REGULAR PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Thursday, April 29, 2004 7:00 p.m.
Public Safety Building
3925 W Cedar Hills Drive, Cedar Hills, Utah
Present: Alan Petersen, Presiding
Commission Members: Steve Kroes, Carl Volden, Paul Hammer, Eric Richardson, Randy Hugie (7:11 p.m.)
Konrad Hildebrandt, City Manager
Rodney Despain, City Planner (7:08 p.m.)
David Bunker, City Engineer
Kim Holindrake, City Recorder
Gretchen Gordon, Deputy City Recorder
James Parker, Council Representative (7:09 p.m.)
Others: Angela Johnson - Deerfield Elementary PTA (7:08 p.m.), Karissa Neely - New Utah (7:12 p.m.)
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 7:04 p.m.
Paul Hammer and Eric Richardson were recognized as voting members.
2. Approval of the Minutes from the March 25, 2004, Regular Planning Commission Meeting (7:04 p.m.)
MOTION: C. Hammer - To approve the Thursday, March 25, 2004, Planning Commission Meeting minutes, as amended. Seconded by C. Richardson.
Aye - C. Hammer
C. Kroes
C. Petersen
C. Richardson
C. Volden Motion passes.
3. Review/Recommendation on a Revised Site Plan for Deerfield Elementary to Allow a Marque (7:08 p.m.)
See Handouts. Angela Johnson, Deerfield Elementary School PTA, was in attendance to answer questions. The marque location is proposed to be moved from being freestanding in front of the building to being mounted on the building. The school is planning to install a timer to turn off the lighting late at night. The size of the approved sign was 5' x 8'. The PTA feels that the change in location reduces the cost as well as preventing damage and vandalism because the sign will be higher. When a similar marque was installed at Cedar Ridge Elementary, there was some concern about the amount of light that shines from the marque. This marque is intended to have the same light intensity but it will be single sided only. C. Hammer wanted to know if the PTA had considered lighting the sign instead of illuminating the sign. Discussion about lights on the ground and the safety of children.
Ms. Johnson stated that the marque is planned to be installed on the building 10' above the ground to the bottom of the sign. C. Hammer stated that the City does not allow backlit signs in the commercial area, and wanted to know why the City would allow the school to have one. C. Petersen stated that he does not have any opposition to having a backlit sign but is concerned about the intensity of light. C. Richardson stated that the sign at the school is based around community service versus advertising as it would be in the commercial zone. Discussion - The approved site plan shows the illuminated marque on the property line and the PTA is requesting that the marque be moved away from the property line and farther from homes. The fact that this will be turned off each night does increase the level of comfort for the Planning Commission. C. Petersen noted that the wattage information was not included in the packet. C. Kroes stated that he would want to ensure that the lights are being turned off each night to protect the nearby neighbors. Discussion regarding when the lights should be turned off.
MOTION: C. Kroes - To recommend the approval of the marque sign for Deerfield Elementary with the understanding that it be on a timer that shuts off at 9:30 p.m. each night. Seconded by C. Volden.
Discussion of the maximum allowed size of the sign. Angela Johnson stated that a 5' x 8' sign has already been ordered.
Aye - C. Hammer
C. Hugie
C. Kroes
C. Petersen
C. Richardson
C. Volden Motion passes.
4. Review/Recommendation on Amendments to the Zoning Ordinance (7:24 p.m.)
See handouts. Rodney Despain stated that there were some minor corrections to the Zoning Ordinance that have been compiled into one ordinance. There are four issues to be addressed: 1) Section 1 - Side setbacks in the PR2.2 Zone, 2) Section 2 - Acreage requirements in the SC-1 Zone, 3) Section 3 & 4 - RA-1 There is no area designated within the city, and 4) Section 5 - Amend the zone map to rezone property on the east side of Canyon Road.
• Side Setbacks in the PR2.2 Zone: This issue came forward because the City wanted to place a sewer line along an easement because of an emergency situation. In order to put the sewer line on the side lot line, a provision needed to be made because extra area was required. Allowing the other side setback to be reduced would accommodate this need. The City would have the right to reduce the side setbacks in the event that the City puts a public utility on a private lot and needs extra width to accommodate the utility. Reading of proposed language for 4-6-22. This would not only apply to the PR2.2, but would make this uniform throughout the community. Rodney Despain stated that there be a provision that the reduction could not be greater than 30% of the minimum setback. There is a need to be able to move it slightly closer but not so much that it could greatly impact the neighboring property.
Discussion about the situation that exists with installing a replacement sewer line to service homes on Manila Creek Drive. C. Petersen had a concern about impacting existing homes by moving an adjacent home closer. David Bunker raised an issue that instead of just allowing one side setback to be reduced by 30%, to allow the total combined side setbacks to be reduced by 30%. A homeowner is not required to give the City an easement so the City might be in a situation where condemnation would be necessary if a line had to be installed in a particular situation. The situation that exists right now is that the line can be installed on a vacant lot instead of a developed lot. When the Planning Commission discussed the issue of rezoning this particular lot and area, the surrounding homeowners did not oppose this change. When the City Council heard this issue, a number of homeowners were upset by the change to the zone because they viewed this as a devaluation of their property. This is how the City Council decided to resolve the issue for all involved, which would still allow the City to install the sewer line to cure an emergency situation.
The City Council would still need to approve each exception. There is a situation on Oak Road East where the City will need to install a water line to connect to Sandalwood Drive where this issue could come up again. In this case, the City will need to purchase an easement in this area. This situation will be a rare occasion. The City should maintain maximum flexibility if this exception is needed. C. Kroes felt that the 30% was reasonable. Further discussion about how the property owner who is encroached upon could be protected and/or compensated.
MOTION: C. Richardson - To recommend approval of Section 1, as amended. Section 1 would read: “Where a public water line or sewer line is to be placed in an easement adjacent to a side lot line of a lot within a subdivision, Planned United Development, or similar large scale development project, and requires and extraordinary width of easement to accommodate the water or sewer line, the City Council may approve a reduction in the setback distance of the opposite side yard. Any such reduction shall not exceed thirty (30) percent of the minimum setback distance.” Seconded by C. Kroes.
Aye - C. Hammer
C. Hugie
C. Kroes
C. Petersen
C. Richardson
C. Volden Motion passes.
• Acreage Requirements in the SC-1 Zone: The current minimum design requirement in the SC-1 Zone is 10 acres. The Commercial Zone has been divided with roads where there are sections that no longer have 10 acres. The issue was discussed on how to handle development of land where less than 10 acres is available. Review of language from Section 2. The intent is not to enable the developers to parcel off land for illegal lots. The City wanted to impose this requirement to avoid piecing together develop and to increase continuity in planning and design. The layout of the roads is also better facilitated through overall planning of larger parcels. C. Volden wanted to know if 8 acres was more reasonable. The 10-acre provision was in the Zoning Ordinance prior to the development of the Commercial Guidelines. The provision was not to require a developer to build in 10-acre parcels, but to plan/design at least a 10-acre parcel. The property owner could even master plan a larger parcel and sell off portions to suit the developer.
C. Kroes excused - 8:06 p.m.
Further discussion about how to ensure that the future plans are consistent with overall planning. Review of what is existing in the code as it relates to the 10-acre requirement.
MOTION: C. Richardson - To recommend approval of Section 2. Seconded by C. Hammer.
Aye - C. Hammer
C. Hugie
C. Petersen
C. Richardson
C. Volden Motion passes.
• Delete RA-1 Zone: Section 4-4-1 discusses the available zones within the City. The City does not have any area that is zoned RA-1.
MOTION: C. Hammer - To approve Sections 3 & 4. Seconded by C. Richardson.
C. Petersen stated that there is also a PO-1 Zone listed in the ordinance that does not exist on the Zoning Map. This should also be removed.
AMEND MOTION: C. Petersen - To also delete the PO-1 Zone. Section 3 shall read: “Section 4-4-1, entitled Zones Established, is hereby amended by deleting the RA-1 Residential Agricultural Zone and the PO-1 Professional Office Zone from the list of zones permitted in the City.” Accepted and seconded by C. Richardson and C. Hammer.
C. Petersen wanted to know if the City had an R-1-15,000 Zone because no area appeared on the map. Kim Holindrake stated that although there is not an area currently zoned R-1-15,000, there is potential for some land to carry that zone in the future.
Aye - C. Hammer
C. Hugie
C. Petersen
C. Richardson
C. Volden Motion passes.
• Zone Classification Change from R-1-11,000 to H-1 Hillside for Property Located at Approximately 10000 - 10200 N Canyon Road: There is a current piece of property that was zoned R-1-11,000 before the City ever had much hillside development. It would be difficult for this property to develop under the current provisions of the R-1-11,000 because of the topography that is there. Rodney Despain feels that the piece would be better developed under the H-1 Hillside Zone, which protects slopes over 30%. The cutting and scarring of the hillside could be greatly reduced through making this zone change. This is a City initiated zone change, so the property owner will be notified. The City Council will also need to have a Public Hearing.
Konrad Hildebrandt excused - 8:23 p.m.
MOTION: C. Hammer - To recommend approval of Section 5 to the City Council, subject to the landowners notification. Seconded by C. Richardson.
Aye - C. Hammer
C. Hugie
C. Petersen
C. Richardson
C. Volden Motion passes.
The sign ordinance is almost reformatted and the Planning Commission will begin work on this once the Commercial Design Guidelines have been completed.
5. Review/Recommendation on Amendments to the Guidelines for the Design and Review of Planned Commercial Development Projects (8:23 p.m.)
David Bunker and Rodney Despain excused - 8:37 p.m.
• 4.1.5 - Reference to parking areas, they can be obtrusive to the residential areas. Discussion of requiring the lots to have a buffer and not allow them to go right up to the property line. The perimeter fencing will be stamped concrete.
• 4.1.5 a - C. Richardson suggested adding the following wording: “Parking areas should be considered a structure since they present a three-dimensional appearance when occupied. A minimum of 10 feet of landscaped screening shall surround the periphery of paved areas adjacent to residential property lines.” C. Hammer stated that he would like to see more landscaping out toward the road instead of next to the fencing. C. Richardson stated that he feels that the noise levels with motors running, oil spills, trash, etc. should be moved away from the residential areas. Further discussion about landscaping buffers along the perimeter. The Planning Commission opted not to add the wording suggested by C. Richardson at this time.
• 4.1.5 e - Extensive discussion regarding the statement about 4 parking stalls per 1,000 square feet of gross floor area. The Planning Commission discussed whether this parking guideline would encourage the type of business that would be viable. Discussion of whether the intent of this parking ratio was to be a requirement or a minimum. C. Petersen and C. Hammer felt that this was a minimum stall requirement and not a maximum. Parking needs will vary depending on the type of business.
Rodney Despain returns - 8:44 p.m.
• 4.1.5 e - Further discussion about the adequacy of parking. The Planning Commission wanted to know how to determine an appropriate range for parking. Rodney Despain stated that many cities typically have a ratio that is the minimum. The businesses will want adequate parking for their business needs. In American Fork City, the parking standard is 5 stalls/1,000 for retail and office space; call centers typically are 6-8 stalls/1,000. The Commission discussed having an overall range of 4-6 stalls/1,000. Certain types of uses determine the number of parking stalls that would be reasonable. Churches, restaurants, etc. all have special needs. If the applicant can document a need for something other than the standard, it could be considered.
David Bunker returns - 8:46 p.m.
• 4.1.5 j, k and l - Discussion of requirements to break up parking area.
• 4.1.5 e, f and g - When referring to parking spaces for each 1,000 square feet of area, add the word “minimum” before each number.
• A change in use versus a change in tenant would need to be reviewed by the City for approval, including assessment of the parking.
• 4.1.5 b - Remove the word “shrubbery” from the list of items to be included in the landscaped areas.
• 4.1.5 k - Review type of tree that is called out for to make sure that it does not leak sap.
MOTION: C. Hammer - To table further discussion until another meeting. Seconded by C. Richardson.
Aye - C. Hammer
C. Hugie
C. Petersen
C. Richardson
C. Volden Motion passes.
6. Committee Assignments and Reports (9:08 p.m.)
C. Richardson - The Parks and Trails Committee met and will be ordering signs for the trails and parks. The Committee is also proposing a swing set for Sunset Park and are continuing discussion about a skate park.
7. This meeting was adjourned at 9:11 p.m. on a motion by C. Richardson, seconded by C. Petersen and unanimously approved.
/s/ Kim E. Holindrakie
Approved by Commission: Kim E. Holindrake, City Recorder
May 27, 2004