MINUTES OF THE SOUTH OGDEN CITY PLANNING COMMISSION SPECIAL MEETING Council Chambers, City Hall Thursday, May 16, :00 p.m.

Transcription

1 MINUTES OF THE SOUTH OGDEN CITY PLANNING COMMISSION SPECIAL MEETING Council Chambers, City Hall Thursday, May 16, :00 p.m. PLANNING COMMISSION MEMBERS PRESENT Todd Heslop, Steve Pruess, Mike Layton and Dax Gurr PLANNING COMMISSION MEMBERS EXCUSED Chris Hansen, Jonathan Wright and Shannon Sebahar STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT City Manager Matt Dixon, City Planner Mark Vlasic, City Recorder Leesa Kapetanov OTHERS PRESENT Jerry Cottrell, Walt Bausman, Randall Parkinson, Gary Gibson, Robert Bliss, Nancy Gibson-Fagg, Debby Bliss, Wayne and Sandy Larson, Sandra Larson, Tyler DeGroot, Steve and Sue Porter, Greg and Tennille Bausman, Dean and JoAnn Knighton, Steve Hensley, Laurel DeGroot, Patrick Juhlin, Vickey Walker, Eric Hargrove, Tamara Hargrove, Norb and Kimberly Didier, Jason and Mali Smith, Ray Bertoldi, Todd Matlock, David Taylor, Chris and Rebecca Gurnee, Ben Slater, Larry Johnson, Bonnie and Bill Rembaz, Rosalind O Loughlin, Greg Pack, Shancy McCoy, Douglas Hale, Joe Holden, Connie Kaufman, Jennifer McGregor, Amy Holden, Anna Barholf, Sheldon Barholf, Tricia Williams, Chad and Heidi Iverson, Margo Milianta, Bree Duran, Rich and Veronica Reeve, Patty Bausman, Ken and Susan Hurst, Sister Danile Knight, Craig Summers, Tyler Facer, Judith Faulkner, Ray Craven, John Faulkner, Ralph Rees, Ashley Andersen, Gregory Dumas, Katy Hall, Merlin Bingham, Sallee Orr, Tel Boman, Geniel Summers, Brady Jensen, Sheldon Bartholf I. WELCOME The meeting began at 6:14 pm. motion to open the meeting. Vice Chair Todd Heslop welcomed everyone and called for a Commissioner Pruess moved to open the meeting, with a second from Commissioner Gurr. All present voted aye. Vice Chair Heslop excused Chair Chris Hansen and turned the time to Planner Mark Vlasic for his presentation. II. PRESENTATION BY CITY PLANNER Mr. Vlasic gave a projected presentation (see Attachment A). He indicated the planning commission had been in discussion about the Mt. Benedict property for several months, and had determined they would like to have input from the neighborhood, and thus had called this meeting. He pointed out there had been articles in the press and other talk about the property, some of which was incorrect. His objective was to inform everyone about the property and what the commission had been discussing. Planner Vlasic presented basic information about the property, i.e. how it had first been developed, size of the buildings, lots, etc. He said much of the value of the land is in the May 16, 2013 Planning Commission Meeting Page 1

2 building itself. The owner would like to find someone who would use the building in a similar way it is being used now. Several potential uses included assisted living, hospice, nursing home, church, retreat, or cemetery; the only use allowed under the current zoning would be a church. The owner had also looked at developing homes on the unused portion of the lot. Current zoning would allow one single family dwelling per every 10,000 square feet, or approximately four units per acre. Additional density would be allowed if it were developed as a planned residential unit. This type of development would require new roads, perhaps an additional access, and infrastructure. If the property were to be developed for single family homes, traffic would be one of the greatest impacts to the neighborhood; every home would generate approximately ten vehicle trips per day. If the existing buildings were demolished and the whole area developed into homes, there would be a potential of 50 additional homes, or 500 vehicle trips per day through the neighborhood. The current owners felt that in order to get the best value for the property, it would need to be rezoned. Mr. Vlasic emphasized the city had received no rezone applications, but had been approached by nine or ten interested developers investigating potential uses for the property. The existing monastery had been a good fit for the neighborhood, but unfortunately finding a complimentary use allowed under the current zoning would be very difficult. The residential uses and densities allowed under current zoning would have very significant impacts on the neighborhood. Staff believed that the unique qualities of the site and buildings, required at least some consideration of uses not allowed in the current zoning. There were also complicated issues as far as the unused portions of the property and if they should be zoned differently from the portion that has buildings. Planner Vlasic then explained the process of zoning or rezoning, showing how both the general plan and the zoning ordinance were used. The general plan for the area where the Mt. Benedict property was located was designated for low density residential uses. He read through the uses that would be allowed under the current zoning, noting that if a rezone request was ever submitted, opposition to the rezone by a majority of the public may be taken into consideration for the final decision of the planning commission or city council. Mr. Vlasic said the city had discussed being pro-active about a zoning change, the intent being that the city could determine a range of uses that would be appropriate for the site, so when applications were received, the allowed uses would already be established. The city, however, did not have to be pro-active. This public hearing was a continuation of the process of the planning commission and an effort to gather public input. Mr. Vlasic concluded his presentation. Vice Chair Heslop then called for a motion to open the public hearing. Commissioner Pruess moved to open the public hearing. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Gurr. Commissioners Layton, Pruess, and Gurr all voted aye. III. PUBLIC HEARING Vice Chair Heslop asked how many of those present would like to come forward and comment. Based on the number of hands raised, and in respect of everyone s time, he asked that everyone keep their comments to two or three minutes. He noted this was a great opportunity for the planning commission and the community to hear concerns. The commission wanted to do what was best for the community and neighborhood. Mr. Heslop invited those who would like to come forward, state their name and address, and make comment. Nancy Gibson-Fagg, 1061 E 5950 S Ms. Gibson-Fagg gave a copy of her comments to be added to the public record (see Attachment B). She said the majority of the residents wanted the property to stay zoned R-1-10, and felt if it was changed it would open the door for the property May 16, 2013 Planning Commission Meeting Page 2

3 and use to dramatically change. The surrounding neighborhood should not have to suffer a decrease in property values and change in quality of life because the unique characteristics of the property make it more difficult to sell. She asked that the city not allow the building to be demolished and that the open space stay. Richard Reeve, 5996 Park Vista expressed his appreciation to the sisters for their service to the community. He went on to say the property was a long way from major roads and one would need to drive through residential neighborhoods to reach it. Allowing an increase in density or commercial use was also a concern. There was only one ingress and egress to the property; it would be an issue in an emergency situation. He also questioned whether there was enough infrastructure. Mr. Reeve said the city should follow the general plan and not create spot zoning. He concluded by saying the city should not take into consideration the economics or value of the property in considering a rezone. Gary Gibson, 5742 S 1075 E pointed out the addition of the Nature Park, splash pad, nature trails and amphitheater had increased traffic in the area, but all the traffic had to come down 1050 East. The neighborhood did not want any more traffic. He hoped the planning commission would consider closing the back access of the racquet club to cut down on traffic as well. Gerry Cottrell, 5765 S 1075 E came to South Ogden in 1988 because he liked the community and neighborhood. He was concerned with the volume of traffic that would come if the Mt. Benedict property were rezoned. He saw no reason for a rezone and the current zone was appropriate. He felt if the city allowed any type of commercial use in the area, it would open the door to others. Walt Bausman, 5792 S 1075 E Mr. Bausman submitted a petition (see Attachment C) from the neighborhood requesting that the R-1-10 zoning be maintained. He recounted some of the minutes from planning commission meetings beginning in February. He felt the city should have notified the neighborhood that they were discussing the property sooner than it had, since they had begun discussing it back in February. He also said they should have been informed the property was for sale. Doug Hale, 5944 S1075 E Mr. Hale lived on the northeast corner of the intersection that entered the monastery. He said the consensus of the neighborhood was to leave the zoning as R He said the reason the monastery worked in the neighborhood was because it had low traffic. He said he was concerned that there may be 500 vehicle trips a day, because they would all have to come past his house; there was only one way in or out. Mr. Hale concluded by commenting he felt bad for the Sisters not being able to get the value out of their property unless it were rezoned, but felt they should have had an exit strategy. Randall Parkinson, 1085 E 5950 S said his home was one of the first in the neighborhood. The Sisters had approached him and the few other neighbors in the area when they first proposed to build the monastery, asking if the neighbors would accept them; the neighborhood had welcomed them. The neighborhood was also sad to see them leave the area. The neighborhood had enjoyed peace and quiet until a year ago when the Ogden Athletic Club had opened the access on the south corner. There had been an incident the previous evening with a car coming from the exit and speeding through the neighborhood. There are children and grandchildren in the area that are at risk because of the traffic not adhering to the speed limit. He wanted the access to the club on the south side closed. He said the neighborhood was concerned with traffic and the nature of whatever went on the monastery property; they wanted to maintain the R-1-10 zoning. No one else came forward to comment. Vice Chair Heslop asked if there were anyone who wanted to comment in favor of changing the zoning or with other suggestions or ideas. No one came forward. Mr. Heslop thanked everyone for coming to express their views and said the commission had made note of the comments made. He then called for a motion to close the public hearing. May 16, 2013 Planning Commission Meeting Page 3

4 Commissioner Gurr moved to close the public hearing, with a second from Commissioner Pruess. Commissioners Gurr, Pruess and Layton all voted aye. IV. Vice Chair Heslop then called for a motion to adjourn the meeting. ADJOURN Commissioner Pruess moved to adjourn, followed by a second from Commissioner Gurr. present voted aye. The meeting was adjourned at 7:11 p.m. All Note: Attachment D contains submitted written comments for the public hearing that were not mentioned in the minutes. I hereby certify that the foregoing is a true, accurate and complete record of the South Ogden City Planning Commission Meeting held Thursday, May 16, Leesa Kapetanov, City Recorder July 11,2013 Date Approved by the Planning Commission May 16, 2013 Planning Commission Meeting Page 4

5 Attachment A Planner Mark Vlasic Presentation May 16, 2013 Planning Commission Meeting Page 5

6 May 16, 2013 Planning Commission Meeting Page 6

7 May 16, 2013 Planning Commission Meeting Page 7

8 May 16, 2013 Planning Commission Meeting Page 8

9 May 16, 2013 Planning Commission Meeting Page 9

10 May 16, 2013 Planning Commission Meeting Page 10

11 May 16, 2013 Planning Commission Meeting Page 11

12 May 16, 2013 Planning Commission Meeting Page 12

13 May 16, 2013 Planning Commission Meeting Page 13

14 May 16, 2013 Planning Commission Meeting Page 14

15 May 16, 2013 Planning Commission Meeting Page 15

16 May 16, 2013 Planning Commission Meeting Page 16

17 May 16, 2013 Planning Commission Meeting Page 17

18 May 16, 2013 Planning Commission Meeting Page 18

19 May 16, 2013 Planning Commission Meeting Page 19

20 May 16, 2013 Planning Commission Meeting Page 20

21 Attachment B Written Version of Nancy Gibson-Fagg Comments May 16, 2013 Planning Commission Meeting Page 21

22 May 16, 2013 Planning Commission Meeting Page 22

23 May 16, 2013 Planning Commission Meeting Page 23

24 Attachment C Petition Submitted by Walt Bausman May 16, 2013 Planning Commission Meeting Page 24

25 May 16, 2013 Planning Commission Meeting Page 25

26 May 16, 2013 Planning Commission Meeting Page 26

27 May 16, 2013 Planning Commission Meeting Page 27

28 May 16, 2013 Planning Commission Meeting Page 28

29 May 16, 2013 Planning Commission Meeting Page 29

30 May 16, 2013 Planning Commission Meeting Page 30

31 May 16, 2013 Planning Commission Meeting Page 31

32 May 16, 2013 Planning Commission Meeting Page 32

33 May 16, 2013 Planning Commission Meeting Page 33

34 May 16, 2013 Planning Commission Meeting Page 34

35 Attachment D Other Written Comments May 16, 2013 Planning Commission Meeting Page 35

36 May 16, 2013 Planning Commission Meeting Page 36

37 May 16, 2013 Planning Commission Meeting Page 37

38 May 16, 2013 Planning Commission Meeting Page 38

39 May 16, 2013 Planning Commission Meeting Page 39

40 May 16, 2013 Planning Commission Meeting Page 40

41 May 16, 2013 Planning Commission Meeting Page 41

42 Bonnie and Bill Rembacz 5725 South 1075 East We feel that the R-1-10 Zoning should not be changed and maintained as is. Why? The St. Benedict Monastery property is at the far end of 1075 East and surrounded by single family dwellings, a public park and an athletic club in a residential neighborhood zoned R Changing the St. Benedict Monastery zoning to anything other than residential could create an island of commercialism in the heart of our neighborhood and adversely impact the property values of all of us living in the neighborhood. Our house is on the corner of 5700 So. and 1075 E. This street is the most direct route through our neighborhood to St. Benedict Monastery. We will feel the impact of increased traffic if the zoning is changed to allow for anything other than residential use. This a fact attested to by the increased traffic on 1075 when the Ogden Atheletic Club was allowed to open access to their parking lot though the rear of the club. We also have a traffic increase because 1075 provides the most direct access to the newly developed Nature Park, splash pad and amphitheater behind the Athletic Club. Another consideration is the fact that entrance and egress to the Monastery property is downhill in and uphill out with no other way to currently get around it. Inclement winter weather presents some unique traffic problems among which would be getting emergency services into and out of the Monastery property. Existing R-1-10 should not be modified or changed to encourage appropriate future use. Not knowing the definition of appropriate use makes it very difficult to recommend a zoning change today in anticipation of some future use especially since our local city council seems to feel that they can decide what is appropriate use without consulting the residents who will be affected by that use. i.e. allowing The Ogden Athletic Club to open access to the club through the rear of their property and the traffic problems created. We do understand that the existing R-1-10 zoning would allow the Monastery buildings to be demolished and single family dwellings to be built which will also have an adverse impact on traffic conditions. That is beyond our control and that problem will have to be worked when and if it occurs. May 16, 2013 Planning Commission Meeting Page 42