PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES OF MEETING
Wednesday, November 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.
Tamilyn Fillmore, Vice Chair
Jim Pedersen, Chair
Cory Snyder, Community Development Director
Brandon Toponce, Assistant Planner
Lisa Romney, City Attorney
Kathy Streadbeck, Recording Secretary
Chris Cutler Brian Cooper
Mike Cutler Seth Brimhall
Stephen Reitz Jeff Winegar
Christopher Feuz Chris Gramvroulas
Tom Henriod Suzy Cooper
Rod Rasmussen Dave Bell
OPENING COMMENT/LEGISLATIVE PRAYER Commissioner Markham
MINUTES REVIEW AND APPROVAL
Minutes of the Planning Commission meeting held October 27, 2010 were reviewed. Chair Pedersen made a motion to approve the minutes as written. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Markham and passed by unanimous vote (7-0).
PUBLIC HEARING – CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT – BIG BITE BREADS HOME BUSINESS – 187 EAST 1975 NORTH - Consideration of a conditional use permit for a home occupation business (Big Bite Breads), to operate a commercial kitchen from their basement producing frozen dinner and cinnamon rolls, located at 187 East 1975 North, in the R-L Zone. James & Nannette Smith, Applicants
Jim Pedersen recused himself from this matter as he is the applicant’s close neighbor. Vice Chair Fillmore conducted this portion of the meeting.
Cory Snyder, Community Development Director, reported the applicant desires a conditional use permit approval for a home occupation, Big Bites Bread. There is a list of permitted uses for home occupations within City ordinances but this proposed use/application does not fall under any of the permitted uses, therefore a conditional use permit approval is required. A conditional use permit should be approved if the impacts of that use can be mitigated. If the impacts cannot be mitigated then the conditional use permit should be denied. The Planning Commission should review the application and decide if this use can function in a neighborhood setting.
Brandon Toponce, Assistant Planner, reported the applicant desires to produce frozen dough out of their residential home. The applicant proposes to complete a portion of their basement (12.5%) into a commercial kitchen (i.e., large commercial oven, freezer, mixers, etc.). The majority of the goods produced will be sold to outside businesses, but some of the dough will be baked and sold on site (hours of operation for onsite selling will be 7:00 a.m.-9:00 p.m.). The applicant will be required to secure a business license for this use. Employees must be those living in the home, the applicant may not hire any outside employees. The applicant will also have to get approval from both the Fire Marshal and the Health Department for the proposed use. There will be no modifications made to the exterior of the home and no outside storage of product or goods may take place. The applicant is permitted to have signage according to the parameters set forth in Section 12-54-080(b), but the applicant does not anticipate using signage on the site. Staff does not anticipate any excess traffic with this use as the applicant will take care of all pick-up and delivery of product, no delivery trucks are anticipated. The applicant is permitted to hold promotional meetings with clients once a month; this will minimize additional traffic in the neighborhood. It is anticipated the proposed use will require more electricity than the typical neighborhood home, but there are sufficient utilities to the site and in the neighborhood to support the use. Once the business grows it will be moved to a commercial site, but this home-based commercial kitchen will remain as a test kitchen for that business. This commercial kitchen is a secondary use and the applicant will be required to sign a second kitchen letter stating this second kitchen will not be used for a secondary dwelling.
Vice Chair Fillmore opened the public hearing.
Jim Pedersen said he lives across the street from the applicants and he does not foresee any problems with the proposed use. This idea has been well received by many of the surrounding neighbors. The applicants go out to area businesses, those businesses do not come to the home, so traffic will not be significantly increased.
Vice Chair Fillmore closed the public hearing.
Commissioner Rasmussen made a motion for the Planning Commission to approve the conditional use permit for the home occupation of Big Bite Breads, allowing a commercial kitchen within the basement of the home located at 187 East 1975 North, with the following conditions:
1. This conditional use permit shall be for a home commercial kitchen for Big Bite Breads in the basement of the home located at 187 East 1975 North only.
2. The primary use for the home shall be maintained as a single-family dwelling.
3. Big Bite Breads shall only be operated by persons living within the dwelling unit where the home occupation is being conducted.
4. No delivery trucks dropping off or picking up products shall be permitted other than those associated with residential deliveries.
5. The selling of baked or frozen goods out of the home shall occur no earlier than 7:00 a.m. and no later than 9:00 p.m. on all days of the week. The applicant shall ensure any selling of product during operating hours does not generate a larger amount of pedestrian and vehicular traffic for the residential neighborhood.
6. Any outside display or the use of accessory or yard area for the home occupation and the storage of products shall be prohibited.
7. If the applicant desires any future signage, they shall follow the guidelines found in Section 12-54-080(b) of Zoning Ordinance in regard to signs allowed “by right.”
8. Any promotional meetings that may occur on site in regard to Big Bite Breads shall only be allowed one time per month during the hours of 7:00 a.m. and 9:00 p.m.
9. The applicant shall apply for and receive approval of a building permit for the basement commercial kitchen. The kitchen and all associated storage and inventory shall not occupy more than 12.5% of the residence.
10. A modified second kitchen letter shall be signed and recorded, stating that the kitchen has been approved as part of a conditional use permit in relation to a commercial kitchen and shall not be used as a second dwelling kitchen.
11. No outside work shall occur on the dwelling, relating to the home occupation, except for possible outdoor exhausts that may be required by the International Residential Building Code.
12. After construction is completed, the Fire Marshal shall inspect the home for fire safety issues and the health department for food safety issues regarding a home commercial kitchen.
13. The applicant shall obtain a business license prior to conducting business on the premises.
Reasons for Action (findings):
1. A complete application for a conditional use permit has been submitted [Section 12-21-100(d)(1)].
2. The application meets the required established evidence for an approval of a conditional use permit [Section 12-21-100(e)(3)(A-D)].
3. The request for a conditional use permit meets the factors to be reviewed and considered for an approval [Section 12-21-100(e)(5)(A-K)].
4. The use of a home bakery does not appear to be detrimental to the surrounding community [Section 12-21-100(e)(5)(D-E, G, I-K)].
5. All development standards for a home occupation have been reviewed and satisfied [Section 12-62-050(a-i)].
6. A use not listed on the home occupation approved listing of Section 12-62-040 is subject to receiving a conditional use permit [Section 12-62-060].
7. All development standards for a home occupation with a conditional use permit have been reviewed and satisfied [Section 12-62-070(a-d)].
8. The approval of a home occupation does not relieve a person from obtaining a City business license and other related agency approvals [Section 12-62-050(a)].
9. If the applicant does not adhere to the conditional use permit, they may be subject to having the permit revoked [Section 12-21-100(i)(1)(B)].
The motion was seconded by Commissioner Kjar and passed by unanimous roll-call vote (6-0).
PUBLIC HEARING – CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AMENDMENT – SILVER OAKS SUBDIVISION – APPROX. 740 WEST CHASE LANE - Consideration of an amendment to the conditional use permit for the Silver Oaks Subdivision, located at approximately 740 West Chase Lane. Currently the homes are required to face onto Chase Lane, however, the applicant wishes to orient the homes into the subdivision. Applicant is also proposing fencing on Chase Lane to screen rear yards from street view. Tom Henroid, Rockworth Company, Applicant
Jim Pedersen rejoined the meeting.
Cory Snyder, Community Development Director, reported this subdivision was approved as a Planned Development Overlay (PDO) in 2004. Since that time the subdivision has fallen into foreclosure. The current applicant has partnered with Ivory Homes in order to complete the subdivision. The applicant desires to change some of the parameters set forth in the conditional use permit to accomplish this goal. The density of the project required a conditional use permit at the time. One of the criteria included in the conditional use permit was fencing. The project was approved with fencing on the east and north perimeters, but no fencing was permitted in the interior of the subdivision. The intent of the development was to keep an open feel. The original approval oriented six (6) homes facing Chase Lane with rear-loaded garages accessed by a rear, one-lane alleyway. The applicant desires to change the configuration of these six (6) homes to face the alleyway and place a 6-foot privacy fence on Chase Lane which would become the backyards of these homes. The Planning Commission must decide if this configuration creates any impacts to the subdivision or surrounding neighborhood and if so can those impacts be mitigated. The Commission must also decide if the proposed configuration provides an enhanced design as required by the PDO.
Brandon Toponce, Assistant Planner, reported the applicant proposes to rotate the six homes on Chase Lane to face the private alleyway within the subdivision. In addition, the applicant proposes to construct a 164-foot long, 6-foot high, solid fence on Chase Lane for the privacy and security for what would become the backyards of these six homes. The original approvals for the subdivision are not clear on how these six homes should face, but it is clear that the subdivision should remain open and “no interior fencing” should be allowed within the subdivision and “no fencing adjacent to and parallel with Chase Lane” (Planning Commission review and recommendations of May 25, 2005) should be allowed. The proposed configuration may be more cost effective for the applicant and may benefit the overall appeal for sale of the Silver Oaks Subdivision, but staff is concerned the proposed fencing will close off the subdivision and is not in harmony with adjacent properties. Staff is also concerned with the safety of traffic on 670 West and 740 West. City ordinance requires a 30-foot site triangle at connections. The proposed fence does not provide the required site triangle at 670 West and 740 West.
Mr. Toponce reviewed the design for the homes. The applicant proposes to keep the original home designs, as it is more cost effective then creating new designs. The PDO requires increased architectural design. The original approvals oriented the front of the homes to Chase Lane and included increased architectural design. The new proposal would orient the rear of the homes to Chase Lane which do not have an increased architectural design. In order to mitigate these impacts staff requests an increase in the architectural detail on the rear of the homes that will face Chase Lane. Staff also requests a 5-foot landscape buffer between the sidewalk and the rear yards of these six homes along Chase Lane. In addition, staff requests an open-style fence with increased design, such as a 2-foot precast rock wall with 6-foot pillars and a 4-foot open wrought iron or vinyl fence atop the 2-foot precast wall. This would keep the subdivision open as intended, would also increase the architectural detail as required, and mimic the feel of other neighboring front yards on Chase Lane.
Mr. Toponce also reported the Fire District contacted staff today and is concerned with fire protection if the homes are reconfigured to face the interior of the subdivision. The original configuration was not a problem because the front doors faced Chase Lane and the Fire Department could access these homes easily from the street. If the homes are reconfigured, the Fire District requests any fencing be constructed with more than one void, so fire services can access these homes more easily from Chase Lane because the private alleyway is not large enough to accommodate fire service vehicles.
Mr. Snyder said a typical void for fire service is six (6) feet. This would allow fire services to run equipment between two homes to the front doors. The need for these voids should be provided in the conditions of approval.
Commissioner Fillmore said she is concerned with creating a closed off area on Chase Lane. All other homes on Chase Lane face Chase Lane and have open front yards. Closing this off could also create safety issues for pedestrians on the sidewalks. As a runner she is often concerned that she cannot get to a resident’s front door for help if the need arises.
Tom Henriod, applicant, said he is excited to be working with Ivory Homes to get this subdivision completed. He has held a formal meeting with surrounding neighbors to get a better feel of how this subdivision should function. He said he is disheartened with staff’s recommendations for the open-style fence and asked the Commission to consider the original application with the proposed 6-foot fence. If the Commission is not amenable to the 6-foot fence then they would prefer to stick with the originally approved conditional use permit (homes facing Chase Lane). He believes their proposed configuration will make the subdivision more marketable, more cost effective, and will help give the subdivision a more unified feel.
Mr. Snyder explained the applicant has proposed to turn the homes away from Chase Lane and construct a 6-foot solid fence along Chase Lane to create private backyards for these six homes. Staff has modified that proposal by recommending the 6-foot fence be changed to an open-style fence setback from the sidewalk with a landscaped buffer. Staff is recommending these modifications because staff feels the proposed application creates impacts on the surrounding area and these modifications will mitigate those impacts. Staff believes these modifications are also in harmony with the intent of the original PDO approval because they increase landscaping and architectural details. The Planning Commission is being asked to review both the applicant’s proposal and staff’s modified proposal. The Planning Commission may choose to approve one proposal or the other, a hybrid of both, or deny all.
Lisa Romney, City Attorney, explained that if an approval is granted tonight then it will trump the past conditional use permit approval. If it is the desire of the applicant to stay with the original conditional use permit, then the Planning Commission should table or deny this application.
Chair Pedersen opened the public hearing.
Brian Cooper, resident of Silver Oaks, said he is against a 164-foot continuous fence on Chase Lane. He is also opposed to staff’s open-style fence. He believes either option will create the feel of a solid wall. All homes on Chase Lane face Chase Lane, there are no fences. A fence would not be compatible with surrounding properties. He agreed that fire and medical services will not be able to access these six homes easily if they are facing the interior of the subdivision. This would not be a problem if the homes faced Chase Lane. He believes these six homes should face Chase Lane just like all the other homes on Chase Lane.
Seth Brimhall said he lives across the street from Silver Oaks. He is opposed to the 6-foot solid fence. He does not want to look across the street into backyards. These homes should face Chase Lane like all the other homes on Chase Lane.
Jeff Winegar, resident of Silver Oaks, said he would like to see both the front door and the garage face Chase Lane. The private alleyway in the rear is only one lane and it will be difficult for residents to share this access. He said he is opposed to any fence, but likes staff’s recommendations better than a tall, ugly, solid fence.
Steven Reitz said he lives on Chase Lane and is opposed to having these homes turned to the interior of the subdivision. He too does not want to look at backyards. He prefers the original plan with the front doors and front yards on Chase Lane. If the homes must be turned in, he prefers staff’s recommendations for an open-style fence and landscaped buffer.
Christopher Feuz, resident of Silver Oaks, said he too would like to see both the front door and the garage face Chase Lane. He does not want any fence on Chase Lane, but if that is not possible, he prefers staff’s recommendations over the proposed 6-foot solid fence.
Chris Bramrulas, Ivory Homes, said he was not aware of staff’s recommendations until tonight. If he would have had more notice then this item may not have been on tonight’s agenda. He said the idea of the proposal is to make this subdivision more of a stand-alone community, by turning homes inward, which is more conducive to the market. From his standpoint, there is only one application to consider and that is the applicant’s proposal. A hybrid of both the applicant’s proposal and staff’s proposal may be acceptable but not likely. He asked the Commission to review the applicant’s proposal and vote accordingly. If necessary the applicant will approach the City Council for final approval.
Suzy Cooper, resident of Silver Oaks, said she would like to see decreased traffic within the subdivision. If the front door and the garage of these homes faced Chase Lane, then it would decrease the amount of traffic within the subdivision because the alleyway would no longer be needed. She said she does not want to feel a part of one small subdivision. She wants to feel a part of the entire neighborhood. A fence on Chase Lane will close off the subdivision from the neighborhood. If the homes face Chase Lane then the subdivision will feel a part of the whole community.
Chair Pedersen closed the public hearing.
Mr. Snyder said the Planning Commission is the decision-making body for this application; it does not move onto the City Council for final approval. He explained the original approval provides for rear-loaded garages from the private one-way alleyway. It does not allow garages to face Chase Lane. It may be possible to orient the garages to Chase Lane, but this would require additional review and approval to determine if additional accesses on Chase Lane are appropriate. The Planning Commission may approve the orientation of the front door on Chase Lane because it was a part of the original approvals, but they may not approve the orientation of garages on Chase Lane at this time. The original intent of the PDO was to orient the homes to Chase Lane and keep an open feel. It is important to protect the neighborhood. Staff believes a fence will impact the community and feels any fence should be equal to the intent of the original approval and the quality of the homes. Staff does not believe a 6-foot solid fence meets the intent of the open front yard appeal that already exists on Chase Lane.
At 8:23 p.m. Ms. Romney requested a short recess. During this time Mr. Snyder and Ms. Romney met privately with the applicants.
At 8:30 p.m. the meeting was reconvened.
Ms. Romney said staff and the applicant would like to request the Planning Commission table this issue to a future date so that staff and the applicant may further discuss the issues raised this evening and possibly bring back a revised proposal for review. It may be problematic if the Commission were to approve this application with conditions that are not acceptable to the applicant.
Chair Pedersen said he is not in favor of the proposed 6-foot solid fence. He believes staff’s proposal is nice, but he would rather see the front doors remain on Chase Lane. He also agrees the fire service issues will be eliminated if the front doors of these homes stay on Chase Lane. He said he would also be amenable to a proposal that allowed the garages to face Chase Lane as well.
Commissioner Holbrook agreed. He prefers the original approvals if staff’s recommendations are not acceptable to the applicant.
Commissioner Merrill said he too likes staff’s recommendations more than the proposed 6-foot solid fence. He also said the rear-loading garages provide limited space for vehicles and he questioned whether this has been adequately mitigated.
Commissioner Fillmore said the ideal is to have the homes face Chase Lane. She feels staff has been overly accommodating with the applicant’s proposal. She feels staff’s recommendations are a minimum of the amount of standards that should be expected with a PDO. She feels a 6-foot solid fence is unattractive and unfair to the neighbors that live across the street. It creates safety concerns because of the lack of a 30-foot site triangle on 670 West and 740 West. It also creates a boulevard feeling which will promote increased speeds of traffic on Chase Lane.
Chair Pedersen made a motion to table action on this application and continue the public hearing to December 8, 2010. This will provide staff and the applicants an opportunity to review the issues raised and bring back any additional revisions for further review. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Fillmore and passed by unanimous roll-call vote (7-0).
PUBLIC HEARING – CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT – DAVE’S COMPLETE AUTO SERVICE – 335 SOUTH FRONTAGE ROAD - Consideration of a conditional use permit for Dave’s Complete Auto Service, to allow his business to offer towing and impound services at 335 South Frontage Road, in the C-VH Zone. David Bell, Applicant
Cory Snyder, Community Development Director, reported the applicant is requesting a conditional use permit for a “towing and impound” use in conjunction with his current auto repair use on the Frontage Road. Towing is already an accessory use to the auto repair use, so in essence the Planning Commission is only reviewing the addition of the “impound” use to the business. Recently the City Council approved the allowance for an “impound” use which is the process of collecting and storing a vehicle for a period of time. The process of this review is to look at possible impacts of the use on the surrounding area and determine if these impacts can be mitigated. Staff believes the south Frontage Road is an appropriate location for this use as there are already several auto repair/sale uses in the area. It appears that impacts are minimal because the proposed application is not requesting any increase in floor area and buffering is already established. However, there are residential zones immediately east of this site and noise and security lighting may be a factor. The applicant will be required to adhere to City ordinances regarding lighting shields, lighting splay, and noise. This will help mitigate these impacts. In addition, the applicant will not be allowed to load/unload any towed or impounded vehicles after hours. If after-hours towing/impound is needed, the tow truck will need to be parked on-site and unloaded once regular business hours resume. This will also help keep noise at a minimum after hours.
Mr. Snyder responded to questions from the Commission. He explained the impound portion of this business is constrained by the size of the impound area. The proposed impound area will be secured by a 6-foot tall, 90% opaque fence. The applicant has proposed a chain link fence with privacy slats.
Dave Bell, applicant, said he has been towing cars, including loading and unloading, 24-hours a day, 7 days a week, for the past 18 years. He explained it is rare to be called to impound a vehicle more than once a night. There are currently thirteen (13) impound lots in South Davis County. Once a company is called to pick-up a vehicle they must wait for twelve other companies to be called in the rotation before being called out again. He said he owns the two residential properties immediately east of his business and does not foresee any problems with the proposed use. He also said there are 15-foot bushes between his business property and his residential property. It is sufficiently buffered.
Chair Pedersen opened the public hearing. There was no comment, he closed the public hearing.
Commissioner Fillmore said her greatest concerns are increased crime and enforcement. She likes the idea of Condition #6 which allows the City to reevaluate the conditional use permit in the future. She questioned if the Commission may put an expiration date on this conditional use permit so it forces the applicant to reapply, giving the City the ability to reassess all conditions, not just noise.
Mr. Snyder said it is not appropriate to apply an expiration date to this conditional use permit. This was only an option for temporary permits which this is not. The proposed use is allowed per the table of uses and should be granted if the Commission feels the impacts have been sufficiently mitigated. He also said Condition #6 applies to the review of all conditions, not just noise.
Lisa Romney, City Attorney, agreed. She said Condition #6 allows the City to review the application and make changes if the City can provide sufficient evidence of negative impacts that are not being mitigated. Currently, there are no “impound” uses in this area. Staff is reserving the right to review the conditional use permit in case any unforeseen impacts arise.
Commissioner Holbrook made a motion for the Planning Commission to approve a conditional use permit for Dave’s Complete Auto Service to allow for a “towing and impound” use located at 335 South Frontage Road, subject to the following conditions:
1. The towing and impound use shall be subject to the applicable use parameters, as defined in Chapter 12-12, Definitions for Towing and Impound and Chapter 12-36, Table of Uses of the City’s Zoning Ordinance.
2. All vehicles that are impounded shall be stored in the repair yard or inside the repair facility. The storage of vehicles in a driveway, access lane, or parking lot shall be prohibited.
3. All areas used for outside impound storage shall be completely screened with a 90% opaque fence as viewed from a public street or an adjacent residential or commercial zoned property.
4. All use of outside security lighting shall be arranged and directed to reflect light away from the adjacent residential properties. The intensity of security lighting at the adjoining residential property lines shall not exceed 0.1-foot candles.
5. The towing and impound use shall be subject to the City’s adopted noise ordinance, as found in the Municipal Code, Section 13-03-080, which also prohibits loading and unloading between the hours of 9:00 p.m. and 6:00 a.m.
6. This conditional use permit for a towing and impound use shall be subject to an annual Planning Commission review for the first two (2) years of operation and be subject to any additional appropriate mitigation measures, if deemed necessary by Centerville City.
Reasons for Action (findings):
a) The applicant has completed the requirements to submit a conditional use permit [Section 12-21-100].
b) With the conditions imposed, the proposed impound use complies with and can be mitigated to comply with the approval standards of Section 12-21-100.
c) With the conditions imposed, the proposed impound use is deemed suitable and harmonious with the proposed site and adjacent properties.
d) With the conditions imposed, there are sufficient safeguards to minimize the impact on the community.
e) This impound use option became possible with the recent Zoning Ordinance change that allows for “towing and impound” upon issuance of a conditional use permit.
f) Allowing the proposed “impound” use allows the business owner to offer additional services to the community, as well as to encourage the continued success of the auto repair facility.
The motion was seconded by Commissioner Rasmussen and passed by unanimous roll-call vote (7-0).
PUBLIC HEARING - PRELIMINARY/FINAL SUBDIVISION PLAT – CUTLER SUBDIVISION PHASE 5 – 235 WEST 2150 NORTH - Consideration of a preliminary/final subdivision plat for the Cutler Subdivision, Phase 5, to create two lots for property located at approximately 235 West 2150 North in the A-L Zone. Christopher A. Cutler, Applicant
Cory Snyder, Community Development Director, reported the applicant is requesting both preliminary and final subdivision plat approval. Most of the conditions set at conceptual approval have been satisfied. The few outstanding conditions are close to completion and the applicant’s engineer has already placed the necessary notes on the plat. Overall, staff recommends approval.
Christopher Cutler, applicant, said he has continued to work with City staff and his engineer and things are moving along quickly.
Chair Pedersen opened the public hearing. There was no comment, he closed the public hearing.
Commissioner Fillmore made a motion for the Planning Commission to approve the preliminary subdivision plans and plat and recommend final subdivision approval to the City Council for the proposed Cutler Subdivision Phase 5, located at 235 West 2150 North, provided that the applicant complete the following:
1. All professional service fees and bonding shall be paid.
2. A current title report shall be submitted and deemed acceptable by the City prior to final plat recording.
3. All accessory structures existing on Lot 502 must be removed and/or demolished upon one of the following, which ever occurs first:
a. Within thirty (30) days from the date of issuance of a building permit for any construction on Lot 502;
b. Prior to commencement of construction on Lot 502; or
c. Within two (2) years from the date of the final plat recording, if a building permit for construction on Lot 502 has not been obtained.
* This condition shall be placed as a notation on the final plat.
4. All necessary utility provider sheets shall be submitted prior to the recording of the final plat.
5. All public utility easements within Lot 502, except for the 10-foot easement along 2150 North shall be vacated and applicable new public utility easements shall be depicted on and dedicated with the final plat. The east public utility easement on Lot 501 shall be re-worked or vacated as recommended by staff. All legal descriptions for the new public utility easements shall be submitted to the City Engineer for review and acceptance by the City Council and recorded with the final plat.
6. Before any further lot divisions may occur west of Lot 501, the petitioner for further subdivision review and approval shall meet with staff to discuss long-range planning. This shall include how many additional lots are planned, infrastructure to the area, and how this subdivision will tie into existing and future public streets.
7. The applicant shall secure approval from Weber Basin and the City Engineer in regard to adequate secondary water supply, prior to recording the subdivision plat.
Reasons for Action (findings):
a) The applicant has submitted a completed application for a preliminary and final subdivision review [Chapters 15-3 & 15-4].
b) With the conditions imposed, the subdivision plans and plat meet the development standards for the A-L Zone [Chapter 12-32].
c) With the conditions imposed, the general requirements for all subdivisions have been satisfied [Chapter 15-5].
The motion was seconded by Commissioner Merrill 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 December 8, 2010.
b. Upcoming projects
• US Development
• Tree Ordinance
• Silver Oaks Subdivision
The meeting was adjourned at 9:35 p.m.
Jim Pedersen, Chair Date Approved
Kathleen Streadbeck, Recording Secretary