PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES OF MEETING
Wednesday, May 27, 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, arrived at 7:15 p.m.
Steve Markham
Jason Nichols
Jim Palmer, Chair
Jim Pedersen
Dianna Rasmussen
John Walton

STAFF PRESENT
Cory Snyder, Community Development Director
Brandon Toponce, Assistant Planner
Lisa Romney, City Attorney
Kathy Streadbeck, Recording Secretary 

VISITORS
Interested Citizens

OPENING COMMENT/LEGISLATIVE PRAYER Commissioner Nichols

MINUTES REVIEW AND APPROVAL

The minutes of the Planning Commission meeting held May 13, 2009 were reviewed and amended. Commissioner Rasmussen made a motion to approve the minutes as amended. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Pedersen and passed by unanimous vote (6-0).

PUBLIC HEARING – ZONING CODE TEXT AMENDMENT – CHAPTER 12-54, SIGNS, REGARDING ALTERING THE ALLOWANCES OF WALL SIGNAGE - Consideration of changes to Chapter 12-54 – Signs, regarding altering the allowances of wall signage. Hersh Ipaktchian, Iggy’s, Applicant.

Commissioner Nichols disclosed that his law firm represents the landowner. However, since the application is being filed by the tenant and the application affects the zoning code as it pertains to the entire city he does not feel it necessary to recuse himself from this matter.

Cory Snyder, Community Development Director, reported this is an application to amend the Zoning Ordinance with regard to wall signs. The General Plan indicates that wall signs or monument signs are preferred, but pole signs are also allowed. The Zoning Ordinance currently allows wall signs at a percentage: 15% on the primary wall and 5% on a secondary wall. The applicant, Iggy’s Restaurant, desires to place an additional wall sign on their building to advertise their use to other surrounding streets besides Parrish Lane and Marketplace Drive. The applicant’s building is unique in that it is located on an island parcel surrounded by streets. Mr. Snyder said there is a section in Chapter 12-80 of the Zoning Ordinance that discusses “signs by right” in commercial and industrial zones if the square footage of the sign does not exceed 32 square feet. It is not clear if the 32 square foot “sign of right” can be used in conjunction with the percentages (15/5) or instead of the percentages. As staff reviewed this application, adjusting the parameters of the Sign Ordinance as suggested in the staff report (May 27, 2009) seemed an acceptable route. Therefore, staff recommends the Sign Ordinance be amended to allow a wall sign that is 15% on the primary wall, 5% on a secondary wall and up to 32 square feet on any additional wall. This would allow a 32 square-foot sign on a third wall or 16 square feet on two walls. Staff believes the proposed amendment is consistent with the General Plan and meets the preference of wall signs. The proposed amendment is also tightly controlled as 32 square feet is relatively small.

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

Russ Mackey, Mackey Investments Centerville, LC, said staff has done a great job. He said allowing signage on all sides of the Iggy’s building is crucial to their business. He said eventually they will entertain a pole sign so the restaurant can be seen from all sides. He said they are comfortable with the proposed amendment.

Hersh Ipaktchian, applicant, said this property is unique because of its island parcel. He said if you are traveling south on the Frontage Road from Farmington you have no idea that the building is an Iggy’s. The proposed ordinance will allow them the opportunity to remedy this situation. He said any new sign will be identical to the wall signs already in place.

Commissioner Nichols suggested adding clarification to the proposed amendment so it is clear that the 32 square-feet option is in addition to the primary and secondary wall percentages. Staff concurred.

Commissioner Nichols made a motion for the Planning Commission to recommend approval of the proposal to amend the Centerville City Zoning Ordinance, Section 12-54-Signs, as identified below:
 
Section 12-54-110(b) Signs Permitted. In addition to the signs permitted in all zones, the following signs shall be allowed in the Main Street and Pages Lane Commercial Districts, subject to the conditions and restrictions set forth in this section. Such signs may include any lawful commercial or non-commercial message.

(1) Wall Sign. Wall signs are the preferred form of identification for businesses in the city. The total sign area of all such signs on a primary or main wall, facade, or building elevation facing the street shall be limited to fifteen (15) percent of the vertical wall area to which the sign is attached. The total sign area of any sign on a secondary wall or facade shall be limited to five (5) percent of the wall or facade area to which the sign is attached. [Insert following text] The total sign area of any sign on the remaining building elevations (other than the primary and secondary walls) shall not exceed a maximum combined total of 32 square feet, as set forth in Section 12-54-080 of this Chapter.

Reason for Action (findings):

a. The Commission finds that Section 12-21-080(c) authorizes any “property owner” or “authorized agent” to initiate a zone text amendment.
b. The Commission finds that the proposed changes to the Zoning Ordinance related to allowing additional wall signing is consistent with directives stated in Part 12-430 of the City General Plan, as reviewed in the May 27, 2009, Staff Report.
c. The Commission finds that additional 32 square-feet split with all remaining walls remains as a “tightly arranged and controlled” regulation, as desired by the General Plan.
d. The Commission finds that the proposed total additional maximum of 32 square-feet of wall sign already exists as “use right” of Section 12-54-080 of the City’s Zoning Ordinance.

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

HISTORIC APPROPRIATENESS REVIEW – WHITAKER MUSEUM ROOF REPLACEMENT – 168 NORTH MAIN STREET - Review the historic appropriateness of the Whitaker Museum roof replacement in accordance with Section 12-61-090, Rehabilitation Standards.  Centerville City, Applicant.

Cory Snyder, Community Development Director, reported this is an item that the Planning Commission doesn’t generally deal with. Usually, the Historic Sites Committee would deal with this type of application and would make recommendations to the Planning Commission. Currently, there is not a functioning Historic Sites Committee, so the Planning Commission is being asked to review the application and determine its appropriateness. This application does not go before the City Council. Currently, the City Council is researching the options for the Historic Sites Committee; whether it will continue, be eliminated, or enhanced. In the absence of the Historic Sites Committee, the Planning Commission will be the approving body.

Brandon Toponce, Assistant Planner, reported the funding for the proposed roof replacement was approved by the City Council on May 19, 2009. The proposed roof replacement includes the removal of the old roofing (original wood shingles and current asphalt shingles) and installation of a new cedar-wood shingle system. There will be no other work done on the building at this time. The asphalt roof, on the addition on the east of the building will not be replaced at this time. The work is to begin June 8, 2009 and should be completed in a matter of 4-5 days.

Mr. Toponce said he spoke with a representative for the Utah Heritage Foundation who explained that a cedar-wood shingle roof would have been common for a home in the 1860s. When a building on the Historic Register is altered there are certain criteria that have to be met. The use of the building is a City-historical Museum. The proposed roof replacement will not change the use of the building. It will continue to be used as a museum for Centerville City. It is suggested that repairs of historical structures be made whenever possible instead of replacement. However, given the deterioration of the asphalt shingles (about 25 years old) it is prudent to replace the roof rather than repair it. It is suggested that any replacement be done with materials that were typical of the era in which the building was built. The proposed cedar shingles were commonly used during the time the Whitaker Museum was built. In fact, the original wood shingles are still in place under the asphalt shingles. Any alteration to a historic building should maintain the look, color, and texture of the original building. The proposed cedar shingles meet these criteria. It is also suggested that a record of any alteration to a historic building be complied. Therefore, staff recommends that the process of the roof replacement be documented with several photographs (before and after) and a cut sheet of the old shingles. All documentation should be kept at the Whitaker Museum for future reference. It appears the roof replacement will enhance the building.

Commissioner Markham asked if there are any plans to inspect the structure after the roof has been removed, i.e., trusses, walls, joists, etc. to make sure the building is still in good repair.

Chair Palmer agreed that an inspection should take place. It would be unfortunate to spend the money to replace the roof and then have it collapse in the future due to structural issues. He also questioned where the materials for the project are coming from.

Melissa Hogan, Whitaker Museum, said material estimates have been obtained from a number of companies including Home Depot, Burton Lumber and Colonial Building Supply. She said the cedar shingles have been ordered from Roofers Supply in Salt Lake City and are being provided at cost. She said this has been a long process and they are ready to move forward. The roof replacement is being funded by the Utah State Historical Preservation Office and the City.  The State Historical Preservation Office provided a $3,600 grant which the City matched. This will be used for materials. The City Council also approved an additional $7,000 for labor. She said the State Historical Preservation Office has also accepted that the proposed roof replacement will not alter the Whitaker Museum’s historical registry. As part of the roof replacement, the State Historical Preservation Office is requiring the use of a new treatment that will allow the cedar shingles to “breath” correctly in our climate. She also stated that the contractor replacing the roof is also a carpenter and will be inspecting the structure once the roof is removed.

Commissioner Fillmore made a motion for the Planning Commission to approve the alteration to the Whitaker Museum located at 168 North Main Street, subject to the following conditions:

Conditions:

1. The alterations shall only be for the removal and replacement of the roofing material on the existing structure.
2. All material to be used on the new roof shall meet the requirements of the International Building Code.
3. Cedar shingles shall be used for the new roof shingle and to the greatest extent possible, shall match in color, texture and style of the original wooden shingle.
4. The Whitaker Museum Board shall produce photographs of the asphalt shingles, the removal of the asphalt shingles and the removal of the original wood shingle.  In addition, a photograph shall be produced comparing the old wooden shingle and the new shingle, side-by-side.
5. A cut board shall be created using a cut piece of the old shingle and a cut piece of the new shingle. 
6. All documentation shall be placed on file at the Whitaker Museum for historic reference.

Reasons for Action (findings):

1. Any alterations of an historic structure must be approved by the Planning Commission [Section 12-61-050(h)].
2. It has been determined the original roofing of the Whitaker Museum was a wooden shingle and that this was common for homes constructed in the 1860s [Utah Heritage Foundation (phone call), photographs by Shawn Whitaker].
3. The proposed roof change has met the standards for an alteration of an historic structure [Section 12-61-090(a-k)].
4. Upon an application for an alteration of an historic property, documentation is to take place, which may include photographs [Section 12-61-070(b)].

The motion was seconded by Commissioner Markham 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 June 10, 2009 at 7:00 p.m.
b. Upcoming Projects
 * Conditional Use Permit for a temporary use
 * Artificial Landscaping and/or Decorative Structures
 
The meeting was adjourned at 7:56 p.m.

_____________________________________  ________6-10-09__________
 Jim Palmer, Chair                                                                     Date Approved

_____________________________________
Kathleen Streadbeck, Recording Secretary