PUBLIC HEARING AND SPECIAL PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Wednesday, January 9, 2008 7:00 p.m.
Public Safety Building
3925 W Cedar Hills Drive, Cedar Hills, Utah
Present: Steve Kroes, Chair, Presiding
Committee Members: Cliff Chandler, Scott Jackman, H.R. Brown, Donald Steele, Craig Clement
Kim Holindrake, City Recorder
David Bunker, City Engineer
Others: John Hart, Ken Kirk, Diane Kirk, Dave Kirkpatrick, Judi Robinson, Jeff Lindstrom
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 7:07 p.m. by C. Kroes.
PUBLIC HEARING
2. Preliminary Site Plan and 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)
Staff Presentation:
David Bunker presented the site plan and plat for St. Andrews Estates subdivision. The subdivision is located on hole 15 on the east side of SR-146 (Canyon Road) north of Morgan Boulevard. It is a single-family, residential subdivision with lot 22, a three-acre parcel, as semi-commercial like a reception center. There is a single access that ends in a cul-de-sac. The lots are about .25 acres or larger. Hole 15 will remain but will be shortened to a par 3 (200 yards) instead of a par 5 (500 feet). The existing tee boxes and greens are past the subdivision with the tee boxes being moved east of lot 11. Holes 9 and 18 will be lengthened into par 5’s to make up the shortening of Hole 15. Item 7 on tonight’s agenda addresses a commercial canyon zone for Lot 22. The City will move forward as soon as possible to get improvements to Holes 9, 15, and 18 by the end of March so as not to prohibit play on the course. The expansion of the holes and new tee boxes will be funded by the sell of the Cottonwood Hills Estates lots. This development will pay down the golf bond debt.
Public Comment:
• Ken Kirk stated that residents have been paying for the golf course on our taxes. He has been attending City Council meetings and listening to the proposals that have taken place. It is an exciting time. The golf course will only lose one stroke on the reconfiguration. He is concerned with the timeliness involved with approval and selling the lots. The course needs to be a viable asset to bring the revenue. If it can’t open in the spring, it will be a deterrent for the rest of the summer and word will spread. As a citizen he urged the Commission to do the job they do so well but do it expeditiously so bids can go out. This needs to be done because it is the best thing for the community. The Council has received an offer but can’t accept it because of zoning restrictions and a Planning Commission recommendation. He doesn’t intend the Commission to do something against their conscience but expeditiously is what the City needs.
• David Kirkpatrick is a member of the HOA Board of The Cedars Townhomes. He has participated in many hearings regarding this project. With every plan proposal there is good, better, and best. This is better. His major concerns with the townhomes in that the lots are much smaller because of the offsets of open space and they are concerned to see some of that open space used. This is the first time he has seen this configuration. There have been others with an entrance from the south and a bike path. The four townhomes on the corner will be created like an island. If holding an HOA meeting and talking to the owners, he felt they would be comfortable with this. The 10840 North is the only access. David Bunker confirmed that the ingress and egress are for the subdivision and reception center. David Kirkpatrick has concerns with the construction traffic. A left turn off of Morgan Boulevard will be quite interesting. He trusts that this will remain the final approved plan. Keeping the greenbelt around the townhomes is important and there is an intrinsic value. Regarding a commercial zone, he doesn’t know the detail on the commercial zone. A reception center compatible with the residential is okay but not a 7-11 type store lit up at night.
• John Hart stated he doesn’t need to add anything and agrees with everything that has been said.
• Judi Robinson is pleased with how this has turned out so far compared to previous plans. She lives in the first townhomes. She asked if the bathrooms stay in for the course and the meaning of a line on the map. David Bunker stated that the bathrooms would remain and the line is just the boundary line of the parcel. Judi Robinson asked if the area between the bathrooms and her townhome would remain the same with no additional plants. David Bunker stated that the area will remain the same.
SCHEDULED ITEMS
MOTION: C. Brown - To address Items 5 and 7 next. Seconded by C. Chandler.
Aye - C. Brown
C. Chandler
C. Clements
C. Kroes
C. Steele Motion passes.
5. Review/Recommendation on Preliminary Site Plan and Subdivision Plat for St. Andrews Estates, PRD, Located Between 1950 North and 10570 North along the East Side of Canyon Road (Golf Course Hole 15)
See handouts. C. Clements asked about a sliver of property between the subdivision and Canyon Road to the west. David Bunker stated that it is the UDOT right-of-way line. There are some trees in that area that the City would like to maintain. UDOT is proposing that Canyon Road be four lanes. The City would have to improve Canyon Road and widen the asphalt for a deceleration lane. There will be curb and gutter along Canyon Road just past 10840 North. There will not be a center lane. UDOT will specify their cross section. The site distance has been checked at the entrance. This area is currently in the H-1 Hillside Zone and is proposed as a PRD. It is commercial and residential type in use. This is a plat within The Cedars and all the density for The Cedars has not been used. There is excess density of about 25 lots and open space. The back of lots 14, 15, 16, and 17 are steep and the building envelopes will be looked at by engineering. The lots have been looked at and kept on the hill but not on top. There are portions beyond 30% mainly in the north section. C. Kroes voiced his concerns about ingress and egress to lot 22 and that at any time there could be 50 or 100 vehicular trips leaving an event and people can’t get out. There is also the issue of a fire. David Bunker stated that the right-of-way is still the main road. If exiting the subdivision, you have the right-of-way. He doesn’t have any details on traffic for the reception center. C. Kroes asked about the possibility for a separate street from the reception center. David Bunker stated that on an average, there are 10 trips per day, per home. The cul-de-sac does meet the City Code for length, which is 1,000 feet. C. Steele stated that in his opinion open space should be usable. The space between the golf holes is not usable. You should accommodate a park, playground equipment, or gathering places. He has great concern about the roadway. Marking will be incredibly important. He is also concerned with development on lot 22 and the parking lot. David Bunker stated that there are no fencing requirements noted on the plat. This subdivision will be bound by the existing ordinances. Discussion regarding the flight of golf balls. There will be a row of trees installed along the tee boxes separating lots. Jeff Lindstrom stated that he was the Planning Commission president years ago. In the late 70's and 80’s, people wanted to develop commercial on the east bench across from the current office building. Then the City worked with Mr. Smart and developed the current commercial zone. At the time it was the furthest away from residential. The City turned down dozens of requests to rezone areas on Canyon Road. He recommends sticking by the original concept. The commercial zone is where it is for a reason. C. Brown asked about cooping the clubhouse with the reception center. Residents paid good money for lots and didn’t buy this plan. He understands the residential side and also paying the bond down. The City will never get this back. Once developed it is developed. He is also concerned about fault lines and earthquakes. The City has a history of a landslide. The commercial doesn’t make sense. Commercial will add traffic and noise. David Bunker stated that the Planning Commission needs to discuss those issues. The direction comes from the Council through staff. There has been no fault trenching at this time but it will be done. Fault trenching was done on Morgan Boulevard and when the water tanks were constructed. The fault lines run north and south. If lot 22 is deleted, the subdivision layout may be different. The City has an offer for commercial and residential as a package deal. Conceptually the golf course is a commercial establishment. This subdivision will be paper lots sold to one developer. C. Kroes stated that the Commission should consider the potential of a reception center and the next owner may choose another use. C. Chandler stated that he has a bad feeling about the whole project. Personally he doesn’t like zoning commercial in this area and sees it as residential. He recommends sending it to the Council without the commercial and all residential. Discussion that the value of the lots may be diminished by traffic from the commercial. A clubhouse can also be used for receptions. The City has an offer for a package deal with commercial and residential. The City is trying to make money to pay off the golf bond. The golf course is already a commercial concept. These are unusual circumstances. If lot 22 changes to additional residential lots, the layout of the road would be different. This is difficult if the City is making a land use decision based on a business deal that is advantageous to the City. The City needs to do what makes sense for the land use.
MOTION: C. Brown - To not recommend the subdivision plat for St. Andrews Estates (Hole 15) for reasons being that commercial zoning in this area is inappropriate for the neighborhood and the Commission is not comfortable considering a rezoning of commercial in the H-1 Hillside Zone. Commercial is better served in another location. Seconded by C. Steele.
C. Jackman clarified that the Commission is saying that for land use, traffic and safety concerns, commercial is not appropriate in the H-1 Hillside Zone in this location.
AMEND MOTION: C. Brown - To reflect that the Commission doesn’t feel it is appropriate to rezone H-1 to commercial in this specific area in the unapproved subdivision plat, lot 22. Accepted and seconded by C. Steele.
Discussion that traffic, safety, and land use issues are the concerns. Every decision deals with health, safety, and welfare.
Aye - C. Brown
C. Chandler
C. Clements
C. Kroes
C. Steele Motion passes.
7. Review of a Canyon Commercial Zone (8:52 p.m.)
See handouts. Discussion that the Council discussed approving commercial areas on an individual basis in the H-1 Hillside Zone. This is just a review item and staff’s memo states to table the item.
MOTION: C. Clements - To Table the Canyon Commercial Zone. Seconded by C. Chandler.
Aye - C. Brown
C. Chandler
C. Clements
C. Kroes
C. Steele Motion passes.
3. Approval of Minutes from the November 29, 2007, Regular Planning Commission Meeting (8:59 p.m.)
MOTION: C. Chandler - To approve the minutes from the November 29, 2007, Regular Planning Commission Meeting. Seconded by C. Clements.
Aye - C. Brown
C. Chandler
C. Clements
C. Kroes
C. Steele Motion passes.
4. Review/Recommendation on the Final Subdivision Plat for the Commercial Property Located on the Southeast Corner at the Intersection of Cedar Hills Drive and 4800 West – Amsource (9:00 p.m.)
See handouts. David Bunker reviewed the final subdivision plat with four lots. The ten-acre issue does not relate to the subdivision of property. It has to do with a master site plan development and how it will fit with the next project in a ten-acre design.
MOTION: C. Chandler - To recommend final approval of the Cedar Hills Retail Center. Seconded by C. Clements.
Aye - C. Brown
C. Chandler
C. Clements
C. Kroes
C. Steele Motion passes.
6. Review/Recommendation on Amendments to the City Code Regarding the Requirements for the Conveyance of Water Rights for Annexation and Development (9:06 p.m.)
See handouts. David Bunker looked at the prior recommendations, reevaluated, and a new formula was created. The formula is to be 2.58 x exact lot size in acres + 0.5 = water rights in acre feet to be dedicated per dwelling unit. This meets the ratio of water per dwelling unit as the prior proposal. C. Clements read the definition for a dwelling unit from the City Code, 10-6-16A, subsection b. The phrase “per dwelling unit” at the end of Paragraph 10-6-16A, 1b in the proposed ordinance should be deleted. Duplexes fall under paragraph a.
• Suggestion to use .5 per unit = 1 and then add the acreage component.
• Paragraph a. to read: For single and two-family residential development, the following formula shall be used: (2.58 x exact lot size in acres) + (0.5 x # dwelling units) = water rights in acre feet to be dedicated.
• Paragraph b. to read: For multiple family residential developments the following formula shall be used (2.58 x exact lot size in acres) + (0.3 x # of dwelling units) = water rights in acre feet to be dedicated.
• 10-5-16, 10-6-16, and 1-12-3 all have the same language as paragraph a. above.
MOTION: C. Clements - To recommend approval of the ordinance amending Title 10 of the City Code of the City of Cedar Hills, Utah, amending the requirements relating to Planned Commercial Development Projects with the following changes (1) Section 1, 1-12-3, Paragraph 2a. the formula shall be used (2.58 x exact lot size in acres) + (0.5 x # dwelling units) = water rights in acre feet to be dedicated, (2) 10-5-16, Paragraph a. has the same formula, (3) 10-6-16, Paragraph a. has the same formula and strike “per dwelling unit” at the end, Paragraph b has the formula (2.58 x exact lot size in acres) + (0.3 x # of dwelling units) = water rights in acre feet to be dedicated, and delete the remaining paragraph. Seconded by C. Chandler.
Aye - C. Brown
C. Chandler
C. Clements
C. Kroes
C. Steele Motion passes.
8. Review Amendments to the General Plan - Transportation Element
See handouts. C. Kroes stated that the Commission will address this item on the next agenda. The City needs to ensure the transportation element is up to date and the H-1 Hillside Zone requirements are adequate for future development. C. Clements stated that there should be no credit given for slopes 30% or greater. C. Steele stated that benefits should only be given when the open space benefits the residents. Discussion that the transportation element needs adequate trails, roads, and maintain access to the forest service land.
9. Review Amendments to the H-1 Hillside Zone and the Planned Residential Development Requirements
See handouts.
MOTION: C. Brown - To table Items 8 and 9 to the next meeting. Seconded by C. Chandler.
Aye - C. Brown
C. Chandler
C. Clements
C. Kroes
C. Steele Motion passes.
10. Review/Action on the 2008 Meeting Schedule
See handouts. C. Steele asked the Commission to consider meeting at 6 p.m.
MOTION: C. Brown - To approve the 2008 meeting schedule as presented. Seconded by C. Clements.
Aye - C. Brown
C. Chandler
C. Clements
C. Kroes
C. Steele Motion passes.
11. Committee Assignments and Reports
• C. Chandler - No Parks and Trails Committee meeting.
ADJOURNMENT
12. Adjourn
This meeting was adjourned at 10:08 p.m. on a motion by C. Chandler, seconded by C. Brown, and unanimously approved.
/s/ Kim E. Holindrake
Approved by Commission: Kim E. Holindrake, City Recorder
February 7, 2008