REGULAR PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Thursday, February 26, 2004 7:00 p.m.
Public Safety Building
3925 W Cedar Hills Drive, Cedar Hills, Utah
Present: Alan Petersen, Chair, Presiding
Commission Members: Randy Hugie, Eric Richardson, Brendon Dayton, Paul Hammer, Steve Kroes (7:08 p.m.)
Absent: Carl Volden
Konrad Hildebrandt, City Manager
Kim Holindrake, City Recorder
Gretchen Gordon, Deputy City Recorder
Rodney Despain, City Planner (7:08 p.m.)
Jim Parker, City Council Representative
Others: Tina Shelley, Aaron Shelley, Karissa Neely-New Utah!
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.
Paul Hammer and Eric Richardson were recognized as voting members.
2. Swearing in of New Planning Commission Member (7:04 p.m.)
Kim Holindrake swore in Brendon Dayton as a voting member of the Planning Commission.
3. Approval of Minutes from the January 15, 2004, Regular Planning Commission Meeting (7:05 p.m.)
MOTION: C. Dayton - To approve the minutes from the January 15, 2004, Planning Commission meeting. Seconded by C. Richardson.
Aye - C. Richardson
C. Hugie
C. Petersen
C. Dayton
C. Hammer Motion passes.
4. Review/Recommendation on Zone Designation and Zone Map Change from the PR2.2 Zone to the R-1-11,000 Zone for Properties Located in Temple Ridge Subdivision, Plat B, Lots 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, and 45 (7:07 p.m.)
See handouts. Kim Holindrake stated that the City Engineer has been trying to acquire an easement to run a new sewer line. There have been problems with the existing sewer line on Manila Creek Drive, so this new line is being considered. The City Engineer would like to put the new sewer line through the side yard of the only vacant lot left in this area and abandon the old line. The City Engineer has approached the property owner, who is willing to allow the easement. The PR2.2 Zone requires that the side yard setback be 10', with a combined side setback of 24'. The building plans are being submitted to the City for this vacant lot. The home will fit under the current PR2.2 setback requirements, although it forces the home to be pushed back more than the required 30' front setback. If the zone can be changed to R-1-11,000, the homeowner is also able to utilize more of the lot because the sideyard setbacks for the R-1-11,000 Zone are combined 20', instead of 24'.
C. Hammer wanted to know why this could not be done by variance. Kim Holindrake stated that Sydney Fonnesbeck, Utah League of Cities and Towns, stated that there is not a variance to give. The home fits in the PR2.2 and also in the proposed R-1-11,000. This is a compromise between the City and the homeowner to allow for the easement. By changing the zone, the homeowner is able to utilize more of their lot. This is the only vacant lot in the area, so it will not impact future development. Kim Holindrake sent a notice to all of the existing homeowners affected by the zone change and heard back from four of them, who did not have any concerns. The City Council will be required to hold a Public Hearing and others will be able to be heard, if they have other concerns or issues.
MOTION: C. Richardson - To recommend approval of the proposed zone change for Temple Ridge Plat B, lots 39 through 45 from PR2.2 to R-1-11,000 Zone. Seconded by C. Dayton.
Aye - C. Richardson
C. Hugie
C. Petersen
C. Dayton
C. Hammer
C. Kroes Motion passes.
5. Review/Recommendation on Amendments to the Zoning Ordinance Regarding Premises Occupations (7:12 p.m.)
See handouts. The City Council heard a request from a purchaser of a parcel on Canyon Road that currently has an existing accessory building. In the past, the accessory building was used as a cabinet shop by the former owner, without a business license from the City. The desire has been by the applicants that they would convert the accessory building into a dance studio. The Council heard the issue to gauge the attitude and it was discussed at some length. The Council acted to send this issue to the Planning Commission, with instructions for the City Planner to draft an ordinance.
Right now the City has residential zones where homes are the dominant use. Relative to Business Licenses, the City has reviewed and allowed some non-residential uses (home occupations) that don’t significantly alter the residential nature of the zone. Other non-residential uses allowed with a residential zone are churches or school. The City needs to review at what point any commercial development within a residential zone would cross the threshold of meeting the intent of the ordinance, which is to maintain the residential nature of a zone. Currently, the City has a Home Occupation feature where conditions are placed on the home that allows a small portion of the home to be used for a commercial business. Cedar Hills’ requirements are fairly stringent. One of the primary restrictions requires that the business be conducted completely within the home, any traffic must enter the home through the front door, etc. to maintain that the use as incidental. The major difference between the Home Occupation and the Premises License would be that in the case of the Premises Licenses, the business could be conducted outside of the residence in an accessory building. The downside of allowing this is that an individual can now conduct business in a remote location and in essence “turn their back” on the commercial activity.
The City Council reviewed this issue and stated that under certain circumstances, in some zones, with restrictions, that a Premises Licenses could be permitted and not have the effect of destroying the residential character of a residential neighborhood. In other communities where Rodney Despain has worked, the typical Premises License has been more industrial in character and have been problematic. Businesses have the tendency to grow once it is moved outside the home, so it is something to be aware of.
Rodney Despain has prepared a draft ordinance for the Planning Commission to review. Mr. Despain feels that this ordinance comes close to the comfort level expressed by the City Council. Some of the highlights of the ordinance are:
• This would only be allowed on larger lots, specifically in the H-1 or A-1 Zones. The intent is not to allow this in smaller lots, such as the R-1-11,000.
• The City Council did feel that a dance studio would be the type of use that would be permitted.
• The ordinance does not give a specific listing of businesses in the ordinance, but does restrict the business to be confined to the inside of the building to deal with items that could be harmful to the community.
• Discussion of Permitted vs. Conditional - intent was to set performance standards instead of specific use standards. Much of the language is similar to the Home Occupation because the objectives are the same.
• Review of the list of conditions to ensure that they are sufficient to accomplish the intent.
Gretchen Gordon excused - 7:25 p.m.
• The City has been asked to review the issue of allowing a bed and breakfast and C. Petersen felt that this had similar characteristics and it may make sense to include those provisions in this Premises Ordinance. The Home Occupation conditions and the proposed Premises License do not allow for overnight business. Rodney Despain is working on a separate ordinance for Bed and Breakfasts.
• C. Petersen felt uncomfortable with the issue of “fabrication of a product,” which he felt became more industrial. The Planning Commission wanted to stay away from the industrial- type businesses in a residential zone.
• Issue of chemical smells, emissions and noise.
• The ordinance attempts to insure that there is enough area needed to insulate the business from the neighbors. The H-1 Hillside zone would allow that.
• A dance studio does have opening and closing hours and you will have increased vehicular traffic. The request that has been received from the current resident would allow traffic to turn around on the property, not at curb-side, which may help reduce vehicular hazards.
• This ordinance has been written extremely restrictive for a purpose. There are probably only a handful of homes that would comply with what is being proposed for the Premises License. C. Richardson was supportive of this.
• C. Petersen stated that the Hillside Zone has been protected and has been considered more sensitive because of the topography, environment, etc. and this may not be compatible to the spirit of the zone.
• The intent is that the Premises License is secondary and incidental to the property use.
• Concern about putting the building to the rear most portion of the property that is next to the neighbor.
• Discussion that maximum size of the Premises License building should read “not more than 1,500 square feet.” The property owner who has requested this change has a building that is 1,700 square feet. Historically most accessory buildings are 600-800 square feet. Many accessory buildings are now built to store motor homes, trailers, jet skis and snowmobiles, etc., which does increase their size.
• Definition of a “legal accessory building” in the zone. The definition states a building that is incidental to the main building, customary residential accessory structure. C. Petersen suggested changing the language to “customary accessory building.”
• The home occupation allows for one individual who is not a member of the residing family to assist with the business. This could be added to the Premises License ordinance.
• Clarification that any building within 12 feet of the house is considered a part of the house.
• Clarify that the accessory building be in the rear yard.
• This provision takes on the character of a conditional use and should require a site plan, vehicular access plan, etc.
• Conditions may be attached. The Planning Commission can use their discretion as to what needs to happen and attach conditions to any approval.
Randy Hugie excused - 7:53 p.m.
• Hours of operation need to be added–parallel with the current Home Occupation requirements.
• C. Petersen wanted to keep the requirement of not allowing vehicles or equipment to be stored outside of the accessory building.
• The Planning Commission should be the “Designated Approval Authority.”
• There are some requirements of the Home Occupation ordinance that the Planning Commission wanted to incorporate into the Premises License ordinance.
• Discussion of service, fabrication of products and whether to remove this verbiage. C. Hammer felt that there are some fabrications that may be appropriate, but others that are not.
• Pull Items D - regarding vehicles, K - regarding noise, etc., and L - no traffic 8 pm to 7 am from the Home Occupation ordinance.
• Discussion of allowing Preschools in accessory buildings. There are certain State requirements that may further restrict what the City conditions state.
• Discussion regarding lots that have double frontage. Consensus that this should not be allowed on double frontage lots.
• Further discussion regarding side and rear setbacks. The building needs to be incidental and should be located in the rear setback. For the most part, the Planning Commission would be dealing with the existing one-acre lots.
FINDINGS:
• Premises Occupations 4-6-21, Paragraph 1 “Intent”: Strike the word “minimum,” from the sentence: “The following regulations have been established to provide minimum standards for the establishment and operation of premises occupations within residential zones.”
• Premises Occupations 4-6-21, Paragraph 2: Delete “or such other City officer or board (hereafter referred to as Designate Approval Authority)” “Premises occupations may be permitted by action of the Planning Commission, or such other City officer or board (hereafter referred to as “Designated Approval Authority”) as may be delegated by the City Council, following receipt of an application and subject to a finding that the proposed premises occupation conforms to the following conditions and standards.”
• Premises Occupations 4-6-21, Paragraph 2C: Change to “customary accessory building.” “All activities of the Premises Occupation, except for the incidental ingress and egress of vehicles used in the conduct of the activity, shall be conducted entirely within a building which qualifies as a legal customary accessory building within the zone.”
• Premises Occupations 4-6-21, Paragraph 2D: Change to “1700 square feet” and read, “not more than.” “The accessory building containing the Premises Occupation shall: (1) be located entirely within the portion of the lot situated to the rear of the rear most portion of the dwelling structure (rear yard area), and (2) occupy not more than eight (8) percent of the rear yard area of the lot or a total floor area of not less more than one thousand five hundred (1,500) seven hundred fifty (750) square feet, whichever is less, and (3) conform to the height requirements applicable to accessory buildings within the zone district in which it is located.” Discussion that the 1,500-1,700 square foot range seems too large to be “incidental” to the residential areas. The idea of “grand-fathering” this property has been discussed with the City Attorney. Buildings constructed prior to this ordinance may be exempt. Rodney Despain will do further review on the size requirements on accessory buildings. American Fork City has restricted the size of accessory buildings to 750 square feet; buildings larger than that are acted on by the Planning Commission.
• Premises Occupations 4-6-21, Paragraph 2E: Add Paragraph 2D from Home Occupation ordinance: “No equipment or vehicles used in connection with the activities of the premises occupation shall be stored outside of the accessory building and all materials used or intended for use in connection with the premises occupation shall be contained within the accessory building. No commercial vehicles shall be located on the premises except one delivery truck that does not exceed 10,000 g.v.w. rated capacity. No more than six vehicles, including the owner’s, shall be parked at the residence at any one time, including on the owner’s own property or on the street directly in front of the owner’s home. No storage or parking is permitted of tractor-trailers, semi-trucks, or other heavy equipment on the premises or on the streets in the vicinity of the premises.”
• Premises Occupations 4-6-21, Paragraph 2F: Delete “entirely” and add Paragraph F from Home Occupation ordinance “plus one”: “The on-site activities of the premises shall be conducted entirely by members of the residing family and one non-family member.”
• Premises Occupations 4-6-21, Paragraph 2I: Replace with Paragraph H from Home Occupation ordinance: “The premises occupation permit required pursuant to this Section shall be in addition to all other permits or licenses required for the operation of the activity. Where the activity of the premises occupation is not otherwise exempted by law, the City may also require the purchase of a business license. The home occupation premises occupation shall be registered with the Business License Division and shall be required to obtain a business license in accordance with City regulations. All businesses, using a business name, are required by law to register with the Utah Department of Commerce. Registration of assumed business names are required of all businesses that are not corporations, limited liability companies or limited partnerships.”
• Premises Occupations 4-6-21, Paragraph 2L: Replace with Paragraph J from Home Occupation ordinance: “The Premises Occupation shall not include the use or storage of hazardous materials as defined by applicable state and/or federal regulatory agencies. The activities of the home occupation premises occupation shall not involve the use of material or chemicals in amounts that will significantly increase the hazard of fire, explosion, or safety to the structure or occupants or of adjacent structures or occupants.”
• Premises Occupations 4-6-21, Paragraph 2M: Replace with Paragraph K from Home Occupation ordinance: “The activities of the premises shall be conducted in accordance with City regulations relating to noise. The operation of the home occupation premises occupation shall not produce any noise, smoke, glare, light, fumes, dust, or similar condition that is readily discernable outside the dwelling accessory structure or that interferes with the residential use of adjacent properties.”
• Premises Occupation 4-6-21, Paragraph 2O: Add new paragraph using Paragraph L from Home Occupation ordinance: “The home occupation premises occupation shall not generate traffic between the hours of 8:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m.”
• Premises Occupation 4-6-21, Paragraph 3: Add ”ed” to the word attached in the paragraph heading. “Conditions May be Attached”
Gretchen Gordon returns - 8:19 p.m.
MOTION: C. Richardson - To recommend approval of the amendments to the Zoning Ordinance regarding Premise Occupations, as stated in the Findings:
1) Premises Occupations 4-6-21, Paragraph 1 “Intent”: Strike the word “minimum,” from the sentence: “The following regulations have been established to provide minimum standards for the establishment and operation of premises occupations within residential zones.”
2) Premises Occupations 4-6-21, Paragraph 2: Delete “or such other City officer or board (hereafter referred to as Designate Approval Authority)” “Premises occupations may be permitted by action of the Planning Commission, or such other City officer or board (hereafter referred to as “Designated Approval Authority”) as may be delegated by the City Council, following receipt of an application and subject to a finding that the proposed premises occupation conforms to the following conditions and standards.”
3) Premises Occupations 4-6-21, Paragraph 2C: Change to “customary accessory building.” “All activities of the Premises Occupation, except for the incidental ingress and egress of vehicles used in the conduct of the activity, shall be conducted entirely within a building that qualifies as a legal customary accessory building within the zone.”
4) Premises Occupations 4-6-21, Paragraph 2D: Change to “1700 square feet” and read, “not more than.” “The accessory building containing the Premises Occupation shall: (1) be located entirely within the portion of the lot situated to the rear of the rear most portion of the dwelling structure (rear yard area), and (2) occupy not more than eight (8) percent of the rear yard area of the lot or a total floor area of not less more than one thousand five hundred (1,500) seven hundred fifty (750) square feet, whichever is less, and (3) conform to the height requirements applicable to accessory buildings within the zone district in which it is located.”
5) Premises Occupations 4-6-21, Paragraph 2E: Add Paragraph 2D from Home Occupation ordinance: “No equipment or vehicles used in connection with the activities of the premises occupation shall be stored outside of the accessory building and all materials used or intended for use in connection with the premises occupation shall be contained within the accessory building. No commercial vehicles shall be located on the premises except one delivery truck that does not exceed 10,000 g.v.w. rated capacity. No more than six vehicles, including the owner’s, shall be parked at the residence at any one time, including on the owner’s own property or on the street directly in front of the owner’s home. No storage or parking is permitted of tractor-trailers, semi-trucks, or other heavy equipment on the premises or on the streets in the vicinity of the premises.”
6) Premises Occupations 4-6-21, Paragraph 2F: Delete “entirely” and add Paragraph F from Home Occupation ordinance “plus one”: “The on-site activities of the premises shall be conducted entirely by members of the residing family and one non-family member.”
7) Premises Occupations 4-6-21, Paragraph 2I: Replace with Paragraph H from Home Occupation ordinance: “The premises occupation permit required pursuant to this Section shall be in addition to all other permits or licenses required for the operation of the activity. Where the activity of the premises occupation is not otherwise exempted by law, the City may also require the purchase of a business license. The home occupation premises occupation shall be registered with the Business License Division and shall be required to obtain a business license in accordance with City regulations. All businesses, using a business name, are required by law to register with the Utah Department of Commerce. Registration of assumed business names are required of all businesses that are not corporations, limited liability companies or limited partnerships.”
8) Premises Occupations 4-6-21, Paragraph 2L: Replace with Paragraph J from Home Occupation ordinance: “The Premises Occupation shall not include the use or storage of hazardous materials as defined by applicable state and/or federal regulatory agencies. The activities of the home occupation premises occupation shall not involve the use of material or chemicals in amounts that will significantly increase the hazard of fire, explosion, or safety to the structure or occupants or of adjacent structures or occupants.”
9) Premises Occupations 4-6-21, Paragraph 2M: Replace with Paragraph K from Home Occupation ordinance: “The activities of the premises shall be conducted in accordance with City regulations relating to noise. The operation of the home occupation premises occupation shall not produce any noise, smoke, glare, light, fumes, dust, or similar condition that is readily discernable outside the dwelling accessory structure or that interferes with the residential use of adjacent properties.”
10) Premises Occupation 4-6-21, Paragraph 2O: Add new paragraph using Paragraph L from Home Occupation ordinance: “The home occupation premises occupation shall not generate traffic between the hours of 8:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m.”
11) Premises Occupation 4-6-21, Paragraph 3: Add ”ed” to the word attached in the paragraph heading. “Conditions May be Attached”.
Seconded by C. Hammer.
Aye - C. Richardson
C. Petersen
C. Dayton
C. Hammer
C. Kroes Motion passes.
6. Review the Guidelines for the Design and Review of Planned Commercial Development Projects (8:40 p.m.)
MOTION: C. Richardson - To move Item #7 before Item #6. Seconded by C. Dayton.
Aye - C. Richardson
C. Petersen
C. Dayton
C. Hammer
C. Kroes Motion passes.
Kim Holindrake excused - 8:40 p.m.
7. Review/Recommendation Commercial Hours of Operation (8:40 p.m.)
See handouts. C. Richardson stated that this has been an on-going topic of conversation. C. Dayton has worked with some members of our community in focus groups to gather information. The citizen participation, so far, has been supportive of Sunday closures. C. Richardson started this process by looking at court cases. He found that there is strong case law supporting the ability of communities to restrict hours of operation. Much of the information that C. Richardson compiled is from current municipal statutes from Georgia and state statutes from South Carolina.
Review and discussion of exceptions, noted in Item #2. C. Petersen felt that if the City wanted to make a restriction on Sunday closure, that everything should be closed and there should not be a large list of exceptions. C. Dayton felt that the only exception should be a healthcare facility and should be fairly restrictive. Currently, the City’s golf course is open on Sunday, so this needs to be factored into the decision. Konrad Hildebrandt wanted to know if the City was at a stage where it is willing to reject business opportunities due to Sunday closure. C. Dayton felt that this stance seems to work for Highland City, who requires their businesses to be closed on Sunday. This issue is not a land-use item, so this will ultimately be the decision of the City Council. Sunday closure and hours of operation became an issue that the Planning Commission was reviewing due to the fact that the Commercial Design Guidelines included components of this policy. This information was compiled with a wide range of options that could be considered.
Although this is not a land-use issue, the Planning Commission could review this issue and send it forward to the City Council with suggested areas to be considered. If this policy extends throughout the Commercial Zone, it will have to have possible exceptions for churches, healthcare facilities, assisted living, etc. The intent behind addressing the Sunday closure issue is to allow the community to have a quiet day. One of the Planning Commission members felt that the heaviest traffic area in the Commercial area on Sunday would be the LDS Church, not a future store. If Cedar Hills values peace and tranquility, the City needs to accomplish this in an appropriate and responsible manner.
MOTION: C. Dayton - To table this until the next meeting. Seconded by C. Richardson.
Aye - C. Richardson
C. Petersen
C. Dayton
C. Hammer
C. Kroes Motion passes.
8. Committee Assignments and Reports (9:25 p.m.)
Sign Ordinance - Carl Volden was not in attendance to report.
Commercial/ “Jamestown look” - This issue will be reviewed with Section 4 of the Commercial Design Guidelines.
Parks/Trails Committee - C. Richardson reported that the committee is recommending that a skate park be added to the Parks/Trails Master Plan and are looking for a location. The Parks/Trails Committee is requesting that the Planning Commission review presentations given to them, keeping in mind the overall Parks/Trails Master Plan.
9. This meeting was adjourned at 9:29 p.m. on a motion by C. Hammer, seconded by C. Petersen and unanimously approved.
Approved by Commission: Kim E. Holindrake, City Recorder
March 25, 2004