PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES OF MEETING
Wednesday, April 23, 2008
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 7:05 p.m. by Chair Lee Duncan.

MEMBERS PRESENT
 Lee Duncan, Chair
 Tamilyn Fillmore
 Steven Markham
 Jason S. Nichols
 Jim Palmer
 Jim Pedersen
 Rebecca Wayment
 
STAFF PRESENT
 Cory Snyder, Community Development Director
 Brandon Toponce, Assistant Planner
 Kathleen Streadbeck, Recording Secretary

VISITORS
 Susie Petheram       Aaron Vaughn
 James Stout              Kristin Ward
 Adam Ward                Mike Miller
 Jamie Miller               Wayne Carlson
 Jim Higbee                 Kevin Kunz
 
OPENING COMMENT/LEGISLATIVE PRAYER  Commissioner Pedersen

PUBLIC HEARING – CONCEPTUAL SITE PLAN – STOUT BUILDING CONTRACTORS NEW OFFICE/WAREHOUSE BUILDINGS - Consideration of a conceptual site plan for Stout Building Contractors new office/warehouse buildings to be located at 60 North 1400 West in the I-H Zone. Nate Lechtenberg, Stout Building Contractors, applicant.

Commissioner Nichols recused himself from this item. He indicated the firm that he works for represents the applicant. Commissioner Nichols was excused.

Brandon Toponce, Assistant Planner, reported the applicant desires to construct two buildings consisting of office and warehousing. He reviewed the application as written in the staff report dated April 23, 2008. The conceptual site plan complies with the General Plan and meets the majority of the development standards with the exception of a few minor details. Staff recommends approval of the conceptual site plan with conditions.

Commissioner Pedersen questioned why there are three dumpster sites behind the second proposed building. He questioned if some type of manufacturing is anticipated on this site. Chair

Duncan questioned if there is adequate parking on the site if the building is divided into several offices.

Mr. Toponce said parking will need to be verified for accuracy, but there should be adequate parking on the site if the building is divided for offices.

James Stout, applicant, said the second building will be the same height as the first building and could be divided into three offices. This is why there are three dumpster enclosures. He said they are trying to anticipate future possibilities. He explained they plan on doing their own architecture and landscaping, but will have the plans stamped by licensed professional as required by ordinance. He said they plan to screen the site from the Legacy Parkway with a chain link fence with slats. They also plan to plant a row of several large trees along the back of the fence line to increase that buffer.

Chair Duncan opened the public hearing. There was no comment. He closed the public hearing.

Commissioner Fillmore made a motion for the Planning Commission to accept the conceptual site plan for the Stout project located at 60 North 1400 West, with the following conditions and findings:

Conditions:

1. All Fees shall be paid.
2. The applicant shall show the following on the final site plan:
a. Detail of the dumpster enclosure, including the color and style of the gate and wall.
b. The color of material being used on each building and the height of the southern building.
c. All roof mounted equipment is screened from view on both buildings.
d. All proper easements shall be indicated including a ten-foot easement running along 1540 West.
e. Detail on how the storage area in the southwest portion of the property shall be screened from view.
3. The landscape plans shall be designed and stamped by a professional licensed landscape architect and submitted to staff for review with the final site plan.
4. The square footage and percentage of parking lot landscaping shall be indicated on the final landscaping plans. 
5. The containers housing topsoil, bark and soil pep, etc. found on the west property line, shall be sloped westward to contain runoff.
6. The applicant shall work with the City Engineer on all drainage and engineering issues that pertain to the entire site.
7. Utility provider sheets shall be submitted with the final site plan application.
8. The applicant shall apply for a sign permit for each building, as a separate process to be reviewed by staff.

Findings:
 
1.  The applicant has submitted a full conceptual site plan application in accordance with Section 12-21-110(d) of the Zoning Ordinance.
2. According to the table of uses allowed, an office warehouse is a permitted use within the Industrial-High Zone [Chapter 12-36].
3. This proposed project is in harmony with the goals of the General Plan [Section 12-480-6(1), 12-480-6(1)(1E)].
4. With exception of the height verification of the southern building, the property and buildings meet the development standards found in Table 12-35-1 of the Zoning Ordinance.
5. The requirements for an office/warehouse have been met in relation to parking [Chapter 12-52].
6. With the above conditions being addressed, the site will meet the requirements in relation to landscaping and screening [Chapter 12-51].
7. More detail will be required on the color of material being used on each building [Section 12-35-080 (e)-(f), 12-21-110(e)(v)].

The motion was seconded by Commissioner Pedersen and passed by unanimous roll-call vote (6-0).

Commissioner Nichols rejoined the meeting.

PUBLIC HEARING – GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT AND ZONING CODE TEXT AMENDMENT FOR THE SOUTH MAIN STREET CORRIDOR – Consider adoption of a General Plan Amendment, Section 12-480-7 and changes to the Zoning Ordinance, Chapter 12-48, for the South Main Street corridor between Parrish Lane and Pages Lane. Centerville City, applicant.

Cory Snyder, Community Development Director, reported this petition contains two proposed amendments, a General Plan amendment (South Main Street Corridor Plan) and a Zoning Ordinance amendment (South Main Street Corridor District Overlay Zone). Eventually the Planning Commission will take action on both amendments, but this evening, they are anticipated to be for discussion only.

Mr. Snyder explained these proposed amendments were generated as part of a Main Street assessment and Master Plan update. This was a quick process over the past four (4) months that included input from an ad-hoc committee, City staff, and a consulting firm. The proposed General Plan amendment would create a South Main Street Corridor (SMSC) from Parrish Lane to Pages Lane. The proposed amendment consists of 9 goals and 70+ objectives. The proposed amendment also divides the SMSC into five (5) districts: the Gateway District; Civic District; Traditional Main Street District; Residential Boulevard; and Mixed-Use District. Each district also has individual uses, goals and objectives. He explained this is a long-term vision; as each building or property owner looks at reuse/rehabilitation this corridor will begin to change. 

Mr. Snyder said the Zoning Ordinance amendment will lay the ground work for these changes. He explained that the existing zones will remain in place along the corridor, but the SMSC District Overlay will allow for additional uses in some districts. The overlay will also allow for more flexibility in building placement and design. Mr. Snyder reviewed the SMSC District Overlay principles and core codes explaining each. He reviewed each district and the permitted and conditional uses that will be allowed in each of those districts. He also reviewed lot types, parking standards, and landscaping and screening. He explained that the overlay zone will introduce some congestion, encouraging people to park and walk. (Note: Mr. Snyder’s SMSC General Plan and Zoning Ordinance overview document used during his presentation is attached).

Chair Duncan opened the public hearing.

Adam Ward, resident, said he has been involved with this process and is excited about the plan. He said the Residential Boulevard shows an accessory dwelling as a permitted use. He asked for the definition of an accessory dwelling. He said this is not permitted under the current zoning, this would be a new use in this area.

Wayne Carlson, resident, said there are about eight (8) to nine (9) single-family homes that front Main Street along the SMSC. He said these amendments will mandate that these homes remain facing Main Street. He said in order to build a nice new home on these sites the home would most likely need to be re-oriented away from Main Street. He said no one building a new single-family home on one of these lots would like to face Main where there will be significant traffic. He said all other single-family homes on Main Street have their side or back yards facing Main Street.

Seeing no one else wishing to comment Chair Duncan continued the public hearing until the next Planning Commission meeting to be held on May 14, 2008. He explained that the public will be able to make any additional comments at that time.

Susie Petheram, Consultant, said she distributed an analysis of the current right-of-way and some options that could be implemented in each district with regard to mass transit and public space for the Commissions review during the work session held earlier this evening. She said the current right-of-way along the SMSC is sixty-seven (67) feet. Staff would like some feedback from the Planning Commission regarding their priorities for public space in each district along the SMSC. Public space includes sidewalks, park strips, lighting, benches, bike lanes, on-street parking etc. She explained that the public space for each district will vary and the Commission needs to decide if it is prudent to expand the right-of-way in some districts. For example, on-street parking may be a desirable component in some of the higher commercial districts; however this will limit the width available for sidewalk. If the Commission in not comfortable with the limited sidewalk width they may want to expand the right-of-way in that district. In turn the sidewalk in another district may be significantly wider causing a meandering of sidewalk widths along the entire SMSC. Each district will need to be looked at individually as the desired components will vary.

Mr. Snyder explained that the City Council has contacted the Utah Transit Authority (UTA) regarding the City’s desire for mass transit along the SMSC. The Council further requested that any mass transit remain in the current right-of-way. He explained that it is important to address streetscape standards in the proposed General Plan and Zoning Ordinance amendments. Mr. Snyder said Main Street is a state road and as UTA is in the planning stages it would be expeditious to know if the current right-of-way is adequate to allow for the desired public space components.

Chair Duncan suggested the Commission review the options that were distributed this evening by Ms. Petheram and begin to construct a wish list of components they would like to see in each district. He further suggested the Commission take a field trip prior to the next meeting (May 14, 2008) to walk Main Street in order to get a better idea of width and possibilities. The Commission agreed.

Mr. Snyder explained, in response to public comment, an accessory dwelling consists of a kitchen, bathroom, and sleeping quarter. An accessory dwelling may be a granny flat above a garage, a separate structure in the rear of a lot, or a second dwelling in the basement of a home. He explained that this is not currently allowed, but is proposed to be allowed under the new SMSC District Overlay Zone in the Residential Boulevard district. He said this would give these current single-family lots the ability to do more with the property. Traffic will be significant on Main Street and this will hopefully provide some relief and incentive to keep these properties as residential. This change will also bring more flexibility to setback and building heights in this district. 

Commissioner Fillmore asked for the definition of home-based business in this area. Mr. Snyder said home based businesses are already allowed throughout the city under certain specifications.

Chair Duncan suggested allowing a home business in the front home with parking and a dwelling structure in the rear of the lot.  Mr. Snyder said this could be looked at more closely. He explained these homes, as discussed during the public comment, face Main Street. These lots are not wide enough to accommodate a dedicated 50-foot roadway in order to allow them to re-orient. He said the goal is to preserve these homes/lots and give them the tools necessary to remain viable.

Commissioner Wayment said she is in favor of creating some congestion, but she is concerned that any parking that may be available will be for private businesses and the general public will not have the ability to park and walk. She said on-street parking may be the best option, but angled parking will take up too much width and parallel parking may be problematic with the proposed mass transit and current speed limit.

Mr. Snyder said if a parking structure or lot is built it would most likely be provided by the City, making it completely public. He said any on-street parking along the SMSC would have to be parallel and the speed limit would need to be reduced. The Utah Department of Transportation (UDOT) would be the entity to make the final decision regarding speed limit.

Commissioner Fillmore said there are also streetscape options that could be utilized that would naturally require the slowing of traffic. Commissioner Nichols said a parking structure/lot should be highly considered or parking will be forced into surrounding neighborhoods.

Commissioner Fillmore suggested that the general restaurant use be allowed as a conditional use throughout the corridor if it is part of a mixed-use. Mr. Snyder said the general restaurant use will become a permitted use in the Traditional Main Street District and is already allowed under the current Zoning Ordinance in the Parrish and Pages Lane areas. 

Commissioner Fillmore said the goals in the proposed amendment to the General Plan discuss design, building materials, and architecture, but the proposed SMSC District Overlay Zone Ordinance has nothing to back up these statements. She said some design standards need to be added, they can be vague or form based, but she feels it is important to give some direction. 
 
Mr. Snyder said design goals were provided in the proposed General Plan amendment to give some direction, but specifics were left out of the proposed SMSC District Overlay Zone because the City is not prepared to define specific design guidelines. This would take a separate process. He said the form based guidelines will create a framework for development and specific design elements will evolve over time. He explained the City is not ready to define the actual look or character, with materials, for the SMSC. He said he has seen specific design guidelines followed and the product was not desirable. He said even the Parrish Lane Design Guidelines have not necessarily produced exactly what the City envisioned. He suggested leaving the goals in place for now and perhaps in the near future the City will decide to pursue a process to create some more specific standards. For now, the form based guidelines will provide some protection. 

Ms. Petheram said the form based guidelines deal with the basic elements of a building. They will dictate how the building performs adjacent to the sidewalk and how it addresses the streetscape as a whole. When the City has a better idea of the look and character they would like along the SMSC, a process to create more specific design guidelines can be accomplished.

Commissioner Fillmore said she is concerned that the efforts to implement the SMSC master plan will end with the adoption of the proposed General Plan and Zoning Ordinance amendments. She said she would like to see a continued effort, perhaps with funding, to implement these changes and keep the SMSC as a priority. She said Centerville residents have expressed a desire to maintain control of Main Street rather than leaving it to UDOT. She said if funds are earmarked for the SMSC then Centerville’s goals may be taken more seriously. She asked if the City Council has any plans to continue this work.

Mr. Snyder said so far the City Council has only requested the amendments to the General Plan and the Zoning Ordinance. He said efforts could continue if the City Council so chooses (i.e., streetscape study and planning, general fund or capital improvement projects, special improvement districts, etc.). He said the Council will also continue to work with UTA in planning for mass transit, but this is in the distant future. Ms. Petheram said there are some outside funding sources available for the improvement of roadways and their surrounding areas. This may be an option the City may choose to research.

Chair Duncan made a motion to table this item until the next Planning Commission meeting to be held on May 14, 2008 at 7:00 p.m. The Commission will hold a field trip/work session regarding this issue prior to the meeting at 6:00 p.m. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Palmer and passed by unanimous roll-call vote (7-0).

PUBLIC HEARING – CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT/SITE PLAN AMENDMENT – NEVER BETTER AUTO – Consideration of a conditional use permit/site plan amendment for Never Better Auto. The amendments consist of using additional parking for the used auto sales business located at the Dave’s Import Auto Service site, 335 South Frontage Road, in the C-VH Zone. Kevin Kunz, applicant.

Brandon Toponce, Assistant Planner, reported the applicant would like to amend the conditional use permit for Never Better Auto in order to increase the amount of parking stalls used for display. Mr. Toponce reviewed the application as written in the staff report dated April 23, 2008. Staff recommends the conditional use be approved with conditions.

Kevin Kunz, applicant, said this will increase the total number of stalls used by Never Better Auto to seventeen (17). Four (4) stalls will be used for customer parking and thirteen (13) stalls will be used for display. He said the Frontage Road has proved to be a good area for display. He asked if Never Better Auto can display vehicles on the front landscaped area when Dave’s Import Auto Service (shares the site with Never Better Auto) is closed over the weekends. He said the customer parking stalls are not in use when Dave’s is closed and he would also like to display additional vehicles in those stalls when Dave’s is closed.

The Commission agreed the landscaped area is not appropriate for displaying vehicles. Mr. Snyder said if the site exceeds the landscape requirement or if the property owner would like to adjust the landscaping then display pads could possibly be installed in the front area. These changes would require an additional amendment to the conditional use permit. Mr. Snyder also questioned where the inventory would go when Dave’s re-opens during the week.

Mr. Kunz explained that Dave Bell (owner) owns another site in Layton where they share inventory. Commissioner Nichols said the increase in stalls should provide adequate room for display. He said he hopes that Never Better Auto can comply with the conditional use permit.

Chair Duncan opened the public hearing. There was no comment. Chair Duncan closed the public hearing.

Chair Duncan made a motion for the Planning Commission to approve the conditional use permit amendment for Never Better Auto located at 335 South Frontage Road with the following conditions and findings:

Conditions:

1. All fees shall be paid.
2. Never Better Auto shall be limited to the display and use of 13 “for sale” vehicles located in the designated parking stalls as depicted on the attached site plan as a display area. In addition, no other parking stalls designated for customers and employees shall be used for display area at any time.
3. Never Better Auto shall provide four (4) additional stalls for customer parking as depicted on the attached site plan. In addition, Dave’s Import Auto Service shall be required to have 24 parking stalls available for public use.
4. The display of vehicles on any landscaped area shall be prohibited.
5. All other conditions of approval found on the conditional use permit dated March 12, 2008, shall still be effective and shall be maintained by the applicant and property owner. 

Findings:

1. The applicant has completed the requirements to submit an amended conditional use permit [Section 12-21-100(h)].
2. The building addition and the asphalted area south of the  addition is large enough to accommodate extra parking (verified by staff on April 14, 2008).
3. Dave’s Import Auto Sales requires 24 stalls in accordance to the 1998 Zoning Ordinance [Section 12-340-2].
4. Never Better Auto requires four stalls to be designated for public parking [Table 12-52-1].
5. The parking lot meets the required dimensions found in the Zoning Ordinance [Table 12-52-2]. 
6. All applicable requirements for a conditional use permit have been satisfied [Section 12-21-100]. 

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

COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR’S REPORT

a. Next regularly scheduled Planning Commission meeting will be held on May 14, 2008 at 7:00 p.m. A field trip/work session will be held prior to the meeting at 6:00 p.m.