Regular Planning Commission Meeting
Thursday, July 29, 2004 7:00 p.m.
Public Safety Building
3925 W Cedar Hills Drive, Cedar Hills, Utah
Present: Alan Petersen, Chair, Presiding
Commission Members: Carl Volden, Eric Richardson, Paul Hammer, Steve Kroes (7:29 p.m.)
Kim Holindrake, City Recorder
David Bunker, City Engineer
Courtney Hammond, City Meeting Transcriber
Others: Gary Moore - Tropical Trails Estates, Raymond Volden, Ty Briggs, Kyle Spencer, Karissa Neely - New Utah, Mark Christensen - JUB
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 7:06 p.m.
Paul Hammer and Eric Richardson recognized as a voting member.
2. Approval of Minutes from the June 24, 2004, Regular Planning Commission Meeting (7:07 p.m.)
MOTION: C. Richardson - To approve the minutes from the June 24, 2004, Regular Planning Commission Meeting. Seconded by C. Petersen.
Aye-C. Hammer
C. Petersen
C. Richardson
C. Volden Motion passes.
3. Review/Recommendation on Tropical Trails Estates, Plat A, Amended (7:10 p.m.)
See handouts. Tropical Trails Estates was originally approved in November 1998. Lot 1 of the original plat was 90 feet wide and went straight back. There is an existing home on Lot 2. To give that home more building space, the amended plat essentially makes Lot 1 a flag lot. A flag lot is permitted in this zone and meets all the requirements. Due to the fact that this plat was approved in 1998 and curb and gutter was not required at that time, the staff recommends that the City not require curb and gutter now. The developer would need all the utilities on the lot. There is already an easement and the sewer is in. The existing house meets all the setback requirements.
MOTION: C. Hammer - To recommend the final plat for Tropical Trails Estates, Amended Plat A, subject to engineering approval. Seconded by C. Richardson.
Aye-C. Hammer
C. Petersen
C. Richardson
C. Volden Motion passes.
4. Review/Recommendation on The Cedars, Plat C, Amended (7:25 p.m.)
See handouts. The Cedars, Plat C, is a recorded plat and all subdivision improvements are in. This amendment proposes eliminating three lots in order to make some other lots larger. It also eliminates two mid-block, sidewalk access easements. This proposed change would not create lot line adjustments to existing homes.
• Many of the lots were very narrow and the developer stated that they are trying to improve the look and feel of the community. Narrow lots would require that all the homes have front access garages and much of the face of the home would be the garage. In the Cedars, it is not permitted to repeat a house plan within five lots. With narrow lots, after the garage, there are only 8-10 feet for a variance in elevation and plans. The developer also wants to allow the option of bigger homes in this portion of the development.
• C. Hammer noted that the larger lots wouldn’t necessarily improve the look of the community. Houses would be larger, but setbacks would not increase.
• Density would be reduced in terms of number of houses, but not in terms of open space.
• The developer argued that residents feel that the sidewalk access easements are rarely used and affect their privacy. Kim Holindrake stated that in The Cedars, residents can grow vegetation in the fencing for privacy. This is only allowed in The Cedars development so privacy shouldn’t be an issue. The Planning Commission expressed concern about eliminating the sidewalk access easements because of the winding nature of the streets in The Cedars. The Commission felt that there could be a safety concern to parents who send their children to the park because there would not be a more direct access.
• The Home Owner’s Association (HOA) would need to approve the elimination of the sidewalk access easements. The developer had a letter from the HOA relinquishing those easements. The developer stated that eliminating the easement gives them an additional 25 feet of land. Without the 25 feet, it wouldn’t make sense to increase the lot size.
• The developer stated that if the Commission did not recommend this amendment tonight, that he was unwilling to draw up another proposal and instead will move forward with the original plat.
• A suggested compromise was eliminating some but not all of the easements, repositioning the easements and narrowing the width of the easements to six feet.
• In order to amend the plat, there is a requirement to submit consent letters from affected homeowners. These letters are not required to be submitted to the Planning Commission, but will be required for City Council. The developer stated that consent has already been signed by all homeowners.
MOTION: C. Volden - To not recommend the proposed lot layout and amended plat for The Cedars Plat C. Seconded by C. Hammer.
C. Volden would like to see another proposal. He suggested that the developers take their new proposal directly to the City Council. The Council will see that the Planning Commission did not recommend the revision, but will also read the discussion and see that, with revision, the proposal would likely be approved. Kim Holindrake pointed out that the City Council may read the discussion, but primarily base their decisions on the Planning Commission’s recommendation. C. Petersen was against voting “no” and then sending it to the City Council. Rather, the Planning Commission should recommend the amendment with specific contingencies so the Council knows exactly what the Commission supports. C. Kroes felt that recommending the revision would be bending over backwards to approve something that the Commission hasn’t seen. C. Richardson said he would be willing to come in for a special meeting. The developer suggested recommending the proposal contingent on one eight-foot easement that passes through lots 35 and 36.
Aye -C. Hammer
C. Volden
Nay -C. Kroes
C. Petersen
C. Richardson Motion fails.
MOTION: C. Richardson - To recommend the proposed lot layout and amended plat for The Cedars Plat C, subject to: 1) A trail easement on or about Lots 35 and 36 with a sidewalk of at least 6 feet and an easement of at least 8 feet to continue through to The Cedars Plat I, and 2) Any engineering concerns. Seconded by C. Kroes.
C. Kroes stated that he is willing to vote for it because it is reasonable, but he doesn’t feel that the Planning Commission should be pushed into rushing things because the developer is concerned about his own business interests. C. Hammer is concerned that the Planning Commission is allowing for larger lots and not discussing setback changes. The clarification was made that setbacks are not being changed.
Aye - C. Hammer
C. Kroes
C. Petersen
C. Richardson
Nay - C. Volden Motion passes.
5. Review/Recommendation on Revised Final for the Cedars, Plat I (8:15 p.m.)
See handouts. C. Petersen wanted the Planning Commission to note that this plat includes two proposed roads on unstable land. He wants the Commission to realize that if the citizens come and want the City to take possession of the roads in the area, the Commission should not do that because of slope stability concerns. This plat has similar concerns as Plat C with sidewalk access easements. Plat I had been preliminarily approved with sidewalk easements. This proposal has eliminated the sidewalk easements.
MOTION: C. Volden - To deny the final plat for The Cedars Plat I. No second. Motion dies.
MOTION: C. Richardson - To recommend the final plat for The Cedars Plat I, subject to: 1) A trail easement on or about Lots 2 and 3 with a sidewalk of at least 6 feet and an easement of at least 8 feet continuing through to The Cedars Plat C, and 2) Any engineering concerns. Seconded by C. Kroes.
C. Hammer expressed concerns about sidewalk access easements for children that will be walking home from a church or school that might be built in The Cedars.
Aye-C. Kroes
C. Petersen
C. Richardson
Nay-C. Hammer
C. Volden Motion passes.
C. Richardson excused - 8:25 p.m.
6. Review/Recommendation on the Storm Water Management Program (8:26 p.m.)
See handouts. The Storm Water Management Program (SWMP) is a requirement through the EPA Storm Water Phase II regulations. It is an EPA program administered by the State of Utah. The City has applied for a permit and received it through the State. The City has worked with JUB Engineers on creating this program. The goal of the program is to reduce storm water pollution. The EPA requires six minimum control measures: (1) Public education and outreach on storm water impacts, (2) Public involvement/participation, (3) Illicit discharge detection and elimination, (4) Construction site storm water runoff control, (5) Post-construction storm water management in new development and redevelopment, and (6) Pollution prevention/good housekeeping for municipal operations.
The City obtained a permit last year. The most substantial part of the permit is the SWMP. It outlines what the City commits to do and includes measurable goals. Every year the City will make an accounting stating how it is doing in meeting the goals. Every five years the document needs to be re-approved.
SWMP is laid out in four parts plus appendices. Part 1 is an introduction. Part 2 is Best Management Practices (BMPs) that the City will perform. There are tables that address what the City will do to address each minimum control measure. Part 3 is the Storm Water Technical Manual, which establishes the requirement that developers consider storm water pollution and do a construction site storm water management plan. It also explains specific storm water design criteria. Part 4 is the construction and post construction BMPs. It consists of BMP fact sheets that show what contractors would do during construction. These will appear on the development plans. Appendix A contains a letter from Utah County Storm Water Coalition. The cities of Utah County got together with the County to form a coalition. This coalition will help the City take care of the requirements that are more efficiently addressed as a group. Appendix B is the text of the EPA’s Storm Water Phase II Rule. Appendix C consists of blank BMP reporting forms. Appendix D is space to put a copy of the annual reports.
• Part 3-6 clarification: Section A mentions a 10-year storm and two 100-year storms. The rest of the section mentions a 50-year storm. This is technically correct.
• Part 3-12, the last paragraph should say “Cedar Hills City,” instead of “Pleasant Grove City.”
• Part 1-4, Section D, first sentence should read “two of which are at greater risk and must be protected from surface water contamination” or something similar to eliminate any doubt that the wells need to be protected. In the same section “Pleasant Grove wells” should read “Manila Water Company wells.”
• Storm water drainage has improved on Cedar Hills Drive since the detention pond was put in at Oak Road East. There are plans to extend storm drains on Cedar Hills Drive from Willow Court to Oak Road East. Some storm drainage runs outside the City, discharges into Manila Ditch and flows down to Utah Lake. Retention facilities are built differently. Some have sumps in the bottom, others don’t but allow for percolation along the surface area of the pond. C. Petersen feels that this program isn’t very pertinent in this area but recognizes that it is something the EPA requires.
MOTION: C. Hammer - To recommend approval of the Storm Water Management Program as amended. Seconded by C. Kroes.
C. Kroes feels that managing the effects of storm water is important to water supply. C. Petersen feels that the management of silt at construction sites is very important as well.
Aye-C. Hammer
C. Kroes
C. Petersen
C. Volden Motion passes.
C. Richardson returns - 8:55 p.m.
7. Guidelines for the Design and Review of Planned Commercial Development Projects (8:56 p.m.)
MOTION: C. Petersen - To table this item until the next meeting. Seconded by C. Kroes.
C. Hammer and C. Richardson pointed out that there are only three pages left and the Planning Commission should try to finish this document tonight.
Nay - C. Hammer
C. Kroes
C. Petersen
C. Richardson
C. Volden Motion fails.
• Page 17: Landscape materials should be numbered 4.2.5.
• Page 20: First paragraph should be part of paragraph 4.4.
• Page 20: Building setbacks should be numbered 4.4.1.
• Page 20: Structure height should be 4.4.2 and should read like 4.3.2
• Page 20: Add section 4.4.3, which is the size requirement. It should read like 4.3.3, except size is 10,000 square feet.
• Page 20: #3 should be numbered 4.4.4.
• Page 20: #4 should be numbered 4.4.5
• Page 21, line 12: All the single-family attached site planning through page 24, #11, should be deleted.
MOTION: C. Richardson - To adopt the revised Guidelines for the Design and Review of Planned Commercial Development Projects and forward it to the City Council, as amended. Seconded by C. Volden.
C. Hammer would like to go through the entire book again and would like a few weeks to look it over. He remembers a motion where all permitted uses were changed to conditional uses. C. Richardson will work on putting the pictures together. David Bunker asked the Planning Commission to look at the Guidelines from the point of view of commercial developers and make sure that it isn’t so tight and restrictive that it will drive developers away. A landowner has come to David Bunker expressing concern that it is too restrictive.
Aye - C. Volden
Nay-C. Hammer
C. Kroes
C. Petersen
C. Richardson. Motion fails.
The Commission would like more time to look at materials before their meetings. The developers are required to give materials to David two weeks in advance. C. Hammer particularly doesn’t like being given materials he is supposed to be familiar with right before the meeting.
MOTION: C. Richardson - To table discussion on the Guidelines for the Design and Review of Planned Commercial Development Projects until the next meeting at which time the Commission will review the entire book. No second. Motion dies.
The changes made at the meeting need to be voted on in order to be officially changed.
AMEND MOTION: C. Richardson - To adopt the changes as discussed this evening and continue the discussion at the next meeting at which time the Committee will consider the entire book. Seconded by C. Petersen.
Aye-C. Hammer
C. Kroes
C. Petersen
C. Richardson
C. Volden Motion passes.
8. Committee Assignments and Reports (9:10 p.m.)
The sign ordinance draft has been submitted to the City Recorder. C. Petersen proposes putting it on the agenda.
9. This meeting was adjourned at 9:13 p.m. on a motion by C. Kroes, seconded by C. Volden and unanimously approved.
/s/ Kim E. Holindrake
Kim E. Holindrake, City Recorder
Approved by Commission:
August 26, 2004