLC 4488 N 4150 E LIBERTY UT 84310 01-045-0004 Occupant 560 21ST ST OGDEN UT 84401 01-038-0009 Occupant 2147 JEFFERSON AVE OGDEN UT 84401 01-045-0012 Occupant 508 21ST ST OGDEN UT 84401 01-045-0003 Occupant 572 21ST ST OGDEN UT 84401 01-035-0044 Occupant 2211 JEFFERSON AVE OGDEN UT 84401 01-039-0047 Occupant 2135 ADAMS AVE OGDEN UT 84401 01-035-0045 Occupant 2223 JEFFERSON AVE OGDEN UT 84401 01-039-0040 Occupant 2121 ADAMS AVE OGDEN UT 84401 01-038-0042 Occupant 525 21ST ST OGDEN UT 84401 01-045-0008 Occupant 532 21ST ST OGDEN UT 84401 01-038-0058 Occupant 2159 JEFFERSON AVE OGDEN UT 84401 01-038-0029 Occupant 2152 ADAMS AVE OGDEN UT 84401 01-038-0031 Occupant 2138 ADAMS AVE OGDEN UT 84401 01-038-0035 Occupant 2122 ADAMS AVE OGDEN UT 84401 01-034-0066 Occupant 2209 ADAMS AVE OGDEN UT 84401 01-038-0038 Occupant 2108 ADAMS AVE OGDEN UT 84401 01-045-0006 Occupant 544 21ST ST OGDEN UT 84401 01-038-0059 Occupant 2155 JEFFERSON AVE OGDEN UT 84401 01-035-0059 Occupant 539 22ND ST OGDEN UT 84401 01-038-0041 Occupant 521 21ST ST OGDEN UT 84401 01-038-0034 Occupant 2128 ADAMS AVE OGDEN UT 84401 01-038-0037 Occupant 2118 ADAMS AVE OGDEN UT 84401 01-036-0039 Occupant 2210 JEFFERSON AVE OGDEN UT 84401 01-035-0075 Occupant 2201 JEFFERSON AVE OGDEN UT 84401 01-038-0033 Occupant 2134 ADAMS AVE OGDEN UT 84401 01-045-0013 Occupant 504 21ST ST OGDEN UT 84401 ---PAGE BREAK--- 01-039-0002 Occupant 2173 ADAMS AVE OGDEN UT 84401 01-045-0001 Occupant 582 21ST ST OGDEN UT 84401 01-038-0002 Occupant 574 22ND ST OGDEN UT 84401 01-038-0023 Occupant 504 22ND ST OGDEN UT 84401 01-045-0010 Occupant 520 21ST ST OGDEN UT 84401 01-035-0043 Occupant 2207 JEFFERSON AVE OGDEN UT 84401 01-038-0040 Occupant 2102 ADAMS AVE OGDEN UT 84401 01-039-0003 Occupant 478 22ND ST OGDEN UT 84401 01-039-0001 Occupant 482 22ND ST OGDEN UT 84401 01-038-0025 Occupant 2168 ADAMS AVE OGDEN UT 84401 01-038-0026 Occupant 2166 ADAMS AVE OGDEN UT 84401 01-045-0005 Occupant 552 21ST ST OGDEN UT 84401 01-035-0037 Occupant 545 22ND ST OGDEN UT 84401 01-045-0002 Occupant 578 21ST ST OGDEN UT 84401 01-039-0067 Occupant 2163 ADAMS AVE OGDEN UT 84401 01-037-0017 Occupant 2170 JEFFERSON AVE OGDEN UT 84401 01-039-0064 Occupant 2155 ADAMS AVE OGDEN UT 84401 01-037-0026 Occupant 2128 JEFFERSON AVE OGDEN UT 84401 01-038-0024 Occupant 502 22ND ST OGDEN UT 84401 01-039-0068 Occupant 2165 ADAMS AVE OGDEN UT 84401 01-038-0022 Occupant 508 22ND ST OGDEN UT 84401 01-038-0030 Occupant 2144 ADAMS AVE OGDEN UT 84401 01-039-0056 Occupant 2145 ADAMS AVE OGDEN UT 84401 01-045-0051 Occupant 2067 JEFFERSON AVE OGDEN UT 84401 01-035-0029 Occupant 2218 ADAMS AVE OGDEN UT 84401 01-035-0035 Occupant 527 22ND ST OGDEN UT 84401 01-038-0050 Occupant 2131 JEFFERSON AVE OGDEN UT 84401 01-037-0027 Occupant 2122 JEFFERSON AVE OGDEN UT 84401 01-035-0031 Occupant 2206 ADAMS AVE OGDEN UT 84401 01-039-0038 Occupant 2109 ADAMS AVE OGDEN UT 84401 ---PAGE BREAK--- 01-038-0027 Occupant 2158 ADAMS AVE OGDEN UT 84401 01-045-0015 Occupant 2074 ADAMS AVE OGDEN UT 84401 01-035-0041 Occupant 573 22ND ST OGDEN UT 84401 01-039-0046 Occupant 2131 ADAMS AVE OGDEN UT 84401 01-037-0018 Occupant 2164 JEFFERSON AVE OGDEN UT 84401 01-038-0053 Occupant 2135 JEFFERSON AVE OGDEN UT 84401 01-037-0016 Occupant 2174 JEFFERSON AVE OGDEN UT 84401 01-045-0009 Occupant 528 21ST ST OGDEN UT 84401 01-035-0079 Occupant 2240 ADAMS AVE OGDEN UT 84401 01-039-0039 Occupant 2117 ADAMS AVE OGDEN UT 84401 01-045-0007 Occupant 540 21ST ST OGDEN UT 84401 01-038-0057 Occupant 2167 JEFFERSON AVE OGDEN UT 84401 01-035-0046 Occupant 2227 JEFFERSON AVE OGDEN UT 84401 01-035-0033 Occupant 517 22ND ST OGDEN UT 84401 01-035-0032 Occupant 505 22ND ST OGDEN UT 84401 01-035-0034 Occupant 523 22ND ST OGDEN UT 84401 01-038-0056 Occupant 2177 JEFFERSON AVE OGDEN UT 84401 01-038-0001 Occupant 2185 JEFFERSON AVE OGDEN UT 84401 01-039-0037 Occupant 2103 ADAMS AVE OGDEN UT 84401 01-039-0057 Occupant 2149 ADAMS AVE OGDEN UT 84401 01-045-0017 Occupant 2046 ADAMS AVE REAR 3 OGDEN UT 84401 01-039-0004 Occupant 476 22ND ST OGDEN UT 84401 01-035-0030 Occupant 2214 ADAMS AVE OGDEN UT 84401 01-039-0065 Occupant 2159 ADAMS AVE OGDEN UT 84401 01-045-0014 Occupant 2086 ADAMS AVE OGDEN UT 84401 01-035-0036 Occupant 541 22ND ST OGDEN UT 84401 ---PAGE BREAK--- DEVELOPMENT SERVICES 2549 WASHINGTON BLVD. OGDEN, UT 84401 - [PHONE REDACTED] - www.ogdencity.com Subdivision Garden Hill Review Due Date: 2/7/2017 Ogden City Point of Contact: David Daniels: [PHONE REDACTED], [EMAIL REDACTED] GENERAL INFORMATION Project Information: Project Name/Desc.: Garden Hill Subdivision Parcel ID: 01-035-0079 Address: 550 22nd St. Use & Occupancy: Residential Project Team: Owner: Ogden City Community Development/Jeremy Smith Engineer/Other: Gardner Engineering: Dustin Bay- [EMAIL REDACTED] Contact Person: Jeremy Smith, 8943 REQUIRED AGENCY REVIEWS Planning review comments Reviewer: Eric Daems Phone:[PHONE REDACTED] Email: [EMAIL REDACTED] 1st Review: ​Make Corrections: 1. Include buildable area envelope for lots 4-15 that ensures 28’ of no-build area over the shared access easements to ensure that future detached structures would not encroach on the maneuverable space for vehicles (potentially more for Lot 11). 2. Existing drive approaches between lots 11 & 12 & at lot 18 to be removed. 3. Width reduction for Porter Avenue will be based on Planning Commission decision March 1st. 4. Combine Parcel A and B for purpose of common green space and pedestrian access easement. ---PAGE BREAK--- Engineering Review Comments Reviewer: Phone: Email: 1st Review: Legal Review Comments Reviewer: Phone: Email: Building Services Review Comments Comments By: Steve Patrick Email: [EMAIL REDACTED] Phone: [PHONE REDACTED] 1st Review: ​Approved Fire Review Comments Reviewer: Kevin Brown Phone: [PHONE REDACTED] Email: [EMAIL REDACTED] 1st Review: ​Make Corrections 1. Describe emergency access for lots 6,7,9,10. Surveyor Review Comments Reviewer: Steve Porter Phone: [PHONE REDACTED] Email: [EMAIL REDACTED] 1st Review: ​Approved with small correction Addressing Review Comments Reviewer: Russ Eldredge Phone: [PHONE REDACTED] Email: [EMAIL REDACTED] 1st Review: Parcel - Is this going to be a road, a sidewalk… or what? How do residents access lots 6,7,9 & 10? Lot 1 - 541 21st Street or 2109 Porter Ave. Lot 2 - 2117 Porter Ave ---PAGE BREAK--- Lot 3 - 2125 Porter Ave Lot 4 - 2133 Porter Ave Lot 5 - 544 (unnamed road) Lot 6 - 536 (unnamed road) Lot 7 - 528 (unnamed road) Lot 8 - 545 (unnamed road) Lot 9 - 537 (unnamed road) Lot 10 - 529 (unnamed road) Lot 11 - 514 22nd Street Lot 12 - 522 22nd Street Lot 13 - 530 22nd Street Lot 14 - 538 22nd Street Lot 15 - 546 22nd Street Lot 16 - 552 22nd Street Lot 17 - 560 22nd Street Lot 18 - 568 22nd Street Lot 19 - 2178 Porter Ave. Lot 20 - 2170 Porter Ave. Lot 21 - 2162 Porter Ave. Financial Guaranty/Permits Financial Guaranty: Required Permit: Not Required R.O.W. Improvements Permit: Not Required Water Permit: Not Required ---PAGE BREAK--- OGDEN CITY PLANNING COMMISSION March 1, 2017 AGENDA ITEM- B Page 1 of 10 Agenda Name: PUBLIC HEARING FOR PRELIMINARY AND FINAL SUBDIVISION APPROVAL FOR THE SHUPE SUBDIVISION PHASE 5 AT 3225 SOUTH MIDLAND DRIVE Petitioner/ Developer: Todd Shupe 3289 S. Midland Dr. Ogden, Utah 84401 Petitioner/ Developer’s requested action: Approval of the proposed Shupe Subdivision Phase 5 in the M-2 zone. Approval of the requested subdivision plat, subject to all Department Staff comments being obtained and satisfied. 1. The subdivision does/ does not promote the health, safety, convenience, and general welfare of the inhabitants of the city. 2. The subdivision is/ is not in the best interests of the public and in harmony with good neighborhood development. 3. The subdivision is/ is not in full compliance with zoning ordinances. 4. The subdivision is /is not in full compliance with the requirements of the subdivision ordinance. August 2016 – Approval of Shupe Subdivision Phase 4 January 2015 – Approval of Shupe Subdivision Phase 4 (Approval EXPIRED January 2016) April 2013 – Approval of Shupe Subdivision Phase 3, 1st Amendment December 2011 – Approval of Shupe Phase 3 (one lot) May 2009 – Approval of Shupe Subdivision Phase 2 (one lot) Report by Clinton A. Spencer, AICP Planning Commission’s determination for action Planning Staff’s Recommended Action Past History ---PAGE BREAK--- OGDEN CITY PLANNING COMMISSION March 1, 2017 AGENDA ITEM- B Page 2 of 10 Vicinity Map ---PAGE BREAK--- OGDEN CITY PLANNING COMMISSION March 1, 2017 AGENDA ITEM- B Page 3 of 10 Property Address: 3225 South Midland Drive Zone: M-2 District Plan: Airport/Industrial Park Property Size: 0.75 acres Existing Use: Vacant land to be developed for industrial uses The applicant is proposing to create a one lot subdivision shown on the phasing plan for the area as ‘future development’. The property is currently vacant. The lot proposed in this subdivision is a 0.75 acre (32,670 square foot) lot that will have 235’ of frontage along Midland Drive. The lot will also have a ten-foot (10’) wide public utility easement on all four sides of the lot (see attached proposed subdivision plat and approved phasing plan). The subdivision also includes road dedication along the street frontage of Midland Drive. The proposed subdivision will allow for the development of a warehouse on the property (see attached proposed site plan). The Commission is required to review subdivision plats. As part of this review the Commission is to determine that the subdivision is in the best interest of the public and in harmony with good neighborhood development. The Commission will need to determine that the subdivision is in compliance with city ordinances, specifically current zoning and subdivision ordinances. Once the Commission takes an action regarding the proposed subdivision, the recommendation is then forwarded to the Mayor for his determination of the final action the city should take regarding the subdivision. 1. Promotion of the health, safety, convenience, and general welfare of the inhabitants of the city The proposed subdivision will not create any conditions that could cause public concerns. 2. Best interests of the public and in harmony with good neighborhood development The surrounding area has already developed into industrial uses that have a similar lot area and width. This proposed subdivision allows the property owner to create a lot that is Project fact sheet Description of request What Planning Commission reviews Factors for consideration of action Project Summary ---PAGE BREAK--- OGDEN CITY PLANNING COMMISSION March 1, 2017 AGENDA ITEM- B Page 4 of 10 similar to the size of the surrounding properties and still maintain the needed access to the public streets and utilities. The development of this new lot will also strengthen the industrial area and encourage the development and reinvestment of the surrounding properties. 3. Compliance with zoning code requirements The subdivision will comply with the M-2 zoning regulations as shown in the table below: Lot 6 Required Minimum Lot Area 4,000 square feet Proposed Lot Area 32,670 square feet Required Minimum Lot Width 50’ Proposed Lot Width 235’ 4. Compliance with subdivision code requirements The proposed subdivision creates uniform dividing lines perpendicular to Midland Drive, which is consistent with the Subdivision Ordinance. The proposed lot will also have the needed access to the public streets and utilities. NOTE: The Engineering, Fire, Surveyor, and Addressing reviews still need to be completed, so staff is recommending that the comments from these reviews be obtained and satisfied as a condition of approval. 1. Existing county plat 2. Proposed subdivision plat 3. Proposed site plan (shown for illustration purposes only, not approval) 4. Approved phasing plan 5. Legal Notice (2 pages) Attachments Attachments ---PAGE BREAK--- OGDEN CITY PLANNING COMMISSION March 1, 2017 AGENDA ITEM- B Page 5 of 10 1. Existing county plat ---PAGE BREAK--- OGDEN CITY PLANNING COMMISSION March 1, 2017 AGENDA ITEM- B Page 6 of 10 3. Approved phasing plan 2. Proposed subdivision plat ---PAGE BREAK--- OGDEN CITY PLANNING COMMISSION March 1, 2017 AGENDA ITEM- B Page 7 of 10 3. Proposed Site Plan (for illustration only; not approval) ---PAGE BREAK--- OGDEN CITY PLANNING COMMISSION March 1, 2017 AGENDA ITEM- B Page 8 of 10 4. Approved phasing plan ---PAGE BREAK--- OGDEN CITY PLANNING COMMISSION March 1, 2017 AGENDA ITEM- B Page 9 of 10 5. Legal Notice (2 pages) ---PAGE BREAK--- OGDEN CITY PLANNING COMMISSION March 1, 2017 AGENDA ITEM- B Page 10 of 10 ---PAGE BREAK--- OGDEN CITY PLANNING COMMISSION March 1, 2017 AGENDA ITEM - C Page 1 of 9 Agenda Name: PUBLIC HEARING FOR PLAT VACATION OF LOTS 27 AND 28, BUSNIESS DEPOT OGDEN (BDO) PLAT 11, AND PRELIMINARY AND FINAL PLAT SUBDIVISION OF BDO PLAT 11, FIRST AMENDMENT AT 641 WEST 400 NORTH. Petitioner/ Developer: Blake Wahlen 1150 S. Depot Dr., Ste. 100 Ogden, UT 84404 Petitioner’s requested action: Approval of the vacation of Lots 27 and 28 of BDO Plat 11, and preliminary and final plat approval of the proposed BDO Plat 11 First Amendment in the DDR zone. Staff recommends approval of the proposed vacation, and preliminary and final plat subject to all city department comments being obtained and satisfied. 1. The plat vacation and subdivision does/ does not promote the health, safety, convenience and general welfare of the inhabitants of the city. 2. The subdivision is/ is not in the best interests of the public and in harmony with good neighborhood development. 3. There is/ is not good cause for the vacation of Lots 27 and 28, BDO Plat 11. 4. The subdivision is/ is not in full compliance with zoning ordinances. 5. The subdivision is/ is not in full compliance with the requirements of the subdivision ordinance. 2003 – Final plat approval of BDO 11 History Report by: Clinton A. Spencer, AICP Planning Commission’s determination for action Planning Staff’s Recommended Action ---PAGE BREAK--- OGDEN CITY PLANNING COMMISSION March 1, 2017 AGENDA ITEM - C Page 2 of 9 Vicinity Map ---PAGE BREAK--- OGDEN CITY PLANNING COMMISSION March 1, 2017 AGENDA ITEM - C Page 3 of 9 Property Address: 641 West 400 North Zone: DDR Community Plan: BDO Combined Lot Size: 8.1 Acres Existing Use: Treehouse Foods The applicant is proposing to vacate Lots 27 and 28 of BDO Plat 11 in order to make some necessary changes that would accommodate an addition to their building. As part of the new subdivision, BDO Plat 11 1st Amendment, the property line between the two lots is being shifted to the south three feet, so that the previous Lot 27 and proposed Lot 73 pick up additional square footage. Also, a twenty-four (24) foot fire access lane that runs along the same property line is being removed with the consent of the Ogden City Fire Marshall. Another easement being reduced is located on the east side of the proposed Lot 73. Currently the easement is a thirty (30) foot public utility easement (PUE) and it is proposed to decrease to a fifteen (15) foot PUE (see map below for information; see attached proposed subdivision plat in attachments of the report). All information for the reduction of easements has been submitted to the utility companies for their consideration and feedback as well. Description of request Project Summary ---PAGE BREAK--- OGDEN CITY PLANNING COMMISSION March 1, 2017 AGENDA ITEM - C Page 4 of 9 The Commission is required to review plat amendments. As part of this review the Commission is to determine that the proposed subdivision vacation and amendment is in the best interest of the public and in harmony with good neighborhood development. The Commission will need to determine that the subdivision is in compliance with city ordinances, specifically current zoning and subdivision ordinances. On recommendation from the Planning Commission, the Mayor takes final action regarding the proposed vacation and subdivision. 1. Promotion of the health, safety, convenience and general welfare of the inhabitants of the city. The proposed vacation and subdivision will not create any conditions that could cause public concern. The removal of the Fire Lane has been approved by the Ogden City Fire Marshall. 2. Best interests of the public and in harmony with good neighborhood development. The lots created by the proposed subdivision are consistent with the existing lots found throughout the BDO area and maintain existing lot lines perpendicular to the street as well as providing easements to maintain public utility services to the surrounding properties. The proposed lots will accommodate future growth in the BDO. 3. Good cause for the vacation of Lots 27 and 28, BDO Plat 11. The existing easements are property lines restrict the addition desired, which addition is consistent with other buildings found in the BDO. Property lines shift and easements have been altered to accommodate the proposed growth. 4. Compliance with zoning ordinances. The proposed subdivision complies with zoning regulations. There is no lot area, or width requirement in the DDR zone. The proposed lot sizes are: - Lot 73: 4.1 acres - Lot 74: 4.04 acres 5. Compliance with the requirements of the subdivision ordinance. The proposed subdivision creates uniform dividing lines which are perpendicular to street frontages (600 West and 400 North). Each lot has frontage along a dedicated right of way for access and utilities. What Planning Commission reviews Factors for consideration of action ---PAGE BREAK--- OGDEN CITY PLANNING COMMISSION March 1, 2017 AGENDA ITEM - C Page 5 of 9 Note: The staff comments have not yet been completed. Staff recommends that all review comments be obtained and satisfied as a condition of approval. 1. County plat 2. BDO, Plat 11 3. Proposed Plat 4. Notification information Attachments 1. County plat ---PAGE BREAK--- OGDEN CITY PLANNING COMMISSION March 1, 2017 AGENDA ITEM - C Page 6 of 9 2. BDO, Plat 11 ---PAGE BREAK--- OGDEN CITY PLANNING COMMISSION March 1, 2017 AGENDA ITEM - C Page 7 of 9 3. Proposed BDO Plat 11, 1st Amendment ---PAGE BREAK--- OGDEN CITY PLANNING COMMISSION March 1, 2017 AGENDA ITEM - C Page 8 of 9 4. Notification information (2 pages) ---PAGE BREAK--- OGDEN CITY PLANNING COMMISSION March 1, 2017 AGENDA ITEM - C Page 9 of 9 ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- OGDEN CITY PLANNING COMMISSION March 1, 2017 AGENDA ITEM - E Page 1 of 8 Agenda Name: PUBLIC HEARING FOR PRELIMINARY AND FINAL PLAT SUBDIVISION OF BUSINESS DEPOT OGDEN (BDO) PLAT 29, AT 400 SOUTH DEPOT DRIVE. Petitioner/ Developer: Blake Wahlen 1150 S. Depot Dr., Ste. 100 Ogden, UT 84404 Petitioner’s requested action: Approval of the preliminary and final plat for BDO Plat 29 in the DDR zone. Staff recommends approval of the proposed preliminary and final plat subject to Amidan Drive being removed from the BDO Street Master Plan, and to all city department comments being obtained and satisfied. 1. The subdivision does/ does not promote the health, safety, convenience and general welfare of the inhabitants of the city. 2. The subdivision is/ is not in the best interests of the public and in harmony with good neighborhood development. 3. The subdivision is/ is not in full compliance with zoning ordinances. 4. The subdivision is/ is not in full compliance with the requirements of the subdivision ordinance. Report by: Clinton A. Spencer, AICP Planning Commission’s determination for action Planning Staff’s Recommended Action ---PAGE BREAK--- OGDEN CITY PLANNING COMMISSION March 1, 2017 AGENDA ITEM - E Page 2 of 8 Vicinity Map ---PAGE BREAK--- OGDEN CITY PLANNING COMMISSION March 1, 2017 AGENDA ITEM - E Page 3 of 8 Property Address: 400 S Depot Dr. Zone: DDR Community Plan: BDO Lot Size: 19 Acres Existing Use: Vacant lot, Utah State Forensic Office, storage building for Ogden The applicant is proposing to create a two lot subdivision to facilitate a new building in the BDO on the proposed Lot 76. The property is mostly vacant except for one building which is used by the State for forensics, and Odgen city for storage. The building is currently on two separate lots (Lot 6 BDO Plat 5 Amd., and proposed Lot 75 BDO Plat 29). There is a demising wall in the building that lines up with the south property line of Lot 6, BDO Plat 5 Amended separating the state portion of the building from the city used portion of the building which will remain with the proposed plat. The southern part of the proposed plat is currently vacant of any other buildings. However, Amidan Drive currently runs through the south part of the proposed subdivision. Amidan Drive is currently part of the BDO Street Master Plan, but is not a dedicated street. In order to record BDO Plat 29 as proposed the street will need to be removed from the master plan, which requires City Council approval. The Perry ditch also runs across the south part of the proposed subdivision. Recently it has been re-routed to run parallel to Depot Drive and White Drive. Although no current easement is shown on the plat for the ditch, an easement will be required before the plat is recoded as required by the city. This issue will be addressed with staff comments for approval. The proposed plat provides a fifteen (15) foot public utility easement (PUE) on the north, west, and south sides of the entire property. A twenty (20) foot joint driveway easement is located on the east side of the subdivision to maintain access through the property from White Drive to 2nd Street as well as to adjacent buildings. As mentioned, other easements may be required by staff before the plat is recorded. The Commission is required to review new subdivisions. As part of this review the Commission is to determine that the proposed subdivision is in the best interest of the public and in harmony with good neighborhood development. The Commission will need to determine that the subdivision is in compliance with city ordinances, specifically current zoning and subdivision ordinances. On recommendation from the Planning Commission, the Mayor takes final action regarding the proposed subdivision. Description of request What Planning Commission reviews Project Summary ---PAGE BREAK--- OGDEN CITY PLANNING COMMISSION March 1, 2017 AGENDA ITEM - E Page 4 of 8 1. Promotion of the health, safety, convenience and general welfare of the inhabitants of the city. The proposed subdivision will not create any conditions that could cause public concern. Sufficient traffic movement through the area is still maintained with the removal of Amidan Street from the master plan via the existing roads. The twenty (20) foot joint access easement also serves to provide circulation to buildings in the BDO. Easements will be located on the the plat to protect existing features (utilities, ditches, etc.) and facilitate future services for the surrounding area. 2. Best interests of the public and in harmony with good neighborhood development. The lots created by the proposed subdivision are consistent with the existing lots found throughout the BDO area and maintain lot lines perpendicular to the street as well as providing easements to maintain public utility services to the surrounding properties. The proposed lots will accommodate future growth in the BDO. 3. Compliance with zoning ordinances. The proposed subdivision complies with zoning regulations. There is no lot area, or width requirement in the DDR zone. The proposed lot sizes are: - Lot 75: 5.946 acres - Lot 76: 13.098 acres 4. Compliance with the requirements of the subdivision ordinance. The proposed subdivision creates uniform dividing lines which are perpendicular to street frontages (Depot Drive and 2nd Street). Each lot has frontage along a dedicated right of way for access and utilities. Note: The staff comments have not yet been completed. Staff recommends that all review comments be obtained and satisfied as a condition of approval. 1. County plat 2. Proposed plat 3. Staff review comments 4. Notification information Factors for consideration of action Attachments ---PAGE BREAK--- OGDEN CITY PLANNING COMMISSION March 1, 2017 AGENDA ITEM - E Page 5 of 8 1. County plat ---PAGE BREAK--- OGDEN CITY PLANNING COMMISSION March 1, 2017 AGENDA ITEM - E Page 6 of 8 2. Proposed BDO Plat 29 ---PAGE BREAK--- OGDEN CITY PLANNING COMMISSION March 1, 2017 AGENDA ITEM - E Page 7 of 8 3. Staff Review Comments ---PAGE BREAK--- OGDEN CITY PLANNING COMMISSION March 1, 2017 AGENDA ITEM - E Page 8 of 8 4. Notification information ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- OGDEN CITY PLANNING COMMISSION March 1, 2017 AGENDA ITEM- I Page 1 of 8 Agenda Name: CBD SITE PLAN REVIEW FOR BUILDING FAÇADE REMODEL AT 2204 WASHINGTON BLVD. Petitioner/ Developer: Dan Schmelling Carbon Architects 2204 Washington Blvd Suite 202 Ogden UT 84401 [EMAIL REDACTED] Petitioner/ Developer’s requested action: Approval of the proposed building façade remodel and reduction of required parking stalls from 18 to 12. Approval of the building façade remodel and parking reduction, subject to the following: 1. Work with engineering to develop parking module along 22nd Street that at a minimum allows for 6’ unobstructed sidewalk. 2. Driveway along 22nd Street to be removed and replaced with curb and gutter according to Engineering standards. 3. Existing dirt park strip areas east and west of shown angled parking that do not become part of new parking modules are to be planted with sod and small trees. Tree variety to be determined by City Urban Forester 4. Use cobra head lighting east of Washington Blvd. in order to be consistent with downtown lighting patterns. 5. The Planning Commission grant a parking reduction from the required 18 on-site parking stalls to 4 shared parking stalls. 6. Building signage to be addressed as part of a sign application. 7. All department staff comments be satisfied. 1. The CBD site plan does/ does not use building materials that are compatible with surrounding, existing buildings. 2. By working with City Engineering Staff, the CBD site plan will be/ will not be designed to circulate pedestrian and vehicle traffic safely and efficiently on and off the site. Report by Eric Daems Planning Commission’s determination for action Planning Staff’s Recommended Action ---PAGE BREAK--- OGDEN CITY PLANNING COMMISSION March 1, 2017 AGENDA ITEM- I Page 2 of 8 3. The CBD site plan is/ is not consistent with the architectural lines of the building and surrounding buildings. 4. The CBD site plan does/ does not meet conditions to constitute a parking reduction. Vicinity Map ---PAGE BREAK--- OGDEN CITY PLANNING COMMISSION March 1, 2017 AGENDA ITEM- I Page 3 of 8  Fall 2016- removal of attached building to the east (different parcel) for development of a parking lot  2015- 2016- Use as a yoga studio  Pre 2014- Use as an auto parts store and warehouse Property Address: 2204 Washington Blvd. Zone: CBDI Community Plan: CBD Existing Use: Vacant commercial building Building/Lot Area: 5,292 square feet (same) Existing Parking: 4 shared stalls Required Parking: 18 stalls Proposed parking: 12 stalls (4 shared, 8 in the public right of way) The applicant is proposing to develop a salon (Sorae Salon) at this location. As part of this new use, the applicant is proposing to remodel the exterior of the building, as well as make modifications to the public right of way for parking and pedestrian circulation. The proposed exterior modifications of the building include the restoration of the original tan colored brick, removal of the manufactured stone, removal of the masonry infilled windows on the north side of the building, and a new metal and glass storefront to be installed. New features include a floating EIFS panel with decorative glass panels in a diamond pattern to be installed above the store front and the extension of painted metal panels as an accent material on the north side of the building. The metal panels will be painted white, the aluminum storefront will be black, and the EIFS will be tan. A new door would be created at about the halfway point of the north side of the building in order to create an additional required exit for the building. Due to the elevation change of the building, a small retaining wall and stairwell would be included to provide access to the door. Project fact sheet Description of request Project Summary Past History ---PAGE BREAK--- OGDEN CITY PLANNING COMMISSION March 1, 2017 AGENDA ITEM- I Page 4 of 8 The site plan includes the proposed expansion and use of an existing driveway along 22nd Street for angled parking. That parking would be 90’ wide and 11’ 2” deep and include 8 parking stalls, with one ADA compliant stall. On either side of the angled parking area, the applicant is proposing a 3’ landscaped island. The existing dirt park strips would be finished with brick pavers. The proposal includes the installation of two new themed street lights along 22nd Street. The design would be consistent with those found along Washington Blvd. The applicant is requesting a parking reduction from 18 required parking stalls to 12 stalls (4 shared and 8 street side stalls). Each stylist will determine their own hours and therefore the building could potentially be occupied 24 hours a day. However, typical peak hours will be from early afternoon to early evening. The Commission is required to review CBD site plans. As part of this review the Commission is to determine that the site modifications are using compatible building materials, appropriate landscaping treatments, maintaining appropriate traffic circulation on and off the site, following building architectural lines, and providing adequate screening. Additionally, the Commission will need to determine if the established conditions for reducing the parking requirement are being met. Once the Commission takes an action regarding the proposed CBD site plan, the recommendation is then forwarded to the Mayor for his determination of the final action the city should take regarding the proposal. 1. Compatible with surrounding, existing buildings The proposed exterior modifications of the building are limited to changes in materials. The main structure is brick with a metal and glass storefront. Above the storefront windows are painted metal panels. A few years ago, the original brick was painted without a permit and fake stone was added to portions of the storefront. Also, at some point window openings on the north side of the building were infilled with masonry. This proposal will remove the fake stone from the storefront, remove the paint from the original brick, and restore the infilled openings on the north side. Additionally, it would add a floating EIFS and decorative glass panel with a diamond pattern to add visual texture and variety to the painted metal panels above the storefront. On the What Planning Commission reviews Factors for consideration of action ---PAGE BREAK--- OGDEN CITY PLANNING COMMISSION March 1, 2017 AGENDA ITEM- I Page 5 of 8 north side of the building, new metal panels to mimic the existing would be added as an accent feature over the windows. The brick to be uncovered is a tan color and the proposal is for the metal panels to be painted white, the aluminum storefront to be black, and the EIFS to be tan. These colors and materials are consistent with those typically found in the downtown. The overall architecture will complement the downtown landscape. The proposal also shows a concept for a projecting sign to be located at the corner of the building. The approval for the sign is not part of the CBD site plan review and sign application should be submitted independently of this proposal. 2. Pedestrian and vehicle traffic circulation, both on site and off site: The building occupies the entire site and therefore there is no on-site traffic. However, the proposed site plans do include changes to the pedestrian and vehicular circulation areas. The sidewalk along 22nd Street is 6’ wide starting at the center of the building headed east. West of the center point it is 10’ wide. The remainder of the area between the building and the street includes an approximately 57’ wide driveway that is often used for angled parking, an 11’ dirt and a 3’ planter against the building on the east end. The proposed site plan is for the driveway to be widened to 90’ and be used for angled parking. It also proposes that the east and west of the new angled parking include a small delineating planter and the rest to be paved with brick pavers. The western half of the planter against the building would also be replaced by concrete, a small retaining wall, and stairs that would provide a second exit from the building. Building Rendering ---PAGE BREAK--- OGDEN CITY PLANNING COMMISSION March 1, 2017 AGENDA ITEM- I Page 6 of 8 The existing driveway is a safety hazard as it no longer leads to any portion of the building with vehicular access and is used as for angled parking. The biggest problem is that it is too shallow and does not include bumpers to stop vehicles from encroaching onto the sidewalk. Vehicles also hang into the travel lane due to the lack of depth. The driveway should be removed and replaced with standard curb and gutter. In effort to provide maximum parking for the area, the applicant should work with city engineering staff to develop on-street parking modules. Based on site triangles, back out areas, and other traffic safety and circulation patterns, angled or parallel parking could be feasible. It is crucial however, that the parking allows for a minimum 6’ unimpeded pedestrian sidewalk along 22nd Street. It is appropriate that the dirt park strip areas be restored with grass and street trees rather than introducing brick pavers in a pattern inconsistent with streets east of Washington Blvd. Since there are power lines above the the applicant should work with the city urban forester to choose tree varieties that will not interfere with the lines and that are suited for the site. Angled Parking Brick Pavers Stairs and retaining wall Site Plan Existing Driveway ---PAGE BREAK--- OGDEN CITY PLANNING COMMISSION March 1, 2017 AGENDA ITEM- I Page 7 of 8 At this point it is not known if the 3’ planter against the building is on city or private property. A survey will be forthcoming. If it is found to be on city property, the applicant would need to apply for an encroachment permit to add the stairs and retaining wall in the public right-of-way. If it is on private property, the proposed stairs, side door access, and retaining wall are appropriate for the building usage. The sidewalk along Washington Blvd extends 15’ from the building to the curb and includes one street tree. No changes are being proposed along Washington Blvd. The proposal includes two new themed street lights along 22nd Street. The design would be consistent with those found along Washington Blvd. Cobra head lighting would be more appropriate along 22nd Street as themed lighting is not found above Washington Blvd. in other parts of the downtown area. Cobra head lighting is consistent with areas east of Washington Blvd. 3. Consistent with conditions for a parking reduction: 1. The uses characteristically result in peak accumulations of parked vehicles at different hours, days, or seasons; 2. A reduction in parking will not cause a shortage of parking for the participating uses or other uses located in the vicinity; 3. A reduction in parking requirements will contribute to the vitality and overall wellbeing of the central business district. Commercial buildings require 1 parking stall per 300 square feet. Based on those standards, this building would require 18 parking stalls. However, the building footprint occupies the entire parcel and therefore no on-site parking is available. Typical of older downtown buildings, this building originally relied on pedestrian traffic, parking along public streets, and the use of mass transit to compensate for the lack of parking. These principles are still applicable today as the site is well connected to sidewalks, mass transit stops, and has nearby on-street parking. Additionally, a private parking lot was created to the rear of the building. The owner of the parking lot is the same as the owner of this building, and is willing to dedicate 4 stalls for the use in this building and have the others available through a shared parking option. Typically, a salon is busiest from early afternoon to early evening, however the applicant has indicated that the stylists will be able to set their own hours based on the needs of their clients. Most of the surrounding businesses have more typical work day hours of 9 a.m. to 5 p.m. and Landscaped Area ---PAGE BREAK--- OGDEN CITY PLANNING COMMISSION March 1, 2017 AGENDA ITEM- I Page 8 of 8 Although there will be times when the parking will be at a premium, the overall use will contribute to the vitality of the central business district and Staff feels it is appropriate to grant the reduction of parking stalls from 18 to 4 shared spaces. As part of this proposal, the applicant will also be working with the city engineering staff to develop more efficient on street parking options on the north side of the property. Although these stalls would not be exclusive to this building, they would provide additional parking options for area businesses. 1. Site plan 2. Proposed rendering 3. Parcel map 4. Department Comments Attachments ---PAGE BREAK--- H A510 I A510 WASHINGTON BLVD. 22ND STREET ADJACENT BUILDING S2.7 S2.2 S2.3 D8.4 S2.5 S2.5 S2.7 S2.7 S4 S3 S5 S3 21' - 2" 11' - 2" 60.00° 10' - 4 1/2" N88°42'02"W 132.30' S1°17'48"W 40.00' N1°17'48"E 40.00' S88°42'02"E 132.30' 124 1/2" 49' - 6" 66' - 0" R.O.W. 30' - 0" BOUNDARY DESCRIPTION PART OF LOT 6, BLOCK 40, PLAT A, OF THE OGDEN CITY SURVEY, WEBER COUNTY, UTAH MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: BEGINNING AT THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF SAID LOT 6 AND RUNNING THENCE SOUTH 88°42'02" EAST 132.20 FEET (EAST 132.00 FEET BY RECORD); THENCE SOUTH 01°17'48" WEST 40.00 FEET (SOUTH BY RECORD); THENCE NORTH 88°42'02" WEST 132.30 FEET (WEST 132.00 FEET BY RECORD); THENCE NORTH 01°17'48" EAST 40.00 FEET (NORTH BY RECORD) TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING. PINK CHINTZ THYME CARADONNA MEADOW SAGE HAMELN FOUNTAIN GRASS PLANTING LEGEND PLANTING NOTES A. ANY ALTERATIONS TO THESE DRAWINGS DURING CONSTRUCTION SHALL BE REPORTED TO THE OWNER'S REPRESENTATIVE AND RECORDED ON "AS BUILT" DRAWINGS BY THE CONTRACTOR. B. ALL PLANT MATERIAL SHALL CONFORM TO THE MINIMUM GUIDELINES ESTABLISHED BY THE AMERICAN STANDARD FOR NURSERY STOCK PUBLISHED BY THE AMERICAN NURSERY ASSOCIATION, INC. C. ALL PLANTS TO BE BALLED AND BURLAPPED OR CONTAINER GROWN, UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED ON THE PLANT LIST. D. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL SUPPLY ALL PLANT MATERIAL IN QUANTITIES SUFFICIENT TO COMPLETE THE PLANTING SHOWN ON THE DRAWINGS. E. ANY PROPOSED SUBSTITUTIONS OF PLANT SPECIES SHALL BE MADE WITH PLANTS OF EQUIVALENT OVERALL FORM, HEIGHT, BRANCHING HABIT, FLOWER, LEAF, COLOR, FRUIT, AND CULTURE ONLY AS APPROVED BY THE OWNER'S REPRESENTATIVE. F. ALL PLANTS SHALL BE TAGGED AND APPROVED BY THE OWNER'S REPRESENTATIVE AT THE NURSURY PRIOR TO DIGGING OR DELIVERY TO SITE. G. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL LOCATE AND VERIFY ALL ESXISTING UTILITY LINES PRIOR TO PLANTING AND SHALL REPORT ANY CONFLICTS TO THE OWNER'S REPRESENTATIVE. H. STAKE LOCATION OF ALL PROPOSED PLANTING FOR APPROVAL BY THE OWNER'S REPRESENTATIVE PRIOR TO THE COMMENCEMENT OF PLANTING. I. ALL PLANT BEDS TO RECEIVE 3"COMPOSTED BARK MULCH. J. ALL EXISTING TREES TO REMAIN SHALL BE PROPERLY PROTECTED DURING CONSTRUCTION. PROTECTION TECHNQUES SHALL BE REVIEWED AND APPROVED BY THE OWNER'S REPRESENTATIVE. PARKING STALLS REQUIRED 18 PARKING STALLS SHOWN 13* *NOTE: THE SORAE SALONS WILL HAVE 24 HOUR ACCESS WITH EACH STYLIST SETTING THEIR OWN SCHEDULE. THIS WILL DISPERSE THE REQUIRED AMOUNT OF PARKING THROUGHOUT THE DAY AS WELL AS INTO THE EVENING AND NIGHT TIME. WE WILL HAVE 8 DEDICATED STALLS PROVIDED ON THE NORTH SIDE OF THE BUILDING AND THERE IS 2 HOUR PUBLIC PARKING ALONG WASHINGTON BLVD. SHEET NUMBER CARBON PROJECT NO. SEAL REVISION PROJECT NAME # NO. DATE DESCRIPTION ISSUED CONSULTANT ALL INFORMATION SHOWN IS NOT FINAL OR APPROVED WITHOUT GOVERNING AGENCIES STAMP AND SIGNATURE. ANY USE OF THIS DRAWING AND ITS CONTENTS WITHOUT SAID APPROVAL IS DONE AT THE INDIVIDUALS OWN RISK. CARBON ARCHITECTS DOES NOT ASSUME LIABILITY FOR ANY SUCH USE. R:\PROJECT FILES\16-1242 2204 WASHINGTON BLVD\REVIT\Phenix Salon Suites.rvt C101 SITE PLAN 16-1242 PHENIX SALONS SORAE SALON SUITES 2204 WASHINGTON BLVD. OGDEN, UT 84401 C101 NO. DATE DESCRIPTION 1" = 10'-0" SITE PLAN REVIEW 1 1/4" = 1'-0" VICINITY MAP 2 PROPERTY PERCENTAGES BUILDING COVERAGE 5303 SF 100% TOTAL PARCEL AREA 5303 SF PROJECT NORTH U.N.O. KEYNOTE LEGEND KEY VALUE DESCRIPTION D8.4 REMOVE BRICK INFILL FOR NEW WINDOW S2.2 EXISTING FIRE HYDRANT S2.3 ESISTING MANHOLE WATER METER S2.5 EXISTING UTILITY POLE S2.7 NEW STREET LIGHT TO MATCH STREET LIGHTS ON WASHINGTON BLVD. - COORDINATE WITH OGDEN CITY ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT S4 PARKING Planting Schedule ID Qty Latin Name Common Name PEN HAM 3 Pennisetum alopecuroides 'Hameln' Hameln Fountain Grass SAL NEM 9 Salvia nemorosa 'Caradonna' Caradonna Meadow Sage THY PIN 2 Thymus 'Pink Chintz' Pink Chintz Thyme ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- DEVELOPMENT SERVICES 2549 WASHINGTON BLVD. OGDEN, UT 84401 - (801) 629-8985 - e-mail: ​[EMAIL REDACTED]​ - ​www.ogdencity.com 2204 WASHINGTON BLVD. SORAE SALONS (SPR-1) BB# 249-053-320 Type of plan review: Date received: Comments due date: Date comments sent to applicant: SPR-1 01-13-2017 (4:44 PM) incomplete 01-25-2017 N/A SPR-1 02-10-2017 02-22-2017 Permit Number: NONE Approved Date: PENDING ELECTRONIC REVIEW Permit Issue Date: GENERAL PROJECT INFORMATION PROJECT INFORMATION Project Name/Desc. SORAE SALONS EXTERIOR REMODEL Parcel ID ​ : 01-034-0038 Address: 2204 WASHINGTON BLVD. Project Valuation: NOT STATED PROJECT TEAM ROLE NAME EMAIL PHONE Ogden City Point of Contact: DEBORAH SORRELLS [EMAIL REDACTED] [PHONE REDACTED] Project Contact: DANIEL SCHMELING [EMAIL REDACTED] [PHONE REDACTED] Owner: 2204 WASHINGTON LLC N/A N/A Architect/Other: CARBON ARCHITECTS DANIEL SCHMELING [EMAIL REDACTED] [PHONE REDACTED] Engineer: NOT STATED N/A N/A Contractor: TBD N/A N/A OTHER REVIEW ITEMS Central Weber Sewer Dist: REQUIRED: Contact [PHONE REDACTED]; Address: 2618 W Pioneer Road, Marriott Slaterville, UT 1 ---PAGE BREAK--- Business License: REQUIRED for New Business: Contact Pauline Miller at [PHONE REDACTED]; e-mail: [EMAIL REDACTED] UDOT: FINANCIAL GUARANTEE REQUIREMENTS ​ ​ (Must submitted and approved before permits can be issued.) Planning Engineering A financial guarantee will need to be established for all landscape improvements before construction permits will be issued. NOTES: SITE PLAN REVIEW COMMENTS BUILDING SERVICES DIVISION COMMENTS Comments By: Steve Patrick Email: [EMAIL REDACTED] Phone: [PHONE REDACTED] 1ST REVIEW STATUS & COMMENTS: ​Make Corrections and re-submit a new complete set of collated revised digital plans and a written response to each plan review comment indicating how and where the comment has been resolved. 1. Provide a site plan showing all recorded property lines and the building fire separation distance from each property line. 2. It appears the building as proposed will require an automatic fire sprinkler system, provide utility information and show where the fire line will be installed. ENGINEERING DIVISION COMMENTS Comments By: Taylor Nielsen Email: [EMAIL REDACTED] Phone: (801) 629-8983 1ST REVIEW STATUS & COMMENTS: ​Provide Additional Information 1. Need details on the ramp and if it is in the Right-of-Way or on private property. If it is in the Right-of-Way it will not be allowed. 2. Need details if the applicant is requesting street parking on 22nd Street. 3. Provide information on any utility connections in the roadway. FIRE DEPARTMENT COMMENTS Comments By: Jim Dotson Email: [EMAIL REDACTED] Phone: [PHONE REDACTED] 1ST REVIEW STATUS & COMMENTS: APPROVED SEPARATE SUBMITTAL NOTICE: Fire suppression systems and fire alarm systems require a separate submittal. A permit shall be applied for before any installation of either fire suppression system or fire alarm system. The permit shall be on the job site and be available for review by any inspector. If there is no permit and/or approved stamped plans on the job site, there will be a Stop Work Order issued until 2 ---PAGE BREAK--- both are on the job site. Submit plans digitally. Contact permits at [PHONE REDACTED]. UNDERGROUND FIRE LINE: The city engineering department will handle all testing and inspection of the fire line and thrust blocks. The fire department becomes involved with the underground when the line is ready to be flushed. This is accomplished through the use of a five inch hose line. The fire department has the hose and some fittings available for use free of charge. Please contact the Fire Prevention division at [PHONE REDACTED] to schedule. Allow 7 working days’ notice. NOTE: DUE TO SAFETY CONSIDERATIONS, THE FLUSH MUST BE DONE WITH THE HOSE LINE PROPERLY SECURED. THE USE OF A LOADER BUCKET TO HOLD DOWN THE END OF THE HOSE WORKS BEST. CONTACT A MEMBER OF THE PREVENTION DIVISION FOR INSTRUCTIONS. There shall be a minimum of a two inch clearance, around all sides, between the fire riser pipe and the concrete/pipe sleeve floor structure. The two inch space shall be filled with a compressible material that allows movement. For riser pipes that are smaller than four inches diameter, the clearance space shall be one inch around all sides. The Fire Department Connection shall be located in an approved location so there are no obstructions and have acceptable access for firefighters. There shall be a cement pad for access if the FDC is located in or around a planted area. The cement pad shall be a minimum of three feet wide and extend to a hard surface unless approved by the fire marshal. The fire riser room shall be accessible to firefighters from the exterior of the building or in a location approved by the fire marshal. Door shall be marked “Fire Riser Room.” If there is no access by an exterior door to the fire riser room, a Wall Post Indicator Valve will be required. If the fire suppression system requires a fire pump, a source of power other than utilities may be required. Contact the AHJ with any questions. Provide a water supply to the development before any construction of any homes. The fire department shall verify that the water system is working and will meet the minimum fire flow of 1000 gallons per minute for 3600 square foot homes or less, or 1500 gallons per minute for homes over 3600 square feet. The roads shall be a minimum of 20 feet in width, face of curb to face of curb, with no parking on either side. If the road is 26 feet wide, parking on one side is allowed. If the road is 32 feet wide, parking on each side is allowed. No parking signs shall be posted depending on the width of the roads. There shall be an address on the building or on a sign visible from the street. If the address is on a sign-monument the sign-monument shall meets the requirements of the Planning Department. The address numbers, weather on the building or the sign, shall be a minimum of four inches in height with a 1/2 inch stroke and be in contrasting colors from the background. Provide a working space of not less than 30 inches in width, 36 inches in depth and 78 inches in height in front of electrical service equipment. If the electrical equipment is wider than 30 inches, the working 3 ---PAGE BREAK--- space shall not be less than the width of the equipment. There shall be no storage within the designated working space. Gas meters shall be protected from vehicular damage. If the gas meter is in a traffic area, bollards shall be provided as per the International Fire Code. PLANNING DIVISION COMMENTS Comments By: Eric Daems Email: [EMAIL REDACTED] Phone: [PHONE REDACTED] 1ST REVIEW STATUS & COMMENTS:​Make Corrections 1. Project subject to recommendations of Planning Commission. Meeting to be held March 1 2017. 2. Make improvements along 22nd Street: a. Work with engineering to develop parking module that at a minimum allows for 6’ unobstructed sidewalk. b. Driveway along 22nd Street to be removed and replaced with curb and gutter according to Engineering standards. c. Existing dirt park strip areas east and west of shown angled parking that do not become part of new parking modules are to be planted with sod and small trees. Tree variety to be determined by Monte Stewart, City Urban Forester- [PHONE REDACTED]. 3. Themed lighting along does not extend above Washington Blvd in the downtown area. Cobrahead- lighting should be provided instead to stay consistent with properties east of Washington. 4. Building signage to be approved as part of a sign permit application. 4 ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- OGDEN CITY PLANNING COMMISSION March 1, 2017 AGENDA ITEM - L Page 1 of 14 Agenda Name: PUBLIC HEARING FOR PETITION #2017-4 TO REZONE PROPERTY LOCATED GENERALLY AT 1800 EAST CANYON ROAD TO BE INCLUDED IN THE 12TH STREET OVERLAY ZONE. Petitioner/ Developer: Mark Shields 1030 Fort Lane Ogden, UT 84404 Requested action: Approval to rezone property located generally at 1800 East Canyon Road (zoned R-1-10) to be included in the 12th Street Overlay zone. Approval to rezone the property to be included in the 12th Street Overlay zone. 1. The rezoning is / is not consistent with the Horace Mann Community Plan. 2. The rezoning is/ is not consistent with the 12th Street Overlay Plan. 3. The rezoning is /is not consistent with the policies outlined in the general plan. 4. The rezoning is/ is not compliant with the 12th Street Overlay zone.  2016 – 12th Street Overlay zone amended regarding residential building heights  2005 – 12th Street Overlay zone adopted  2004 – Horace Mann Community Plan adopted Report by: Clinton A. Spencer, AICP Planning Commission’s determination for action Planning Staff’s Recommended Action Past History ---PAGE BREAK--- OGDEN CITY PLANNING COMMISSION March 1, 2017 AGENDA ITEM - L Page 2 of 14 Vicinity Map ---PAGE BREAK--- OGDEN CITY PLANNING COMMISSION March 1, 2017 AGENDA ITEM - L Page 3 of 14 The applicant, Mark Shields, owns the property in question and is proposing to have the 12th Street Overlay zone applied to his entire property. Mr. Shields’ property is currently located in the R-1-10 zone and includes 8.1 acres of property. The 12th Street Overlay zone presently exists on the southern part of the property, but it does not extend to the north portion of the property. Approximately 5.04 acres is currently in the 12th Street Overlay zone, and the remaining 3.06 acres is being proposed to be included as well with this petition. The applicant is proposing the amendment to facilitate the future construction of a multi-family residential and office development on the lot. In researching the applicant’s request, it also became apparent to staff that other changes should be made to the 12th Street Overlay zone to provide a more consistent zoning boundary which would include entire parcels in the zone (correct split zoned parcels), and remove another property from the overlay zone. The property to the west of the applicant’s is also only partially located in the 12th Street overlay zone and is currently developed with townhomes. Approximately one acre of the northern part of the neighboring property will also be included in the request to have the 12th Street Overlay applied to it. To the east of the applicant’s property is a power sub-station owned by Rocky Mountain Power which is on a 6.68 acre piece of property. Only the southern portion of the Rocky Mountain property is in the 12th Street Overlay zone as well. Because of the unlikelihood of the sub-station ever moving or developing, staff proposes that the 12th Street Overlay be removed from the property. (See the attached maps below showing the proposed changes) PROPOSED CHANGES PROPOSED FINAL ALIGNMENT As currently zoned, the applicant’s property allows single family homes with a density of one single family home per 10,000 square feet of property which would allow the development of approximately twenty (20) single family lots. In contrast, applying the 12th Street Overlay zone over the applicant’s entire property would also allow for the following uses: Description of request ---PAGE BREAK--- OGDEN CITY PLANNING COMMISSION March 1, 2017 AGENDA ITEM - L Page 4 of 14 - Recreational activities - Churches, and schools (also allowed in R-1 zones) - Mixed use buildings (residential above retail/office) - Multi-family dwellings - Single family row housing - Sales in buildings 20,000 square feet or less (jewelry, crafts, toys, office supplies, etc.) - Restaurants (no drive-up window) - Services in buildings 20,000 square feet or less (medical office, real estate, wedding reception, etc.) Other regulations pertaining to the 12th Street overlay include specific standards for site design, landscaping, building material and design, and sign design. The overlay zone also prohibits outdoor storage. The Commission is required to review any change to the zoning map and hold a public hearing when a change to the map is proposed. The Commission will need to determine whether or not the rezone is consistent with the policies of the general plan. The key component to this consideration is how the rezoning of these properties relates to the Horace Mann Community Plan and the 12th Street Corridor Plan as well as current land use patterns. Once the Commission takes an action regarding the proposed rezoning, the Commission’s recommendation is then forwarded to the City Council for their determination of the final action the city should take regarding the rezoning. The Planning Commission will need to consider the general plan goals, objectives and strategies that are identified in the general and community plans that pertain to this zone change as well as the zoning ordinance. 1. Consistency with the Horace Mann Community Plan Throughout the Horace Mann community plan it is mentioned that future multi- family housing should be located in the south eastern portion of the community which is situated at the mouth of the canyon. The community plan also allows for canyon gateway uses which include residential, recreational, restaurants, entertainment, retail and other similar types of uses. In seeking the zoning amendment to apply the 12th Street Overlay to the remaining portion of his property, the applicant is considering developing multi- family residential units as well as other office type uses. By rezoning the remaining portion of the property to the 12th Street Overlay zone and allowing for multi-family and What Planning Commission reviews Factors for consideration of action ---PAGE BREAK--- OGDEN CITY PLANNING COMMISSION March 1, 2017 AGENDA ITEM - L Page 5 of 14 office uses at the mouth of the canyon the applicant’s proposal adheres to the direction established in the community plan found within the Horace Mann Vision Strategies. The Horace Mann community plan was adopted in 2003. Later, in 2005, the 12th Street Overlay zone was adopted by the city. The overlay satisfies the strategies and policies for the area at the mouth of the canyon as defined within the Horace Mann community plan including standards for building types and specific materials, allowing mixed use type developments, locating new multi-family adjacent to existing multi-family stock, sign design, and providing a transitional development type along Canyon Road leading up to the benches. See the attached map below regarding the future land use options for the area at the mouth of the canyon. 2. Consistency with the 12th Street Overlay zone. The proposed extension of the 12th Street Overlay zone will allow the applicant to develop their property as a whole under the same set of zoning regulations. The original boundaries of the overlay did not include all of the two parcels involved in this request. 16D.C.4.D. Use the vision strategies within the Horace Mann Community Plan (14E.C.4) to define elements essential in the overlay zone development. The provisions of the 12th Street Overlay zone are derived from the standards of the Horace Mann Community Plan, which in this case provides for different types of uses including uses conducive to being located at the mouth of the canyon (i.e. recreational, restaurants, contiguous residential development, building materials). The 12th Street overlay zone directly addresses the strategy of adopting a conditional overlay zone which includes the standards set forth in the Horace Mann plan. ---PAGE BREAK--- OGDEN CITY PLANNING COMMISSION March 1, 2017 AGENDA ITEM - L Page 6 of 14 3. General Plan Land Use Policies 8.E.1 Create a definite edge to a development and buffering between different uses. The proposed rezone will provide a transition between Canyon Road and the single family homes further north. The property still can develop as single family homes as it’s zoning is R-1-10, and the overlay zone provides more options to the property that may be more appropriate along Canyon Road. 8.E.2 The zoning should reflect the prevailing character of the overall area. The majority of the property and surrounding area is already included in the overlay zone. By extending the overlay zone to the northern parcel lines the character of the overall area, and currently split zoned parcel, is maintained. 8.E.4 Zoning should not cut across property lines or developments. Currently the applicant’s lot is zoned R-1-10 and the overlay zone is only applied to the southern portion of the parcel. Extending the overlay to the property lines provides for more consistent development. There is no documentation with the city in regards to why the entire portion of the applicant’s property was not included originally in the overlay zone. 8.E.6. To draw edges on types of uses commercial), the City may choose to use multiple family or professional office zoning as a buffer to the commercial, transitioning the neighborhood from commercial to apartments to single family developments. Extending the 12th Street Overlay zone will allow a transitional buffered area between future multi-family and commercial development along Canyon Road and single family homes. 8.E.11. Discourage small lot developments of multiple density uses. The entire lot to be rezoned is 8.1 acres which provides a suitable are for a quality multi-family/ office development. 4. Nonconformities No nonconformities will be created by the rezoning of the properties to the 12th Street Overlay as no current development exists in the area where the zone is to be extended. ---PAGE BREAK--- OGDEN CITY PLANNING COMMISSION March 1, 2017 AGENDA ITEM - L Page 7 of 14 1. Petition 2. Plat Map 3. Horace Mann Community plan land use map 4. 12th Street Overlay Land Use Map 5. Staff Comments 6. Public notice Attachments 1. Petition ---PAGE BREAK--- OGDEN CITY PLANNING COMMISSION March 1, 2017 AGENDA ITEM - L Page 8 of 14 2. Plat Map ---PAGE BREAK--- OGDEN CITY PLANNING COMMISSION March 1, 2017 AGENDA ITEM - L Page 9 of 14 3. Horace Mann Community Land Use Map ---PAGE BREAK--- OGDEN CITY PLANNING COMMISSION March 1, 2017 AGENDA ITEM - L Page 10 of 14 4. 12th Street Overlay Land Use Map Applicant’s property ---PAGE BREAK--- OGDEN CITY PLANNING COMMISSION March 1, 2017 AGENDA ITEM - L Page 11 of 14 5. Staff Comments ---PAGE BREAK--- OGDEN CITY PLANNING COMMISSION March 1, 2017 AGENDA ITEM - L Page 12 of 14 6. Public Notice (3 pages) ---PAGE BREAK--- OGDEN CITY PLANNING COMMISSION March 1, 2017 AGENDA ITEM - L Page 13 of 14 ---PAGE BREAK--- OGDEN CITY PLANNING COMMISSION March 1, 2017 AGENDA ITEM - L Page 14 of 14