Use Type Minimum Standard Notes/Additional Standard
Public and Civic Uses
Auditorium or Stadium 0.5 spaces per one (1) seat of Each 20 inches of bench space
total seating capacity of the main shall be considered as 1 seat
assembly area
Use Type Minimum Standard Notes/Additional Standard
Commercial Uses
Office, General For buildings less than 25,000 8 spaces minimum
square feet–4.0 stalls per 1,000
sq. ft. of gross floor area
For buildings 25,000 to 100,000
square feet – 3.5 stalls per 1,000
sq. ft. of gross floor area
For buildings greater
than 100,000 square feet – 3.0 stalls
per 1,000 sq. ft. of gross floor area
Chair Palmer questioned if this amendment would be applied to businesses retroactively.
Mr. Snyder said ordinances are not applied retroactively, but existing businesses will be held to the new standard if they choose to amend their site or can take advantage of the new standard if they wish to modify their current parking situation.
Commissioner Fillmore questioned if this newly proposed standard would affect the Main Street Overlay Zone. She also asked why there is an eight (8) parking stall minimum for small offices. She feels four (4) parking stalls would be adequate for a small business and suggested modifying this requirement.
Mr. Snyder said the Main Street Overlay would modify the existing parking standards to a point. The core area of Main Street would need to meet 40% of the requirement and the periphery of the Main Street Corridor would need to meet 60% of the requirement. He also explained that the eight (8) stall minimum is the current code requirement. He said this minimum provides enough space to create an appropriate parking lot with enough room for backing and turning without having to pull-out onto an adjacent street.
Chair Palmer opened the public hearing. There was no comment. He closed the public hearing.
Commissioner Fillmore made a motion to recommend approval of the proposal to amend the Centerville City Zoning Ordinance, Table 12-52-1, Off-Street Parking Schedule, for both auditorium and office type uses, as identified in the staff report dated May 13, 2009, but changing the minimum parking stall requirement from eight (8) parking stalls to four (4) parking stalls.
The motion died for lack of a second.
Commissioner Pedersen made a motion to recommend approval of the proposal to amend the Centerville City Zoning Ordinance, Table 12-52-1, Off-Street Parking Schedule, for both auditorium and office type uses, as identified below, changing the minimum number of parking stalls required to six (6):
Use Type Minimum Standard Notes/Additional Standard
Public and Civic Uses
Auditorium or Stadium 0.5 spaces per one (1) seat of Each 20 inches of bench space
total seating capacity of the main shall be considered as 1 seat
assembly area
Use Type Minimum Standard Notes/Additional Standard
Commercial Uses
Office, General For buildings less than 25,000 6 spaces minimum
square feet–4.0 stalls per 1,000
sq. ft. of gross floor area
For buildings 25,000 to 100,000
square feet – 3.5 stalls per 1,000
sq. ft. of gross floor area
For buildings greater
than 100,000 square feet – 3.0 stalls
per 1,000 sq. ft. of gross floor area
Reasons for Action (findings):
a. Section 12-21-080.c authorizes the Planning Commission to initiate a zone text amendment.
b. The Commission finds that a “parking study” was previously performed and submitted for the Davis Cultural Arts Center, containing evidence concluding that parking demand need for both auditorium and office uses differs from current zoning regulations.
c. The Commission finds that the study’s conclusions were reviewed and endorsed by A-Trans, a traffic-consulting firm.
d. The Commission finds that ULI recommends that office uses be calculated ranging from 3.4 to 3.8 parking stalls per 1,000 square feet of office space, depending upon building sizes ranging from 24,000 to 500,000 total floor area respectively.
e. Given the evidence listed above in findings a through d, the Commission finds that the City’s current requirement of 5.0 parking stalls per 1,000 square feet appears to be excessive.
f. Section 12-52-010 indicates that provision of parking and loading is to be proportional to parking demand of a land use, thus the Commission finds that the proposed changes better reflect the parking demand of both auditorium and office type land uses.
The motion was seconded by Commissioner Fillmore and passed with a 5-2 vote. Commissioner Markham and Commissioner Nichols opposed.
Commissioner Nichols said the purpose of the amendment was to discuss parking standards for general office use and auditorium use. The minimum number of parking stalls was not researched by staff and is beyond the scope of tonight’s agenda.
PUBLIC HEARING – ZONING CODE TEXT AMENDMENT – SECTION 12-22-080, NONCONFORMITIES - Consideration of changes to Section 12-22-080, Nonconformities, changing how and when a new certificate of occupancy affects the nonconformity status. Centerville City, Applicant
Brandon Toponce, Assistant Planner, reviewed the application as written in the staff report dated May 13, 2009. It appears the current zoning language may put an economic hardship on businesses within the Industrial Zone by requiring them to come into full compliance when upgrading a nonconforming site. The proposed amendment will allow businesses within the Industrial Zone to upgrade their facility by 30% without requiring full compliance with current zoning ordinances. The proposed language still requires any business needing a new certificate of occupancy to come into full compliance. Commercially zoned properties will not be affected by the proposed change. The proposed amendment complies with the intent of the General Plan, is harmonious with surrounding properties, will not adversely affect surrounding areas and will not affect the current services within the area. Overall, staff recommends approval of the proposed text amendment.
Commissioner Nichols asked if there are only industrial uses in the west side neighborhood. He said commercial uses could use the same economic hardship argument when expanding their businesses.
Mr. Toponce said the four corners of Parrish Lane and 1250 West are zoned as commercial property. Cory Snyder, Community Development Director, explained there are no existing commercial uses in the West Side Neighborhood. There is an area intended for commercial uses along the Parrish Lane Corridor (on the west side), which falls under the Parrish Lane Guidelines. The Parrish Lane Guidelines provide more flexibility when a business chooses to expand. However, the Industrial Zone provides little to no flexibility. This proposed amendment should provide the needed flexibility for businesses wishing to expand.
Commissioner Fillmore questioned if the proposed amendment will provide too much flexibility and inhibit the City’s ability to require necessary upgrades.
Mr. Snyder said the amendment only applies to those businesses proposing to expand 30% or less and approval by the Board of Adjustment is still required. He explained the Board of Adjustment has standards of review which must be met when reviewing an application. Any industrial business wanting to expand more than 30% or who does not meet the Board of Adjustment standards will be required to come into full compliance with current regulations.
Chair Palmer opened the public hearing. There was no comment. He closed the public hearing.
John Eriksson, applicant, said they are just trying to add a small addition to the back of their building without having to install additional landscaping and a parking lot. He said the addition fits within the 30% requirement.
Commissioner Fillmore said she does not believe 30% is a small amount. This amount provides too much flexibility. She said she is concerned this change will inhibit the intent of the General Plan which encourages upgrading to current standards. She said she is hesitant to make such a sweeping change.
Commissioner Fillmore made a motion to table this issue until further discussion can take place and a better solution may be found.
The motion died for lack of a second.
Commissioner Nichols made a motion to recommend approval to the City Council for the proposed amendment to Section 12-22-080(b)(2-3) to state the following:
Section 12-22-080(b)(2)
(2) For a lot located in a commercial zone that requires the issuance of a new certificate of occupancy; or
(3) For a lot located in an industrial zone that requires the issuance of a new certificate of occupancy for a change in the occupancy use type.
Reasons for Action (findings):
1. A completed application was submitted to staff [12-21-080(d)(1)].
2. The amended text is in harmony with the General Plan [12-480-6(1), 1.D., 1.F.].
3. It does not appear as if the amended text will be detrimental to the surrounding community [12-21-080(e)(3)].
4. The proposed amendment meets the factors to be considered found in Section 12-21-080(e) of the Zoning Ordinance.
The motion was seconded by Commissioner Pedersen and passed with a 5-2 vote. Commissioner Fillmore and Commissioner Markham opposed.
PUBLIC HEARING – ZONING CODE TEXT AMENDMENT – CHAPTER 12-51, LANDSCAPING & SCREENING; AND CHAPTER 12-54, SIGNS - Consideration of changes to Chapter 12-51, Landscaping & Screening, regarding the use and regulation of artificial landscaping; and Chapter 12-54, Signs, regarding the use and regulation of signs. Centerville City, Applicant
Cory Snyder, Community Development Director, reported the City Council directed staff to prepare and address with the Planning Commission some zoning text amendments regarding the use of artificial landscaping materials and to consider any needed Sign Ordinance enhancements. This directive from the Council is asking the Commission to consider whether and what manner can artificial landscaping be used as it relates to the Zoning Ordinance. The City Council is seeking to understand the desires of the public and Commission regarding this matter prior to deciding a course, direction, or response to legal action that is pending against the City.
Staff reviewed the Sign Ordinance including the definition of signs, promotional signs, and sign permit procedures. Staff strongly supports the amendments relating to purpose, review, and regulation of the use of signs, which do clarify and enhance the current zoning regulations.
Staff reviewed the issue of artificial landscaping. Currently, there are no specific policies regarding the use, development, and design of artificial landscaping. There is also no specific policy that strictly prohibits artificial landscaping. The General Plan indicates that landscaping is an integral part of establishing needed buffers and screening between types of land uses, the mitigation of high volume traffic areas, and for reducing noise, odor, and air pollution. It is staff’s opinion that allowing and establishing the non-compulsory use and required maintenance of “artificial plants” as part of a landscaping plan does not conflict with the General Plan.
The Planning Commission is being asked to discuss artificial landscaping and decide if they are amenable to allowing such a use, and if so, what regulations should be placed on that use. What percentage should be allowed? Where should artificial landscaping be allowed? Should it have the same appearance as natural landscaping? How will it be maintained? Ultimately, staff concluded that artificial landscaping should not replace required live landscaping. Artificial plants should not be permitted in site triangles or hang over property/fence lines. Artificial plans should have a similar appearance as live landscaping. Artificial plants could be allowed as an option once the required live landscaping is met. There are many parameters that could be discussed.
Chair Palmer asked if artificial landscaping can be illuminated. Mr. Snyder said this was not addressed. Currently, landscape lighting is allowed and if artificial landscaping falls under the same regulations as landscaping, then lighting would most likely be allowed.
Commissioner Pedersen questioned how close artificial landscaping needs to look like live landscaping. He said there is no mention of color. An artificial Christmas tree looks like a real one, but may not be appropriate year round. For example, under this proposed language could an artificial tree made of metal, lighted, and painted blue be approved as artificial landscaping?
Mr. Snyder said these are all good questions that need to be discussed and possible parameters set. Under the current code seasonal decoration (lighted Christmas trees) is allowed. Current code also allows landscape lighting. The proposed text is simple in that it mentions artificial landscaping should be similar in size, texture and species. It is difficult to be more specific as staff is not fully aware of what types of artificial landscaping are currently manufactured and available.
Lisa Romney, City Attorney, explained there are difficulties in drafting an ordinance, interpreting an ordinance and enforcing an ordinance. The language of the proposed ordinance states that artificial landscaping should mimic live landscaping in many ways, all of which may require some interpretation when an actual application is filed. Lighting may be an issue that falls under the Sign Ordinance or the Landscaping Ordinance, depending on how it is depicted on a particular plan. The intent of the ordinance is to allow artificial landscaping as long as it is similar to the real thing. The ordinance is not intended to replace real landscaping or mitigate the Sign Ordinance.
Commissioner Fillmore said there seem to be a lot of holes in the language that could potentially put the City at risk (i.e., color and percentage). She said she would like to deal with this ordinance more closely, perhaps line by line in a work session.
Chair Palmer agreed there are pieces missing. He said recently, Dairy Queen came for an amended site plan and a band of neon lighting proposed for the exterior of the building was considered signage. He said he does not agree with this and feels there should be some language that discusses “décor” issues. Artificial landscaping options could also fall under a “décor” category. He also said Land Rover, a local business, has a large rock hill where they display cars. This structure, although it appears to be rock, is artificial. It is made of steel and concrete. He questioned if this is considered artificial landscaping? He also asked if the proposed language regarding artificial landscaping were approved, would it allow Dave’s Auto to re-install their illuminated palm trees.
Mr. Snyder said the current code allows 25% hard surface design. This may be how the Land Rover structure was approved. He also said that the palm trees may or may not be allowed under the proposed language. He would have to review the application against all applicable ordinances and he is not sure how that would play out. He reminded the Planning Commission that the specific directive from the City Council is to strengthen the Sign Ordinance and consider artificial landscaping. It is not to solve other design questions (i.e., neon lighting, palm trees, or other structures). There may be valid concerns with these issues, but they are not part of the directive from the City Council.
Commissioner Markham asked if artificial landscaping is considered a sign. He also asked if artificial landscaping can be illuminated and blinking at all times.
Mr. Snyder clarified that artificial landscaping will not be considered a sign under the proposed language. He also said it may be illuminated as part of the landscape design as approved by the Planning Commission. In addition, it may be lighted for holidays as allowed per code. Blinking and flashing lights are prohibited. Beyond that there are no parameters dealing with illumination. Any illumination of artificial landscaping would be reviewed by the Planning Commission as part of a landscape plan.
Commissioner Fillmore said some artificial landscape lighting may be more appropriately dealt with under the Sign Ordinance. She said the proposed language may not be strong enough to back a Planning Commission decision if they felt a particular artificial plant went beyond the scope of landscaping. Again, she suggested the Planning Commission review the proposed language more closely in a work session before moving forward.
Lisa Romney, City Attorney, said some artificial landscape lighting may not mimic live landscaping and could be interpreted as inappropriate. Landscaping plans fall under an administrative decision and the Planning Commission will want objective criteria to review when approving a landscaping plan.
Chair Palmer said it seems there is a significant amount of flexibility when interpreting the proposed language. It seems that two different Zoning Administrators could interpret some of these issues in two completely different ways. He said he does not believe that neon lighting or palm trees should be classified as signs. He said he was hoping that these issues would be taken out of the Sign Ordinance. He asked staff what problems these proposed text amendments will solve.
Mr. Snyder said if there are design issues the Planning Commission would like to discuss further, they can be added to the Planning Commission’s list of projects to accomplish. He said the proposed amendments to the Sign Ordinance are helpful in that they provide clarification and strength. As to the use and regulation of artificial landscaping, staff does not eagerly support nor oppose the proposed amendments.
Ms. Romney said the City Council directed staff to compose an ordinance that balanced a number of issues and allowed some type of artificial landscaping. If the Planning Commission feels the ordinances are too vague then staff is willing to review those issues and provide greater language. The City does not want two different Zoning Administrators to interpret issues differently. There should be enough plain language in the text to direct and provide objective, reasonable interpretation. Overall, the ordinance should be fairly black and white, but there will also be some grey areas requiring some interpretation. Artificial landscaping is something that is new and different and there will be a learning curve.
Commissioner Markham said artificial landscaping is unusual and out of the ordinary. If you want artificial landscaping, you should go to Las Vegas. He questioned if artificial landscaping is really something that Centerville wants.
Mr. Snyder said this is what the City Council is asking, what is the role of artificial landscaping in Centerville? The current ordinance states that artificial landscaping cannot replace live landscaping, but other than that there are no other parameters. He said he interpreted this to mean that artificial landscaping can be used “for fun” once the live landscaping requirements are met. The proposed ordinance takes the possibility of using artificial landscaping and assigns parameters. The Planning Commission may choose to take those parameters as written, change or enhance those parameters or simply state that no artificial landscaping is allowed. If there is some room for the use of artificial landscaping, what are the reasonable parameters?
Commissioner Pedersen asked if the Planning Commission could deny artificial landscaping that they felt was inappropriate if this ordinance is approved or could the Planning Commission ask for further information regarding an artificial landscape plan.
Mr. Snyder said it would depend on how the ordinance is written. If the ordinance allows artificial landscaping without review, then it could not be denied. If the ordinance requires Planning Commission review, then the Commission could ask for additional information.
Ms. Romney said the Planning Commission would not have enough discretion to deny an artificial landscape plan because they don’t like it. As long as the plan meets the set criteria the Planning Commission cannot deny the application.
Chair Palmer opened the public hearing.
David Irvine, Attorney at Law (representing David Bell), said the discussion has illustrated the complexity of this ordinance. He said he has read through the proposed language several times and there are still parts where he does not fully understand the intent of the language. He said he appreciates the Planning Commission’s job in dealing legislatively with issues that have a general application, i.e., are not specific to one application or property owner. He said he has spoken with the attorney representing Centerville City in the pending litigation and they (as attorneys) have agreed to hold the litigation in order to allow the City time for this legislative process. He suggested the Planning Commission table this matter until this item can be discussed more fully, hopefully, with input from himself, his client, and any others who may have an interest. He said he does not believe the City has had the appropriate opportunity to discuss this matter with interested parties and he and his client would like the opportunity to ask specific questions. He feels if this opportunity was allowed, then he and his client would be able to make more informed comments with regard to the proposed amendments. He said the issue of how a sign is defined is becoming a hot topic across the nation. He said he might be okay with the proposed amendments to the Sign Ordinance if he better understood them and if the Planning Commission were to adopt an acceptable landscape portion to the Sign Ordinance; then those concerns regarding the definition of a sign may evaporate.
Chair Palmer closed the public hearing.
Commissioner Nichols suggested dealing with the Sign Ordinance and the artificial landscape ordinance separately. It may be easier if they were dealt with one at a time. He does not believe the amendments to the Sign Ordinance are as big an issue as that of artificial landscaping.
Commissioner Markham said the Sign Ordinance has not posed too many problems in the last several years and approval of the proposed amendments could wait a little longer until the issues are discussed further. He said he is concerned that an exception is driving this general change. He agreed these ordinances should be dealt with line by line in a work session.
Commissioner Pedersen said he cannot support the proposed amendments as presented tonight. He agreed these ordinances should be dealt with more closely.
Commissioner Pedersen made a motion to table this issue to a later date when a work session can be held with interested parties and when more information may be obtained by staff regarding sign ordinances from other municipalities. The motion was seconded by Chair Palmer.
Chair Palmer said he is not a believer in one size fits all and feels that prohibiting artificial landscaping is an extreme position. He said he certainly does not want a Las Vegas strip appearance in Centerville, but he believes there is room for some type of tasteful, aesthetic artificial landscaping. He said he is in favor of tabling this issue until it can be dealt with in more detail.
Commissioner Pedersen called for a vote. The motion passed unanimously with a 7-0 vote. Commissioner Pedersen was excused from the meeting.
Chair Palmer said he does not believe that decorative lighting should be considered a sign. Chair Palmer made a motion to direct staff to research decorative lighting on and around buildings and bring back possible amendments to the Sign Ordinance in this regard. Furthermore, he suggested adding this item to the Planning Commission’s list of projects. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Fillmore and passed with a 5-1 vote. Commissioner Nichols opposed.
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR’S REPORT
a. Next regularly scheduled Planning Commission meeting will be held on May 27, 2009 at 7:00 p.m.
b. Upcoming Projects, Planning Issues, and Updates.
The meeting was adjourned at 8:50 p.m.
_____________________________________ _______5-27-09____________
Jim Palmer, Chair Date Approved
_____________________________________
Kathleen Streadbeck, Recording Secretary
