REGULAR PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Thursday, April 10, 2003 7:00 p.m.
Public Safety Building
3925 W Cedar Hills Drive, Cedar Hills, Utah
Present: David Prolo, Chair
Commission Members: Paul Laemmlen, John Swenson, Heath Clark, Steve Kroes, David Brenchley (7:11 p.m.)
David Bunker, City Engineer
Gretchen Gordon, Deputy City Recorder
Rodney Despain (7:08 p.m.)
Others: Larissa Powell, Diana Mills-New Utah, Susan Dodge, Kaye Fugal, Geri Clements, Shelley Pitts, Jerry Jacobs, Julia Lundberg, Jeff Byers (7:12 p.m.), Melissa Hathaway (7:15 p.m.), Mark Hampton (7:18 p.m.), Lyle Ball (8:03 p.m.), Ren Woodall (8:20 p.m.), Pete Balderee (8:23 p.m.), Craig Dodge (8:52 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 at 7:03 p.m.
2. Appointment of Vice Chair and Swearing in of new Planning Commission Member (7:03 p.m.)
Gretchen Gordon swore in Steve Kroes as an alternate member of the Planning Commission.
MOTION: C. Prolo - To nominate Heath Clark as the Vice Chair of the Planning Commission. Seconded by C. Swenson.
Aye - C. Laemmlen
C. Prolo
C. Kroes
C. Clark
C. Swenson Motion passes.
3. Approval of Minutes from the March 13, 2003, Public Hearing and Regular Planning Commission Meeting (7:08 p.m.)
MOTION: C. Laemmlen - To approve the minutes of the March 13, 2003, Planning Commission Meeting. Seconded by C. Clark.
Aye - C. Laemmlen
C. Prolo
C. Kroes
C. Clark
C. Swenson Motion passes.
4. Review/Recommendation on Parks and Trails Signage (7:08 p.m.)
See handouts. Geri Clements from the Parks and Trails Committee reviewed the samples of signs to go in all parks. Samples of the following signs: Park Rules, Cedar Hills Parkway Park Sign - that would go at certain points of the trail system including an overview map, Cedar Hills Parkway Trail Sign - rules sign for any trails, Trail Mile Markers - mile marker sign that will go throughout the trail area.
Size of sign - The Park Rules and Parkway Signs with map would be about 2'x3' on a metal posts; the trail parkway sign is about the size you see. The signs will be in color - metal signs with vinyl lettering.
MOTION: C. Clark - That the Planning Commission approve the proposed Parks and Trails signage and pass on to the City Council for their approval. Seconded by C. Brenchley.
Aye - C. Laemmlen
C. Prolo
C. Kroes
C. Clark
C. Swenson
C. Brenchley Motion passes.
5. Review/Recommendation on Final Plat for Jens Monson Subdivision (7:16 p.m.)
See handouts. This has received preliminary approval and is proposed to be a 4-lot single family development. The lots reside in an R-1-20,000 zone. The developer did take care of the prior list of “subject to’s” but there are still a couple of issues of concern from the City Engineer:
• Ensure that the engineer certificates show Cedar Hills, some show Lindon City.
• Pressurized Irrigation lines need to be installed on 9850 North and 4000 West - the plans need to call out for that installation and type of pipe.
• Pressurized Irrigation laterals need to installed - 1 lateral for two lots.
• Drainage System - The plans show that drainage would accumulate on the southwest corner of Lot 4 then to a storm drain pipe; this pipe is an irrigation pipe. The developer would need to get a letter from the irrigation company allowing that or they would need to install a sump/manhole to deal with storm drain. Heath Clark stated that most irrigation companies will not allow the water from an individual subdivision to drain into their canals. The best alternative would be a pre-treatment catch basin with a sump that would remedy that problem.
• Pressurized Irrigation connection - There are no PI lines in this area right now - they would install only dry pipe laterals with stubs perpendicular to lot lines.
• Road Dedication - Discussion whether all property for street and road is within Cedar Hills. There will need to be a dedication on 9850 North, but right-of-way is taken care of on 4000 West. Meets and Bounds description in lieu of dedication.
• Water right conveyance still needs to be addressed.
• Sidewalk and curb/gutter locations.
Discussion Items from the developer:
• Water rights - Kaye Fugal stated that she does have shares for water rights.
• Kaye Fugal showed pictures of her home and surrounding area - this is a historical home in Cedar Hills and was the first brick home built outside of the fort.
• The lane/road is about 16' wide, plus shoulder right now. Discussion about the current charm of the lane and wanting to preserve that.
• Run-off water - The developer handed out information relative to alternates for a wide asphalt road, curb and gutter. This alternative shows a green swale to address run-off water.
• The developer wants to preserve the integrity of the home and area. When initially deciding whether to annex to Cedar Hills or Pleasant Grove, the developer stated that she discussed her proposal for a Bed and Breakfast with both cities and determined that Cedar Hills was most amenable to that idea.
• Mrs. Lundberg, a neighbor of this property, stated that she would be devastated if the lane was impacted by installing a wide road and moving the road closer to homes. Mrs. Lundberg stated that she did not feel that there should be such strict zoning to not take into consideration the integrity of the lane. There are several types of utilities that would end up having to be moved, including telephone poles. This lane was never meant to be a wide road and in fact used to be the developer’s driveway.
• Preference from the developer - only asphalt, no sidewalk.
• There has been discussion between Cedar Hills and the developer’s engineer relative to the improvements.
The Planning Commission stated some uncertainty about what the developer wanted. The plan shows installation of the required curb, gutter and sidewalk yet the developer is asking for something else that is not on paper anywhere. A request for a variance of the standard would require: 1) Creating a different standard of what they have - based primarily on safety issues for drivers and pedestrians or 2) Preparing an alternative showing the developer’s interest. The Planning Commission agreed in concept, but this issue will move on to Council. The City Council is the only body that can make an exception to the subdivision improvements/requirements. David Bunker stated that there is a process whereby a new standard/zone can be reviewed, but due to the constrains of the developer this was not pursued by the developer. The City Planner stated that in Section 3-8-1 of the Subdivision Ordinance it does allow for an accommodation of standards. The developer brought a proposal to the City requesting to subdivide and that triggers the need for the subdivision improvements, such as curb, gutter and sidewalk. Mrs. Lundberg requested that the lane stay as it is currently. The Planning Commission stated that all they can do at this point is approve what is submitted on the final plat. They appreciated Ms. Fugal for her proposals and alternatives. The Planning Commission stated that they would be supportive to the change of standards in this area, as well as possibly other areas in the City. C. Laemmlen stated that he will abstain due to a church relationship with the developer.
MOTION: C. Swenson - To recommend acceptance of the Jens Monson Final Plat, subject to: 1) Engineering, 2) Water rights, 3) Pressurized Irrigation lines, 4) Pressurized Irrigation laterals installed on property lines, 5) Resolution of drainage, and 6) Corrected redline comments. The Planning Commission recommends that the City Council consider an alternative cross-section of the road for the entire length of 9850 North for the purpose of keeping it rural in character. Seconded by C. Brenchley.
C. Kroes wanted to know if the Planning Commission was willing to consider leaving the lane in it’s current state or requiring some improvement of the suggested green swale, etc. The consensus of the Planning Commission was to require some improvement to the road.
Aye - C. Prolo
C. Kroes
C. Clark
C. Swenson
C. Brenchley
Abstain- C. Laemmlen Motion passes.
6. Review/Recommendation on Final Plat for Lexington Heights Planned Commercial Development Project (8:24 p.m.)
See handouts. The subdivision of the property was not included initially with the approval, in the interest of time. As a means of sale, due to various occupants, the developer wants to sell off individual parcels. The City’s ordinance does allow the property to be subdivided subsequent to initial approval. Three office buildings had common parking, now divided among buildings with common responsibility for all owners of the property.
• Subdivision balance relative to parking - the covenants stated that maintenance is relative to subdivision balance.
• The documents may not meet the City’s standards - It is done by deed limitation, not by creating a governing body.
• Ordinance requirements are met. Recommendation from the City Planner to move forward with final approval, with the exception of language on reciprocal parking notation on plat. (Note 2)
• Drainage improvements
Lyle Ball, Rimrock Construction, has been spear-heading the marketing and publicity for this project. Right now the site shows the assisted living center and three office buildings. The two smaller office buildings are planned to be occupied by two different dentists. The large building will be a group of general dentists, orthodontists and periodontist. The assisted living center will be run by a group from Virginia who ran a similar facility there. They are moving to the area. Ground breaking is scheduled for April 29th. The documents need to be reviewed by the City’s legal Council.
MOTION: C. Brenchley - To recommend final approval of the final plat for the Subdivision of the Lexington Heights Planned Commercial District Project to the City Council, subject to: 1) Different language on reciprocal parking, 2) Drainage improvement language, 3) Restrictions be reviewed by City’s Legal Council of the City of Cedar Hills. Seconded by C. Clark
Aye - C. Laemmlen
C. Prolo
C. Kroes
C. Clark
C. Swenson
C. Brenchley Motion passes.
7. Review/Recommendation on Amendments to the Zoning Ordinance Regarding Fencing (8:50 p.m.)
See handouts. Pages 6 of 7, Section 7A - variance may be requested and approved by the City Manager or designee. Staff has felt that this paragraph should be adopted. There are occasions where a fence cannot be placed at the location where required by ordinance, including safety and undue hardship. This exception would be rare but there are some cases where this could be granted. Would this exception be used to include materials, location and other aspects? This is intended to be general and broad enough that the City Manager can make a determination. The variance would have to be documented. There was a level of discomfort that there was only a single source for approval. This may put a burden on the City Manager.
Larissa Powell, a resident who is wanting an exception to the ordinance, stated that she has been waiting 8 months to install her fence. She would like to be able to put chain link fence in her yard instead of a white vinyl fence as required by the fencing ordinance along a park trail. She stated that there is nobody on her side of the creek that has white vinyl and it would stand out. The ordinance requires that the fence be put on the property line and her rear property line is on a very steep grade and she would like to put the fence inside the property line to avoid a very expensive and difficult retaining wall. She stated that having to remove the fence posts, which she has already installed, would cause a serious erosion problem.
This exception would not allow someone to override any CC&R’s. Reaffirm concern that one person is making a decision. It is difficult to determine what would be considered an “undue hardship.” Add appeal language to have a denial go to the City Council. Consensus to have the Building Official included in the decision for variance. Variance may be given by consent of City Manager or designee and City Building Official. Any person may appeal a decision to the City Council who may have the right to override.
MOTION: C. Prolo - In conjunction with the recommended change or amendment to the Fencing Ordinance, that Section 7 (General Exceptions) “A” read, ‘Any homeowner that may experience an undue hardship or safety issue may request a variance to this ordinance. The variance may be given by consent of the City Manager or designee and the City Building Official. “B” read, ‘Any person aggrieved by the decision of the City Manager may appeal such decision to the City Council.’ Seconded by C. Clark.
Discussion about wording in Section 7B.
AMEND MOTION: C. Kroes - To amend the motion to read, in Section 7B, ‘Any person aggrieved by the decision rendered according to Paragraph 7A may appeal such decision to the City Council.’ Seconded and accepted by C. Clark.
Aye - C. Laemmlen
C. Prolo
C. Kroes
C. Clark
C. Swenson
C. Brenchley Motion passes.
8. Review/Recommendation on Commercial Design Guidelines (9:25 p.m.)
See handouts. These guidelines were initially prepared to serve as the ordinance within the commercial area. It was found that some provisions would be difficult to enforce as an ordinance. An ordinance has very precise requirements and penalties and must be capable of clear interpretation. As an interim measure, these were adopted as guidelines for reviewing projects within this zone. (Note by City Recorder - These guidelines have not been adopted.) There have been some inconsistencies, so it would be unwise to move them forward as an ordinance at this point.
• Guidelines are extremely broad - these were intended to give developers some rules to start their design. This is so broad that it does not meet what was intended.
• In these guidelines, there were three commercial areas - 1) Neighborhood Retail - most intense with possible 24/6 hours; turn of the century 1900's look - Logan is similar to the vision. 2) Office/Retail - less intense with landscaping buffer; 3) Office/Residential - buffer zones between each one to protect residential–more architectural elements similar to residential elements.
• Materials - these are very helpful in determining and driving various architectural styling. The 1900's, turn of the century look, would include mostly masonry, some pre-cast accents, and glass making up about 60% of the first floor. It needs to get to this level of detail.
• Trails and pedestrian paths were to be addressed in each project.
• Schematic idea of what the overall area should be.
• Landscaping portion is very clearly defined.
• The guidelines need to be funneled down and tightened up.
Take existing document, photograph some buildings and bring it back to put proposals together for the City Council so that there is a more stream-lined style to more clearly define. This document could take a great deal of time, so it may be best to start with a smaller group of what the City Council wants. The more defined the guidelines, the better. The areas where discretion can be used needs to have more clearly defined parameters.
At the end of this month, there is a joint meeting scheduled. C. Brenchley will try to have some ideas to run past the City Council. The staff can provide color copies of Lexington Heights and the LDS Church renderings because these have already been approved. This may be a style to consider.
9. Committee Assignments and Reports (10:08 p.m.)
Parks/Trails - C. Brenchley was not contacted about this month’s meeting. David Bunker stated that they talked about the design of the Forest Creek trail. This project was not slated for completion until 2005, but the City would like to accelerate this project. Design would be done in this budget year; construction in next budget year. From the tunnel underpass, the pedestrian trail wraps down and goes north on Canyon Road (west side) and connects to the Bonneville trail. This project got a matching grant.
Site Plan - The “big box” retail proposal has been sent back with some more recommendations for changes.
10. This meeting was adjourned at 10:15 p.m. on a motion by C. Brenchley, seconded by C. Kroes and unanimously approved.
/s/ Kim E. Holindrake
Approved by Commission: Kim E. Holindrake, City Recorder
May 15, 2003