SPECIAL PUBLIC HEARING AND PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Thursday, March 8, 2007 7:00 p.m.
Public Safety Building
3925 W Cedar Hills Drive, Cedar Hills, Utah
Present: Steve Kroes, Chair
Commission Members: Carl Volden, Cliff Chandler, Donald Steele, Tom Gleason
Konrad Hildebrandt, City Manager
Gretchen Gordon, Deputy City Recorder
David Bunker, City Engineer
Others: Karissa Neely, Teri-Lyn Wiles, Richard Piggott, Terry Wieser, Ryan Carter, Roy Williams, Josh Sundloff, Robert Ogden, Dave Payne, Gavin Spencer, J.R. Chambers, Mike Chambers, Van R. Comin, Will Comin, Kent Seamons, Jim Perry (7:31 p.m.), Mayor McGee (7:31 p.m.)
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 7:05 p.m. by C. Kroes, Chair.
PUBLIC HEARING
2. Preliminary Subdivision Plat for the Commercial Property Located at Approximately 10000 North (Cedar Hills Drive) Between 4800 and 4600 West (7:05 p.m.)
Robert Ogden - Shortly after Phillips Edison purchased the property in question, they held a meeting with some of the residents in the area down at the school. They showed a plot or general site plan that showed roughly the western half of the property devoted to the retail anchor and the east half for the development of other commercial. Now we see the site plan as placing two outlets to the west of the retail anchor and the other to the east. The other plan would have been quite satisfactory to those of us that live in the nearby area. It would enable the developers to take that footprint of the retail anchor and move it west and put more distance between it and the nearby residential. For some reason, which I’m not sure I understand, they chose to put two of the outlets to the west and the other to the east and put the retail anchor in the middle basically at the same place, as far as the northeast placement is concerned, as close to residential as the proposal almost four years ago. Maybe I’m just spitting into the wind, but I would like to remind Mr. Williams and Phillips Edison of that plan and how it was received as opposed to how the siting of those outlets and the retail anchor is affecting this part of our community now.
Kent Seamons - Thanks for your selfless service to Cedar Hills. I think that your decision on whether to approve this overall proposal will significantly impact the future of Cedar Hills for many years to come. I would like to make two points. First, the overall master plan of the property north of Cedar Hills Drive is completely contrary to the guidelines, when you focus on the homes to the north along Carriage Lane. The land near those homes was designated as mixed use/office retail. It appears that the guidelines state, “The mixed use/office retail designation is intended to accommodate less intensive uses than found in the neighborhood retail designation. The lower intensity may be due to size, scale and height of the structure or due to a less-intense land use.” It gives some examples of appropriate land use. The proposed Master Plan is almost entirely neighborhood retail, which benefits the retailer at the expense of the homeowners, so I urge you to reject this current master plan. There is a better master plan for Cedar Hills that meets the requirements and considers the entire commercial zone. We should be considering an overall master plan that considers the entire commercial zone, considering both the north and south sides of Cedar Hills Drive. We are selling ourselves short just by focusing on the north land currently. A better plan is for the large retailer to be moved perhaps to the west end of the property, maybe flipped around 180 degrees or set to the north side, facing south. This would isolate the truck deliveries to the far side away from the homes. The type of business, which we are looking at for those two outlots tonight, should perhaps be on the other side, on the south side by 4800 West. This is where the high retail is designated in our guidelines and this is the plan we should be considering. This alternative plan is superior because it still provides the benefits of an anchor store, but not at the expense of the nearby homeowners. Some think that we have to do this because we are limited by the two exits off of 4800 West. I predict that in the long run, when 4800 West gets really busy that those two entrances will likely be turned to right-only lanes ultimately, and by that point we will have reduced the benefits of those two entrances out there. So, the reason that the option of moving the large retailer out to the west has not been given consideration is because it would be less advantageous to the developer. Do not sacrifice the interests of the local residents to the benefit of the developer. My second point, if you insist on accepting this current proposal there is another smaller issue that I don’t want you to overlook. The question is, “Is their adequate space in the current plan for the lots on the east side,” even though you are considering the two lots. What about Lot #3 and the park? In my opinion, you did not study the noise issue sufficiently so far. I learned just this last week that the east sound wall by the homes is only 8' high. Remember the sound wall on the north is 14' high because the elevation is 6' higher. The wall to the east is only 8' high, so those homes directly to the northeast have a big noise exposure. I believe that what possibly needs to be considered is raising that wall. The question is, is their adequate space to do such a thing? Finally, also remember that the homes on the northeast side of the property are most vulnerable to noise because that is where the trucks are driving and that is where the trash compactor is located, right where the wall will be shorter. This is very significant and it was not discovered through earlier deliberations. Also, has anyone done any serious calculation to make sure that Lot #3 and the park area can be landscaped similar to the quality that is proposed on the rest of the property. If we ignore this issue, the result is that the east side of our property, in the interior of our City and by the homes, will be far more neglected in comparison to how we are dressing up the west end of the property out at 4800 West. Again, if you allow that to happen, you put the best interest of the developer above the homeowners. In summary, I’ve mentioned several ways that the current plan neglects the residents. I wish you would correct this even if this means rejecting the current proposal in order to lead us to the right proposal for Cedar Hills.
C. Kroes - Konrad, is it appropriate during the Public Hearing portion of this meeting to have Phillips Edison answer a few questions that were raised by the residents?
Konrad Hildebrandt - Yes, it’s your meeting.
C. Kroes - Mr. Williams, I know that you are not Wal-Mart and you are not PacLand, but perhaps you can explain the rationale for having these outlots...as we look at your subdivision map, why the outlots are on the west side and why the store isn’t pushed all the way to the west side.
Roy Williams - Commissioners, City Staff, and residents, it’s a privilege for me to be here again this evening. I want to recognize that this meeting tonight is a specially scheduled meeting and I appreciate the willingness to schedule this meeting. Before I make a formal presentation, I would be happy to address some of the concerns that were expressed by Mr. Ogden and Mr. Seamons. The history of this commercial property, as many of you well know, goes back several years. Phillips Edison & Co. acquired the property March of last year. Prior to Phillips Edison & Co., there was another developer named Rimrock that had the property under contract. Prior to Rimrock, Phillips Edison had the contract and prior to that, Walmart themselves had that under contract. What dictates much of the design and the site planning and positioning of the retail buildings, are the needs of the retailers that are looking to make a commitment to the development. To some extent, the larger the tenant, the less input the developer has and typically the anchor drives the configuration of the site. When Phillips Edison & Co., presented the initial site plan, it was very conceptual. I remember the meeting, Mr. Ogden, but I don’t remember when it was, a couple of years ago. We were showing about a 40,000-50,000 square-foot building that was designated as a grocery store. We didn’t have a specific tenant in tow or committed. The specifics showed a more traditional neighborhood grocery store, which is about half the size of the proposed Walmart. When you have a building of that size, there is more flexibility in terms of site plan. The parking requirements are certainly less, the configuration of the building is much different, which allows us to be a little more creative and flexible with the balance of the retail buildings. We were very active in soliciting a traditional grocery store and were unsuccessful in getting a commitment from that type of user. When Wal-Mart approached us about 6-7 months ago, we began working with them as a potential anchor. This isn’t a Wal-Mart meeting; this is a Phillips Edison & Co. meeting seeking preliminary site plan approval for our out parcels #1 and #2. I can tell you that the positioning of the out parcels and configuration of the site plan as it is proposed tonight, as Wal-Mart proposed in their preliminary site a couple of weeks ago, is a direct result of a lot of store planning and consideration by Wal-Mart. The out parcels themselves need visibility along 4800 West, realizing that Cedar Hills Drive is a road that leads into Cedar Hills. Retailers have expressed a need, a requirement to be fronting 4800 West with the additional traffic that is on that road is certainly an important factor to make them come to that site. It is a neighborhood location. Walmart has referred to their building as a neighborhood/community super center. We don’t have freeway visibility, we don’t have some of the other traffic on a major artery, we don’t have an east/west connection, but it is a great site. As a developer, we have to listen to the market and the market really tells us about what the requirements are, both in terms of location, size of the store, parking, and positioning on the site. Phillip Edison & Co. doesn’t own the south parcel, so we can’t speak to that. We don’t have the option of looking at both the north side of Cedar Hills Drive and the south side of Cedar Hills Drive and making a master plan. We don’t own it or control it. That is my response to those questions. I would be happy to take any follow-up questions.
C. Kroes - We will get to your regular presentation in just a moment, but I did want to have you respond to that. I was also going to make the point that we can’t as a City initiate a master plan for the entire commercial zone. A request for subdivision plan and site plan must come from the property owners. As Mr. Williams said, that south side of Cedar Hills Drive is owned by someone else so it is not being developed at the same time. As far as the question regarding landscaping and things on Outlot #1, that’s just going to have to come to us when that parcel and the owner of that parcel gets ready to build there. There is certainly ample room on that parcel and I’m sure there are plenty of options for how it can be landscaped.
3. Preliminary Plan for Two Commercial Outlots Located at 4800 West and Cedar Hills Drive
No comments.
Public Hearing was adjourned at 7:20 p.m. by C. Kroes.
Tom Gleason was recognized as a voting member.
SCHEDULED ITEMS
4. Preliminary Subdivision Plat for the Commercial Property Located at Approximately 10000 North (Cedar Hills Drive) Between 4800 and 4600 West (7:20 p.m.)
Developer Presentation:
See handouts. Roy Williams, Phillips Edison, reviewed the proposal. The proposed subdivision map in the packet represents the Wal-Mart parcel shown as 14 acres, Outlot #2 is 1.05 acres and Outlot #3 is .77 acres. The access points off of 4800 West are shown as part of the Wal-Mart parcel. Outlot #1 is also shown as1.56 acres and is on the southeast corner of the property adjacent to the roundabout. They are not seeking preliminary approval on Outlot #1. Part of the Wal-Mart lot, Lot #1, incorporates the retention pond area that is on the northeast corner of the property. It is not represented as a separate parcel, but if it is deeded or dedicated to the City, a separate parcel will be created.
Staff Presentation:
David Bunker reviewed some of the issues that should be reviewed:
• Making sure that the boundaries are correct - Any right-of-way (ROW) requirements that are necessary are discussed. One of the issues that have been discussed is the future 4800 West right-of-way. They have had a chance to meet with Mountainland Association of Governments (MAG) and they have indicated that 106' is the total ROW for 4800 West. As the subdivision plat is drawn, that full ROW has not been dedicated. The subdivision as it has been drawn is showing the 94' ROW. As they get into the site plan and building setbacks, they have accounted for the 106' feet, but this does not contemplate any dedication at this time. Sheet C3.10 note indicates a future ROW line on 4800 West. Phillips Edison purchased the property based on 94', not the 106'. The setback for the buildings would be 5' and that is from the future ROW line. Typically, ROW requirements are exacted at the time of subdivision approval and this must be understood by the Planning Commission.
• Access agreements need to be in place for the participants in the subdivision. Outlots #2 and #3 must go through Outlot #1. This needs to be clear.
• The City parcel does not have to be discussed now. The retention basin area would be from Lot #1, Wal-Mart’s parcel, so it could wait. None of the basin crosses the line into Outlot #1.
Planning Commission Discussion:
• The Planning Commission wanted to know why the entire ROW was not being dedicated now. Roy Williams stated that he wouldn’t be opposed to it, but no discussion has taken place for the future ROW and compensation for the additional property. Most likely, the entity requiring the expansion would be responsible for compensation. If the ROW is not required now, the sidewalks will get put in the wrong place and will have to be moved. The current asphalt right now is 53', with a 94' ROW, but the ROW will eventually be 106'. Roy Williams stated that the improvements required at the time of development would be to match the improvements north of the property. MAG is looking at five lanes, possibly a bike lane. They are positioned to be able to accommodate the future ROW requirement.
• C. Volden reviewed Sheet C3.10 indicating that the gray strip is the 94' going north and south. Review of cross section of road. The street lights would need to be relocated when the full ROW is installed. If it was required now, the sidewalk could be moved back and permanently relocated. The 6' sidewalk will be installed by PacLand. C. Volden recommended that we just exact the property now and not have to move everything later. This would require additional asphalt.
• C. Steele stated that he has been through this before in Southern Utah and they made decisions based on what was going to happen in the future and it never happened. The road does not appear to continue as a major arterial road past the temple. There is another issue to consider and that is what the plans are for Canyon Road. The plans are intermingled and he wants to make certain that these buildings don’t have to be moved. His focus is not on the detail, but the overall concept. He is an advocate of space between buildings and walkways, winding sidewalks. On major arteries, they went to 16' minimum and some places 32'.
• C. Kroes wanted to know who would pay for the sidewalks to be moved in the future. Most likely federal money will be used when the road expansion happens and that would likely pay for the relocation. If Canyon Road expands, it may change the plans for 4800 West. There has been talk to exchange Canyon Road for 4800 West to allow monies to be focused to that road. It is on maps and plans and it has been discussed.
• The building would be 11' from the road; if the expansion happens, then it would only be a 5' setback to the building.
• C. Kroes had some concerns about the sidewalks and street trees. If the future expansion takes out the planter strip, it would change the dynamics of the street by removing the trees and light posts. He suggested that the sidewalk be located where it will eventually be with the trees planted as closely to the sidewalk to avoid being removed in the future. If they moved the sidewalk for future expansion, it would be a public sidewalk on private property, which could cause a problem.
• The Planning Commission is sympathetic to the owner’s right to maintain the property that they purchased. The City requires property to be deeded to the City in a lot of subdivisions; many right-of-ways are less than what would be required in the future. Based on the survey and direction from MAG, it indicated that the ROW was 94' and they made accommodations for that additional area. Any additional ROW has not been built into the economic equation for this property. The Planning Commission wanted to recommend that the full ROW be required by the City Council and not try to answer the question of compensation to the developer.
• Discussion about trees and putting them in a place where they could be maintained. In the future the ROW could be acquired on the west side as it can on the east side. The City could put its foot down and required the ROW to be all on the west side.
MOTION: C. Volden - To recommend approval of the preliminary subdivision plat for the commercial property located at approximately 10000 North (Cedar Hills Drive) between 4800 and 4600 West. Seconded by C. Chandler.
Aye - C. Chandler
C. Gleason
C. Kroes
C. Steele
C. Volden Motion passes.
5. Preliminary Plan for Two Commercial Outlots Located at 4800 West and Cedar Hills Drive (8:15 p.m.)
C. Steele excused - 8:15 p.m.
Developer Presentation:
Review of the site plan from the last Planning Commission meeting. Changes that have been made to this plan:
• Building shifted 1-1/2' to the east - gave up three parking stalls, but it still meets the requirements. Parking ratio is 5.1/1,000 square feet.
• Deleted three parking stalls to accommodate the grading of the retention ponds.
• Locations identified for trash enclosures - they will be brick with a substantial gate that would face east with landscaping around the enclosures.
• Modified the sidewalk along 4800 West to a straight-line sidewalk instead of meandering. This was a recommendation from Wal-Mart, which they followed. With the light poles there, they need a fairly large park strip and it messes up the spacing of the trees. A straight sidewalk lends itself to a more uniform look with the street trees and lights.
• Site lighting plan.
• ROW dedication.
• Added decorative concrete walks along entrance roads to match Wal-Mart.
• The landscaping percentage is 32.1% and it slightly increased with these changes
Drainage plan Changes:
• They will accommodate the additional storm water runoff from 4800 West and Cedar Hills Drive. Wal-Mart is taking some of the water from both roads into their system and Phillips Edison is taking the balance. The retention ponds have been modified to allow for that. David Bunker asked if there is a sump or slope to the bottom of the pond to prevent the bottom from always being wet. They have not shown a sump or gravel infiltration, but can accomplish this with the landscaping. They are planning native grasses (which are longer) and could possibly add cobbles or angular so that it gets covered over by the grass. Discussion of sloping the bottom of the retention pond. The percolation rate is 37.5 minutes/inch and it was designed at 50 minutes/inch.
Landscaping changes:
• Fir evergreens have been removed and scotch pines have replaced those. Also, some evergreen shrubs have been included to screen the dumpsters.
• Minimal use of turf.
• Shrubs, perennials, flowering pear, spring snow crab apple (no fruit).
• Planting trees along 4800 West, London Planes.
• Monument signs will be surrounded by low growing perennials for color.
• All of the trees are in the design guidelines pallet.
• Wal-Mart is not utilizing a monument sign on 4800 West. The south sign would be the welcome to Cedar Hills and the north side would probably be the name of the shopping center. The tenants may want to have their names on the monument signs, but they may want to accommodate smaller signage on the back of the buildings, if it is requested.
Elevations - Lot #2 - Review of what was proposed at last meeting and updates.
Changes:
• Columns removed from end bases.
• Brick window areas changed to spandrel
• Added brick to rear center bay.
• Increased store front windows.
• Gooseneck light fixtures added to front and side elevations.
• Trying to tie into Wal-Mart and those buildings at the roundabout.
Lot #1
• Decreased dormer size.
• Overall height decreased from 29' to 26'. They are working with Wal-Mart because typically the outlot buildings cannot exceed 22'.
• Facade changed from arch to peak.
• Shared Access - Easements, covenants and restrictions agreement.
Commission Discussion:
• C. Volden wanted to ensure that the quoining was pre-cast cement. The plan is to match the brick and quoining colors installed by Walmart.
• C. Kroes encouraged the landscape architect to closely follow what is the design guidelines for plantings, prior to submitting final.
• Discussion of lighting. Roy Williams indicated that the fixtures will be the same as those that Wal-Mart is installing. Discussion of light escaping and how much spill-over there will be into the residential areas. The Commission wanted to ensure that the fixtures along the north border were changed to ensure no spill-over into the residential area. The developer stated that with shielding, they should be able to make it zero at the property line.
• Discussion about how stucco is not encouraged in the guidelines. C. Volden said that the south side of Cedar Hills Drive is going to develop and he thinks that stucco is not conducive to the look that Cedar Hills is trying to maintain. Roy Williams stated that they are trying to maintain a balance between what is feasible for tenants and what is discussed in the guidelines. C. Volden wants to see a smaller signage area of stucco and the rest brick. Mr. Williams stated that this idea doesn’t “pencil” with the costs of the building. C. Chandler stated that he doesn’t have a problem with the stucco, but he would like to eliminate some of it. He defers to those who are experienced in the retail field and leaving it like it is. We can still have an attractive building with the stucco. From a practical standpoint, forcing the entire building to be brick and not allowing it to be occupied, he would be against that. C. Kroes stated that the City has used the guidelines, but offered flexibility to know what is feasible.
• C. Gleason wanted to know what updates had been made after the lasted revision. He really liked the initial submissions/renderings. Roy Williams stated that there are elements that they could introduce because of the size and the type of business, versus specialty shops where individual retails need to be attracted. They have tried to sit down with engineers, retail brokers, etc. to create something appealing to the retailers and have success in filling the spaces and balancing that with the architectural requests. In Mr. Williams’ professional opinion, this would be the best option to satisfy both objectives.
• C. Kroes expressed a concern that on the east side of the building there is a lot of stucco and the doors are very visible. Increasing the brick, possibly around the doors, or changing the color of the doors to blend with the brick would make them less obtrusive. There will be trees and light posts to break up the back of the store with some architectural elements. It is not going to be that visible.
MOTION: C. Chandler - To recommend approval of the Preliminary Plan for the two commercial outlots located at 4800 West/Cedar Hills Drive subject to the following: 1) Inclusion of meandering cobblestone within the retention basins, 2) That the sewer and water lines be tied in from Cedar Hills Drive per engineering specifications, 3) Landscaping shall conform to the City’s design guidelines, 4) Exterior lighting to be the same as the lighting for Wal-Mart, 5) No lighting shall spill outside the property on the north and south sides of the property in question, and 6) To incorporate more brick treatment to the west elevations on both buildings. Seconded by C. Gleason.
AMEND MOTION: C. Chandler - To not let lights spill over to the north, south and west. Accepted and seconded by C. Gleason.
AMEND MOTION: C. Chandler - That the additional brick on the west elevations be around the door areas. Accepted and seconded by C. Gleason.
Aye - C. Chandler
C. Gleason
C. Kroes
Nay - C. Volden Motion passes.
6. This meeting was adjourned at 9:48 p.m. on a motion by C. Volden, seconded C. Chandler and unanimously approved.
/s/ Kim E. Holindrake
Kim E. Holindrake, City Recorder
Approved by Commission:
March 29, 2007