REGULAR PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Thursday, January 16, 2003 7:00 p.m.
Public Safety Building
3925 W. Cedar Hills Drive, Cedar Hills, Utah
Present: Craig Gardner, Chair
Commission Members: David Prolo, Heath Clark, John Swenson
Absent: Paul Laemmlen, David Brenchley
David Bunker, City Engineer
Rodney Despain, City Planner
Gretchen Gordon, Deputy City Recorder
Bob Eddington, Council Representative
Others: Kaye Pead, Melissa Hathaway, Diana Mills - New Utah, Ken Keller
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 7:10 p.m.
2. Appointment of Planning Commission Chair and Vice Chair (7:10 p.m.)
C. Prolo nominated Craig Gardner to be the Planning Commission Chair. This action was seconded by C. Swenson and nominations were then closed.
MOTION: C. Swenson - To appoint Craig Gardner as the Planning Commission Chair. Seconded by C. Prolo.
Aye - C. Prolo
C. Gardner
C. Clark
C. Swenson Motion passes.
C. Gardner nominated David Prolo to be the Planning Commission Vice Chair. This action was seconded by C. Clark and nominations were then closed.
MOTION: C. Gardner - To appoint David Prolo as the Planning Commission Vice Chair. Seconded by C. Clark.
Aye - C. Prolo
C. Gardner
C. Clark
C. Swenson Motion passes.
3. Approval of Minutes from the December 12, 2002, Regular Planning Commission Meeting (7:12 p.m.)
MOTION: C. Prolo - To approve the minutes of meeting from the meeting on December 12, 2002, as presently constituted. Seconded by C. Swenson.
Aye - C. Prolo
C. Gardner
C. Clark
C. Swenson Motion passes.
4. Review/Recommendation on Bridgestone PUD, Amended Plat D (7:13 p.m.)
See handouts. Previously the Bridgestone project was before the Planning Commission requesting a revised phasing plan. This was reviewed and recommended for approval by the Planning Commission and then approved by the City Council. At this time Plat D needs to be amended to include one additional building in this phase as well as the club house. All of the required signatures for the concept letter, for owners within the existing plat, have been received. The staff recommendation would be to approve this proposal.
• Corrections to the boundary description need to be made to the mylar.
• The boundary needs to include the strip of property that is next to the Deerfield Elementary.
• Bridgestone Drive needs to be completed, which exists next to the half road by Deerfield Elementary.
• Drainage easement - Question whether this was on the previous plat. This is an existing easement that the City has already. This easement will need to be altered with Phase E because it conflicts with building 49-52.
• Detention basin - Has this been previously conveyed to the City with Plat A? Further discussion of how this relates to Phases A, D, and E. The detention basin should be included in Plat D.
• Discussion of the joint use of the road by both the school and the Bridgestone development. Rodney Despain suggested that the developer document with the school the joint access.
• Water right conveyance is a condition of the phasing plan. The City would take those rights with each recorded plat.
The developer requested that no action be taken tonight until the issues have been addressed on this plat submission.
5. Review Concept Plan for Kaye Pead Property (7:39 p.m.)
See handouts. This is a proposed concept plan for a lot split located at 4000 W and 9850 N. The Pead residence currently sits on Lot #2. The home sits towards the east of the lot and is about 30-40 feet from the proposed common boundary.
• Right now 9850 North is a substandard street cross section and there is not enough right-of-way to put in a standard street cross section. Currently the street is about 20' wide. C. Eddington thought that that road was in Pleasant Grove and not in Cedar Hills.
• Kaye Pead stated that during past discussions when she annexed her property into Cedar Hills, she was told that the City would try to work with her on maintaining the historical elements of her property. Currently on 9850 North there is no curb, gutter or sidewalk anywhere on this street. She stated that Mayor Sears was in favor of designating that area as a historical site.
• Kaye Pead is currently trying to complete the improvements on her property and then petitioning the National Historical Society to list her home as a historical site. She also stated that the City had not been resistant to the idea of making her home into a bed and breakfast in the future.
• This property is in Cedar Hills within an R-1-20,000 zone. The proposal would be to divide a one-acre lot into two lots with each lot not being less than 20,000 square feet. The basic concept of dividing it is appropriate as long as the setbacks are met.
• Kaye Pead has indicated that there was never an expectation that there would be more than the current width of 9850 North and plans where not made to install improvements such as curb, gutter and sidewalk. Rodney Despain stated that he does not recall this specific conversation.
• Having reviewed the annexation agreement for 4000 West, Rodney Despain stated that there was no right-of-way taken because the grade and width were not known. Some dedication on 4000 West may be required, but he was not sure.
• Many other questions will need to be addressed, but this is just a conceptual review.
• The applicant is anticipating to ask for approval to create a bed and breakfast in the future. This is a zoning issue and is commercial in nature. Some communities have allowed atypical uses in historic structures in residential zones if the primary purpose is to secure the continued existence of that historical structure. This is not a unique concept. The use cannot be conducted in a way that disrupts the nature of the residential zone. To allow this to happen, Cedar Hills would have to be willing to put an overlay of a historical zone.
• Initially, three lots were discussed at Site Plan Review. There has been a decision to abandon the 3-lot alternate and got with 2 lots. Rodney Despain suggested that Kaye Pead’s engineer should go back to a Site Plan meeting to address this new proposal. Discussion of the property to the south of this piece. The only option for development of the southern piece would be to access off of 4000 West because the frontage on 9850 North would be consumed by the 2 lots.
• David Bunker stated that in fairness to the applicant, the Planning Commission needs to define whether curb and gutter will be required or pursuing the historical avenue would be something that the City would entertain.
• C. Gardner wanted to know what the plan was for the lot that would be created and how that would lend itself to the historical value of the piece. Kaye Pead indicated that there is an offer on this parcel, subject to the lot being approved for residential use.
• If the requirements for such things as curb, gutter and sidewalk are waived, it would have to be determined by the City Council. The whole street would have to be looked at as a whole. C. Prolo suggested that the Planning Commission look at a “Rural” designation with a third street cross section.
Rodney Despain stated that Kaye Pead’s engineer will need to meet with David Bunker right away if this plan is to move through the process. There are a number of policy calls that will need to be addressed that are typical to every subdivision. There is significantly more detail that needs to be provided prior to the next stage. Kaye Pead was told that she may be able to combine the preliminary/final approval process to move the process faster. Rodney Despain stated that on smaller subdivisions, the City has at times allowed that combination. He continued that all of the questions must be addressed and answered.
6. Review Proposed Annexation Policy Plan and Set Public Hearing (8:25 p.m.)
See handouts. According the State law, relative to annexations, the City is required to develop a Master Policy Declaration that shows intended Boundary Adjustments. The City is pretty well defined without much area for potential annexation. The State now requires an Annexation Policy Plan that is very similar to the Policy Declaration. The law states that after January 1, 2003, cities are not able to annex property unless a Policy Declaration Plan is in place. Cedar Hills has virtually no land that could potentially annex with the exception of some property on 4800 West. This Policy Declaration Plan only applies to unincorporated areas, not boundary adjustments from other entities.
The State law requires three separate meetings to be held. The first one is a meeting in which the affected entities have an opportunity to comment and Cedar Hills would receive any input from adjacent municipalities. Legally, this process will need to be followed even for a small piece. When the comments are returned, after the 14 days, the comments from the affected entities are considered. Any modification to the plan needs to be incorporated. Then a public hearing is advertised with 14-days notice and held where comments may be heard. The Planning Commission makes a recommendation to the Council, and the Council then goes through the same process.
The map should be based on potential annexations, not boundary adjustments, and is only specific to unincorporated areas. Rodney Despain suggested removing the northern and southern hashed areas on the map as they are not candidates for annexation. Manila Water Company should not be included with the affected entities, but Central Utah Water should be included. Discussion about whether to set the public hearing now or wait until feedback has been returned.
MOTION: C. Clark - To give notice to Affected Entities concerning the proposed Annexation Policy Plan as well as schedule an open discussion on February 13, 2003, with the conditions of eliminating areas that are currently annexed into other communities and under Part 2, Criteria 6, eliminating Manila Water Company as an affected entity and adding Central Utah Water Conservancy District as well as Northern Utah County Water Conservancy District. Seconded by C. Prolo.
Aye - C. Prolo
C. Gardner
C. Clark
C. Swenson Motion passes.
7. Review/Recommendation on Amendments to the Zoning Ordinance (8:50 p.m.)
See handouts. Memo reviewed. Definition of “short stretches” is more clearly defined to be less than 500 feet or less than 50% of the street length, whichever is more restrictive. Cul-de-sac or dead end streets are also clarified. Amendments to the Zoning Ordinance that discuss maximum grade have also been amended to conform with the new changes. The Subdivision Ordinance does have a criteria that states that 12% may be acceptable where 8% may create undesirable earth work. Rodney Despain wanted to know if there were any other conditions where it may be acceptable. Discussion of further definition of how the street length is defined. Once an intersection control is present, this starts a new street segment. For purposes of this ordinance, the Planning Commission may want to add “short stretches shall mean and include” and “street length shall mean and include” to clarify any interpretation. Amendments to the subdivision ordinance require hearings with both the Planning Commission and the City Council.
MOTION: C. Prolo - To approve the recommended subdivision ordinance changes with the definition changes that were discussed earlier: Under Subdivision Ordinance, Page 9, Section 3-4-2.2, Paragraph 2-C, this section shall also include the following: ‘Short stretches shall be less than 500 feet or less than 50% of the street segment. For the purposes of this section, segment shall be defined as intersection control to intersection control, whichever is more restrictive. Cul-de-sacs or dead end streets shall not have any grades in excess of eight (8) percent with the cul-de-sac bulb or turnaround having a maximum grade of four (4) percent. And a recommendation that this be set for a Public Hearing before the Planning Commission on February 13, 2003 meeting. Seconded by C. Clark.
Aye - C. Prolo
C. Gardner
C. Clark
C. Swenson Motion passes.
MOTION: C. Prolo - To approve the recommendation to Council to amend the Zoning Ordinance, including amended Sections 4-6A-4 PRDs , Paragraph I; 4-6A-7 Planned Townsite Projects, Paragraph G; and 4-6A-7 Common Drive, Paragraph 7, with the intent to clarify the street design criteria and set a Public Hearing for the same. Seconded by C. Clark.
C. Swenson wanted to know if the changes still fulfilled the intent of what the City is trying to achieve. Discussion about whether this change will preclude any other further development on the hillside. Rodney Despain stated that he does not feel that it would preclude any development.
Aye - C. Prolo
C. Gardner
C. Clark
C. Swenson Motion passes.
8. Committee Assignments and Reports (9:22 p.m.)
Site Plan Review - Pead development was discussed.
Parks/Trails Committee - Three new members were appointed.
C. Gardner stated that Utah Power and Light has requested a special meeting to discuss a zone change for their substation. He would like to get input from the other Planning Commission members to find out their availability to hold a special meeting.
9. This meeting was adjourned at 9:35 p.m. on a motion by C. Clark, seconded by C. Prolo and unanimously approved.
/s/ Kim E. Holindrake
Approved by Commission: Kim E. Holindrake, City Recorder
February 13, 2003