PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES OF MEETING
Wednesday, January 14, 2009
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
Tamilyn Fillmore
Steven Markham
Jason Nichols
Jim Palmer
Jim Pedersen
John Walton

STAFF PRESENT
Cory Snyder, Community Development Director
Brandon Toponce, Assistant Planner
Steve Thacker, City Manager/Executive Director RDA
Kathy Streadbeck, Recording Secretary 

VISITORS
Kristen Nilssen
Brett Freeman
Sherri Lindstrom, City Council
 Jim Losee, FFKR Architects 
  
OPENING COMMENT/LEGISLATIVE PRAYER Commissioner Pedersen

MINUTES REVIEW AND APPROVAL

The minutes of the Planning Commission meeting held December 10, 2008 were reviewed and amended. Commissioner Pedersen made a motion to approve the minutes as amended. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Fillmore and passed by unanimous vote (6-0).

COMMISSION BUSINESS

Commissioner Palmer made a motion to change a regularly scheduled Planning Commission meeting from November 11, 2009 to November 18, 2009. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Nichols and passed by unanimous roll-call vote (6-0).

Commissioner Fillmore made a motion to nominate Commissioner Jim Palmer as the Chair of the Planning Commission for calendar year 2009. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Pedersen and passed by unanimous vote (6-0).

Commissioner Nichols made a motion to nominate Commissioner Jim Pedersen as Vice-Chair of the Planning Commission for calendar year 2009. The motion was seconded by Chair Palmer and passed by unanimous vote (6-0).

PUBLIC HEARING – MASTER SITE PLAN AMENDMENT – PINEAE VILLAGE LANDSCAPING PLAN – EXHIBIT I OF DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT - Consideration of dwelling unit landscaping changes to the Pineae Village PUD Master Development Plan as shown in Exhibit I of the Development Agreement.  Gold Medallion Homes, Applicant.

Brandon Toponce, Assistant Planner, reported the applicant believes the approved landscape plan for the Pineae Village development is excessive and desires to amend the plans to eliminate some of the shrubs, bushes, trees and other plantings. The applicant believes that planting the number of shrubs found on the original plan will cause over crowding as the plantings mature. The applicant has resubmitted a new landscape plan and completed an application for an amended site plan.

The original landscape plan indicates over 300 trees and 2,047 shrubs and other plantings. The Zoning Ordinance requires, in open space/common areas, one (1) tree and two (2) shrubs per dwelling unit. Pineae Village contains 227 units which calculates to 454 shrubs and 227 trees (below the amount indicated on the original plan). Pineae Village is a planned unit development (PUD) and qualified for a density bonus. Pineae Village was granted a higher density based on added amenities. Given those amenities, Pineae Village qualified for a 14.5% increase in density, which calculates to be 1.16 units per acre. Landscaping represented is only 4.5% of that calculation. Pineae Village only requested an increase of .57 units per acre, which was granted. The request to reduce the number of plantings will not affect the overall density bonus.

The applicant proposes to plant 245 trees and 1,350 shrubs, both well above ordinance requirements. No percentage of common space is being diminished and the general location of trees and shrubs to be planted will remain the same. Staff believes the Tuscan Garden theme will still be carried throughout the subdivision.

Commissioner Palmer opened the public hearing. There was no comment. He closed the public hearing.

Commissioner Pedersen said he understood, during the approval process for Pineae Village, the density bonus was granted because of the landscaping. He asked if this request was an effort to save money or if the plantings are really too excessive. Commissioner Nichols questioned the over-crowding of the plantings.

Cory Snyder, Community Development Director, explained that landscaping was only part of the density bonus calculation. Pineae Village still contains enough added amenities to allow the .57 density increase that was granted. He said this development was originally planned by a previous owner who was working solely on schematics. Many of the finer details were not anticipated. It appears the original landscape plan would work for the first couple of years, but then over-crowding would require the removal of many of the plantings. The newly proposed plan is still above Ordinance requirements and the caliper and gallon size will also remain per City ordinances. Commissioner Palmer agreed the density bonus calculations minus the reduction in landscaping would still allow Pineae Village their granted density bonus.

Commissioner Pedersen made a motion for the Planning Commission to recommend approval to the City Council, regarding the proposed landscaping plan amendment for the Pineae Subdivision, subject to the following conditions:

Conditions:

1. The applicant shall go before the City Council for an amendment to the Development Agreement in regard to the landscaping plan.
2. The amendment shall be for the reduction in trees and shrubs only.
3. The total number of trees shall not drop below 245, and the shrubs shall not drop below 1,350. 

Reasons for Action:

1. The landscaping requirements in regard to multi-family housing has been satisfied [Chapter 12-51].
2. The proposed change does not make a significant difference in regard to the density bonus of units per acre [Section 12-41-090, August 24, 2007 Staff Report].
3. The Tuscan Garden theme is still being represented [Section 12-41-090(C)(2)(A)(i) April 17, 2007 City Council]

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

PUBLIC HEARING – CONCEPTUAL SITE PLAN & CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT – SOUTH DAVIS PERFORMING ARTS CENTER – 525 NORTH 400 WEST - Consideration of a conceptual site plan acceptance, and conditional use permit for the auditorium use and increased building height, for the new South Davis Performing Arts Center Auditorium to be located at 525 North 400 West in the PF-H Zone.  Centerville City, Applicant.

Cory Snyder, Community Development Director, reported the applicant proposes to construct a theatre facility on all of Lot #3 (building with some parking) and partially on Lot #2 (additional shared parking) of the Centerville Corporate Park Subdivision. The proposed development is in the Public Facilities-High (PF-H) Zone and is surrounded by both commercial and residential uses. The applicant is also applying for a conditional use permit for the “auditorium use” and also to allow “extra building height” from thirty-five (35) feet to forty-eight (48) feet for the main assembly hall.  

Mr. Snyder explained many of the issues surrounding this application. He said the building size in the PF-H Zone is capped at 50,000 square feet. The proposed building size exceeds this cap by more than 1500 square feet. This leaves the applicant two options: 1) Decrease the building size; or  2) Petition the City for an amendment to the ordinances related to building size in the PF-H Zone. Option two would require an amendment to both the General Plan and the Zoning Ordinance. Staff believes there is merit in both options. It is up to the applicant to decide which option they would like to pursue. This issue will need to be resolved prior to final approval.  

Mr. Snyder said parking is another issue that will need to be dealt with prior to final approval. He explained the entire MTC project was planned in anticipation of office uses on all three lots with cross access agreements for shared parking. Lot #3 is not large enough to accommodate the proposed theater building and the required parking for that building. The applicant is proposing to use a portion of Lot #2 for their remaining parking. Mr. Snyder explained that shared parking is allowed per City ordinance, as long as all the uses in the development meet their maximum number of stalls required. It appears there are a sufficient number of stalls to meet the needs of future uses. He said a parking modification can be granted in a mixed-use development, if the applicant can provide sufficient evidence that the parking will be adequate for all uses. Ordinances also allow for off-site parking, provided it is located within 500 feet of the site. The applicant will need to address such criteria with the final site plan application.

Mr. Snyder said City ordinances require a site to be entirely planned for prior to any phasing approvals. Lot #2 has not been entirely planned. The applicant has only shown the portion of the lot which is to be shared parking. The potential build out for Lot #2 is not fully understood; i.e., is there enough area for an adequate building, landscaping and parking for all uses? A stand-alone parking lot can be granted as part of a conditional use permit, once a plan for the entire site (Lot#2) is submitted. It is the applicant’s responsibility to provide these plans.

Mr. Snyder discussed the Parrish Lane Design Guidelines. The proposed theater development does not front on Parrish Lane, but is part of a larger mixed-use development that does. Therefore, the proposed theater development is subject to the Parrish Lane Design Guidelines. Mr. Snyder said there are several design standards and details that still need to be addressed with this proposed development.

Mr. Snyder explained that the initial conditional use approvals for the MTC development appear to be for Lot #1 only. Lot #2 and Lot #3 will require their own use approvals. Staff recommends the conditional use permit application be tabled for tonight and the public hearing continued. There are still several issues that need to be resolved before a conditional use permit can be granted (i.e., traffic study, parking study, building height, hours of use, etc.). Noise is another issue that may be associated with the building height and the dock area in relation to the residential use on the north.

Commissioner Palmer opened the public hearing. There was no comment. Commissioner Palmer closed the public hearing.

Steve Thacker, applicant, said they are committed to addressing each of the issues. He said they are in the mist of a comprehensive parking analysis which includes parking counts of the existing MTC parking lot as well as surrounding parking areas. This data will help support the shared parking concept. He said they will most likely ask the Commission for a parking modification as they believe the current parking standards are unreasonable. He explained the existing MTC building (80,000 square feet) has a total of 219 parking stalls (old standard) and according to their preliminary parking counts, only 140 of those stalls are regularly occupied. The current parking standard (one parking stall per 200 square feet) would require 400 stalls for a building of the same size. He said they would like to preserve more green space by diminishing the amount of needed asphalt. He also said they will be meeting with the owner of the MTC building in the near future to discuss their progress. The MTC owner will be involved with the planning processes.

Commissioner Fillmore said it seems the parking issue will most likely be dealt with a combination of shared parking and a parking modification. She questioned if a parking modification based solely on mixed-use could be granted without the need for a master plan on Lot #2.

Mr. Snyder said the applicant will most likely bring both scenarios (shared parking and modification) back for review. The applicant will likely propose an off-site option in addition to a reduction or modification to the minimum parking requirements based on the parking study. He agrees City ordinances are aggressive and is not surprised by the idea that this area may be over-parked. He explained that either scenario will require a study, an analysis, compliance with certain criteria, and the Commission will need to make certain findings before approvals can be granted. Mr. Snyder also explained that City ordinances requires an entire site to be developed at one time unless a phasing plan is approved. He said it is important to calculate the potential maximums for Lot #2 before phasing can be allowed. This will ensure that any future development can comply with City ordinances. Mr. Snyder said the applicant is planning on providing a master plan for Lot #2.

Commissioner Palmer said there is a shared parking agreement between Lot #1 and Lot #3. He asked if there is enough parking stalls on Lot #1 to meet the needs for Lot #3, thereby eliminating the need to use Lot #2. Mr. Snyder said Lot #2 will need to be used regardless.

Commissioner Pedersen asked if an agreement could be made with Zions Bank (to the south) and/or Colonial Lumber (to the east) to use their parking during the evening hours for theater patrons? He also suggested signage be posted so theater patrons are aware whether or not parking at these locations is allowed. Mr. Thacker said they intend to include these scenarios in their parking analysis.

Commissioner Fillmore said it appears the applicant will be pursuing an amendment to City ordinances to allow for a larger building in the PF-H Zone. She questioned if an amendment to the parking ordinance should be pursued at the same time.

Mr. Snyder disagreed with pursuing a parking amendment at this time. He said a parking amendment should be done on a city wide level and not because of this individual situation. A parking amendment is something that could be looked at in the future, if needed.

Commissioner Pedersen said he is uncomfortable with the amount of information that is still needed for this application. He said he understands that a conceptual approval is an overview of a project, but he feels some of these issues are significant and questioned if this application should be tabled until more information is available. He said with so little information it is possible that something may have been missed. He also said that he is excited to see this application and feels this will be a great addition to the area and the community.

Commissioner Palmer said he agrees that this application is thin, but is not inclined to table it. He questioned the applicant on the occupancy of the exiting MTC building. He asked if the parking counts will reflect a total occupancy or the current partial occupancy. He also questioned the applicant on the activity that is taking place on the site (Lot #3). He said it appears that construction has already begun.

Mr. Thacker said the current MTC building is not entirely occupied. He also said that the second MTC building is anticipated to be a multi-tenant building, which will most likely carry a higher parking need. He said all of this information will be considered and included in the parking analysis. Mr. Thacker explained they are preparing the site for construction by pre-loading the site (i.e., bringing in fill dirt). Due to ground water conditions the site needs to be compressed approximately six-inches. This will take anywhere from two (2) to four (4) months. He said these activities were approved by City staff according to City regulations. He also explained that a letter was sent to surrounding residents explaining the activity and also inviting residents to this meeting tonight.

Mr. Snyder said the conceptual plan acceptance is not a vesting application, but the more information required the more it seems that a vested right is being granted. He said Centerville’s ordinances are somewhat aggressive. The Planning Commission needs to decide if staff has provided enough information to make them comfortable in moving forward with acceptance. He said this application is heavily partnered in the public realm and is a collaborative effort including several entities. He said it is hard to get everyone on the same page at the same time. He said so far he has stayed out of the planning process so he could provide a non-biased analysis of the application. However, in the future, it may become necessary for him to become more involved.   

Commissioner Nichols questioned if a noise study should be performed with this application. Mr. Snyder said the applicant is being asked to look at the noise issue and come back with recommendations for answering those concerns. It is up to the City to decide if a noise study is pertinent.

Commissioner Nichols made a motion for the Planning Commission to accept the conceptual site plan for Lot #3 and partially on Lot #2 of the Centerville Corporate Park Subdivision, provided that the applicant addresses the following with a future final plan submittal:

Conditions:

1. The applicant shall submit a final site plan application in accordance with Section 12-21-100 of the City’s Zoning Ordinance, which shall be subsequently reviewed and approved by the Planning Commission.
2. If the black box is desired, there are two (2) options for the applicant to consider: 1) reduce the overall size of the building to 50,000 square feet; or 2) make application to amend the General Plan and Zoning Ordinances to raise the limitations or restrictions found in these documents prior to any final site plan submittal.
3. The final site plan submittal must outline the proposed site phasing plan, which must address the following:
a. The temporary stand-alone parking lot use on Lot #2 must be incorporated into the CUP review and approval that is before the Commission.
b. Phase 2 (i.e., consisting of all of Lot#2) of the final site plan submittal must conceptually depict the layout of the second phase showing:  1) the proposed maximum building footprint and floor area size of the future building; 2) the possible future parking lot layout depicting the potential number of additional parking stalls; and 3) the generalized landscaped areas. The purpose is to ensure sufficient area will be available to complete the desired development of this site.
c. This second phase likely needs to remain subject to a future final site plan review and approval by the City for the future building and any additional parking area.
d. Alternatively, the owners of Lots 2 and 3 may choose to execute a lot-line adjustment to move the line between the two lots further west to the west side of the proposed new parking lot. This option must be exercised by the entities prior to the final site plan submittal to the City. The applicant would then just need to provide the required minimum number of parking stalls for the proposed facility, as required by ordinance.
4. The final site plan submittal shall provide the following additional items:
a. Submittal of a traffic study for the project.
b. Submittal of a parking study that addresses the criteria of Section 12-52-070(b) to allow the off-site parking.
c. The applicant must address how maintenance will be performed for shared parking and access areas.
5. The final site plan submittal shall address the following items:
a. The use, placement, design and location of any desired monument or pole signs.
b. All trash enclosures are required to be screened with materials similar to the appearance of the main building. Additionally, a screening gate will be required to enclose the trash receptacle area.
c. The loading and service area along with any mechanical equipment facilities or areas on the ground or on the roof must be screened from public view of a public right-of-way.
d. A more detailed storyboard needs to be submitted with the final application depicting the material and color choices of the building.
e. Provide a final grading plan in coordination with the City Engineer to determine how storm water runoff will be managed for the site. 
6. The final site plan submittal must also address the following Parrish Lane Design Guideline standards:
a. Provide the required three (3) foot undulating berm along 400 West.
b. Placement of ornamental entryway trees at access points.
c. Provide the required stamped or colored concrete pedestrian crossings of all drive-access points.
d. The installation of the required streetscape lighting along 400 West.
e. Employ additional design efforts for the east building elevation to enhance this side of the building. Design ideas include additional building elements and/or use of building and landscaping lighting, use of streetscape amenities, and other landscaping elements to be used to enhance the appearance of the eastern elevation of the building along 400 West.
f. Provide the expected pedestrian circulation plan that is to include pathway and directional markings, lighting, and other such public amenities.
g. Provide a detailed design plan for the proposed plaza areas and public green spaces. Other design suggestions include the use of a streetscape style pole and bollard lighting in these areas and providing benches, planter boxes and other like public space features.
h. Provide the details for the parking lighting for the site that complies with design standards (Section 12-63-070). Such lighting needs to be sensitive to entry appeal of this parcel for the city. Excessive heights and overly bright fixtures would be detrimental to the image of the city and the site.
7. A detailed landscaping plan must be prepared by a licensed landscape architect and it must address the following additional items:
a. At least 15% of the project must be landscaped.
b. Provide the required 7% internal parking lot area landscaping.
c. Provide the required street trees (one for every 25 feet of street frontage), these trees may be clustered and are to be located on the inside (west) of the sidewalk/parkstrip.
d. Provide the on-site trees (one per 500 square feet of required landscaping, which is 15%).
e. Provide the required parking island trees & shrubs (one tree & two shrubs per 6 parking stalls).
f. Provide the required 30-foot buffer that complies with the fencing and tree requirements of Section 12-51-070(b).

Reasons for Action:

A. The conceptual site plan, with the issues to be addressed, would allow for proper development of the parcel with a configuration that would be in compliance with the standards of the PF-H Zone, as outlined in the January 14, 2009 Staff Report.
B. The conceptual site plan, with the issues to be addressed, would allow for proper development of the parcel with a configuration that would be in compliance with the standards of the Parrish Lane Design Guidelines as outlined in the January 14, 2009 Staff Report.
C. The conceptual site plan, with the issues to be addressed, would allow for proper development of the parcel with a configuration that would be in compliance with the relevant development ordinances of the City, as outlined in the January 14, 2009 Staff Report.

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

Commissioner Pedersen made a motion for the Planning Commission to table action and continue the public hearing regarding the conditional use permit for Lot #3 and partially on Lot #2 of the Centerville Corporate Park Subdivision. The applicant is instructed to address the items below in conjunction with a future final plan submittal for further consideration in taking action on the request:

1. A traffic and parking study is needed to ensure that the use, parking, and circulation layout functions in a shared scenario, as proposed in the conceptual submittal.
2. The facility’s hours of operation need to be better understood to establish if any noise mitigations are warranted for the protection of the residential uses to the north. Such concerns include early and late night performances, vehicle noise and lights along the north property line, and early or late hour use of the loading and service area along the north elevation.
3. As required by the Zoning Ordinance, provide a sufficient visual and noise buffer between the north side of the facility and the residential uses to the north.
4. If needed, the stand-alone parking lot of Lot #2 needs to be incorporated into the Commission’s review and approval of the conditional use permit.

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

DISCUSSION AND CONTINUATION OF PUBLIC HEARING – ZONING CODE TEXT AMENDMENT – SECTION 12-47, SHORELANDS COMMERCE PARK AND MIXED-NODE    DISTRICT ZONES AND SECTION 12-68, SHORELANDS COMMERCE PARK DISTRICT DESIGN STANDARDS - Consideration of a new special purpose zoning district proposed as Section 12-47, Shorelands Commerce Park and Mixed-Node District Zones, and its associated development guidelines proposed as Section 12-68, Shorelands Commerce Park District Design Standards in the West Centerville Neighborhood. Centerville City, Applicant.

Commissioner Nichols made a motion to table this item until the next meeting. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Fillmore and passed by unanimous vote (5-0). Commissioner Pedersen was out of the room during the time the vote was taken.

COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR’S REPORT

a. Next regularly scheduled Planning Commission meeting will be held on January 28, 2009 at 7:00 p.m.

The meeting was adjourned at 8:35 p.m.

_____________________________________  _______1-28-09_______
 Jim Palmer, Chair                                                                 Date Approved

_____________________________________
Kathleen Streadbeck, Recording Secretary