REGULAR PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Thursday, August 14, 2003 7:00 p.m.
Public Safety Building
3925 W Cedar Hills Drive, Cedar Hills, Utah
Present: Heath Clark, Chair
Commission members: Carl Volden, John Swenson, Alan Petersen, Steve Kroes (7:05 p.m.)
Alternates: Brendon Dayton, Randy Hugie
Konrad Hildebrandt, City Manager
Kim E. Holindrake, City Recorder
David Bunker, City Engineer
Rodney Despain, City Planner (7:05 p.m)
Rob Fotheringham, Council Representative
Others: Ren Woodall, Pete Balderree, Amy Balderree, Roxy Ogden, Robert Ogden, Jolene Hope, Lane DuBois - New Utah, Eve Hewett, Jon Hewett, Ray Daniels, David Lawrence, Albert Li, Eric Richardson, Victor Hansen, Sheldon Muir, Travis Barclay, Connie Cheney, Jim Cheney, Linda Petersen, Teri-Lyn Wiles, Laura Kirsch, John Hanson, Mark Richardson, Phil Thunborg, Rob Olsen, Shell MacPherson - Pacland, Ron Rosebrook, Scott Jones, Don Griffes, Amy Griffes, Darin Lowder, Matt Bateman, Stephen Tiffany, Gavin Spencer, Jonia Lundberg, Kent Seamons, Gary Hilton, Steve Spear, Kristen Knight, Mark Webb, Diego Carroll, Scott Jones, Maridee Killian, Brent Keil, Heather Fry, Brent Uibel, Mike McGee, Ken Cromar, Ken Kirk, Diane Kirk, Todd Boley
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 7:01 p.m.
2. Approval of Minutes from the July 10, 2003, Regular Planning Commission Meeting (7:02 p.m.)
MOTION: C. Clark - To approve the minutes of July 10, 2003, as printed with corrections noted by C. Petersen. Seconded by C. Petersen.
Aye - C. Clark
C. Petersen
C. Swenson
C. Volden
C. Kroes Motion passes.
3. Review/Recommendation on Final Plat for the Hewett Subdivision (7:03 p.m.)
See handouts. Additional handouts were given at the beginning of this item showing a one lot subdivision instead of two lots. David Bunker stated that this claims to be a one lot subdivision but it can’t claim to be one lot. The sewer line needs to be contained in an easement and has not been fixed on the updated drawing. It does show the proposed sewer lateral of the newly created lot but must tie into a main line and not a lateral. The access to the flag lot needs to have approval of the Fire Chief as to a hard surface. Additional water rights would be required. The Utah Department of Transportation (UDOT) will need to approve any additional access on Canyon Road.
Vic Hansen reported that they are trying to accommodate everyone’s needs. With one lot they do go ahead with improvements. As far as getting UDOT’s approval, they will seek approval for that. C. Clark asked about the new plan having only improvements to the south. Vic Hansen stated that it is a stretch of sidewalk about 25' long. C. Volden asked about the intentions of UDOT to widen Canyon Road. It doesn’t make sense to put in curb and gutter if Canyon Road is going to be widened. Vic Hansen stated that Canyon Road has a cross section of 73'. The properties to the south that have installed curb, gutter and sidewalk are using a cross section of 66'. The road has been widened on one side but both sides equally is unknown. A 66' cross section is fairly consistent with what is along Canyon Road. There are no improvements to tie into or extend to. He sought the advice of a title expert and a City Council member prior to proposing the revised, one-lot plan. Rod Despain stated that two lots constitutes a subdivision. The issues have been identified clearly. This raises the question of improvements along Canyon Road. The primary reason for bonding would be, in fact, to insist on the improvements along Canyon Road. The question is, is at subdivision time the right time for the City to get the improvements that are necessary. Otherwise, the City assumes that whatever improvements are to be done would be done under a special improvement district, by UDOT or the City. The issue would be for the Planning Commission to look critically at the needs on Canyon Road and how those improvements will be achieved. Maybe there is some justification to say they won’t be necessary. One lot or two, you make the same finding. The key is whether or not now is the time to install the improvements or bond for them for a later time The applicant wants to escape that clause and feels he has a good reason. It is basically shifting the cost. UDOT will require the improvements to be installed where it needs them at the time. Bear in mind that people on the other side of Canyon Road have inquired and the City has said put them in. What’s different here than there? The Planning Commission has to come to a finding as to what is different between the two. Kim Holindrake stated that the subdivision ordinance requires the improvements and bonding. Rod Despain stated that the applicant wants the Planning Commission to find it very clear. The alignment may be uncertain. It is an engineering decision. Vic Hansen stated that they are willing to bond for improvements, if needed. Then when the alignment is decided upon, the improvements can be installed. C. Petersen stated that he has a problem with the top sheet and how the sewer lateral crosses. This was asked to be changed previously. There is also the 5' sewer easement. Vic Hansen stated that the way it is shown is by the legal description. He believes that they are tying into the sewer main and not a lateral. David Bunker stated that he did not know a manhole was missing. Vic Hansen stated that he believes there is another manhole that has been buried.
Discussion - The property to the south was subdivided under the name of Fisher subdivision when it was in the County. C. Petersen doesn’t see the need to install the improvements if the State will make changes later. He is comfortable with that. C. Clark stated that there was justification for the improvements on Avanyu and Canyon Heights subdivisions. Rod Despain asked if the grades and proper line are known. David Bunker stated that you can get a good feel for the horizontal alignment and where those will be. The vertical alignment is another issue. There is a difference between this and the subdivision with a church from last month. This is basically one lot splitting into two. Canyon heights had several lots. This project has limited frontage on Canyon Road. Part of the decision may come down to what UDOT requires. David Bunker spoke to UDOT and they did request that the subdivision be brought to them. There may be some requirements by UDOT specifically to the access being created. Konrad Hildebrandt stated that the Planning Commission can make a recommendation subject to UDOT approval. Rod Despain stated that if there is an effort to pass the issue, they would bond for the improvements. Bonding is typically a two-year period and maybe the specification for Canyon Road will be determined by then. Vic Hansen stated that these improvements don’t attach to other improvements. There is nothing to tie into or close. Rod Despain stated that it is immaterial if it is a one-lot or two-lot subdivision.
Discussion - Require the bonding and basically pay for the construction when that occurs. Recommend subject to UDOT approvals and requirements. If not resolved in two years, convert the bond to cash and hold over. The improvements are then paid for sooner or later and will get done. Pavement will be needed at the entryway. Water rights will be required for the additional lot. Subject to moving the lateral to the mainline if not there currently.
C. Clark asked that if improvements are not required now, who will have to pay for them later in front of the existing home? Right now they are only proposing a 20' stretch of improvements. Rod Despain stated that he misunderstood. He believed that the improvements were across the entire parcel. Vic Hansen stated that it would be a one-lot subdivision and would only improve that 20'. Rod Despain stated that he then goes back to his earlier comment. The hope is then UDOT will pick up the tab. He understood that the residual lot was included as well. Either UDOT puts in the improvements or the City does. This is exactly what is being done across the street. The consistency becomes one that the City will be hard pressed to justify. C. Petersen stated that the Planning Commission reviewed a two-lot subdivision at the preliminary and are now being asked to change at the final review. He reviewed the previous meeting minutes that state on Page 4 of 15, Frontage improvements on Canyon Road would be required - show on plan. Curb and gutter will be installed - eventually this will run down Canyon Road as development occurs. Ensure that engineering on Canyon Road conforms to UDOT standards.
David Bunker stated that in the design review, it was understood that improvements would be required for both lots. The subdivision ordinance allows parcels to be split by metes and bounds. However, in order to get a building permit and actually become a lot within the City, a subdivision plat is still required. If the plat is required, the subdivision still needs to put in the improvements whether it is now or later. A performance guarantee can be accepted for the improvements but it allows one year to complete the improvements according to the ordinance. There is an extension. Vic Hansen stated that the City would then foreclose on the bond and the funds would go to the City for when and if the project goes through they have the funds available. Another point is the property to the north goes into Pleasant Grove. The property across the street is also in Pleasant Grove. When a project goes through, if nothing is done, who would be paying for those improvements now? Would that be assessed to the individual property owners and every existing home as it goes through? For the new development, they are willing to pick up the tab but want to be treated like all the other existing homes along that corridor when and if anything happens. Rod Despain stated that the other homes are not asking to be subdivided. They are seeking a privilege from the City. David Bunker stated that those homes that have requested for a division are being required to install the improvements. There are not a lot of individual homes at this time with improvements. C. Kroes felt that it may be appropriate to have the money set aside for both lots to be used at a future time. It would seem like an eyesore to build it right now. C. Petersen and C. Swenson agreed. C. Clark stated that the recommendation of a final plat should be based on the original proposal. David Bunker stated that the word subdivision means that a parcel is being divided into two or more parcels. Rod Despain stated that a one-lot subdivision could be approved if in fact all the improvements are in for the residual parcel. That is really the heart of it. The case in point is the old home that sits on the corner of a block and all the property around it gets subdivided. When you’re all through, the entire parcel is subdivided and has improvements except the original house on the corner. That is what you are trying to avoid. Either require it to be in the subdivision and the installation of improvements or allow the one lot but the improvements of the residual lot are also installed. One or two lots is immaterial. It is clear that the purpose of going from two to one lot is an effort to try and avoid the improvements in front of the existing lot. As long as the improvements are taken care of, it doesn’t matter if its one or two lots. David Bunker stated that yes, other properties have been required to install improvements along Canyon Road. C. Kroes doesn’t feel strongly that they be required to install the improvements right now but the consistency is important. Rod Despain stated the observation that Canyon Heights has been required to install a large amount of improvements on Canyon Road as have others. C. Clark stated that the Planning Commission should stick with the original proposal with improvements along the entire stretch, engineering, water rights, etc. and move forward.
MOTION: C. Swenson - To recommend approval of the Hewett Subdivision (two lots) subject to the following: 1) posting of an adequate performance guarantee, 2) satisfaction of water right conveyance requirements, 3) the sewer easement modification as directed by the City Engineer, 4) UDOT approval, 5) approval of the Fire Chief and 6) final engineering. Seconded by C. Volden.
Further discussion. It is still a two-lot subdivision. The newly proposed maps are disregarded.
Aye - C. Clark
C. Petersen
C. Swenson
C. Volden
C. Kroes Motion passes.
4. Review/Recommendation on Proposed Amendment to the Zoning Ordinance for Amateur Radio Antenna (7:44 p.m)
See handouts. Konrad Hildebrandt stated that the current ordinance allows these types of ancillary structures to be no more than 10' above the roof line. A resident, Phil Thunborg, is requesting an amendment to the ordinance changing the height to be a height not to exceed 80' above the finished grade as well as allowing a greater height being approved under state and federal laws regarding amateur radio antennas and communications. The City received House Bill 79, which recently went through the legislature. It indicated that the City shall place a reasonable height limitation. The City also received a memorandum from the Utah League of Cities and Towns and their analysis and response. The City also received both the State bill and the Federal bill on antenna height.
John Hansen stated that there are two issues. One, the FCC pre-empted cities and towns from limiting unreasonably amateurs in the practice of the hobby. There are a couple of reasons they did that. PRB1 is the issuance by the FCC in 1985. Paragraph 10 is a statement by the Department of Defense, which emphasized the absolute essential nature of amateurs in our society. Paragraph 25 states that because amateur stations are only as effective as the antenna employed, antenna height restrictions directly affect the effectiveness of amateurs. The Department of Defense and other security agencies including the new home security agency have mandated that amateur radio is an essential and important part of communications. The fact is, that in order to be effective in communicating over the high frequency air waves, antennas need to be as close to or at a half waive length as possible. Having an amateur in the community is probably the only access to communications outside of the community. In the evenings the waive lengths on which the amateurs operate are 40 and 80 meters. A half wave length for 80 meters is 120 feet and a half wave length for 40 meters is 60 feet. In order to reach outside of the state and past communications, antennas are needed at that height. Beauty is in the eye of the beholder. It is understood that it is not always beautiful to everyone who looks at them. There are some pretty tall power poles outside this building and on a hot day when running the air conditioning, you’re pretty happy that they are there. They are asking that the City accommodate the amateurs in the community with a reasonable accommodation. And that in fact is a legal definition. The courts in litigation on this issue have defined reasonable as a height at which an HF signal can be profligated. This ordinance is extremely reasonable Mark Richardson is also an amateur and an electrical engineer if you have questions regarding height and effectiveness.
Rod Despain asked if there are any court cases in Utah that have set that number and if so what are the citations. John Hansen stated that he doesn’t have that information but they did give this information to the City attorney to have him research the citations. They did not want to appear to be flavoring the water. They believe that Mayor Sears gave these documents to the City attorney. There are dozens and over 20 states that now have codified PRB1. That is in affect what HB 79 did and he is one of the initiators of that house bill. Fifteen of those states have now gone back and set a minimum height restriction of 72' or higher.
C. Petersen stated that he appreciates amateur radio operators and is familiar with this issue. His father was an amateur radio operator. He stated that the information provided on height and effectiveness talks about 70 meters and they have stated 80 meters. John Hansen stated that they would accept 70 meters and that engineers came up with the 80 meter number. There is some subjective interpretation. They think that 80 meters is actually only about 40% of a wave length so it does not meet a half wave length for 80 meters. The closer they can get to a half wave length the more efficient the communication will be. C. Petersen stated that he understands that there are antennas designed that don’t need guide wires and makes them less ugly. Would it be inappropriate for the City to say that antennas have to be self standing or self supporting? John Hansen asked that that not be done for the reason that he has a 72' antenna/tower behind his house that raises and lowers down to 23'. However, it cost him over $6,000. He could have done the same tower in what is called a roan configuration for $1,000. It is a pretty heavy economic burden to require that it be a self-standing tower without guide wires. His tower will handle up to 120 miles per hour winds when collapsed and when extended with all the hardware out in the air it will take over 50 mph. Under the current City requirements and at this time of night, you might be able to talk to Payson. Mark Richardson stated that the antenna effectiveness is directly related to height. If you double the height of an antenna, you increase its effectiveness by 100 times. A modest gain in height makes a big, big difference in the ability to communicate especially outside of the valley here. Inside the valley, the height can be just off the roof. To get outside the valley the antenna needs to be as close as possible to a half wave length of the ground. C. Petersen stated that this City is unique in that it sits next to the mountain. What difference does the tower make if you’re trying to get over that mountain? Mark Richardson stated that it is related to near field versus far field radiation patterns. Even though the mountain is in the way, the radio waves will refract around it. It is actually the near field nerve fuel reflections off the ground that make the difference in the radiation pattern. C. Petersen stated that the literature provided talked about flat ground. Mark Richardson stated that the mountains do have an affect and in this case it would require the antenna to be higher. C. Petersen inquired about the height of the steeple across the street on the LDS Church. David Bunker stated that the roof pitch is about 30 to 35 feet and the steeple is another 30 feet. Pretty close to 70 feet. C. Petersen stated that currently then the City has an object sticking in the air about 70 feet. He likes the idea of antennas that go up and down. Then the neighbors don’t have to deal with seeing what amateurs think is beautiful and they don’t. Would it be reasonable for the City to look at free-standing towers so as not to deal with guide wires and neighbors complaining?
C. Petersen stated that the City is trying to make sure that emergency services are provided to the citizenry but at the same time, not upsetting people about an eyesore in their back yard all the time. The City is creating a universal ordinance that can be applied to the entire City. The City needs to try to find a reasonable position between amateurs who want to communicate and the rest of the community. Restricting the hours of operation isn’t a good idea because emergency situations occur at all times. He is concerned about wind load and these towers blowing down occasionally. This area is particularly prone to wind. Mark Richardson stated that the City engineer can confirm that this area is in exposure range B and structures will have to comply with those restrictions. That means that sustained winds in this area can be in excess of 70 mph and gusts of twice that. These structures can handle those kinds of winds.
John Hansen stated that setting time limits is pre-empted by the FCC. C. Peterson questioned then if the City’s rights are pre-empted, then why is it being presented and what is the pont of looking at it. John Hansen stated that he doesn’t want to be adversarial or pretentious in any way but the fact is, HB 79 was not intended to create new law. The reason that these bills are passing in these states is because cities and towns are not aware of the law. The primary reason for doing this is to codify an existing regulation, which has the force of law, into a state law. There has not been one new law made by HB 79. HB 79 was put into effect the middle of May. C. Kroes stated that the question is reasonable. C. Petersen stated that PRB1 states, we will not however specify any particular height limitation below which a local government may not regulate. Nor will we suggest the precise language that must be contained in the local ordinance. The FCC in their document states that they will not specify a height or language. It seems that the City may say that reasonableness is citizens have a right to their view. The City doesn’t want to pre-empt your right but it will let you put up a tower of 60 or 70 feet if it can come down to a reasonable height so that the aesthetics of the area aren’t impacted. That is a compromise that would enable both parties to function and to be able to deal with the issues.
John Hansen stated that Cedar Hills is the first community that is dealing with the issue because a citizen brought it up. This is the first planning commission that he is aware of that has addressed the issue. Rod Despain stated that the notion of telecommunication towers is the one issue that is the most litigated issue in land use related matters today. Supposedly the telecommunications act pre-empted local government but about half of the cases that come before courts throughout the state are decided in favor of the regulation and half are not. The issue is, and gets to the question raised in HB 79, where it states that if a municipality adopts an ordinance involving the placement, screening or height of amateur radio antennas based on health, safety, or aesthetic conditions, the ordinance shall; A - reasonably accommodate the amateur radio communication and B - represent the minimal, practical regulation to accomplish the municipalities purpose. Issue number 1 is, what is the municipalities purpose in the regulation of this. And then that regulation needs to address itself to that but certainly can’t go so far as to unreasonably accommodate amateur radio communication. What is being represented to the Planning Commission here is that the term reasonable has been clearly defined and that somewhere in the neighborhood of 80 feet is a clearly defined reasonable standard. The final analysis of reasonableness will be determined in the courts. If applicants are unsatisfied with city requirements, then the reasonableness will be determined by the courts. They would like you to believe and would like you to conclude with their assessment that 80' is the reasonable height. The Planning Commission has raised other conditions about what may be reasonable regulation. A city starts the process of what is reasonable. Is there a clear objective in the land use regulation with regard to height and other conditions imposed with regard to amateur radio communications? A city decides what is reasonable and the courts determine whether that is right or wrong. Hopefully this will be worked out in a compromise. The Commission has raised the notion of steeples, flag poles, etc. In addressing this issue, the Commission may want to deal with it in the area of the ordinance that deals with flag poles, etc. The current ordinance may be found by the courts to be unreasonable as it applies to amateur radio. C. Petersen stated that he spoke to a friend of his father who lives in Orem and Orem’s ordinance is 35' period. He has a problem with the physics. He would consider 40' as a minimum in dealing with radio communication. John Hansen stated that most HF low band transmissions will be seriously compromised with 40'. If the Commission goes in that direction, he suggests going to 72' because most are made at 72'. C. Petersen stated that the approach needs to touch the physics of the system while also dealing with the issue of neighbors. Up and down is a beautiful compromise.
Discussion of retractable towers, flag poles and steeples. A 120' tower would require 4 levels of wires and 6 acres of ground. This is outside the scope of a city lot. Building permits should be issued for these towers to ensure safety. John Hansen’s tower is 6' x 6' and 8' deep and can take winds of up to 150 mph. A 1/4 acre lot precludes anything much over 50'. It is not possible to connect an amateur radio to the current 300' tower by the golf course. The coax and physical line would have to be installed, which makes it prohibitive. The current ordinance needs to be changed so that the measurement is done from the ground level. American Fork once had a tower over 300' but over time it has been reduced to 100'. People seem to have a resistance to towers but there are a number of them. By themselves they are offensive but there are power poles and people still exist. There is a perception and a public acceptability here. There are two sides of reasonable, the public and the amateur radio operators. The shaft of a tower is a matrix of about 18" in diameter and 8' deep. Add the requirement that if not in use the tower is withdrawn. Reasonableness does not necessarily mean cheapest. Proposal to establish a committee to study the issue along with the ordinance in general comprised of a member of the Planning Commission, City Council, City Engineer/staff, and those with the expertise for this particular issue. Mark Richardson is the president of the Amateur Radio Association in this area and would be happy to help.
MOTION: C. Clark - To request staff to put together a committee to research the purposes of modifying the zoning ordinance relating to towers and other objects “sticking up in the air,” with the recommendations that that committee be staffed by a member of the Planning Commission as well as experts in the individual fields that need to be addressed. Seconded by C. Petersen.
Aye - C. Clark
C. Petersen
C. Swenson
C. Volden
C. Kroes Motion passes.
Further Discussion - There are two places that can be observed where other communities have tried to deal with these issues. One is on University Avenue in Provo and looks like a tree. The other is by Wasatch School on 9th East and about 12th North and is a cellular tower that looks like a flag pole. Other ordinances and court cases need to be found that deal with this issue.
Five (5) minutes break.
5. Review/Action on Proposed Preliminary Plan for Walmart (8:39 p.m.)
See handouts. Konrad Hildebrandt stated that previously the Planning Commission tabled the issue in order to get additional information. The developer submitted a traffic study, noise study and lighting plan and is present to answer any additional questions. There is enough information to make a decision. There has been a question to have this be a public hearing. This is not a public hearing but is a public meeting. There will be a required public hearing at the City Council level. At the last Planning Commission meeting, the Commission allowed comments. There are a few suggested changes to the site plan.
Shell MacPherson stated that Walmart is interested in being in the community and passionate about being a member and a good neighbor with a community store. This is fairly new and unique to them. They recognize the importance of Cedar Hills for building with nice aesthetics, uniqueness, a buffer for the residential community, pedestrian safety for the school children and the obvious traffic concerns on 4800 West, Cedar Hills Drive and Redwood Drive. They believe that they have a great application in accordance with what is allowed by law in the commercial zone in Cedar Hills. The revised site plan improves upon the integration within this community. The traffic engineer is present to answer any questions. A lighting plan, traffic study and acoustic study have been presented.
Current Proposal:
• Did not decrease the size of the store.
• Did not change the size of the parking but did shift the building to the west about 15' to line up with the existing curb cuts on Cedar Hills Drive and removed the fuel center.
• There is now just the one out lot that could be developed in a similar manner as the current development around the roundabout.
• The decorative screen wall on the north side has been extended along the east property line.
• Enhanced the landscape buffer.
• The size of the storm water management area has not changed but the overall green space has been enhanced with additional landscaping.
• Eliminated the Walmart access from Redwood Drive, which was a great concern to many residents.
• Provided a continuous pedestrian pathway from the junction of Redwood Drive and the residential community all the way along the north property line to 4800 West. The 8' decorative wall has been shifted 10' off the property line, with a 5' walkway and a 5' landscape buffer on the residential side of the wall being added. This will provide safe pedestrian access from Redwood Drive to 4800 West without entering the site.
• Landscaping has been upgraded throughout the site. Added 28,000 square feet of landscaping.
• Eliminated the screen wall to the Auto Service Center but have added a berm and enhanced evergreen landscaping.
• The architecture has not changed and remains the main street theme with multiple facade store fronts on all four sides of the building.
• Completely screened off the trash compactor on the north side of the building.
• Proposing to maintain 158,000 square feet of floor space with combined grocery and general merchandise.
• Maintaining a 4.5 parking ratio with 711 stalls. This is Walmart’s minimum parking requirement for a store this size. This allows for the peak demand during holiday seasons and seasonal sales.
• Maintaining the request for 24-hour operation and 7-day week operation.
• Walmart wants to be a good neighbor. Safety is a concern for pedestrians and school children. It is not their intent to put harm in anyone’s way. This plan greatly reduces the amount of traffic in areas where children are walking and provides an alternative way for school kids to reach the high school.
Traffic: Scott Jones is the traffic engineer.
• The traffic study did not consider the change in access from Redwood Road.
• Two different studies: The 3,700 shows the net trips in and then the net trips out. The 7,000 figure is a complete trip in and out.
• The July study shows the comparison of a 158,000 square foot Walmart development to that of a combined center of equal square footage with a stand alone super market/grocery, a 90,000 stand alone retail/shopping center/strip mall and equal square footage office space in the out lot and a fuel center, which has now been eliminated.
• The document has been prepared by Fehr and Peers, which was comprised of professional engineers, planners, etc. C. Peterson felt that it is very important that the study was conducted by professional engineers because they have a requirement by law to be impartial in presenting the data. David Bunker stated that the data is from Ryan Hales, who is a professional engineer.
• It is a requirement that the traffic study be signed and stamped.
• David Bunker stated that a pm peak hour trip is what really drives the complications in traffic at this site. Peak hour trips of the Walmart development as proposed are 614 trips. The alternative development of the same square footage is 920 trips. This is a 50% increase in trips compared to the stand alone. What is the justification? Scott Jones stated that generally they use a document known as Traffic Trip Generation. It is published by the Institute of Traffic Engineers. It is a combination of sample sites around the Country using a variation between large cities and small cities. They try to statistically get an accurate sample of many different land uses. The study used a free-standing discount super center, which is characteristic of a Walmart. Some Walmart sites have been counted as part of that data. This was compared to other national data for a grocery store and strip mall type development. Based on national data, the trip generation characteristics for an aggregated development that would contain a grocery store and shopping center generates higher trips than the Walmart. Internal capture trips are applied to the data so that it is on an equal playing field. As far as typical tenants to a Walmart, they are more prone to combine shopping purposes where as a shopping center and a grocery store is someone going in for a single purpose. So one purpose is one trip and so all the trips are broken out. The same document was used to project the Walmart trips. This is comparing apples and apples. C. Petersen stated that this shows that the am peak hours for the Walmart is slightly more but the rest are considerably less traffic.
• Scott Jones stated that generally the calculation for the trips is based on the square footage. Sites have been studied and data collected keeping track of store sizes along with ingress and egress traffic volumes. Based on that information, a trip per 1,000 square feet is determined. This is easier to apply to different land uses across the country that meet the specific needs. It is his judgement and based on national data that a Walmart will yield less traffic than multiple diverse stores.
• Scott Jones stated that with a traffic engineering study you look at the design hours of the development, which is the worst hour during the day and design to that hour. If you can design to that hour, then you can accommodate traffic in other lower traffic periods during the day. A localized study would have to be done to measure the hours between 6 and 10 p.m. The national data does provide daily trip generation, am peak hour generation and pm peak hour generation. Pm peak hours for this type of development is from 4 to 6 p.m. C. Dayton stated professional office space may be busier during these peak hours, but common sense might question that; typically it is closed by 6 p.m. Essentially it is dormant from 6 p.m. on for a resident living there. C. Clark asked if it is possible to break out the alternative development based on shopping and the limited professional office space that is there and to a comparison. C. Petersen stated that the data shows this in Table 3. Scott Jones stated that they know the Walmart would be less busy during those hours. You can either do an independent localized study or base it on total trips and am/pm peaks. David Bunker stated that the question is traffic. It doesn’t matter how busy the store might be a 9 p.m. From a traffic standpoint and what is happening on the roads around the store, the pm peak is the worst case scenario. The pm peak takes into account those people coming to and from work and those in transit. It would be interesting to see what the busiest time in Walmart is compared to the pm peak hour. C. Dayton is not convinced that 4 to 6 p.m. is the busiest time of all. C. Petersen stated that the traffic study deals with all traffic and not just Walmart traffic. The study lists what the increases are projected to be. There is the base line, the increase and the total from that. The data is here.
• Discussion regarding a study of traffic after 6 p.m. The pm peak makes sense because that is when people are going to and from work. The study could be done for a fee. Scott Jones doesn’t feel that it would change any of the data. It may be interesting but not terribly useful. It would not change the level of service on the streets. The roads can handle the maximum traffic volume. The underlying issue is how many more cars are there after 8 p.m. than there are now. C. Dayton stated that to residents living next to the development, traffic is more than cars traveling on Cedar Hills Drive and 4800 West. Traffic includes the busyness of the parking lots. David Bunker stated that that is outside the scope of a traffic study. It may be something they can provide.
• Scott Jones stated that the study was started in April, 2003. The data collected included the schools. Generally peak is counted from 4 to 6 p.m. but they were sensitive to the schools and counted from 2 to 6 p.m. They found that the peak from the school letting out and the peak of the commuter traffic were very similar but the commuter traffic was slightly higher. Holiday season is above and beyond the pm peak.
• Scott Jones stated that the study was based on the prior site plan and the improvements to the roundabout were based on a delivery truck route. The site plan has been changed to prohibit any delivery trucks going through the roundabout. Shell MacPherson showed the truck route coming off 4800 West, running along the north side of the building, around the east side and exiting onto Cedar Hills Drive on the south side of the property. This eliminates any trucks on Redwood Drive and the roundabout. Walmart estimates 39 delivery trucks per weeks. A WB62 vehicle is an 18-wheeler truck.
• A long range projection was conducted that looked at future conditions to the year 2030. According to Mountainland Association of Governments, 4800 West will be improved to a 5-lane cross section in their long range improvements for the year 2020. With the Walmart, no changes would be needed except the timing of the signal would need to be optimized for the turning lanes. Tables 4 and 5 show the average delay at the intersection. Cedar Hills participated with Highland to install the signal light and any improvements or signal change would be between those two cities.
• The traffic volume on Page 6 evaluates conditions of Walmart along with the other commercial areas that will develop at those intersections. The number assumes an access to the development on the south of Cedar Hills Drive. National data was used and assigned to that drive.
• Level of Service, Page 17 - A letter grade ranging from A to F is assigned to an intersection. A is minimal and F being high conditions. Generally, you don’t want to go over a C or D. Cedar Hills would desire a level of service C. Improvements were made to maintain a level of service C for this report. Table 1 gives a definition of the average delay for a vehicle and a pre-description of what that type of intersection would operate under. They counted the traffic and showed that everything operates at a level of service C or better and with the development they show that the traffic volume still maintained a level of service C.
• Figure 2, Page 6, shows the existing traffic volume. Page 10 shows the project traffic alone. Figure 4 shows the volume when these are added together. C. Petersen calculated the numbers and came up with basically a 26% increase in traffic. The analysis shows that 4800 West during the peak hours (4 to 6 p.m.) increases by 10 cars. In general the overall traffic increase adds 213 cars near the intersection and 142 near the roundabout. The added 68 vehicles at Redwood Drive will decrease due to the new site plan. East of the roundabout, add 59 vehicles and also 59 to the south.
• Cedar Hills will reach buildout by 2030. This report states that Cedar Hills will maintain a level C in every intersection.
• Page 24, Recommendations - Shell MacPherson stated that Walmart would address the mitigation recommended by the traffic engineer. Generally future improvements are profligated with background growth and a proportionate share cost is attributed to those costs. There are agreements that may go in either direction.
• The State of Utah keeps track of traffic volumes on state facilities and federal routes. 4800 West falls in this classification and so the State has historical traffic data on that road. They reviewed the last 10 years of traffic on 4800 West and it experienced about a 7.1% linear growth rate, which is illustrative of a high development area. The regional model by Mountainland Association of Governments validates this growth rate. They always err on the side of conservative and round up. UDOT projects a 2% to 3% annual growth. The traffic engineer has not specifically restudied a traffic volume change and have never been asked to do so.
• The trip generation manual was updated in 1997 and a new release is scheduled. There were existing super centers that were studied in 1997. Rob Fotheringham questioned the study in that these larger super centers did not exist in 1997. It’s most likely that the national demographic is probably not the best comparable for a store of this size unless they can indicate how big the average super center was at that time. Scott Jones stated that the study does provide an average super center size. This proposed Walmart is slightly smaller than those in the study, which averaged about 205,000 to 225,000 square feet.
• A recommendation in 2030 states that duel left turn lanes would be needed for the south bound approach of 4800 West. This would be within the 5 lanes. Also two east bound receiving lanes on Cedar Hills Drive to accommodate movement. Currently there is not enough right-of-way for this improvement. Shell MacPherson stated that Walmart would help with the right-of-way demand.
• Nationally, Walmart is busier on Sundays after church meetings between 12 and 6 p.m. In Utah, Saturdays may be busier. A study would have to be conducted to determine the use in this area.
Lighting:
• This is the site lighting analysis based on Walmart’s light standards. Two locations on the north side of the site show some projection of lighting on the northern properties. Shell MacPherson stated that this is without the decorative wall and berm. With the wall in place, it would be zero projection. The lights can also be adjusted to zero at the property line. The north side of the building has wall packs and are part of the architecture. These are hooded, adjustable, shielded fixtures that go to zero and are for the roadway only. These are 6' to 8' lower than the light poles. The lighting is shown by a drawing and not on the analysis. The service bay closes at 7 and only 1 foot candle is required by Walmart for the drive isle. The Commission would like an updated lighting plan prepared that includes the wall and the building lights. The 0.0 is subjective and there is still light. It is not enough to read by or conduct business.
Acoustical and Landscaping:
• The analysis includes an 8' high wall. The overall affect of the acoustical wall with the sound absorbent panels reduces it by 10 dBA. The trash compactor and compressors have an additional sound wall. The compactor is about 80' from the property line. The compactor would run during the peak hours of deliveries during the daytime. The peak noise occurs during the changing of the dumpster. The study show the noise down to 50 dBA anywhere on the property line. C. Petersen visited the site with a Mr. Griffis Harris and found that his devise measured the ambient noise to be similar to those in the report. A normal conversation is around 58 to 60 dBA and the background noise was at about 52 dBA. Walmart will reduce the compressor noise so that when it reaches the property line it is below 50 dBA. There is a concrete material build around the compressor and compactor. In addition to the hard wall there is a sound absorbing acoustical material designed to capture the sound that is placed in the confines of the space that prevents the sound from bouncing and breaks it up. Then there is also the wall around the perimeter of the property. The report states that it will be as quiet with the Walmart as it is now. C. Petersen suggests that the system be verified before an occupancy permit is issued. Konrad Hildebrandt stated that a development agreement can be entered into that stipulates how these and other requirements will be adhered to on an ongoing basis. C. Volden stated that a developer would not complete a project knowing they can’t meet the requirements. They will do whatever is required to meet the standards. The sound wall is 10' off the property line. There is a 5' sidewalk and a 5' planter area. Concern that this is creating a corridor behind the homes and safety could be an issue. Suggestion that the wall be installed on the property line and not have a walkway between two fences. The dBA criteria would also then be reduced. Trucks create a noise level at 65 dBA and normal speaking is about 60 dBA. Typically delivery hours are between 5 a.m. and 10 p.m. but this can be negotiated. The City can set specific standards. Most deliveries take place during work hours. It is important to have the fresh deliveries in the morning and available by 7 a.m. The 65 dBA would be dropped to 55 dBA at the sound wall.
Service Bays:
• The bays are not for vehicle repairs and no mechanic would be present. C. Petersen studied this issue. He found that auto repairs are listed differently from tires in the yellow pages. The general public does not consider tires as repair. He could find no definition to define this otherwise. Walmart does not advertise under auto repairs but under tires. Tires and also batteries are sold and installed. The issue is not the service bays but the entire Walmart project. The city ordinances allow for service and not repairs and may need to be amended to clearly define the repairs and service. Clearly mechanical repairs are out. The middle ground is tires, batteries and oil changes. Shell MacPherson stated that Walmart has discussed the issue and does not want to remove the auto center.
Landscaping:
• Sidewalks only count as landscaping if they are pavers or stamped concrete. This could be debatable. David Bunker stated that the sidewalk should not be stamped concrete or pavers and should not be counted in the landscaping.
• The data shows that the store footprint and the out lot have been excluded from the calculation of the landscape percentage. This has not been done on any other commercial projects. Shell MacPherson stated that they are often held to a net developable area. C. Petersen read from the City’s General Plan stating, commercial development in Cedar Hills should consist of innovative and aesthetically pleasing designs. This includes an abundance of landscaping. Proper masking adequate, yet attractive parking areas. The documents show 32% is landscaped. Shell MacPherson stated that they weren’t intending to hide anything but it is the net developable area. It does include plazas, pedestrian areas and screening walls. The out lot is not included in the calculations. C. Petersen stated that landscaping to him means green and does not see 30% green. The other developments in the commercial zone have been held to the 30%. There are 17.5 acres on the proposed site and 30% of that is 5.25 acres (22,864 square feet). C. Petersen stated that the plan states, no less than 30% of any individual retail/office site shall be landscaped. Individually, developed sites must provide the required 30% landscaping within the individual site. Larger planned development must provide the 30% landscaping for the entire site but shall not be required to provide 30% landscaping on individual pads within the planned development. This is very clear. Shell MacPherson stated that he also understands that these are guidelines and this is what they are proposing. C. Petersen agreed but he wouldn’t hold them to exactly 30% but would require an abundance of landscaping and all the other commercial property that have been approved for development has complied with the 30% requirements. Konrad Hildebrandt stated that the size and caliper of the landscaping could be a way of meeting different percentages. The minimum caliper for a tree is 2".
• The sidewalk does not count toward the requirement unless it is constructed of brick pavers, stamped concrete or other decorative material. It may make it hard to shovel snow but a tint might meet the intent.
• The question is what constitutes landscape. Is it just green or does it include the green areas including the sidewalks that are associated with the green areas? This needs to be addressed and the other projects need to be reviewed. C. Petersen studied that the church property, which is 30% landscaping and includes only green areas. Lexington Heights was at 42% of just green landscaping.
• The building is large and landscaping helps mitigate that concern.
• Shell MacPherson stated that they are trying to mitigate all the requirements that are being asked. They have never been held to a 30% landscaping requirement and probably made some assumptions. It is not entirely clear and 30% is a lot of landscaping particularly when you have setback requirements. They have exceeded the setback requirements on all perimeters of the site and those are all landscaped.
Discussion:
• Rodney Despain stated that this is a negotiation session and is a conditional use project. It is not a use by right. The City has to feel content that it is consistent with the zoning and what has been done in other locations. How can you mitigate what are clearly the negative aspects of a large store on a community who’s bias has been towards a fairly green oriented community? This is what we are getting at. There has to be some consistency. The percentage will be what it is. Look at the site; the landscaping is determined and a decision needs to be made whether it is acceptable or not.
• There is a question as to the use and storage of the containers. Nothing seems to be done.
• A development and operations agreement needs to be approved and tightly held too.
• The development has maintained a 4.5 per 1,000 ratio with the parking stalls. Walmart will not concede to a lower parking level. The City requires a minimum of 4 per 1,000. C. Volden noted that after removing the fuel station, there are additional spaces that could be used for landscaping. It won’t quite reach the landscaping percentage that is needed.
• Outside Storage Area - Section 4-6A-3, Subsection 2 Permitted Uses, Paragraph A, states garden supplies fully enclosed only. Concern that there is not an open parking lot sales area. Some cities require a permit to allow for this type of use. Question of what is fully enclosed. Does it require a roof? Is a fence around it considered fully enclosed?
• C. Hugie voiced his concerns that Walmart may be able to meet the requirements of landscaping and noise but the traffic is an issue. A building this size and across from a high school and elementary school, to him sounds like the increase in traffic is quite a bit. The City guidelines need to promote safety. Other businesses may increase traffic but not like the size of this Walmart would. C. Petersen stated that this topic has been covered and that is why the additional study was requested. The traffic engineer has stated that other kinds and variations of stores with about the same size of total store area increases traffic 30% more. No matter what is developed, there will be an increase in traffic. The position of the schools was not dictated by the City but by the school board. The property was zoned commercial before the school board put the schools there. Nothing can be done about the location of the schools at this time. This is what the registered engineer has stated and his business is doing this and he has the credentials.
• C. Kroes stated that the guidelines call for a mixture of businesses. Part of the parcel close to the homes is a mixture of office and residential. The traffic study should be compared against a development like this. It is not known yet if these guidelines are feasible. In five years if no one develops, then it may be found that the guidelines were infeasible. At this point, they should be adhered to and tested. Konrad Hildebrandt stated that the traffic engineer is present. In his mind a mixed use residential, any type of residential, would generate a lot more trips than a commercial area. Ron Rosebrook stated that the national standard for a single family house is about 10 trips per day. A higher density apartment with more units per acre is high 6 trips per day multiplied by the number of apartments. Konrad Hildebrandt stated that more traffic is generated by developing the residential use than just having commercial. C. Volden stated that the study verified what he felt. A Walmart will have less traffic generation than if a similar development is done like over in Highland. C. Dayton disagrees with that assessment.
C. Petersen reviewed his subject to’s:
• Noise Level - The City will not issue an occupancy permit until a report has been received by the registered engineer evaluating and showing the noise level measurement at the property line with all noise generating equipment operating at 90% of full load and yield measurements of less than 52 dBA at peak levels of less than 80 dBA. Measurements to be made at locations of the common property line of each adjacent property owners. Quiet is the issue that can be measured, not small. Small is subjective. C. Dayton feels that the size is an issue and needs to be discussed. C. Kroes stated that the ordinance does not specify a maximum square footage. Size is not a legal standing to reject the project. If the size leads to other problems with safety or other concerns, then that can be an issue. Rodney Despain clarified that this is a conditional use because the process of approval requires a hearing before the City Council and an ordinance of approval. The City is not obligated to pass an ordinance of approval. A building permit in a subdivision is a use by right. This is basically a zone change. The City is not obligated to change the zone. The process of approval is intended to be the same as an amendment to the ordinance. This is what makes it a conditional use. A conditional use is usually a condition where the City can attach conditions. The site plan will be an attachment to the ordinance. What are the legal ramifications? There is a concept known as the presumption of validity of legislative acts. Walmart wants to make sure that the Council is comfortable with the proposal that moves forward.
• The City will issue an occupancy permit only after receipt of a report from a registered engineer showing the light level measurements at the property line yield light level measurements of less than 1 tenth of a foot candle. Measurements to be made at locations on the common property line adjacent to each property owner.
• No outside storage is allowed.
• Seasonal outdoor sales area not allowed according to Section 4-6A-3, 2, A of the City’s Zoning Code.
• Store Hours. Propose an assurance bond that upon termination of operations or abandonment of the facility funds will be made available to be used by the City to subdivide the area into smaller independent stores.
• Walmart is required to restrict deliveries to between 7 a.m. to 7 p.m. Monday through Saturday to assure noise and pollution levels are minimized during hours when families are home.
C. Volden’s Concerns:
• Only concern is the size. It doesn’t meet any assumed or stated guidelines. Believes it can be smaller but doesn’t know what the right size is. The guidelines state that businesses operate no longer than 6 days per week. The developer has made a good effort to meet the concerns of safety and noise. There is disagreement on traffic but they have put forth an effort to meet those concerns. He cannot support the project as proposed because of the size.
C. Kroes’s Concerns:
• The project does not rise to the level of design, aesthetics, size and location that fits within the design guidelines. It is a conditional use and the Commission has more authority to reject or attach conditions such as making it smaller or moving towards 4800 West. Walmart should come back with a proposal of a smaller store pushed towards 4800 West. It violates one of the aspects of the design guidelines, which was to provide a more peaceful buffer to the residential area. It puts the store right next to the residents. The guidelines may not turn out to be feasible in the end. The guidelines may be too strict but need to be given a chance.
C. Swenson’s Concerns:
• The issue is, why do we want to shop at Walmart. Because it’s cheaper, availability, a bigger selection or because it has lots of trees. We are trying to hide this monstrosity. They have done a great job with the noise levels and traffic in trying to accommodate a bigger store for the area. It creates its own problems by the volume. Maybe it would be okay when 5 years down the road people pat you on the back because Walmart is here. The City is growing fast. Downtown Logan is dead and the river bottoms in Provo. People want to shop with a good selection, convenience and the price is right. He would prefer a 6-day a week store and a little downsizing. He complimented Walmart on a great job presenting and answering questions and all the work. They have cooperated fully and gave where they could.
Rodney Despain stated that this becomes a legislative act. The role of the Planning Commission is to make a recommendation to the Council. The zoning ordinance is amended through the recommendation of the Planning Commission and then the Council holds a hearing and then takes action on an ordinance approving the site plan with whatever subject to’s or not approving the ordinance. The concerns of hours and days of operation is technically for the Council. This is a land use issue to be addressed by the Planning Commission. The Planning Commission can make whatever recommendation to the Council it wants. The options are to recommend it as is, recommend it with whatever attachments, or recommend with opposition. As in the past, it may go to the Council without a recommendation if the Commission can’t make a recommendation. The Commission is only a recommending body.
Heath’s Concerns:
• Each member of the Planning Commission has their own opinions about this project. The Commission makes a recommendation to the Council and they will agree or not. The Council will attach conditions and adjustments. C. Petersen to attach conditions so that the Council can make their decision.
C. Dayton’s Concerns:
• The overwhelming concern is the size. If conditions are attached for the Council, one of those conditions needs to be a significant reduction of the size of the facility. The Commission is under the obligation to follow the design guidelines as well as the zoning ordinance. These documents specifically address stabilizing property values, maintaining the unique atmosphere of the town, maintaining the visual and aesthetic quality of the community, and maintaining a level of individualism and unique character. These are just the minimum requirements in the zoning ordinance. This proposal does not come near meeting those requirements. He appreciates the look of the building, which is a vast improvement over the original proposal. He doesn’t think that Walmart has shown good faith or a desire to be a good neighbor. The residents of this community have said, our concerns are mainly the size of the building and hours of operations. Walmart has not conceded one bit to those issues. He doubts their willingness to be a good neighbor. The City is under an obligation to the citizens of the community in trying to build and maintain the unique city that everyone moved here for.
MOTION: C. Clark - To recommend denial of the preliminary site plan based on serious concerns of the Planning Commission in that the development does not meet what the Planning Commission understands is the intent of the design guidelines as well as current zoning and the General Plan. Seconded by C. Kroes.
Discussion - There are specifics in the discussion but those specifics need to be in the motion. C. Dayton stated that the proposal falls short specifically in stabilizing and improving property values, promoting a more attractive city, enhancing and preserving the unique atmosphere of the town, maintaining a level of individualism and unique character. C. Kroes stated that the motion from July included specifics such as the design guidelines are meant to produce a desirable development, minimize impact on residential areas, be a benefit to residents, and that the zoning ordinance states that the development should minimize traffic, overcrowding of land and that all the regulations are minimum requirements and the Commission is authorized to go beyond those to meet the spirit of the ordinance. It would be good to specifically mention what is out of harmony with the design guidelines. The building is in the region that the guidelines envisioned for low density, low intensity retail and professional offices. This are was supposed to be a buffer. The size of the building makes it very difficult, if not impossible, to fit within the design guidelines. C. Petersen stated that the motion is not specific enough. He is concerned about a law suit. They may feel it’s arbitrary and take it to court. C. Kroes stated that it’s not actionable until the Council takes action. Konrad Hildebrandt stated that he wouldn’t hang your hat on the design guidelines if you are worried about legal issues. Rodney Despain stated that the motion should state that for the following reasons the Commission does not believe that the project conforms to the legislative intent as stated in Section 4-5-6.1 relative to the Shopping Center Zone.
MOTION: C. Clark - To recommend denial of the preliminary plan based on concerns of the Planning Commission that the development does not meet what the Planning Commission understands is the intent of the design guidelines as well as it’s the Planning Commission’s opinion that it does conform to the legislative intent of the Shopping Center Zone of Section 4-5-6.1 for the following reasons: 1) size of the primary structure, 2) lack of sufficient landscaping and 3) the general layout of the proposal. Accepted by C. Kroes and seconded by C. Volden.
C. Swenson stated that he does not like the negative attitude and would like a positive attitude and state the things that could be corrected.
Aye - C. Clark
C. Volden
C. Kroes
Nay - C. Petersen
Abstain- C. Swenson Motion passes.
6. Committee Assignments and Reports
C. Volden stated that he is working on the sign ordinance. He has ordinances from Alpine, Highland and Orem. Staff will check and see if the draft that David Prolo worked on is available electronically. Members of the Council, Commission and staff went on a field trip to South Jordan and looked at a commercial area that may be proposed for the south side of the City’s commercial zone. C. Volden did not get the e-mail. Staff will check e-mail addresses for accuracy.
C. Clark stated that he has submitted his letter of resignation because of 100% personal reasons.
7. Adjourn
This meeting was adjourned at 11:26 p.m. on a motion by C. Petersen, seconded by C. Clark and unanimously approved.
Approved by Commission: Kim E. Holindrake, City Recorder
September 11, 2003