1995 Minutes & Agendas: Minutes - May 31, 1995
CENTERVILLE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION
MINUTES OF MEETING
Wednesday, May 31, 1995 7:00
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.
Lyndon Ricks, Chairman
Paul Allred, Community Development Director
Fred Campbell, City Engineer
Leila Johnson, Recording Secretary
Blair Furner, Joan Furner, Bev Cutler, Boyd Whitby, Steve Dutcher,
Susan Hainsworth, Janet O. Gill, Greg Cutler, Wendell W. Wild, Mark Green, Paul
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