REGULAR PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Thursday, June 19, 2003 7:00 p.m.
Public Safety Building
3925 W Cedar Hills Drive, Cedar Hills, Utah
Present: Heath Clark, Chair
Commission Members: Alan Petersen, Steve Kroes, John Swenson, Carl Volden
Alternates: Brendon Dayton, Randy Hugie
David Bunker, City Engineer
Kim E. Holindrake, City Recorder
Rodney Despain, City Planner (7:15 p.m.)
Rob Fotheringham, Council Representative
Others: Jerry Hoke, Roger Knell
1. This special 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 7:04 p.m.
2. Swearing in of New Planning Commission Members (7:05 p.m.)
Kim E. Holindrake, City Recorder swore in Carl Volden, voting member; Brendon Dayton, first alternate; and Randy Hugie, second alternate.
3. Approval of Minutes from the May 15, 2003, Regular Planning Commission Meeting (7:08 p.m.)
C. Peterson commented that he was disappointed in the proper time frame for noticing the Open House. His newsletter came to his house two days before the meeting. Kim Holindrake stated that the notice was published in the New Utah two weeks and one week prior to the open house. It was in the newsletter in the utility bills and posted in the office and throughout the City. C. Kroes stated that the Deseret News carried a story right after the May meeting. There is a balance that the City has to strike between the cost of mailing special letters. C. Peterson stated that residents made comments to him that they didn’t hear about it and he just wanted to make that comment. Kim Holindrake also stated that two very large banners were placed in the City; one on the east end and one on the west end of Cedar Hills Drive. These could not be placed at the corner of the office because of the clear vision area (45' back from corner and creating a triangle). These banners are very expensive and were used previously. C. Volden stated there was more than sufficient noticing legally. It may not have been what the residents wanted.
MOTION: C. Petersen - To approve the minutes of the May 15, 2003, Regular Planning Commission meeting. Seconded by C. Swenson.
Aye - C. Clark
C. Swenson
C. Kroes
C. Petersen
Abstain - C. Volden Motion passes.
4. Review/Recommendation on Political Sign Ordinance (7:09 p.m.)
See handouts. Discussion that there is not a current city ordinance regarding signs in general. David Prolo was working on a sign ordinance prior to moving so someone needs to pick that up again. Kim Holindrake has the draft and copies of surrounding city ordinances. There was a reference to signs in the new nuisance ordinance.
Discussion - Page 1, Part II, Item 2 - Check state reference. Where does the State and Federal elections come in. This states Primary and Municipal. Homes within the 150' on election must remove their signs. Add “on election day” at the end. The 150' is from any point of the building. The state references are noted so that candidates will get all the information and not have to worry about any restrictions somewhere else. Illuminated signs can become a nuisance. The school marque is lit and was a concern to residents. Political signs can become a nuisance in general even though they are out during a short time frame. Political signs are special, temporary signs that are different from normal signs and may have their own size restrictions, etc. Coordinate the nuisance language with this ordinance so that political signs are not a nuisance. The timing of this ordinance is critical because candidates can begin filing for office on July 15 and need to be given this information. It needs to go to the council on July 1. Item 3 - Add “and/or property owner”. No signs are allowed in the public right-of-way. The language regarding conflicting ordinances is the standard language used with every ordinance.
MOTION: C. Volden - To recommend approval of the political sign ordinance subject to the following changes, 1) Part II, Item 2, add language for state and federal elections and “on election day”, 2) Item 3, add “and/or property owner”, and 3) verify that this ordinance is not contrary to the current nuisance ordinance.
Aye - C. Clark
C. Swenson
C. Kroes
C. Petersen
C. Volden Motion passes.
5. Review/Recommendation on Vacation of Lot 31, Canyon Heights, Plat D and Proposed Canyon Heights, Plat F (7:25 p.m.)
See handouts. David Bunker reviewed that Lot 31 is part of Canyon Heights, Plat D, which is now being proposed as Plat F. Lot 1 will remain a proposed church site. Lot 2 would be a proposed single-family, residential lot. The request has been made because all of the area is not necessary for the church parcel. The devleoper felt that the area (lot 2) could be better served as a residential lot. Lot 2 meets the required frontage and lot square footage. The frontage has to be on Box Elder Drive because Aztec does not meet the frontage requirements. The frontage needs to be be 80'. Set backs would be 30' front and street side, 30' rear and 12' interior side.
Discussion of the H-1 zoning and how this development was developed under the Planned Residential Development requirements. Lots can be as low as 10,000 square feet. The H-1 zone has two types of development alternatives, lot by lot and planned residential development. A PRD allows clustering, which creates large open areas. The clustering proposal allows the development to be clustered and the City owns the remaining portion. All of the property east of the Bonneville Trail is city owned property and is the open space component of this development and conveyed to the City. The density on the hillside areas is used in the flatter areas.
This church property is split between two zones, H-1 Hillside and R-1-20,000. Rodney Despain stated that all of the property does not have to be in the same zone. The H-1 zone is exclusively residential. C. Petersen stated that the H-1 zone does not allow churches. Is this a problem? Does there need to be some kind of exception? Discussion - This has already been approved as a church site. Previously there was an assumption made that churches were allowed. The assumption needs to be made that this is a phase of a larger project. The property needs to be re-zoned into one zone and the H-1 Hillside zone needs to be amended to allow churches. Both a change of the zoning language and a change of the zone requires a public hearing. The current zoning is a matter of history and came into the City at different times, which created the different zoning. The Commission can move forward on the assumption that churches will be added to the H-1 zone and the zoning will be changed to all H-1 zone. Rodney despain stated that the current ordinance was created before the City knew the character of the development. This PRD looks exactly like a regular subdivision and is a PRD in name only. There is no homeowners association or commonly held property. It looks so much like a subdivision that it is thought of as one. Thus subdivisions allow churches and that is where the slippage came in. The Commission’s action starts the process and there is about 4-6 weeks to complete the process of re-subdividing the property.
Further review of setbacks and building envelope size. The developer is requesting a 20' rear setback and the Commission can allow that. It has been done in other plats of Canyon Heights. Currently the setbacks allow for a 5,400 square-foot, building envelope, which is a good sized print for a house. Allowing a 20' rear setback gives more latitude for a home. David Bunker stated that he would not recommend giving final because preliminary drawings need to be provided for lot 2 including contours, setbacks, laterals, addressing, building envelope, etc.
Discussion that the lot could remain one lot but there still is the issue of a church not being allowed. The City could refuse a building permit. This issue needs to be taken care of.
Process - The State Code allows an amendment to a lot by using two processes. 1 - If 100% of the owners sign a consent form stating that they consent to the amendment, then the Planning Commission makes their recommendation and the Council can approve it. 2 - The applicant provides the names and addresses of every property owner in the plat and within 300' of the lot, the Planning Commission makes a recommendation on the division, a notice is mailed to every property owner in the plat and within the 300' stating the proposed lot division and possible public hearing, there is a 10-day protest period, if one property owner protests the division then the public hearing is held and then the City Council must make the finding that neither the public nor any individual will be materially damaged and then takes action. The developer has asked to do the second process because they cannot get consent letters from 100% of the owners.
At this time the Planning Commission needs to decide to allow the lot split or not. Leaving this as one lot and going on to site approval for the church doesn’t speed the process because the zoning change still needs to be done. The lot split can occur even after the church has been built because it is still within the boundaries of the PRD.
MOTION: C. Petersen - To recommend preliminary and final approval to the City Council subject to 1) contours being submitted, 2) lateral locations for lot 2 added, 3) lot addressing, 4) building envelope on lot 2 defined, 5) setbacks amended on lot 2 with a 20' rear setback, and 6) any other final engineering. Seconded by C. Volden.
Aye - C. Clark
C. Swenson
C. Kroes
C. Petersen
C. Volden Motion passes.
6. Committee Assignments and Reports (8:25 p.m.)
MOTION: C. Heath - To appoint Brendon Dayton to serve as the Planning Commission representative to the Parks and Trails Committee. Seconded by C. Kroes.
Aye - C. Clark
C. Swenson
C. Kroes
C. Petersen
C. Volden Motion passes.
C. Volden will take the responsibility to work on the sign ordinance.
Discussion - C. Petersen brought up an issue regarding the 5' setbacks for sheds from the property line. What is the purpose of the setback? He understands that you don’t want to encroach on other buildings or property owners. In the valley there are many sheds that are on the property line next to a fence. Is it a fire issue? Can the zoning be changed? People don’t get a permit simply because it’s easier to wait for someone to complain. Can the ordinance be made more comfortable to live with? C. Volden stated that he wouldn’t want drippage along his 168' feet of cedar fence. Drippage can undermine and wash out a fence. David Bunker stated that a 5' public utility easement is around the property line on each property. Typically structures are not allowed on a public utility easement because if access is needed, then a structure has to be taken down. Rodney Despain stated that it is both a zoning issue and a public utility issue.
C. Volden excused 8:37 p.m.
Rodney Despain stated that the public utility easements are specifically identified on the recorded plat. The zoning identifies a 5' setback to protect the easement. Some communities have done away with the 5' requirement and added language that you can’t build on an easement. By practice this is the technique that the City has used. C. Petersen understands the utility easement issue but feels that the 5' setback around a lot is a nuisance. Rodney Despain stated that a zero lot line creates two things, the drippage issue and those buildings typically store gasoline and flammables. The setback is to protect neighbors from a fire originating in the shed. Some cities have adopted that if at the zero lot line, then the shed wall is required to be a certain fire rating. C. Petersen stated that he has a concrete wall and there is no fire issue. He would like to make it easier for residents to comply. Rodney Despain stated that the new International Building Code needs to be checked. American Fork City went to a 3' setback based on the recommendation of the building code. The building code may require a fire wall within a certain distance. C. Clark stated that there is a reason for the setback because of the utility easement whether the shed is mobile or not. Rodney Despain suggests checking with the building inspector and firm up protecting easements. C. Petersen stated that he has found that the consensus of the people is to do it first and worry about the consequences later.
7. Adjourn
This meeting was adjourned at 8:55 p.m. on a motion by C. Kroes, seconded by C. Petersen and unanimously approved.
/s/ Kim E. Holindrake
Approved by Commission: Kim E. Holindrake, City Recorder
July 10, 2003