PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES OF MEETING
Wednesday, November 18, 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
Steve Markham
Jim Palmer, Chair
Jim Pedersen
Dianna Rasmussen

MEMBERS ABSENT
Scott Kjar
John Walton

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

VISITORS
Rod Rasmussen                                            Tyler Rasband
Matt Rasband                                                   Brandon Ward    
John Linton                                                       Brandon Smith   
George B. Smith, U.S. Development          Craig Widmier, U.S. Development 
Mark Green, M.C. Green & Sons                 Sherri Lyn Lindstrom, City Council Member 
James Behunin, West Bountiful Mayor     Chase Rogers, Davis County School District

OPENING COMMENT/LEGISLATIVE PRAYER Commissioner Pedersen

MINUTES REVIEW AND APPROVAL

The minutes of the Planning Commission meeting held October 28, 2009 were reviewed. Commissioner Pedersen made a motion to approve the minutes as written. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Rasmussen and passed by unanimous vote (4-0).

PUBLIC HEARING – GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT – WEST CENTERVILLE, NEIGHBORHOOD 5 – MIXED-USE COMMERCIAL/RESIDENTIAL DENSITY ALLOWANCES - Consideration of defining mixed-use commercial/residential density allowances in Section 12-480-6, Neighborhood 5, West Centerville, of the City’s General Plan.  U.S. Development, Applicant.

PUBLIC HEARING – CODE TEXT AMENDMENT – CHAPTER 12-36, TABLES OF USES ALLOWED; CHAPTER 12-41, PLANNED DEVELOPMENT OVERLAY, SECTION 12-41-060(b), USES ALLOWED - Consideration of changes to Chapter 12-36, Tables of Uses Allowed, to allow “Dwelling, multiple-family” as a commercial planned development use subject to the regulations of Chapter 12-41, Planned Development Overlay in the C-VH Zone; by amending Section 12-41-060(b), to allow mixed-use commercial/residential uses in the commercial development provisions. Centerville City, Applicant.

Cory Snyder, Community Development Director, reported the petitioner, U.S. Development, desires to develop a mixed-use commercial/residential master planned project in the Parrish-Legacy Gateway Corridor District of the West Centerville Neighborhood. The development will be known as “Legacy Crossing.” Currently, a mixed-use of both commercial and residential is not allowed, but the concept is supported by the West Centerville Plan. In order to accomplish their vision, the petitioner is seeking a General Plan amendment and two Zoning Code text amendments as outlined in the staff report dated November 18, 2009. The petitioner believes the proposed development will provide a unique live-work opportunity and each component will make the other more viable. It is also noted that the proposal will provide affordable housing and close proximity to several commuting options is a benefit. 

Mr. Snyder reviewed the proposed text amendments to the General Plan as submitted by the petitioner. The petitioner suggests a 15-unit per acre gross density maximum for the proposed development. Mr. Snyder explained the difference between gross density and net density, stating there are developments within the city that fall within the proposed gross density of 15-units per acre. Staff encouraged the Planning Commission to allow enough density in order to create a new neighborhood. Staff believes the proposed 15-units per acre will accomplish that goal.

Mr. Snyder reviewed the proposed text amendments to the Zoning Code as submitted by the petitioner. The proposed text changes are associated with the Planned Development Overlay Zone (PDO) which will be required for this development. To date, the City has only approved a PDO for residential developments, these changes will allow for a commercial PDO. This will increase the overall look and amenities of the proposed project. It will also require the project to be built around the commercial components with appropriate connections to residential. Staff feels the proposed text changes are appropriate but too specific for an ordinance that may apply to more than just this one development. Staff recommends some changes to the Table of Uses to maintain consistency. Overall, staff is supportive of the proposed text changes to the General Plan and the Zoning Code.

Craig Widmier, U.S. Development, reported they have conducted numerous studies and found that the proposed project, including the Megaplex Theater, will be viable in this area. He said this is a great opportunity to provide housing and amenities to the community. Parrish Lane is close to several commuting options (I-15, Legacy Parkway, and Frontrunner) and is a good location for housing. There are little to no surrounding neighborhoods, so the impact of the proposed project will be minimal. He explained that no buildings, including loading docks, will be built along any shared property lines in order to maintain appropriate buffers. The housing is proposed for the northwest corner, closest to Parrish Lane. The development will include walkable pedestrian accesses throughout both the commercial and residential zones. The intent is to make this a gateway to the city. He showed renderings of the proposed theater building, apartment buildings, family entertainment building, and retail pad, explaining that a mixed commercial/residential development can work cohesively.

Commissioner Pedersen said the Gateway 8, a movie theater in Bountiful, just went out of business. He questioned why U.S. Development feels this movie theater will be successful. He also asked if the apartments will be owner occupied or rental.

George Smith, U.S. Development, said a zip code analysis of movie tickets was done and it shows the proposed theater will be viable. The proposed theater will pull viewers from both Salt Lake and Ogden theaters, but there is still enough patronage to sustain businesses throughout. Larry H. Miller Corporation is the entity involved with the proposed theater and they are confident it will be feasible. The proposed family entertainment center is Fat Cats, which includes bowling, miniature golf, arcade, restaurants, and more. He also explained that the apartments will be rental only, and will be managed by a corporation.

Chair Palmer opened the public hearing.

Sherri Lindstrom, City Council member, said she would like to know which school the children of the proposed housing will attend and how they will get there. She also questioned how the proposed development may affect surrounding property values. She said she does not have any issues with the proposed concept and feels the plan may be appropriate for this area. 

Chase Rogers, Davis County School District Operational Planner, said he has been studying the proposed project and there is a potential of 50-90 elementary age students that may be generated by this project. He said he is still unsure as to which school these students would attend, but explained the District can handle this number of students. Junior high school students would attend Centerville Junior High. All students from this development would need to be bused.   

Mark Green, M.C. Green & Sons, owns a neighboring property/business to the south. He said he does have some site specific concerns, but is supportive of the project. He is not opposed to the proposed General Plan and Zoning Code amendments. He said he has also not heard any complaints or negative comments from other surrounding neighbors. He does feel the density should be appropriate to make the project viable.

Mayor Behunin, West Bountiful, said he thought the vision for West Centerville was commercial and industrial, not residential. He said residential is incongruent with the surrounding industrial areas. This does not seem an ideal place for people to live. He said West Bountiful neighborhoods are closer to this area than Centerville neighborhoods and he feels anyone who may reside in this development will feel isolated from Centerville City. They will not feel a part of the community. He is concerned with the impact this development will have on West Bountiful’s schools, churches, traffic, and parks. He said cities need to be drawing in high-salary employers and he thought this was the ideal place for that, not for residential.
Sherri Lindstrom, City Council member, said dwellings are on the verge of changing. The proposed development will bring new concepts to Centerville. She said not all people want owner-occupied homes. There are many who need quick access to commuting options and many who need an easily dispensable home, if careers demand for quick change. This proposal will provide both.

Chair Palmer closed the public hearing.

Mr. Snyder said surrounding property values tend to increase with development. The proposed site for this development is vacant and staff is confident that any development will increase the property value of surrounding businesses. He said Trinity Steel (business to the south) is unique and the proposed development will not change the use or value of that property.

Commissioner Fillmore made a motion for the Planning Commission to recommend approval of the proposal to amend the Centerville City General Plan, as follows:

1. Amend Section 12-480-6, West Centerville Neighborhood Plan, Parrish-Legacy Gateway Corridor District, as follows:

“Goal 2, Objective: 2.C. – Consider limiting permitted land uses of the gateway corridor to small local area type commercial, mixed commercial / residential, and conditional uses for larger retail commercial serving the South Davis area. The residential component shall not exceed twelve (12) units per acre when calculating the entire master planned area.”

The motion failed for lack of a second.

Commissioner Pedersen made a motion to for the Planning Commission to recommend approval of the proposal to amend the Centerville City General Plan, as follows:

1. Amend Section 12-480-6, West Centerville Neighborhood Plan, Parrish-Legacy Gateway Corridor District, as follows:

“Goal 2, Objective: 2.C. – Consider limiting permitted land uses of the gateway corridor to small local area type commercial, mixed commercial / residential, and conditional uses for larger retail commercial serving the South Davis area. The residential component shall not exceed fifteen (15) units per acre when calculating the entire master planned area.”

Findings/Reasons for Action:

a. A decision to amend the General Plan is a matter within the legislative discretion of the City Council as described in Section 12-21-060(a) of the Zoning Ordinance.
b. The Commission finds that the request for allowing mixed commercial/residential development does not conflict with the future goals of development and build out of the West Centerville Neighborhood.
c. The Commission finds that the current provisions of the West Centerville Plan do support the concept of allowing mixed commercial/residential developments (see Section 12-480-6, Objective 3.B).
d. The Commission finds that allowing a residential component to the Parrish-Legacy Gateway Corridor would still support the Commerce Park, as well as provide a closer social connection to other city residents.
e. The Commission finds that if residential is allowed, it must be at a significant quantity and quality to actually create a new viable residential neighborhood.
f. The Commission finds that the request for fifteen (15) units per acre gross density seems reasonable in order to create such a neighborhood. A significant lower-density allowance would likely create a less desirable or even unstable residential area within the West Centerville Neighborhood.

The motion was seconded by Commissioner Rasmussen.

Commissioner Fillmore said numbers in the open market say there should be 60% single-family, 26% apartments, and 14% townhomes/duplexes. Centerville currently has 80%, 1%, and 20%, respectively. The proposed development will change those percentages to 75%, 6%, and 19% for Centerville. She agreed there is a need for this type of housing in Centerville, but feels the proposed 15-units per acre may be too great. She asked if the Planning Commission has any hesitation with regard to density. She said the proposed development doesn’t actually need the entire 15-units per acre to make this concept work, so is it necessary to allow this maximum density. 

Mr. Snyder said this density will only apply to the Parrish-Legacy Gateway Corridor District, not the entire West Centerville Neighborhood. Any other C-VH Zone within the city would be subject to the commercial planned area standards and the density cap that is already set for the district in which that C-VH Zone is located. The proposed development (Legacy Crossing) may not require the entire 15-units per acre, but a General Plan amendment should not be specific to one site plan. However, the General Plan density should be set at a level that can create a new neighborhood. Staff feels 15-units per acre is a reasonable request.

Commissioner Markham said he is excited about the possibility of a movie theater in Centerville. He said these types of developments seem to be well utilized and he feels it will be a benefit to the city. He did express concern with the walkablity of the Parrish Lane overpass. He said there will be some kids who choose to walk to/from school and he is concerned about safety.

Commissioner Fillmore asked if there are any plans for an east/west pedestrian access across I-15. She also asked if this development would increase Centerville’s chances for such an access. Mr. Snyder said he is not aware of any plans for a pedestrian access. He said this would be a costly project and he is not sure if UDOT would be willing to take on such a project.
 
Chair Palmer called for a vote on Commissioner Pedersen’s motion. The motion passed with a unanimous vote (5-0).

Commissioner Pedersen made a motion for the Planning Commission to recommend approval of the proposal to amend the Centerville City Zoning Ordinance, as follows:

Text Amendment #1 – Section 12-41-060:
(b) Commercial Planned Developments. Planned developments to be established on land designated for commercial and mixed commercial / residential district in the City’s General Plan shall be considered “commercial planned developments.” Any commercial or industrial use shown on the Table of Uses Allowed in Chapter 12-36 of this Title shall be permitted in a commercial planned development provided such uses are:

(1) Specifically authorized as part of a site plan approved pursuant to the provision of the Chapter; and
(2) Designed as an integral element of the planned development, including building and landscape design which is consistent with design elements of the development.
(3) Residential uses shall only be established in conjunction with other industrial, office, and supportive commercial type uses within the established mixed commercial / residential districts.
(4) The maximum overall residential density for development of property designated in the approved mixed commercial / residential districts shall be subject to the  specific stipulations allowed by the District and/or Zone Designation assigned by the City’s General Plan or Zoning Ordinance .

Text Amendment #2 - Chapter 12-36-Table of Uses/C-VH Zone:

1. Allow multi-family dwellings in the Table of Uses for the C-VH Zone by inserting the following language – “Subject to Section 12-41-060(b) for Commercial Planned Developments.”

Findings/Reasons for Action:

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 text change remains consistent to the goals and objectives of the General Plan, as reviewed and considered in the November 18, 2009 Staff Report. 
c. The Commission finds that the proposed amendment does comply with the review criteria found in Section 12-21-080(e) of the Zoning Ordinance, as reviewed and considered in the November 18, 2009 Staff Report.
d. The Commission finds that by integrating multi-family housing with the commercial retail and entertainment, the amendment provides live work opportunities where people can live and work in their same area, ideally within walking distance.
e. The Commission finds that providing housing in the master planned commercial development increases the viability of commercial businesses by providing a greater population within walking distance that would support the commercial investment.
f. The Commission finds that affordable housing is of great importance in today’s economy and the allowing of multi-family, as part of mixed commercial project, can provide this needed housing type without disrupting traditional residential neighborhoods of Centerville City.   
g. The Commission finds that providing housing in a master-planned commercial development will give many individuals who are beginning their professional careers the opportunity to reside in Centerville. 

Motion was seconded by Commissioner Markham and passed with a unanimous vote (5-0).

PUBLIC HEARING – CONCEPTUAL SITE PLAN AND CONCEPTUAL SUBDIVISION – LEGACY CROSSING – APPROXIMATELY 300 NORTH 1250 WEST - Consideration of conceptual site plan and conceptual subdivision for a new mixed-use commercial/multi-family development on property located at approximately 300 North 1250 West; which includes:  C-VH, I-H and I-VH zoned properties.  U.S. Development, Applicant.

Brandon Toponce, Assistant Planner, reported the applicant, U.S. Development, desires to develop a mixed-use commercial/residential master-planned project in the Parrish-Legacy Gateway Corridor District, to be known as Legacy Crossings. Mr. Toponce reviewed the application as outlined in the staff report dated November 18, 2009. He explained this is the first of several applications and approvals that will be required for this development. He reviewed the conceptual plan for both the commercial and residential areas of the development, highlighting a number of issues. The residential apartments show twenty-four (24) units per building. A maximum of twelve (12) units per building is allowed. Each building will need to be split or diminished. Building heights will also need to be addressed. A traffic study will need to be conducted. Many details will need to be called out and addressed for the entire site prior to final site plan approval, including parking, screening, landscape, signage, circulation, connectivity, etc. The proposed development is subject to the Parrish Lane Gateway Design Standards and increased architecture, landscaping, and amenities will be required. Staff recommends benches, tables, and chairs in the plaza area, and picnic tables in the residential playground area. Staff also recommends the buildings share similar architecture of natural materials, and earth tones. The proposed access road into the development (200 North), will be required to adhere to specific streetscape standards. There are some concerns about snow removal and the applicant will need to work with the Public Works Department in this regard. The applicant will also need to work with the City Engineer to work out a number of issues as outlined in the staff report.

Mr. Toponce said the applicant is also seeking conceptual subdivision approval at this time. The applicant will need to submit a detailed plat showing each area of the development prior to final subdivision approval. Any phasing will also need to be called out. The applicant will need to obtain the appropriate utility provider sheets showing there are adequate utilities to the site. There are water issues that still need to be resolved (undersized water lines) and the applicant will need to work to fix these issues. The applicant will also need to enter into a development agreement with the City and establish appropriate CC&Rs for the development. Overall, staff recommends approval of both the conceptual site plan and the conceptual subdivision.
 
Craig Widmier, U.S. Development, said the intent is to create a master-planned project with both commercial and residential uses. He said the color, architecture, and building relief (horizontal/vertical stepping) will be similar throughout the project. They also intend to incorporate some of the Legacy Parkway design elements. The main objective is to make this development a gateway to the city. Residents will be able to walk easily among amenities and will also have a space to call their own, i.e., swimming pool, club house, playground, etc. This will be a place where people can live, work, play, and commute. He said the proposed density is appropriate for a project of this size and scale. The development will be a good neighbor and will add value to surrounding properties. He said the central Davis area is one of the last viable areas for this type of housing. There is a need.

Commissioner Pedersen asked the applicant if there are any pole signs planned for the development. He asked what the plans are for buffering the shared southern property line. He asked what makes an apartment “Class A” and said he would like to see more information regarding classifications. He also asked if the applicant is willing to maintain these buildings if the project proves unfeasible once developed.

Commissioner Rasmussen encouraged the applicant to provide landscaping and shade around the playground and picnic areas. She also asked for clarification on the size of the proposed apartments.

George Smith, U.S. Development, said there is a tall sign proposed for the movie theater. It is not a stand-alone pole sign, but is part of the building.  He said the south property line buffer will include a berm, fencing, and trees. They also intend to provide adequate access on 200 North for M.C. Green & Sons (south neighbor). He said a “Class A” apartment has higher ceilings and doorways. It also has upgraded cabinets, countertops, and carpeting. He said he would provide more information on apartment classifications to the Planning Commission in the future. He also assured the Planning Commission that they will provide any necessary agreements with regard to maintenance of the site and buildings. Mr. Smith said they will address shade issues when planning landscaping. He also reviewed the square footage of each size apartment and the number of bedrooms and bathrooms for each unit.

Chair Palmer opened the public hearing.

Mark Green, M.C. Green & Sons, said he has been at his current location for 32 years. He said 200 North is his legal right-of-way for access to his site. He has heavy trucks and equipment accessing his site daily from this road. He wants to make sure the proposed development maintains his right to this access. He said he needs to be able to get a semi-truck and trailer with a wide load up and down this road. He said there is a road to the south of his site (75 North) which he also uses, but it is a private drive that he is able to use due to the generosity of the neighboring property owner. He does not have a legal right-of-way to this road. The 200 North access must be maintained. Mr. Green said U.S. Development is aware of this issue, and is working with him to come to a conclusion. Mr. Green also said that the majority of traffic generated by his business happens between 4:00 a.m. and 12:00 p.m.

Sherri Lindstrom, City Council member, said in 2002 Centerville started on a journey of making the community more walkable by incorporating trails wherever possible. She said it is important to provide a pedestrian friendly atmosphere and encouraged the applicant to install wide walkways where at least two individuals with strollers could walk side by side. She also cautioned the applicant to do whatever possible to diminish radiant heat. It is important not to over-park, and to cool with landscaping, any hard surface areas. She feels the pedestrian connectivity and amenities could be increased. Ms. Lindstrom said M.C. Green & Sons, among other businesses, have been in Centerville for a long time and have provided great benefits to the community. Many of these businesses have slowly been inched out by new development. She said it is important to maintain these businesses by providing the necessary elements to sustain a successful business.

Chair Palmer closed the public hearing.

Commissioner Pedersen expressed concern about residents who may complain about the noise from Mr. Green’s trucks if they run at 4:00 a.m. He asked Mr. Smith if they are concerned about noise.

Mr. Smith assured Mr. Green that they will address his concerns and that he (Mr. Green) will be a part of the site plan development. Mr. Smith said they are planning to install better windows and insulation to reduce the noise impact. He said Mr. Green was here first and any resident looking to locate within this development will be given full disclosure. Mr. Smith said he does not believe the noise will be a big issue. There is also a substantial buffer between the residential units and 200 North.

 Commissioner Fillmore asked if the City would be vulnerable to lawsuits if such a project were approved. She said the current Silver Eagle Refinery explosion has produced threat of lawsuits because individuals feel the homes that were built in the vicinity should never have been allowed by the city.

Lisa Romney, City Attorney, said part of this process is to look at compatibility issues and whether residential is compatible with the surrounding uses in this area. She feels this issue has been discussed. The approval of this development will also include a PDO process which requires greater buffers for residential uses.

Commissioner Fillmore suggested adding a condition to the motion which would require appropriate access for M.C. Green & Sons. She also said she would like to discuss the possibility of limiting the amount of parking, since it appears the development is over-parked.

Cory Snyder, Community Development Director, said a traffic study will be required. This study will help determine the capacity needed for appropriate access on 200 North. He assured the Commission that this issue will be addressed throughout the approval processes for this development. Mr. Snyder said he does not advise setting parking caps. He does not believe City ordinance allows the Commission to address parking caps at this point. There is a minimum parking standard, but there is no maximum. In order to restrict parking, a negative impact needs to be identified. Parking amounts are controlled by percentage requirements. Once an applicant has met the needed percentages for landscaping, streetscape, and other design standards, they can then set their desired parking. If there is more room for parking, most applicants will increase or even double the minimum requirement. Generally, this is necessary for a business to be successful. However, if a proposed development is over-parked and they do not meet all the other applicable standards, then an adjustment could be required.

Commissioner Pedersen made a motion for the Planning Commission to accept the conceptual site plan for the Legacy Crossing to be located at the corner of Parrish Lane and 1250 West, with the following conditions:

Submittal of Required Applications
1. The applicant shall receive a General Plan amendment and Zoning Ordinance amendment to allow the proposed use to move forth from the City Council.
2. The applicant shall apply for a Zone Map amendment in order to change the zoning for the southeast corner to be zoned from Industrial-High/Industrial-Very High (I-H/I-VH) to Commercial-Very High (C-VH).
3. The applicant shall submit a conditional use permit meeting the standards found in Section 12-21-100 of the Ordinance for the increased height of the Megaplex Theater and the use of retail within the C-VH Zone.
4. An application for a Planned Development Overlay (PDO) following the criteria of Chapter 12-41 shall be submitted at the time of the final site plan application.
5. The applicant shall submit a final site plan application meeting the standards found in Section 12-21-110(e) of the Ordinance.

Conditional Use Permit
6. An economic feasibility study shall be submitted.
7. Information regarding the height of all buildings including commercial, residential and entertainment shall be submitted.
8. A traffic study shall be completed which includes information on the impacts to Parrish Lane, 1250 West, 200 North and access to all commercial and residential buildings.
9. Additional access for the residential community shall be provided and exact location shall be subject to review of the traffic study.

Planned Development Overlay
10. The following information shall be addressed in relation to the PDO application:
a. Commercial and residential shall be designed as an intrical element in design of landscaping and architectural design.
b. Common areas shall be freely accessible to those living throughout the development and shall convey a sense of openness.
c. The perimeter setback of the entire development shall be followed in relation to development within the C-VH Zone and follow Table 12-34-1.
d. All streets, sidewalks, curb and gutter, drainage, irrigation, lighting and other improvements shall be completed for development.
e. Reconfigure all apartment buildings in order to maintain no more than twelve (12) units per building.
f. All common areas must remain as common open space and be protected from development, which shall be found within the Development Agreement.
g. A Development Agreement must be submitted as part of the PDO process to be reviewed by City Staff and the City Attorney.

Final Site Plan Application
11. No fencing shall be found throughout the development except for perimeter fencing that may be applicable.
12. All parking stalls must meet the City criteria found in Section 12-52-2 of the Ordinance, which includes drive isle widths of twenty-five (25) feet and parking stall dimensions of 9’ x 18’.
13. If the applicant desires any parking modifications this shall be done meeting the criteria found in Section 12-52-110.
14. A signage plan shall be submitted with the final site plan application, following the criteria found in Chapter 12-54 and depict the following: wall signs, monument signs and pole signs.

Landscaping Plan as Part of the Final Site Plan Application
15. A landscaping plan shall be created following the criteria of Chapter 12-51 and be stamped by a licensed landscape architect for the entire site and submitted for review by City staff at the time of final site plan submittal. Staff suggests separating the landscaping plans into commercial and residential.  The landscaping plans shall include the following:
a. Percentage of overall landscaping and a percentage of the parking lot landscaping.
b. All vegetation types and location to be planted.
c. Decorative rock and gravel-themed elements throughout the property.
d. 50% of the building’s foundations shall be landscaped.
e. Applicant shall work with the City in creating an enhanced entryway landscaping theme on the corner of 1250 West and Parrish Lane.
f. Themed landscaping throughout the development using elements from the Legacy Parkway preserve, ornamental grasses, drought tolerant plantings, cobble or other decorative rock. 
g. Ground cover and trees that match the soil type.
h. Ornamental trees shall be located at the entrance for commercial and residential with access off of 200 North and 1250 West.
i. Streetscape standards shall include vegetation and possibly other design styles to match the Legacy Parkway ideas.
j. Landscaping within the plaza shall be increased, examples may include shade trees, flower gardens, planters and hanging baskets.
k. The large open spaces within the apartment complex shall be designed to have a park appearance, with grass shade trees, shrubs and other vegetation to enhance the comfort of those living in the community.
l. Plantings for 200 North shall match the design ideas found on the site plan with trees and vegetation on the south and north sides, down the center and in the round about.  The applicant shall work with the Public Works Director when designing this area for proper snow removal.
m. Irrigation plan for both the commercial and residential portions of the property.

Screening Criteria as part of the Landscaping Plan
16. Proper screening shall take place on all commercial and residential buildings following the criteria in Chapter 12-51.  This screening shall include all wall and roof-mounted equipment being screened from view.
17. Dumpsters for the commercial and residential properties shall be designed as to not be placed in locations that are in the way of parking stalls; shall be convenient for residents; shall be constructed as to completely screen the dumpster and match in similar style to the rest of the buildings.

Parrish Lane Guidelines to be submitted with the Final Site Plan Application
18. The Legacy Crossing site shall address the following Parrish Lane Guidelines as part of the final site plan submittal:
a. Extra attention must be placed on the architecture of the buildings.
b. A storyboard indicating the material and exact colors being used for the exterior of the building shall be submitted.
c. Each building shall be stepped horizontally and vertically.
d. The front entrance of all buildings shall be connected to a public sidewalk.
e. All commercial and residential buildings shall be interconnected to one another through the use of sidewalk, pathways, trails etc.
f. Emphasis shall be placed on the pedestrian.
g. All pedestrian and vehicular crossing shall be designed as to indicate a pedestrian crossing using colored stamped concrete meeting the requirements of the City standards.
h. It is strongly encouraged that the plaza between the movie theater and entertainment complex be enlarged.  In addition, benches, tables and chairs, a water feature and increased landscaping be integrated as part of the plaza amenity.
i. Staff suggests picnic tables be placed within the residential open space, especially near the children’s play area.
j. It is suggested that the commercial and residential buildings have more earth tones and take upon the architectural themes of the Shorelands Commerce Park (criteria found in Chapter 12-68), the Legacy Parkway and elements and lines from the natural environment.
k. Building material should be natural using rock, brick wood or other similar material such as hardy board.  It is strongly suggested the use of stucco be minimal, even eliminated.
l. Required upgrading shall be depicted on the primary wall at 25%, secondary wall 15% and all other walls 5%.
m. A lighting plan shall be submitted indicating that all lighting is facing downward and not shining into adjacent properties or in the windows of the residential community.
n. It is encouraged that the building lighting, pedestrian lighting and parking lot lighting have a theme in design.
o. Applicant shall work with the Public Works Director in regard to proper street lighting along 200 North and 1250 West.
p. The idea of a pondless water feature should be addressed for the front of the club house for the residential community.

Engineering Concerns
19. The applicant shall work closely with the City Engineer in regard to the following concerns:
a. Storm drainage runoff and detention.
b. Ground water levels.
c. Culinary water supply and fire protection.
d. On and off site improvements.
e. Grading, soils and any other environmental reports and clearances.
f. Information regarding the additional fill found on the southeast corner of the property.
g. Traffic study analysis including the additional access to all commercial and residential lots.
h. Detailed information on the street improvements of 200 North.

Findings/Reasons for Action:

Zoning Ordinance Title 12
1. The applicant has clearly shown how the property may be developed [Section 12-21-110(d)(2)].
2. The applicant has submitted a full application [Section 12-21-110(d)(1)].
3. Indoor recreation is allowed within the C-VH Zone [Chapter 12-36].
4. General retail is allowed within the C-VH Zone with a conditional use permit [Chapter 12-36].
5. A Planned Development Overlay would allow mixed-use such as commercial and residential [Chapter 12-41].
6. All public infrastructure must be completed as part of the development [Section 12-41-100(f)].
7. Setbacks for the perimeter of the project must meet Table 12-34-1 of the Ordinance [Section 12-41-100(i)].
8. No more than 12 units per building is allowed [Section 12-41-100(h)(4)].
9. Common open space shall remain open and undeveloped as part of the development agreement [Section 12-41-110(a)].
10. Conditional use permit required for additional height above 45 feet in the C-VH Zone [Section 12-34-080(a)].
11. All parking stalls and drive isles are subject to the City standards found in Table 12-52-2.
12. All landscaping requirements shall be met and satisfied meeting the criteria of Chapter 12-51.
13. Legacy Crossing is part of the Parrish Lane Gateway [Section 12-63-020(b)].
14. Applicant must meet all applicable standards for the Parrish Lane Guidelines found in Chapter 12-63 of the Ordinance.

General Plan
15. Economic viability is encouraged by the General Plan for the West Side [Section 12-480-6(1)].
16. The corner of 1250 West and Parrish Lane is indicated as part of the Parrish-Legacy Gateway corridor district [Section 12-480-6(2)].
17. Signage must meet the goal of the General Plan by ensuring that signage is compatible and makes a visual contribution to the Parrish Legacy Gateway District [Section 12-480-6(2)(H)].

The motion was seconded by Commissioner Markham and passed with a unanimous vote (5-0).

Chair Palmer made a motion for the Planning Commission to accept the conceptual subdivision plan for the Legacy Crossing to be located at corner of Parrish Lane and 1250 West, with the following conditions:

Conditions:

1. Information regarding all phasing of lots shall be submitted to staff with the preliminary application.
2. Plat information indicating lot sizes and dimensions shall be submitted for review with the preliminary application.
3. Work with the Public Works Director in regard to: adequate snow removal of 200 North and proposed planning and maintenance of the UDOT-owned street of 200 North.
4. Adequate drainage and detention shall be indicated and reviewed by the City Engineer.
5. The City Engineer prefers detention on the northwest corner.
6. Information regarding adequate utilities shall be provided.
7. The applicant shall work with all affected utility companies in providing adequate usage to the residents and business of the project.
8. The applicant shall work with the City Engineer in regard to culinary water, adequate fire flow and on and offsite improvements.
9. The subdivision is subject to all applicable criteria and approvals related to the PDO application. 
10. All infrastructure must meet City standards.
11. The applicant shall create CC&Rs for the residential community and have them submitted to the City for review with the development agreement.
12. An open space easement shall be granted on all common area within the residential community for public utilities.
13. The applicant shall submit an application for the related preliminary and final subdivision approvals.

Findings/Reasons for Action:

Subdivision Ordinance Title 15
1. Complete conceptual subdivision application has been submitted [Section 15-2-102].
2. The subdivision is required to meet all applicable requirements for all subdivisions found in Section 15-5-101.
3. The layout of each lot is required to show detailed information [Section 15-5-102].
4. The applicant must work with the City in regard to street and related improvements [Section 15-5-103-106].
5. The applicant will be required to meet the standards for a noncommercial subdivision and a residential planned development [Chapter 15-6].
6. The applicant shall submit an application for preliminary subdivision [Section 15-2-106].

The motion was seconded by Commissioner Fillmore and passed unanimously (5-0).

PUBLIC HEARING – CODE TEXT AMENDMENT – CHAPTER 12-51, LANDSCAPING & SCREENING – CREATING VARIOUS DISTRICTS - Consideration of additional changes to Chapter 12-51, Landscaping & Screening, by creating various districts and their associated development standards for the use of artificial landscaping. Centerville City, Applicant.

Cory Snyder, Community Development Director, reported the City Council recently adopted the recommendations made by the Planning Commission regarding the use of artificial landscaping and clarifications to the sign regulations. However, at the same time, the Council also directed staff and the Planning Commission to consider establishing various districts with differing standards for each district and to address the setbacks. The Council felt the Frontage Road may warrant some leniency as it has different aesthetic circumstances from other areas of the city. Staff has proposed some language which would incorporate this idea. Essentially the changes would create three (3) districts in relation to artificial landscaping; Parrish Lane District, South Main Street District, and the Frontage Road District. All other areas of the city would follow the text already adopted by the City Council. The Parrish Lane District would prohibit any artificial landscaping. The South Main Street District would reduce the percentage allowed to 5%. The Frontage Road District would increase the percentage allowed to 25%, eliminate the color statement, and allow internal lighting. Under these standards Dave Bell’s palm trees would be allowed in their original form.

Chair Palmer opened the public hearing. Seeing no one wishing to comment, he closed public hearing.

Commissioner Fillmore said she likes the idea of districts. She asked staff to clarify their reasoning for the setbacks for each district. She also asked if there is a maximum height standard.

Mr. Snyder said there is a maximum height standard of twenty-five (25) feet for artificial landscaping. He said all structures within the city require some type of setback. Staff felt a setback would be appropriate for artificial landscaping as well. Most importantly staff did not want any artificial landscaping to encroach onto neighboring properties. The South Main Street District requires a minimum setback of three (3) feet from any property line. If the artificial plant is taller than three (3) feet, then the setback must equal the height. For the Frontage Road District the setback minimum is ten (10) feet.

Lisa Romney, City Attorney, said the Frontage Road District setback is different because this area of the city allows pole signs. There is already a minimum 10-foot frontage setback in this area. The proposed 10-foot setback for artificial landscaping is in addition to that frontage. Staff felt this would keep live landscaping in front of artificial landscaping. The proposed setback seemed reasonable given the sign requirements and adjacent uses.

Commissioner Fillmore said the Frontage Road District should be less restrictive and the 10-foot setback seems more restrictive. She suggested the 3-foot minimum setback, as allowed in the South Main Street District, also be allowed in the Frontage Road District, i.e., the setback distance shall equal the height of the artificial landscape if under 10 feet. Once the 10-foot setback is met, then the artificial landscaping can reach the maximum height of 25 feet.

Commissioner Markham said he is disappointed with the City Council. He said the Planning Commission has been clear with their recommendations on artificial landscaping. This issue keeps returning because the City is allowing one person, with the money to sue, to bully his way into getting what he wants. This is offensive. The palm trees were installed without appropriate approvals to draw attention to one individual’s business. This was in violation of the Sign Ordinance. He said this ordinance is being written around this one individual, and this one exception is driving the general rule. This is wrong. He feels the trees are hokey and self-serving and open the door to future hokey artificial landscaping. He said artificial palm trees do not fit in Centerville and should not be allowed. The Frontage Road may be different from other areas of the city, but it is still as much of a gateway to the city as Parrish Lane. Allowing the palm trees promotes visual clutter. He said the previous recommendation from the Planning Commission was appropriate and he feels the City Council should stand up to this individual. He feels staff has been put in a tough position and believes this is a sad commentary on the City Council.
Commissioner Fillmore said planning decisions should be made with the community as a whole in mind. She said she likes the idea of creating districts and is in favor of providing more flexibility on the Frontage Road with regard to percentages, height, and setback. She does not agree with internal illumination or colored artificial landscaping. She feels the City already has a generous Sign Ordinance and color and illumination constitute a sign.

Commissioner Fillmore made a motion for the Planning Commission to recommend approval of the proposal to amend the Centerville City Zoning Ordinance regarding Chapter 12-51, Landscaping and Screening, per the staff’s proposed edits found in the staff report dated November 18, 2009 with the following changes:

1. Section 12-51-082(c)(1) shall read:

Artificial plants shall mimic the look, texture and color of the genus or species that it is intended to represent, including branches, stems, leaves, trunk and canopy size, as applicable.

2. Section 12-51-082(c)(2) shall read:

Artificial plants shall not be illuminated or outlined with attached external illumination devices, except however, such plants may be illuminated with typical detached landscaping lights or attached holiday lighting as allowed and/or approved with other applicable regulations of this Title.

3. Section 12-51-082(c)(5) shall read:

In addition to other setback or frontage restrictions set forth in this Chapter, artificial plants shall be set back a minimum of three (3) feet from any property line and artificial plants that are taller than three (3) feet shall be set back a minimum distance from any property line equal to at least the height of the artificial plant. Once artificial plants are setback a minimum of ten (10) feet, the maximum height may be allowed. No artificial plants or landscaping shall be installed in such a way as to hang over or encroach onto adjacent property and public rights-of-way. Artificial plants and landscaping shall be prohibited within parkstrips and within a certain distance from any public rights-of-way as more particularly set forth in Section 12-51-070.
 
Findings/Reasons for Action:
a. Section 12-21-080(c) authorizes the City Council to initiate a zone text amendment.
b. The Commission finds that there are no specific General Plan policies regarding the use, development, and design of artificial landscaping.
c. The Commission finds that the proposed changes to the Zoning Code related to the creation of various districts for the use of artificial landscaping do not conflict with directives of the City’s General Plan, as reviewed in the November 18, 2009, Staff Report.

The motion was seconded by Commissioner Rasmussen.

Chair Palmer said staff has done an exceptional job. He said he respects Commissioner Markham’s views, but disagrees. He said there are flaws in the Sign Ordinance and it often takes one person to stand-up for changes to occur. He feels the palm trees were acceptable. They were not hokey or offensive in any way. Several members of the community have voiced similar opinions. The property owner has never received a negative comment regarding the trees. He said he would like to see the Planning Commission follow the recommendations from staff as directed by the City Council. The proposed amendments do not significantly change the Commission’s original recommendations. The City does not have unlimited resources and it is in the best interest of the City to settle this lawsuit and move forward. This issue has taken enough time. He said there are different standards for signage throughout the city, and the proposed districts reflect that same type of variation.

Commissioner Markham said neither Centerville City nor its citizens had a voice in allowing or disallowing the palm trees in the beginning. The only voice was that of the individual who installed them. Allowing one person to dictate policy for their own benefit will set a negative precedence.

Commissioner Pedersen said Commissioner Fillmore’s motion does not allow internal illumination. If the palm trees are going to be allowed then they should be able to be illuminated. Chair Palmer said the current motion only increases the percentage of artificial landscaping, which would allow the installation of three palm trees rather than one. However, the motion does not allow colored trees or internal-illumination.

Commissioner Fillmore said if internal illumination were allowed then it would be allowed for the entire Frontage Road area. There are several residences within close proximity to the Frontage Road and an internally-illuminated object could adversely affect these properties.

Commissioner Pedersen made a motion to amend the original motion to include internal illumination and to delete the word color from Section 12-51-082(c)(1). The motion was seconded by Chair Palmer and failed with a 3-2 vote. Commissioners Rasmussen, Fillmore, and Markham opposed.

Chair Palmer called for a vote on the original motion as stated by Commissioner Fillmore. The motion failed with a 3-2 vote. Chair Palmer and Commissioners Markham and Pedersen opposed.

Commissioner Pedersen made a motion for the Planning Commission to recommend approval of the proposal to amend the Centerville City Zoning Ordinance regarding Chapter 12-51, Landscaping and Screening, per the staff’s proposed edits as found in the Staff Report dated November 18, 2009.

Findings/Reasons for Action:
a. Section 12-21-080(c) authorizes the City Council to initiate a zone text amendment.
b. The Commission finds that there are no specific General Plan policies regarding the use, development, and design of artificial landscaping.
c. The Commission finds that the proposed changes to the Zoning Code related to the creation of various districts for the use of artificial landscaping do not conflict with directives of the City’s General Plan, as reviewed in the November 18, 2009, Staff Report.

The motion was seconded by Chair Palmer.

Chair Palmer said the City Council respects the work the Planning Commission has done, but by re-directing staff and the Commission it is clear that changes are needed. He feels the proposed amendments are a fair compromise. If the Planning Commission doesn’t recommend these amendments then the City Council will most likely make the changes themselves.

Commissioner Fillmore said her previous motion was an attempt at compromise. It would have provided greater flexibility for the Frontage Road District, while maintaining appropriate controls. She said the Frontage Road District also includes McDonalds and Iggy’s. Does the Planning Commission want to allow the same type of internally lit structures in this area as well? Allowing these amendments will open the door for more artificial landscaping. She said if the City Council feels they need to adopt the proposed changes, they can do that, but as a planner she is not comfortable with these amendments. Commissioner Markham agreed.

Chair Palmer called for a vote on Commissioner Pedersen’s motion. The motion failed with a 3-2 vote. Commissioners Rasmussen, Fillmore, and Markham opposed.

PUBLIC   HEARING – CODE TEXT AMENDMENT – SECTION 12-20-050(C), PLANNING COMMISSION, AND CHAPTER 12-20-060(C), BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT, WRITTEN MINUTES AND RECORDING OF PUBLIC MEETINGS - Consideration of changes to Section 12-20-050(c), Planning Commission, and Chapter 12-20-060(c), Board of Adjustment, regarding written minutes and recording of public meetings.  Centerville City, Applicant.
  
Lisa Romney, City Attorney, reported that State law has been amended to clearly state how written minutes and meeting recordings should be approved and provided to the public in a reasonable amount of time. In order to comply with these recent amendments, staff is proposing some amendments to Chapter 12-20 of the Zoning Code. In conjunction with the Zoning Code text changes staff has drafted an Approval of Minutes Policy. The amendments/policy state that written minutes will be approved at the next regularly scheduled meeting and that meeting recordings will be made available to the public within three (3) business days.

Chair Palmer made a motion for the Planning Commission to recommend approval of the Zoning Code amendments to Chapter 12-20 as recommended by staff. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Pedersen and passed by unanimous vote (5-0).
 
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR’S REPORT

a. Next regularly scheduled Planning Commission meeting will be held on December 9, 2009 at 7:00 p.m.
b. Upcoming Projects, Planning Issues and Project Updates
 * Chicken ordinance
 * In-N-Out Burger
 * Legacy Crossing
 * Foothills Management Plan

The meeting was adjourned at 10:41 p.m.

_____________________________________  _______12-09-09_______
 Jim Palmer, Chair                                                                     Date Approved

_____________________________________
Kathleen Streadbeck, Recording Secretary