PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING

Thursday, March 27, 2008 7:00 p.m.

Public Safety Building

3925 W Cedar Hills Drive, Cedar Hills, Utah



Present:           Cliff Chandler, Chair, Presiding

Commission Members: Scott Jackman, Donald Steele, Craig Clement, Gary Maxwell, Bobby Seegmiller, H.R. Brown (7:10 p.m.)

David Bunker, City Engineer

Kim Holindrake, City Recorder

                        Greg Robinson, Assistant to the City Manager - Planning

                        Courtney Hammond, City Meeting Transcriber

                        Others:



PLANNING COMMISSION

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 7:06 p.m. by C. Chandler.

 

2.         Swearing in of New Planning Commission Member (7:06 p.m.)

 

Kim Holindrake swore in Gary Maxwell as first alternate and Bobby Seegmiller as second alternate to the Planning Commission.


            Gary Maxwell was recognized as a voting member.


SCHEDULED ITEMS

3.         Approval of Minutes from the February 28, 2008, Public Hearing and Regular Planning Commission (7:08 p.m.)


MOTION: C. Clement - To approve the minutes of the February 8, 2008, Regular Planning Commission Meeting and Public Hearing. Seconded by C. Jackman.

 

Yes-C. Chandler

C. Clement

C. Jackman

C. Maxwell

                                                                        C. Steele                                 Motion passes.

 

4.         Review/Recommendation on the Final Subdivision Plat for St. Andrews Estates, PRD, Located Between 10950 North and 10570 North along the East Side of Canyon Road (Golf Course Hole 15) (7:10 p.m.)


            See handouts.



Staff Presentation:

Greg Robinson stated this design is an amended plat. Previously the northern end had commercial development. It now has three lots with a common drive. There is a completed erosion control plan. Utility and road profiles are also included. Lots 10 and 11 have increased setbacks to limit potential hillside elevations. Storm drainage will flow into the north end of the cul-de-sac, toward the common drive, down Canyon Road, and then be piped to pond 10. The subdivision meets code for the H-1 Hillside Zone in the PRD section of the code. The City has approached UDOT, and they have approved the two entrances. David Bunker stated that the developer will be required to pay for all storm drainage improvements. There is no curb and gutter on the east side of Canyon Road at the development site. There is storm drainage in Canyon Road that takes it across to the west side. The developer would need to connect into that storm drain. There would be additional offsite improvements to pipe the water from the bottom of the slope to pond 10, about 1,500 - 2,000 feet. A note should be added that lot 5 shall access from St. Andrews Court only. Eric Richardson said the City Council is considering a time frame, amount of money, and amount of risk to determine how far to develop the project and how to sell the land.


Commission Discussion:

          C. Clement would prefer to see a requirement for fully engineered foundations that are stamped by a licensed engineer and inspected post-installation rather than piers because piers are not always the best answer. The rest of the Commission agreed.

          C. Seegmiller suggested requiring a certain type of fence along the cart path for continuity. Value goes up with entitlement, but chances this is not exactly what a buyer wants. If there is no time crunch, he recommended getting the land on the market as raw land, letting potential buyers decide what configuration they want, entering into a development contract, and then entitling the land. He does not recommend taking it to full development. It is too expensive and risky in today’s market. David Bunker said the engineering on this is tight and has taken a lot of effort. Letting a developer tweak it would be okay if the developer wants to foot the bill on engineering.

          C. Maxwell stated that there are certain key numbers on the size of lots that may make the land more sellable. He recommended moving back the lot lines to go up the hill, but no closer than 10 feet to the cart path. One of the challenges with this property is that there is only a certain width of property and the lots cannot be narrowed if you want to fit an estate type home. This could be approved but not recorded to allow a buyer to make changes.

          C. Steele would also like to see an increased setback for lot 9. Greg Robinson said that instruction to Civil Science was to limit wall height to 10 feet. Lot 9 passed those requirements. C. Steele stated that he does not like flag lots, and City code states that flag lots are not preferable. He would like to see an attempt to remove the flag lot. David Bunker stated that flag lots are desirable and worth more. Extending the bulb removes usable area from the lots and creates more roadway.

          C. Brown said that from his experience, developers try to squeeze in as much density as possible. He does not want to see a developer come in with the door wide open to change the layout and add density.


MOTION: C. Jackman - To recommend approval of St. Andrews Estates amended Preliminary/Final Subdivision Plat subject to making note of engineered foundations, only lots 20, 21, 22 have access to the common drive, increase lot sizes to rounder numbers by moving back lot lines to within 10 feet of the cart path. Seconded by C. Clement.

 

Yes-C. Brown

C. Chandler

C. Clement

C. Jackman

C. Maxwell

                                                                        C. Steele                                 Motion passes.

 

5.         Review/Recommendation on Plat Amendment for The Cedars, Plat I, Regarding Setbacks (specifically Lot 32) (8:13 p.m.)


            See handouts.


Staff Discussion:

Greg Robinson said that this was an oversight by the construction company building the home on lot 32. There is a pin that sits on the property line that causes the lot to have an interior curve. The construction company did not find the pin and treated the rear setback as straight. The foundation now measures nine inches into the setback. The property owner is asking for a change to the setback. Eric Richardson said that code allows flexible planning in certain developments, such as PRDs. In those cases, setbacks were determined as part of the plat. A change of the setback can be made for specific lots by amendment rather than a variance. When the amendments have been made in the past, there is a set of findings that need to be made. Past variances have ranged from six feet to six inches.


Commission Discussion:

          C. Chandler stated that he doesn’t like that mistakes like this come before the Planning Commission. Granting amendments sets a bad precedent.

          C. Seegmiller stated that there should be an ordinance that sets the procedure for these types of mistakes.

          C. Maxwell stated that the City has made these type of amendments several times. The City can’t do it for one person and not for another or the decisions could be seen as arbitrary and capricious.

          C. Brown stated that approving one amendment doesn’t require us to approve another setback amendment under different circumstances.


MOTION: C. Maxwell - To recommend approval of an amendment to The Cedars, Plat I, and amend the rear setback for lot 32 from a 15-foot setback to a 14-foot setback due to the fact that there is open space behind the lot, and no other homeowners or adjacent lots will be negatively impacted. Seconded by C. Clement.

 

Yes-C. Brown

C. Chandler

C. Clement

C. Jackman

C. Maxwell

                                                                        C. Steele                                 Motion passes.

 

6.         Review/Recommendation on Amendments to the Guidelines for the Design and Review of Planned Commercial Development Projects Specifically Building Height Limitations (8:32 p.m.)


            See handouts.


Staff Presentation:

Greg Robinson stated that this situation arose from a site plan review. The developers would like to take the corners and center piece on Cedar Hills Drive higher than what the height limitations in the Commercial Design Guidelines currently allow. They have requested to exceed the 40-foot maximum. The Commercial Design Guidelines allow the height limitation to increase for every two feet of additional setback up to 40-feet high. These amendments change the Commercial Design Guidelines to allow a maximum building height of 50’ of livable area and still include one foot of height bonus for two feet of setback distance from residential. Eric Richardson stated that Wal-Mart would not have taken the time to apply if the Commercial Design Guidelines were not changed to allow for a larger building. Last time the Council changed the guidelines without going to the Planning Commission. This will be going to the City Council, and they want input from the Planning Commission. The City Council feels that number calculations are less guiding than verbiage and are more likely to make amendments to those portions of the Commercial Design Guidelines that include number calculations.


Commission Discussion:

          C. Steele recommended keeping the Commercial Design Guidelines the same and addressing these types of issues on a case-by-case basis. He feels the Commercial Design Guidelines should not be amended unless there is a fatal flaw. This is not a fatal flaw.

          C. Maxwell stated that a developer wants to know what is allowed before spending money on a design and plans.

          C. Brown is concerned when the Commercial Design Guidelines or zoning is changed for a specific project. It is possible the project will fall through and the City is left with a 50-foot, height limit that it doesn’t want.


MOTION: C. Jackman - To make a recommendation to change the Guidelines for the Design and Review of Planned Commercial Development Projects sections 4.2.2, 4.3.2, and 4.4.2, as noted (deleting in the first sentence “or two” and adding “to three,” and in the third sentence deleting “forty (40) feet” and adding “fifty (50) feet occupied space, with unoccupied space approved by the City Council with a recommendation from the Planning Commission.” Seconded by C. Brown.

 

Yes-C. Brown

C. Chandler

C. Clement

C. Jackman

C. Maxwell

                                                                        C. Steele                                 Motion passes.

 

C. Jackman stated that the word “pallet” is misspelled throughout the Guidelines and should be spelled “palette.”

 

7.         Committee Assignments and Reports (8:55 p.m.)

 

          C. Clement: The Parks and Trails Committee discussed the Mesquite Park bid and the Bonneville Shoreline Trail paving project. It is in jeopardy because there is a new owner of the PRI land. David Bunker explained that the property owner says there is no easement for the aqueduct and is asking for concessions in return for the easement. The Council will not concede. Talks are continuing, but time is running out on time to use the grant. The property owner is putting together a development agreement.

          Greg Robinson: Wal-Mart has awarded a bid. They have not yet pulled a permit but the bonds are posted. Amsource did not receive final approval from the City Council

          C. Brown: He will be resigning due to family and church commitments. His wife is having twins. The Commission thanked C. Brown for his service.


ADJOURNMENT

8.         Adjourn

 

This meeting was adjourned at 9:12 p.m. on a motion by C. Maxwell, seconded by C. Brown, and unanimously approved.



 

/s/ Kim E. Holindrake

Approved by Commission:                                         Kim E. Holindrake, City Recorder

   April 24, 2008