PUBLIC HEARING AND REGULAR PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Thursday, February 13, 2003 7:00 p.m.
Public Safety Building
3925 W Cedar Hills Drive, Cedar Hills, Utah
Present: Craig Gardner, Chair
Commission Members: David Brenchley, Paul Laemmlen
Absent: David Prolo, Heath Clark, John Swenson
Konrad Hildebrandt, City Manager
David Bunker, City Engineer
Gretchen Gordon, Deputy City Recorder
Rodney Despain, City Planner
Bob Eddington, City Council Representative
Others: Dan Wilson, Jim Hartle, Dave Hartle, Hans Hunter, Diana Mills - New Utah
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 at 7:05 p.m.
2. Amendments to the Subdivision Ordinance
No public comment.
3. This public hearing was adjourned at 7:07 p.m. on a motion by C. Gardner, seconded by C. Brenchley and unanimously approved.
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 at 7:07 p.m.
2. Approval of the Minutes from the January 16, 2003, Regular Planning Commission Meeting (7:08 p.m.)
MOTION: C. Gardner - To approve the minutes from the Planning Commission Meeting of January 16, 2003. Seconded by C. Laemmlen.
Aye - C. Brenchley
C. Gardner
C. Laemmlen Motion passes.
3. Review/Action on Concept/Preliminary for Sage Heights (7:09 p.m.)
See handouts. David Bunker stated that this revision of the plan proposes a common drive project with 5 lots. The road would be a privately maintained road with 20' of asphalt plus curb and gutter on both sides, but no sidewalk. A couple of items that should be addressed:
• Boundary description does not close, this will need to be corrected.
• Drainage features have changed on this piece - 18" drainage pipe that comes down to Canyon Road that will empty into a sump. The historical flow from up above needs to go into the project and not into the sump.
• One sewer grade needs to be corrected.
• Improvements on Lot 1 that is on Canyon Road - Sheet 3 only shows improvements part way on Lot 1 because UDOT owns part of that property. Recommendation would be extend improvements, including over the UDOT right-of-way.
• Lot 5 - Total area is 114,275 square feet because this lot will own the road.
• Grade - There is a section of 12% on this project. This site is very difficult to develop, almost impossible, without a 12% grade. This is about 160' of 12% grade on that cul-de-sac and then tables out at 5%.
• Water shares will be turned into the City, as required.
Rodney Despain stated that this moved forward to the Council from the Planning Commission with prior revisions, but the Council rejected the plan, so it is back to the Planning Commission. He feels that this meets with the conditions that the Council discussed. The cul-de-sac is shorter and the plan is reduced by one lot. This project will create quite a bit of grading, but it is reduced from the previous plans due to the narrower road and shorter distance. The R-1-20,000 does not have a grading restriction. This is a better plan than the previous revisions. This will need to come back to the Planning Commission for final approval. The developer has addressed all of the Council’s concerns.
MOTION: C. Laemmlen - To approve acceptance of Sage Heights Subdivision, granting concept and preliminary approval, subject to the following items: 1) Correction of the boundary description, 2) Revised drainage calculations, 3) Correcting the sewer grades on the upper north section, 4) Full improvements taken care of by the developer on Canyon Road on the UDOT property fronting Lot 1, 5) Clarifying the area of Lot 5, 6) Engineering and 7) Water rights. Seconded by C. Brenchley.
David Hartle wanted to thank Rodney Despain, David Bunker and the staff for their help on this project. He did speak with the owner of the property on the north side; this goes back 16' beyond the edge of the curb and gutter. The owner indicated that he did not feel that David Hardle had the obligation to have to install curb, gutter and widen the road. At the original site plan meeting, David Hartle stated that this issue was discussed very thoroughly. This issue is concerning because the area is very steep and a lot of earth work would be required. David Hartle requested that he not have to put all of the improvements all the way to the north. Rodney Despain stated that any waiver of requirements would need to be approved by the City Council.
Aye - C. Brenchley
C. Gardner
C. Laemmlen Motion passes.
4. Review/Discuss on Annexation Policy Plan (Affected Entities Give Input) (7:27 p.m.)
See handouts. The only input has been a letter from Highland City. Initially any boundary adjustment areas were removed from the map and interpretation of the law does state that the Annexation areas only needed to be included, but the City felt that it was in the best interest of the City to include both.
MOTION: C. Gardner - To accept the draft, as proposed, noting the input from the other affected communities and entities and to set a Public Hearing for March 13, 2003. Seconded by C. Brenchley.
Aye - C. Brenchley
C. Gardner
C. Laemmlen Motion passes.
5. Review/Recommendation on Amendments to the Subdivision Ordinance Regarding Street Design Criteria and Performance Bonds (7:33 p.m.)
See handouts. The State Law requires amendments to the Subdivision Ordinance to follow a different process and requires two hearings, one before the Planning Commission and one before City Council. The language of the ordinance has been modified based on discussions during the prior meeting. Bob Eddington asked if the draft had been through legal review, which it has not. Rodney Despain stated that while the ordinance was being revised, there were some out-dated items that were also revised.
• Section 1: Substantially the same as proposed. In discussions with David Bunker, his opinion was that the private driveway limitation was not to be included. Section 1, Paragraph C, Line 1 - delete private driveway.
• Section 2: 3-5-10 The City used to required 7% open space to be deeded to the City for development. This was later to be found questionable and it is now handled by impact fees. This section is being removed.
• Section 3: 3-8-2 Streets to be Dedicated - The ordinance stated that all streets were dedicated for public use and have to conform with standards. There has since been provisions adopted for private streets and common drives, so this has been modified to address the exceptions.
• Section 4: 3-8-3 Lots to Abut Approved Streets - Lots were required to abut public streets but the wording has been changed to now allow private streets and common drives. One change - the language will be retained for the provision about lots with double frontage.
• Section 5: 3-8-5 Maintenance of private roads by City prohibited - Modification to current ordinance and addressing the fact that utilities may be maintained.
• Section 6: 3-8-8 Water Rights to be Conveyed to City - In the past the City has acquired water right in excess of need. This provision allows the City to accept cash in-lieu from the developer to meet the water rights conveyance.
MOTION: C. Laemmlen - To recommend approval of the proposed Subdivision Ordinance for the City, with the corrections discussed in the notes tonight, for consideration by the City Council. Seconded by C. Gardner.
Aye - C. Brenchley
C. Gardner
C. Laemmlen Motion passes.
6. Review/Recommendation on Amendments to the Zoning Ordinance Regarding Performance Bonds (7:47 p.m.)
See handouts. A public hearing is not required by the Planning Commission, but the issues of considering a Surety Bond are new to this ordinance. Rodney Despain wanted to ensure that the City has ready access to the funds, if needed. In the past, he has found that if there is a failure on the surety bond, a developer will have the City work through the attorneys involved. It is an acknowledged form for bonding, but he feels that it is harder to get money in the event of default. The City Attorney has stated previously that surety bonds are as valid as escrow bonds, but Rodney Despain still feels that they are more difficult to collect on. Some language has been added to Section 3 that imposes conditions that would protect the City.
MOTION: C. Brenchley - To recommend approval of the amendment to the Zoning Ordinance and forward on to the City Council. Seconded by C. Laemmlen.
Aye - C. Brenchley
C. Gardner
C. Laemmlen Motion passes.
7. Committee Assignments and Reports (7:57 p.m.)
Parks/Trails - Kim Holindrake reported that the Committee has been addressing rule signage for parks. They have reviewed pictures from other cities and gone through and decided what they like. A Final draft will be reviewed next month and will move to the Planning Commission in April. The signage will include park rules and trail markers. They have discussed some possible ideas to participate in the City celebration, by having booths, receiving donations, etc.
Site Plan - Craig Gardner reported that Sage Heights and the Kaye Pead property were reviewed. Kaye Pead has requested a narrower street profile and not installing curb, gutter, or sidewalk. Tentatively have commercial site scheduled for a Site Plan on the 25th.
8. This meeting was adjourned at 8:06 p.m. on a motion by C. Gardner, seconded by C. Laemmlen and unanimously approved.
/s/ Kim E. Holindrake
Approved by Commission: Kim E. Holindrake, City Recorder
March 13, 2003