REGULAR PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Thursday, April 28, 2005 7:00 p.m.
Public Safety Building
3925 W Cedar Hills Drive, Cedar Hills, Utah
Present: Alan Petersen, Chair, Presiding
Commission Members: Carl Volden, Eric Richardson, Paul Hammer (alternate), Donald Steele (alternate)
Kim Holindrake, City Recorder
Courtney Hammond, City Meeting Transcriber
James Parker, City Council Representative
Others: Kevin Rasmussen, Anna Kreitlein, Jes Thomason, Mike Tea, Zed Mendenhall, Alex Garcia, L. J. Nielsen, Shephanie Colemere, Kara Eslinger, Spencer Clements, Wayne Crabb, Nathan Hult, Vernon Davenport, Amanda Loveland, Karissa Neely, Emily Paulsen, Jason Taylor, Todd Bingham, Nate Flake, Shanna Hunter
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
1. This meeting of the Planning Commission of the City of Cedar Hills, having been posted throughout the City and the press notified, was called to order by C. Petersen at 7:05 p.m.
Paul Hammer and Donald Steele were recognized as voting members.
2. Approval of Minutes from the March 24, 2005, Regular Planning Commission Meeting (7:06 p.m.)
MOTION: C. Hammer - To approve the minutes from the March 24, 2005, Regular Planning Commission Meeting. Seconded by C. Richardson.
Aye-C. Hammer
C. Petersen
C. Richardson
C. Steele
C. Volden Motion passes.
3. Appointment to Parks and Trails Committee (7:07 p.m.)
See handout. Eric Richardson was serving as the representative to the Parks and Trains Committee. He can no longer attend the meetings. C. Hammer agreed to be the Commission’s representative to the Parks and Trails Committee.
MOTION: C. Richardson - To appoint Paul Hammer as the Planning Commission’s liaison to the Parks and Trails Committee. Seconded by C. Volden.
Aye-C. Hammer
C. Petersen
C. Richardson
C. Steele
C. Volden Motion passes.
4. Review/Recommendation to Grant a Variance for Canyon Heights, Plat B, Lot 39 (7:10 p.m.)
See handouts. The City Council recently reviewed this issue. One of the options is for the City to modify one element of the approval for this development by either amending the plat or recommending a change in the lotting plan. Because both options require a recommendation from the Planning Commission, the Council referred this to the Commission for review. A revised lotting plan is not part of a recorded plat and would not require signatures from the three property owners. The Council has approved lotting plans for one or more lots that do not conform to the default side setback, which is 12 feet.
When determining lot lines, the property owners used the wrong stakes to lay out the lot lines. It is the duty of the owner or the developer of the lot to mark the boundaries. It was realized that the stakes were not aligned correctly when laying the foundation for Lot 41. The owners of Lots 38-41 were present at the meeting and presented a solution that they have worked out among themselves. They proposed a plat amendment that would bring the setbacks into compliance. Between Lots 38 and 39, the lot line would go around the RV pad and then straight back. The homes would be put back into compliance with a 12-foot setback requirement.
C. Petersen would like to see a survey and drawing of Lots 38-41, with Lot 37 shown for reference. The Planning Commission will then evaluate whether the revised plat meets all zoning requirements. Rodney Despain feels that this could go straight to the final plat. A plat amendment requires either a signature of all homeowners in the plat or letters sent to all owners. If no objection is made, there is a finding that no one is materially injured and the plat amendment can move forward.
MOTION: C. Hammer - To continue Item #4 until those who want action bring the required material. Seconded by C. Steele.
Aye-C. Hammer
C. Petersen
C. Richardson
C. Steele
C. Volden Motion passes.
5. Review/Recommendation on Landscaping Ordinance (7:37 p.m.)
See handouts. On occasion, homeowners are slow to install their landscaping. This ordinance would require owners to install front yard landscaping within one year of the date of issuance of a final certificate of occupancy. This ordinance would amend Title 10 of the City Code by adding Section 10-5-25. Those residences whose issuance of a final certificate of occupancy was granted prior to adoption of this ordinance would also be given one year to install landscaping on the front or side yard that is adjacent to a street. C. Petersen feels that back yards adjacent to streets also need to be addressed.
Compliance relies on the weight of an ordinance or, in some cases, cities can require a bond. C. Steele asked whether the nuisance ordinance is sufficient to address this issue because many subdivisions have CC&Rs that deal with these issues. C. Richardson feels that this proposed ordinance doesn’t do much more than what is currently in the City Code. If something is going to happen, a more detailed proposal should be considered. C. Petersen feels that revision to this ordinance should include a statement that says when streets are involved, landscaping is required. Resident Brent Uibel stated that CC&Rs are only good if the developer or HOA enforces them. The City does not enforce CC&Rs.
Kim Holindrake stated that if someone doesn’t comply with this ordinance they would fall under the penalties of the Zoning law. Rodney Despain felt the primary benefit of this ordinance is that it provides the building inspector with direction to give to homeowners regarding landscaping when he issues the occupancy permit. The nuisance ordinance talks about weeds being a nuisance but does not address dirt without weeds; blowing dust can become a nuisance. C. Richardson felt this issue should be built into the ordinance.
Rodney Despain suggested a few options for enforcement: the City can retain a bond as an inducement to comply or can include language that states that failure to comply results in a nuisance and can be prosecuted according to the terms of the nuisance law. C. Hammer stated that this had been discussed by the Planning Commission several years ago. One concern was that the terms need to be defined. Landscaping, along with front yards and back yards, needs to be defined. C. Petersen would favor using language that says the yard adjacent to the street. C. Richardson is willing to look into this ordinance and make changes. Rodney Despain said the definition of landscaping can be simple. He suggested that landscaping be defined as a combination of monument, grass and vegetative manner in an organized fashion intended to beautify. C. Richardson wants to ensure that the definition allows for xeriscaping. Resident Brent Uibel expressed concern about weeds, dust and water containment. A definition can include a description of what landscaping should and should not contain (weeds, dust and water). C. Richardson will make changes to this ordinance, which will include definitions.
MOTION: C. Hammer - To table Item #5 until C. Richardson has completed his assignment. Seconded by C. Richardson.
Aye-C. Hammer
C. Petersen
C. Richardson
C. Steele
C. Volden Motion passes.
6. Review/Recommendation on Rear Lot Line and Irregular Lots Ordinance (8:07 p.m.)
See handouts. There has been uncertainty on what constitutes the rear lot line on irregularly shaped lots. The current definition is insufficient when there are multiple lot lines or curved lot lines. The current ordinance defines the rear lot line as the lot line that is opposite and most distant from the front lot line. The building official has had some residents question his determination of the rear lot line in an odd shaped parcel. The purpose of this ordinance is to further define a rear lot line and to provide a mechanism for uncertainty.
The major change in this ordinance is that the final determination will be made by a review board consisting of the building official, zoning administrator, city recorder and city manager. Rodney Despain suggested that as part of the subdivision process, rear lot lines should be predetermined and referenced on the subdivision lot boundary as opposed to leaving it silent and requiring future determination. The process would be simplified by adding a provision to the definition of the rear lot line that says “or as designated as a rear lot line on a recorded subdivision.” C. Petersen agreed that the rear lot line should be defined on the plat for any irregularly shaped lot. C. Hammer stated that lot lines are generally references for setbacks but may also impact fencing requirements or other types of limitations.
Kim Holindrake explained the situation that brought the issue to the City Council. A property owner had a five-sided lot and the ordinance said the rear is opposite the front. The homeowner defined the rear lot line by choosing the line they saw opposite the front. That made everything else the side yard and the house was then placed accordingly. The neighbor got upset about the determination.
Rodney Despain said the purpose of defining lot lines is to establish the setback. Currently, everything that isn’t a front or rear lot line is a side lot line. Another way to define it is to say the rear yard is anything other than the front line and the side lot lines are adjacent to the front lot line. That would leave problems for a triangular shaped lot.
The new ordinance and definitions should include the principle for how rear lot lines will be determined, a statement of who determines the rear lot line and what should be done if you want to appeal. Triangular shaped lots need some further definition. Rodney Despain will look at this ordinance and will work on some new language.
MOTION: C. Hammer - To table Item #6 until Rodney Despain can work on new language. Seconded by C. Richardson.
Aye-C. Hammer
C. Petersen
C. Richardson
C. Steele
C. Volden Motion passes.
7. Review/Recommendation on Sign Ordinance (8:45 p.m.)
See handouts. C. Volden said that while the intent is to make this ordinance as concise as possible, he doesn’t want to see this move too quickly and have too much removed. He would like the Commission to be cautious as they work through this ordinance to avoid future problems and concerns. Currently, our commercial district has vinyl signage in the windows as advertising. That type of signage needs to be considered as well.
MOTION: C. Volden - To adjourn. No second. Motion dies.
C. Steele suggested having a work meeting. C. Petersen proposed another day for the work session, which was determined to be May 4, 2005 at 7:00 p.m.
MOTION: C. Volden - To table Item #7 and have a work session on May 4, 2005 at 7:00 p.m. Seconded by C. Petersen.
Aye-C. Hammer
C. Petersen
C. Richardson
C. Steele
C. Volden Motion passes.
8. Committee Assignments and Reports (8:54 p.m.)
No reports.
9. This meeting was adjourned at 8:55 p.m. on a motion by C. Petersen, seconded by C. Richardson and unanimously approved.
/s/ Kim E. Holindrake
Approved by Commission: Kim E. Holindrake, City Recorder
May 26, 2005