PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES OF MEETING
Wednesday, February 10, 2010
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
Lee Duncan
Tamilyn Fillmore
Steven Markham (arrived at approximately 7:15 p.m.)
Jim Pedersen, Chair
Dianna Rasmussen
John Walton

MEMBERS ABSENT
Scott Kjar

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

OPENING COMMENT/LEGISLATIVE PRAYER Brandon Toponce

VISITORS
 Tia Mangelson
 Dean Christensen
 Kim Derringer
 Jose Arroy
 Matt Anderson

MINUTES REVIEW AND APPROVAL

The minutes of the Planning Commission meeting held January 27, 2009 were reviewed. Commissioner Duncan made a motion to approve the minutes as written. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Rasmussen and passed by unanimous vote (5-0).

PUBLIC HEARING – SMALL SUBDIVISION WAIVER/LOT SPLIT – 960 NORTH KAGIE CIRCLE (100 WEST) - Consideration of a conceptual subdivision/small subdivision waiver to create two (2) lots for property located at approximately 960 North Kagie Circle (100 West), in the R-L Zone.  Dean Christensen, Property Owner and Applicant

Brandon Toponce, Assistant Planner, reported the applicant has submitted an application for a small subdivision waiver/lot split of his property. Mr. Toponce reviewed the application as written in the staff report dated February 10, 2010. The applicant has met all the requirements found within the Subdivision Ordinance in relation to a small subdivision waiver/lot split. The applicant will need to continue to work with the City Engineer with any issues that may still arise. Mr. Toponce said there may still be some lot line adjustments that need to take place and requested this be done appropriately. Lot line adjustments can be done with the County, but City staff would like to make sure any adjustments are recorded and noted accordingly. Staff suggests an additional condition be added to the approval stating such. The lot would be considered non-conforming, since it currently houses agricultural animals. According to Section 12-22-050(d), a nonconforming use may be continued as long as the use is not modified. Since the original lot is being modified, the lot must come into conformity and all the agricultural animals will need to be removed.

Commissioner Duncan asked if there are any lots in the immediate area of this proposed subdivision zoned agricultural. He also asked if a future lot split would divide the property in half. Commissioner Fillmore asked if the applicant is aware that any future lot-split will require at least a 60-foot frontage on Kagie Circle. 

Mr. Toponce said all immediate surrounding properties are zoned residential. He also said it appears the possible future lot split would divide Lot 1 into two properties.

Dean Christensen, applicant, said he is aware of the needed 60-foot frontage if a future lot split occurs and he plans to build the home on Lot 1 in such a way that it will not affect that possibility. He said he is disappointed that he will no longer be able to retain the use of his property for horses as he has done for many years, but understands the stipulation and requirements of the City. He said he also understands the three-year stipulation before another lot split can occur and has no objection.

Mr. Toponce explained the three-year stipulation is only if the applicant chooses to subdivide his property using the small subdivision waiver. The applicant could go through a full subdivision process if he wishes to divide the lot prior to the three-year limit.

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

Ms. Romney explained that the proposed condition #2 (as listed in the staff report) states that the applicant shall remove any agricultural use before a building permit is issued. If a house is never built on the new Lot 1, such agricultural use could arguably continue indefinitely.  This condition could be changed to state that the agricultural use shall be removed upon recordation of the lot split. With this language, the agricultural uses would be required to be removed immediately upon recordation.  It is up to the Planning Commission to determine which condition is appropriate or desirable under the circumstances.  If the Planning Commission determines to allow the nonconforming use of the property to continue until a building permit is issued, further language should be added to the condition to require a plat note or deed restriction recorded against the property noting that the agricultural uses are nonconforming and shall cease upon the issuance of a building permit for the property.  This way, if the property is sold, a new owner would be aware that the agricultural use cannot continue indefinitely.

Cory Snyder, Community Development Director, said staff requests the Planning Commission allow the agricultural use to continue until a building permit is issued. The applicant is still in the process of deciding whether or not to build and would like to reserve the agricultural use until that time. Staff would like to provide some flexibility for the applicant.

Commissioner Duncan said he is comfortable allowing the agricultural use until a building permit is issued, but agrees an appropriate note should be on the plat so any future property owners are made aware of the restrictions on such use of the property.

Commissioner Fillmore made a motion for the Planning Commission to approve the small subdivision waiver/lot split for the project located at 943 North Main Street and 960 North Kagie Circle, with the following conditions:

Conditions:

1. All professional services fees shall be paid and a bond for any on or off-site improvements shall be posted.
2. The applicant shall remove any agricultural uses from Lot 1 before a building permit may be issued for construction of a building on Lot 1. A plat note or deed restriction shall be added to and recorded against Lot 1 indicating that the agricultural uses for the pasturing of horses are non-conforming and shall terminate upon the issuance of a building permit for Lot 1. The agricultural uses for pasturing of horses on Lot 2 shall terminate upon and be removed prior to the recording of the lot split.
3. On the final plat to be recorded, the applicant shall make sure the correct addressing, signature blocks, legal descriptions and all other required information is indicated.  This information shall then be reviewed by City staff before the recording is to take place.
4. All easements shall be accepted by the City Council and recorded along with the plat through the Davis County Recorder’s Office.
5. The applicant shall work with the City Engineer in relation to any issues he may still have in regard to engineering, grading or drainage.
6. Documentation shall be submitted by the applicant verifying what costs were paid in relation to improvements of Kagie Circle.  This information will need to be submitted before the building permit may be issued.
7. A building permit shall be submitted to the City, reviewed by staff and approved before any construction may begin.
8. Any future lot split shall meet the current Zoning Ordinance at the time the new division of lot shall occur.
9. Any unresolved lot-line adjustments or boundary dispute must be resolved to the satisfaction of the City prior to recording of the lot split.
 
Reasons for Action:

1. The applicant has submitted a completed application for a small subdivision waiver/lot split [Section 15-2-107].
2. A small subdivision for two single-family dwellings match the goals of the Centerville City General Plan in regard to development within Neighborhood 4, Northwest Centerville [Section 12-480-5].
3. The property is currently zoned Residential-Low and has met all the applicable Development Standards found in Chapter 12-32 of the Zoning Ordinance.
4. The general requirements for all subdivisions appear to have been addressed and fulfilled [Chapter 15-5].
5. Since the applicant is modifying the original nonconforming property, he is required to come into conformance with today’s standards for the R-L Zone [Section 12-22-050(d)].

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

PUBLIC HEARING – CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AND FINAL SITE PLAN – IN-N-OUT BURGER RESTAURANT – 475 NORTH 700 WEST - Consideration of a conditional use permit for the In-N-Out Burger Restaurant to be located at approximately 475 North 700 West, for fast-food restaurant use; including a drive-through, in the C-VH Zone.  (Final site plan application will also be reviewed at this meeting).  Mark Noack, In-N-Out Burger, Applicant

Brandon Toponce, Assistant Planner, reported the applicant desires to construct an In-N-Out Burger restaurant. The applicant received conceptual site plan approval from the Planning Commission in August 2009. Mr. Toponce reviewed the application for a final site plan and a conditional use permit as written in the staff report dated February 10, 2010. Overall, the application for final site plan conforms to the originally accepted conceptual site plan and the proposed use and layout meet the applicable requirements for a conditional use permit. The applicant will still need to apply for both a building permit and sign permit and will need to continue to work with City staff as the process moves along.

Cory Snyder, Community Development Director, reviewed the phasing plan for this site. Phase 1 includes the proposed In-N-Out Burger restaurant with semi/RV parking on the north end of the property. Phase 2, which may or may not be constructed in the future, would replace the semi/RV parking with an additional building and tenant. He explained that condition #14, as proposed in the conditions of approval (listed in staff report), states that if a future tenant desires to change the design/layout of the building/site then an amended site plan approval will be required. However, if the tenant chooses to substantially adhere to the plans as provided in this application, then they will not be required to come before the Planning Commission for further approvals. Condition #14 would give staff the discretion to accept Phase 2 without further action from the Commission if the plans don’t change. The Commission may choose to set a time limit for this option.    

Commissioner Duncan said he is comfortable giving staff discretion on approving Phase 2 if a reasonable time limit is set. He would not be comfortable allowing this indefinitely, as a future City Staff/Commission would not be fully aware of all that has been involved. He said condition #14 takes away the Commission’s ability to review Phase 2 (building layout/design and landscaping) if and when it comes to fruition. He asked if it could be stated that Phase 2 does not need to go through the entire approval process, but would need to come before the Commission for a final approval only. This would allow the Commission to review the plans. He also stated that he is concerned with traffic. It is well known that In-N-Out Burger generates a significant amount of traffic.

Commissioner Fillmore asked if the no-parking signs will be placed on both the Frontage Road/700 West and Market Place Drive. She said Iggy’s (restaurant to the east of the proposed In-N-Out) uses the Frontage Road/700 West for over-flow parking. Ms. Fillmore also expressed disappointment with the layout of the site. She was hoping the building/landscaping/patio seating would be the predominant face on the Frontage Road/700 West instead of parking.

Commissioner Walton asked why the turn lane on the Frontage Road, as suggested by the traffic study, is not being installed immediately. If In-N-Out Burger has a reputation for high traffic, would it not be in the best interest and safety of the community to require the turn lane now?

Mr. Snyder said the no-parking sign locations are regulated and approved by the Public Works Director and the Police Chief. It will be up to them to decide where the signs will be placed. Mr. Toponce said traffic is a significant factor with In-N-Out Burger and the configuration, as presented, allows for the greatest drive-thru lane and stacking of cars. He also said the Commission could require the turn lane now, if they feel it is appropriate.

Commissioner Duncan said he had the same thought with regard to the layout of the building/parking in relation to the Frontage Road. However, after further review he decided it may be more pleasant for patrons to dine (patio seating) away from the main road and its associated noise and traffic.

Commissioner Fillmore said condition #10 mentions increasing the rock veneer on the building. She asked that this condition be extended to the Phase 2 building as well. Mr. Toponce said staff suggested the rock veneer extend to the top of the building on the elevation pop-outs for Phase 1 and that it could be extended to Phase 2, but the applicant has expressed concern with this suggestion and will be providing another option for the Commission’s review.

Mark Noack, Project Manager, addressed a few of the conditions of approval. Condition #9 asks for decorative lighting to be added to the north façade. He said they are not opposed to this and will add some sconce lighting to the north elevation. As suggested in condition #10, the rock veneer should be increased to the top of the building on the elevation pop-outs. He said In-N-Out Burger is opposed to extending the rock veneer to the top of the building behind the signage because it diminishes the color contrast of the sign and the electrical connection is harder to seal against the weather on the rocks rough surface. He said they are not opposed to adding more rock, but would rather do it in a different way. He distributed new drawings to the Planning Commission explaining they are willing to increase the rock to the top of the pillars on the north elevation, but not on the pop-outs where signage is proposed. He said the staff report addressed the rock landscaping, stating that it should not exceed 25%. In-N-Out Burger is not opposed to this and will make sure staff gets the appropriate information stating the percentages of rock landscaping. He said the entrance and drive lanes will be widened as suggested by the traffic study, but asked the Commission to hold off on requiring the turn lane on the Frontage Road. He said they would like to maintain as much flexibility for their patrons as possible. They do not want to restrict any turns in or out of the site. If the turn lane proves necessary in the future, they will re-visit the option. He said the City does reserve the right to require the turn lane at any time in the future. He said they are not opposed to setting a time limit on the approval for Phase 2. He suggested a two to three-year time limit.

Commissioner Markham asked if the layout would change at all if Phase 2 were never completed. Commissioner Rasmussen said In-N-Out Burger has proved to be a very busy establishment and asked if they ever build buildings with greater seating capacity.

Mr. Noack said if Phase 2 is never built then this area of the site will remain as overflow parking and will provide additional drive-thru stacking. At their busiest times, In-N-Out Burger places orange cones to direct the drive-thru traffic and provide remote menu takers to increase efficiency. He said he cannot say for sure how much traffic will be generated. This area is a food gathering place and is a great location for an In-N-Out Burger establishment. He said about 30-40% of the traffic generated by any fast-food establishment is traffic that is already in the area. He also said this building does have more seating than the typical In-N-Out Burger because of the large, outdoor, patio seating area on the west.

Commissioner Fillmore said she is agreeable to the alternate option for the rock veneer, but would still like it to be mirrored on the proposed building for Phase 2.

Chair Pedersen opened the public hearing.

Tia Mangelson asked if the color of the building is dictated by the City. The Commission informed Ms. Mangelson of the Parrish Lane Design Guidelines and how they provide direction to applicants regarding color and materials. 

Chair Pedersen closed the public hearing.

Lisa Romney, City Attorney, said it is appropriate for the Commission to set a baseline for the layout, design, circulation and architectural features for improvements within Phase 2. Staff will then be able to approve Phase 2 up to those minimum standards, and anything beyond that will require further approval from the Planning Commission. She also said it is important to set a time limit for the effective date of Phase 2 and feels the suggestion of 2-3 years is reasonable. The applicant has spent a great deal of time and money on this design and has provided a fairly finished Phase 2 application. If Phase 2 were to be built today the Commission would be obligated to approve it, as it meets all applicable ordinances. Since Phase 2 is not being built right away it is important to provide staff with direction and information regarding acceptable building elevations, site layout, traffic circulation, etc. This can be done with the conditions of approval. She suggested changing condition #14 to include language approving the layout, design, and concept for Phase 2, which can be approved by the Zoning Administrator within a 3-year time limit. A traffic study and analysis should also be required with the Phase 2 application.

Commissioner Markham said there seems to be a number of things that could change with Phase 2. It may be better to require additional approvals from the Planning Commission for Phase 2. Mr. Snyder said the Commission can choose to have Phase 2 go through the approval process again, but City Ordinances provide for phasing and the applicant has met those requirements. If the Commission decides to allow staff the discretion on the approval of Phase 2, it is important to set the minimum to be expected. 

Commissioner Fillmore said she is not clear on the parameters that are being set for the color and textures for the Phase 2. She said she would like to see some flexibility, but understands that the Parrish Lane Design Guidelines dictate similarities. Mr. Snyder suggested adding a condition (#15) stating that the architectural theme, color, and style (including percentages) for Phase 2 mirror that of Phase 1. If the applicant for Phase 2 would like to change those similarities, they have the right, but they will have to go through the entire approval process again.

The Commission reviewed each of the proposed conditions of approval making revisions as discussed. Condition #9 will be revised to include additional lighting on the south wall of the Phase 2 building. Condition #10 will be revised to include the increase in rock veneer as presented by the applicant this evening and will also be extended to the Phase 2 building. Condition #14 will be revised as suggested by Ms. Romney previously. Condition #15 will be added to clarify that the building of Phase 2 shall be similar in style, color, and texture as the In-N-Out building.

Mr. Noack was given an opportunity to respond to the suggested revisions and said that In-N-Out Burger is accepting of all conditions.

Commissioner Duncan made a motion for the Planning Commission to approve the final site plan for In-N-Out Burger, including Phase 1 and Phase 2,  located at 475 North 700 West, with the following conditions:

Conditions:

1. All professional services fees shall be paid and all necessary bonding shall be posted.
2. The applicant shall work with the Public Works Director in regard to the actual placement and connection of the pedestrian lights on the east side of the In-N-Out property adjacent to the Frontage Road.
3. The applicant shall work with the City Engineer in regard to the expansion of the front driveway entrance to the specifications given by the traffic engineer, which shall include: expanding the driveway to 40 feet with a 16-foot acceptance entrance lane, 12-foot left turning lane and a 12-foot right turning lane. 
4. The applicant shall be required to work with the City Engineer in relation to all applicable drainage, easement, grading and other engineering issues that may be found.
5. Applicant shall coordinate placement of the “No Parking Signs,” to be located on the west side of 700 West in front of the In-N-Out Burger property, with the Public Works Director and the Police Department.
6. The applicant shall work with the City in regard to striping a cross walk going from the In-N-Out property to the Island parcel.
7. A phase line shall be placed on both Phase 1 and Phase 2 site plans, indicating where Phase 2 begins and what improvements will be completed for each phase.  This shall be submitted before a building permit may be issued.
8. The red awnings on the In-N-Out Burger building shall be a muted red.  All colors on the future building shall also be muted and be reviewed by staff at that time.
9. Decorative lighting shall be added on the north-facing wall of the In-N-Out building and the south-facing wall of the building of Phase 2.  This must be indicated on the elevation sheets as part of the building permit application, and shall be verified before a building permit may be issued by staff.
10. For Phase 1 the amount of rock veneer shall be increased on the north and west elevations as shown in the revised elevation sheet presented by the applicant this evening (February 10, 2010). For Phase 2 the amount of rock veneer shall be increased to the bottom of the awning level on the pop-outs of the south and east elevations. Revised drawings and elevations for buildings in Phase 1 and Phase 2 shall be submitted by the applicant for review and approval by staff prior to issuance of a building permit.
11. All utility provider sheets shall be submitted to the City for review before a building permit may be issued.
12. A complete building permit shall be submitted to the City, reviewed and approved before any construction may begin.
13. A complete sign permit application shall be submitted to the City and shall include wall signs, monument signs, pole signs, LED lighting and design elements on the awning.
14. As approved, applicant shall develop the site in accordance with the Phase 1 site plan. Phase 2 is approved by the Planning Commission as to layout, design, and concept. Approval of Phase 2 is effective for 3 years, after which such approval shall expire. A complete amended site plan must be submitted by the applicant prior to the expiration of Phase 2. If and when the applicant desires to build Phase 2 of the project (within the 3-year time frame), applicant shall be required to apply for and obtain an amended site plan approval for revisions to the Phase 1 site plan. Such amended site plan shall comply with all ordinances and procedures in place at the time of such application; provided, however, that such amended site plan may be approved by the Zoning Administrator if the application is substantially the same form and design as Phase 2 approved by the Planning Commission. If any changes are substantial, Planning Commission approval of the amended site plan shall be required in accordance with City Ordinances. A traffic study and analysis shall be required to be submitted by the applicant with the Phase 2 application to ensure traffic capacity is sufficient and that the site can handle additional development.
15. Architectural materials, colors, and amounts for the building in Phase 2 shall substantially comply with the building in Phase 1 and the elevations for Phase 2 as approved by the Planning Commission. 

Findings:

1. The applicant has met the development standards for improvements within the Commercial-Very High Zone [Chapter 12-34].
2. The site meets all the criteria pertaining to on-site parking and landscaping [Chapter 12-51, Chapter 12-52].
3. The final site plan has been found to be complete and meeting standards for approval [Section 12-21-110(e), Section 12-21-110(f)(1-4)].
4. The conditions of approval for the conceptual site plan application have been satisfied [August 12, 2009 Planning Commission Meeting] clearly showing how the property may be developed [Section 12-21-110(d)(2)].
5. The applicant has submitted a full application [Section 12-21-110(d)(1)].
6. Materials should harmonize with existing, surrounding development [Section 12-63-040(c)(1)].
7. The applicant has met the applicable Parrish Lane Gateway Design Standards [Chapter 12-63].

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

Commissioner Walton made a motion for the Planning Commission to approve the conditional use permit for In-N-Out Burger, including Phase 1 and Phase 2,  located at 475 North 700 West, with the following conditions:

Conditions:

1. The conditional use permit shall be for the In-N-Out Burger and the future tenant (Phase 2), located at 475 North 700 West for the uses of two fast-food restaurants with each having a drive-through. 
2. All the above fifteen (15) conditions of approval for the final site plan shall apply to the conditional use permit. 

Findings:

1. The applicant has satisfied all applicable evidence and factors for a conditional use permit [Section 12-21-100(e)(3)(A-D, Section 12-21-100(e)(5)(A-K)].
2. The use is found to be in harmony with the General Plan [Section 12-430-1].
3. In-N-Out Burger will be suitable for this location, since they meet all the applicable zoning standards, will not be detrimental to the surrounding community, and have added increased landscaping and other design features found within the Parrish Lane Gateway.

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

COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR’S REPORT

a. Next regularly scheduled Planning Commission meeting will be held on February 24, 2010.
b. Upcoming Joint CC/PC Work Sessions:
• Tuesday, March 16, 2010 at 5:30 p.m., Main Street Corridor
• Wednesday, April 14, 2010 at 5:30 p.m., Foothills Management Plan
c. Upcoming Projects, Planning Issues, and Project Updates
• Hogan Subdivision Amendment, Wednesday, February 24, 2010.