PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES OF MEETING
Wednesday, March 10, 2010
A quorum being present at Centerville City Hall, 250 North Main Street, Centerville, Utah. The meeting of the Centerville City Planning Commission was called to order at 7:00 p.m.
Jim Pedersen, Chair
Lisa Romney, City Attorney
Kathy Streadbeck, Recording Secretary
Tia Mangelson Mark Green
Winslow Young Lyle Gibson
Stephanie Gibson John VanderMeide
Pat VanderMeide Jeremy Taylor
OPENING COMMENT/LEGISLATIVE PRAYER Commissioner Kjar
MINUTES REVIEW AND APPROVAL
The minutes of the Planning Commission meeting held February 24, 2009 were reviewed. Commissioner Kjar made a motion to approve the minutes as written. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Walton and passed by unanimous vote (5-0).
PUBLIC HEARING – CONCEPTUAL SITE PLAN – 590 EAST CENTER STREET - Consideration of a conceptual site plan for an un-platted residential building lot, located at 590 East Center Street, for the purpose of constructing a new dwelling, in the R-L Zone. Mark J. Green, Evergreen Investment, Co., Property Owner and Applicant.
Lisa Romney, City Attorney, reported the applicant is requesting a conceptual site plan acceptance for a .3 acre piece of property in the R-L Zone. The applicant desires to build a single-family dwelling on the property, which is a permitted use in this zone. Since this lot is not currently platted within a subdivision, the applicant must go through the two-step site plan approval process. The Planning Commission is reviewing the conceptual site plan at this time (final site plan will be reviewed in the future). The site plan process is necessary to review compliance with zoning requirements. The Planning Commission is to review the conceptual site plan and determine if the lot is developable and whether or not development of the parcel can meet City ordinances. Staff has reviewed the application and finds the application to be complete and in accordance with applicable City ordinances. Staff recommends approval with the conditions as listed in the staff report dated March 10, 2010.
Commissioner Walton asked if the property is located in the flood plain and if the applicant is aware of the issues associated with the flood plain. Ms. Romney said the current property owner knows the property is in the flood plain and is aware of the added requirements for development. The applicant will work with the City Engineer to make sure all FEMA regulations are complied with.
Commissioner Rasmussen said the staff report and the suggested conditions of approval mention three (3) easements on the property. She asked where these easements will be located as they are not indicated on the site plan. Ms. Romney said, by ordinance, three easements are required. It appears these easements will be located on the front of the property, the back of the property, and on one side. These will be reviewed further with final site plan approval.
Mark Green, applicant/current owner, said the current buyer (under contract) of the property is fully aware of the flood plain and the FEMA requirements. Mr. Green said he purchased the property from his father in 1994 and is now selling the property to Jeremy Taylor, who will be constructing a single-family home on the site.
Chair Pedersen opened the public hearing.
Winslow Young, said he owns the property immediately west of Mr. Green’s property. He said there is a rock wall between his property and Mr. Green’s which was constructed over 40 years ago. It seems the rock wall is not on the surveyed property line, but is rather slightly east of surveyed property line. He said according to rules of “Boundary of Acquiescence” any undisputed boundary line becomes the new boundary line after 20 years. He does not want to see the wall damaged or removed during construction and since the rock wall has been in existence for over 40 years it automatically becomes the new property line. Mr. Young said he spoke with Mr. Green’s mother, Joyce Green, and offered to purchase the property. She said she would give the property to Mr. Young and to deal with Mr. Green regarding the details. Mr. Young said he is still willing to purchase the property. It seems there is now some controversy because Mr. Green has contracted to sell the property, including the property line discrepancy, to his buyer. Mr. Young said he is also willing to pay for a new survey so that the plat shows accurate information. He said he has no problem with a home being built on this site. He just wants to see the rock wall remain in place. He said he has consulted with legal counsel, but would rather not go that route if possible.
Mark Green, applicant, said Mr. Young had the option to survey his property when he purchased it. Any property line disputes should have been resolved then. He explained that FEMA limits the base elevation when building in the flood plain. The base elevation is calculated using the lowest point and the highest point of the property. The lowest point on the property, according to the survey, is beyond the rock wall. If the rock wall were to become the property line, than the lowest point would change and the calculations for the base elevation may limit building options. This could hinder the ability to sell the property.
Jeremy Taylor, buyer, said he is the contracted purchaser for this property. He said the sale of the property is contingent on flood plain issues. If building options are limited it will affect the purchase of the lot.
Chair Pedersen closed the public hearing.
Ms. Romney said it appears there is a private boundary dispute. Boundary by acquiescence is a legal doctrine for the recognized right of acquiring property through mutual acquiescence similar to the doctrine of adverse possession. Under Utah law there are a number of factors that have to be met to acquire property through boundary by acquiescence. It is not for the Planning Commission to make a legal determination regarding this private dispute. If the property owners were to agree on a new location for the boundary line, then a boundary line adjustment could be completed as long as the lots meet all the necessary zoning requirements. Ms. Romney said, in her opinion, the Planning Commission can move forward with the review and acceptance of the conceptual site plan, but suggested adding a condition for staff to confirm the boundary lines of the property.
Mark Green, applicant, said he is opposed to any additional conditions. This is a private dispute and outside the realm of the City’s decision. He said he can be reasonable and will work with Mr. Young.
Ms. Romney said the suggested condition is still recommended to provide staff direction and information regarding issues that have been discussed. The condition will remind staff to verify the boundary lines and easement locations.
Commissioner Walton made a motion for the Planning Commission to accept the conceptual site plan for the Mark J. Green residential lot, located at 590 East Center Street, with the following conditions:
1. All fees shall be paid, including all related development fees.
2. The applicant shall submit a final site plan application meeting the standards found in Section 12-21-110(e) of the Zoning Ordinance.
3. All utilities shall be indicated on the final site plan.
4. All utility provider sheets shall be submitted to City staff at the time of the final site plan application.
5. Three (3) public utility easements shall be drawn on the site plan with a 10-foot along the front property line adjacent to Center Street, and two additional easements measured at 7 feet.
6. Legal descriptions of the public utility easements shall be prepared and reviewed by the City Engineer.
7. The applicant shall adhere to the required FEMA standards in regard to flood hazard management.
8. Staff shall confirm the lot lines and the boundaries of the property.
Reasons for Action (findings):
1. The applicant has clearly shown how the property may be developed [Section 12-21-110(d)(2)].
2. The applicant has submitted a full application [Section 12-21-110(d)(1)].
3. Proposed utility easements are required on all developed lots [Section 12-21-110(e)(2)(iii)(d), Section 15-5-106(8)].
4. A final site plan application shall be required for submittal [Section 12-21-110(e)].
The motion was seconded by Commissioner Rasmussen and passed by unanimous vote (5-0).
PUBLIC HEARING – SUBDIVISION PLAT AMENDMENT PETITION – HOGAN OFFICE PARK – 950 NORTH STREET - Consideration of a subdivision plat amendment petition to amend the Hogan Office Park Subdivision, to reflect the actual constructed location of 950 North Street. Michael Hogan, Hogan & Associates Construction, Property Owner & Applicant.
Lisa Romney, City Attorney, reported the applicant is requesting an amendment to the Hogan Office Park Subdivision plat located in the I-H Zone. The amendment, if approved, will reflect the actual location of the roadway (950 North) which has already been constructed. The proposed amendment will shift the entire roadway northward approximately five (5) feet on the west and narrowing to one (1) foot on the east. Subdivision plats are governed by State law and criteria for amending a subdivision plat include whether the amendment will materially injure public interest and whether there is good cause for the amendment. It appears these criteria can be met with conditions (listed in the staff report dated March 10, 2010). Issues related to the proposed amendment include utility easements, property owner verification, and whether or not this is a vacation of a street. Staff will need to review State law to determine whether this is considered a street vacation. If so, then the necessary noticing requirements will be followed. Ms. Romney said she does not feel these issues impact the Planning Commission’s decision this evening and the Planning Commission can still forward a recommendation to the City Council. Any outstanding issues will need to be resolved prior to City Council review and approval.
Commissioner Walton asked if this will affect the liens that may be on the current properties on 950 North. This could potentially increase or decrease property values. He asked if the lien holders need to be notified of the proposed amendment.
Ms. Romney said the proposed condition #3 states the applicant is required to notify all affected property owners and secure written authorizations. This condition could be amended to include lien holders. If the affected property owners do not provide written authorization, then the plat cannot be recorded.
Chair Pedersen opened the public hearing. There was no comment. Chair Pedersen closed the public hearing.
Commissioner Fillmore said it feels strange to be sending an application to the City Council with so many unresolved issues. She expressed concern as to whether or not the affected property owners have been properly notified. She said it seems prudent that property owners have the opportunity to attend both public hearings (Planning Commission and City Council). It seems they will not be properly notified until the conditions of approval are set requiring the applicant to contact them. She also questioned why staff did not verify whether or not this is considered a street vacation prior to bringing the application before the Planning Commission.
Ms. Romney explained this is a discretionary item in which staff can decide whether or not an application is complete enough for the Planning Commission to review. Since the item is on the agenda it seems that staff felt these were minor issues that did not impact the substantive issues of the Planning Commission’s review. Staff believes these issues can be accomplished prior to City Council approval. If the conditions of approval are not met when the application goes before the City Council then the amendment will not be approved. Ms. Romney assured the Planning Commission that tonight’s public hearing was properly noticed in accordance with City Ordinances. If it is determined that this is indeed a street vacation then a greater notification standard will be met prior to City Council review. She explained that staff did not feel this was a street vacation and this is why it was not verified previously.
The Commission reviewed the site plan and the setbacks. It appears the setbacks for some of the buildings are inaccurate as well. If the amendment is approved it will also correct the setback issues. It was mentioned that the road could be torn up and re-done according to the current plat. Ms. Romney said re-doing the road will not fix the setback problem. When an applicant is willing to re-dedicate a road and re-establish the easements, it is not necessary to tear-up the road.
Commissioner Fillmore, again, expressed concern with the notification of affected property owners. Ms. Romney assured Commissioner Fillmore that all affected property owners will be notified as all affected property owners will have to provide their written consent for the amendment or the amended plat cannot be recorded. Notification procedures were followed for tonight’s meeting and will be followed once again for the City Council’s public hearing. If it is determined that this is a street vacation and State law requires additional notification standards, those too will be followed.
Commissioner Rasmussen made a motion for the Planning Commission to recommend approval to the City Council, regarding the proposed plat amendment for the Hogan Office Park, subject to the following conditions:
1. The amendment shall be for the realignment of 950 North Street within the Hogan Office Park Subdivision.
2. The petitioner shall be required to verify the location of all constructed utilities and provide adequate easements to accommodate the placement and maintenance of such service infrastructure, in a manner acceptable to the City.
3. The petitioner shall be required to identify all affected owners, lien holders, and/or other entities and shall secure their authorization (notarized signatures) on the final amended plat, in a manner acceptable to the City.
4. The amendment shall also ensure that constructed building on Lot 1 meets the 20-foot setback that was approved by the City in February 2001.
5. Review street vacation and noticing requirements for final approval.
Reasons for Action (findings):
a. The Planning Commission finds that the public interest will NOT be materially injured by the proposed plat amendment, provided the imposed conditions are implemented.
b. The Planning Commission finds that there is good cause for the plat amendment.
c. The Planning Commission finds that it is proper and prudent to have the constructed location of 950 North Street match the survey coordinates for the location of the road. Thus, property owners, utilities, and other interested parties may rely on the recorded plats for planning and installing improvements.
The motion was seconded by Commissioner Kjar and passed by unanimous vote (5-0).
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR’S REPORT
a. Next regularly scheduled Planning Commission meeting will be held on March 24, 2010.
b. Upcoming Joint CC/PC Work Sessions:
• Tuesday, March 16, 2010 at 5:30 p.m., Main Street Corridor
• Wednesday, April 14, 2010 at 6:00 p.m., Foothills Management Plan
The meeting was adjourned at 8:08 p.m.
Jim Pedersen, Chair Date Approved
Kathleen Streadbeck, Recording Secretary