PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES OF MEETING
Wednesday, October 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
Scott Kjar
Steven Markham, arrived at 7:22 p.m.
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
Rod Rasmussen
Debbie Randall 

OPENING COMMENT/LEGISLATIVE PRAYER Commissioner Rasmussen

MINUTES REVIEW AND APPROVAL

The minutes of the Planning Commission meeting held September 23, 2009 were reviewed. Chair Palmer made a motion to approve the minutes as written. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Rasmussen and passed by unanimous vote (5-0).

DISCUSSION - APPROPRIATENESS OF ALLOWING SMALL FARM ANIMALS (CHICKENS) IN THE RESIDENTIAL-LOW (R-L) ZONE. Consideration of allowing small animals (chickens) in the Residential-Low Zone, as citizens have expressed a desire to be able to raise chickens as a “food source” in this zone. Centerville City, applicant.

Brandon Toponce, Assistant Planner, discussed the appropriateness of allowing chickens in a residential zone as presented in the staff report dated October 14, 2009. Current City ordinance allows chickens under the “Animal and Fowl for Recreation and Family Food Production,” but only in agricultural zones. Chickens also do not fall under the “Pet” allowances. Mr. Toponce explained there has been a flood of interest in keeping “backyard” chickens throughout the country and several neighboring cities have approved ordinances allowing such in residential zones. Mr. Toponce discussed several pros and cons of keeping chickens in a residential zone. The biggest concern would be that chickens have been known to carry salmonella. However, the Davis County Health Department said the risk can be significantly diminished with proper washing and handling of chickens, their eggs, and their shelters. Other concerns (i.e., smell, noise, chickens running loose, etc.) can be mitigated with proper zoning regulations. Mr. Toponce explained there are seven (7) themes that seem to be common with regard to developing an appropriate ordinance for allowing “backyard” chickens: number of birds; regulation of roosters; permits/fee; coop restrictions; nuisance clause; slaughtering restrictions; and setback restrictions. It is also recommended that any ordinance be made clear as to keep non-compliance to a minimum.

Cory Snyder, Community Development Director, said staff is neither promoting nor discouraging an ordinance for “backyard” chickens. This discussion was brought about by an interested citizen and direction from the Planning Commission to do some research regarding the issue. The intent is for the Planning Commission to receive and discuss the research presented by staff and decide whether to move forward with a draft ordinance or not. If the Planning Commission directs staff to draft an ordinance, then a public hearing process would be initiated to get input from the public.
 
Chair Palmer said he does not have any serious concerns with allowing chickens in the residential zone. He said he does not see a problem with allowing a chicken coop to be attached to an existing accessory structure. He sees the value in requiring a setback from property lines for coops, but feels a coop could be next-to or attached-to an existing accessory structure within a yard.

Commissioner Rasmussen said chickens have been known to increase flies. She is also concerned with chickens roaming free. This would be difficult to regulate and/or control.

Mr. Snyder said attaching a coop to an existing accessory structure is something that would have to be reviewed more closely. In some cases this may be appropriate, but if an accessory building was regulated (due to size) then the expansion may not be allowable. Mr. Snyder also said the control of roaming chickens is something that will need to be researched more closely. A potential conflict could arise as to whether this is an Animal Control issue or a Zoning Administration issue. 

Commissioner Kjar made a motion to direct staff to prepare a draft ordinance for the allowance of chickens within the residential zone. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Walton.

Commissioner Pedersen distributed a draft ordinance for the allowance of chickens, prepared by him, to be considered for approval.

Chair Palmer said considering an ordinance tonight would be premature since a public hearing (which was not noticed for tonight’s meeting) would be required. However, he asked staff to review Commissioner Pedersen’s ordinance when preparing a draft for a future meeting.

Commissioner Walton questioned if an ordinance would include chickens only, or if rabbits should be allowed as well. Commissioner Fillmore questioned how long other cities have lived with their chicken ordinances. Mr. Toponce said many of the cities reviewed in the research have just passed their ordinances, but so far there has been little complaint. West Valley City did not pass an ordinance as there were too many negative concerns.

Chair Palmer said rabbits could be included, but questioned if they should be left under the “Pet” allowances. He said the seven (7) themes discussed in the staff report seem appropriate for an ordinance. He believes a maximum of six (6) chickens is reasonable and agrees that roosters should not be allowed. He said he is usually not a fan of permits or fees, but feels a nominal fee ($5 or $10) would be okay. It seems wise to distribute educational information with a permit, especially discussing the possibilities of salmonella poisoning. He feels a coop or enclosure is necessary and setbacks are appropriate. He does not want chickens running loose in the community. Chickens should not cause undue impact on neighbors. He said he does not feel a slaughtering restriction is necessary. He also questioned lot-size restrictions.

Commissioner Fillmore asked if lot size should be called out. Mr. Snyder said chickens could be allowed in all residential-low zones or within a specific lot size. Going by lot size may significantly decrease the number of properties allowed for chickens. Another possibility would be to decrease the maximum number of chickens on smaller lots. 

Commissioner Kjar said lot size can be deceiving. Two lots with the same square footage could have significantly different size backyards, depending on the size of the home. Commissioner Pedersen said as long as setbacks are met then it shouldn’t matter what the lot size is.

Commissioner Kjar made a motion to amend the original motion to include rabbits within the draft ordinance and to direct staff to include the following in a draft ordinance: regulation of roosters; permit and fee ($10 for a one-year permit); coop/enclosure regulations; nuisance clause revoking permit if violated; eliminate slaughter restrictions; setback restrictions, and maximum number of animals allowed. It is also recommended that Commissioner Pedersen’s draft ordinance be reviewed and considered by staff when preparing their draft and that a public hearing be held to receive comment. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Walton. 

Commissioner Pedersen suggested increasing the permit and fee schedule to $20 for two (2) years. He said he also feels that a 6-inch setback for coops would be appropriate. Mr. Snyder said current ordinance requires a one-foot setback for accessory buildings. It would be appropriate to maintain consistency.

Commissioner Pedersen made a motion to amend to include chickens, rabbits, guinea pigs, and pigeons within the draft ordinance. The motion to amend failed for lack of a second.

Commissioner Fillmore questioned if a minimum number of animals should be called out. Commissioner Walton questioned if there is any concern with the bird flu and suggested this information also be part of the educational packet. Mr. Snyder said there are county and state regulations that require inspection of flocks that reach a certain number. Staff will make sure the number of animals allowed falls within an appropriate range and will bring this information back to the Planning Commission.

Chair Palmer called for a vote on Commissioner Kjar’s motion as amended. The motion as amended passed with a roll-call vote (4-2). Commissioner Rasmussen and Commissioner Markham opposed.

DISCUSSION - BUILDING LIGHTING AND LANDSCAPE LIGHTING. Consideration of possible changes to the current ordinance regarding requirements for building and landscape lighting, and future allowances. Centerville City, applicant.

Brandon Toponce, Assistant Planner, reviewed the current ordinance requirements/restriction for building/landscape lighting as presented in the staff report dated October 14, 2009. In essence, all light must reflect away from neighboring properties and upward lighting is prohibited. One concern that has come up with recent applications is lighting that could be considered “signage.” Any lighting that includes color and illumination that draws attention to a business or certain aspect of a business is considered signage and is regulated under the sign ordinance. Neon tube lighting under the current ordinance has historically been considered signage, yet some could argue that it is an architectural design. Mr. Toponce explained that most cities don’t regulate lighting style or location; only light splay (making sure there is no pollution onto neighboring properties) and security lighting. He said there are many lighting styles and designs, including both upward and downward splay that could be discussed. There are also many options for landscape lighting as well.

Cory Snyder, Community Development Director, said current ordinances prohibit detached upward lighting except as part of a landscape plan. Building lighting restrictions are much less restrictive in that both upward lighting and downward lighting are allowed as long as they are attached to the structure. It is pole lights and parking lot lights that become restrictive; prohibiting all upward lighting and controlling the splay onto neighboring properties. Mr. Snyder believes the directive from the Planning Commission was to focus on building lights is because staff has interpreted some building lights as signage, i.e., neon tubing. Historically, neon tubing was invented for signs. He said he is unwilling to be liberal in the interpretation of neon tube lighting under the current ordinances. He would rather have an interpretation challenged than make a broad value statement for the community. Neon tubing has color and illuminates, which under current ordinance is defined as a sign. Mr. Snyder said if the Planning Commission and/or the City Council would like to discuss a broader perspective and include neon tubing, he is willing to move forward with possible revisions to applicable ordinances, but he is not willing to make that judgment or broad interpretation under the current ordinances. Mr. Snyder cautioned the Planning Commission in allowing neon tubing, as this is something that property owners will take advantage of. If neon tubing is allowed, make sure it is enhances architecture without creating visual clutter.

Commissioner Fillmore said her interest in this subject was to explore possibilities for decorative landscape lighting. She is not so concerned with building lighting. Mr. Snyder said landscape lighting already falls under the discretion of the Planning Commission. Most applications require a landscape plan, which is reviewed and approved by the Planning Commission.

Commissioner Kjar made a motion to remove all restrictions on lighting. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Pedersen.

Commissioner Kjar said lighting restrictions within commercial areas should have some latitude. Some lighting splay is expected within core commercial areas, where businesses should be allowed to illuminate and advertise their business. However, commercial properties that border residential properties should have greater lighting restrictions. 

Chair Palmer said his concern with neon tubing was that every square inch was included in the signage calculation. He understands Mr. Snyder’s concern that businesses will take advantage if there are no restrictions, but feels the current ordinance could be more lenient. He suggested a percentage of neon tubing be allowed. If the neon tubing falls within the percentage then it is considered architectural lighting, if not then it is considered signage. In addition, neon tubing cannot depict any words or messages.

Mr. Snyder said this is an option that could be researched further. He said most cities define neon tubing as sign lighting and explained that Centerville’s Sign Ordinance is generous. For example, the 15% allowed per current ordinance permitted Dairy Queen to include a neon band around their new building in addition to their wall signs.  

Chair Palmer called for a vote on the Commissioner Kjar’s motion. The motion failed with a unanimous roll-call vote (0-7).

Commissioner Fillmore made a motion to separate the discussion into two separate items, i.e., building lighting and landscape lighting. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Kjar and passed by roll-call vote (6-1). Commissioner Markham opposed.

Commissioner Fillmore made a motion to leave building lighting as allowed in current ordinances and move onto a discussion about landscape lighting. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Rasmussen.

Chair Palmer said he has been swayed on the issue of building lighting and does not believe there is enough concern to warrant a revision at this time. He said there is no reason to create an answer for a problem that doesn’t exist. 

Commissioner Pedersen made a motion to amend to include the allowance of upward lighting as long as it does not splay out into neighboring properties. The motion to amend failed for lack of a second.

Chair Palmer called for a vote on Commissioner Fillmore’s motion. The motion passed with a roll-call vote (6-1). Commissioner Pedersen opposed.

Commissioner Fillmore said there are some decorative options with regard to landscape lighting that may be appropriate within Centerville. She said she has seen some tasteful upward lighting and string lighting within landscaped areas in other communities. She is curious if it is possible to expand current ordinances to allow decorative landscape lighting while maintaining appropriate restrictions to keep such lighting tasteful. She feels these possible lighting options may be appropriate within the Main Street corridor.

Commissioner Fillmore made a motion to direct staff to research and bring back to the Planning Commission information on upward lighting and string lighting options within landscaped areas, including examples and possible light pollution that may be associated with such. The motion was seconded by Chair Palmer.

Chair Palmer said he would also be interested in seeing a change made to the “holiday” lighting dates. He feels there are times throughout the year that it may be appropriate for residents to use decorative lighting for a short time. He would like to make this allowable.

Chair Palmer called for a vote on Commissioner Fillmore’s motion. The motion passed with a roll-call vote (4-3). Commissioner Pedersen, Commissioner Markham, and Commissioner Kjar opposed.
 
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR’S REPORT

a. Next regularly scheduled Planning Commission meeting will be held on October 28, 2009 at 7:00 p.m.
b. Upcoming Projects, Planning Issues and Project Updates
 * Historical Appropriateness Review
 * Conditional Use Permit
c. Miscellaneous
* Mr. Snyder informed the Commission that UTA has been working to come up with a possible solution for light transit on Main Street. Centerville sent a letter to UTA outlining their position, stating there should be as little disturbance to the current right-of-way as possible. If an expansion of the right-of-way is necessary, then it should be for the use of sidewalk at most. UTA will be forwarding their plans and recommendations including a map in the near future for public review and comment.
* Mr. Snyder informed the Commission that a committee has convened to discuss possibilities for a foothills management plan as directed by the City Council. There is no plan to annex anything into the city at this time. This committee has met a few times and has compiled a list of twelve (12) value statements with regard to the foothills. Staff is now drafting a policy around these twelve statements. Once the draft is complete it will go back to the committee for further review. Then the City Council and Planning Commission will discuss the draft in a work session, again making suggestions and changes. At that time a public open house will be held for further input. Then the approval process will move forward with both the Planning Commission and the City Council; again, public comment will be allowed as part of those processes. The entire process will take several months. Mr. Snyder said there is a map available for review, but it is not a decision map. It is merely a map outlining the research that has taken place, and is only being used as a tool to understand the layout and opportunities in the foothills.

The meeting was adjourned at 8:45 p.m.

_____________________________________  ______10-28-09__________
 Jim Palmer, Chair                                                                   Date Approved

 _____________________________________
Kathleen Streadbeck, Recording Secretary