July 14, 2010
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES OF MEETING
Wednesday, July 14, 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
Cory Snyder, Community Development Director
Lisa Romney, City Attorney
Steve Thacker, City Manager
Kathy Streadbeck, Recording Secretary
OPENING COMMENT/LEGISLATIVE PRAYER Volunteer Citizen
MINUTES REVIEW AND APPROVAL
Minutes of the Planning Commission meeting held June 23, 2010 were reviewed and amended. Commissioner Fillmore made a motion to approve the minutes as amended. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Rasmussen and passed by unanimous vote (7-0).
Minutes of the Special Planning Commission meeting held July 7, 2010 were reviewed. Commissioner Rasmussen made a motion to approve the minutes as written. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Holbrook and passed by unanimous vote (7-0).
AMENDED FINAL SITE PLAN – CENTERVILLE CORPORATE PARK SUBDIVISION AND THE DAVIS CENTER FOR THE PERFORMING ARTS – 525 NORTH 400 WEST - Consideration of an amended final site plan for the Centerville Corporate Park Subdivision, regarding increasing the fence height from six feet to eight feet, between the Davis Center for the Performing Arts and the Centerville Mobile Estates; in accordance with Section 12-55-110(a)(3), Fences and Walls. Centerville City, Applicant
Cory Snyder, Community Development Director, reported the applicant desires to increase the height of their proposed vinyl fence from six (6) feet to eight (8) feet. The Planning Commission previously reviewed and approved this same request as part of an amendment to the applicant’s conceptual site plan (see minutes of July 7, 2010). The applicant is now requesting the same increase as part of a final site plan amendment. The Planning Commission previously found the increase in fence height would not modify any other part of the site plan, and would increase the buffer/privacy for neighboring homeowners. In addition, the proposed request does not appear to be harmful to the City or the surrounding property owners.
Mr. Snyder said staff previously requested a transition of fence heights because City ordinance requires no more than a 4-foot fence within the 25-foot front setback. This frontage requirement would apply to the proposed fence on the east end on 400 West and on the west end on the Frontage Road. In the previous meeting, the Planning Commission agreed the fence should transition from the required 4-foot fence to a 6-foot fence and then transition again to the proposed 8-foot fence. Mr. Snyder explained that after walking the site it was found there are some grade changes and staff recommends the 4-foot fence on 400 West be changed to a 6-foot fence. The grade is such that from the sidewalk the visual portion of the fence would only be 4-foot. Mr. Snyder explained City ordinances do allow for this possibility when grade is a factor. Mr. Snyder also reported the owners of the mobile home park to the north have requested a 6-foot fence on the Frontage Road instead of the required 4-foot fence within the front setback. City ordinance does not allow the Planning Commission to approve this request, but it is likely the applicant will be approaching the Board of Adjustment for a variance in this regard. Mr. Snyder reviewed a schematic of the fence as proposed with the transitions as discussed, i.e., 6-foot fence on the east end (400 West) for 25 feet then transitioning to the 8-foot fence then stepping back down to a 6-foot fence and then to a 4-foot fence at the Frontage Road.
Mr. Snyder said at the previous meeting, the Planning Commission expressed concern with such a long, solid fence and questioned the structural integrity and wind load abilities. Mr. Snyder reviewed the engineered drawings explaining the fence posts will be buried deeper and the fence panels will be decreased in width for this purpose. The fence will also be placed on top of a concrete curb which will run the length of the fence.
Steve Thacker, City Manager/applicant, explained the north edge of the concrete mow strip will be placed on the property line and the proposed fence will be constructed in the middle of that mow strip. The existing fence, currently on the property line, will be removed. He explained the cost of the fence will be shared by the City’s Redevelopment Agency, the MTC owner, and the mobile home park owner. He also reported an application will be filed for a variance to increase the 4-foot height to 6-foot along the front setback of the Frontage Road. The mobile home property owner would like to have as much privacy for his residents as possible. Mr. Thacker said the fence on 400 West will start about six (6) feet from the sidewalk. Currently, there is an existing block wall on 400 West on the mobile home property to the north. The proposed fence will match closely to the block wall in height and setback from the sidewalk. Mr. Thacker explained the fence panels have been decreased in width from 8-foot to 6-foot in order to handle wind loads. This means the 6-foot high transition panel will either be six (6) feet wide or twelve (12) feet wide.
Commissioner Fillmore said it seems a 6-foot high transition panel of only 6 or 12 feet wide will be miniscule compared to the required 25 feet of 4-foot fence and the proposed long expanse of 8-foot fence (approximately 900 feet). She would like to see a longer 6-foot high transition. She also requested the horizontal bar be continuous along the entire length of the fence. This means the horizontal bar on the top of the 4-foot fence should match the horizontal bar on the 6-foot fence and both should match the mid-point horizontal bar on the 8-foot fence.
Commissioner Holbrook said the engineered drawings show the pickets in the fence will be turned on a 45-degree angle. He understood the fence was to be solid, if the pickets are turned then you will be able to look through the fence from one side. He questioned if this meets the requirements for a solid fence. This could have been proposed for the purpose of handling wind loads as requested by the Planning Commission previously.
Mr. Snyder said the fence is required to be “opaque”, which according to City ordinance means 90%. Mr. Thacker said the 45-degree angle may not meet the intent of the mobile home property owner or the City, but the fence will meet the 90% requirement when complete. Lisa Romney, City Attorney, suggested adding a condition of approval requiring the fence to meet the 90% opaque standard and the wind load projections.
Commissioner Fillmore made a motion for the Planning Commission to approve the amended site plan for the property located at 525 North 400 West with the following conditions:
1. The site plan amendment shall be for the fence height increase, along the north property line from six (6) feet to eight (8) feet in areas as designated in the schematic.
2. The 8-foot fence shall be solid vinyl and tan in color.
3. A building permit shall be submitted, and reviewed by staff, prior to construction and shall include engineered drawings depicting how all building code requirements; including wind load have been satisfied.
4. A site plan shall be submitted, indicating how the fence will be constructed and shall include any and all transition levels from property line inward.
5. The fence line on the Frontage Road end shall have at least a 10-foot transition of a 6-foot fence from the front yard setback. The fence within the front yard setback shall not exceed four (4) feet as designated in the schematic.
6. The fence elevation on the 400 West end shall not exceed four (4) feet in height above the side walk elevation for the 25-foot front yard setback as designated in the schematic.
7. If the applicant so desires to seek a variance to the fencing requirements, they shall apply for a variance from the Board of Adjustment. This approval shall be granted before the fence within the areas of question (front and front-side yard setback) may be constructed.
8. The 6-foot high fence shall have a horizontal rail at four (4) feet high to match the horizontal rail at the mid-point of the 8-foot fence. Top rail of the 4-foot high fence will be equal to the horizontal rail at the mid-point of the 8-foot fence.
9. The fence may be picket or solid as long as it meets the wind load requirements and the 90% opaque screening requirement of the Parrish Lane Design Guidelines.
10. The transition fence line shall be a step and not a slope.
Reasons for the Action (findings):
1. No changes to an approved final site plan may take place unless an amended site plan is to occur [Section 12-21-110(i)].
2. The application follows the review procedures for a final site plan [Section 12-21-110].
3. The Planning Commission is the authorized body in determining if a fence may be higher than six (6) feet [Section 12-55-110(a)(3)].
4. The proposed fence changes would meet the requirements found in Section 12-55-110 of the Centerville City Zoning Ordinance.
5. A fence within the C-VH, PF-H and within the R-H Zones may have a higher fence, up to ten (10) feet high, approved by the Planning Commission [Section 12-55-110(a)(3)].
6. The fence height request meets the findings criteria in Section 12-55-110(a)(3) of the Centerville City Zoning Ordinance.
7. The 2006 & 2009 IBC requires a building permit for fences above six (6) feet [Section 105.2(2)].
8. The Board of Adjustment is the only authorized body to grant a variance [Section 12-21-130].
The motion was seconded by Commissioner Holbrook and passed by unanimous roll-call vote (6-1). Commissioner Kjar opposed.
PUBLIC HEARING – AMENDED SUBDIVISION PLAT – RICKS CREEK SUBDIVISION – LOT 1 & 5 – APPROX. 1589 NORTH 125 EAST - Consideration of amending the Ricks Creek Subdivision Plat, Lot 1 & 5, to include the following: adjusting the western boundary on Lot 1, adjust location of the 100-year flood way, expand the useable build areas, and amend the related slope stability and cut/fill plat notes, located at approximately 1589 North 125 East, in the A-L Zone. Bruce G. Pitt, Applicant
Cory Snyder, Community Development Director, reported the applicant is requesting a plat amendment for Lot 1 and Lot 5 of the Ricks Creek Subdivision. The applicant desires to adjust the western boundary of Lot 1, adjust the location of the 100-year flood way, expand the useable building area, and amend the related slope stability and cut/fill plat notes. Mr. Snyder reviewed the application and the reasons for the amendments as listed in the staff report dated July 14, 2010. The process for approving plat amendments is set forth by State law and requires review of two criteria: will the public interest be materially injured and is there good cause for the plat amendment. Staff believes these criteria have been met because the plat notes contain the necessary protections to meet the intent and purpose of the City’s Hillside Ordinance and the FEMA Flood Insurance Program. The plat notes provide appropriate guidelines requiring necessary engineering and geotechnical studies if the sloped areas are ever changed or developed.
Commission members discussed the cut/fill restrictions. There was concern that any fill may put undue stress on a third-party irrigation pipe that runs along the western boundary of Lot 1 into the adjacent property. There was also question as to who would be responsible for any damage to that irrigation pipe (i.e., City or property owners).
Mr. Snyder said the proposed plat notes define the terms of the restrictions on the cut/fill. If the cut/fill is properly engineered and the load requirements and Hillside Ordinances are met, then the cut/fill may be allowed. The easement is an agreement between the property owners and the property owners would be responsible for maintaining the pipe, as needed.
Lisa Romney, City Attorney, said the existing easement is a private agreement between property owners and those property owners are responsible to comply with the requirements of that easement. It appears the plat note is more restrictive than the easement requirements. The Planning Commission is being asked to decide if the plat condition can be modified to reflect compliance with the conditions of the existing easement.
Jason Pitt, applicant, reported the proposed western boundary line adjustment for Lot 1 will bring the boundary into compliance with a previous quit-claim agreement. This adjustment will solve a discrepancy between the warranty deed and the quit-claim deed and will make the existing fence line the boundary. Mr. Pitt explained the irrigation pipe discussed is a non-pressurized irrigation pipe that runs from the creek on the east to the property owner on the west of the Ricks Creek Subdivision. He also explained that the easement requirements do not restrict cut/fill as the plat notes do. He requested the plat note be amended to reflect compliance with the current easement requirements.
Commissioner Kjar expressed the importance of any cut/fill being engineered appropriately so there is no damage inflicted on surrounding properties. Mr. Snyder reminded the Commission that any retaining wall over four (4) feet is required to be engineered.
Chair Pedersen opened the public hearing. There was no comment; he closed the public hearing.
Commissioner Holbrook made a motion for the Planning Commission to recommend approval to the City Council, regarding the proposed plat amendment for the Ricks Creek Subdivision, subject to the following conditions:
1. The plat amendment shall be for Lot #1 and Lot #5.
2. The petitioners shall be required to provide evidence acceptable to the City verifying the execution of the boundary line adjustment between Lot #1 and the property to the west, prior to recording of the amended subdivision plat.
3. The petitioner shall be required to identify all affected owners 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 include all notes, related build area notations, and restrictions or limitations, as depicted on the submittal received by the City on June 24, 2010, and as presented to the Planning Commission on July 14, 2010.
5. Plat Note #10 shall be modified to include the term “cut” as well as the term “fill” when addressing the use of the third party easement area traversing Lot #1 and Lot #5.
Reasons for the 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 allow the owners of such lots to utilize the platted lots to the extent practical.
d. The Planning Commission finds that the proposed amendment and plat notes allow such flexibility for expanded use, but contain the necessary protections to meet the intent and purpose of the City’s Hillside Ordinance and the FEMA Flood Program.
e. The Planning Commission finds that the proposed amendment clarifies the original “restricted” term contained in the original subdivision Note #10.
The motion was seconded by Commissioner Duncan and passed by unanimous roll-call vote (7-0).
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR’S REPORT
a. The next regularly scheduled Planning Commission meeting will be held on July 28, 2010.
b. Upcoming projects
The meeting was adjourned at 8:15 p.m.
Jim Pedersen, Chair Date Approved
Kathleen Streadbeck, Recording Secretary