REGULAR PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Thursday, July 10, 2003 7:00 p.m.
Public Safety Building
3925 W Cedar Hills Drive, Cedar Hills, Utah
Present: Commission Members: Steve Kroes, Carl Volden, Alan Petersen
Alternates: Brendon Dayton, Randy Hugie
Absent: Heath Clark - Chair, John Swenson - Vice Chair
Konrad Hildebrandt, City Manager
David Bunker, City Engineer
Rodney Despain, City Planner (7:18 p.m.)
Gretchen Gordon, Deputy City Recorder
Others: Colleen Hayes, Susan Patton, Tami MacPherson, Christa Fife, Randy Fife, Jonia Lundberg, Gary Hilton, Kengie Hilton, Ryan Hales, Amy, Griffes, Don Griffes, Greg Kaczmarck, Matt Bateman, Darin Lowder, John Owens, Roger Knell, Kit Hawkins, Kris Hawkins, Roxie Ogden, Heather Fry, Jon Hewett, Todd Bolle, Lisa Neubert, Marshall Witt, Jodi Gray, Rollin Boe, Raymond Daniels, Shawna Lawrence, Shell MacPherson, Ron Rosebrook, Reed Neubert (7:22 p.m.) Jolene Hope (7:22 p.m.), Mark Webb (7:22 p.m.), Delores Bacon (7:22 p.m.), Lois Howard (8:00 p.m.), Bob Howard (8:00 p.m.), Katarine Feldsted (10:03 p.m.)
1. This meeting of the Planning Commission of the City of Cedar Hills, having been posted throughout the City and the press notified was called to order at 7:10 p.m.
MOTION: C. Volden - That Steve Kroes serve as acting Planning Commission Chair. Seconded by C. Petersen.
Aye - C. Kroes
C. Dayton
C. Petersen
C. Volden
C. Hugie Motion passes.
Chairman Kroes recognized Brendon Dayton and Randy Hugie, alternate members, as voting members of the Planning Commission this evening.
2. Approval of Minutes from the June 19, 2003, Special Planning Commission Meeting (7:12 p.m.)
MOTION: C. Petersen - To approve the minutes of the June 19, 2003, meeting, as written. Seconded by Dayton.
Aye - C. Kroes
C. Dayton
C. Petersen
C. Volden
C. Hugie Motion passes.
3. Review/Recommendation on Amendments to the Zoning Ordinance Regarding Changes to the H-1 Hillside Zone and Zone Map (7:13 p.m.)
See handouts. During review in a prior meeting, the Planning Commission realized that churches were not listed as a permitted use in the H-1 Hillside Zone. “Churches” have been inserted in the verbiage, which describes permitted uses and a description of minimum/maximum requirements in the table. The penalty language is the same as is written in other zones. The engineer did not feel that there were any engineering or environmental issues with this usage.
MOTION: C. Petersen - To recommend approval of this Zoning Ordinance Amendment, as written. Seconded by C. Dayton.
AMEND MOTION: C. Volden - To amend the motion to include the requirement of a Public Hearing being held by the City Council. Accepted by C. Peterson and seconded by C. Dayton.
Aye - C. Kroes
C. Dayton
C. Petersen
C. Volden
C. Hugie Motion passes.
4. Review/Action on Site Plan for LDS Church Located at Box Elder Drive and Canyon Road (7:17 p.m.)
See handouts. David Bunker reviewed the site plan for the proposed LDS Church located on Lot 1, Plat F. This is a recently created plat.
• This would be subject to approval of the Zoning Amendment by the City Council.
• Need to discuss style of fence, currently proposed to be vinyl-coated chain link.
• The proposed retaining wall on west side of the site is close to the existing sewer line. A distance of at least 10' from wall to sewer line.
• Wildflower mix along Canyon Road. This would be better served as grass in this area. Some of the perimeter may be appropriate for this natural vegetation, but may need to still be irrigated. An erosion control plan needs to be submitted to mitigate cuts.
• Fire hydrant may need to be required - coordinate with Fire Chief.
• Pressurized Irrigation connection - Make sure there is a 3' section of straight pipe to be able to install a meter, if required in the future.
• Pre-treatment sump.
• Garbage receptical placement - concern with size of trucks with current parking stalls. Slide to north.
• Subject to Ordinance change approval by City Council.
• Concern about hydroseed on steep slope on south end. 25% grade in that area. Put in erosion control fabric in that area.
• Overall, the Planning Commission was not supportive of non-irrigated wild flowers. Mr. Knell stated that they would install sod along Canyon Road, but would keep the wildflower mix on the south and east sides. Discussion of irrigation on south/east sides. Typically, this wildflower mix needs to be reseeded every 5 years, but it provides more natural vegetation and uses less water. Possible increased fire hazard.
• 31' high above grade.
• Landscape Requirements - 40% when including wildflower area - 35% without wildflower areas included in calculation.
• The LDS Church on Bayhill Drive has a wrought iron fence and on Chesterfield the fence is white vinyl. Mr. Knell stated that the logic behind the vinyl-coated chain link is to allow more open feel and cost factors. They would like to install an open fence to mitigate some of the high wind conditions. The Planning Commission would like to see an open vinyl fence or wrought iron.
• Sheet L1.1 - All landscape will be irrigated, unless noted. Landscape plan - flowering pear with drip system.
MOTION: C. Dayton - To approve the site plan for the Canyon Heights LDS Church Site, subject to: 1) The type of fence should be called out on the site plan, open vinyl or iron is required, 2) The proposed retaining wall is too close to the existing sewer line on the west side of the property; distance at a minimum of 10 feet from sewer line, 3) Sod should be installed along Canyon Road in place of wildflower mix, 4) A fire hydrant may be required on the south side of the main structure, 5) Erosion control plan needed for the non-irrigated wildflower area, 6) Pretreatment sump, without a drain field, required for parking lot drainage, 7) Pressurized irrigation and culinary water systems shall not be connected. Additional backflow prevention and stop and waste will not be necessary, 8) Pressurized Irrigation lateral shall have a minimum of a three foot section for future installation of a meter, 9) Developer would shift parking stalls to allow for garbage collection access, 10) Engineering. Seconded by C. Petersen.
Aye - C. Kroes
C. Dayton
C. Petersen
C. Volden
C. Hugie Motion passes.
5. Review/Recommendation on Concept/Preliminary Plat for Hewett Subdivision (7:45 p.m.)
See handouts. The site plan for this was reviewed by the Site Plan Review Committee about six months ago.
• Flag lot subdivision - Lot 1 has an existing home, Lot 2 would be a new lot. It is allowed in the zone and lot 2 does have the required square footage to conform.
• Sewer line from existing home, as shown on plan, crosses over Lot 2, which is not in the sewer easement. Extend sewer easement so it is within this. 5' for lateral access.
• Show how Lot 2 will be serviced with the sewer. Water lateral is shown with access from Canyon Road.
• 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.
• Access to State Road - UDOT approval will need to be given for drive access.
• Pressurized Irrigation has been installed on Canyon Road - lateral needs to be installed for new lot.
• Need approval from Fire Chief on pole section of flag lot to be hard surface. Need letter from Fire Chief.
• Show building envelope on plat, including setback requirements shown on page 2.
• Lot will need to be addressed off of Canyon Road and shown on the plat.
• Water rights, if needed, should be submitted.
MOTION: C. Petersen - To approve the Hewett Subdivision, with the following conditions: 1) Sewer easement be changed to reflect inclusion of the existing sewer line within 5' from the edge of easement, 2) Frontage issue be resolved and the road curvature, distance of road, etc. gutters, curbs, and sidewalks installed in the appropriate place, 3) Laterals placed on final drawing, 4) Location of proposed sewer lateral for Lot 2, 5) Approval from Fire Chief on pole section of flag lot and the need to be paved, 6) Building envelope shown, add setback requirements to the plat, 7) Show address for proposed lot; must be addressed off Canyon Road, 8) Additional water rights, if needed, 9) UDOT approval. Seconded by C. Volden.
Mr. Hewett did not to have to install the curb, gutter and sidewalk along Canyon Road, but agreed to do it.
Aye - C. Kroes
C. Dayton
C. Petersen
C. Volden
C. Hugie Motion passes.
6. Review/Action on proposed Preliminary Plan for Walmart (7:56 p.m.)
See handouts. During the last review of this proposal, residents were told that although a Public Hearing was not required or scheduled, that they would be able to make public comment during this meeting. The Site Plan is very similar to those that were viewed during the last meeting. New elevations have been submitted for the building.
Shell MacPherson, Pacland, had updated drawings that addressed the changes to the proposal. He did attend the open house on June 12th, which was a good opportunity to share knowledge and learn from the experiences of others to help make this a better development. PacLand is proposing a community store, not a regional store along the freeway, and with this comes some struggle.
• Site plan issues that were discussed were traffic, noise, general size and nature of the location of the building, security, safety of children walking to grade school and driving to the high school. Pacland realizes that these are big issues to the community.
• Trucks exiting out onto Redwood Drive was also a concern that was discussed. They are proposing a new access/egress along the back side of the store to access Cedar Hills Drive and extending parking behind the store to eliminate access to Redwood Drive.
• Sound to the north - This area is about 6' below the property line and an 8' sound wall would be installed. It has been discussed that a concrete, precast wall similar to along Canyon Road be incorporated. Currently another alternative is being proposed. Proposed to encapsolate the compressor room with a 16' CMU wall with additional sound baffles in it. It won’t be recognized as an enclosure. Compactor on east side, truck dock on east side are all shrouded by a sound barrier.
• Eliminating truck access onto Redwood Drive would greatly reduce and improve traffic safety into the site.
• Discussed mirror imaging of store, backed up to 4800 West. This would force traffic further into and onto Cedar Hills and out to Redwood Drive making it more problematic.
Ron Rosebrook, Architect for BSW International - Discussed changes to the store in mitigating the overall size and general look of the store. The Open House was very helpful from an architectural styling perspective. They have really tried, with these elevations, to incorporate the Mainstreet USA theme.
• Truck well will back down behind 14' screen wall.
• Lower Elevation/Garden Center - old time garage look for the Tire/Lube.
• Variation for more pedestrian and human scale.
• Acoustical plaster is being used, along with sound attenuation materials. Sound level limits would be established at the fence. Copy of data from manufacturers on the south attenuation materials.
• This design is the first 4-sided Mainstreet USA facility. They have done a similar front in Michigan, but it was only on one side.
• Real awnings.
• Faux windows for security purposes.
Rollin Boe, expert on sound attenuation, was in attendance to review any questions from the Planning Commission. He completed the acoustical studies that were done for this site. Konrad Hildebrandt, City Manager, and C. Petersen both stated that the Planning Commission needs to have complete copies of the various studies that have been done for their review.
• Sound walls have been used for the last 15 years at various store locations. Taller walls and driveway elevation changes help to reduce sound.
• The sound wall surrounds the whole property. A reduction of 10 db is provided by the wall itself. (10 db reduces the sound by about 20%)
• If there was no wall at the property line, a typical semi driving by would be at about 60-65 db. This would be reduced down to 50 db which, Mr. Boe stated, is an ampiant level in a quiet neighborhood.
• The compressors will be surrounded by additional sound insulation measures. The best method for accomplishing this is to put the sound insulation as close to the source as possible, on both sides. The recommendations for insulation would be a reduction of about 20 db. Compressor noise is typically 24 hours, so he has made these recommendations to mitigate this all the time. The level may go down by about 3-5 db at night due to reduced cooling needed inside the store. Without any noise insulation, the compressor would be about 68 db; the noise reduction plan is to get them down to 52 db at the wall. db is done on a log rhythmic scale, so a reduction from 60 to 50, is not just a reduction of 10, it’s about 100 to 1. A typical neighborhood during the summer is actually more noisy due to air conditioning sounds.
This meeting was not scheduled as a public hearing; but during the last meeting, the Commission discussed allowing additional comments from residents who attended the next meeting.
Citizen Input:
• Todd Bolle - He feels that the exterior has been greatly improved. Concerns about having an automotive center in Cedar Hills. He feels that it becomes unsightly with tires piled up outside of the building. Hours of operation of the tire center? Shell MacPherson stated that typically they would shut down by 7:00 p.m. Also concerned about the store being opened on Sunday. He spoke with two members of the City Council and had discussed an ordinance requiring that stores be closed one day per week. Mr. MacPherson stated that hours of operation is a large issue - Walmart is looking for a 7-day operation for a supercenter, with an option for 24-hour operation. Traffic and lighting are also concerns for Mr. Bolle. He stated that those who conducted the traffic study have not done follow-up on their results.
• Delores Bacon - Feels that the plans have been well done, but feels that this is 100% the wrong location. She felt that it would not be advisable to put this between two schools and might be more amenable to this plan in another location in Cedar Hills. Shared concerns about Sunday operation.
• Colleen Hayes - This store will bring in lots of traffic, including people going up the Canyon and people on vacation.
• Jonia Lundberg - She does not live near this location, but finds it curious to have this store put in this location when a store is being put in American Fork and Lindon. She stated that Walmart has a 10.5% vacancy rate and that is concerning to her. She feels that people who moved to Cedar Hills wanted to get away from the hustle and bustle of the City. She feels that the Planning Commission should consider some of these factors when voting on this issue: reflection of the community values, desires of the citizens-600 signatures have been collected, would you want to live next door to Walmart? Will more weight be given to the fact that Walmart will bring a great deal of income to Cedar Hills and they can build faster and better things.
• Kit Hawkins - Zoning of the property needs to be addressed. He heard that there are three different zones.
• Christa Fife - She stated that she feels that a safety concerns exists. If there was an emergency in this area, the children will have to be gathered at the schools. There are only two roads to get in and out of the community and a Walmart development would further encumber the access. As a City, she feels that we have a right to determine whether a store is open on Sunday.
• Darin Lowder - He thinks that the developer did a good job to make the builder look better. The Commission does have to be concerned about being arbitrary in their decision, but he would like to know what the guidelines say about the size of the store. He has heard conflicting information. (The guidelines don’t specify on size, but the ordinance does specify a minimum size. The ordinance has established guidelines with required setbacks, etc.) Was there ever an expectation of such a large building? He would like to see the Planning Commission require a smaller building. He feels that there is still an image of Walmart that he does not want to see in this community.
• Gary Hilton - In Price, Utah and Evanston, Wyoming there are two empty Walmart stores. Just a few blocks away is a new Super Walmart. He is concerned about this happening in our community. He feels that since this issue came to the City, there has been an increase in the number of homes for sale. We cannot mitigate traffic, proximity to the schools, or truancy. Nordstrom in Orem is closed on Sunday, so this can be done. Can you and will you force this on the community, even if they don’t want it? He feels that Highland and Alpine have been able to address some of the concerns and we need to do the same before it’s too late.
• Reed Neubert - The City has one chance to “put a face” on Cedar Hills. Do we want to be known as the community by the big Walmart? He feels that the Tire Center needs to be eliminated. We have one chance to be creative and unique and come up with something that defines us in some other way than cheap. He feels that the Design Guidelines have creativity and creating an inviting place to be. He feels that the Planning Commission needs to decide whether we want a big-box in Cedar Hills at all. If we do, let’s get everything we want out of it. If we don’t, let’s throw it out now and not waste anybody else’s time. A petition was presented to the City Council with the signatures of 630 individuals who have serious concerns about the current proposal of Walmart; that represents about 88% of the people who were contacted. There is a neighborhood market in S. Ogden that he feels would be much more welcome in Cedar Hills, than a Supercenter.
• Shawna Lawrence - She feels that the sell of tobacco, alcohol and firearms are very concerning. Traffic is a significant issue to her; congestion and pedestrian traffic crossing where cars are pulling in and out of the parking lot.
• Mark Webb - He participated in the process for developing the Design Guidelines. Homeowners in the area have based many decisions, including significant financial decisions, relying on the integrity of the City to follow through on this plan. He feels that the guidelines, whether they are an adopted ordinance or not, has created a scenario where the City has acted in accordance with those guidelines. If you came to the City inquiring about what was intended for this property, you received information and pictures from these guidelines. The actions of the City have created a defacto standard that could create a “cause of action” from a legal perspective. He feels that the actions of the City have promoted those guidelines to reality. The dentist who is currently constructing right now in the commercial zone stated that he was pushed quite hard with respect to many aspects of the guidelines. The City has an obligation to those people who have relied on the information in the design guidelines. He stated his appreciation to the Planning Commission members for their time and commitment to Cedar Hills. Sound issues have been discussed and become an issue because this building moves far past the boundary that was established in the guidelines for this type of use. We can build something that is very nice to create a pedestrian walkway, trees, etc. if the guidelines are followed. This property will be commercial developed, but we want to see the commercial done the right way, with taste and class.
• Don Griffes - He is supportive of Walmart. This store saves him a lot of money and he feels that we need to consider that when we travel to American Fork, we are traveling through the neighborhoods of others, which is what we are saying we don’t want in Cedar Hills. He feels that they have done a great job to make this building much more appealing. The traffic study does still concern him. The sound issues, he feels, have been adequately addressed. He owns a sound meter and would be happy to offer that to confirm the figures that have been presented this evening. He feels that the view is skewed because there isn’t representation from the whole community.
• Heather Fry - She stated that she echos wholeheartedly everything that has been said. Her neighborhood may not be directly affected by this Walmart, but this is still an enormous building. She moved here to be able to observe the stars, moon and sky. She feels that the lighting, and other aspects, which would be provided for such a large store, does not take into consideration for the environment.
• Lois Howard - She feels that it is wise to consider that many of those who live on the east side of the City, may not care about this issue as much because their children will be attending American Fork Jr. High. This does not invalid those who do live close who are in attendance. She appreciates the efforts made by the developer, but her first reaction was that this was ludicrous to even consider that kind of a commercial development in our City. She stated that the residents are depending on the Planning Commission to reflect the feelings that are expressed about the community and the kind of development. She would like to see smaller stores, with diversity, which would save her having to travel further away. Please have integrity in following the guidelines that have been set forth.
Commission Feedback:
• C. Dayton stated that this is not the City Council, so their vote is not the deciding factor. He agrees that people did move to Cedar Hills to get away from the “hustle and bustle.” When he and others moved into the City, they were shown Design Guidelines, which showed the type of development that the City was anticipating. He does feel that the voice of the citizens is an important factor.
• C. Volden stated that it is the responsibility of the Planning Commission to hear Walmart and then evaluate their request. The decision must be based on the requirements that the City has set forth and how Walmart fulfills those requirements. If Walmart meets the requirements, he feels that he must recommend to the City Council that they have fulfilled what has been asked. The concerns of the citizens are valid, but he feels that the Planning Commission has legal requirements to look at the process. When he moved to the City, he chose to not purchase a lot by this site knowing that this property was zoned for commercial development, but does feel that residents in that area should be considered in the overall review. If the process has been completed appropriately, there may be legal restrictions that prohibit a denial.
• C. Hugie - The Planning Commission is tied to the ordinances, not on the amount of potential revenue, etc. Projects are reviewed based on the requirements of the ordinances.
• C. Dayton wanted to have Rodney Despain, City Planner, make a clarification on the ordinances versus the guidelines and what the Planning Commission is required to abide by in the decision-making process. Mr. Despain stated that the ordinance is purposely made fairly liberal without many mandatory guidelines. The Planning Commission is expected to make a recommendation, a motion and a vote. Individually, members of the Planning Commission are entitled to make their vote or motion based on both objective and subjective considerations. One of the things about the Shopping Center Zone (SC-1) is the intent language that is to help identify the general character of the development. Each member would have to review whether they feel that proposal accomplishes that objective. The Planning Commission members are not powerless to make recommended changes on the proposal that they feel will more adequately meet the objectives of the zone. There has to be some rational basis for the recommendation and the vote. This is primarily a land use issue. Items like hours of operation, days of operation, etc. are not land-use issues. Whether a large store or a small store makes a request, it must be treated equally. This decision should be based on balancing the interests of all concerned, financial considerations, and impact of the neighborhood are all parts of the compromise. Discussion of legal ramifications to how the decision is made. Konrad Hildebrandt stated that the decisions must be based on something more than individual, philosophical views. The thorough understanding of the ordinances should be used.
• C. Kroes stated that he feels that this is a balancing act. The balance is to respect the property rights of those who own this land and want to sell and develop and the impacts to the broader community. The general issue of the health and safety of the community is at stake. If something is denied in an arbitrary or capricious manner, the City will stand on very shaky ground. Any decision made needs to be based on sound logic included in the ordinances, health, safety, etc. He feels that the architects have done an outstanding job making this project look very nice, but he still has concerns. He would like to have the results of the feedback that the City received. He continued that the City has an obligation to seriously consider any proposal that is placed before the City by a property owner or someone who wants to buy and develop a piece of property. The City cannot ignore this, or give it a sham consideration, we have to give every proposal serious, open-minded consideration.
Shell MacPherson was given the opportunity to speak on behalf of the development. He stated that he appreciates the honest and sincere comments tonight, as well as those received at the open house a month ago. He is here to represent Walmart, who has made a unique and atypical proposal. This is a unique setting for Walmart, which many have not experienced before. Walmart is trying to be a community-minded entity and to fit into the community. The guidelines do have some flexibility, such as hours of operation, size, proximity to the property lines, etc. They would like to make a responsible effort to address noise, traffic, lighting and other impacts. He feels that Walmart can meet the responsibly. There are some aspects where they cannot fluctuate, such as dimensions, L-shaped building, diminish size on a parcel this large. If there are areas that flexibility does not exist, the developer needs to know those.
The issue of empty buildings was brought up by some residents. The developer stated that Division 1 stores do get relocated and expanded to super centers. He has been involved with Walmart for 11 years and he has never emptied and left a super center. Walmart has been doing super centers since 1994. The stores that were mentioned in Price and Evanston were both emptied because they were relocated to a super center. The super center is Walmart’s flagship and they have not walked away from it. Walmart would spend more money to expand an existing store, when land is available, than they would to relocate. The neighborhood market program is only about 3 years old. A community is located within a community and has a defined demographic. This store is not looking to draw from areas along the freeway, such as a regional store, but to a close radius. Operationally, a community store would function much the same, but the exterior design is taken to a much higher level. John Owens, who did the radius study, explained about the demographics and analysis of the market. This study helps to identify comfortable separation of the stores and shows independent trade areas.
David Bunker stated that there a number of studies that need to be reviewed. Many questions have been asked tonight and the staff shares some of the same questions, so time is needed. A lighting study will also be provided to show the glare restrictions, candle power, etc.
C. Kroes asked for feedback from each of the Commission members.
C. Petersen stated that he has spent considerable time to try to evaluate this proposal.
• He did a “spot check” of the data that was discussed as survey results. His study was not scientific, but found that in those who he spoke with, there were 5 opposed and 15 in favor.
• The City must consider all requests and ensure that they comply with the ordinance and land use components. The City has not solicited this request or actively recruited businesses. The proposal must be consistent with the zoning, or a zoning change must be requested. The Zoning Ordinance does have requirements and it is the duty of the City’s officials to evaluate and review the proposal fairly and completely.
• This piece of property is zoned SC-1, which is the only commercial zone in the City. The ordinance, section 4-4-1, stated that it has to be one of the permitted uses: agriculture or raising of livestock, public utility right of way and related utility facilities, planned commercial development projects that comply with Section 4-6A. In Section 4-6A, it talks about consideration for compliance to: general retail stores, shops (full enclosed), laundry, barber shops, banks, motor vehicle service establishments (not including sale and repair), etc. Minimum development size is 10 contiguous areas. Single ownership/control is required. Walmart is planning to propose this site.
• The proposal is to use the site for the sale of food, clothing, sporting goods, garden supplies, etc. He would like to discuss the issue of “full enclosed” with respect to the seasonal sales.
• No zoning exceptions or changes are being requested nor required for their proposed use.
• The Zoning Ordinance when addressing the subject of building size, specifies minimum sizes for certain zones and building setbacks. It does not address maximum building size.
• Legislative Intent does need to be taken into consideration. “It is intended that development within the zone be characterized by harmonious grouping of commercial stores and shops and essential, ancillary uses, architecturally designed and functioning as an integrated unit.’ Typically, within their space there is space for other organizations, such as a bank, fast food, etc. The other businesses within, such as the bank, optometrist, etc. are lease tenants.
• Section 4.5.6.1 - Specific intent of architectural design and character shall, where possible, be compatible with that of the surrounding environment. He feels that because of this, the commercial guidelines can be considered. He feels that the Walmart proposal does meet within the structure of the ordinance.
• Commercial Master Plan Guidelines - This was prepared to give direction and provide framework for the future development. This is to aid potential developers and the City by establishing criteria for approval. The intent of the plan is to provide standards, it is not intended to be so specific as to deny all flexibility and latitude that may be necessary for individual users. To show the flexibility that may be allowed, it is helpful to review the projects that have already been approved; LDS Church site and Lexington Heights.
• LDS Church Site located east of Redwood Drive and North of Cedar Hills Drive - Approval was granted May, 2002. The land shown on Page 39, showing a division of three different areas within the commercial zone. This area falls within what is defined in the guidelines as a mixed use/office/residential portion, see Page 39. A church would be allowed as a conditional use, see Page 9. Section 4.4 Mixed Office/Residential shows a building setback of 80' and a structure height limit of 35' is required. In addition, it says that long and monotonous wall and roof planes are not permitted. The LDS Church designers were willing to turn the building on the site, flexibility was given with regard to the 80' setback requirement. The back corner of the building is placed only 30' from the property line. This project did not document the percentage of landscaping, but he estimated it to be about 30%.
• Lexington Heights, located west of 4600 West and south of Cedar Hills Drive - This project is also in a Mixed Use/Office/Residential designation. This will include three buildings and one assisted living center. The buildings are planned to be a height of 30-40' above grade. Some flexibility was given on this issue. Landscaping requirement is to exceed 30% on the plan.
• All three of the zones are indicated in the area proposed for the Walmart development, the Neighborhood Retail (grocery store, dry cleaning, barber shop, bakery, banks, restaurants, etc.) It states that these are not allowed to operate no more than 24 hours/6 days per week. Mixed Office/Retail (office uses, limited retail uses, including specialty shops, dance, fitness, residential use) Limit of 8:00 a.m. - 6:00 p.m. business days, 6 days per week. Mixed Use/Office/Residential (some retail, but only in buildings less than 2,000 square feet, some office use but must close at 5:00 p.m. and remain closed on weekends, libraries, City halls, churches)
• Existing roads built in the area do not match the diagram on Page 39. About 11 acres proposed by Walmart are in the Neighborhood Retail area. Of the remaining, 4-5 acres are in the Mixed Use/Office Retail and the remaining are in the Mixed Use/Office/Residential area. The entire parking lot and about 25-30% of the building are within the Neighborhood Retail zone.
• Subsection 4.1.1 Architectural Plan - Desired theme is to be limited to promote use of pedestrian traffic, such as street-level windows, wide walkways and appropriate signage to aid in orientation for people, not cars.
• Section 4.2 - Landscaping Not less than 30% of any retail office site shall be landscaped. Fountains, seating areas and recreational facilities may qualify. Sidewalks can qualify if pavers or stamped concrete are used. C. Petersen’s calculation shows this proposal to be showed calculations that this proposal is about 28%.
• Lighting - Dark sky lights are to be used in all areas.
• Parking - Screened from Cedar Hills Drive and 4600 West allowing 4 parking stalls/1,000 square feet. In current drawings, there are 771 parking stalls shown and the requirement states that it should not exceed 632 for this site. Some flexibility within the parking plan, may help to alleviate some of the concerns of the residents.
• Signage should be wall-mounted or monument style.
• Concerned about the items that were requested at the last meeting, which were not received. He feels that this proposal looks better than the last submittal. He hopes that there is a consensus that all can feel comfortable with.
C. Dayton stated that he feels that even adhering to the Zoning Ordinance and General Plan that there are areas where the proposal can be called into question.
• Page 22, General Plan - ‘The residents and elected officials of Cedar Hills would like to see the community maintain a level of individualism and unique community characters. Design Guidelines are meant to provide opportunities for unique and highly desirable development to occur.’ In his opinion, the proposed development to create a unique and highly desirable area is not met.
• Page 25, General Plan - ‘To the extent possible, commercial uses should attempt to minimize impact on residential areas. Cedar Hills will encourage commercial development that would directly benefit the residents of the community.’ While he agrees that there will be a convience benefit, he feels that it is far outweighed by negative impact on the residential areas, especially those most close to the development.
• Page 30, General Plan - ‘The Town should attempt to minimize impacts that commercial development might have on the surrounding residential areas.’ He thinks that this proposal shows an attempt and effort, the true impact is size and traffic. Regardless of how the building looks, size and traffic are huge negative impacts.
• Page 2, Zoning Ordinance, Items 3, 5 & 7 Intent and Purpose of Zoning for Cedar Hills - ‘To lessen congestion in the streets, prevent the overcrowding of land and provide adequate light and air.’ Any retail development, which is what we hope and expect in this area, will add congestion to the streets. He feels that Walmart has been unwilling to reduce the size of the building and therefore not willing to lessen congestion in the streets. #5 ‘To stabilize and improve property values.’ He has heard both sides of the issues that this may increase or decrease property values. Seeing what is happening to those who are currently trying to sell, he sees more negative impact. #7 ‘To promote the development of a more attractive and wholesome and serviceable city.’ Regardless of how much lipstick you try to put on a pig, it’s still a big pig sitting there in the middle of the City. He does not feel that this promotes a more attractive City, although this proposal is better than those in the past.
• Page 73, Master Plan - Minimum requirements #7 - ‘All regulations relating to Large-Scale Development are the minimum regulations that are needed to carry out the purpose and intent of this section.’ Just meeting the minimum, does not tie the City to something. The City can require a higher standard. #8 ‘Requirements and conditions set forth in this Ordinance pertaining to each type of large-scale development are the minimum requirements which must be imposed in order to achieve the intent and purposes as herein set forth.’ Page 74 & 75 Items #10 & 15 states the same thing.
• There is room within the ordinances and zoning to say ‘no.’ He is holding Walmart to a close standard to those outlined in the Design Guidelines. There needs to be a buffer to the resident, as stated in Section 2.2, 3.1.2, and 3.1.3. These are guidelines, but should be followed somewhat.
• Section 3.1.1 - 24 hours per day/6 days a week is maximum for operation. Walmart could decide Saturday or Sunday.
• He agrees with C. Petersen that this requires many stores and shops. He does disagree on the interpretation on whether that is within the same facility.
• Section 4.2.3 - Anchor is not to be more than 25% of the facade. Regardless of what stores are leasing the space, only 25% should be taken up by Walmart.
• He respects Walmart for wanting to come in and have a profitable business, he also appreciates the fact that efforts have been made. The issue to him is size. There is an overlying clear intent, although it does not state a maximum, the renderings and drawings indicate that there will be an anchor store with other stores surrounding it.
C. Volden was disappointed that during the last meeting some issues were discussed relative to the size of the building and proximity to homes, yet tonight nothing was presented to addresses these issues. There may not be flexibility in this area. The store in Harrisville has been rotated and feels that this could be done in our area. He would like to see the building turned towards Cedar Hills Drive.
C. Hugie wanted to see how the size of this store compared to the one in Springville. The one in Springville is larger. Do you have other stores in America that are as close to schools as this proposal? The developer did state that this property is zoned for commercial development. If there are other properties such as this, there would be opportunities across the country where this same situation could occur. C. Hugie’s biggest concern is safety. In the ordinance is says, ‘the intent and purpose of the City Council of the City of Cedar Hills, Utah, to avale itself of the powers granted under Title 10-9-101, as amended, in a manner that will promote the heath, safety, morals, convenience, order, prosperity and general welfare of the present and future inhabitants of the said city.’ His biggest concern is the amount of traffic increase, combined with the fact that this is across the street from a high school and kiddy-corner from an elementary school. He heard the same comment about the traffic study not being confirmed and his concern remains.
Rodney Despain stated that a range of actions by the Planning Commission would be to act to recommend approval as presented, recommend disapproval including findings, approve with conditions or the matter could be tabled. He advised that this should be tabled due to the fact that the study and copies have not been available in a timely manner.
• There is plenty of room for differences of opinion in this process; different things mean different things to different people. Does this proposal meet the intent of the zone, have things been done to mitigate the negative aspects of this issue? There may be an argument both ways on whether this proposal is compatible with the community. There is no right or wrong, but there is room for differences of opinion.
• A decision shall not or should not be based on public clamor. He felt that all of the applause raises to the level of public clamor and may be to the detriment of those who are opposed to it. City Council’s are routinely challenged on the notion that decisions are made, not on the basis of fact, but on the basis of public clamor.
• The decision needs to be based on good reasons or it is likely to be overturned.
• He feels that there are some issues that still need to be addressed, such as outdoor storage, use of bales, containers, etc. He would suggest that a Development Agreement be entered into with Walmart to clearly address and define these types of issues.
• Questions as to whether or not the Tire Express is permitted under the ordinance.
• He has some reservation about the road pattern relative to Outlot #1.
• Questions the 28% open space/landscaping requirement. This needs to be looked at in more detail.
C. Kroes commended the Commission for their extensive study of the ordinances and the way in which these concerns were articulated. Initially, his feelings were positive about this proposal, but he now is not feelings as positive.
• The size of the store is concerning. Whether the guidelines were officially adopted or not, a process was engaged in that involved some sort of faith between the residents and the City that we would attempt to carry out a development that would be attractive, unique and would enhance the quality of our community.
• He feels that the area of our commercial zone is an awkward and potentially dangerous place to be. To think about putting a big box retail store there, to him seemed out of the question for common sense in this location.
• The developer has done a very impressive job of making this Walmart look good.
• He shops there and it is a fine store, but he does have concerns about the economic risks if we are left an empty big box. It would be a serious blight on the community. Smaller, empty stores would have less impact.
• Health and safety issues - Strangers driving by the school children, etc.
• He felt that this size of store violates the spirit of the guidelines. He would be in favor of rejecting this proposal and would be amenable to reconsidering a smaller store, pushed closer to 4800 West to put distance between the adjacent homes.
Discussion about how to proceed in the process. C. Dayton stated that there are a number of factors, throughout the guidelines, as well, as reason to deny, within the Zoning Ordinance. Aesthetics do matter and the size is the largest aesthetic factor. He felt that the large size does not foster aesthetics, it increases traffic and does not provide any uniqueness. Heath and safety is the primary factor and a smaller store lessens that impact and makes it safer. A large factor of the “American Dream” is owning a home and property, anything that creates a negative impact on property/home owners is a very important factor.
C. Petersen stated that he has a hard time understanding what the problem is with the big box concept. He believes that no matter what is developed on that property, whether it’s three 50,000 square foot stores or 6 stores and divide it up, that the same traffic will exist. He would like to see the Traffic Study prior to making a decision. A base level of traffic will exist because this will have commercial development. Right now there is nothing built, so it will be an impact. The proximity to two schools is not anything that the developer can do anything about; that is where it is zoned. No matter what is built there, it will increased traffic and potential hazards. He does have some concerns, but those same concerns will exist to him whether there is a big box, or a grocery store, bank, etc.
Mr. MacPherson wanted to have a clarification on the City’s guidelines. His understanding was that they were not an ordinance and were there to allow some flexibility. C. Kroes stated that they are not an ordinance, there is room for flexibility, but they should not be meaningless. The guidelines show that the highest traffic retail being out at 4800 West and Cedar Hills Drive as well as continued mention of buffers between the homes.
MOTION: C. Dayton - To deny the proposal of Walmart, based on: 1) Pages 22, 25, and 30 of the General Plan, which outline the fact that the Design Guidelines are meant to be a desirable development, minimize impact on residential areas, be a benefit to the residents, minimize impacts that development might have on surrounding residential areas; 2) Page 2 of the Zoning Ordinance, Items 3 and 5 that stipulate that the development is meant to lessen traffic and overcrowding of land; 3) Page 3, Zoning Ordinance that stipulates that these are the minimum requirements that we are asked to follow; 4) Large Scale Development section of the Zoning, Page 73, Items 7 and 8, Page 74 Item 10, Page 75 Item 14 that stipulates that all regulations within these are, in fact, a minimum requirement that we are asked to keep, 5) Design Guidelines of the City that stipulate that there shall be buffers to residential areas that request 6-day per week operation and that asks for an anchor store that takes up no more than 25% of the facat. For these reasons, we deny the Walmart store. Seconded by C. Hugie.
C. Petersen stated that he is not prepared to make a decision until he has the opportunity to fully review the traffic study. He would like to see the study that would compare traffic created by Walmart compared to a smaller store. C. Volden wanted to make sure that due process had been given. The Planning Commission is an advisory position and needs to give the City Council the best advice it can.
Aye - C. Dayton
C. Hugie
Nay - C. Petersen
C. Volden
C. Kroes Motion fails.
MOTION: C. Volden - To table the preliminary plan for Walmart for the purpose of due process, assuring that we understand all the data, specifically on details requested at the last meeting, lighting study, traffic study, to give Pacland clear direction. No second. Motion dies.
C. Petersen would like to have all of the information that was requested at the last meeting.
MOTION: C. Volden - To table the preliminary plan for Walmart for the intent of reading and understanding the lighting, traffic and noise data; also providing Walmart the opportunity to respond specifically to the size of the store (will they or will they not go smaller), hours of operation, outside storage, and to give them an opportunity to confirm to the ordinances, as stated. Seconded by C. Dayton.
The Planning Commission would like to receive the lighting study, and any other detailed studies, prior to receiving the agenda packets for the next meeting.
Aye - C. Kroes
C. Dayton
C. Petersen
C. Volden
C. Hugie Motion passes.
The Planning Commission would also like to see a study that would include trips created by other similar usages.
7. Committee Assignments and Reports (11:10 p.m.)
No reports.
8. This meeting was adjourned at 11:11 p.m. on a motion by C. Dayton, seconded by C. Petersen and unanimously approved.
/s/ Kim E. Holindrake
Approved by Commission: Kim E. Holindrake, City Recorder
August 14, 2003