museum emergency recreation construction maps calendar


          City News

Planning
1995 Minutes & Agendas: Minutes - May 31, 1995



CENTERVILLE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION
MINUTES OF MEETING

Wednesday, May 31, 1995 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 8:30 p.m. by Chairman Lyndon Ricks.

MEMBERS PRESENT:

Lyndon Ricks, Chairman
Gary Perkins
Laura Phelps
Bruce Powell
Leon Tanner

MEMBERS ABSENT:

Dean Jamison
Ron Trump

STAFF PRESENT:

Paul Allred, Community Development Director
Fred Campbell, City Engineer
Leila Johnson, Recording Secretary

VISITORS:

Blair Furner, Joan Furner, Bev Cutler, Boyd Whitby, Steve Dutcher, Susan Hainsworth, Janet O. Gill, Greg Cutler, Wendell W. Wild, Mark Green, Paul Child

INVOCATION: Laura Phelps

 

Due to lack of a quorum, the Planning Commission meeting was not called to order until 8:30 p.m.

COMMISSION BUSINESS: The minutes of the Planning Commission meeting held Wednesday, May 17, 1995 were reviewed and approved as amended. The minutes of the Planning Commission/Board of Adjustment Joint Annual Training Workshop were reviewed and approved as written.

FURNER/HAINSWORTH PROPERTY REZONE PETITION - PUBLIC HEARING: Mr. Allred explained that Blair & Joan Furner and Jerome & Norma Hainsworth, owners of approximately 1.463 acres of R-1-10 property located at approximately 100 East 500 North, had filed a petition to have the property rezoned from R-1-10 to R-1-85. The reason for the rezone request was to allow smaller rear yard setbacks in a proposed cul-de-sac of five homes for more flexibility in the types of homes which could fit on the lots. In the R-1-85 zone, one side yard and the rear yard setbacks are less than in the R-1-10 zone.

Mr. Allred stated that Staff recommended approval of the rezone request as the adjacent zoning was both R-1-10 and R-1-85. The lot sizes in the proposed cul-de-sac were all over 10,000 square feet and the purpose of the rezone would not be to squeeze more lots onto the property.

Also, the General Plan for this area states "To maintain compatibility with the style of development presently existing in this area, all future residential development in northeast Centerville should be low density single family." As the R-1-10 and R-1-85 zones are both single family residential zones, the development would be compatible with the General Plan.

Chairman Ricks noted that a public hearing for this item had been properly noticed and opened the public hearing.

Greg Cutler, resident on 100 East Street, stated that he would be in favor of the R-1-85 rezone as it may make it more feasible for rambler-type homes to be built on the lots and the view from his home would not be impaired. He also stated however, that he would be in favor of more space between the homes, especially those next to his home, and for that reason he would prefer the R-1-10 zone.

As there were no further public comments, Chairman Ricks closed the public hearing stating that written comment in regard to this issue could be directed to Mr. Allred by Wednesday, June 7, which comments would be forwarded to the City Council.

Chairman Ricks asked for comments from the Planning Commission members. Ms. Phelps and Mr. Powell asked about the short, confined design of the cul-de-sac in relation to access by service vehicles and street parking. City Engineer, Fred Campbell, stated that the design of the cul-de-sac met the requirements and standards of Centerville City ordinance as far as the radius and accessibility for fire equipment and other service needs. Mr. Campbell also pointed out that there seemed to be no other feasible way to develop the property except for very deep lots which, as a general rule, are not adequately maintained.

Mr. Tanner stated that he was not in favor of smaller rear yard setbacks as the homes may be too close in the back. However, he also stated that as there had not been a great deal of opposition from current residents in the area in regard to this issue, he would not oppose the rezone.

Mr. Ricks noted that property is not usually down-zoned to allow for additional lots or yard space. However, no additional lots were being requested by the applicant and, as there seemed to be no other practical way to develop the property, he would be in favor of the rezone. Also, new homeowners would be aware of the close proximity of the rear yards in the subdivision so it shouldn't pose any problems.

MOTION: Ms. Phelps made a motion to recommend to the City Council approval of the rezone request for approximately 1.463 acres of property located at approximately 100 East 500 North based on the findings that the rezone would not be contrary to the existing zoning in the area and that the lots were all planned in excess of 10,000 square feet. Mr. Powell seconded the motion which passed by unanimous vote. Mr. Perkins was absent for the vote.

PARRISH CIRCLE SUBDIVISION - CONCEPT PLAN: Having received a recommendation for rezone approval, the Parrish Circle Subdivision was ready for concept plan approval. As stated previously, the short cul-de-sac design and wide, shallow lots may make R-1-85 zoning advantageous in this location.

Mr. Allred stated that there was a concern regarding the street offset with 500 North Street. It is usually advisable to line up street openings with each other to avoid potentially dangerous left turns. However, in this situation the City Traffic Engineer had given a recommendation that the offset be allowed as most of the traffic would be turning right leaving the subdivision and the five homes would not generate a significant amount of turning movements. It was pointed out that the offset would not be awkward because of the direction of the offset.

Mr. Allred also stated that Staff had asked the applicant, Mr. Furner, to investigate the ground water situation in the area, the overhead telephone lines across the property, and capping the existing wells on the site. These matters were fairly minor and Staff did not anticipate they would jeopardize the project proceeding to preliminary plat.

Mr. Campbell, City Engineer, stated that several holes had been dug on the site by Mr. Furner and only on lot five was there water within four or five feet below the surface. When Mr. Campbell checked on the lot, there was no water. The other holes were dug to six or seven feet before water was found. Mr. Furner's engineer would need to study the water situation more closely but Mr. Campbell did not foresee any problems.

Mr. Allred noted that if fill were used in the subdivision as planned, then the ground water would be even further from the surface.

Mr. Tanner asked if all the lots in the subdivision would be able to be built on without a variance being requested. Mr. Furner replied that they would and Mr. Allred explained that on irregularly shaped lots the rear lot setback could be averaged.

Chairman Ricks asked for public comment. Greg Cutler, resident on 100 East Street, stated that the homes in the area are mostly deep with large rear yards and this site should be considered for this type of lots.

Mr. Allred explained that deep lots are not usually maintained if not used as agricultural property so the City would prefer that the property not be developed with that type of lots.

Ms. Phelps commended the applicant and Staff for covering the necessary issues prior to the Planning Commission hearing.

MOTION: Mr. Ricks made a motion to recommend to the City Council approval of the concept plan for the Parrish Circle Subdivision to be located at approximately 100 East 500 North with the street offset having been reviewed and approved by the City Traffic Engineer. Ms. Phelps seconded the motion which passed by unanimous vote. Mr. Perkins was absent for the vote.

EVERGREEN COMMERCIAL SUBDIVISION - FINAL PLAT: Mr. Allred informed the Commission that plans for final plat approval for the Evergreen Commercial Subdivision, approximately 50 South 1250 West, had been put on hold earlier in the day as the City Manager had raised several issues which needed to be addressed.

Mark Green, developer, expressed his disappointment to the Planning Commission that on the very day the project was to come before the Commission for final approval, additional issues were raised which could have been taken care of prior to this item being scheduled on the Planning Commission agenda.

The main issues which still needed to be addressed were the location of the fence or wall between the commercial subdivision and the residential subdivision in West Bountiful which abuts the Evergreen property to the south. The height of the fence was also in question as the West Bountiful residents had requested a higher wall than is required by Centerville City ordinance which is six feet with a visual barrier.

The Planning Commission, Mr. Green, and representatives of West Bountiful which included Wendell Wild, West Bountiful City Administrator, agreed that the location of the fence should be on the property line rather than five feet onto the Evergreen property as was discussed at a previous meeting. This would alleviate a five-foot strip of land which would be difficult to maintain.

MOTION: Mr. Ricks made a motion to recommend that the fence on the south property line of the Evergreen Commercial Subdivision, approximately 50 South 1250 West, be installed on the south property line. Mr. Tanner seconded the motion which passed by unanimous vote. Mr. Perkins was absent for the vote.

Whether or not the entire property line adjacent to the residential property should be fenced all at one time was also discussed. Mr. Green believed that each business locating in the commercial subdivision should be responsible for the fencing on their specific property at the time of development. The West Bountiful residents wanted the entire length fenced when development of the entire site began. The Planning Commission's recommendation was that each lot be required to install a determined type of fence, such as precast concrete, with a minimum height of six feet with the option that a greater height could be required at the discretion of the Planning Commission according to the use of the site, and that such requirements be recorded with the plat.

Drainage was also an issue needing further study. Mr. Campbell, City Engineer, was in agreement with Mr. Green in that the natural drainage from the residential subdivision onto the Evergreen property would not need to be taken care of by Mr. Green but should be the responsibility of the residential property owners. Mr. Campbell stated that a retaining wall on the property line would be advisable.

The Planning Commission supported Mr. Green's request that a list of all items needing to be addressed in regard to the Evergreen Commercial Subdivision be given to Mr. Green in time for the issues to be taken care of prior to the project's next Planning Commission hearing.

 

The meeting adjourned at 10:05 p.m.

 

Lyndon Ricks, Chairman

Recording Secretary



 
 
MuseumEmergencyRecreationConstructionMap Calendar