museum emergency recreation construction maps calendar


          City News

Printer friendly page Printer friendly page
Home » City Recorder » Agendas, Minutes & Public Notices » Planning Commission Agendas & Minutes » 2010 Planning Commission Minutes » June 23, 2010 PC

June 23, 2010 PC


PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES OF MEETING
Wednesday, June 23, 2010
7:00 p.m.

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.

MEMBERS PRESENT
Lee Duncan
Tamilyn Fillmore
Kent Holbrook
Scott Kjar
Steven Markham
Jim Pedersen, Chair
Dianna Rasmussen

STAFF PRESENT
Cory Snyder, Community Development Director
Brandon Toponce, Assistant Planner
Lisa Romney, City Attorney
Kathy Streadbeck, Recording Secretary 

VISITOR
Interested Citizens

OPENING COMMENT/LEGISLATIVE PRAYER Commissioner Rasmussen

MINUTES REVIEW AND APPROVAL

The minutes of the Planning Commission meeting held May 26, 2010 were reviewed and amended. Commissioner Rasmussen made a motion to approve the minutes as amended. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Holbrook and passed by unanimous vote (7-0).

PUBLIC HEARING – CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT WITH EXPIRATION – JW SKINNER PRODUCE LLC – 300 SOUTH MAIN STREET - Consideration of a conditional use permit for a temporary use; consisting of produce sales, located at the Pineae Grower’s Outlet site, 300 South Main Street, in the C-M Zone. James Skinner, Applicant

Brandon Toponce, Assistant Planner, reported the applicant has run this temporary produce stand within the Pineae Grower’s Outlet and held a business license with Centerville City since 1998. The applicant is once again requesting a conditional use permit for the same temporary use and location to run until October 2012. The applicant intends to run the produce stand from June to October each year. Once the permit expires the applicant will be required to apply for a new permit. Mr. Toponce reviewed the site plan explaining the applicant will be running the stand in the same manner as past years and has not requested any changes to the site. There is still adequate space and parking for the use. The produce stand has been successful in the past and it appears there is a desire for the use in the community. There have been no problems with the stand in the past and staff does not foresee any future problems. Signage may be used on the site, but will need to conform to applicable signage ordinances found in Chapter 12-54 of the Zoning Ordinance. The applicant will be required to vacate the premises and return the site to its original state at the end of each selling season. The applicant has also submitted the necessary information regarding insurance and has named Centerville City as a third party on the policy. Overall, staff recommends approval of the request.   

Commissioner Fillmore said there is both a temporary signage ordinance and an underlying zone sign ordinance. She questioned which ordinance will regulate the signage for this use. She also questioned if both businesses on the site (Pineae Grower’s Outlet and JW Skinner Produce) are permitted to have their own signage allowances.

Mr. Toponce said signage rights run with the property and not by the number of businesses on that property. Both businesses (Pineae Grower’s Outlet and JW Skinner) will have to keep their signage within the parameters set by the City. Currently, the majority of the signage on the site is fairly small and is permitted by right. If either business desired to put up a larger sign then they would be required to adhere to the temporary use signage requirements. Neither business is allowed to establish a permanent sign. 

Commissioner Duncan said he is discouraged with some of the temporary uses that have been allowed within the city. It seems the City was not fully aware of what some of these temporary structures were going to look like and he feels some may not be flattering to the city. It seems the City needs to look at their standards for temporary uses and perhaps apply some stricter guidelines. It is frustrating and unfair to see the standards to which a permanent business is held to and the lack of standards temporary uses are held to. Temporary uses should add to the city, not take away.

Cory Snyder, Community Development Director, agreed the temporary use parameters could be strengthened. This is something the Commission has discussed in the past, and it is on the Commission’s list of goals to accomplish in the near future. Staff plans to review the ordinance and provide recommendations to the Commission which will help better integrate temporary uses into the city.

Commissioner Fillmore suggested approving this use (JW Skinner Produce) for only one year instead of two in order to align the expiration date of Pineae and JW. This would allow the use for now but would also provide the City time to amend the temporary use permit ordinance in time for the next requested approval. This would allow the City to apply any new standards sooner rather than later.

James Skinner, applicant, said he plans on operating the produce stand the same as in past years. He said he is curious to know what improvements could be made to his use in order to make it more appealing to the city. He said he has gone out of his way to make his stand look nice and run smoothly. It would be difficult to enhance his structure without making it permanent. 

Chair Pedersen opened the public hearing.

Joyce Jones said she has attended this produce stand in the past and has always thought it was nice that the City allowed such a service to operate. Not everyone grows a garden and this is a great service and amenity to the community.

Chair Pedersen closed the public hearing.

Commissioner Fillmore made a motion for the Planning Commission to approve a conditional use permit for JW Skinner Produce to be located within the Pineae Grower’s Outlet at 300 South Main Street within the following conditions:

Conditions:

1. A lease agreement from Pineae Grower’s shall be submitted to City staff before issuance of the conditional use permit may be issued.
2. The conditional use permit shall expire on December 31, 2012 or when Pineae Grower’s Outlet, the property owner or JW Skinner Produce no longer desire to occupy this lot prior to the 2012 date.
3. A conditional use permit shall be issued for JW Skinner Produce for the temporary retail sale of produce, to be located at 300 South Main Street within the Pineae Grower’s Outlet.
4. The placement of the produce stand shall follow the site plan that was submitted to City staff on June 2, 2010.
5. The applicant shall sell produce from July 1 to October 31 of each year until the expiration date of the approved conditional use permit.
6. The hours of operation shall be from 9:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m., Monday through Saturday.
7. All deliveries and restocking shall occur in between the hours of 6:00 a.m. to 9:00 p.m., Monday through Saturday.
8. All deliveries shall occur on site and not within the public right-of-way.
9. The applicant shall be subject to all applicable sign requirements found in Chapter 12-54 and all visual obstruction policies found in Section 12-55-230 of the Centerville City Zoning Ordinance.
10. The applicant shall be responsible in helping to keep the lot clean and organized utilizing the dumpster provided by Pineae.
11. Following the final day of sales on October 31 of each year, JW Skinner Produce shall have seven (7) days to remove all items from the property and restore the site to its prior condition.

Findings (reasons for action):

1. A full application was submitted for a conditional use permit [Section 12-21-100(d)(1)].
2. A temporary use not meeting the development standards of Section 12-56-050 is required to receive a conditional use permit [Section 12-56-060].
3. With the above conditions, all applicable standards for the conditional use permit have been satisfied [Section 12-21-100(e)(3)(A-D), Section 12-21-100(e)(5)(A-K)].
4. The Planning Commission is authorized to specify when a conditional use permit may expire [Section 12-21-100(g)(2)].
5. Since the JW Skinner Produce is established within the Pineae Grower’s Outlet, they are subject to the same expiration date, hours of operation loading and restocking as found on the Pineae conditional use permit (Planning Commission approval February 13, 2008).

The motion was seconded by Commissioner Holbrook and passed by unanimous roll-call vote (7-0).

PUBLIC HEARING – LEGACY CROSSING MIXED-USE DEVELOPMENT AT THE CORNER OF PARRISH LANE & 1250 WEST - Consideration of a Zone Map Amendment from I-VH to C-VH, a Code text amendment regarding Chapter 12-41, and a Planned development overlay for approximately 31.00 acres for a mixed commercial/residential planned center. Dan Bridenstine, applicant.

Cory Snyder, Community Development Director, reported the applicant is requesting three actions tonight; a zone map amendment, a text amendment, and a planned development overlay (PDO).

Zone Map Amendment - Rezone

Mr. Snyder reviewed west Centerville’s land use map. The proposed site for rezone is in the Parrish Lane Gateway District. The applicant is requesting three separate rezones; two individual parcels, and a portion of a third parcel from Industrial-Very High to Commercial-Very High. Prior to this application City staff had requested a similar rezone but it was decided that a rezone should wait until an application was underway. Staff is supportive of the rezone for the two individual parcels. Staff is not comfortable with rezoning the partial portion of the third parcel. This request was not properly noticed and would dissect the whole piece of property giving it two separate zoning designations; this would cause problems with setbacks, buffering, etc. In addition, the applicant does not currently own this portion of property (currently in negotiations). Staff recommends the third parcel be denied and taken out of the application for now. Once the applicant has purchased this portion of the property and the boundary lines are adjusted then the piece could be rezoned appropriately.

Zone Text Amendment

Mr. Snyder reported the proposed text amendments follow the general expectation of the Gateway District for west Centerville. The current PDO ordinances focus mostly on residential planned areas not on mixed commercial/residential uses. A PDO is allowed for a mixed-use development but the ordinances are fairly weak. The current PDO requirements state a maximum of 12 units per building. The applicant is requesting an amendment which states that the 12-unit cap is for residential PDOs and to include a statement allowing mixed-use PDOs with a 68-unit cap per building. Although the proposed amendments make sense for this area, any amendment would apply to the city as a whole. Staff does not recommend calling out a specific number or cap, but rather look at the underlying Zoning District and the General Plan to determine an appropriate density for an area. Staff is comfortable with this lesser requirement because it is not anticipated to be used often. Staff is supportive of the proposed amendments with modifications as listed in the staff report dated June 23, 2010.
  
Planned Development Overlay

Mr. Snyder reviewed the role of a PDO. A PDO is allowed in order to provide flexibility and unique options if certain criteria are met. The Planning Commission must decide if the application warrants the approval of a PDO based on the standards listed in City ordinances. If the PDO is approved (final approval by the City Council), then the applicant will move forward with the process, i.e., final site plan, conditional use permit, etc. Staff recommends a development agreement be attached to the PDO, if approved, to help solidify the many parameters.

Mr. Snyder reviewed the site plan and the requirements for a PDO approval, i.e., acreage, common areas, yards, uses, perimeters, fences, etc. He reviewed the proposed concepts and the integration of commercial and residential. It appears the application meets the necessary requirements for a PDO approval. The original conceptual plan proposed 252 residential units, this new plan calls for about 158 units. Mr. Snyder reviewed the traffic flow and access points. Staff believes it would be better to complete the proposed round-about during Phase 1. It would be better for traffic flow to build the round-about prior to traffic failure. He reviewed the thematic elements (i.e., architecture, common space, parking, landscaping, etc.) and amenities (i.e., theater, restaurants, office, retail, etc.). He explained the thematic elements will be stronger at the entry points and less intense the further into the development you travel. Mr. Snyder explained the density will be reviewed more closely during the final site plan approval process. The top floor of the residential buildings is such that there is some flexibility and if the applicant is over the density allowance, the top floors can be modified to lower the number of units. Overall, staff is supportive of the proposed PDO, but feels there is some fine tuning that still needs to be done with the phasing plan. Staff requests the Planning Commission allow these fine details to be worked out between the developers and staff as the process moves forward. There may be some financial limitations to the amount of work that can be done in each phase. Staff and the developer will work out these details and make them a part of the development agreement.

Commissioner Fillmore asked if the property of the proposed partial rezone is able to be subdivided. She said there appears to be no access or frontage for this partial piece. She also questioned if there is anywhere else in Centerville with the potential to apply this maximum number of units per building. She said she is not as worried about the density as much as she is worried about the look and lack of separating the residential buildings. If these restrictions are not applied to this application then it will be harder to apply them to a future application.  

Mr. Snyder said there are some non-conformity issues that will need to be worked out if the partial piece is to be subdivided from the whole. Staff believes it would be best to wait on rezoning this piece until the property owners have come to an agreement and the property has been appropriately subdivided or the whole piece is requested to be rezoned. Mr. Snyder said the only other area that could utilize the maximum units per building is Main Street, but the Main Street Corridor Plan has its own cap which would dictate density. He also explained the density will be looked at and determined during the PDO process and will be reviewed against the overall layout. The appropriate density will be decided according to the integration of uses and how they best work together. 

Commissioner Duncan said it is important to keep in mind that this rezone request is actually down zoning the property from Industrial to Commercial. If for some reason this development is not completed and another application is submitted it too will be held to the lower density and the PDO requirements, if approved. It is better to eliminate the cap/number so that the density of any future application would be determined on its own merits.

Commissioner Holbrook asked if there is an expiration date on a PDO approval. He also suggested the name of the project be changed to incorporate “Parrish Lane” somehow. He said the name Legacy Crossing has no connection to Centerville, but Parrish Lane is on all maps and all of Davis County associates Parrish Lane with Centerville.

Mr. Snyder said developers have one year from the date of approval of a PDO to begin construction. There is then an additional year granted for each consecutive phase. There is also the possibility for one extension of those time frames, if granted. He also explained that it is up to the property owners to decide the name of their project. 

Commissioner Fillmore questioned the percentage of landscaping for the project. She questioned if open space for density was part of this application. She is concerned with the amount of asphalt; it appears there is a sea of parking on the site. It also feels as if the residential buildings are an island in that sea of asphalt. 

Mr. Snyder said the development meets the necessary requirements for landscaping. He also explained that enhanced landscaping/open space is generally done for a density bonus. This application is not requesting a density bonus. He said the applicant is proposing more parking than City ordinances require; this is due to the theater use which is parking intensive. He also reminded the Commission of the heavily landscaped boulevard and residential areas.

Commissioner Holbrook asked if there is any flexibility in the commercial buildings to allow more restaurant uses, rather than so much retail. Theater and restaurant uses go hand in hand and it seems more restaurants would provide a greater pull to the area. He asked if the developer is able to adjust the uses in the commercial areas as needed.

Mr. Snyder said the uses can be refined later in the process. He said there is also a potential for office uses. This will help enhance the project and provide daytime use of the commercial areas. He said this plan is a good start for a new neighborhood. West Centerville has been ignored for many years and this concept should help establish a functional neighborhood with easy access to transit and freeways. This concept provides several types of uses without interrupting the city’s traditional neighborhoods.

Commissioner Duncan said he thought there would be more mixed-use within the buildings themselves, for example, office/retail space below with residential units above. He asked if this was discussed as an option.  Mr. Snyder said this option was discussed but investors were not as supportive as with the sector layout. The original plan was a sector layout not a stacked node. This new plan is also a sector layout and a lot of it came about because of staff requests. The new plan provides more commercial and less residential which staff believes is a better project for a new neighborhood development.

Commissioner Markham asked if the applicant could use the PDO and apply only commercial uses in the area. He said it seems a hotel may be a better option for this area than residential units. He does not see a family living in this type of development. It seems the residential and commercial uses are not compatible. He is not sure there is a market for this type of use. 

Mr. Snyder said the applicant could do a completely commercial development if they chose to, but it is the City that has made a step toward allowing mixed-uses. There is a market for this type of housing development and it is a concept the City is ready for and has made strides to allow. Commissioner Holbrook agreed there is a desire for this type of housing. He has a son who owns a home in a traditional development, but is now leasing it out so he can live in a more urban mixed-use type development in Salt Lake City. There are many out there that want to live in these types of developments. Commissioner Duncan agreed there is a segment of society that does not want to have a family, or a garden, or a large lot. This development is ideal for those types of people.

Danny Bridenstine, applicant, said the property owner (MC Green) of the partial rezone parcel is in negotiations with them to sell the piece for this development. He agreed to separate the rezone of this partial piece from the application and bring it back in the future once the sale is finalized. He agreed that “Parrish Lane” is a distinguishing name and said they are discussing a name change to incorporate “Parrish Lane” into the name for this development. Mr. Bridenstine said there is flexibility in the uses of the commercial buildings. There are many tenants that have shown an interest in the development and there are many levels of commercial uses that could occupy these buildings. Currently, the only fixed elements to the development are the theater and the boulevard. He said he concurs with staff’s recommendations regarding the proposed text amendments and also agrees to work with staff on the details of the phasing plan. Mr. Bridenstine reviewed the proposed residential buildings stating they will be middle to high end apartments. He explained the drawing for the apartments are not yet finished, but will be brought back with greater details for further review in the future. The feasibility study showed there is a tremendous market for this type of housing in Davis County and this is an excellent central location. He reviewed the round-about and traffic flow designs and said they have approached neighboring property owners regarding the round-about. This portion of the plan is still being discussed. He reviewed the theater component and said this theater will most likely become a regional destination. He said they are also working with the Davis County School District to provide opportunities to use the theater during daytime hours for educational purposes. Mr. Bridenstine said the weakest aspect of the development is the daytime draw. They are hoping to find some viable daytime uses (i.e., office). He also explained they have received the necessary financing verifications from Zions Bank and anticipate construction to begin in the next 30-45 days.

Craig Whitmeyer, landscape architect, explained the request for the text amendments were to allow greater flexibility so this urban-type plan could be implemented. He reviewed several features of the plan including the boulevard, pedestrian corridors, walkways/trails, open space, etc. He explained they tried to minimize vehicular-pedestrian conflicts and tried to provide walkability throughout the development. There are also several visual features that will help direct both vehicles and pedestrians, including fencing, pavement changes, seating, etc.

Commissioner Fillmore suggested moving the northern most commercial building to the south and putting the parking behind it. This would help break up the large amount of parking. She asked if there could be more shared parking between daytime and evening uses. She would like to see less parking and asked that the development not be over parked.

Mr. Bridenstine said there is a potential for some shared parking between daytime and evening uses. However, it is not feasible to move the parking to the back of commercial buildings. This area is for loading/delivery purposes and trucks would find it difficult to navigate parking in this area. It is also unreasonable to expect patrons to park in the rear of a building and walk around to the front doors. Mr. Bridenstine agreed there is a significant amount of parking, as warranted by the theater use. This is why there is a substantial buffer and increased landscaping around the residential buildings. He also explained there is greater landscaping on the perimeters of the parking lot and along the boulevard because it has been found that landscaping within smaller landscape islands placed throughout parking lots do not tend to thrive. Landscaping in smaller islands tend to be damaged by the hot sun, salt, vehicles, snow plows, and/or delivery trucks. It is better to keep landscaping in larger sections where they can mature properly.

Mr. Bridenstine reviewed Phase 1. He concurs with staff’s recommendation to extend the asphalt along 200 North to twenty-six (26) feet, but requested the City not require curb or gutter until later phases so it is not damaged by heavy machinery/trucks. Once the majority of the heavy equipment is off the site they will overlay the asphalt once again and install the curb and gutter as needed. He also said they are willing to work with the City on many other details of the Phasing plan. He explained the financing needed for Phase 1 will be very close, but other means of funding will become available throughout the project.
 
Mr. Snyder said staff will work with the developer on these finer details. Staff is mostly concerned about the round-about and the need to have it completed during Phase 1. Mr. Bridenstine said they are committed to completing the secondary access of 200 North during Phase 1. He said the round-about is being discussed but it may take a little more time. He has approached the property owners across the street (also affected by the round-about improvements) and they are considering the needed improvements. Adjacent property owners are willing to participate where they can and may also be willing to support a special improvement district. He said they are also discussing other possible funding options, so the round-about may be completed sooner than later.

Chair Pedersen opened the public hearing. There was no comment; he closed the public hearing.

REZONE PETITION

Commissioner Fillmore made a motion for the Planning Commission to recommend approval to the City Council regarding the request for the proposed rezone for the following parcels:

a. Rezone Parcel 06-008-0087 FROM I-VH TO C-VH
b. Rezone Parcel 06-008-0038 FROM I-H TO C-VH
c. Deny the Partial Rezone 06-008-0088 from I-VH to C-VH

Reasons for Action (findings):

a. The Commission finds that Section 12-21-080(c) authorizes a “property owner or authorized agent” to initiate zone map amendments.
b. The Commission finds that the request for the rezone from the existing industrial districts to a contiguous commercial zoning district is in harmony of the stated goal and associated objectives of the General Plan., as also reviewed and considered in the June 23, 2010 Staff Report.
c. The Commission finds that the surrounding uses consist of office, light manufacturing, and some commercial services. The opportunity to develop a gateway commercial center will be a significant enhancement that should add additional value to surrounding properties.
d. The Commission finds that buffering the existing intensive industrial use to the extreme south with an intense commercial development zone will reconfigure the I-VH Zoning District and limit the expansion of heavy industrial uses to protect the existing south area industrial business park and their associated uses (see General Plan Policy 12-480-6, West Centerville Neighborhood Plan Goal 1, Objectives 1.H & 1.I - “Enhance the Centerville City Business Park District.”).   
e. As to the denial to rezone Parcel 06-008-0088 from I-VH to C-VH, the Commission finds that the splitting a parcel with differing zoning boundaries is not appropriate, due to the fact that many zoning regulations involve the use of property lines for measurement. Such regulations involve building setbacks, buffering, and parking lot locations. Therefore, the Commission believes that to resolve this concern, the following must occur:
i. Incorporate all of the lot with the excavation use into the proposed C-VH Zone change and provide the lot non-conformity with the required lot frontage to complete the lot; or
ii. Set aside or eliminate the entire parcel containing the excavation use. Thus, leaving the non-conformity and the associated issues to their present status.      
f. With the exception of “Finding (e),” the proposed zoning map amendments do not conflict or satisfy the review criteria found in Section 12-21-080(e) of the Zoning Ordinance, as reviewed and considered in the June 23, 2010 Staff Report.

The motion was seconded by Commissioner Holbrook and passed by unanimous roll-call vote (7-0).

ZONE TEXT AMENDMENT

Chair Pedersen made a motion for the Planning Commission to recommend approval to the City Council regarding the request for the proposed text amendment to Chapter 12-41, Planned Development Overlay Zone, as follows:

1. Section 12-41-100(h)(4): Add – Residential planned developments: Garden apartments and multi-family dwellings; provided that no more than twelve (12) units are located in a single building.
2. Add – Section 12-41-100(h)(5): Mixed commercial/residential planned centers: Garden apartments and multi-family dwellings; provided that no more than sixty eight (68) units are located in a single building the applicable gross or net densities are maintained as set forth in the City’s General Plan and/or Zoning Ordinances with a maximum height for any building limited to four stories and forty-five (45) feet.

Reasons for Action (findings):

a. The Commission finds that Section 12-21-080(c) authorizes a “property owner or authorized agent” to initiate zone map amendments.
b. The Commission finds that the request for allowing higher units per building for mixed commercial/ residential development does not conflict with the future goals of the City’s General Plan Goal 2 of the West Centerville Neighborhood Plan to create a “gateway” area.
c. The Commission finds that creating supportive residential uses enhances the viability of the commercial gateway development.
d. The Commission finds that the mixed commercial/ residential concept currently exists in the West Centerville Neighborhood (SEE OBJECTIVE 3.B).
e. The Commission finds however, that the overall densities allowed do vary from one area or district to another in the General Plan. Thus, the text changes to the applicant’s request for Section 21-41-100(h)(5) better reflects these density variations that are contained in the City’s General Plan and Zoning Ordinances. 

The motion was seconded by Commissioner Kjar and passed by unanimous roll-call vote (7-0).

PLANNED DEVELOPMENT OVERLAY ZONE (PDO)

Commissioner Rasmussen made a motion for the Planning Commission to recommend approval to the City Council regarding the request for the proposed C-VH/PDO Zone for the proposed Legacy Crossing Development, subject to the following conditions of approval:
 
Conditions:
1. The properties shall be rezoned to C-VH/PDO limited to the illustrative map shown in Exhibit “B,” dated June 03, 2010 of the draft development agreement, with the exception and removal of Parcel 06-008-0088.
2. The PDO approval shall be subject to the City Council approval of the rezone and text amendments, as recommended by the City staff in the June 23, 2020 Staff Report, or as modified by the City Council.
3. As part of the PDO approval, a development agreement, acceptable to the City, shall be prepared and entered into by the parties to memorialize the C-VH/PDO development approval and to define development expectations for the property.
4. The Development Agreement shall, at a minimum, address the following and any other matters deemed necessary by legal counsel:
a. Reflect in detail an approved Master PDO Site Plan depicting roadway, building, parking and open space layouts.
b. Reflect in conceptual detail an approved master landscaping, irrigation, and open space plan that includes depicting the pedestrian pathways/sidewalk network, open space and courtyard amenities, perimeter fencing, and entry features.
c. Reflect in conceptual detail an approved architectural theme, building elevations, semi-private areas and amenities, including the use and colors of architectural materials.
d. Describe and establish the overall phasing schedule, the required final site plan and subdivision approvals for developing the project.
5. The property shall be developed in harmony with the submitted Preliminary Site Dimension Plan (Exhibit “E-2”), dated June 02, 2010.
6. As part of the future Subdivision Plat Approval, each lot of the PDO development shall have frontage on a publicly maintained street with a lot width of 80 feet, unless modified by the City as part of the preliminary subdivision and final plat approvals.
7. The property shall be developed in harmony with the submitted Preliminary Site Phasing Plan (Exhibit “F”), dated June 09, 2010, with the exceptions and modifications to be determined regarding the construction of the needed street and utility improvements to serve the project area.
8. Exhibit “L” of the proposed development agreement shall be revised to include the conceptual building and parking lot layouts and provide dimensional marks and references to better depict the expected minimum distances that are to be used in future site plan, subdivision, and building permit checks and approvals.
9. The project phasing plan shall be reviewed by necessary professionals to receive specific recommendations regarding traffic circulation improvements and the provision of needed utilities prior to the recordation of the development agreement. Such recommendations received shall be included in the applicable exhibits of the development agreement. Additionally, each phase and final site plan approval shall be reviewed and approved with recommendations received.
10. The proposed phasing plan shall, if necessary, be modified to ensure that each phase can truly function independently from one another and that as critical massing develops that there are not undue burdens placed upon existing development, while waiting for a subsequent phase to become available. Such major improvements involve the following:
a. Proper timing and construction of the 1250West/ Parrish Lane Signal.
b. Proper timing and construction of the proposed 1250 West round-about.
c. Proper timing and completion of the needed 1250 West improvements.
d. Proper timing and construction of the entire 200 North Street with the reconfiguration of the intersection at 1250 West.
11. The PDO Plans and the development agreement shall incorporate or be modified to include the following traffic study recommendations regarding the PDO development area to be completed as necessary and at the time of build out:
a. 1250 West/Parrish Lane shall be improved with a signalized intersection.
b. When made available, a cross-access drive lane shall be provided to the 75 North Street (currently a private lane).
c. 1250 West shall be improved to a three-lane cross section as Master Planned from Parrish Lane to 200 North Streets.
d. The off-set intersection at 200 North Street shall be re-aligned with the access directly across 1250 West.
e. Parking shall be prohibited along 1250 West Street.
12. If there are traffic circulation or utility engineering plan disputes that cannot be resolved between the City staff and such professionals or the developer, the Phasing Plan along with the various issues and related exhibits shall return to the Planning Commission for recommended resolutions to be forwarded to the City Council.
13. The property shall be developed in accordance with the proposed roadway network depicted on the Preliminary Site Dimensional Plan (Exhibit “E-2”), dated June 02, 2010.
14. All buildings within the PDO area shall be developed with the architectural building, colors, materials, landscaping, entry monument and fencing theme presented by the developer, which reflects a Legacy Parkway/Shorelands style theme using rock, wood, cement fiberboard, and accent stucco as main materials and accenting the buildings with motif elements such as cornices, columns, window elements, lintels, and decorative roof vents.
15. The development of all phases and the associated final site plan approvals shall be also subject to Chapter 12-63, Parrish Lane Gateway Design Standards, except whereas defined or modified by the PDO approval.
16. The commercial and entertainment component of the PDO shall comply, be modified, or incorporate the following:
a. The commercial and the residential buildings are limited to a maximum height of 45 feet, except where such heights may be exceeded in accordance with Section 12-55-120(a) or as approved with the issuance of the conditional use permit.
b. The residential area shall comply with the maximum cap of 25 units per acre when calculating the residential area.  It may be necessary to consider such options as redefining the proposed “residential area” to include the portioned contribution and use of the planned development’s circulation and/or  redesign the density of the upper floors of the larger residential buildings or a portion of the smaller building to meet the cap requirements. Additionally, the upper floor building redesign may provide greater articulation and interest in the visual appearance of the project.   
c. The 1250 West round-about shall be installed prior to or at the same time the theater use is placed in operation and issued a permanent certificate of occupancy; or as necessary to maintain a traffic circulation Level of Service “C,” as determined by a traffic engineer. 
d. The development of Phase 6 retail lot shall be limited to an access from the shared Legacy Crossing Lane and not from 1250 West.
e. The 20-foot landscaping corridor is planned for the residential area of 200 North, using the excess right-of-way and shall be approved by the City and/or UDOT, as applicable.
f. The construction quality of the proposed Legacy Crossing Boulevard shall be constructed in a manner that reduces the long-term maintenance costs for the entire project. This private circulation lane shall be constructed to a standard equal to that of the street being dedicated to the City. 
17. The residential component of the PDO shall provide semi-private areas, consisting of true balconies, patios, and front courts and such elements shall be integrated as part of the building design. Actual building architecture, design elements and site amenities and layout are to be set at final site plan approval of this phase. 
18. The property shall be developed with the pedestrian pathways, courtyard, and open space areas that have been depicted on the Conceptual Development Plan Exhibits, with related standards to be set with the required final site plan approvals.
19. A Master PDO ownership association shall be established in accordance with Section 12-41-110 for the proper protection and maintenance of common space, cross access areas, and site features and amenities.
20. A Master Cross-Access Agreement shall be incorporated into the development agreement prior to its recordation, and if necessary, all subdivision plat’s approvals shall reference the recorded access agreement. 
21. Prior to recordation of the development agreement, the developers shall have established, with disclosure to the City’s legal counsel,  that they have sufficient control over the properties to be developed, have the financial capability to carry out the development of the project, and have the capability to start construction within one (1) year of the site plan approval. However, if multiple individuals, entities, property owners, etc., have shared interest in the PDO development area, each interest involved shall review and sign the development agreement.
22. As part of the Development Agreement with the City, the developer shall contribute their fair share to future needed traffic improvements in accordance with the recommendation of the traffic study performed by A-Trans, which shall also be identified with the Preliminary Site Phasing Plan (Exhibit “F”), dated June 09, 2010.
23. The Development Agreement shall state the Legacy Crossing Development is subject to all applicable City regulations and ordinances, except where such requirements have been specifically modified and approved with the PDO Zone approval.

Reasons for Action (findings):

a. The Commission finds that Section 12-21-080(c) authorizes a “property owner or authorized agent” to initiate zone map amendments.
b. The Commission finds that the proposed request for the PDO Zone reflecting the proposed layout, integration of entertainment and residential living uses, and related amenities and architectural theme creates a viable and vibrant gateway area, as originally envisioned by the West Centerville Plan, as reviewed and considered in the June 23, 2010 Staff Report.
c. The Commission finds that the proposed PDO layout integrates a major entertainment use with supportive commercial and residential uses in a mutually compatible design consisting of green/boulevard travel ways, balanced pedestrian paths and vehicle circulation lanes, with thematic elements compatible with the Legacy Parkway and shoreline environment setting of the Parrish-Legacy Gateway District, as reviewed and considered in the June 23, 2010 Staff Report.
d. The Commission finds that the Legacy Crossing Development Plan also sets forth a new synergy in investment and appeal for the West Neighborhood area than simply relying entirely upon commercial market driven development.
e. The Commission finds that a new neighborhood is being created and the various uses are appropriately integrated in relation to internally as well as externally. All surrounding underutilized or vacant lands will have an enhanced opportunity to develop other integrated projects in the future, if not relatively immediate.
f. The Commission finds that the focus of creating a regional entertainment use substantiates the allowance of introducing a residential element.
g. In order to make findings necessary to approve a PDO Zone, the Commission finds that Section 12-41-080(c) allows for Conditions 1-23 to be imposed to assure the planned development will the three (3) criteria listed and the applicable development standards of Section 12-41-100.
h. The Commission finds that the general layout of parking, uses, and landscaping can or will meet the intent of the general provisions of the C-VH Zone and will be subject to further site and subdivision approvals to ensure compatibly of the C-VH provisions.  
i. The Commission finds that the Parrish-Legacy Gateway District of the West Centerville Plan allows a residential component not to exceed 15 units per acre when calculating the entire master planned area. Nonetheless, with the conditions imposed, the project will be subject to compliance with the 25-unit residential cap component of PDO regulations.
j. The Commission finds that a development agreement for a large mixed commercial/ residential project helps to memorialize the C-VH/PDO development approval and to define development expectations for the property.
k. The Commission finds that Condition #20 imposed will provide evidence that there is sufficient control over the property to be developed to ensure development will occur as approved; the financial capability to carry out the planned development project; and the capability to start construction within one (1) year of final plan approval.

The motion was seconded by Commissioner Markham.

Lisa Romney, City Attorney, suggested the following amendments to the motion.

#3 - As part of and as a condition of the PDO approval, a development agreement, acceptable to the City, shall be prepared and entered into by the parties to memorialize the C-VH/PDO development approval and to define development expectations for the property.

#4 - The Development Agreement shall, at a minimum, address the following and any other matters deemed necessary by legal counsel, staff, and the City Council:
a. Reflect in detail an approved Master PDO Site Plan depicting roadway, building, parking and open space layouts.
b. Reflect in conceptual detail an approved master landscaping, irrigation, and open space plan that includes depicting the pedestrian pathways/sidewalk network, open space and courtyard amenities, perimeter fencing, and entry features.
c. Reflect in conceptual detail an approved architectural theme, building elevations, semi-private areas and amenities, including the use and colors of architectural materials.
d. Describe and establish the overall phasing schedule, the required final site plan and subdivision approvals for developing the project include staff and the City Council.

#21 - Prior to recordation of the development agreement, the Developers shall have established to the satisfaction of the City Council, with disclosure to the City’s Legal Counsel, that they have sufficient control over the properties to be developed, have the financial capability to carry out the development of the project, and have the capability to start construction within one (1) year of the site plan approval. However, if multiple individuals, entities, property owners, etc., have shared interest in the PDO development area, each interest involved shall review and sign the development agreement.
 
Finding l - The Commission finds that the PDO and associated conceptual site plan meets the requirements of Section 12-41-080(b)(1).

Commissioner Duncan made a motion to amend the original motion to include the suggested changes as suggested by Ms. Romney as outlined above (#3, #4, #21, and finding l). The motion to amend was seconded by Commissioner Kjar and passed by unanimous roll-call vote (7-0).

Chair Pedersen called for a vote on the original motion as amended. The motion as amended passed unanimously with a roll-call vote (7-0).
 
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR’S REPORT

a. A special meeting of the Planning Commission will be held on July 7, 2010 at 7:00 p.m.
b. The next regularly scheduled Planning Commission meeting will be held on July 14, 2010.  


The meeting was adjourned at 10:10 p.m.

______________________________  ______07-14-2010___________
 Jim Pedersen, Chair                                              Date Approved

 _____________________________________
Kathleen Streadbeck, Recording Secretary

MuseumEmergencyRecreationConstructionMap Calendar