PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Thursday, August 25, 2005 7:00 p.m.
Public Safety Building
3925 W Cedar Hills Drive, Cedar Hills, Utah
Present: Alan Petersen, Chair, Presiding
Commission Members: Carl Volden, Donald Steele, Eric Richardson, Steve Kroes (7:04 p.m.), Paul Hammer (7:10 p.m.)
Kim Holindrake, City Recorder
Courtney Hammond, City Meeting Transcriber
Rodney Despain, City Planner (7:25 p.m.)
Others: Cliff Chandler, David Lone, Jerry Jenkins
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 7:03 p.m.
Donald Steele was recognized as a voting member.
2. Approval of the Minutes from the July 28, 2005, Regular Planning Commission Meeting (7:05 p.m.)
MOTION: C. Richardson - To approve the minutes from the July 28, 2005, Regular Planning Commission Meeting, as amended. Seconded by C. Volden.
Aye - C. Kroes
C. Petersen
C. Richardson
C. Steele
C. Volden Motion passes.
C. Petersen asked that the issue of determining the side and rear lots lines on all existing vacant lots be put on the next agenda.
3. Review/Recommendation on Landscaping Ordinance (7:10 p.m.)
See handouts. C. Richardson worked to put together a landscaping ordinance. He brought two ordinances to the meeting in hopes they can work together.
The first ordinance deals with water efficient landscaping. Its stipulations primarily apply to commercial development with some sections for residential development. Its primary purpose is to conserve water resources. C. Kroes was surprised by the amount of restrictions in the ordinance. He said the Commission needs to decide if it should focus on the process or the end result. C. Richardson argued that asking people to be water wise could potentially reduce future costs of installing meters to measure and/or enforce water conservation. C. Petersen pointed out that commercial landscaping is covered in the Commercial Guidelines. He said that this ordinance would require commercial developers to get another set of reviews and reports while the outcome is the same as already set forth in the Commercial Guidelines. C. Hammer added that the restrictions don't seem reasonable considering the small amount of commercial space in the City. C. Richardson argued that because the commercial acreage is so small, it is important to get it right.
C. Kroes said that the City already has a bad reputation for being unfriendly toward commercial development and this might add another layer of restrictions. C. Hammer suggested that section 3E is all that the City needs for the commercial zone. Section 3A -3D could then be referenced as guidelines for the landscape plan documentation package as part of site plan approval and the building permit process. C. Steel said that given his experience with both small and large development, he does not feel that the ordinance would overburden a developer. Rodney Despain said that any large commercial or multi-family complex will expect to submit a landscaping plan that is prepared by a licensed landscape architect with species, size of plants, etc. He suggested the Commission require a landscaping plan for site plan approval and put specific guidelines and requirements in resolution form.
MOTION: C. Hammer - To table further discussion until David Bunker can be present or such that he would explain and answer some of these questions for us. No second. Motion dies.
MOTION: C. Hammer - To table further discussion on this until David Bunker or one of his staff, who can understand and explain this to us in terms that we can understand, be present. Seconded by C. Steele.
C. Petersen also wanted David Bunker to compare this ordinance to the Commercial Guidelines and address any areas where this ordinance contradicts the Guidelines. Rodney Despain said that he is the City staff paid to be present at the meetings, explain and help. He said that ordinances should reflect a goal. This ordinance reflects a water-wise, xeriscaping policy. Rodney Despain asked whether that is the direction the Commission wants to take. This ordinance seems to ask commercial developers to put thought toward reasonable water consumption. He volunteered to look at the ordinance and make changes.
AMEND MOTION: C. Hammer - To amend the motion such that it be referred back to the City for the City to delegate to the appropriate person. Seconded by C. Steele.
Rodney Despain said he understands that the ordinance should be consistent with the Commercial Guidelines. C. Kroes clarified that he thinks commercial developers should submit landscape plans but the requirements don't need to be as detailed as this ordinance requires. He said that as the City water supply allows, xeriscaping should be promoted, but not required with a heavy hand.
Aye - C. Hammer
C. Kroes
C. Petersen
C. Richardson
C. Steele
C. Volden Motion passes.
The second ordinance deals with property maintenance. The purpose is to set minimum standards for maintaining lots with landscaping and avoiding blight. C. Hammer suggested going around the table to allow each Commissioner to give comments and then refer it to staff to revise the ordinance. C. Richardson pointed out that this ordinance has not been compared to the standing Nuisance Ordinance. Rodney Despain said that the nuisance ordinance has a separate legal basis than a landscaping ordinance. This ordinance came from a model ordinance by the Utah League of Cities and Towns.
C. Hammer:
• Page 5, line 4: "within such time as the director or his authorized representative may designate" should be more clearly defined.
• Section 7A: standard for delivering notice needs to be defined.
• Page 7, line 33: 12 months is too short.
• Page 9, line 19: will the 6 inches be enforced?
• Would like to see a limit to how long garbage cans can stay on the street.
• Would like to see something about snow removal and other winter maintenance issues.
• Should the Commission address rain gutters and down spouts?
C. Kroes:
• Endorsed the concept that landscaping must be done within 12 months.
• Weed abatement - Choose a height that is enforceable.
C. Steele:
• Controlling runoff. It is not simple, but should be addressed.
• Residents should have a standard for knowing when weed abatement is finished.
• Automobiles stored outside should be given a reasonable amount of time to restore it to operating order.
• Change occupancy to issuance of occupancy.
• Some builders delay completion so as not to comply with landscaping issues, etc. The ordinance should address that.
• Who is really responsible for lot maintenance? It needs to be specifically addressed.
C. Volden:
• Page 2, line 43: Does vegetable matter mean compost piles?
• Page 5, line 31: Treasurer should say City.
• Page 6: Carports are not allowed in the City, but there are carports that were grand-fathered in.
• Page 7: Feels that 12 months is too long. It should be in by the next planting season. 4-6 inches for standard weed control isn't the right number.
• Page 10: Removing all liquid from trash?
C. Petersen:
• Use standard definitions used by the environmental industry.
• There should be a definition for compost.
• Vehicle restoration permit? Does the City currently have one? If not, does it want one more permit?
• Page 3, line 42: what does contouring of the earth mean? Is it something the City wants?
• Page 5, line 26 and 31 and 45: Is 20 days and 10 days a sufficient amount of time?
• Page 6, line 31: "primary source of transportation" isn't correct verbiage.
• Page 7, line 1: maximum of 1 vehicle restoration permit per lot? Is uncomfortable requiring a permit if it is properly stored.
• 12 months for landscaping to start at issuance of a certificate of occupancy.
• Page 8, line 1: change replaced with removed.
• Page 8, Walls & Screens: There should be some criteria for when repair is needed and should not be merely at the discretion of the Public Works Director.
• Page 9, line 37: City does not operate a sanitary fill deposit.
• Page 10, line 42-43; should not include newspapers.
• Page 10, line 48-49: Violation if garbage is not collected each week?
C. Richardson:
• Minimal intrusion, just for health, safety and welfare.
• Weed abatement is important.
• Favors 15 months for landscaping installation.
• Page 7, line 32, add that notwithstanding, landscaping should be installed within 24 months of issuance of building permit.
• There needs to be an appeal procedure.
• Feels there should be a Public Healing to collect public input
MOTION: C. Hammer - To refer this item back to the City for the revisions that we have been discussing for the last several minutes. Seconded by C. Volden.
C. Richardson suggested adding a Public Hearing to the motion. C. Steele said that the Public Hearing should come after the Commission is comfortable with the draft. C. Richardson is fine with waiting as long as the intent is to collect public opinion. Rodney Despain asked the Commission to consider whether the City wanted to address every problem currently listed in the ordinance draft as well as how enforceable the ordinance is. For instance, will the City really sue someone who does not have landscaping installed within 12 months? Rodney Despain suggested that the City require a landscape bond.
Aye - C. Hammer
C. Kroes
C. Petersen
C. Richardson
C. Steele
C. Volden Motion passes.
4. Committee Assignments and Reports (9:14 p.m.)
• C. Hammer: Parks and Trails Committee met and spent time discussing the Canyon Heights Park.
• C. Petersen: There have been two Work Sessions to work on the Sign Ordinance. The next one will be Tuesday, August 30 at 7:00 p.m.
5. This meeting was adjourned at 9:16 on a motion by C. Hammer, seconded by C. Richardson and unanimously approved.
/s/ Kim E. Holindrake
Approved by Commission: Kim E. Holindrake, City Recorder
September 29, 2005