PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Thursday, September 29, 2005 7:00 p.m.
Public Safety Building
3925 W Cedar Hills Drive, Cedar Hills, Utah
Present: Alan Petersen, Chair, Presiding
Commission Members: Carl Volden, Donald Steele, Paul Hammer, Gary Maxwell, Eric Richardson (9:06 p.m.)
Kim Holindrake, City Recorder
Courtney Hammond, City Meeting Transcriber
Rodney Despain, City Planner (7:25 p.m.)
Brad Kearl, Building/Zoning Official
Others: Zonda Perry
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 7:11 p.m.
Donald Steele and Gary Maxwell were recognized as a voting members.
2. Swearing in of New Planning Commission Member
Gary Maxwell was sworn in as the Second Alternate of the Planning Commission by Kim Holindrake.
Gary Maxwell recognized as a voting member.
3. Approval of the Minutes from the August 25, 2005, Regular Planning Commission Meeting
MOTION: C. Hammer - To approve the minutes from the August 25, 2005, Regular Planning Commission Meeting. Seconded by C. Steele.
Aye - C. Hammer
C. Maxwell
C. Petersen
C. Steele
C. Volden Motion passes.
4. Review/Action on Front, Side and Rear Lot Lines for Existing Irregular Lots (7:14 p.m.)
See handouts. Discussion - Rodney Despain clarified that the rear lot line determines the setback of the building and projections from the building such as a patio. Rear yards are to be of sufficient size for uses like growing grass, kids to play, BBQ, etc. The rear yard is most remote from the front and often the shortest lot boundary. This increases the flexibility of the placement of the building. Lots tend to get smaller and houses bigger while the available space for a private park is smaller.
• North Meadow, D2 - No changes.
• Red Oaks, A19 - C. Petersen suggested that the side line at the top be changed to a rear line to match up with the rear lot line of the adjoining lot.
• Canyon Heights, D34 - No changes. Both rear lot lines remain rear lot lines.
• Canyon Heights, D35 - Kim Holindrake stated that this lot is considered a corner lot, one front will be designated as a front when the site plan is submitted and the other front will default to a side on the street. The setback is 30' on a street side but it allows a fence to be closer to the street. C. Petersen stated that he sees that the two fronts would remain as fronts with a 30' setback and not allow one to default to a side. If the Commission designates both as a front then it will remain a front. C. Hammer does not consider this a traditional corner lot. Kim Holindrake stated that making them keep the two lines as fronts become a hardship that would be taken to the Board of Adjustment. If everyone else who lives on a corner lot is allowed to put a fence 15' from lip of curb, why can’t they. The Commission shouldn’t make changes that are redefining the current ordinance. C. Petersen stated that the Board of Adjustments can make their determination. He felt the Commission should designate it the way they want to designate it and let it go. C. Hammer felt that treating one of the front lines as a side and allowing a fence, creates a completely discontiguous situation. He doesn’t think that is what the City wanted when the fencing ordinance was adopted. C. Petersen feels that this is not a standard lot but a five-sided lot. The Commission will determine what will be the front and the side. Kim Holindrake stated that the five sides have nothing to do with having a front on the street and a side on the street. Rodney Despain stated that concerns in the past had to do with the rear setback areas and rear lot lines. The rules associated with front lot lines are in the area of corner lots. If the City wants to pick and chose what is someone’s front lot line, then we will have to alter the ordinance to give the City that authority as well.
Carl Volden excused. (7:31 p.m.)
C. Hammer and C. Petersen felt that there was a consensus and to move on. C. Maxwell clarified that the issue is where someone can build their fence. Rodney Despain stated that he interprets this as a corner lot pure and simple. C. Maxwell stated that on any given corner in about any City he has developed in, you have the option of choosing which one is your front yard. We’ve developed about 13 subdivisions from Mesquite to Boise. Kim Holindrake pointed out that the determination on the Code is where the setbacks are defined. There is a front, rear, side and a side abutting a street. C. Steele stated that this addresses his concern. It automatically forces the setback to match the neighbor. Brad Kearl clarified that the 30' setback is only for the building and not a fence. C. Hammer stated that there are two places to find room to do what the Commission wants to do. The first is the definition for corner lots. The other is the side lot line and what would be a side lot line. If the Commission has designated a particular lot line as a front lot line, he doesn’t think that that can change baring somebody other than ours choosing to designate it something different and having that authority.
• Juniper Heights, B1 - No changes.
• Avanyu, B5 - No changes.
• Canyon Heights, D24 - No changes.
• Pinnacle Pointe, B29 - The side lot line at the top needs to be a rear lot line.
• Mountaintop Trails, A5 - The large property to the right of the page is undeveloped. Rodney Despain stated that there is quite a bit of grade difference between. Brad Kearl stated that if you make the side lot line at the right a rear then you dramatically diminish the building envelope. No changes.
Carl Volden returns (7:42 p.m.)
• Avanyu, B4 - Brad Kearl stated that the top side lot line was designated as such because the area next to it is open space and not a building lot. Therefore, they are not encroaching on a neighbor. No changes.
• Juniper Heights, C11, 15, 56 & 59 - No changes.
• Juniper Heights, C23 - There is a church lot and city park at the top line. The top rear lot line should be a side lot line.
• Juniper Heights, C45 - C. Hammer would label this lot like a traditional corner lot because the property to the right is the rear lot line. Some Commissioners would like the front line on Mesquite Way to be a front line only and the front on Joshua Lane to be a front/side. C. Volden felt that it is not consistent with the previous discussion. C. Maxwell stated that the difference is that this lot is abutting a rear yard and the fence will be the same. C. Volden stated that is regardless though if it is a front or alternate front. The setback is still the same. The Commission is not consistent. Changing this lot gives the owner of Canyon Heights D35 more power when going to the Board of Adjustment. C. Steele stated that the decision is inconsistent compared to Canyon Heights, D35. Kim Holindrake questioned why someone who has a square lot can pick the front and have the other be a side with a fence and those with an extra interior line not chose. You deny them having a fence where the other person can. C. Petersen reviewed the language in the ordinance that will be discussed later. Review of previous discussion of Canyon Heights, D35 and further discussion of this lot. Kim Holindrake restated what Rodney Despain had stated previously that the point of this issue was to discuss side and rear lot lines and the Commission has been caught up in the front lot lines because of fences. The fencing issue occurs time and time again throughout the City when you have corner lots. Why penalize someone because of either neighbor? C. Volden stated that both will end up before the Board of Adjustment to get a decision made. C. Petersen felt that by designating it as either a front or side in this particular case, it should not end up before the Board of Adjustment. The Commission should have alleviated that problem because the owner of the property has made the decision as to which one will be the front and side. Hopefully he gathered enough information to make that decision. Kim Holindrake stated that he will end up at the Board of Adjustment because the Commission has told him he can’t build a fence on the Mesquite Way property line. The current lot allows that. A gore-shaped lot has nothing to do with the two street lot lines. C. Petersen feels that the gore/irregular shape should have something to do with it. The Commission should designate what they want built in gore shaped lots and what should be front lot lines. Brad Kearl stated that under definition this is considered a corner lot. Kim Holindrake stated that the irregularity of the lot is not because it has two street sides. C. Volden stated that he is good with the staff’s determinations. He doesn’t see need to change them. For all practical purposes the ordinance says it’s a corner lot. It should be treated as such when it comes to fencing. It’s pretty simple. C. Maxwell agrees. C. Steele also agrees. C. Volden stated that the speculated fence issue will take care of itself.
• Juniper Heights, D9 - Brad Kearl stated that whatever the owner designates as the front, the rear will be opposite of that. It should be designated F/S and R/S. No changes.
• Juniper Heights, D5, 6, 7 & 8 - No changes.
• Juniper Heights, D4 - C. Maxwell stated to leave it as the ordinance stands. It’s a corner lot because it has two different streets. C. Volden stated that the determination has been made on the last two lots so the first lot should follow the same determination. Canyon Heights, D35 reviewed again. C. Petersen feels this lot is exactly the same as Canyon Heights, D35 and should have a mandatory two fronts. C. Maxwell, C. Steele and C. Hammer agree.
• Juniper Heights, D17 - The C7 curve should be designated as a rear. This lot has six sides. Discussion regarding the structure limit line and the side setback distance. Add R to C7 curve.
MOTION: C. Petersen - To approve the designation of front, rear, and side setbacks as discussed and noted on the document. Seconded by C. Volden.
Aye - C. Hammer
C. Maxwell
C. Petersen
C. Steele
C. Volden Motion passes.
5. Review/Recommendation to Grant a Variance for Canyon Heights, Plat G, Lot 6 (8:23 p.m.)
See handouts. Rodney Despain stated that this is a PUD and you have a lotting plan that sets the setback requirements. In this case it is identified on the final plat, which fixes the setback requirements. It shows a 54' front setback from an access to the City park. The applicant would like to reduce the front setback from 54' to 30'. The general rules associated with flag lots dealing with front setbacks state that the front setbacks shall be the same as the underlying zone. This is an odd flag lot. Again this is a design zone. He doesn’t see anything detrimental to doing this. The problem is how you go about it. It is designated on the plat and the plat is recorded. The only way to do it is to file an amended subdivision plat for Lot 6. C. Petersen questioned the 20’ sewer easement. Zonda Perry stated that the sewer easement is from the furthest east boundary to the line where the arrow is. It is the same as the flag pole. The City has PI, sewer and power running to the park in the park entrance. Rodney Despain stated that it is a sewer easement and open to the public. Zonda Perry walked the lot with David Bunker, City Engineer, and no other utilities except the sewer easement are along that area. She is not asking to build in the easement area. Topo map presented. The developer, as they put the road in, dumped fill on the west lots. Her lot actually is ground level at the park and drops 20-30 feet at the 54-foot setback. The developer stated to her that when the engineer did the plat, he kept it a straight line. The developer told her to keep the building as close to the road as possible. The lot is narrow and she won’t be able to get very close to the 30’ setback. Site plan presented. She can get to about 38’ for the front setback. The reason it is at 54’ was because of aesthetics. The setbacks line up. She will do whatever is required to make the change. Her lateral is in the 20' sewer easement and is 12' to 14' deep. Rodney Despain stated that in a PUD there is a default setback requirement. For whatever reason, the developer placed their own setbacks on the final plat. This was approved by ordinance by the City and therefore fixed. A change to a final plat is done by filing an amended plat. Done properly, you need a resubdivision of Canyon Heights, Plat G, Lot 6. This requires a signature from all property owners or a hearing. This takes action from the Planning Commission recommending a change to the Council. For this purposes, it is a lot of work but answers all the questions that may arise. C. Petersen said that this plat had a cul-de-sac that was too long and was redesigned. They made a straight line. He doesn’t see any hazardous condition being created by adjusting the building envelope. The Commission needs the plat to show where the sewer, PI and culinary water are located. The new plat will be Plat I.
MOTION: C. Hammer - To continue further discussion until the resident has complied with the recommendations that have been made. Seconded by C. Maxwell.
Aye - C. Hammer
C. Maxwell
C. Petersen
C. Steele
C. Volden Motion passes.
6. Review/Recommendation on Rear Lot Line and Irregular Lots Ordinance (8:50 p.m.)
See handouts. Rodney Despain stated that previous meeting discussions were relative to the definition of rear lot lines and the desire to separate out what is defined as rectangular and triangular, irregular, gore shaped lots. Paragraph 2B deals with that issue. The Commission wanted the opportunity to make that selection on a plat. The primary difference in determining the rear lot line is in Paragraph 2B. (Paragraph 2B read). It is a three-tiered approach to this issue. If something slipped, the burden is put on the Zoning Administrator. There has been discussion of putting together a committee but that is not needed with this definition. The last line of Paragraph 1 needs to be deleted as per previous discussions. The previous lot line designation sheets would be adopted as part of the ordinance. This does not set the setback requirements; it merely defines what lines are what. When writing ordinances, you should not regulate within the definition. Regulations come elsewhere. C. Petersen found the definition of a corner lot in the City Code, which reads, LOT, CORNER: A lot abutting on two (2) intersecting or intercepting streets where the interior angle of intersection or interception does not exceed one hundred thirty-five degrees (135°). Rodney Despain stated that when it gets beyond the 135°, it is viewed as a continuous line and not an angle. By inference, it is a corner lot. The purpose of the front line is to determine the rear lot line. It also sets the corner or street side line. Rodney Despain’s recommendation is this ordinance, which is based on what he understood the instruction to be and it accomplishes what he understood the concerns to be. C. Hammer questioned that there is no place in the Code that indicates that a property owner gets to choose the front side and then the other side becomes a side on a corner lot. Kim Holindrake stated that it is a default and isn’t spelled out. C. Hammer stated that it isn’t specified and a default doesn’t exist. The City may have a practice. C. Petersen stated that the Code reads that if it is designated as a front and a rear then all others are sides. If it is designated as a front lot line, it is a front and if it is designated as a rear lot line it is a rear. Everything else is a side. If the Commission designated both street sides as a front, they stay front. C. Hammer believes that what the City has been doing in the past in wrong. This lot line front is the front boundary line of a lot bordering on a street. There is no definition for front, so both sides border the street and both would be fronts. But that’s not practical, is it. Presumptions were made with the setbacks. C. Petersen stated that the issue is with irregular lots. The Commission is setting criteria for irregular lots. The definition of a side lot line is defined as any boundary line not a front lot line or a rear lot line. If it is designated on an irregular lot as a front line, it is a front lot line and not optional. Kim Holindrake stated that the staff has pointed out that in your determination to make the two fronts, the Commission is being unfair just because it is an irregular lot. The irregularity has nothing to do with the street side lines. The irregularity has to do with the interior rear and the side lines. The Commission is making a determination on lots that have two side street lines. C. Petersen doesn’t see that that is inappropriate. It is entirely appropriate when dealing with irregular lots. Kim Holindrake stated that if a lot has two street sides no matter how many angles are in the interior, it still has two street sides. If you are telling one owner they can do certain things with it and another they can’t, that is where you become capricious. C. Petersen stated that he feels the Commission is trying to be fair. He is trying to be fair. But he is trying to be fair to those who have not built houses at the same time as those who have built houses. Kim Holindrake stated again that it is unfair to someone who has a four sided lot and someone who has an irregular lot. It doesn’t matter whether it is square or irregular. There are still two street sides. C. Petersen questioned how he is being unfair. Kim Holindrake stated that it is unfair to tell someone with an irregular lot that they have to have two fronts, which then comes into play with fencing and other issues. C. Hammer feels the Commission can do that and they don’t need to justify it to the staff. He feels they have spent a lot of time arguing with staff tonight about these things instead of discussing it among the Commission. C. Volden stated that he would like to make a motion and accept it as is. The staff has done a great job. They did exactly what was asked. Now we are trying to change the game again. The Commission does that too often. He doesn’t have time to come here every month after asking staff to prepare documents based on information the Commission gave them just to have them redo it again. We have to be consistent in what we are asking and what we are going to implement. Staff gave us exactly what we wanted in this document and in the other document with the maps. So what if the lot has a street this way and this way. That’s not the issue. The issue is there are lots in town with four sides that have two street sides and then others with two street sides but also have two extra interior sides so they are not square or rectangular. When you determine what the front line, you automatically determine the rear. This is a front, this is a rear and therefore everything else is a side. C. Petersen appreciates the fact that the staff has done certain things for the Commission and they have done a good job. That does not preclude the Commission to consider a problem that was not considered at the time we asked the staff to do something. This document was to define rear lots and now there might be some difficulty in dealing with the front lot as well. It is not inappropriate to consider additional criteria. Rodney Despain stated that the two F’s mean front OR front and not front AND front.
Eric Richardson arrives. (9:06 p.m.)
Discussion about standard corner lots and irregular corner lots. A corner lot is defined in the Code with a 135° radius. Staff will look at these lots and the radius. Further discussion.
Paul Hammer excused. (9:44 p.m.)
MOTION: C. Volden - To refer this back to staff for further amendments as discussed. Seconded by C. Richardson.
Aye - C. Maxwell
C. Petersen
C. Richardson
C. Steele
C. Volden Motion passes.
7. Committee Assignments and Reports (9:58 p.m.)
Question asked regarding the parking lot lights at the new LDS Stake Center and that they don’t comply with the commercial design guidelines. This was brought up recently at a Council meeting and is being addressed.
8. Adjourn
This meeting was adjourned at 10:00 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
October 27, 2005