Thursday, April 27, 2006 7:00 p.m.

Public Safety Building

3925 W Cedar Hills Drive, Cedar Hills, Utah

Present:           Alan Petersen, Chair, Presiding

Commission Members: Donald Steele, Clifton Chandler, Gary Maxwell (7:02 p.m.), Steve Kroes (7:26 p.m.)

                        Kim Holindrake, City Recorder

                        David Bunker, City Engineer (7:04 p.m.)

                        Rodney Despain (7:17 p.m.)

                        Courtney Hammond, City Meeting Transcriber

Eric Richardson, City Council Representative (7:04 p.m.)

                        Others: Virginia Rosenthal, Roger Knell,



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 7:00 p.m.


Cliff Chandler was recognized as a voting member.

2.         Swearing in of New Planning Commission Member (7:00 p.m.)


H.R. Brown could not attend.

3.         Approval of Minutes from March 30, 2006, Regular Planning Commission Meeting (7:01 p.m.)

MOTION: C. Steele - To approve the minutes from the March 30, 2005, Regular Planning Commission Meeting, as amended. Seconded by C. Chandler.


Aye-C. Chandler

C. Maxwell

C. Petersen

                                                                                    C. Steele                                 Motion passes.

4.         Review/Approve the Site Plan for the LDS Church at 10455 N Ironwood Drive (7:03 p.m.)


See handouts.

Staff Presentation:

David Bunker stated that this site plan is for the proposed LDS Stake Center in Juniper Heights. The items to be discussed include:

          Lighting details

          Storm drainage


          Landscaping plans

          Other items listed in the memo.

Developer Presentation:

Roger Knell, representing the LDS Church, said that the light posts would be 14-feet high on a two-foot concrete pedestal. They will be box lights that project downward. He said that the site can handle a 100-year, 24-hour flood event. Two sumps will be added to the plan in response to the percolation test. The Juniper Heights storm drainage calculation did not include the City park or the church site. The options are to contain the water on the church property with the five sumps. The other option is to pipe into the City’s park system and build a basin to the west of the park property on the corner of Cottonwood Drive and Mesquite Way.

Planning Commission Discussion:

          C. Maxwell stated that he would like to see the five sumps. C. Steele stated he would prefer to see both the sumps and the basin.

          C. Steele stated that he felt the handicap parking spots are too far from the entrances to the building. He also said he would like to see the building height, with the steeple dimensioned on the site plan. Roger Knell said the height of the building, with the steeple, would be about 64 feet.

          Roger Knell stated that the building is colonial style, which is similar to the building on Bayhill Hill, but with white fiberglass columns. The same building is built in Lindon on Main/500 East. The fencing will be white vinyl per City ordinance. The colonial style building has white soffits, etc. The white vinyl will be consistent with the design of the building.

          C. Petersen stated that he wanted to ensure that the trees and light poles are adequately spaced. He also said that the address and meetinghouse sign should be moved to the north side of the building.

          C. Kroes stated that the City Code requires specific trees for park strips. The Council would like to see white ash every 35 feet in the park strip on Cottonwood.

          Rodney Despain stated that this project is in the townsite zone and is an extension of the townsite project. As such, the City Council will approve this site plan for this townsite project by ordinance. The Planning Commission can recommend/require the design. Kim Holindrake stated that this is in the townsite zone, but Plat D was approved as a regular subdivision. She said that the site has been approved as a church in the subdivision, so the Planning Commission can approve the site plan and it will not need to go to the City Council.

          Eric Richardson asked that the Commission consider moving the pavilion away from the road and to consider a trail along the outside of the fence to promote connectivity of the community. The Commission liked the location of the pavilion. C. Maxwell felt that adding a trail would be a mistake because there are homes that back up to the church that do not want a trail running by their yard.

MOTION: C. Steele - To approve preliminary/final site plan for the LDS Stake center located at approximately 10455 North Ironwood Drive, subject to the following conditions: 1) Lighting not to exceed 14 feet above a 2-foot pedestal, fully shielded, downward projected, 2) Storm drains to be in accordance with discussion with City Staff in terms of number, 3) The steeple to be less than 35 feet above the ridge line 4) White ash trees will be planted every 35 feet on center along Cottonwood, 5) Locate handicap parking stalls substantially closer to the main entrance on both sides of the building, 6) Open slat vinyl white fencing, 7) Approve the landscaping plan as proposed, 8) The resolution of final engineering items with City staff, and 9) Submission of construction site storm water management plan and NOI. Seconded by C. Kroes.


Roger Knell stated that he does not recommend open slat vinyl fencing. It would project light onto neighboring houses. Solid fencing would be better for soccer balls because open rail has a tendency to break. C. Kroes felt that open fencing along the park would fit with the feel of open space along trails and parks.

AMEND MOTION: C. Petersen - To allow for a solid vinyl fence along the south property line. Accepted by C. Steele and seconded by C. Kroes.


Aye-C. Chandler

C. Kroes

C. Maxwell

C. Petersen

                                                                                    C. Steele                                 Motion passes.


Roger Knell said that the only possible issues are: the height of the lighting fixtures and steeple (they are standard items, not custom made) and the open fencing along the park side. If the church wants to appeal any of these issues, they will appeal to the City Council.


C. Petersen asked for an updated map of City roads that show what roads are designated as collector roads.

5.         Review/Recommendation on Amendments to Title 10, Chapter 5, Section 18, Fences (8:19 p.m.)


See handouts.

MOTION: C. Kroes - To recommend to the Council to amend the Fence Ordinance Section 10-5-18, Paragraph 3a, to say “the fence shall be white or tan vinyl, of any style or shape” and to make the same amendment to Section 10-5-18, Paragraph 4a, to say “the fence shall be white or tan vinyl, of any style or shape,” also Paragraph 5a with the same amendment “white or tan vinyl, of any style or shape,” and then continue the paragraph as written. Seconded by C. Maxwell.


Eric Richardson pointed out that there is wrought iron fencing along Canyon Road in The Cedars East. The Commission did not feel it affects the motion.


Aye-C. Chandler

C. Kroes

C. Maxwell

C. Petersen

                                                                                    C. Steele                                 Motion passes.

6.         Review/Recommendation on Landscaping Ordinance (9:02 p.m.)


See handouts.

Staff Presentation:

Rodney Despain stated that the primary intent of this landscaping ordinance is to get landscaping installed in new construction. It addresses four issues: (1) What constitutes an acceptable level of landscaping? (2) At what point does the landscaping need to be complete? (3) How does the City implement the ordinance objectives? (4) What are the ongoing maintenance requirements? This proposal requires a sprinkler system and an installation of a combination of landscaping features that occupy the entire portion of the unpaved area of the front setback area. The time of installation is prior to issuance of a certificate of occupancy. There are a few exceptions, including: (1) A submitted landscaping plan, (2) Written statement showing delay is necessary because of limitation due to the season, (3) Cash bonds together with a landscaping completion agreement signed by the owner of the property.

Planning Commission Discussion:

          C. Kroes stated that he wants the landscaping ordinance to apply to existing homes and not just those applying for issuance of occupancy. Rodney Despain said that effective implementation is at the heart of the ordinance and it is difficult to implement for existing homes.

          C. Chandler stated that he would like to add a fifth issue of enforcement. He said that enforcement does not happen in the City. He suggested a landscape plan or landscape agreement be submitted to the City.

          C. Petersen stated that Section 6-4-4 in the City Code deals with landscaping on the mow strip. It is not currently being enforced.

          David Bunker addressed a couple of issues he would like to see included in the landscaping ordinance. When building permits are issued there is a sidewalk bond required. He would like to see the sidewalk bond translate into a landscaping bond. Often the sidewalk bond is released before the landscaping is complete; when landscaping materials are delivered it often destroys the sidewalk. Drainage also needs to be contained on the lot. Compliance with the City’s storm water drainage plan needs to be complied with. Landscaping materials need to be contained on the lot. He suggested the ordinance include a Section 10-5-26D, requiring a landscaping bond at time of building permit and a Section 10-5-27 for landscaping on existing homes that includes a fine or citation. The Commission liked the idea of combining the sidewalk and landscaping bond.

          C. Maxwell suggested having landscaping installed at time of occupancy permit or a bond at time of occupancy permit. Rodney Despain said the Commission should check with an attorney before requiring anyone to post a bond with the potential of losing it. That becomes punitive.

          Rodney Despain and David Bunker will discuss this ordinance and make amendments. The Commission gave direction to be aggressive, to include existing owners, and to address double frontage lots and corner lots.

7.         Committee Assignments and Reports (9:43 p.m.)


No reports.


8.         This meeting was adjourned at 9:44 p.m. on a motion by C. Maxwell, Seconded by C. Kroes and unanimously approved.


/s/ Kim E. Holindrake

Kim E. Holindrake, City Recorder

Approved by Commission:

    June 22, 2006