CEDAR CITY PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES April 4, 2006 The Cedar City Planning Commission held a Work Meeting on Tuesday, April 4, 2006, at 5:15 p.m., in the Cedar City Council Chambers, 10 North Main, Cedar City, Utah. Planning Commission members in attendance: Bob Behunin, Pat Keehley, Steve Wood, Bob Linford, Lyman Munford, Wayne Mifflin, Meri Pryor Staff in attendance: Brian Maxfield, Paul Bittmenn, Kit Wareham, Larry Palmer, Gisele Terrones Others in attendance: Fred Green, Mark Prisbey, Larena Batty, Alan Batty, Stewart Batty, Manny Amankwa, Ruby Bauer, Frances Knight, Donald Enme, Kim Montgomery, Lura M. Bonar, Shirley Lindenmeyer, George Stafford, Robert Braschi, Linda Braschi, Jeff Cassidy, Raymonda Cassidy, Glen Miller, Bruce Nunley, Evan Ludwig, Barbara Ludwig, Beverly Staker, Gordon Staker, Dayle Esplin, Ken Esplin, Mr. & Mrs. LaMar Madelin, Haywer Morris, Nevada Morris, Dorothy Hartley, Vern Hartley, Al Matheson, Deanna Luttio, Barbara Hauben, David White, Elmo Orton, E. Anderson, Cole Pudeu, John Sauceda, Kimberly Sauceda, Meg Cady, Tim Watson, Rich Gillette, Dale Sauls, Connel Gower, Lucy Venables, Marilyn Wood, Matt Wood, Lyn Prestwich, Gail Bramble, Jane Bradshea, Jack Connor, Tom Jett, Ron Larsen, Phillip Spencer, Bette Slach, Patricia Clark, Joyce Mortinsen, Sara Macklin, Josh Carpenter, Susan Baker, Mark Meisner The meeting was called to order at 5:18 pm ITEM/ LOCATION/PROJECT APPLICANT/ PRESENTER REQUESTED MOTION 1. Residents to discuss old hospital property Mr. Esplin represented. As a citizens group, since the last meeting, under the old hospital property, they have done research on their own and has found that the subd. was vacated in 1961 by the county and we have that document in our file, that was to make it possible to build the hospital but not anything done on that, we brought copy down to the City after it was found but we want to continue our appeal and petition that we hold to the original plan for that property and the original master plan for that area which is R-2 zone. The planning commission meeting which was dated Feb. 6, 1961 when they were starting to build the hospital, it was changed from RA1 to a special hospital district, on March 16, 1961 the mayor then presented a revised ordinance for a special hospital district and it said for the building of a hospital and nurses quarters, nothing else, until 1968 when there was a possibility that someone would buy the property to build clinic and at that time this should be changed because the clinic would be an addition to what the hospital what originally designated as a special spot zone for the hospital and at that time it was discussed that it should remain just for medical clinics and hospital but would be rezoned as R-3 for that purpose. The minutes of one of the meeting so specified as a medical zone in R-3, but we haven’t been able Planning Commission Minutes April 4, 2006 Page 2 of 18 to find the original document on that.. In Dec. of 1968 and February 2, 1969 there was a change to R-3 for the hospital and the clinic. So as a group of citizens we are concerned about our property values in the area and is a concern because that is in the City’s master plan for R-2 and was a post zone for medical purposes and nothing else, so we feel it should revert back to R-2 zone to be consistent with the City’s master plan and not override what was intended in the first place. We have signatures on a petition, several hundred of them. The other property across from the hospital was rezoned for R-3 with specific language stating that it either had to be a medical clinic or nothing larger that than a single story duplex to be consistent with hospital property. We think it should be rezoned to R-2 and keep consistent with the City’s master plan. Bob asked Paul about the citizens being in their right to propose for this to be re-zoned to R-2. Paul said yes. Bob B. said to make an application. Paul said the City can apply for a zone change or the owners. Pat asked about it being vacated. That surprised her. Paul said when it was found it was the same property. Mr. Esplin said if the increase in property values they could very well sell for more. Pat asked about special districts. Paul said it is just zoned R-3. Mr. Esplin said they can be made whole by selling off lots. Ron Larsen said that the property could already. Kit said that he had a discussion with a realtor that was representing the owner, his plans were to rezone back to R-2 and a rest home. Mr. Esplin said that as long as they rezone back to R-2 they don’t have any objections. Bob said that in order to remain the same, it would have to. Bob said they will put on the consent agenda to go to City Council. Mr. Esplin said that is they’re recommendation. Bob said that he will recommend that it goes to City Council and be heard and be recommended that it be R-2. Brian added with the understanding that we will have to follow procedure, noticing, etc. 2. Road Dedication 1200 N. & 5300 W. Quantum/BBE (Recommendation) Heath Oveson represented. Recall that last month we came through with a portion down south, this is for the Port 15 project, north of the RR tracks and a continuation of the second phase. Move north, the portion is already dedicated, we want to dedicate the portion of roadway above the RR tracks preparing them to do the minor lot in Phase 2. Kit asked if the RR prepared to dedicate it across the track. The RR said a good portion is already dedicated to Cedar City Corp. inside the RR right-of-way. We have been in contact, but Kit said they have not signed on the plat, just state trust lands. Quantum has had extensive contact with the RR and we believe it is moving forward. It should be going for signatures here soon. The plan is to have them (RR) sign. The RR signature needs to be on it. Pat asked where Port 15 is, Heath said it is just south of this. Pat asked if at some point we’re going to have to come back and deal with the RR again. Heath says there will be some other dealings with the RR. In order to cross the RR tracks we have to get them to cross, after that any other railway improvements will have to be negotiated. Take to action meeting 3. Road Dedication 1500 S. Providence Center Dr. Quantum/Insite (Recommendation) Ron Larsen represented. This road is not ready to be dedicated because they haven’t decided the final layout. It currently has a 60 ft access. Talked to Kit about waiting until they are ready to Planning Commission Minutes April 4, 2006 Page 3 of 18 come back with the dedication. It’s part of the minor lot that is on down farther. Kit wants more description on the minor lot subd. and what that road is. Ron says to make sure that the road allows public easement, etc. Take off for now. 4. RPA Master Plan 2500 W. 700 S. Mesa Hills/Platt & Platt (Recommendation) Diamond Point Phase 1 Bob Platt represented. Master plan for 55 acres, basically west of Wildflower Subd., Mesa Hills. It is RPA 4 and has some interesting terrain features. Bottom line on density is 1.36. Brian said Wildflower is to the east. Pat asked where the Church is. Showed on the map where it is. Brian said he talked to Bob about having the correct 60 ft. roads connected at the bottom and on the southern portion making sure that is set up. Single family lots all R-1 and the base density is 1.36. The road seems to be one of the problems. Brian said we need the Mylar for signatures on an RPA and we’ll work on that, but everything is in. Take to action meeting 5. RPA Master Plan 1200 N. west of Lund Hwy Hendricks/Insite (Recommendation) Pleasant View Estates Ron Larsen represented. This is a property 3900 W., Eq. Pt. above, part of the annexation that is finishing up with City Council, also included in the 20 acres that originally came through they have now bought that and are including it in their master plan. The plan for this is roughly about 5 units per acre total. With R-2 zoning with some open space allowed for a park but talked with Brian about giving a piece for a neighboring parcel for park about 2.5 acres. R-2 zoning based on doing single family, possibly some twin homes. Kit said we need to show all the master plan structure on this, sewer, water, street. Ron says the streets are shown. Kit said need to show those master planned widths and sewer and water line. The north edge of Buena Vista hits 3900, show these. Paul’s concern is that everything in the top half is not in the City and won’t be annexed until the 26th if they come in and talk to us about water. So at this point the top half is still county. Won’t be finalized until the 18th, vote on the 26th. Won’t happen if the water becomes an issue. Tabled for a month. 6. RPA Master Plan 3000 N. off Minersville Hwy Rich Wilson (Recommendation) Bob Platt represented. A little different from the master plan. This is property west of car wash that Darwin Lamb is constructing, west side of Minersville Hwy. Presently zoned R-1 but the general plan shows CC about the south 3rd and RPA 6 on the north 2/3rds. The owners would like to develop to four plexes which amounts to about 200 units. Calculated base density is about 250, so it would be less than that density. Brian said he talked to Bob about the vicinity plan and open space and to the west, the proposed right-of-way and have the calculations also for CC and RPA 6 designations. Bob said so rezone to R-3 or CC. Brian said yes. Brian said it is kind of a hybrid area. Kit said if this road extends then we will have double fronted lots along the road? This has a few master plan items on it, will coordinate with Kit. Meri asked about drainage problem with Planning Commission Minutes April 4, 2006 Page 4 of 18 this. Kit said drainage will have to be addressed as it gets developed to accommodate that drainage. Lyman asked about development for drainage. Kit said that it’s basically on the north boundary and we would have to look to Enoch to see what impact it has. Kit says we really haven’t looked at this really close and we need to take a good look and see what we’re going to do with drainage out there. Lyman said his recommendations is to get some engineers to look at it because hypothetically if we continue to grow like we’re going, there will be drainage and water problem as it gets developed. Rather than doing it one at a time we need to look at it all together. Bob Linford talked about seeing rapid growth out there. Move it on. Tour? Take to action meeting 7. RPA Master Plan Amend Lund Hwy & 1600 N. Cedar Springs LLC/Insite (Recommendation) Cedar Springs Ron Larsen represented. Amended plan. Brought through a month or two ago and there is a little more detail on what they want to do, it changes the plan a little bit. Originally it was mixed. The commercial will be smaller and it is a proposed PUD. The numbers of units increase to about 4.8 units for the entire parcel. The uses they originally had called for in this commercial area was 80 units, commercial or PUD but now there won’t be any residential and this will take the PUD units there. Brian talked about what the outlines illustrate. Ron said they’re looking at putting in a combination of single story and two story type town homes, some with garages and some with parking on the side. They are affordable housing starting about 130,000 per unit. They have a specific plan, which is the reason they are putting it on RPA. Meri asked about separation from residential and commercial. Kit talked about drainage being a concern also. We need to detail that a little more as well. Both property owners will work together and put a retention basin in the corner with an outlet, the destination of that outlet is not totally finalized and the PUD will have some detention as well. Working with them on it. Paul asked about road. There is still a discussion on the road and where it will go through. The road will go through and it will still be a public road. Part of the plan shows space for a park and what type of open space, another option is moving the road over and adding on to some property up above. It depends on where they think the park will be better located. If you would rather have the park somewhere else, let them know. Need to decide. Ron said it will be done in phases. The town homes will be done in a couple of phases and the subd as well. Take to action meeting 8. Zone Change Cedar Springs Cedar Springs LLC/Insite (Recommendation) AT to CC, R-3, R-1, R-E & I & M-1 Ron Larsen represented. Basically following this RPA master plan. Zoning is proposed on it. The same map just doing everything at the same time. Take to action meeting 9. Zone Change 1593 S. Hwy 91 Debra Frank (Recommendation) HS to GC No representative Planning Commission Minutes April 4, 2006 Page 5 of 18 10. Zone Change W. of Eq. Center Armbrust/Watson (Recommendation) R-3 to GC or CC Tim Watson represented. Brian said you already recommended approval on the RPA zone but this is the rezoning request for following along on that RPA plan. Tim said last month you rezoned the entire parcel. Have a small 10 acres that is in the airport approach zone that they are rezoning to GC from the R-3 that is currently in the process. Small area just west of the equestrian arena. Paul said it’s all annexed. The whole portion is in the process of being rezoned to R-3, we need to subtract out a general commercial area inside the airport approach zone. Take to action meeting 11. Zone Change 2300 N. Northfield Rd. Mackert/Insite (Recommendation) R-1 to R-2 Ron Larsen represented. Piece of property that came through a few months ago, it was recommended for approval by the planning commission, when it went to Council, they had some concerns about the underpass. Bringing g it back. Need to start over. Kit says on the west side of the road the underpass has been designed and bonded for Cedar Willows Phase 2. Kit says no reimbursement in place at this time. Ron said they will be glad to participate. Originally annexed as R-1. This is above Sunroc. Is it in the master plan as R-2? The answer is yes. There will still be a property between them and Sunroc. The main issue with City Council was the underpass. Lyman has some concerns about it even being residential, because you are adjacent to mining and there is no way of controlling the dust. When this happens the City will be inundated on questions concerning issues with the dust. Lyman says he feels the best use for the property is mining. That wind and dust will blow in a southerly direction and when their plants and planters and their countertops are covered with dust, the City will get calls. Everybody will be gone except for the City. Lyman wished the development on the north side never went in. Drainage problems adjacent to mining will expand and will be a nightmare. Lyman continued about the wind. Ron said part of the issue is that because there is already development there they don’t want mining on the other side. Pat said the master plan is R-2 and we’ve gone with that Take to action meeting 12. Zone Change 2000 N. & I-15 High Desert/Insite (Recommendation) R-1 to CC Ron Larsen represented. Right across the street and to the south a little. Been here a couple of moths ago. Originally asked for R-3 because of proximity to freeway, also major power lines that back it which makes to harder to develop as single family lots but were told (recommended) to make CC. They went through the same issues as the last one. Back to ask for the same issues. Kit said they will still have the underpass problems, but it’s on the opposite side of the road, the one before would be accessing it. Cedar Willows is only required to improve the sidewalk on the west side of the road, this one is on the east side. There is no sidewalk designed or bonded for the east side of the road yet. Meri asked about the Iron County School District and City property ownership. Kit says (referring to the City property) that is where our irrigation well is. Talked to other property owner to see if they’re interested in the one change, he hasn’t heard back yet. Ron Planning Commission Minutes April 4, 2006 Page 6 of 18 thinks its master planned as R-2. Pat asked about CC. Ron talked about proximity to freeway and Pat mentioned about sidewalks again. They would be willing to bond for the underpass and he has given them the plans that showed the proposed detail on it. Take to action meeting 13. Zone Change 400 E. & 370 S.- Blk 20 Plat B Tom Jett (Recommendation) R-2 to R-3 Tom Jett represented. Trying to rezone. There are some misconceptions about my intentions. He wants to put 3 duplexes on the large section and leave the driveway lot on 400 East as the driveway and with partial landscaping.1 lot inside under one ownership with 3 duplexes, rentals. There is one correction, it is a lot on 325 south, but not asking for rezoning of that. That is acceptable. Brian said technically it is a dedicated road on that north side, it is unimproved other than have some curb and gutter that goes in front of those lots, otherwise it is not too improved. Master plan is for R-2. Look at on tour. Lura Boner, speaking about petition not to change from an R-2 because it is very scary to change to a R-3 when it could be 3 to 24 units on that piece of property. Also there is a creek or drainage that comes down the back of that property and she asks that we deny the change, there is no reason why it needs to be changed. Pat asked about maximum under R-2. Tom said the way it is set up now is that he can put in 3 duplexes now. Jack H. said there is room for confusion and uncertainty and so they came up with a few days ago to our knowledge, he counted up to 17 property owners that live in these homes and are concerned about the plan. There is a need for clarification and intent of what might come out of this. Considerable concern about the area being changed form time to time and we know that things can change and we would like clarification and we are opposed to it. There are more names on the petition than property owners here today. Many of the people were pioneers and want to know what we are looking at. Wants to put on tour. Pat asked about how many we can put on. Tom has four lots. Two front the street. Two are landlocked pieces of property. Right now he can put two duplexes on it. It is a no plat B. 2 – 4 plexes or duplexes, so by changing it to R-3, it would be 2-3 plexes. Potentially 40 units. Even though we say we can put in 3 duplexes, you put more in. Talked about deed restrictions. If it was recorded on the deed the neighbors could enforce it says Paul. Fred Ashdown Sr. spoke and showed where his property is and his concern with increase in traffic and overflowing wash. Years ago there was a wash that had to be moved. Since then he has seen the wash overflow. When it overflowed, he says the less homes the better. Mainly concerned about the potential traffic. Vicki Webster spoke and said she also lives on 400 East a bit down at the bottom of the hill. Adamantly opposed because of the traffic, has a lot of speeders, children at the bottom on each side of the street. Has R-3 on one side and doesn’t want it on the other side. Full of multiply apartments, horrible, nothing good so we would really like it not be changed. Meri said that it’s about a block away from East Elementary. Kit says we haven’t evaluated the traffic yet. Fred Ashdown Jr. spoke he lives next door, it belonged to his grandfather and will be passed down to him, it might be harmful to his kids, his child is deaf and it is problematic. Really opposes it. Will put on tour. Take to action meeting Planning Commission Minutes April 4, 2006 Page 7 of 18 14. Subd. – Minor Lot 400 N. Aviation Way Gubler/ Platt & Platt (Approval) Joe Gubler represented. This is on the west side of the new road into the airport. Will subdivide it and sell enough so we can put in all the improvements. Showed on the map where things where. Kit’s concern is that the lots are little short lots and we’re gong to go in and improve that street, we would hate to see it built in pieces on the side for each lot. We would prefer that it would all be done at once, instead of a piece meal. Joe said that is the plan, to generate enough money to do that. Basically the City is doing the 58 ft. and he needs to do the 21 feet on either side. He’s trying to sell enough to fully improve them. 42 for a total of 100. 21 on each side. Kit says we’re only improving 40, so there’s about 30 ft. on each side. He is on the west side. Further detail on the map. Hoping to get further improvements on the lot. Look at on tour. Take to action meeting 15. Subd. – Minor Lot 700 S. & 2400 W. Mesa Hills/Platt & Platt (Approval) Wildflower Phase 3 Bob Platt represented. 3 proposed lots. South side of 700 S. church street, very west end of Wildflower. Zoned R-3, single family homes. Take to action meeting 16. Subd. – Minor Lot 100 E & 775 N. Adair Plumbing/Insite (Approval) Ron Larsen represented. Parcel that is zoned by Adair. Want to split off to build a building but don’t want to split of the whole piece. Only need the one piece. It would be a commercial business with shop. Ron said they only need one piece and use the other piece for something else later. Kit says to make sure how the utilities will be stubbed in because the roads have been improved. Partly improved with curb and gutter. Move it on. Take to action meeting 17. Subd. – Minor Lot 1500 S. Providence Center Dr. Quantum/Insite (Approval) Ron Larsen represented. This is the remaining property by Home Depot and Wal-Mart. The remainder will split the lot into two parcels. One being the piece between Home Depot and Wal- Mart and the remainder piece to the south of Home Depot. This is where the right-of-way easement has come up before on this and needs to be addressed. Showed on the map where Providence Center and Home Depot area and where the easement is. It splits the two pieces, the piece to the south and the other. It is zoned CC. The road will be dedicated. The question is how to access the SITLA property in back. Kit says there is an easement that needs to be changed that provides for public use and put the PUE’s on it as well. It is currently a 60 ft easement. Behind Home Depot that goes up. They haven’t got the final layout for the road yet. They would access the roundabout and there are cross easements through it and there is access. Take to action meeting Planning Commission Minutes April 4, 2006 Page 8 of 18 18. Subd. – Lot Modif. 5300 W. & Hwy 56 Quantum/BBE (Recommendation) Heath Oveson represented. The parcel is on a previous road dedication. Breaking off the parcel between the RR tracks and what is Cerro Copper. The roadway in front is already dedicated to a certain extent. Preparing construction drawings to facilitate the reconstruction of the road all the way from 56 up. Kit says this is not necessarily a lot modification it’s just a minor lot. Take to action meeting 19. Subd. – Vicinity 2200 N. Northfield Road Artisan/Watson (Approval) Tim Watson represented. Same concern as #11 says Lyman. The other concern is traffic because of high density units. The dust still doesn’t go away, traffic, etc. Tim says has had quite a bit of conversation with Sunroc, they have strict EPA regulations and they talked to developers and that they have strict water and dust issues and it has been brought to their attention. Lyman continued with the wind. Bob asked about the property. Tim said they are in the process of getting quiet title, from the property line to the existing fence line. Kit said that would all have to be corrected by the time the final comes through and have a clean title report. Brian said a couple of issues are open space along the trail and shown on the trail master plan. Kit said that along the south boundary there is a public sewer line and the original trail master plan showed that trail going there, now its not there. Tim said they are trying to work out those issues with quiet title and there is an existing sewer as well. Kit said wouldn't want to leave the gap in ownership. Take to action meeting 20. Subd. – Vicinity 300 S. West View Drive Armbrust/Watson (Approval) Tim Watson represented. Approx. 456 lots. Phase 1, Phase 1B and the rest is proposed. Pat asked about how it is different form the one we looked at. Bob said it looks like they have lots of open space and Brian said yes as well as trails and they are discussing the cul-de-sac and grades and make sure that this things are addressed before approval. Soils report is in the process. Tim said we would like to start the thinking process, we do have a couple of areas where we have cul- de-sacs that are longer than the 500 ft. maximum which is allowed, in order to preserve some of the scarring on the hillside, in talking with Kit and Fire on requirements, Phase 1a and Phase 1b, no issues and a 500 ft minimum does not apply the rest would like us to consider some alternatives to prevent additional scaring, connecting roads, etc. to preserve the open space which is about 33-35%. Kit's concern is that if waiting for approval on the entire vicinity plat then it will apply approval at this time, so the issue would have to be worked out on the vicinity plat as long as the cul-de-sacs are still on. Tim said to make the modifications at the phasing stages, the vicinity plat is the overall picture so we don’t see phase to phase, still working on that and that and there may be some modifications required. Some of the cul-de-sacs do not meet says Bob and it would affect some of the lots. Tim said can we subtract off the number of lots and not add to the existing number of lots that are on here? Pat asked about how the new ordinance would help this? Brian said there isn’t anything really that talks about the cul-de-sac lengths. We could look Planning Commission Minutes April 4, 2006 Page 9 of 18 into that. Tim said it’s something to consider if were tying to give the developers other options to look at. Kit says in some ways it conflicts. The RPA ordinance now encourages connected streets and discourages cul-de-sacs. Lyman said it exceeds the 500. Tim says the longest one is 800-850 ft. The fire marshal would like a blow out or a half knuckle-half cul-de-sac at midway so they can turn their engines around at that point instead of going all the way to the end of the cul-de-sac. Tim says in conversation with Kit and others to make sure we can work with that. The largest will be R-1 and it’s in the rezoning process right now. Take to action meeting 21. Subd. – Vicinity 850 N. 2300 W. Connell Gower/Adams (Approval) Coal Creek Indust. P4 Connel Gower represented. This is unit 4 in Coal Creek Industrial Park. 7 acre project with 11 lots ranging from 1/3 acre to 7/10ths. The area outlined in blue is the 6.9 acres that has recently been annexed. Gave details on map. Take to action meeting 22. Subd. – Preliminary 275 S. West View Drive Watson (Approval) Hidden Hills Estates Tim Watson represented. Will have to put frontage, 66 ft. wide on Hidden Hill. Brian said the stipulation is the access and they might have circular driveways. Kit said drainage is something that needs to be addressed. Tim said as soon as he gets the easements in line they will run the drainage at the same time. Kits say they need to be in place for the final. Kit says they are in the process of checking. 23. Subd. – Preliminary 1775 N. Lund Hwy Mark 1/BBE (Approval) Sycamore Trail Pulled 24. Subd.- Preliminary 3500 W. & 285 S. Son Builders/Insite (Approval) Hidden Hills Cove Ron Larsen represented. Property south of what was just discussed above. Drainage is a concern that we area working on. We put together a plan on the lots, and were told we can do circular drives. All the lots along the side will have to have circular drives because they all front. 1-6 will have circular lots. Same drainage and sewer concerns. Take to action meeting 25. Subd. – Final 2850 N. 1975 W. Insite (Recommendation) Gemini Meadows Ron Larsen represented. 156 lots. Twin home lots. All one phase. To be completed by the end of October or so they think, more than one contractor, the homes will take a while, probably about 30 built this year. Meri asked about basement restrictions, none, but the sewer is a restriction. Drainage goes into an existing channel which is being redone and deepened by about 4 ft. and it Planning Commission Minutes April 4, 2006 Page 10 of 18 all comes out of the subdivision and goes into that drainage. Meri asked about water pressure and water line. Kit says there are two water lines that will feed into it. Kit says things are being checked. Take to action meeting 26. Subd. – Final 2900 N. & 150 W. Steffensen/Platt & Platt (Recommendation) Old Farm Subd. Dave Clarke presented. Kit says Curt checking on it. Take to action meeting 27. Subd. – Vacate 4050 W. & 300 N. Insite (Recommendation) Country Lane Phase 2 Ron Larsen represented. 7 lot subd. The owner of two lots would like to amend to make them twin homes lots, so vacate two out of the existing subd and then plat two new lots, so the vacate is to vacate those two and the amend is to put in two new lots the same size and everything except now it would be designated as twin home lots with a split town the middle. Zoned R-3 but they just want to split it. Take to action meeting 28. Subd. – Amended 4050 W. & 300 N. Insite (Recommendation) Country Lane Phase 2 Same as above. 29. Subd. – Lot Modif. 250 N. 4200 W. Mark I/BBE (Recommendation) Lamplight Phase 3 Heath Oveson represented. Foundation in the ground that was poured that were over the setback line approx. 18 inches. So slide the lot line so that it complies with the setbacks on the lots and everything complies with the setbacks. Paul asked if they are all under the same ownership. Heath said yes. No sewer depth problem here. Kit said that Curt is looking at it. Heath says that they received some comments that will be taken care of. Kit asked if we still need a vacating ordinance on this. Paul said he doesn’t know and will have to check. Take to action meeting 30. Subd. – Lot Line Adj. 100 E & 200 N. Smith & Jorgensen/Platt & Platt (Recommendation) Bob Platt represented. Proposed lot line adj. Showed where the old Presbyterian Church is and the existing building strip mall. Currently 3 parcels, this would make it 2 parcels that fit buildings. Showed on the map where things where. Smith and Jorgenson owners of all the property. Kit says ok. Take to action meeting Planning Commission Minutes April 4, 2006 Page 11 of 18 31. Subd. – Lot Line Adj. 1248 W. Cedar Knolls S. Anderson/Jay Adams (Recommendation) Anderson represented. Two odd lots, his on the left on the map, when he moved on it was rocks and Sagebrush, would like to take the portion, 25 ft. between the corner and realign to clean up and give space for RV or whatever. Between the corner and his house is about 25 ft. This was agreed on several years ago, upon death the home would go to the children, she is forcing to get done before something happens. Side yard, no problem. Take to action meeting 32. PUD – Preliminary 1425 N. Northfield Rd. Cedar Park Townhomes/ (Approval) Cedar Park Townhomes Platt & Platt Jim Burgess represented. Same thing as last month. Failed to make all of the notifications so they made sure they notified a couple of people and that’s why they are back. Gene Anderson spoke, owner of Anderson Service and Sales and he understands that this is right next to his property. He asked about access. Jim says there was a 15 ft. piece of property and the City owns a 40 ft. piece. Jim said this is a master planned road, 1425 North, that would be improved down to Northfield Road. Jim said this is a road that the City really needs and would give us another access. Gene asked what type of fencing will there be. Kit says fencing is actually required. Meri asked about setbacks. The map is a general feel for the whole project. 1425 is the only setback on one side, because it’s a PUD you don’t really need one, just one the one side. Developed in approx. 3 phases. The City requires that if you have more than 70 units that you need to have two accesses. The first phase is 54 so the access will probably not have to be put in. Put on tour. Robbie Math (?) says he lives off 1500 North, represented some people that are opposed because of traffic congestion is getting pretty heavy and that is a direct line down to the schools, and according to the proposal the road would go behind their lots. Jim said that is not true. Jim says the traffic issue is that the road will be a benefit because it will be an additional access, for all those people who have to come down to Constitution or the road where the hospital comes out, this will make it so that everybody will not have to travel but can come straight to Main Street. Non through traffic private roads Jim showed on the map. Traffic and neighbors are sensitivity and that's why it is master plan road. Already a lot of high density. Meri asked about speed limit on Northfield Road. 25 mph on these roads. Jim said another thing is that currently there is not improved sidewalk or curb and gutter so it will have to be improved which will help as well with foot traffic. Robbie said we wouldn’t be so opposed with single family dwellings but not with duplexes. Jim says the thing they have to understand is that this is R-3, if we were to go in there and build apartments to would be a lot higher density, he feels we are doing the best with the R-3 property. Cedar City is in need of affordable housing and if not it would be apartments of higher density similar to Canyon View apartments. Two stories say's Jim. Town homes, single family, not rentals. 30% as rentals. This is the best for the zone. Countryside Terraces is the same. Will start at 170,000. Currently have PD letter. Everything is cleared. Irrigation ditches are not on our property. Our project will have to be fenced. Total units will be approx. 250-260 and will be done in phases. The first phase is 52 units. All the drainage runs northwest. This will be addressed with our construction drawings, where the water will end up. Contours will show Planning Commission Minutes April 4, 2006 Page 12 of 18 the drainage runs south. Jim says it runs downhill. Ken H. lives on 1500 North, corner of Northfield Road. Regarding water drainage, a lot of pasture that sinks into the ground is the City doing anything about drainage. Kit says that is a sewer replacement but there is an approved project to put a storm drain down this entire road. This road and 300 West will have a storm drain put in. Person from audience concern is about 2 stories. Again Jim mentioned that this is a lower density than what the zone allows. Gene Anderson, how will it affect access he asks? Kit says all the accesses on Main Street are improved by UDOT. Frontage road runs by UDOT as well. Already an approved access by UDOT? Kit says will have to check. Don’t know what UDOT will want. Gene Anderson said he was under the understanding that UDOT would work with the property owners. Take to action meeting 33. PUD Preliminary 700 S. & 2400 W. Mesa Hills/Platt & Platt (Approval) Crescent Heights Village Bob Platt represented. Piece of property just west of Mesa Hills commercial building. Several years ago when they did the master plan it was zoned R-3, the owners want to develop as a PUD. It's almost 7 acres, 48 units, it’s about half the density. Single family detached, gated community for retired. They want to designate lot 9 as a potential club house. Currently R-3, the max. could be 15 per acre in PUD and that would put it at 105. Pat asked if someone is opposed to it, what happens. She wanted to make sure people understood the process. It’s about 6.85 acres, could put up to 130 units, they are doing half. Bob said at one time the master plan was talked about as an apartment, they came pretty close to doing that and then backed off. Totally fenced all around. John Salcido spoke, we live on lot 24, what he received in a mail stated that they were going to build condos and he wants clarification of what a patio home is. It is a town home or single family dwelling, nothing attached. Pat says the ordinance allows up to 30% to be rented but they are individually owned. The letter says PUD/condo. John says that they are building with the impression that it will be single family homes, so he’s ok. David White wants clarification that it’s going to be retirement and patio homes? Single story, brick fence and other roads will come around, 2 gates, east and west. Concerned about the traffic density as well. Will double traffic density and the street is small. Street is narrow. The street width is 60 ft. street the street inside could be 24 ft. Tony Salsa spoke and said he was given a sheet that says this would be a discussion and he said that when it went before the City Council after a year ago, there was a discussion about R-3 rezoning taking place to the north of the Catholic Church and he thinks Council voted against it, his concern is that the size of the lots that are going in, they are much larger than the size that is going in on this development. He doesn’t think that this R-2 does come in conflict with the rest of the development that is happening on the hill and those who live up there don’t want to see smaller lots coming in. He’s curious as to the size of the lots. They are about 4500 sq. ft. Pat Keehley said that she lives pretty close to this development as well and that she knows there are affluent people who just don’t want the yard but want to live up there too and she thinks this will be prefect for them. She asked what the price would be. Bob said he couldn’t discuss the price. Not considered starter homes. Steve said the intention he wants is for it be nice areas. Pat said lets be open and live up to what he planned here. Kit asked about the street, dead Planning Commission Minutes April 4, 2006 Page 13 of 18 end or fenced off. Kit said by the ordinance can’t provide access into another private property by a PUD. Tony Salsa said down in St. George, where he lived for a year, I would consider a planned retirement community, but this area is not a planned retirement community it’s a family community. He is still concerned about lot size. Bob B. said you have to realize that the federal government says that the development can’t discriminate against who’s going to live there. John Salcido again, we were misled, when we bought in we were lead to believe that this would never happen, and we have very restricted CCR’s. Our CCR’s wouldn’t allow us to build a home of that size, the size of the lot. Pat says it has always been zoned to R-3. Mark Meisner, he lives on the other side of the Catholic Church, he thinks this is great compared to 200 apartments which they could do. He’s very happy with this and as a resident he supports this. Take to action meeting 34. PUD Preliminary Fiddlers Cyn & Wedgewood Andersen/Brown Engin. (Approval) Tuscany Mark Brown representing Bob Anderson. About 63 acres. We have four phases in the project. Basically patio home development and apartment phase. Outside appearance will be Tuscany, this is up Fiddlers Canyon, south of the Elementary school. 282 units proposed. Density would be a little over 4 units per acre. Zoned R3. Three phases plus apartment phase. Kit says will have to look at traffic. Kit says on the road layout, the loop will be a city street (not master planned) but some of the roads that are stubbing out to the adjoining property like he said before cannot do in a PUD if they are private streets, so look at making them public. Brian said to look at the graded plan as well and drain issues as well, it would be nice to have some topos to see what the effect or plan is. If the streets become public they will have to be wider. Kit says when it comes to final it will be checked. As far as drainage, they are reconstructing the retention basin and it is sized to accommodate or restrict the drainage flow enough where the street can accommodate the drainage. Kit says there are 3 detention ponds out in Fiddlers. Right now the retention pond is not retaining anything. They required us to breach the dam on that several years ago because it is not constructed to state standards. Put on tour. Dave Berry spoke, wants to know how you enter from Main Street. They told him from Fiddlers Canyon Road. Move it on. Take to action meeting 35. PUD Final 100 E Fiddlers Canyon Road Brad Bryan/Insite (Approval) Stone Gate Town Homes Ron Larsen represented. Came in with preliminary last month and this is basically the first phase. Property owner required that they don’t start in front, that’s why they are starting in the back. Kit asked about plans for access. Ron says when they get to the 80 lots that is when it becomes an issue. Meri asked about access. They are currently using the access between the two properties, part of it is already paved, they will develop it and pave it back in. It is a private drive between he two property owners with an easement on both sides. The parking is on the side in various areas. Kit asked about drainage, Ron said basically the property will drain and there will be a detention basin to Main Street. He will build a retention basin. It will be a park too and will be landscaped, it will go in with this phase, sewer will be brought in as well. Kit asked about acreage on the first Planning Commission Minutes April 4, 2006 Page 14 of 18 phase. Ron says he doesn’t know. Kit says it has to meet the minimum. The zone is CC. 1.24 acres is what shows on the map says Lyman. No minimum lot size for PUD in a commercial zone says Paul. Brian talked to Ron about a stand alone project. The main park will mainly be built with this. Dan Mendrensena, the Eagle Pointe Homeowners Association President, said at the beginning they gave the council objections, but as he sees now, they are starting phase one and they haven’t addressed the full plat let alone phase one. The streets are only 24 ft. wide, the parking issue hasn’t been addressed, he talked to developer about putting in 1 story units around perimeter and he said they will consider it. But that hasn’t happened they are all two story units. Pat asked about talking about height. Ron said you have about 8-10 ft difference. Ron said the problem is (they did consider the single stories) that it wipes out 10 -15 percent of their units which doesn’t make it feasible to do it. And with the difference in elevation it doesn’t make sense, it already sets down farther. Pat said they are considering but they didn’t make any promises. They are still within the required ordinances. Dan says they still haven’t dealt will issue of parking. Pat said if the plans have gone by the City officials and its ok then its part of the process. Brian said were still looking at it. Pat said as part of the process, there might not be a resolution, but at this process we need to go through the City and meet and make sure everybody has seen them. Kit says they have submitted construction drawings and that we are limited by the ordinance and as long as they comply then that’s all we can do. He can come in and review. Pat asked about the ordinances being online. The answer is yes. They will not exceed the ordinance or it will not be improved. Frank Heiser spoke, lives in Eagle Pointe and says it is much less dense than what is planned and what effect will it have on our property, his concern is that his property will go down. That’s why they are opposed to it. Feels it’s too dense and will cut his property value. Dave Berry spoke, clarification on phases, he says his personal problems are the traffic issue coming off Main and into KB. If there is a way they can connect and come down, then that would help the situation. Kit says that over 80 units will have a second access, they don’t have that number yet. Kit says they will do a traffic count. Brent Henshed spoke and said he is here on behalf of the development company and wants to address a few issues that were brought up. First section would like to start at a phase that would leave it open for possible commercial use. It is zoned CC. Another issue that was addresses is the height of the units and about single family homes on the east side, but they would loose roughly 15-20 percent of the units in the project, as far as traffic when school starts and ends the area will be congested, but they went down during various times of the day and there wasn’t too much of a traffic issue. Take to action meeting 36. PUD Final Fiddlers Ranch & Bridgewater BBE (Approval) Ashdown Forest Phase 8 Rich Gillette represented. Knows that there are comments that we are working on. It’s not gated. Kit gave them a couple of major comments and will have the rest of them tomorrow. Brian said he needs to look at the final details but thinks it is ok. Traffic needs to be addressed. 74 units. Take to action meeting Planning Commission Minutes April 4, 2006 Page 15 of 18 37. PUD Final Amended 1475 N. 380 W. Adams/Adams (Approval) Country Meadows Phase 2 Adams represented. Amending to change twin homes to single. Instead of outlining the unit, they are outlining the pad, things still fit, but they are just allowing more flexibility. They want to lay out a pad and be able to situate a pad. They will have the option of being a single or twin. Zoned R-3. Take to action meeting 38. Proposed lease of City N. Bulldog Road Western Rock Property (Recommendation) Keith Nichols representing. History is the lst 20 years we have been involved with the lease with the City. Has been mining with the agreement that we go down 30 ft, the lease expired last May of 05, so they would like another 10 year lease, taking the property down another 45 ft. On the north side we are down that deep already. As of May, 05 they left the property. A bonus would be that they would actually be taking the property down and it opens up the opportunity to collect the water. So the proposal is another 10 year lease, down 45 ft., and approx. two million tons of aggregate. Pat asked what the City gets out of it. Keith said there would be royalties. Kit said actually it would be bid out and everybody would have to opportunity to submit a proposal. Paul says we are currently doing one. Keith says by sitting in the back there is a need. 32.31 acres. They have analyzed the slope that is required, that’s why they have gone down that distance. Take to action meeting 39. Revision to Subd. Ordinance 32-10 & 11 Kit (Recommendation) Kit says this is a proposed revision to our Subd Ordinance. We are proposing that it be a requirement that we have the developers put in street lights, up to now the City didn’t require this, but went to power and told them and they put in the street lights, and put us on a rate schedule that not only charged for operation and maintenance but also charged us for capital cost for the street light. The City ended up paying for those street lights. Right now the budget is $260,000 for street lights, the street lights are charged to capital cost and it cost approx. 3 times higher than when were just paying power and maintenance. Were getting lots of requests for street lights. Currently in the process of looking at the City buying all the street lights from the power Company and then all we would be power for was power and then we would be cutting the cost by 5x. Kit says just as we started that the power got a proposal of being bought out buy another person and that is in the proceeds so they don’t want to dispose of any of their assets. Anybody that has already received a final plat would not have to do that, but bonds after that would be affected. Pat said that right now the City is absorbing that cost. Kit says it’s about $7 a light + power costs. We put in a light approx. every 300 ft on a road. It would cost $8 a month forever. Pat asked what we are asking the developers to pay. Kit said were probably looking at about $1500 a light. Every 300 ft would serve 6-8 lots. Pat asked in other cities, who pays for that. Kit said most larger cities make it a requirement for developing. Pat says she has mixed feelings. Planning Commission Minutes April 4, 2006 Page 16 of 18 What are we required to do, the ordinances. If there are PUD’s let them decide. Kit says the PUD is different, they decide anyhow. Pat said in some ways she feels we are we hiding this from the buyer. Lyman said somebody has to pay, the property owner will pay for it no matter which way it goes. Pat said it’s almost like the City doesn’t want to shoulder it, then what. Kit says it’s becoming a problem, we put a moratorium on putting lights in until with have this issue resolved with purchasing the lightening system. Meri asked about putting them in as a public street. Kit says that’s what would be required now. Discussion back and forth. Brian said who would shoulder the payment for infinity. Kit says you would pay the cost of putting in the light and the City would pay the maintenance. Take to action meeting 40. Ordinance Change – RPA zone Brian Maxfield (Recommendation) Brian said the dated 3/21 was the one that was handed out last time. The one dated 4/4 would be the one that he would like to walk through. Brian said a lot are staff comments and looked at adding number 2. Come to agreeable development standards. They still have to notice. This brings in some subjective areas #2 on page 4. You negotiate things out, the developer can’t say there is a prior right, they negotiate with the staff. Under B have taken out references to the plan site development at his time and references to minimum acreage. Under B2 it talks about Title 2 (?) being necessary to identity all owners and interests in the property. Under C adds an area that references under initial requirements. Then under the uses there is a section that we basically call out the uses in the document and there is no question. This gives us a better way of looking at it if it’s called out from the start. D2 references subsection b above. Under E1biii deleted a reference to the open space park land and trail ordinance. Under F1 there is another PSD reference, page 8. Page 13, as staff we have looked at the allowance for design and street modification, we would like your comment. Meri asked if this concerns PUD. Brian said no, just in things that refer to RPA. Kit says that we definitely want it to be consistent through out the City and meet our minimum requirements to provide services. More concerned with street widths. A year ago we proposed a street width modification to City Council and in coming up that we did a fairly thorough evaluation, we felt like 3 ft. was something that we could live with. Our rates are dependent on how well we do the job. There are definite limits on grades. The bottom line is I’m not sure we are comfortable, we set the minimum standards and that’s what they need to comply with, but we can’t go less than that. Kit says that street widths and cross sections should be part of the standards but not part of the RPA unless they want to go wider. Meri feels that public streets are maintained by the City so they should have requirements. At least the last 13 years the streets were the same width. Steve said we have to have some flexibility. There should be flexibility to have differences, there should be a special area to look at. Meri said in different areas they have different things. Pat said she thinks we need to move forward with some changes, this City is growing and we need some flexibility. Further discussion. Steve talked about the fact of affordable housing Danny Mason spoke, he thinks this is great overall and it encourages and enables master planned communities which would gibe back a; lot to he City and put a lot less strain on city resources. It will be self sustainable and provides an option for consideration for Planning Commission Minutes April 4, 2006 Page 17 of 18 common street widths. He encourages to see as an option for consideration. Joel Hansen spoke, he thinks it is great in some aspects but not in others, he doesn’t like the subjectiveness that goes along with it, that ever time you bring a project in it’s a negotiation. He thinks it’s great if you have 10 units per acre density but most of our projects here aren’t. In overall generality, he thinks it’s a great thing, but for a regular community, it actually inhibits some of our creativity and ability to do things Paul said you don’t have to use this, there is a disclaimer, some of the revisions are new, and if the developer wants to do this they know it is subjective. Joel said he does agree that there should be some consideration for road widths. Take to action meeting. Bob Behunin called to order a special action meeting for an Ordinance Change – RPA zone at 8:35 pm. 1. Ordinance Change – RPA zone Brian Maxfield (Recommendation) Pat Keehley moved to give a positive recommendation to Council for the Ordinance Change for RPA zone, seconded by Steve Wood and the vote was unanimous. Brian talked about a tour with City Council up to Daybreak on Thursday, April 20th. Drive morning and coming back in the evening. Will contact planning commission members separately. Brian talked about major projects coming on and the best way to look at them, now there is an RPA zone, now we can look at Heritage and other large scale developments and also expansion of annexation boundary’s with the idea is there another thing we can get to you that so that we can scope and find out what items or areas you want to look at, something that would tell us how it get into that and present you with something more formally for a future meeting.. Meeting was adjourned at 8:36 pm. CARRYOVER TO ACTION MEETING IN APRIL 1. Road Dedication 5300 W. & Hwy 56 Quantum/BBE (Recommendation) 2. Road Ded./Minor Lot 2310 W. 850 N. Connell Gower (Recommendation) 3. Subd. – Minor Lot 5300 W. & Hwy 56 Quantum/BBE (Approval) 4. Subd. – Minor Lot 75 E. & 900 S. area Trailside/Insite (Approval) 5. Subd. – Minor Lot 1600 N. Main Titan Develop./Platt & Platt (Approval) Planning Commission Minutes April 4, 2006 Page 18 of 18 6. Subd. – Vicinity 3900 W. 600 N. Nate Blake (Approval) Aspen Grove 7. Subd. – Preliminary Cedarlund Estates Dalley & Denmark/BBE (Approval) Corner of 1600 N. & Lund Hwy. 8. Subd. – Preliminary Hunter Glenn Phase 2 Darren Coughlin/BBE (Approval) 9. Subd. – Preliminary 75 S. 4200 W. BBE (Approval) Cedar Meadows Phase 7 10. Subd. – Preliminary 300 S. 2525 W. Platt & Platt (Approval) Carmel Canyon Phase 3 11. Subd. – Preliminary 2100 N. 500 W. Titan/Platt & Platt (Approval) Cedar Willows Phase 3 12. Subd. – Preliminary 3312 W. 1600 N. DeMille/BBE (Approval) DeMille Subd. Phase 2 13. Subd. – Final Eq. Pt. – Phase 13 Childs/Insite (Recommendation) 14. Subd. – Final 25 S. 4200 W. Cedar Meadows/BBE (Recommendation) Cedar Meadows Phase 6 15. Lot Modif. 100 W. 200 S. Sherrie Hansen/BBE (Recommendation) 16. Subd. – Lot Line Adj. 200 S. 1650 W. Erik Miller/New Horizon (Recommendation) 17. PUD - Final 1225 N. Northfield Road Tim Stewart/Cedar Holdings (Recommendation) Cedar Crossings Townhomes Rosenberg Associates Cedar City Corporation does not discriminate on the basis of race, color, national origin, sex, religion, age or disability in employment or the provision of services. If you are planning to attend this public meeting and, due to a disability, need assistance in accessing, understanding or participating in the meeting, please notify the City no later than the day before the meeting and we will try to provide whatever assistance may be required.