PUBLIC HEARING AND PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Thursday, November 17, 2005 7:00 p.m.
Public Safety Building
3925 W Cedar Hills Drive, Cedar Hills
Present: Eric Richardson, Presiding
Commission Members: Carl Volden, Paul Hammer, Gary Maxwell, Donald Steele
David Bunker, City Engineer
Gretchen Gordon, Deputy City Recorder
Rodney Despain, City Planner
Courtney Hammond, City Meeting Transcriber
Others: Brandon Wyatt, Dana DuJardin, Tiffer Jenkins, Jerry Dearinger (7:12 p.m.)
PUBLIC HEARING
1. This Public Hearing 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 7:06 p.m. by C. Richardson.
2. Amendments to the City Code, Title 10, Zoning Regulations
No comments.
3. This Public Hearing was adjourned at 7:07 p.m. by C. Richardson.
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
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 7:07 p.m. by C. Richardson.
Donald Steele excused - 7:08 p.m.
Gary Maxwell was recognized as a voting member.
2. Approval of Minutes from the October 27, 2005, Regular Planning Commission Meeting (7:08 p.m.)
MOTION: C. Hammer - To approve the minutes from the October 27, 2005 Regular Planning Commission Meeting. Seconded C. Volden.
Aye-C. Hammer
C. Maxwell
C. Richardson
C. Volden Motion passes.
3. Review/Recommendation on Concept Preliminary/Final for the Dearinger Subdivision (a resubdivision of Lots 9 and 10 of Amended North Meadow Estates, Plat C) (7:09 p.m.)
See handouts. The Dearinger subdivision is in North Meadows Estates; it is an existing plat. This is a resubdivision that will create three lots. There is an existing home on Lot 2. Either consent letters need to be obtained or a Public Hearing needs to be held. If consent letters can be obtained from existing owners, a Public Hearing is not required. A few engineering issues need to be addressed.
• The plat title should say “being a resubdivision of Lots 9 and 10 and additional lands.”
• The current ordinance requires a geotechnical report. The developers and engineer requested that the report be required at the time of building permit rather than at this time. The developer would like to save the money and isn’t sure if he can sell the lot.
• The sewer flows for both Lots 1 and 3.
• C. Volden asked about shared driveways. Rodney Despain said that in this case, neither lot owners are precluded from accessing their lots if there is a quarrel over the private driveway. C. Hammer expressed concern about how close the driveway sits to the building envelope. David Bunker said that was not a problem.
• C. Hammer asked when the City should require a resubdivision to come up to current code. Rodney Despain said that might be appropriate if there was no building on Lot 2.
• This subdivision is on the Manila Water system. Manila Water is working on getting a letter to the City.
MOTION: C. Volden - To grant preliminary approval for the Dearinger Subdivision, located at 9800 North and Meadow Drive. Seconded by C. Maxwell.
The correct address is “approximately Meadow Drive and Manila Creek Drive.” C. Volden asked whether the Commission should allow the geotech report to be delayed until the time of building permit. C. Hammer said that his concern is that other developers might ask for the same leniency. David Bunker said that in most subdivisions there are no existing homes built and there is no idea of what the soil report will show. In this case, there is an existing home. Rodney Despain added that it should be exactly determined where the home and footings will be located on the lot before a geotech report is done.
AMEND MOTION: C. Volden - To recommend final approval for the Dearinger subdivision located at Meadow Drive and Manila Creek Drive, subject to the following: (1) All consent letters must be submitted for the resubdivision of the plat or the Public Hearing must be held, (2) Final Engineering including State plane coordinates, surveyor cap, symbols for plat ties, (3) Plat corrections, including lot addressing, zoning information, adjoining property owners, plat title, etc., (4) Geotech report can be delayed until prior to building permit, and (5) Verification of transfer of water rights. Accepted and seconded by C. Maxwell.
C. Hammer clarified that the geotech report can be delayed but is required before a building permit.
Aye-C. Hammer
C. Maxwell
C. Richardson
C. Volden Motion passes.
4. Review/Recommendation on Concept for Hullinger Property Located at 9730 N Canyon Road (7:46 p.m.)
See handouts. This is a proposed subdivision of the Hullinger property into two residential building lots. There is an existing home on Lot 1 and an existing accessory building on Lot 2. The developer is proposing that the building on Lot 2 be torn down. Both lots would be in excess of 20,000 square feet. This is a concept approval.
Some issues that will need to be addressed:
• Culinary water service would be required for each lot
• Pressurized Irrigation is required for each lot
• Sanitary sewer is required for each lot
• Frontage improvements will be required on Canyon Road; specifically, curb, gutter and sidewalk plus some asphalt widening.
• The front and side yard setbacks show two 10-foot setbacks for the sides. The zone requires a 24-foot total side yard setback.
• David Bunker will check to see if a geotechnical report is required for this property.
• Another issue is driveway access for Lot 2. The developer is in the process of having UDOT review and approve the driveway access for Lot 2.
MOTION: C. Hammer - To recommend concept plat approval for the Hullinger Property. Seconded by Volden.
Aye-C. Hammer
C. Maxwell
C. Richardson
C. Volden Motion passes.
David Bunker excused - 8:00 p.m.
5. Review/Recommendation on Amendments to the City Code (8:00 p.m.)
See handouts. This was reviewed by the Commission at the last meeting. All of the requested changes have been made. C. Hammer asked if the provision in #4 for notice for a public meeting is required. Rodney Despain said the language was directly from the State Code. C. Hammer would like to have the City give more notice when it is reasonable. The Planning Commission, by statute, has to give 10-day notice in the newspaper. With the City Council meetings, there is no published notice required. Rodney Despain said that the fear is that without a required Public Hearing before the Council, a Mayor would not allow public comment prior to moving on an action. C. Hammer pointed out that without a required Public Hearing, legally the Mayor should not allow public comment. C. Richardson was not willing to remove the hearing requirement from the Council.
C. Hammer would like the following information:
• Add a Public Hearing requirement to #4.
• Provide for the notice of public meetings, but not less than 24 hours.
MOTION: C. Hammer - To recommend approval of the Ordinance amending the City Code with respect to Title 10 provided that: 1) Section 2B4 is amended to provide for a Public Hearing and 2) Notice for said Public Hearing will be provided pursuant to the City’s policies, but no less than 24 hours prior to the hearing. Seconded by C. Maxwell.
Aye-C. Hammer
C. Maxwell
C. Richardson
C. Volden Motion passes.
6. Review/Recommendation on Sign Ordinance (8:30 p.m.)
Requested changed from the Commission:
• Remove window signs from page 2, number 2.
• Page 9, number 59, inside the parentheses should read “Prohibited sign unless it also meets the definition of being a short-term sign”
• Page 2, number 2 should read. “Signs not specifically allowed herein are prohibited. Without limiting the foregoing, the following signs are prohibited within the City.”
• C. Hammer requested that formatting on sign types should include a “cont.” at the top of the page (on pages 6–9)
• Page 10, E6 should read “The Planning Commission may allow development signs related to a specific development project along collector and arterial roads. The development project may have no more than two (2) development signs, which may be located off-premise along a collector or arterial road, which location is to be approved at the time of final approval of the project; but the development project may have one (1) On-Premise sign of the two (2) development signs. These signs may be located only on undeveloped parcels. These signs shall have a sign area no greater than thirty-two (32) square feet and a sign height no greater than ten (10) feet.”
• Page 10, F1, second sentence should read “Permanent signs shall have a sign area no greater than seventy-five (75) or ten percent (10%) of the facade, whichever is smaller.
MOTION: C. Hammer - To continue further discussion of the sign ordinance and limit the primary discussion to the areas concerning and touching the commercial zone. No second. Motion dies
C. Hammer was excused at 9:15 p.m.
C. Volden wanted to know if the following areas should also be addressed:
• Vehicle signs
• More information about enforcement
• Handbills - When they are attached to the doorknob and under windshield wipers on cars, are they considered signs?
MOTION: C. Volden - To table further discussion until next meeting and in the next meeting specifically address commercial zone. Seconded by C. Richardson.
Aye-C. Maxwell
C. Richardson
C. Volden Motion passes.
7. Committee Assignments and Reports (9:25 p.m.)
• C. Richardson - The City Council approved a minor driveway change in The Cedars west.
8. This meeting was adjourned at 9:27 p.m. on a motion by C. Volden, seconded by C. Richardson and unanimously approved.
/s/ Kim E. Holindrake
Approved by Commission: Kim E. Holindrake, City Recorder
December 15, 2005