REGULAR PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Thursday, May 27, 2004 7:00 p.m.
Public Safety Building
3925 W Cedar Hills Drive, Cedar Hills, Utah
Present: Alan Petersen, Chair, Presiding
Commission Members: Brendon Dayton, Paul Hammer, Eric Richardson, Carl Volden, Steve Kroes (7:08 p.m.)
David Bunker, City Engineer
Gretchen Gordon, Deputy City Recorder
Rodney Despain, City Planner (7:25 p.m.)
James Parker - Council Representative
Others: Steve Sowby, Dan Thompson, Jim Cheney, James Parker (7:12 p.m.), 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 by C. Petersen at 7:02 p.m.
Eric Richardson and Paul Hammer were recognized as voting members.
2. Approval of Minutes from the April 29, 2004, Regular Planning Commission Meeting (7:03 p.m.)
C. Richardson excused - 7:03 p.m.
MOTION: C. Hammer - To approve to amended minutes of the April 29, 2004, Regular Planning Commission Meeting. Seconded by C. Dayton.
Aye - C. Dayton
C. Hammer
C. Petersen
C. Volden Motion passes.
3. Review/Recommendation on Final for Canyon Heights, Plat G (7:04 p.m.)
C. Richardson returns - 7:04 p.m.
See handouts. David Bunker explained that previously this phase was part of Canyon Heights, Plat D, but due to constraints with water and fire flow, the final approval did not occur for these lots. Preliminary approval was given to Canyon Heights in 1999 as an overall subdivision. At that time a preliminary approval did not require as much detail as is now required. This action would be a preliminary and final approval. This proposed plat includes 13 lots on a cul-de-sac. There is an existing stub road that is already in at the aqueduct easement where the road for this plat would connect.
During the review of the proposal, a number of items were noted:
• The cul-de-sac exceeds the current City ordinance length of 1,000 feet. The developer is proposing a length of approximately 1,250.
• There is a road curve that does not meet the City ordinance. Additional cuts would be necessary to allow the curve to meet the ordinance. David Bunker felt that it could be done although it may require retaining walls. The curve is about a 145' radius and the City’s minimum is 275'. The curve is tighter than the standards allow as well as it being at a 12% grade the entire length down.
• Drainage calculations are not complete for final approval. Steve Sowby indicated that he does have new calculations with him tonight.
• The erosion control plan is not complete. Note #2 states that the NOI Permit would be submitted at the time of the preconstruction meeting, which David Bunker felt was too late.
• The off-site culinary water line has also been discussed. The reasons why this cul-de-sac was not approved with Plat D are that there were insufficient water flow, fire flow and pressure in this area. The details for the water line crossing, indicated on Sheet 11, propose to connect to an existing water line that is in The Cedars, Plat J3. There is a Pressurized Irrigation line that extends from Canyon Heights to The Cedars, Plat J3, but there is no culinary line. The developer is proposing to run the culinary water line on the west side of the existing pressurized irrigation line. Through Panels A, B and C the line would then tie onto Heiselt’s Hollow Drive at the aqueduct. There is some concern about making a connection to a high pressure line. These calculations have not been submitted, so David Bunker was unclear on the developer’s intent. The City ordinance also requires that any pressurized irrigation lines are to be installed on the west and south side of any roadway or culinary water line. This developer is proposing the reverse of the requirement.
• Easements have not been secured for the off-site culinary water line. Discussion of easements that will be required. Site 2 Aqueduct crossing is the area needed for the installation of the culinary water line. Site 1 Aqueduct crossing is the location where the cul-de-sac will be installed.
• Water pressures/calculations as well as the calculations for pressures and flow out of hydrants on the cul-de-sac need to be submitted.
• Steve Sowby stated that many of the technical corrections have been made to the plans which he brought to the meeting. David Bunker has not been given those plans and has not reviewed the corrections.
• The developer understands that the proposed length of the cul-de-sac is longer than what is allowed by ordinance, but is still wanting to maintain the 1,250 foot distance. There has been some discussion that as further development continues, if the developer continues north across PRI’s property, that other cul-de-sacs may be requested to exceed the 1,000 foot maximum. C. Petersen wanted to have some background on why the 1,000' requirement is in place. David Bunker indicated that the ordinance states that in all areas of the City, except the H-1 Hillside Zone, the maximum length of a cul-de-sac is 400'. This maximum length provision is included to provide ease of seeing to the end of the cul-de-sac, snow removal, fire safety, and to limit the number of homes that can access in and out of a cul-de-sac. Currently, the City has not allowed any cul-de-sacs in the Hillside Zone to exceed 1,000 feet. The reason for the longer length in the Hillside Zone is to account for the topography of the terrain. The Planning Commission reviewed 3-4-2.2 (Page 8) that discusses the length restriction.
Mr. Sowby indicated that the main reason for wanting to exceed the 1,000' is to allow access to 5.354 acres of land that will be utilized as City park. David Bunker stated that the City will want access to the park, but a drive could be installed to accomplish this. It is not necessary to have the bulb of the cul-de-sac at the park. C. Kroes stated that he liked the configuration, but wanted to know more about any safety issues that could arise from allowing a longer cul-de-sac. David Bunker stated that with a street you have more than one access point, but in a cul-de-sac you have one point of entry and exit. The Fire Chief has not been amenable to allowing a variance from the maximum length. C. Hammer stated that the Planning Commission does not have the authority to grant an exception anyway, but could simply make a recommendation.
• Additional geotechnical reports were requested. Mr. Sowby indicated that he has completed that and stated that all other concerns have been addressed although they have not been reviewed by the City Engineer.
• Discussion about the curve of the road. Mr. Sowby feels that because the stub road was already drawn and installed that they are simply continuing that. The curve was tightened to avoid a 50-60' cut into the hillside. The minimum radius of a curve is 275', which allows a comfortable turning radius. David Bunker has additional concerns that this tighter curve is in an area with a 12% grade, which he feels compounds the problem. The stub road is already installed at a 12% grade, which is needed to provide clearance over the adequate. C. Kroes stated that he feels that compounding two traffic safety concerns at the same location is a great concern.
• Mr. Sowby stated that he has put together a plan with a 1,000' cul-de-sac that has flag lots and private access drives, but feels that this is not the best layout and avoids the intent of the ordinance. Discussion of Lot 12 and some other lots that need to have a driveway shown to ensure that there is an area for access.
• Further discussion of the road distance that exceeds the 12% grade. The ordinance indicates that the grade can exceed the 8% maximum for “short distances,” which is defined as 500' or 50% of the total road length.
• Due to the fact that a preliminary approval has been given, the Planning Commission wanted to know if there was an obligation to approve what is presented. During the preliminary review, the extent of detail that is now being shown was not presented. The developer still has the obligation to ensure that the proposal conforms to the ordinance. Rodney Despain stated that the Planning Commission is not necessarily obligated to approve something regardless of the impact. The developer has been to a site plan meeting since the preliminary approval, prior to coming before the Planning Commission this evening, and the same concerns were reviewed by staff. The developer indicated that the concerns were pointed out, but wanted to move forward because they felt that this was the best plan and hoped to be granted an exception.
C. Richardson stated that he sees the need to allow some exception in the 12% grade due to access over the aqueduct, but did not feel that enough information was available to make a conclusive recommendation. There are still corrections and updates that the City Engineer has not received to review. C. Kroes stated that he has concerns about hillside development both from an aesthetic and safety aspect. He stated that he is not inclined to make exceptions when the development proposal may not be wise to begin with. The ordinances are made to protect people from unsafe situations and this is especially pertinent in the Hillside area where steep slopes and increased grades are prevalent. C. Volden stated that he is not inclined to recommend approval of a plan that could compromise safety, namely the radius of the curve and road grades. If those issues complied, he may be more amenable to reconsider the overall length of the cul-de-sac to accommodate easy access to the park, which would be a great benefit to the citizens of this development as well as the rest of City. C. Petersen also expressed his concern about the safety of the proposal. Steve Sowby stated that changing the curve would require larger cuts into the hillside and may make the park less accessible.
MOTION: C. Volden - To deny the proposed subdivision at this time due to noncompliance with current City Ordinances and insufficient detail regarding final design drawings, specifically issues relating to the grade over 8%, the radius of the curve, and the overall length of the cul-de-sac. Seconded by C. Hammer.
Steve Sowby stated that his preference would be to table instead of denying. The Planning Commission stated that by denying the recommendation, this allows the developer to come back with a new plan or to allow him to move to the City Council with a negative recommendation. Discussion of options that the developer could take from this point.
Dan Thompson, a resident of the Canyon Heights Subdivision, was representing about 20 residents of the subdivision. At the time that they purchased their lots, they were told that no homes would be built behind their lots. This subdivision proposal conflicts with what these residents were told when they purchased their lots. Mr. Thompson’s concerns are loss of views, traffic, and value of their homes. He continued that they feel that they were misrepresented by All American and he and others are considering a class action lawsuit.
Aye - C. Dayton
C. Hammer
C. Kroes
C. Petersen
C. Richardson
C. Volden Motion passes.
David Bunker still had concerns about issues other than those expressed by the Planning Commission, including water line pressure, easements, fire flow, location of lines, hydraulic analysis, etc. This is why it was initially removed from prior plans. Mr. Sowby will leave his revised drawings.
4. Review/Recommendation on Amendments to the Guidelines for the Design and Review of Planned Commercial Development Projects (8:10 p.m.)
• C. Hammer thought that all uses were to be changed to conditional and this did not appear in the revised version. This was just a discussion, not a motion.
• 4.1.6 - Page 15 - Review this in relation to the draft sign ordinance to make sure that they are correlated. Delay this item until after the sign ordinance has been addressed by Planning Commission.
• 4.2 Neighborhood Retail Development - change “turn of the 1900 century” to “American Colonial motif as described in Section 4.1.1.”
• Discussion of setbacks. C. Richardson stated that he felt that he would be willing to consider a reduction in setbacks because of a “lighter” commercial use. C. Petersen wanted it to be consistent. Setbacks in the R-1-11,000 Zone are 30' front and 25' rear. C. Dayton expressed his opinion that he did not feel that it should be closer than 40-50'. To be more consistent in subzones, start with a 25' setback and 35' height with taller buildings set further back from residents. C. Volden doesn’t want to encroach any closer than 30'. The consensus was to leave the minimum at 30' as it now states.
• Structure Height - Review of whether 40' was tall enough to get a two-story building. 30' tall; 30' setback starting point - 2' for each additional foot on height. Change ‘the maximum building height permitted’ sentence to “The maximum height permitted is 30 feet.” The proposed language to be inserted after this sentence was presented by C. Richardson: “For buildings within the Neighborhood Retail Zone, they may be erected to a maximum height of thirty feet. An additional height bonus of one foot per additional two feet from the required setback may be granted, up to a maximum height of forty feet. The Planning Commission may increase the required setback or require additional architectural elements for buildings taller than 35 feet, if after due consideration, feel it necessary to mitigate any negative impacts that the proposed development may have on the residential development.” This language would be similar to what other cities do in giving flexibility to the minimum if there are takeoffs for bonuses. Leave ‘Height is measured . . . ’ sentence as the last line of this section.
• Section 4.2.3 - Discussion regarding the building facade. Change this numbering to 4.2.4 and make “Maximum Building Size” as Section 4.2.3.
• Add new section 4.2.3 to address “Maximum Building Size.” There may be areas for offering a bonus for the developer to gain additional square footage, i.e., four-sided architecture, increased landscaping, better lighting, reduced sound, etc.
C. Hammer excused - 8:46 p.m.
• Discussion of examples of buildings from the surrounding areas to get an idea of what size should be the maximum. Kohlers in Highland is 40,000 square feet, just for their portion of the shopping center. They have used varying architecture to create a separation in the buildings to break up the expanse. Some Planning Commission members stated that they would have a greater comfort allowing a larger building if the City could require a surety bond in the event that the building was vacated to restore the property.
• Discussion to allow a range for the maximum size of the building and the possibility to allow a square footage bonus for developers who offer increased aesthetics, landscaping, etc.
• C. Richardson stated that the buildings should be “human scale” and provide a walkable area that could be best accomplished through smaller buildings, close together, etc.
• C. Richardson stated that he would like to see a maximum size determined for each of the neighborhood zones with up to a 50% square footage bonus for those developers who try to mitigate impact through variety in building placement, aesthetics, noise control, lighting design, traffic control, etc. He suggested 75,000 square feet in Neighborhood Retail Development, 30,000 square feet in the Mixed-Use Office/Retail Development and 10,000 square feet in the Mixed-Use Office/Residential Development. C. Dayton wanted to reduce the 75,000 square feet to 60,000 square feet.
MOTION: C. Richardson - To add Section 4.2.3 “Maximum Building Size” that states the following: “The maximum building size for the Neighborhood Retail Commercial District would be 75,000 square feet with the stipulation that an increase of up to 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.” Seconded by C. Petersen.
Aye - C. Kroes
C. Petersen
C. Richardson
C. Volden
Nay - C. Dayton Motion passes.
MOTION: C. Richardson - To continue discussion on the Commercial Guidelines for Design and Review of Planned Commercial Development Projects. Seconded by C. Dayton.
Aye - C. Dayton
C. Kroes
C. Petersen
C. Richardson
C. Volden Motion passes.
5. Committee Assignments and Reports (9:33 p.m.)
Parks/Trails Report - C. Richardson stated that Tuesday was the ribbon-cutting for the Bonneville Shoreline Trail and the Forest Creek Trail. This trail is outstanding and lots of work was done to complete the projects.
6. This meeting was adjourned at 9:37 p.m. on a motion by C. Richardson, seconded by C. Kroes and unanimously approved.
/s/ Kim E. Holindrake
Approved by Commission: Kim E. Holindrake, City Recorder
June 24, 2004