PUBLIC HEARING AND REGULAR PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Thursday, July 27, 2006 7:00 p.m.
Public Safety Building
3925 W Cedar Hills Drive, Cedar Hills, Utah
Present: Donald Steele - Vice Chair, Presiding
Commission Members: Carl Volden, Clifton Chandler, Steve Kroes, Gary Maxwell, H.R. Brown
Kim Holindrake, City Recorder
Rodney Despain, City Planner
David Bunker, City Engineer
Eric Richardson, Council Representative
Others: Craig Gines, Mike Hanson, Zonda Perry, Jim Perry, Virginia Rosenthal
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 to order at 7:07 p.m. by C. Steele.
Clifton Chandler was recognized as a voting member.
2. Canyon Heights at Cedar Hills, Plat J
Zonda Perry - I am the owner of Lot 6 in Canyon Heights, Plat G. Less is more. Rather than go into comments, the best thing to do is to say that I am open to answering questions when you are ready to discuss it. I own Lot 2 on the amended plat. The proposed change is on the south side of our lot, nine feet from the property line, which we weren’t aware of when the piers went in. That is why we are not in compliance. It’s under construction and the setback should be 12 feet. We had it excavated with the intent of 12 feet. When the footings were inspected, we found it was less than 12 feet. We could move the footings but can’t move the piers. That’s why we are asking for this. I don’t speak for the other property owner. The homes are not side by side. Ours sits behind the other house. We are not asking for a change of property line, just the setback. When we began construction of our home, their home was under construction. We knew they weren’t in compliance and the City inspector was aware. When the subdivision was recorded, we had a 54' setback in the front and had that changed. The building envelope was funny anyway. We weren’t concerned because we weren’t going to be sitting right next to them. The people who set the pins for our property line made a mistake. We are living with that mistake. The south side of our home is the main floor with a living room and dining room. There are no bedrooms on that side of our house. The pin that was on the survey was moved when surveying the other house. We are off 1.5 feet on one side and 3 feet on the other side.
Craig Gines - I represent Rob Wellman, Timbia Homes. We recognize the problem but don’t know how it happened with our lot and want to remedy this. We seek the opportunity to fix it. The front of the house is 12' from the property line and the back corner is 9.8 feet from property line.
Jim Perry - The proposal fixes all the problems. The Planning Commission needs to move the east setback to 20'.
Mike Hansen - I own a couple of lots on the cul-de-sac, Lots 4 and 8. Lot 7 is owned by my father. I am curious now about adjusting setbacks across the street. Lot 7 has a 30' setback on three sides. This may not be an issue because we haven’t designed the house yet. If you are adjusting lots across the street, then may need to adjust Lot 7. C. Steele stated that it is not appropriate at this time. Kim Holindrake stated she spoke to Mr. Hanson earlier today and addressed the issue at that time. She explained the process to make the change and that the City has not received a request for a change at this time. Rodney Despain stated that the developer set the setbacks not the City. The buyers get what they bought and are supposed to build within the setbacks. There has to be good reason to alter the setbacks from what was established. That is the basis for any amendment. It is not an automatic approval. There has to be a finding. The developers used some funny rational but that is what they bought. Jim Perry stated that the issue with his lot is that there is a significant slope and a lot of geotechnical issues. The further they shifted the house, the more it had to be on fill. We opted to do piers even though it’s not required by the engineer. We have a pie-shaped lot and we intended to wedge the house in as far as we could. There was some confusion and mistakes with the footings and piers. That is why we are trying to push the house forward to avoid the geotechnical problems. That is really the issue.
3. Landscaping Ordinance
No comments.
4. Amendments to the Fencing Ordinance
No comments.
5. Amendments to Title 11, Chapter 7, Subdivisions
No comments.
6. Adjourn
This public hearing was adjourned at 7:33 p.m. by C. Steele.
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 7:33 p.m. by C. Steele.
2. Approval of Minutes from the June 22, 2006, Regular Planning Commission Meeting
MOTION: C. Kroes - To approve the minutes from June 22, 2006. Seconded by C. Chandler.
Aye - C. Chandler
C. Kroes
C. Maxwell
C. Steele
C. Volden Motion passes.
3. Review/Action on Preliminary/Final for Canyon Heights at Cedar Hills, Plat J (Resubdivision of Canyon Heights at Cedar Hills, Plat G, Lots 5 & 6)
See handouts.
Commission Discussion:
• C. Brown stated that his understanding of the setback is to protect the privacy of neighbors and if both parties agree then it should be okay.
• C. Volden stated that it would be beneficial if both parties had a letter or document stating that there are no other issues and they agree with the new plat. David Bunker stated that both property owners will have to sign the plat and that constitutes their approval.
• C. Kroes stated that he doesn’t see any reason why this shouldn’t be approved.
• C. Steele believes there is good reason for the change. Just because this occurs doesn’t make it a done deal somewhere else. Mr. Hanson needs to remember that his is another situation. No two are alike.
MOTION: C. Maxwell - To approve the recommendation of the staff which is to act on the proposal and recommend approval of Canyon Heights at Cedar Hills, Plat J, with the only modification to show a 20' setback on Lot 1 along the drive of Lot 2. Seconded by C. Volden.
Aye - C. Chandler
C. Kroes
C. Maxwell
C. Steele
C. Volden Motion passes.
4. Review/Recommendation to Grant a Variance for Juniper Heights, Plat C, Lot 9 (7:39 p.m.)
See handouts.
Staff Presentation:
David Bunker stated that the request is not a variance but is to adjust the designated setback envelope. Instead of a 10' setback the property wants an 8' setback. The home was built 2' to close to the property line. This is in the PR2.2 Zone. The City Code states (10-6C05), “the City may approve setback distances on one or more lots within the project which does not conform with the minimum requirements of the zone, upon a showing that such adjustment is reasonably necessary to the proper development of the lots and will not significantly alter the character of the subdivision or result in a hazardous condition. The recommendation to the Council is to sign a Release of Building Setback.”
Commission Discussion:
• C. Maxwell is the owner of Lot 10. He built a retaining wall along the back of his lot and the property owner measured his property line off that retaining wall. This made it off 2'. The pin was buried and was dug up. His builder remeasured and the neighbor’s measurement was off. The property owner’s garage is on this side of the property and it does have living area above the garage. The front corner is fine; it is just the back corner that is off. Another option was to jog the property line.
• C. Chandler asked if the property owners would have to sign the document. Kim Holindrake stated no. The City allows the change and signs the document.
• C. Brown asked if this would set a precedence if anybody comes to the city wanting a different setback. David Bunker stated that it has to be allowed in the zone and is on a case by case basis. Rodney Despain stated that normally any modification from the default setback would be addressed at the time of the original approval. That’s the conventional way and you specify for the reasons. Currently the finding is that these are after the fact for which there has been a whoops. It’s forgiveness versus permission. The City has had several of these and he doesn’t know how to go about making sure the setbacks are correct. David Bunker stated that the inspector measures from the property lines that are marked by the property owner. Kim Holindrake stated that in some cities a surveyor is required to be on site but this creates an additional expense. Rodney Despain stated that the problem is not always the making of the land owner. The City has some culpability and it makes it difficult. The measurement is made and it is fine. The City does the best it can.
MOTION: C. Volden - To recommend to the City Council to make a finding regarding a setback adjustment for Juniper Heights, Plat C, Lot 9 as follows: 1) that the variance does not create a hazardous condition, 2) that varying from the designated setback envelope is appropriate for the zone and property location and 3) that the revised setback does not change the development’s density nor required distance between dwellings and complies with the zoning regulations, and also recommend 4) that the City Council approve the 8-foot, westside setback and 5) authorize the Mayor to sign the Release of Building Setback. Seconded by C. Maxwell.
Aye - C. Chandler
C. Kroes
C. Maxwell
C. Steele
C. Volden Motion passes.
5. Review/Action on Levin Property (7:55 p.m.)
See handouts.
Staff Presentation:
C. Bunker stated that the proposal is to subdivide the Levin property at 3943 West 9600 North into three lots. There is a current home that lies between Lots 8 and 9. The Landon Court subdivision is west of this proposal. The City anticipated this development would come. The lots should be numbered 1, 2, and 3. This is a separate subdivision and not part of Landon Court. Landon Circle is a common drive and the City Code limits the number of lots accessing the common drive to five. Lot 4 of Landon Court was allowed to access the circle so that leaves only two lots to access Landon Circle. Lot 3 must access 9600 North. Landon Circle is part of Lot 6 of Landon Court. The owner of Landon Court needs to agree to allow Lots 1, 2 and 3 to access Landon Circle. Lots 2 and 3 may have to have a reciprocal agreement. The sewer will extent to the southeast corner of Lot 1. There is another property owner (Levin) east of this who will probably do a flag lot that will need sewer also. An additional fire hydrant is needed between Lots 1 and 2. The existing home will be removed. There are no homes on Lots 4, 5 and 6 of Landon Court. The preliminary plan will need to show the surrounding area. The City is having discussions with Pleasant Grove City to clean up the boundaries and this area may go to Pleasant Grove City. There is a Cedar Hills sewer line in 9600 North but no homes are connected. The discussion has been that this line may go to Pleasant Grove City. Pleasant Grove City has a sewer line up 4000 West. A change could be made at 4000 West and 9600 North for the sewer flow. The septic tank for the old home will be removed. The 10' gravel, access drive is part of the previous approval with Landon Court. This sewer line is a main line and the City needs to be able to check and clean the manhole. Rodney Despain stated that the owners of Lots 4, 5 and 6 have right of access. A provision could be added to the plat map giving a reciprocal access. When recorded it is made a matter of public record. David Bunker stated that if Lot 4 of Landon Court decided to access off 9600 North then the Levin lot could access the circle. It’s not certain but has the option. The intent of the City Code is to limit access on a common drive. The throat of the bulb is only 20' wide and there is no sidewalk.
MOTION: C. Maxwell - To approve the concept for the Levin Subdivision. Seconded by C. Kroes.
Aye - C. Chandler
C. Kroes
C. Maxwell
C. Steele
C. Volden Motion passes.
David Bunker excused.
6. Review/Recommendation on Landscaping Ordinance (8:18 p.m.)
See handouts.
Commission Discussion:
• C. Chandler stated that after having read through the ordinance, he didn’t see where there was much of a requirement for existing properties. He would like to see added under Section 1 B the word “existing” in the second sentence. It would read, “within the front yard area of any existing residential lot containing a dwelling.” C. Steele didn’t have any confusion with the wording. It seemed to mean any lot. C. Chandler stated that new construction is covered. He wants people who have lived here to understand that they will be required to landscape very soon.
• C. Kroes asked about the penalty in the Zoning Regulations. Rodney Despain stated that it is a Class C Misdemeanor that carries a fine up to $750 upon conviction. If someone ignores it then you see them in court. The City has tried to make it painless by issuing a notice so there is a paper trail. The State defines what a Class C Misdemeanor is.
• C. Chandler proposed deleting the words “in the opinion of the Chief Building Official” in Paragraph E. This is an ordinance and should state what you should do and not allow the building official to make an opinion. Secondly this is probably going to be difficult for the City to enforce anyway. If this is taken out, then it is one less thing for him to contend with. Rodney Despain stated that the building official is the zoning officer and he will issue the notice.
• C. Steele stated that Paragraph B implies that the landscaping has to be done instantaneously. There is no period of time specified to accomplish the landscaping. C. Chandler stated that Paragraph D covers that issue. C. Volden stated that it is required prior to the Certificate of Occupancy or they have 90 days after they are cited. Kim Holindrake stated that The Cedars requires the front yard to be landscape before receiving a Certificate of Occupancy and it works. C. Maxwell stated that if it’s planned in their loan, then it’s easily done. Rodney Despain stated that the intent is that you don’t want to allow them to become those that are currently without a front yard. If they ask for a longer time, it could be granted.
Requested Commission Changes:
• Paragraph B - Add the word “existing” in the first sentence to read, “front yard area of any existing lot containing...”
• Paragraph B - Add the word “existing” in the second sentence to read, “front yard area of any existing residential lot...”
• Paragraph C - Change “front setback area” to “front yard area.”
• Paragraph E - Delete words, “in the opinion of the Chief Building Official.”
MOTION: C. Chandler - To recommend to the City Council an ordinance amending Title 10 of the City Code of the City of Cedar Hills, Utah, adding requirements relating to the installation of landscape features on lots subject to 1) Paragraph B, first sentence to state “front yard of any existing lot containing”, 2) Paragraph B, second sentence to state “front yard area of any existing residential lot”, 3) Paragraph C be changed from “front setback area” to “front yard area” and 4) Paragraph E be changed by deleting “in the opinion of the Chief Building Official.” Seconded by C. Kroes.
Aye - C. Chandler
C. Kroes
C. Maxwell
C. Steele
C. Volden Motion passes.
7. Review/Recommendation on Amendments to Title 10, Chapter 5, Section 18, Fences (8:47 p.m.)
See handouts. Review of new materials for fencing.
Commission Discussion:
Previously the Commission changed bright white vinyl to white, tan, or gray vinyl. Trails and major streets still require open fencing, which is for the safety of the resident and the trail user. The requirements for fences along parks and trails have an exception clause to make it flexible. Question - how to weave this new fence product into the ordinance.
• C. Volden stated that he doesn’t care what the fence is made of as long as it isn’t chainlink or razor. What is nice and appealing to him may not be nice to someone else. He would like to see a cedar fence allowed. If a home has a rustic style, white vinyl doesn’t look good. He would like to see some consistency.
• C. Brown feels that if the City wants uniformity then the City should pay for uniformity. When the City imposes colors and types of fencing, it affects the property value and may not go with their home style. Instead of listing what can be used, list what can’t be used.
• C. Maxwell stated that he originally suggested the 10 lots or more regulation. He still feels the same. If the neighbors want xyz fence, that’s great. They can ask for an exception. If there are only four property owners, then there is only four. He doesn’t know how to keep everyone at peace and not at war. As long as it is a good-looking fence and everyone there is connected and agrees, let them build the fence.
• C. Steele stated that the Mayor and Council have made it very clear to their expectation, which are different styles but one material. The biggest defect is there is no cost sharing between the City and the resident. To require citizens to meet these standards, the City has to share in some of the expense of it. C. Kroes stated that usually the expense is shared between neighbors. If the City is the neighbor, then the City should pay half. C. Volden stated that residents should know what to expect when purchasing property. He doesn’t feel the City should have to pay for fencing. C. Brown stated that the Commission is an independent committee.
• C. Kroes asked if the Commission cared at all about the uniformity around the park or trail. The Commission has gone far enough with this draft ordinance that is not very uniform. If we allow a patch work now, why not allow black granite? The Commission is going far enough to ruin the uniformity and not far enough to allow residents real choices. He feels color is most important.
• Discussion to change the exception from 10 or more lots to a group of adjacent property owners or just eliminate “involves 10 or more lots” altogether. Eric Richardson pointed out that Paragraph 1, Intent, states “consistent quality in design and construction of such facilities. Most of the City probably complies. Also, residents are not required to put up a fence. C. Kroes stated that the exception clause should read, “Exception: Standards may be altered upon a request by adjacent property owners upon a finding by the City Council that the request is consistent to the objectives of this Ordinance.”
MOTION: C. Kroes - To recommend to the City Council approval of an ordinance amending Title 10 of the City Code of the City of Cedar Hills, Utah, amending the requirements for fences adjacent to public parks, trails and certain major streets as written with amendments to Section 1, Paragraph F3d to state, Exception: Standards may be altered upon request by a group of adjacent property owners upon a finding by the City Council that the request is consistent to the objectives of this ordinance, and the same for Paragraph F4e. Seconded by C. Volden.
Further Discussion:
• C. Steele stated that to make a point he intends to vote against the motion because he feels the City should share the cost for those who find themselves noncompliant and need to make changes. C. Kroes stated that they were already in noncompliance unless they built the fence prior to the white vinyl. This actually loosens up the ordinance.
Aye - C. Chandler
C. Kroes
C. Maxwell
C. Volden
Nay - C. Steele Motion passes.
8. Review/Recommendation on Amendments to Title 11, Chapter 7, Subdivisions (9:39 p.m.)
See handouts.
Staff Presentation:
Rodney Despain stated that this amendment adds fencing to the list of improvement requirements in a subdivision. Major street corridors is not part of the requirement because they set back on private property.
Commission Discussion:
Discussion as to the requirements along major streets. This makes it a cost to the development and would bond for it with the other improvements.
MOTION: C. Volden - To recommend to the City Council an ordinance amending Title 11 of the City Code of the City of Cedar Hills, Utah, adding requirements for fences adjacent to public parks and trails. Seconded by C. Chandler.
Aye - C. Chandler
C. Kroes
C. Maxwell
C. Steele
C. Volden Motion passes.
9. Review General Plan (9:55 p.m.)
MOTION: C. Maxwell - To postpone Item 9 until the next meeting. Seconded by C. Kroes.
Aye - C. Chandler
C. Kroes
C. Maxwell
C. Steele
C. Volden Motion passes.
10. Committee Assignments and Reports
No reports.
11. Adjourn
This meeting was adjourned at 9:57 p.m. on a motion by C. Kroes, seconded by C. Chandler, and unanimously approved.
/s/ Kim E. Holindrake
Approved by Commission: Kim E. Holindrake, City Recorder
August 24, 2006