NOTICE OF MEETING AND AGENDA PLANNING COMMISSION …

NOTICE OF MEETING AND AGENDA PLANNING COMMISSION

JULY 13, 2021 AT 7:00 P.M. City Council Chambers 110 South Main Street

Springville, Utah 84663

The meeting will begin at 7:00 p.m.

The agenda will be as follows:

Call to Order

• Approval of the Agenda

• Approval of Minutes: June 22, 2021

Consent Agenda The Consent Agenda includes items that are administrative actions where no additional discussion is needed. When approved, the recommendations in the staff reports become the action of the Commission. A call for objection or comment will be made on the consent agenda items. If there is any opposition or comment, the item will be taken off the consent agenda and put on the regular administrative session meeting agenda for discussion. If there are no objections or comments, the item(s) will pass without further consideration.

1. Utah Land Solutions, LLC, seeking a recommendation of final approval of the Condie CornerSubdivision located at 680 West Center Street in the R1-10 Single-Family Residential and WF-1Westfields Overlay Zones.

Legislative Session — Public Hearing

2. Kent Stephens seeking to amend the Official Zone Map on properties located in the area of 2300 E 850S, parcel numbers 26:005:0007; 26:005:0029; 26:005:0100; 26:005:0102; and 26:005:0112, from theR1-15 Single-Family Residential Zone to the R1-10 Single-Family Residential Zone. (Continued from 06/22/2021)

3. Clearwing LC, seeking to amend the Official Zone Map on a 28.58-acre portion of property located in thearea of 1700 N 1650 W from the RC-Regional Commercial Zone to the HC-Highway Commercial Zone.

4. Lakeside Land Partners and Davies Design Build request a zone text amendment to adopt the LakesideLanding Special District as Springville Code Title 11, Chapter 9.

5. Lakeside Land Partners and Davies Design Build request a zone map amendment to apply the LakesideLanding Special District to the following parcels: 21:096:0005, 21:096:0015, 21:096:00016,23:028:0003, 23:028:0004, 23:028:0037, 23:028:0038, 23:028:0039, 21:096:0002, 23:027:0008,23:027:0030, 21:097:0054, 21:097:0054, 21:097:0048, 21:097:0023, 23:027:0084, 23:027:0083,23:027:0082, generally located north of 400 South and west of 2000 West, in the Lakeside CommunityArea

Administrative Session – No items

Adjournment

THIS AGENDA SUBJECT TO CHANGE WITH A MINIMUM OF 24-HOURS NOTICE

This meeting was noticed in compliance with Utah Code 52-4-202 on July 9, 2021. Agendas and minutes are accessible through the Springville City website at www.springville.org/agendas-minutes. Planning Commission meeting agendas are available through the Utah Public Meeting Notice website at www.utah.gov/pmn/index.html. Email subscriptions to Utah Public Meeting Notices are available through their website.

In compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act, the City will make reasonable accommodations to ensure accessibility to this meeting. If you need special assistance to participate in this meeting, please contact the Community Development department at (801) 491-7861 at least three business days prior to the meeting.

http://www.springville.org/agendasminutes

http://www.utah.gov/pmn/index.html

Approved Date: Draft Minutes Date of Meeting: June 22, 2021

Page 1 of 12

1

MINUTES 2

Planning Commission 3

Regular Session 4 Tuesday, June 22, 2021 5

6 7

IN ATTENDANCE 8

9 Commissioners Present: Genevieve Baker, Frank Young, Brad Mertz, Michael Farrer, 10

Rod Parker and Kay Heaps 11 12

Commissioners Excused: Chair Karen Ellingson, 13 14

City Staff: Josh Yost, Community Development Director 15 John Penrod, City Attorney 16 Laura Thompson, City Planner 17 Heather Bakker, Executive Assistant 18

19

City Council: Matt Packard 20 21

CALL TO ORDER 22 23

Vice-Chair Baker called the meeting to order at 7:01 p.m. 24 25

APPROVAL OF THE AGENDA 26 27

Commissioner Heaps moved to approve the agenda as written. Commissioner Mertz 28 seconded the motion. The vote to approve the agenda was unanimous. 29

30

APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES 31 June 8, 2021 32

33 Commissioner Young moved to approve the June 8, 2021 meeting minutes. 34 Commissioner Parker seconded the motion. The vote to approve the meeting minutes 35 was unanimous. 36

37 CONSENT AGENDA 38

39 1. Jamie Evans seeking plat amendment approval for Spring Point Retail Center 40

Subdivision, Plat ‘K’ located at 2106 W 800 N in the HC-Highway Commercial 41

Zone. 42 2. David Stanworth seeking site plan approval of the Shark Robot 2 warehouse 43

located at 1688 W 500 N in the L-IM Light Industrial Manufacturing Zone. 44 3. Shivam Shah is seeking site plan approval for an office/warehouse project45

located at 317 N 2000 W in the HC-Highway Commercial Zone. 46 4. Garth Green seeking approval of the Garth Green Subdivision located at 940 S 47

2000 W in the HC-Highway Commercial Zone. 48 49


Page 2 of 12

Commissioner Mertz moved to approve the Consent Agenda. Commissioner Heaps 50 seconded the motion. The vote to approve the Consent Agenda was unanimous. 51

52

LEGISLATIVE SESSION: 53 54

1. Kent Stephens seeking to amend the Official Zone Map on properties located 55 in the area of 2300 E 850 S, parcel numbers 26:005:0007; 26:005:0029; 56 26:005:0100; 26:005:0102; and 26:005:0112, from the R1-15 Single-Family 57 Residential Zone to the R1-10 Single-Family Residential Zone. 58

59 Josh Yost, Community Development Director, presented. The item is a zone map 60 amendment. Currently, it is an agricultural use. The applicant is proposing a 26 lot 61 residential subdivision on this request. Two parcels are not within our jurisdictional 62 boundary. We cannot take any action on those parcels. They are two acres of the total. 63

If these are annexed, a zone will be applied at that time. The remaining property is 8 64 acres and is currently zoned R1-15. This provides for 15,000 square foot minimum lot 65 sizes for single-family homes. He showed a map of the subject property area. The 66 surrounding zoning is generally R1-15, excepting the area to the South East which is an 67 R1-10 subdivision. On this subject property and area to the West, the zoning is R1-15 68 up to the mouth of the canyon. It is designated low density in the General Plan. Both the 69

R1-10 and R1-15 zones fall within the density ranges of low-density residential. The 70 subject property is contiguous with the R1-15 property and large estate lots. 71

72 Staff finds that the orderly development of the city is best furthered by retaining the 73 existing R1-15 zoning on the property. There are traffic concerns with limited street 74

connectivity. The R1-15 zone at 70% yield provides 20 lots and the R1-10 zone would 75 provide 9 lots. The applicant is proposing a 26 lot subdivision. As there are limited 76 remaining developable areas in the R1-15, it is best to retain the R1-15 zone on the 77 property. 78

79

Vice-Chair Baker invited the applicant to speak. Kent Stephens spoke to the 80 Commissioners. Mr. Stephens said he is the authorized agent for the Fackrell property 81 and is representing the subdivision. There is a bit of misunderstanding with staff. From 82 the start, we wanted to work with them to bring in something they felt was reasonable. In 83 our meetings that was our understanding up until now. We weren’t aware of their full 84 analysis until now. We believe this proposal makes sense for the property. We are close 85

to the dividing line between R1-10 and R1-15. About 600 feet up on the West and the 86 North there is an existing subdivision to the North that has larger estate lots. He can see 87 it both ways. Staff is seeing those to the South in the R1-10 as an anomaly. We see 88 them being an anomaly as they have been there so long. Given these facts, we believe 89 it is a good use of the property by bringing a project that finds the middle. We are 90

leaning toward the R1-15 zone standards. This is because most infill developments 91 have a difficult time keeping their lots as small as the zone standards. The intent of this 92 proposal is to give the project flexibility that it needs to be functional and attractive and 93 keep the average lot size at 13,000 square feet. Some will be much larger. We would be 94 more than happy to have that conditional upon a development agreement binding us to 95 that based on what staff feels is reasonable in that range. We have worked with staff to 96

solve problems as we go. We have designed it to have direct frontage on the adjacent 97 properties immediately to the East and the West of the bottom portion and provide 98 access to the Stulce property to the East which we’ve been told is desired for some 99


Page 3 of 12

time. We will bring a stub road access to the Hendershot property to the North and 100 provide availability for sewer for the Hadley property on the East side. The water issue 101 in this area is a thorn in the City's side, so we are pulling 10 acres out and putting it on 102

City water. We are connecting the two stub streets at the South of the property and 103 looping the water system and connecting it. As the applicant, we are coming in to 104 acknowledge the current housing crisis. Giving flexibility so that we don’t have an 105 unnecessarily low number of lots. We are interested to have a positive impact as a 106 whole. If the Planning Commission doesn't see that, we would appreciate some time to 107 look at it again. 108

109 Commissioner Young asked if it is 26 lots on the plat that is being shown. Mr. Stephens 110 said yes. Commissioner Young asked if the smallest lot is 10,000 square feet. Mr. 111 Stephens said yes and the average lot size is .3 of an acre. 112

113

Commissioner Heaps asked Mr. Stephens how he responds to the additional travel on 114 the road. Mr. Stephens said he wasn’t aware of that problem and would defer to staff to 115 help with that. Commissioner Heaps asked if it is 26 lots now, if it stayed at R1-15, how 116 many lots would it be. Mr. Stephens said it would be 20 to 21. Commissioner Heaps 117 calculated it would lose between 4 or 5 lots. Mr. Stephens agreed. Commissioner Heaps 118 asked if they could make it work in R1-15. Mr. Stephens said potentially. We are trying 119

to take into account all the neighboring properties. It would be more limiting, but we want 120 to do it how staff and the Planning Commission want. It could be possible. 121

122 Commissioner Young asked if there is a half road going North and South along the 123 Tidwell property or if it is a standard width road. Mr. Stephens said it was the Springville 124

standard plus 12 feet. You can fit two cars. 125 126

Commissioner Mertz asked if he has made a site plan with current zoning. Mr. Stephens 127 said no. Commissioner Mertz asked if the roads would be in the same place. Mr. 128 Stephens said roughly. 129

130 Vice-Chair Baker opened the public hearing at 7:17 p.m. 131

132 Bill Orme 133 1635 E 450 S 134 Mr. Orme and his wife have been in their home a long time. He said that other people 135

would enjoy the opportunity of moving and not have to redesign and this would be an 136 opportunity for many. He said the traffic wouldn’t be different with just a few more 137 homes. He has a strong interest in pursuing a lot in this development. Springville is a 138 unique place to live. He has no financial interest in this. He is strongly interested to 139 make this possible. Hopefully with few roadblocks to put this through. 140

141 Glenn Lovelace 142 789 N 150 W 143 Mr. Lovelace has lived in the area for 10 years. He is good friends with Eric and BK and 144 it says a lot about them to do this. As a homeowner, he is worried about traffic and 145 construction. In the request to have more homes, he wants to find a lot to build on 146

without having to have a builder tell him what he can and cannot build. From a City 147 standpoint, having more homes in the area means more property taxes. Hopefully 148 attracting homeowners that love the area as much as we love the area. If you give 149


Page 4 of 12

reasonable strategies they will address the issues. He thinks they want to make more 150 money too. Which happens when you have more lots. As a homeowner, he likes it when 151 the home values go up. BK would promote the lot values in the area. 152

153 Commissioner Mertz moved to close the public hearing. Commissioner Young 154 seconded. The vote to close the public hearing was unanimous. Vice-Chair Baker 155 closed the public hearing at 7:23 pm. 156

157 Commissioner Farrer asked why the property owners aren’t here. Director Yost said that 158

we noticed the agenda on the Springville website, the State website and bulletin boards 159 and display screens throughout the City. We don’t directly contact the homeowners for a 160 rezone. 161

162 Vice-Chair Baker said they mentioned something in regards to water. Director Yost said 163

they are most likely referring to the fact that this property now is irrigated with water from 164 the Highline Ditch and that is being looked at as to the feasibly to keep it ongoing. If this 165 area develops under any zone, the lots would be on culinary water and there would be 166 no more irrigation demand, reducing the amount of property irrigated from the Highline 167 Ditch. 168

169

Commissioner Young suggested continuing the item so the applicant can meet with staff 170 one more time. Commissioner Farrer recommends that too. He feels we need more 171 input from the property owners in the area. Director Yost asked for any direction or 172 feedback as part of the motion so we have a basis to work from. Commissioner Heaps 173 suggested putting together a site plan based on the R1-15 and discuss that with staff. 174

Commissioner Young said or having an agreement that nothing goes below 13,500 in 175 size. Director Yost asked for clarification as an average number, or on any lot. 176 Commissioner Heaps suggested that no individual lot is not less than 13,500. 177 Commissioner Mertz said some would be less, so the average is 13,000, based on the 178 current site plan. Commissioner Young said a hybrid of the 15. 179

180 Commissioner Farrer is concerned that the owners have agricultural things going on 181 with R1-15 uses and having an R1-10 right behind them would be difficult for them. He 182 wants the homeowners to be invited. His concern is that they haven’t been contacted, 183 even though it has been posted legally. 184

185

Commissioner Heaps is not opposed to having the site developed. 186 187

Commissioner Parker said he wants the infrastructure, the street layout and amount of 188 traffic in the area to be addressed. He thinks they are willing to work to come up with a 189 solution that works for everyone in the area. 190

191 Vice-Chair Baker said she has questions on annexation and how that would progress 192 and how the zone applies to the area that we don’t have jurisdiction over. Director Yost 193 said Mr. Penrod could give more info on the annexation process. 194

195 John Penrod, City Attorney, stated that the State law just changed. Now, to start the 196

annexation process, you send the notice to the County, then they send certified mail to 197 those being noticed. Since the law changed, the County doesn’t know how to follow it. 198


Page 5 of 12

We are working with them. It is a simple process that after it is noticed and after public 199 comment, the County looks at it, certifies it and then it goes to City Council to make a 200 final decision. At that time, it can come to Planning Commission and City Council for 201

zoning at the same time. 202 203

Commissioner Mertz asked if the property was donated to the city, would it still need to 204 go through the annexation process. Mr. Penrod said yes. 205

206 Vice-Chair Baker asked what the City's obligation is to that property when it is annexed. 207

Attorney Penrod said the City’s obligation is to provide utilities and it is a property that 208 we have planned to annex. He believes this property is in the area that is in the City’s 209 annexation declaration. 210

211 Commissioner Young asked Director Yost if this item is continued, how long they need 212

to bring it back. Director Yost said we can accommodate that, but the question is how 213 long the applicant feels they can turn around revisions and other iterations. 214

215 Mr. Stephens said the concept reiterations are fast. We want to get an idea of as many 216 specifics as possible. Two weeks would be fine unless something major is needed. 217 Director Yost mentioned it is 3 weeks until the next meeting. Commissioner Parker said 218

before we leave here tonight, the applicants should be clear on parameters to not waste 219 time. 220

221 Commissioner Young moved to continue this item to the next meeting, let the applicant 222 meet with staff and discuss a way to develop the site, closer to an R1-15 size and that 223

the City notifies the neighbors of the rezone. Commissioner Parker seconded. The vote 224 to continue the Legislative Session item was unanimous. 225

226 2. Springville City seeking the amend the Sign District Map to reflect properties 227

that have been rezoned. 228

229 Planner Thompson presented. We have had the sign district map for some time now. 230 As properties have been rezoned, we should have been updating the map. So, we 231 have 5 updates from previous zone map amendments that have occurred. In the 232 future, we need to include the sign district to keep up with it. The first area is on 400 233 E and 400 S. It is one residential lot that used to be zoned commercial. It shows as a 234

Commercial District Sign ‘C’. That will be amended to be Residential Sign District ‘G’. 235 The second one is on 750 W 400 S this was rezoned from R2 to NC. We have a site 236 plan application for a Freedom Credit Union on that lot. We need to amend that so 237 they can have appropriate signage. 238

239

Vice-Chair Baker asked about the area on 4th and 4th and confirmed that is going to 240 become blue. Planner Thompson said yes, that is ‘G’ Residential. Vice-Chair Baker 241 said on the 400 S and 750 W, that will be changed to match the gray. Planner 242 Thompson said yes. 243

244 Planner Thompson continued. The next one is the Foxridge multi-family 245

development on about 600 S Main. The front pieces have remained in commercial 246 zoning and that can stay the same, but the rest is now RMF-2 that will need to be 247 amended to Sign District G. The next one is on 1600 South where the Bear River 248


Page 6 of 12

Storage units received a zone change. That will go to F which is L-IM area signage. 249 The last one happened a long time ago where sign District B was all HC and the 250 large swath of land was changed to R1-15. This will be changed to District G. 251

252 Chair Mertz confirmed that has to be done legislatively. Planner Thompson said it 253 does because it is adopted by ordinance. 254

255 Vice-Chair Baker opened the public hearing at 7:38 p.m. There were no comments. 256 Commissioner Mertz moved to close the public hearing. Commissioner Young 257

seconded. The public hearing was closed at 7:38 p.m. 258 259

Commissioner Mertz moved to recommend approval of the proposed amendments 260 to the Sign District Map. Commissioner Heaps seconded. The vote to approve the 261 Legislative Item was unanimous. 262

263 3. Springville City seeking to amend Springville City Code Section 11-6-134, 264

Accessory Dwelling Units. 265 266

Director Yost presented. Last year on August 4, after a positive recommendation 267 from Planning Commission, the City Council passed an ordinance allowing attached 268

and detached ADU’s within all single-family residential zones. 269 270

In the 2021 legislative session, the Legislature passed HB82 which preempted 271 municipal regulations for internal ADU’s. Our ordinance now conflicts with HB82. We 272 can’t establish any restrictions or requirements for internal ADU’s, including the size 273

of the internal ADU in relation to the primary dwelling. 274 275

We may regulate the internal ADU may be made so that it does not change the 276 appearance of the primary dwelling as a single-family dwelling. We may require one 277 additional on-site parking space for an internal ADU. 278

279 Vice-Chair Baker clarified that means we can only require one. Director Yost said 280 yes. 281

282 We have removed the minimum and maximum size requirements for ADU’s. And 283 removed the requirement for internal connection between primary dwelling and 284

internal ADU. 285 286

We changed the requirements for the location and configuration of entrances to an 287 internal ADU. We changed our requirement of a Deed Restriction to a Recorded 288 Notice. We reduced the additional parking to one stall for internal ADU’s. The 289

requirement for detached ADU's remains at two stalls for the R1-10 and R1-15 zones 290 and one stall for the rest. 291

292 So far, we have issued one certificate for a detached ADU and anticipate more 293 coming in as this bill goes into effect later in the year that removed a lot of the 294 building code for internal ADU’s. We changed the max height to 20 feet from 15 feet. 295

Many applicants are saying that 15 is not a workable height for a two-story building. 296 297


Page 7 of 12

We added clarification recently that only one ADU is permitted per lot. We added the 298 following language today: 299 One (1) per Lot – Only one (1) ADU shall be allowed on a lot that contains a single-300

family dwelling. A property owner’s vesting in a detached ADU shall end should the 301 property owner apply for and/or start using an ADU within the property owner’s 302 single-family detached dwelling. Likewise, a property owner who currently has an 303 ADU within their single-family detached dwelling cannot also start to make use of an 304 ADU in a detached accessory building without first discontinuing the usage of the 305 ADU within their single-family attached dwelling. 306

307 We have removed the exemption for an ADU certificate for an ADU occupied by a 308 relative and removed the requirement for annual reporting. We made a few non-309 substantive typographical corrections for flow. 310

311

The amendments we propose to you are in compliance with State code and provide 312 the maximum level of regulation of protecting the City’s interest permitted under 313 State code and we recommend a positive recommendation to City Council. 314

315 Commissioner Mertz asked how many parking spaces are required for a single-316 family dwelling. Director Yost said it is two. Commissioner Mertz asked for 317

clarification on what tandem parking is. Director Yost explained. Many homes in the 318 R1-10 wouldn’t need to provide additional parking. 319

320 Vice-Chair Baker opened the public hearing at 7:46 p.m. There were no comments. 321 Chair Mertz moved to close the public hearing. Commissioner Young seconded. The 322

public hearing was closed at 7:47 p.m. 323 324

Commissioner Farrer said that Director Yost had indicated that there are other 325 amendments not included in this. Director Yost said no, this bill isn’t in effect yet, 326 there are other amendments that don’t affect us. We don’t expect any further 327

amendments to come on this in the near term. Commissioner Farrer confirmed that 328 we can move to amend as presented tonight. Director Yost said yes. Vice-Chair 329 Baker said this will bring us into compliance with State law. Director Yost said it will 330 make us compliant before the law goes into effect. 331

332 Commissioner Farrer moved to recommend amendment of Springville City Code 333

Section 1-6-134, Accessory Dwelling Units with the proposed attachment. 334 Commissioner Mertz seconded. The vote to approve the Legislative Session item 335 was unanimous. 336

4. Springville Community Development seeks to amend Springville’s Official 337 Zone Map from the Highway Commercial (HC) and Light Industrial 338

Manufacturing (LIM) Zones to the Regional Commercial (RC) zone in parts of 339 the following general areas. The areas are first, from 400 South to 1000 North 340 between 2600 West and 1650 West, second, at the northeast quadrant of the 341 intersection of I-15 and 1600 South, and third, along 1600 South between 342 1200 West and SR 51. 343

344

Director Yost presented. In March, the City Council requested a review of zoning. They 345 directed staff to present on areas of potential concern. Those at risk for getting a 346 proposal we don’t want, or receiving a proposal that may interfere with or short circuit a 347


Page 8 of 12

planning process being worked on. On April 6, staff presented to the Council on a 348 number of areas in the City that may be subject to L-IM warehouse/distribution type 349 uses. 350

351 On June 1, we took a resolution to the Council for a zone map amendment. They 352 wanted us to expand it. This is what comes to you tonight. 353

354 Reasons: There are three relevant planning processes. 1) Area plan for 1600 S from I -355 15 to SR 51, 2) Lakeside Landing Special District Plan and 3) General Plan Update with 356

I-15 Corridor focus area. It is in our best interest to preserve the broadest range of future357 land use options.358

359 He showed a map showing proposed zone map amendment parcels. 360

361

The HC Zone currently includes LIM – Manufacturing Processes; Warehousing - Storage 362 and distribution; Wholesale Trade and Warehousing; 1.5 million square feet in the 363 development pipeline. The RC zone is not intended as the permanent designation. New 364 zones and other standards were adopted at the conclusion of the planning processes. 365

366 We recommend the Planning Commission forward a positive recommendation to City 367

Council for this extensive zone map amendment. 368 369

Commissioner Heaps asked what this does to existing businesses. Director Yost said 370 nothing. If they are operating a use that is not a listed use in the RC zone, it would be a 371 legal, non-conforming use or in other words a grandfathered use. The majority of these 372

parcels are undeveloped and vacant. Some at the 1600 South corridor have property on 373 them, but the majority of the land is vacant. We are most concerned with the property 374 that is yet to be developed. 375

376 Commissioner Heaps asked in order to be grandfathered, would they have to come in 377

and apply. Director Yost said no, no action is required on behalf of the property owners. 378 379

Vice-Chair Baker asked that because this is a City promoted zone change, the owners 380 were notified. Director Yost said yes. Every property owner received a letter in the mail 381 stating the extent of the rezone. He did notice that the language in the letter stated it 382 includes property from 400 South to 1000 North and there are a few parcels extending 383

North of that. 384 385

Director Yost received five communications from property owners regarding this. Two 386 had substantial concerns. One of the property owners sent a formal objection of their 387 property being included in this. He distributed it to the Planning Commission to be part 388

of the record. 389 390

Vice-Chair Baker pointed out that the RC will not allow the two uses listed. Director Yost 391 clarified that it is the three uses not listed. These are essentially the primary differences 392 between the RC and HC zones. 393

394

Commissioner Parker asked if Director Yost anticipated, with a consultant, to have this 395 completed by the end of the fiscal year. Director Yost said yes, by the end of the next 396 fiscal year. Then we will then present the recommendations of the General Plan. 397


Page 9 of 12

Vice-Chair Baker opened the public hearing at 7:59 p.m. 398 399

Jeff Kroneberger 400

323 S 1850 E 401 Mr. Kroneberger is excited about this and has talked to Director Yost. He thinks it is 402 good to look at the zones and see how they should be done. He wants to add 400 North 403 up Main Street, saying the CC zone is outdated. It is zoned for retail. He’d like to add 404 that Springville could do things with the properties there that could enhance the zones. 405 His property is partly zoned CC for 750 feet and he is stuck in the zoning. He is 406

manufacturing. There should be a different zone going North. Needs to be looked at to 407 see what it could be. He is impressed with Josh and the team. 408

409 Harold Mitchell 410 Represents McCaullins Properties 411

1852 W 1000 N 412 His client is opposed to this rezoning. He said that Mr. Yost said let’s make some 413 changes until we get something done. Mr. Mitchell says let’s leave it as is until we get 414 something done. There are differences that need to be looked at. You can have assisted 415 living in the HC, not the RC. No one would build that there. Major auto repair in the HC, 416 not the RC. He asks what the difference is between major and minor. No one knows. 417

Let’s leave it. You can store autos and boats outside in HC, not RC. Makes no sense. I 418 have can a towing service in RC but not HC. I couldn’t store the cars there I towed. L-IM 419 is a conditional use in HC, not allowed at all in RC. We may need warehousing and 420 storage in the RC area. Particularly on the lot behind what used to be the Stouffers 421 outlet store. We can’t do wholesale trades in RC. The small piece of property is well 422

suited with access from 1750 W by Flying J. In HC, you can have an indoor race track, 423 but not in the RC. Outdoor storage is not allowed in the RC zone. Indoor storage isn’t 424 always practical, economically not feasible. He prefers that this property, which is North 425 of 1000 North, be left out of this proposal and then he can participate in the changes or 426 development process or planning process the City plans to go through in the next year. 427

He doesn’t know what the results will be. He prefers and requests that this property be 428 eliminated from the zone change and keep the HC zone where it is. 429

430 Commissioner Heaps asked Mr. Mitchell what he is requesting to be left out of the North 431 side. Mr. Mitchell said the North side of 1000 N, the one that crosses the railroad tracks. 432

433

Tim Parker 434 2310 S State 435 One thing that hasn’t been addressed is the Heavy Industrial overlay how will it be 436 impacted with this RC designation, if at all. Sixty citizens that border the L-IM signed the 437 petition a while ago, want the overlay dropped completely. What properties are left 438

within that overlay that could be used other than the one the overlay was made for. If no 439 one else is required or allowed to apply for the overlay, that means we have one 440 company that is in there and that is spot zoning. And we don’t allow that. He feels the 441 notification was poor. No such notification was given when we did an overlay in an L-IM. 442 He is against it. He is not included in the RC zoning change. 443

444

Commissioner Young and Parker asked Director Yost to address these issues. Director 445 Yost said what Mr. Parker is referring to is the Materials Processing and Storage overlay 446 that was applied only to one property. It was not applied to the entire L-IM area. There 447


Page 10 of 12

are many areas in the city that remain L-IM and are eligible to apply for the overlay. 448 Currently, there is only one property zoned with the MPS overlay. And that property 449 owner was noticed and they were the applicant on the request. The rezone tonight only 450

applies to only those properties on the map, not down to SR-51. It doesn’t affect any 451 current land use applications or other proceedings going on. Commissioner Heaps said 452 he asked what impact it would have on future L-IM. Director Yost said that the only 453 effect it would have is on the properties that are proposed to be rezoned if the council 454 chooses to rezone them. They would no longer be L-IM and then they would not be 455 allowed to apply for the overlay as it only can be applied to L-IM. 456

457 Commissioner Young asked Director Yost to show the property on 1000 North. Director 458 Yost showed on the map where it is. 459

460 Vice-Chair Baker clarified that it continues South of their property. Director Yost said no, 461

it takes from the ditch line to skipping over the creek and the Wavetronix site and then 462 picks up at 550 N and the southern border of the HC Zone. Vice-Chair Baker said it 463 skips Wavetronix because it is being developed now. Director Yost said yes because we 464 know what is being developed there. Vice-Chair Baker said the areas are mostly 465 undeveloped. Director Yost said yes, there a few structures but mostly undeveloped. 466

467

Commissioner Young moved to close the public hearing. Commissioner Heaps 468 seconded. The public hearing was closed at 8:18 p.m. 469

470 Vice-Chair Baker asked for a moment to read the materials given. 471

472

Commissioner Heaps asked Director Yost about Mr. Mitchell saying a storage 473 warehouse would have been a perfect fit, under the new proposal would be prohibited. 474 He asked if that is what would happen. Director Yost said if there is a use currently 475 permitted in the HC that isn’t in the RC, then yes, that is correct. Commissioner Heaps 476 said if there is an existing business there currently… Director Yost said it only impacts 477

future businesses. It only impacts anything from the point of adopting the future pending 478 legislation onwards. Mr. Mitchell was referring to potential development opportunities for 479 that property in the future. And the proposed zone text amendment would reduce those 480 possibilities by the number of uses he cited that are not permitted in the RC zone. 481

482 Vice-Chair Baker asked Attorney Penrod if he had an opportunity to read through the 483

comments that were given. Attorney Penrod said he did. 484 485

Commissioner Mertz asked if the consultants they are using on the other zoning 486 amendments also are providing information on this. Director Yost said there are three 487 projects. The one closest to adoption is the Lakeside Landing project. We just began the 488

1600 South study with the kickoff meeting this morning, and are coming up with 489 proposals for the General Plan. 490

491 Vice-Chair Baker asked if the 1000 North area would be included in the General Plan. 492 Director Yost said yes. Vice-Chair Baker asked if it is anticipated to be finished next 493 summer. Director Yost said yes. 494

495 Commissioner Heaps wants to understand. This would be the new RC zone, which is 496 like a holding zone. Director Yost said we are intending to employ it as such. All 497


Page 11 of 12

changes to the land use and zoning map go through Planning Commission and City 498 Council. There is no reversion clause or any binding promise that this zone would 499 change to anything in the future. We are in a sense employing it to give us room to go 500

through these processes to make definite plans for the future. Commissioner Heaps 501 added so we don’t limit our options. Director Yost said right, so we don’t get a big 502 office/warehouse right in the middle of where we want a different type of land use. 503 Commissioner Heaps said the concern he has is, come July, it is still in place until we 504 decide that we change that zoning in any particular area until an application is made 505 with Planning Commission and City Council. Director Yost said the RC zone would be 506

the governing zone until that was changed through the public process. 507 508

Commissioner Mertz said even then, someone that is in the RC zone could still apply for 509 a Conditional Use Permit. Director Yost said no. None of those uses are listed as 510 Conditional Uses under the RC zone. 511

512 Commissioner Heaps asked if are we completely wiping out L-IM. Director Yost said any 513 area rezoned to RC will not have the L-IM uses permitted. Commissioner Heaps asked if 514 they wanted to, they could ask for a change in zoning. Director Yost said they could ask 515 for a change in zoning. We generally feel that it will maximize the development potential 516 and ability to rely on the development character of the areas and will be better in the 517

long run. 518 519

Vice-Chair Baker asked what the possibility is for the involvement of property owners in 520 that process of determining what would be best for that area. Director Yost said 521 extensive. The property owners are involved. All of them have been engaged throughout 522

the process. In 1600 South we are making a list of those property owners that want to be 523 involved and providing individual invitations inviting them to be involved. In the General 524 Plan, it will be broad-based, general outreach to the public for engagement and focused 525 outreach to those areas with particular focus such as the I-15 corridor or the North Main 526 Street Corridor. 527

528 Commissioner Farrer is uncomfortable with the types of restrictions being proposed. 529 Once this is in place, it won’t be changed easily. He doesn’t think rezoning will happen. 530 He is opposed to this restriction being put in place. Commissioner Parker thinks it is a 531 valid point. Commissioner Farrer wants to improve the areas. And yet, it is on the 532 freeway. The face is the City, not the freeway. He likes to see retail going in those 533

places, but it is unlikely. 534 535

Vice-Chair Baker said she thinks there are differences in the areas. For example, 1600 536 South is changing. It was a smaller road and now it is being made into an off-ramp. Give 537 us time to decide what those changes mean. To her, the Flying J area is the same 538

general area it has been. She asked if it is because there is a proposed road there. 539 Director Yost said no, that is 1200 West. He said 1750 West is the street between 540 Wendy’s and Del Taco. It has prominent freeway exposure and is zoned for HC and 541 anticipated potential to go that way, it developability and its prominent location that we 542 have a development proposal come in there. Commissioner Farrer is comfortable with 543 that area. 544

545 Vice-Chair Baker sees the purpose on 1600 South and Lakeside, but she would be 546 more comfortable if the Northern area wasn’t included in the motion. 547


Page 12 of 12

Commissioner Heaps said his major concern is helping the City protect and not limit 548 future development. He thinks a lot of it does stem from 1600 South off-ramp. 549

550

Commissioner Young moved to recommend amendment of Springville’s Official Zone 551 Map from the Highway Commercial (HC) and Light Industrial Manufacturing (LIM) Zones 552 to the Regional Commercial (RC) for those parcels as shown in the attached table. 553 Commissioner Parker seconded. Vice-Chair Baker called for a roll call vote. It was as 554 follows: Commissioners Young, Parker, Baker, Mertz, Heaps aye. Commissioner Farrer, 555 nay. 556

557 Commissioner Mertz said that we have one shot to do this with the City and we need to 558 do a good job. Commissioner Parker said they are not cut off and have an opportunity to 559 rezone. 560

561

Vice-Chair Baker said the aye’s have it and it goes to City Council. Director Yost said it 562 will be on the July 6 City Council meeting. She invited the attendees to come again and 563 voice concerns at the City Council meeting. 564

565 ADMINISTRATIVE SESSION 566 No Items 567

568 Commissioner Mertz mentioned that we need to meet with City Council when the 569 consulting work progresses. Director Yost said there will be many opportunities for 570 collaboration. On the 1600 South plan particularly, we are looking at an intense in-571 person collaborative and design session in August, where the designers, consultants, 572

staff and Planning Commission reps and City Council reps meet together. And we 573 anticipate having reps from City Council and Planning Commission on our core group as 574 we move forward. 575

576 With nothing further to discuss, Commissioner Heaps moved to adjourn the meeting. 577

Commissioner Young seconded the motion. Vice-Chair Baker adjourned the meeting at 578 8:35 p.m. 579

1

Petitioner: Utah Land Solutions, LLC 645 W 2100 N Lehi, UT 84043

Summary of Issues

Does the proposed final plan meet the requirements of Springville City Code?

Background

The proposed 17-lot single-family subdivision is located just east of the Westside Elementary School on a 4.2-acre parcel containing an existing single-family home that will remain.

The property falls within the R1-10 and Westfield Overlay Zones. The overlay allows a development to participate in the density bonus program, which includes a mix of lot types, with a percentage meeting the underlying zone.

The Planning Commission considered the preliminary plans on April 13, 2021 and the City Council approved the preliminary plans on June 1, 2021.

Analysis

PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT

Agenda Item #1 July 13, 2021

July 8, 2021

TO: Planning Commission Members

FROM: Laura Thompson, Planner II

RE: Recommendation of final approval of the Condie Corner Subdivision located at 680 West Center Street in the R1-10 Single-Family Residential and WF-1 Westfields Overlay Zones.

2

Densities more than the baseline density for the underlying zone may be considered for developments which comply with the density bonus program requirements up to a maximum of forty percent (40%) for developments in the Westfields Overlay. The applicant is requesting a 25% density bonus equating to an additional four (4) units.

DENSITY BONUS CRITERIA Density Bonus Category Density Bonus Improvement Bonus %

Parks and Open Space (Minimum 3%)

For parcels that are too small for development of a park meeting the minimum City standard of 5 acres, a fee in lieu may be paid at the rate of the value of the land per acre plus improvements totaling no less than the amount per acre established by resolution and approved by the City Council and be prorated at 1.2% density bonus for the equivalent value of 1% land and development costs up to a maximum of 12% density bonus.

3%

Building Materials (Minimum 3%)

A density bonus of 15% shall be given where 50% of the gross facade elevation includes brick or stone with 50% of the remainder in stucco, wood or fiber cement siding on detached single-family and attached two-family dwellings.

15%

Design Features The developer will mix and match between the design options for each home equaling the 7%.

7%

TOTAL DENSITY BONUS 25%

DEVELOPMENT REVIEW COMMITTEE (DRC)

The Development Review Committee reviewed the preliminary plan on June 10, 2021 and provided the applicant with a copy of redlined comments on the submitted plans and checklist. Any items not addressed or any additional revisions needed are listed below in the “POST DRC COMMENTS” section.

POST DRC COMMENTS

1. Addressing any comments from the revised plans submitted on July 2, 2021 that are inthe process of being reviewed by the City Engineer.

Staff Recommendation

Staff finds the final plans meet the requirements of Springville City Code and recommends approval contingent upon addressing the items listed in the “Post DRC Comments” section of this report.

Recommended Motion

Move to recommend final approval for the Condie Corner Subdivision located at 680 West Center Street in the R1-10 Single-Family Residential and WF-1 Westfields Overlay Zones, contingent upon addressing the items listed in the “Post DRC Comments” section of this report.

.BASIS OF BEARING- S00"06'19" E 2557.35' (E 1/4 COR· NE COR MEASURE"OJ

A S00'06't3"E 2657.JS'(ARP) � .,.�-.JJv------------------------------------------------ ---------------------LEGEND

- --,

.,.,.,,..

\__ NORtHEASTOO<NEASECTIO!l

�

WLLJUil

�1

,�JP+\:: CONDIE CORNER SUBDIVISION f'jjsTRem<JtUENT -

1

"'"'"""/ ��=-= ITTffiD Ld.t (FINAL PLAT) ,:if

I /FOUND 3" SAASS CAP IDM,IEHT) OIIID ® BENCHMAAI< 8 I Ii� W [IlIO I rFWrt1

�

LOCATED IN A PORTION OF THE NE QUARTER OF SECTION 32, TOWNSHIP 7 SOUTH, RANGE 3 EAST, S.L.B.M. & • i

II .I __ �-�� I SPRINGVILLE CITY, UTAH COUNTY, UTAH.

O CONTRO.POOHT

I ��j: ±i� i::qr" t �� """""'d 11�----� �---------, e PROOCRN""'ERF<>H> �ii�

1 !--+-j � r±::i t, .1e �/ E9II PARCEL CURVETABLE PARCEL CURVETABLE

@ =.==, 1 !1��I fIIII=j ..il __:"",:: ��:;:�:;:=j r.ll'd CURVE# LENGTtt(FT) RAOIUS(FT) DELTA(') DIRECTION CHORD/FT) CURVE# LENGTH/FT) RADIUS(FT) DELTA(') DIRECTION CHORD/FT) @ �ra,""'ER �,!!

I q�i�&J1! � � � � � � �1 � � � � � ��iJ1 p

!

I VICINITY MAP CO "00 "-00 ,,..,.,..,,. N23'2'WE ..,., c,o "" "'" ,...,.,,... .....,.... ,.,,

� =,:;."'' I � --------------------•L.....::c'='_j_..::":::-":.....J.........::"::::·oo:_...j..:.,.,.,._:.:::="'

=-..i..::"""::.::',.,,...:::..::...i........:':..:"'::.....� 01 11� 210.50 �'51"!i1.9C· sro•o'54'""' 28.15 �EASEMENT r>

1_ C11 14-71 15.00 5G°l2'l1.l2" �7"21'08'W 1•.13 C22 28.le 270.50 �'57'!i1.9ol" N03''43'54"E 28.15 ��o::� 2 ,o

I i� I GLEN LEONARD ALLEMAN

I soo•44•sa-w 62.s5• r tJ0.71' 7 . ,._,.. I 29� ro.orr -.111.ar_

1, ·::::::::_ 1 ' 7 1 7 1 _.,.,._7 1 -"'"'-7 r--'""'-7 r- _,,.,._

i� 1! --1 I 7�9.7!.1!.

I 8: ' I �--.I I .----�I I ___ I I __ -. I I __ --. I 1 �

I� � , .. ,,.. ... , I li � I .

II

j I I I I � I ' ••STORMOIWNEASEMEMN �

0 I •1 n,w

I & :C 8 • I' � _I � I � I FAVOROFSPR,NGVU.E-r--.7�'- tMO'

' i .___ _____ _J $ • t • � � � � � � n q � ......... ,,,...,.., , �� 1�[ L - -- - ,,.�,- - - - J �' � � I LOT 12 j 7 LOT 13 j � LOT 14 ; - I 7 ! - � m -� =-J �� L0;:--/4.;1; -,. .. 1/. ! i : 'p:':r : : ·�,�:?�- : : '�:•;-:'· i iCJ'��7- i [

[]'�:��- i l '�;�;�"- �

{_ 1!1� -2:-- 1 �

7,.,,.,.,._"' / :1� I '---.....JI I .___ ____ __JI l'---_j I I I

.... -.., t8 I�� 0 z,, ''·"'' ... , / a I I I �"; <ii •• � l

�� mw

/ (/ 1.-;;;..,- L J L J L ,� L I I I I �

ij; 1·· � g:��i � --;;--,,, ------ -----,, '-------- _p "' o .; 2�,r _____,. . ...,. - - J

''" "" "' - - _.J L j )r' :i'- ,, .. �

z co ;,,'1...-q_ I� bl 500'44VW\IW!,,f' .I ' � :,,,.-- Cl ________ _f: ::J I 5 �l20�

-!l6.&1' __ 7 L ;: 650WEST !J �, &:l!l•.JT5oow,� C3 S00' .. '58'W 10 � rJ) I � f:i,_��11 I 4UO' ! 2tN' u.O..tS "': �: S!r c21

.I iour I �� Cl.

{

< t;j�'-i'I ---......--::---------,;, ·' �, I •,o � � = l �. �� \ � 1 �"'WE 2our j c111---.,.._ _--=-==---

NI llll 1 • N

�Cl)

-W--.,,�A \ �: !: :,I ..,. . .,.,..�-� ,..., -+=I: � I ��,i�l LOT .9 I ... , ·�

j C:17 I - �"E � �J ! 14.78' J.. .C I ll L1l1

1D,009.5'SQ.n \ 20'STOffMDRA!HEASEMENTIH htl0''4'6°E 1'2..15' ' C22 f $' SIi Q.... I S)

rJJ I ��

IG.2291Ac.) , FAvDROFSPR1NGVUE c."' 25

_.,. !tl..it' nr

r

� / cu ��

�,' !!it I QR � I .�0Si ,,.. / ? �""' '"'"""""C0MP'"' ; 7 1 - - - 7 1 - - -c"l 1 - - _ .. ,,. , t20 1 .. .,. , • ., a:

� / � -----/ � Ir--- I Ir--- I I 'r---- •1 °" ''-"' ..,. .. ..,� 1:\�

1 i;j§U : �, �;(

1/

�' �- -��/ ;� i� I I,--_

: :r--c" I

�--

--� �---,:,r�L-

� 8•. �· =---=--:..��I�'� 7 1 !, LOT& i� LOTS i� LOT4 �- l I I I 7SS <ii �� .. gi - - � :;;: 1/ �

�"' I I I I ,....,. ... " I I 7,000.AUQ."- . - ,, ......... ". � � LOT 3 h -· LOT 2 � . I��,,___ .... -j en f S < I ½..'""If-" � LOT 8 \II ,, LOT 7 '10.1&0,Ac.j • 10.,&0TAC.)

i :: 1._1•uc.i • ! T,oN.Sl5Q.n. � ; � � LOT 1 "\.__ 76.oo _

C a � I n,o.u.MSQ.n. ! ij; &,-U1.SUQ.n I I nH I I OH r I ! I ,o.,,o-u,C.) i

t. l',000.l'-SQ.n. t S .,.,-,oo.,uo .. n. �':

tO'STDRMDRAI� "j I

CL III I . ��°'\ 10..lllSAc.l � � (0,1':.AC.)

I nH I SSH 11:1 I (o.,'107AC.) ! I 1a.,-,caAC.)

�., EASEMENTI-IFA}'OR

� ! •

I • �"'-+------· I' I ... I L __ _J I IL __ ___..J I I.---- I I�---- I I

UN I I

... � -OF SPR>NG"'-l.F 0 � � 0

" I I -

I '-------' '------ f:S0 �"':':'.?' I c t • I ��'1.\\� --=-;.-;:;..,�..;;;-�w-;;;,;;. ��i I I I I I I -

I I '"' __ ..

0) • i @''.::,;ecw��

Of':""",,.lGVU.E�c•"E�

T

.,�, L _j L L I I ""'�'-·0

gj -S74"51'45"E "- 7'.'c"-.�,:; »i,\.c,\',;c.;,'c -0,_'c _', ''-" ,,., ...J L 02-11 ...J L ""' _J ,0.02' J L ,._., _J L ""' --,� 16.19;-'/, ___ J _________ I____________ N00'44'58"£ 664.55'

� -----{(�ms-----------------------�------------------------------9=Q.) I � TYPICAlEASE'-ENTS FRONTAHJCORNERYAR!JEASEt.ENTS•1CI' SIJEIBACKYAROE.'.SEMENTS•!/

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

GENERAL NOTES SURVEYOR'S CERTIFICATE � °"VI) B. �OH. DO l-£REBYCERTFY ll1A.T I AM A PROFESSIONAL LAI«> 51.AVEYOR Al«) 00 HOLD LICENSE NO.� IN ACCORIYIHCE WITH Tm.E 58. o-w>TER 22. OF TIE PROFESSlONAl. ENGINEERS Al«)I.ANOSl.RIJEYORS ACT; I FURTI-tER CERTFY THAT BY AIJTl<lRITY OF THE OWNER(S) I HA.VE COMPLETED A 51.RVEY OF 1liE PROPERTY OE.SCRIBED OH THIS SU80IV'ISION PlAT IN ACCORDNiCE WITH SECTION 17.23,-17 AND I HAVE VERIAEOAU. UEASUREMENTS;At«> I �\IE Sl.lBOIVl)E() SAC TRACT OF I.ANO INTO LOTS. BLOCKS. STREETS N-IO EASEMEHTSAS SHOWM 00 THIS PLAT. HEREAFTER TO BEl<HOWNAS CONDE CORNER SUBDMSION. I Furn-ER CERTIFY lHA T TIE SAME liAS BEEN CORRECn. Y � MOH\JUENTEO ON THE GAOUNOAS SHOWN ON TMS PLAT.

BOUNDARY DESCRIPTION

AN � TRACT OF I.ANO LOCA TEO IN THE NORTHEAST COflNER OF SEcnDH 32, TOWNSHIP 7 SOIJ"fH. RANGE 3 E,1,ST. SALT I.ME SASE AND MERDIAN. MORE PAA11CllARt.Y �SCRtBEO ""'-'-"""' BEONIING AT A POINT WHICH IS NDRlH OO'W1Q"WEST A DISTANCE OF lil0.03 FEET At.ONG THE EA.ST SECTION LINE OF SAi() SECTION 32 TO A POINT OH THE NORTH RIGHT OF WAY U,IE OF CENTER STREET. Tl-ENCE LE.AV.NG SAi) SECTIOH UtE TO AND ALONG �D HOffTH RIGHT OF WAV LINE NORTH W32"07" ',\£ST A DISTANCE OF 1.3'4:U5 FEET FROM SAD EAST SECTo,1 CORtER;COWTNJINGTHENCE.Al.ONGSAC>NORTHRIGHTOF WAYU'IE HORTI-iW32'07"WEST A DISTANCE OF 281.!lol FEET TO A POWT EAST OF � ESTA8USI-IED FENCE l.tE; nEHCE l.EAVWG SAO NORTl-i R:IGliT OF WAY LM At.ONG THE EAST SOE OF SAO FENCE NORTH 00'+4"58" EAST 004.56 F£ET TO A f'OfiT ON THE SOUTH 80UNJAAY UE Of THE Gftt.SSI..Nl)S S\.IBOMSO. R:ECOROED AS EHTRV NO 11"'87S-200il. MAP NO. ll�:? WITH THE UTN-t COUNTY RECOROER'S OFFICE; THENCE TO AND At.ONG SAO SOIJTH BOlN>ARY l»E WHIO-l IS ALSO THE. 00l.f,l()ARV UIE AGREED l..f'OH NIJ REC0R0E0 AS ENTRY NO. � THE FOU.OWING 2 C<XJRSES: (1) SOJTH H'51'45" EAST A DLST.-HCE OF 1e.19 FEET: (2) HORTH 89'.fQ'37" EAST A DISTANCE OF 265.89 FEET TO THE. Nam-lWEST CORNER OF PA.Rea 23.il03:0080 RE�D AS ENTRY NO. 91'14&-2LX17 WITH TI-E UTAH COUNTY RECOR!lER'S OFFICE. THOICE TO NIJ At.ONG THE WEST � OF SAID PARCEi. 23:033:0080 SOUTH 00'...-ss" WEST A CHST AHCE OF 66H 1 FEET TO A POHT ON THE. SAO NORTH RIGHT OF WAY UE AHO T1-E POINT OF BEGINNING.

OWNER'S DEDICATION

OAVIO.l()H,jSON UCEHSEN0.53386fll;I

KNOW ALL MEN BV THE.SE PRESENTS THAT THE. ut.OERSIGNED AA£ THE OWNERS OF THE AOCNE OESCRl&O TRACT OF I.Al,(). AHO HEREBY CAUSE Tl-£ 5""E TO BE SLOOl'Vl>ED HTO LOTS. PARCELS NIJ STREETS. TOGETHER WITH EASEMENT AS SET FORTH TO BE l£REAFTER """"'"

CONDIE CORNER SUBDIVISION DO 1-EREBY OEIJICATE FOFI PERPE:T\JAI. USE OF THE PLllUC All. RCW>S N-ID OTMER AREAS SHOWNONTtlSPl.AT AS I-ITENOEDFOR Pl.&.JC USE. THE UN'.>ERSIGNEDOWNERSAI..SO HERESY COHv'EYTOWf NIJAU. PL8JC UTUTYCOMF'�!ES A PERPET\JH... NON--8(CUJSM EA.SEr.ENT OVER THE PLlll.lC UTIUTY EASEMEHTS SHOWN ON THIS PLAT THE SAAE TD BE USED FOR T1-E INSTAl..l.ATIOH. � N«'.>OPERATIOH OF UTUTY UNE:s N«J F .ACUTES. THE lMOERSKiNEO OWNERS ALSO HEREBY CONVEY l>HV OTHER EASEMENT AS SHOWN ONTtlS PLAT TO THE. PARTIES INOICATEOAND FOR THE PIJWOSESSHOVtfi 1-EREON.

CORPORATE ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

STATEOFUTN-t) "' COUNTY OF UTAH COUNTY)

n£ FOREGOING INSTRUMENT WAS ACK�ED BEFORE ME THIS __ 8V OAA't'\. HODGSON

OWNER ___________ ___JUTAHI..Nl'.lSOLUTIONSj

NOTARY PUeUCF\.IU.NNolE· _______ _

Cc».uSSIONl'f..lMBER: ______ _

UVCCltM.IISSIOHEXPIRES _____ _ A NOTARY PU8UC COMMISSIClNED 1H UTAH R""'°"'W ___ COUNN

Fort IDBJEDBY IOOJ"""""''"'""-' ---�---PRO.Eel N<> 20-006 -=-='----- VP-10 1 l O 1 �F O 1 °'"' 07/01/2021 08 FINAL 07/01/21 I I 1

2. �=�=::-�T�

::n.sf'CM£RBOXES AAEA1..1.0WEOIHRRIG.\TlONCOdf'mtOR BOARD OF EDUCATION OF NEBO SCHOOL DISTRICT

I

-----"'-z I 07 FINAL 04/21/21 ·s: I I 3. l"l'PICAI.SETBAa(S: FRONTIREAA•25'. SIOEIM-l.8'.20'80THSIDES. SCALI! IN fEl!T SCALE

1":30' _g>a

.c: II ■-----�• _!_I•••· ��l;l",:;'i:;.i:e;:"':;Q"°"�';,alTIEiii"'o,ii'll:,!,.�A.OOR;lii"'O:"':l.mi;li'°""v:::i,""".:,,11nw.::1_,.:.l™lil:;'U.';'"'i::

FOR

:ll:"""':il

s

ua�OFl:,CN�CURS:i""""'l,,l,l:'"':;:';'"':l:"""i:".,.""' •"""-°"_TIE ___________________________________________ _;' ___ ";;_ _ _;

"'

➔iiiiiiiii�iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii�ii.,

iiiiiiiiiiii"""'°"iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii°'ii

TEiiiiii:tll

rn SIGNATURES CLIENT I OWNER INFORMATION: SHEET INFORMATION:

0 IX) (J) (J) 0 0 0

� � eCl.

.� � X

II

SPRINGVILLE CITY MAYOR

PRESENTED TO Tl-iE SPRWGVU.E CITYMA.VOR THIS __ OOYOf __ AD.20_ATWH4CHTIME TI-IS

SU!OMSIC»I WAS APPROVEDAHJ ACCEPTED.

CITY ENGINEER Af'PRO\IED AS TO FORM ON THIS __ OOY Of __

A..0.20_

CITY ATTORNEY APPR0\/8J AS TO FORM ON THIS __ OOY Of __

A.0.31_

PLANNING COMMISSION APPROVEOASTO FORM OHTHIS __ O OYOf __

A.0.2'0_

CITY RECORDER �.-.STO FORMOH TMS __ OOYOF __

AD.20_.

RECORD OF SURVEY

UTAH LAND SOLUTIONS DARYL HODGSON 680 WEST CENTER STREET SPRINGVILLE UTAH, 84663 (801 )691-2845

ENGINEER I SURVEYOR INFORMATION:

CONDIE CORNER SUBDIVISION

LOCATED IN A PORTION OF THE NE QUARTER OF SECTION 32, TOWNSHIP 7 SOUTH, RANGE 3 EAST, S.L.B.M.

SPRINGVILLE CITY, UTAH COUNTY, UTAH

COUNTY RECORDER RECOROEDI __ _ _ _ _ STATE OF UTAH. COUNTY OF SALT 1..N<E. RECOROEONlO Al.EOAT THE REOVEST OF

°'"' _ __ TIUC __

_ """'---'----FEE$ SALT i.»:E COLHTY RECORDER

801.491.7861 | 110 S MAIN ST, SPRINGVILLE, UT 84663 | SPRINGVILLE.ORG

DATE: July 8, 2021


FROM: Josh Yost

RE: Kent Stephens seeking to amend the Official Zone Map on properties located in the area of 2300 E 850 S, parcel numbers 26:005:0007; 26:005:0029; 26:005:0112; 26:006:0100; and, 26:006:0102, from the R1-15 Single-Family Residential Zone to the R1-10 Single-Family Residential Zone.

On June 22, the Planning Commission heard from staff, the applicant and members of the public regarding this item. Staff recommended denial of the proposed zone map amendment. After discussion, commissioners directed staff to work with the applicant to produce a concept plat to accompany the proposed zone map amendment that would fit between the current R1-15 zone and the requested R1-10 zone and would address the concerns stated during the discussion.

The applicant has produced three drawings. The first drawing is a concept plat which meets the requirements of the existing R1-15 zoning. The second drawing is a concept plat which has a lot yield and lot sizes falling between the R1-10 and R1-10 zones. Lot yield and average size are shown below.

Number of Lots Average Lot Size (sf) Smallest Lot (sf) R1-15 Concept 19 16,552.8 15,000 Hybrid Concept 24 13,068 10,020

The third drawing shows how future road connections would be accommodated. Staff believes the proposed plat generally addresses the requests made during the Planning Commission discussion on June 22.

The following motions are provided for the commission’s use if desired.

Motion for Approval

Move to recommend that the City Council approve the amendment to the Official Zone Map for properties located in the area of 2300 E 850 S, parcel numbers 26:005:0007; 26:005:0029; and, 26:005:0112, from the R1-15 Single-Family Residential Zone to the R1-10 Single-Family Residential Zone.

Further recommend that the City Council provide for the development of the property as shown on the concept plat.

Agenda Item #2 July 13, 2021


Motion for Denial

Move to recommend denial of the amendment to the Official Zone Map for properties located in the area of 2300 E 850 S, parcel numbers 26:005:0007; 26:005:0029; and, 26:005:0112, from the R1-15 Single-Family Residential Zone to the R1-10 Single-Family Residential Zone.

Encl.

Concept Plats

I

�r

7

jJ_

A CONCEPT PlAN M:lll1'k SCAlE: , •• SO' •

IL .... ., '""

12 ""'" .,, ..

L3 ...... U"-

14 """' ....

10 IUln.,, ....

s urn ....

9

�"'

19 '""" .. ..

18 ..,., ....

17 ..... m<

,I ... __ __ __ _ J

r

6 ""'" ....

7 ..... '""

8 ..... ....

fA!llAJICNS

C-1

l l

�

7

8 ....... .,.,.

9 ..... ....

10 ..... ....

15 -�•....

12 . ..., �"

II '""" ....

A CON<:fPT PLAN'°""" 9::ME:J"•';{/ • •

21 /7

�.::

/.1 "''"' I ....

r

fAIW110NS

..,..OJum l'4 I

'-lOl'SQf I I l;,l(JlfNJ:

OJOflt;

.,..,

�is

,81!!1 i

i

C-1

��I\ ___ .J� r= _-=-=----'l

--i------'

l ...... ....

1

◄ ...........

7 ""'" ....

9 ... ,u ....

10 ""'" ....

lS ...........

12 '""" ....

20 "'"" ....

19 ..... I....

i,---_J'

18 _....,.....

r '--_ _..:.. __ J

�is

,81!!1i

i

EX-I

1

Petitioner: Clearwing LC

Summary of Issues

Does the proposed zone map amendment adhere to the General Plan and further the orderly development of the city?

Background

A zone map amendment application for this property was heard by the Planning Commission on October 27, 2021. The previous application requested that the zone map be amended from RC to HC for the entire property encompassing six parcels under common ownership located between Kuhni Road and I-15, north of 1600 N. This new application requests an amendment from RC to HC for a portion of the property as shown in Attachment 2. The applicant desires to increase the number of land uses available for development on the property through this requested zone map amendment. A majority of this staff report replicates the report for the previous application.

Since the previous application was heard, the City Council has directed staff to bring forward a zone map amendment to change much of the remaining undeveloped HC zoned property in selected areas of the city, including the I-15 corridor, to the RC Regional Commercial zone. The Planning Commission heard this large zone map amendment item on June 22 and forwarded a recommendation of approval to the Council. The item is now pending before the Council.

Analysis

In Springville City there are 1,180 acres of property currently zoned as Highway Commercial. This includes six separate areas with the largest area of over 1,000 acres straddling I-15 between the north and south boundaries of the city. The Regional Commercial zone is applied to 466 acres in two areas centered around the 1400 N and 400 S I-15 interchanges.

Highway Commercial is the most broadly applied commercial zone in Springville and hundreds of acres of property within the zone remain undeveloped. The area of the Regional Commercial zone is much smaller in accordance with the stated purpose of the zone as follows.

PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT

Agenda Item 3 July 13, 2021

RE: Clearwing LC, seeking to amend the Official Zone Map on a 28.58-acre portion of property located in the area of 1700 N 1650 W from the RC-Regional Commercial Zone to the HC-Highway Commercial Zone.

2

The RC zoning district is intended to provide an area in which a full range of commercial and service uses may locate in a limited area. The limited area of this district functions to heighten the intensity of uses, concentrate activities and make it a major commercial destination. These districts should abut arterial streets and be located near freeway access, as well as mass transit lines.

A primary difference between the RC and HC zones is the inclusion in the HC zone of uses such as Light Industry – Manufacturing Processes, Warehousing – Storage and Distribution and Wholesale Trade and Warehousing. Springville currently has over 1.2 million square feet of these type of uses in the development pipeline. The Springville General Plan states the following land use objective. “Provide conveniently‐located commercial and professional office uses to serve the residents of Springville and surrounding areas.” The location of the RC zone around the freeway interchanges is intended to facilitate such development of these areas into regional retail, office and related commercial uses. It is important to the balance of land uses in the city and the intent of the General Plan to maintain these interchange areas for such uses.

The Springville City General Plan is due to be updated and a key question to be answered is if the large amount of Highway Commercial property in the city’s best interest, and if not, what adjustments should be made? Prior to the completion of a General Plan update to answer this question and considering the large amount of Highway Commercial property under development and the pending City Council action to reduce the amount of Highway Commercial zoning, there is not a compelling reason to amend the zoning map for the subject area and add additional property to the Highway Commercial Zone.

3

Current Zoning Map

Staff Recommendation

Staff recommends that the Planning Commission forward a recommendation of denial to the City Council for the proposed zone map amendment. Staff further recommends that a General Plan update focus specifically on long term planning for the I-15 freeway corridor and address the appropriateness of the current predominant Highway Commercial Zoning.

Recommended Motion

Move to recommend denial of an amendment of the Official Zone Map from the RC-Regional Commercial Zone to the HC-Highway Commercial Zone for a 28.58-acre portion of property located in the area of 1700 N 1650 W.

Attachments

1. Applicant’s Statement2. Zone Amendment Map


DATE: July 8, 2021


FROM: Josh Yost

RE: Lakeside Landing Special District

During Tuesday’s meeting I will be providing an introduction to the Lakeside Landing Special District. My desire is to introduce the plan and code to you and then to facilitate a discussion. It will take more than one meeting to sufficiently review this plan and code. The community conceived in this document could add nearly 20% to the population of Springville and deserves careful consideration. Because of this, I’m asking that the Planning Commission consider scheduling a special meeting to accommodate additional review and consideration in a timely manner.

I look forward to our discussion. Please contact me directly if you have any questions prior to the meeting or would like to suggest points of focus for the presentation.

Documents

NOTICE OF MEETING AND AGENDA PLANNING COMMISSION …