REGULAR PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Thursday, June 24, 2004 7:00 p.m.
Public Safety Building
3925 W Cedar Hills Drive, Cedar Hills, Utah
Present: Alan Petersen, Chair, Presiding
Commission Members: Eric Richardson, Brendon Dayton, Randy Hugie (7:33 p.m.)
Absent: Paul Hammer, Steve Kroes, Carl Volden
Konrad Hildebrandt, City Manager
Gretchen Gordon, Deputy City Recorder
David Bunker, City Engineer
Courtney Hammond, City Meeting Transcriber
Rod Despain, City Planner (7:06 p.m.)
James Parker, City Council Representative (7:23 p.m.)
Others: John Heiner – All American, Rex Daley – Bald Mountain, Jon Woozley, Vic Hansen, Dan Thompson, Karissa Neeley – New Utah, Ken Berg (7:06 p.m.), Brent Uibel (7:20 p.m.), Gordy Jones – G&J Construction (7:28 p.m.), Joel Harris – G&J Construction (7:28 p.m.), Cindy Wyckoff (7:56 p.m.), Jena Hancock (7:56 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 by C. Petersen at 7:02 p.m.
Eric Richardson recognized as a voting member.
2. Approval of Minutes from the May 27, 2004, Regular Planning Commission Meeting (7:04 p.m.)
MOTION: C. Richardson – To approve the minutes from the May 27, 2004, Regular Planning Commission Meeting. Seconded by C. Dayton.
Aye-C. Dayton
C. Petersen
C. Richardson Motion passes.
3. Review/Action on Concept Plan for Avanyu Acres, Plat D, and Canyon Heights, Plat H (7:05 p.m.)
See handouts. This concept plan is a five-lot subdivision that connects Box Elder Drive and Avanyu Acres Plat B and a residual parcel, which is Plat H of Canyon Heights. It was not part of the Canyon Heights development but because of how the lot is situated and would be accessed, it would not be part of the Avanyu homeowners’ group. Avanyu is a gated community. There is a gate on the south end. Another gate is proposed on the other end off Box Elder Drive. When Plat B was designed, the City required that Aztec Drive continue to Box Elder Drive. The name of the entire road is Aztec Drive. Some of the commission members felt that the entrance gate was too close to Box Elder Drive and felt that the gate should be positioned so that it is off the main flow of Box Elder Drive. Some people might enter not knowing it is gated and need to be able to turn around. The entrance gate will be a remote gate. Developer wants to keep gate as close to the road as possible so that people can see it and don’t pull in by mistake. David Bunker suggested that the gate be moved to allow one-car length and the developer agreed to make this change.
MOTION: C. Richardson – To recommend concept approval of Avanyu Acres, Plat D and Canyon Heights Subdivision, Plat H. Seconded by C. Dayton.
Aye-C. Dayton
C. Petersen
C. Richardson Motion passes.
4. Review/Recommendation on Revised Preliminary Plat for the Cedars, Plat E, Phase 4 (7:15 p.m.)
See handouts. The Cedars Plat E is a five-series subdivision that came through preliminary approval with all five phases. In the original plan, Phase 4 consisted of 12 four-plexes and one three-plex. The developers have requested a change to 24 duplexes and 1 three-plex due to the fact that the duplex units are selling better. The number of units does not change nor does the road profile change. There will be less distance between units; the distance between units will change from 15 feet to 10 feet. Other areas of The Cedars allow 5-foot setbacks between single family units for a total of 10 feet between units. Rodney Despain explained that the default in the subdivision code is 15 feet although the City can allow them to be closer than 15 feet. If the Commission wants to approve this revision, it should make a finding and a recommendation to allow the reduction in building separation. Review of the Subdivision Ordinance - Page 87, Setback and Building Separation, Paragraph 2, last line, “no occupation structure will be located closer than 15 feet to an adjacent structure.” The third paragraph, “the Council may approve a setback envelope for one or more lots.” In this revision most of the buildings will require a change to 10 feet. The staff does not believe that there is an increased hazard, including fire hazards, by reducing the setback to 10 feet.
MOTION: C. Dayton – To recommend the proposed lot layout for The Cedars, Plat E, Phase IV, contingent upon fire marshal approval. Seconded by C. Richardson.
Aye-C. Dayton
C. Petersen
C. Richardson Motion passes.
5. Review/Recommendation on Preliminary/Final Plat for Canyon Heights, Plat G (7:25 p.m.)
See handouts. Canyon Heights, Plat G, was brought to the Planning Commission last month. The developer was asked to revisit three major issues: 1) length of cul-de-sac, 2) curvature of roadway as it heads north to the bulb of the cul-de-sac, and 3) the amount of roadway that exceeded an 8 percent grade. The revised plan reviewed tonight does show the cul-de-sac to 1,000 feet to comply with the ordinance. The cul-de-sac starts at Canyon Heights Drive and ends right before the bulb. The curve off of Canyon Heights Drive has been increased from a 126-foot radius to 176 feet; the City code calls for a 275-foot radius. After calling around to other cities, David Bunker is comfortable that a 176-foot radius is adequate. There is exactly 500 feet of road that is more than 8 percent grade, none of which exceeds 12 percent. The code allows 500 feet maximum, or half the length of the street to be more than an 8 percent grade. The curve and grade are needed to get over the aqueduct. C. Richardson expressed concerns about winter conditions on a steep, tight curve. There is a ravine to the south of the road. For the most part, the road is banked on each side of the road. Review of Page 4 of the plan showing that on the south of the bank is a 2/1 cut. This begins at elevation 5,080 and continues all the way up. C. Richardson suggested banking the road, but the developer stated that this would exceed a 12 percent gradation.
Dan Thompson, a resident of the Canyon Heights Subdivision, said that the developer misrepresented plans for further building to them. They bought in Phase 3 with the understanding that nothing would be built behind them. Now there are 13 lots and a park behind their lots. Ten lots in Phase 3 are directly affected with homes behind them. The Developer responded by stating that the CC&Rs indicate that All American intended to develop all its lots. These lots were always in the plan and every resident was provided with CC&Rs. This is not an issue for the Planning Commission.
Brent Uibel, a resident in another subdivision, expressed concerns about traffic control and safety as the City grows. Rodney Despain stated that the City has created a Major Street Plan that identifies collector streets and arterial streets. A traffic-calming device has been worked into the subdivision. Mr. Despain continued that no streets have exceeded their capacity. C. Petersen stated that this discussion was not on the current agenda and would need to be discussed at a future meeting.
The City park is just five acres including the access road. The access road into the park is a 30-foot access easement, basically the size of a driveway. Instead of having the curb cut be the full radius, the City would rather see the curb come into a radius and square off at the sidewalk so that it is an entrance. That issue has been redlined and should not hold up approval. The developer intends to install a Pressure Reducing Valve (PRV) to bring pressure back down to feed the subdivision.
The developer provided drawing that will show how the trail will work in the aqueduct right-of-way. The trail will fit tucked against the easterly property along the aqueduct. The trail will come out of the City park and travel along the eastern edge of the aqueduct property to Timpanogos Cove. The developer wants to know where the trail should go after it crosses Timpanogos Cove. The easement at that point widens to 250 feet. David Bunker wants a clear definition of where the trail crosses Timpanogos Cove and what it will entail. At that point there is a curve and steep grade. A speed table would be ill advised. The developer and staff discussed the idea of colored concrete, stamped concrete or something to define the crossing. The crossing needs to be fairly large with appropriate signage. Highback curbs are needed in this subdivision for safety reasons.
MOTION: C. Richardson - To recommend Preliminary/Final approval for Canyon Heights Subdivision, Plat G, subject to: 1) Engineering squaring off the connection to the park access, 2) Providing a trail crossing that is approved by the City, and 3) Any other engineering concerns. Seconded by C. Hugie.
Rodney Despain noted that the curvature does not comply with the adopted standard and suggested that the Commission include in the motion a recommendation to the Council to authorize the departure from that standard. David Bunker suggested that it should be stated that the reason for departure is topography and to accommodate the aqueduct restrictions. Also, Lot 6 is a flag lot that is allowed as a conditional use.
AMEND MOTION: C. Richardson - To amend the motion to include a finding that the topographical conditions of the specific site lead to a recommendation to the Council that a departure from existing standards on the curvature of the road be made and also recommend approval of Lot 6 as a flag lot as a conditional use. Accepted and seconded by C. Hugie.
Aye - C. Dayton
C. Hugie
C. Petersen
C. Richardson Motion passes.
6. Guidelines for the Design and Review of Planned Commercial Development Projects (8:18 p.m.)
Konrad Hildebrandt excused - 8:19 p.m.
See handouts. Items of discussion and proposed modification to Section 4 from the handout:
• Add the word “increase” in 4.2.2, line 46. “An additional height bonus of one (1) foot per additional two (2) feet increase from the required setback . . .”
• In 4.2.4, Building Facades, delete lines 13 and 14: “The facades of the “anchor” tenant that face 4800 West and Cedar Hills Drive shall not occupy more than 25% of each facade. It is not required that the anchor tenant have a presence on each of these facades.”
• In 4.2.4, Building Facades, delete lines 16 and 17: “Canopies, awnings, colonnades, balconies and other architectural projections are required to provide visual interest and convey the architectural theme.”
• In 4.3.1, change minimum setback to 30 feet.
• 4.3.2, Structure Height, should now read: “One or two story buildings are permitted although two-story buildings are encouraged in order to more fully convey the desired architectural theme. The maximum height permitted is thirty (30) feet. For buildings within the Office/Retail Development, they may be erected to a maximum height of thirty (30) feet. An additional height bonus of one (1) foot per additional two (2) foot increase from the required setback may be granted, up to a maximum height of forty (40) feet. The Planning Commission may increase the required setback or require additional architectural elements for buildings taller than thirty-five (35) feet, if after due consideration, feel it necessary to mitigate any negative impacts that the proposed development may have on the residential development. Height is measured from average, finished grade to the top of cornice or parapet for flat roofs, and the midpoint of rake for sloped roofs.”
• In 4.3.3, Building Facades, delete lines 26 and 27 “Canopies, awnings, colonnades, balconies and other architectural projections are required to provide visual interest and convey the architectural theme.”
Konrad Hildebrandt returns - 8:35 p.m.
David Bunker excused - 8:40 p.m.
MOTION: C. Richardson – To add section 4.3.3 and renumber the later sections, increased one number, section entitled Maximum Building Size that reads as follows: “The maximum building size for the Office/Retail Development shall be 25,000 square feet with the stipulation that an increase of up to fifty percent (50%) could be approved if mitigating measures are in place, such as building placement, aesthetics, noise control, lighting design, traffic control, etc. to give the feel of a smaller building. Building size shall be measured as building footprint.” Also, amend section 4.2.3, Maximum Building Size to include the same last sentence “Building size shall be measured as building footprint.” Seconded by C. Hugie.
Aye-C. Dayton
C. Hugie
C. Petersen
C. Richardson Motion passes.
David Bunker returns - 8:50 p.m.
• In 4.4.1, item 1, change minimum setback to 30 feet.
• 4.4.2, item 2, Structure Height, should now read: “One or two story buildings are permitted although two-story buildings are encouraged in order to more fully convey the desired architectural theme. The maximum height permitted is thirty (30) feet. For buildings within the Office/Commercial Development, they may be erected to a maximum height of thirty (30) feet. An additional height bonus of one (1) foot per additional two (2) foot increase from the required setback may be granted, up to a maximum height of forty (40) feet. The Planning Commission may increase the required setback or require additional architectural elements for buildings taller than thirty-five feet, if after due consideration, feel it necessary to mitigate any negative impacts that the proposed development may have on the residential development. Height is measured from average, finished grade to the top of cornice or parapet for flat roofs, and the midpoint of rake for sloped roofs.”
• In 4.4.1, item 3, delete line 22 and 23, “Canopies, awnings, colonnades, balconies and other architectural projections are encouraged to provide visual interest and convey the architectural theme.
MOTION: C. Richardson - To table discussion of the Guidelines for the Design and Review of Planned Commercial Development Projects until next meeting and continue with Section 4.4.1. Seconded by C. Dayton.
Aye-C. Dayton
C. Hugie
C. Petersen
C. RichardsonMotion passes.
7. Committee Assignments and Reports (9:15 p.m.)
No reports.
8. This meeting was adjourned at 9:15 p.m. on a motion by C. Dayton, seconded by C. Richardson and unanimously approved.
/s/ Kim E. Holindrake
Kim E. Holindrake, City Recorder
Approved by Commission:
July 29, 2004