PUBLIC HEARING AND PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Thursday, February 28, 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, H.R. Brown, Donald Steele, Craig Clement (7:20 p.m.)
David Bunker, City Engineer
Greg Robinson, Assistant to the City Manager-Planning
Courtney Hammond, City Meeting Transcriber
Others: Boy Scouts, Rolland Brown, Kiko Kinjo, Caleb Warnock, Carl Pitt
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 7:14 p.m. by C. Chandler.
PUBLIC HEARING
2. Proposed Amendment to the City Code, Title 10, Chapter 4, to add a New Zone called the Canyon Commercial Zone (7:15 p.m.)
• Rolland Brown: I am a concerned citizen. I would just kinda like, and I hope I am wrong here, and I hope that somebody can shoot holes through my theory. It’s been on my mind for a while, but when we start thinking about the developer and him wanting to build up in our area—what a valiant thing. And then we start thinking about the market. For me, I hope that it’s not, he doesn’t have ulterior motives in this. Maybe you guys can help me understand this. First of all, tell me, is this possible? Could this individual come in here, purchase this land, get it rezoned, build the homes, build the reception hall, and four years after the erection of this building, him come to the understanding that he really doesn’t want it to be a reception hall? It was rezoned commercially, and stores build on it. I mean, is this possible? When I hear about what he is proposing here, it sounds like a great thing for the community. But if there are underlying things, to where this guy’s a businessman, and we’re understanding how the market is now, I mean, is this a possibility that he could do this for financial gain understanding, I mean, what a great commerce way coming into the canyon? Is that possible?
• C. Chandler: Well, first of all, this isn’t really a question and answer period. It is for you folks to make comments on whatever you want to as far as these items are concerned. But, very quickly, I’ll answer your question with a yes, that is possible.
• C. Jackman: However, how we state the zone, and how we word that can restrict him from building certain things. If the zone is specifically for a residential-type use and nothing else, then it is not possible for him to build stores.
• Rolland Brown: Is that what is going to happen? There is going to be stipulations in terms of the zoning, the particular type of zoning?
• C. Jackman: That is the intention, I believe.
• Rolland Brown: Is there a better meeting that I will be able to bring this up at?
• C. Chandler: Probably the Council would be a good place to do that because, as you’ll notice, I don’t know if you have a copy of our agenda this evening, but those items are not on our agenda this evening, so we won’t be taking any action as far as that area goes this evening.
• C. Clement: When do you anticipate that discussion, Cliff?
• C. Chandler: I don’t know because I’ve got some information that we will discuss later about that particular area. So, I can’t answer that. I really don’t know at this time.
• C. Clement: There will be a point where that is discussed.
• C. Chandler: Right, there will be. It will be noticed.
• Rolland Brown: All right, thanks.
• Kiko Kinjo: We are on the highland side. We just built a year and a half ago a house up there in Viewpoint, which is across the street from the highway. Several e-mails came to several of our neighbors. They didn’t make it tonight, but we are also concerned, like that gentleman over there is, about that rezoning. I don’t know what kind of voice we can have, but just wanted to express my concern on that. We built a house over there to get away from the business district area. We spent quite a bit of money there also. That is one of the reasons I am very concerned. We want to make a home up there. We want to be able to get to the business area within driving distance, but I didn’t think there would be any business in that area at all. That is one of the reasons we built a house up there. My neighbors are really concerned about that also. I just wanted to express that concern.
3. Proposed Amendments to the City Zone Map to Change a Portion of the H-1 Hillside Zone Located at Approximately 10950 North and Canyon Road to the Canyon Commercial Zone (7:21 p.m.)
No comments.
SCHEDULED ITEMS
4. Approval of Minutes from the January 31, 2008, Regular Planning Commission Meeting and the February 7, 2008, Special Planning Commission Meeting (7:22 p.m.)
MOTION: C. Clement - To approve the minutes from the January 31, 2008, Regular Planning Commission Meeting and the February 7, 2008, Special Planning Commission Meeting. Seconded by C. Steele.
Aye - C. Brown
C. Chandler
C. Clement
C. Jackman
C. Steele Motion passes.
C. Chandler stated that the reason the rezoning is not on the agenda tonight, is that the individuals who are to construct the reception center are having problems getting it funded. Greg Robinson stated that the Planning Commission and City Council are concerned that the reception center would not be a viable option. Bob Woods, the developer, said the Zarbacks were looking to get further funding for the reception center. Staff decided to wait on moving forward on the reception center at this time, but is moving forward with the option of making it all residential.
5. Review/Recommendation on the Final Subdivision Plat the Cedar Hills Retail Center for the Commercial Property Located on the Southeast Corner at the Intersection of Cedar Hills Drive and 4800 West-Amsource (7:30 p.m.)
See handouts. Carl Pitt of Amsource gave a presentation on the subdivision plat. On December 12, 2007, the City Council gave Amsource a list of items to be addressed. Utility and access doors will be painted to match the exterior wall colors. The landscaping plan was updated to include 3” caliper trees and 5-gallon shrubs. The geotech report was completed. The perc rate was good and did not impact the storm drainage plan. A traffic letter from A Trans Transportation Engineering was obtained. The analysis shows that the traffic will continue to flow at an A or B level. The overall site plan provides a pedestrian-friendly development. The parking areas are broken up, and pedestrians have access to both streets. Dumpster enclosures will be built of masonry and will match color palettes. Site lighting is direct cut off and utilizes the same structures that are used across the street, which provides adequate lighting and meets the intent of a dark sky ordinance. A sound study was conducted at the Hollywood Video building in Pleasant Grove. Results are similar to sound levels of background noise.
David Bunker stated that there are a few issues that still need to be addressed: water valves need to be added to the line on the east boundary; the lighting plan should show the street lights on Cedar Hills and 4800 West; the sump plan shows corrugated metal and should be concrete; all sheets need to show utilities extended to the east property line; a UPDES permit is required; details such as bike racks, benches, etc. need to be shown in the landscaping plan; there needs to be proof of a dock agreement for shared access; water rights need to be calculated and submitted at building permit; and approval of a development agreement is necessary. David Bunker would like to see some lights slid out toward the ingress/egress. Presently, the street lights are 75 feet apart, except at the entrance where there is 104 feet between the lights.
Commission Discussion:
• C. Clement stated that he feels the sound study requirements and criteria should be clarified and given to the developers.
• C. Steele said that lighting is a safety and welfare issue. Bringing the lights closer together will increase the likelihood of accidents with the light pole, while leaving them far apart makes the entrance dark. It is okay to have dark space between the lighting circles. The developer needs to make a profit. C. Steele said that he feels that Carl Pitt has worked well with the City. He feels these details should be dealt with earlier in the process, and that at times, the details are so minute, they deter development in the City.
• C. Brown stated that there is a fine line between being commercially friendly and sticking to established standards and guidelines. There needs to be a balance between the two.
MOTION: C. Steele - To recommend to the City Council the approval of the final site plan for Amsource subject to: (1) a water valve shall be added to the line on the east boundary; (2) submit detailed storm drain calculations including sub-basin design; (3) submitted sump design does not meet city standards and specifications; (4) all sheets shall show utilities extended to east property line; (5) final engineering; (6) show detail of landscaping features; (7) submit proof of dock agreement for shared access; (8) submit updated information on traffic study and counts; (9) water rights shall be calculated and submitted at building permit; and (10) approval of a development agreement. Seconded by C. Clement.
Further Discussion:
• C. Brown stated that he would like to see more lighting detail and lighting that comes closer to the guidelines.
Aye - C. Brown
C. Chandler
C. Clement
C. Jackman
C. Steele Motion passes.
6. Review Fencing Ordinance (8:35 p.m.)
MOTION: C. Jackman - To table the fencing ordinance. Seconded by C. Brown.
Aye - C. Brown
C. Chandler
C. Clement
C. Jackman
C. Steele Motion passes.
7. Committee Assignments and Reports (8:38 p.m.)
• C. Chandler and C. Jackman will attend the Site Plan Review meeting on March 6 at 8:30 a.m.
• The Commission should look at the attendance record from the past meetings and submit changes to staff.
ADJOURNMENT
8. This meeting was adjourned at 8:41 p.m. on a motion by C. Jackman, seconded by C. Steele, and unanimously approved.
/s/ Kim E. Holindrake
Approved by Commission: Kim E. Holindrake, City Recorder
March 27, 2008