museum emergency recreation construction maps calendar


          City News

Planning
2002 Minutes & Agendas: Minutes - February 13, 2002



PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES OF MEETING
Wednesday, February 13, 2002, 6:00 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 6:00 p.m. by Chairman Bruce Powell.

MEMBERS PRESENT

Ken Averett
Steven Bateman, arrived 7:05 p.m.
Brian Hulse, arrived 6:10 p.m.
Bruce Powell, Chairman
Grant Talbot, arrived 6:10 p.m.
Paula Tew
Scott Vaterlaus

STAFF PRESENT

Paul Allred, Community Development Director
Kem Weaver, Intern
Kathleen Streadbeck, Recording Secretary
Fred Campbell, City Engineer
Randy Randall, Public Works Director

VISITORS

Renee Turner (Clipper), Debbie Allred, Mike Murphey, Lane Nielson, Craig Jewett, Charlie Rockwood, Connie Dunn, Kim Dunn, Don Atkinson, Jill Madsen, Becky Money, Jim Rushforth, Bruce Madsen, Royce Allen, Mardette Allen, John Clark, Phil Sessions, Debbie Randall, Leon Lawson, LeAnn Lawson,

INVOCATION Scott Vaterlaus

COMMISSION BUSINESS

Minutes from the joint City Council/Planning Commission Work Session held January 22, 2002 were reviewed. Paula Tew made a motion to approve the minutes as written. The motion was seconded by Scott Vaterlaus and passed by unanimous vote (4-0).

Minutes from the Planning Commission Work Session held January 23, 2002 were reviewed and amended. Chairman Powell made a motion to approve the minutes as amended. The motion was seconded by Brian Hulse and passed by unanimous vote (5-0). Ken Averett abstained from voting as he was not present for this work session.

Minutes from the Planning Commission Meeting held January 23, 2002 were reviewed. Chairman Powell made a motion to approve the minutes as written. The motion was seconded by Paula Tew and passed by unanimous vote (6-0).

Minutes from the Planning Commission Work Session held January 29, 2002 were reviewed. Brian Hulse made a motion to approve the minutes as written. The motion was seconded by Chairman Powell and passed by unanimous vote (6-0).

Minutes from the Planning Commission Meeting held January 29, 2002 were reviewed. Chairman Powell made a motion to approve the minutes as written. The motion was seconded by Brian Hulse and passed by unanimous vote (6-0).

CODE AMENDMENT - Amendment to Section 12-110, Planning and Zoning Administration, Centerville City Municipal Code, regarding establishment and organization of the Centerville City Planning Commission.

Paul Allred, Community Development Director, reported that the amendments to Section 12-110 essentially change the way the Planning Commission operates by allowing the Planning Commission to appoint or elect its own chairperson and alternate-chairperson. He reported that staff is comfortable with the proposed changes but would suggest the following, additional, minor changes:

1. Section 12-111, B. Term. Suggest the wording be changed to read, "Members may be reappointed, but shall not serve more than two consecutive three-year terms of service". This change reflects the current City policy of not having more than six consecutive years.

2. Section 12-112, B. Meetings. Suggest that the wording be changed to read, "The Planning Commission shall generally meet twice per month". The reason for this change is that ordinarily, the Planning Commission only meets once in November and December.

Brian Hulse suggested (in regard to Section 12-111, A, Appointed) the Mayor also seek the advice and consent of the sitting Planning Commission members when appointing a new member, or at least seek advice of the chairperson and alternate-chairperson.

Chairman Powell questioned the definition of the six (6) year term. He stated that he served the end of someone else’s term and is now serving his own three (3) year term. He would like the amendment to clarify if the six-year term includes the completion of another’s term or just those years served solely by an individual.

Paul Allred stated that they could include a clause to state that the six (6) year term does not include time served fulfilling a vacancy.

Chairman Powell made a motion to recommend approval of the Code amendment to the City Council with the following changes:

1. Section 12-111, A, Appointed. Wording changed to read, "The Planning Commission is comprised of seven (7) members which shall be appointed by the Mayor with the advice and consent of the City Council and the Chairperson and Alternate-Chairperson of the Planning Commission".

2. Section 12-111, B. Term. Wording changed to read, "Members may be reappointed, but shall not serve more than two consecutive three-year terms of service. This shall not include time served in fulfilling the partial term of a vacancy".

3. Section 12-112, B. Meetings. Wording be changed to read, "Unless the Planning Commission determines otherwise, the Planning Commission shall generally meet twice per month".

Brian Hulse seconded the motion and passed by unanimous vote (6-0).

CODE AMENDMENT - Section 12-340-9, Landscaping, Centerville City Planning and Zoning Ordinance.

Kem Weaver, Intern, reported that the changes suggested at the work session on January 23, 2002 have been incorporated and staff recommends approval of the proposed draft with any additional minor modifications as deemed necessary by the Planning Commission. He stated all changes will be sent to the Assistant City Attorney, Lisa Romney, and that she will write a formal version of the ordinance prior to City Council approval.

Brian Hulse stated that he would like it clarified that the Planning Commission will allow a variance for xeriscaping only where they have deemed it appropriate. He feels this would better direct developers to understand that xeriscaping is not necessarily appropriate in all locations.

Chairman Powell made a motion to recommend approval of the Landscape Ordinance to the City Council with the following changes:

1. Section 14, Administrative Relief, (e) - Change wording to read, "The substitution of xeriscape materials in place of heavy water reliant plants, where the Planning Commission has deemed such substitution appropriate".

2. Strike #8 entirely and re-number document appropriately.

3. Section 5, Special Residential Project - Change sub-heading to read, "Planned Unit Development, Condominiums and other Special Residential Projects".

Paula Tew seconded the motion and passed by unanimous vote (6-0).

SUBDIVISION - PRELIMINARY - Bamberger Station II - 160 West Porter Lane - R-1-85 Zone - Wayne Carlson, property owner and applicant.

Paul Allred, Community Development Director, reported that staff recommends approval of the preliminary plat upon the following:

1. Removal of the northerly portion (land to the north of the Walton Lane including Ann McGee right-of-way) of the plat and thus amend the conceptual subdivision plan. Mr. Allred stated that Mr. Carlson has apparently reached an agreement with John Clark to sell him this property.

2. Recommend rezoning this same portion of land from A-1 to R-2. This could be done at the 2/27/02 Planning Commission Zone Map Amendment Open House. The purpose of this rezoning would be to eventually include this land into the proposed Bamberger Station PUD (John Clark property).

3. Agree in concept that the City should vacate a small section of the Walton Lane right-of-way thus allowing Mr. Carlson and Mr. Clark to purchase portions of this property for inclusion in their respective project.

4. Approve the preliminary plat with either a 16-foot or a 19-foot public utility and sidewalk easement along the frontage of the proposed lots with the proposed exact widths (park strip and walk) before the consulting engineer draws the final plat. Mr. Allred explained that the property line is at about the back of the curb, which will allow the homes to be built about 8 feet closer to the sidewalk than normal. Staff felt that perhaps it would be good to pursue a 4-foot wide park strip and a 5-foot wide sidewalk behind the curb instead of a 6-foot sidewalk directly against the curb. The City Engineer feels that it may be premature to require 5-foot walks until the City’s official street standards are officially amended. Mr. Allred reminded the Planning Commission that the Walkable Audit showed that 5-foot walks are much more inviting and user friendly. He also stated that this parcel is likely to be a link to future green paths and open spaces in the village area to the north, to new walkways that will be built in the proposed Bamberger Station PUD (John Clark property), and also to future sidewalks on Walton Lane. He explained that a 19-foot easement would put pedestrians within 16 feet of the homes instead of 25 feet. This would require the developer to build homes with recessed, detached or side entry garages to avoid vehicles in driveways from overhanging the walk.

5. Make any final required changes to the preliminary plat per Planning Commission and staff before proceeding to final approval including any work the developer will need to do to deed about 4 feet to the City for 160 West widening and radius improvements.

Chairman Powell asked if this property was still being considered for purchase by the City for a parkway?

Steve Blackham, 545 East Bernard Street, answered Chairman Powell’s question by stating that he attended the City Council meeting the previous evening where the City Council directed staff to continue pursing possible ways of acquiring this property. Mr. Allred confirmed Mr. Blackham’s comments, but stated that there is no reason to hold up the preliminary plat and Mr. Carlson’s desires to proceed with project review at this time.

Brian Hulse asked if the Planning Commission could require the boundary line adjustment between Mr. Carlson and Mr. Clark be recorded prior to final plat recording. He stated he is concerned that if this is not done it will create a non-conforming lot. Mr. Allred stated that they could require the boundary line adjustment as a condition of approval.

Grant Talbot questioned how access to the Ann McGee property would be affected by this property exchange. Mr. Allred stated his understanding is that the McGee right-of-way is legally recorded, is not contested by Mr. Carlson and will not be affected. An arrangement will be needed to install a drive approach and make a curb cut to maintain accessability.

Brian Hulse made a motion to approve the preliminary plat upon the following conditions:

1. Removing the northerly portion (land to the north of the Walton Lane and Ann McGee right-of-ways) of the plat and amend the conceptual subdivision plan.

2. Rezone this same portion of land from A-1 to R-2 at the Planning Commission Zone Map Amendment Open House on February 27, 2002.

3. The property boundary agreement between Mr. Carlson and Mr. Clark must be recorded prior to final plat.

4. It is recommended that the City vacate a small section of the Walton Lane right-of-way, thus allowing Mr. Carlson and Mr. Clark to purchase portions of this property from the City for inclusion in their respective projects.

5. A 19-foot public utility easement will be required along the frontage of the lots. This includes a 4-foot park strip, a 5-foot sidewalk, and a 10-foot public utility easement.

6. Any final required changes to the preliminary plat per Planning Commission and staff must be completed before proceeding to final plat approval including any work the developer will need to do to deed about 4 feet to the City for 160 West widening and radius improvements.

Chairman Powell seconded the motion, which passed by unanimous vote (6-0).

DISCUSSION - SUBDIVISION - CONCEPTUAL AND PRELIMINARY - Walton Lane Townhomes - 70 West Walton Lane - R-2 Zone - Robert Holmes, property owner and applicant.

Paul Allred, Community Development Director, reported that the City Council previously approved the conceptual subdivision with a few minor changes/conditions. Following that decision staff, Councilwoman Smith, and the applicant met to discuss the future direction of the project and to try to reach an understanding about the details of the subdivision. The applicant plans to bring the preliminary plat to the Planning Commission for formal approval on February 27, 2002. Tonight he is looking for some direction from the Planning Commission on the following proposed changes.

1. Installing a 4-foot wide walk on the west side of the existing and proposed private driveway to facilitate pedestrians and to give more space so vehicles won’t overhang into the driveway.

2. Construct and maintain a small "pull out" area along Walton Lane for the placement of garbage cans and mailboxes. This will result in less crowding of the street because the cans won’t jut into the roadway. The applicant is willing to locate this "pull out" wherever the City will allow on Walton Lane.

3. The enclosed garages/storage units could be relocated to create green space closer to Walton Lane, making them less visible from Walton lane, and possibly resulting in less pavement overall. Relocating the garage will likely result in the movement of the condos themselves and a restructuring of the setbacks and open space.

4. The individual units should be at least 20 feet back from the driveway. Currently, they are shown at 19 feet. This condition could be added to a revised conditional use permit or as a restriction on the plat.

Kem Weaver stated that he spoke to the postmaster who indicated that the mailboxes may be clustered but that they could not be located next to the garbage cans.

Robert Holmes corrected Mr. Allred by stating that the proposed walk was for the east side of the private drive, not the west. He stated that this would be more cost effective for him. Brian Hulse asked Mr. Allred if he saw any drawbacks to which side of the drive the walk was built. Mr. Allred stated that he felt it made more sense on the west, since the condominiums will be built on the west side of the drive. Mr. Holmes questioned whether or not sidewalks are even necessary, he stated he only proposed this to appease Councilwoman Smith.

Paula Tew asked if the proposed private drive would be wide enough to accommodate an emergency vehicle and if adding sidewalk would help in this regard. Mr. Allred stated that currently, the private drive is shown at about 18 feet wide and that the Fire District will probably require a 20 to 22-foot roadway which will increase accessability, but that any sidewalk would also help.

Chairman Powell stated that he is strongly opposed to sidewalk anywhere within the development since sidewalks do not exist on Walton Lane. He encourages a wider private drive and discourages the garbage "pull out" as he feels it would be more problematic than useful. He feels relocating the garages/storage units to the back southwest corner of the development is a good idea and would help to increase open space.

Brian Hulse stated that, he too, feels the sidewalk is not necessary and is also in favor of a wider private drive. He feels the garbage/mailbox "pull out" is a bad idea and will only cause problems during snow plow season. He feels relocating the garage/storage units to the southeast corner is a better option than the southwest corner. He does not want the open space in the southwest corner diminished at all. He also feels the condominiums should have at least a 20-foot setback from the private drive.

Paula Tew stated she likes the idea of some type of garbage/mail "pull out".

Ken Averett stated he is not in favor of the garbage/mail "pull out". He feels maintenance would be too difficult. He is not in favor of relocating the garage/storage units to the southwest corner. He feels backing from this location would be a public liability and he would rather see the garage/storage units moved to the southeast corner. He would also encourage that the floor plan for the back right condominium be flipped so the driveway will line up with the private drive, thereby lessening the amount of asphalt used. He is also in favor of widening the private drive.

DISCUSSION - SPECIAL EXCEPTIONS - Change to the zoning ordinance regulations concerning potential Centerville City well site and building - 1475 North 50 East - Randy Randall, Public Works Director, applicant.

Randy Randall, Public Works Director, reported that the City has negotiated with the LDS Church (50 East 1475 North) to purchase a well site on their property if the City is able to find water. If no water is found then the land will revert back into the church’s ownership. He stated that the City has already acquired approval from the State Health Department to drill the well. The proposed well will pump up to the Ricks Creek Reservoir. If water is located plans for a new building will be submitted and the appropriate steps taken for approval of the building and site plan as per all applicable city ordinances and regulations including requests for special exceptions. These exceptions would include; substandard side yards on the west and south, no frontage on a public street, and the site will be a lot in and of itself. Those that attend the church will think it is an accessory building and the architecture will match that of the church and of an existing accessory building.

Ken Averett asked where the closest residence to the proposed site is located, if there would be any smells or fumes associated with the well, and how often personnel would visit the site. Mr. Randall stated that currently, the nearest residence is about 80 feet east of the site. He explained that they would be installing a submersible well so there will not be any noise associated with the pumping, that the only smell may be that of chlorine once every five years, and that personnel will only visit the site once a month for about an hour.

Chairman Powell asked if there would be a problem with snow removal, parking, and drive access. Mr. Randall stated that the parking lot is about 3 acres and all snow plowing can be contained within the area without blocking access to the well. He also stated that they have an agreement with the Church for easements for both water lines as well as egress in and out of the site.

The Planning Commission stated that they are generally in favor of this proposal and directed Mr. Randall to move forward with the proper steps for approval.

PUBLIC HEARING - GENERAL PLAN - Proposed Section 12-490, Moderate Income Housing Plan of the Centerville City General Plan - Lane Nielsen, consultant.

Paul Allred, Community Development Director, reminded the Planning Commission that they sent their general recommendations to the City Council regarding this proposal last month and that staff has made no additional changes. Staff recommends the Planning Commission approve the proposed draft and forward it on to City Council for consideration.

Lane Nielson, consultant, explained to the public, with the assistance of Mr. Allred and the Planning Commission, the catalyst of the Moderate Income Housing Plan, the importance of implementing such a plan, and how these strategies may be incorporated in the future.

Chairman Powell opened the public hearing, seeing there was no comment he closed the public hearing. Later during the discussion on the matter comments from the audience were entertained and responded to by Mr. Nielsen and the Planning Commission.

Chairman Powell made a motion to recommend approval of the Moderate Income Housing Plan draft to the City Council for consideration. Paula Tew seconded the motion and passed by unanimous vote (6-0).

Steven Bateman arrived at the meeting.

PUBLIC HEARING - CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT - Proposed automotive repair facility - Craig’s Transmission & Auto Repair - 605 North 1250 West #8 - B-P Zone - Craig Jewett, applicant.

Kem Weaver, Intern, reported the applicant is seeking a conditional use permit to repair transmissions and to perform other repairs and maintenance on small, light duty vehicles in a portion of the Salmon & Alder office/warehouse. Auto repair and maintenance is considered an acceptable use in the B-P Zone. The applicant will service approximately 4-6 vehicle a day. The applicant has been given 10 parking stalls in the rear of the building and 3 stalls in the front. Staff feels there is adequate parking for the proposed use. The applicant has stated that there will be no dust problems and there are no plans to do any auto bodywork or painting within the business. Noise will be minimal to abutting businesses as the units on either side of the proposed site are used for storage. The site does not have floor drains and so the Sewer District will not need to approve the use. The applicant will keep his floors clean by using an EPA approved soap product that he will scrub the floors with and then hose off. Staff supports the request for a conditional use permit for the following reasons:

1. The use is located sufficiently far away from any dwelling to avoid undue impact and should not unduly negatively impact abutting properties due to noise, lighting, hazardous materials, etc.

2. The hours of operation are for regular business hours (8:00a.m. - 5:00p.m.).

3. The site is existing and has already been approved and developed.

4. The use will comply with the General Plan for this area.

5. The site, if properly managed by the property owner, should be able to adequately park and screen the car storage areas.

6. The use as proposed is necessary and desirable, if managed properly, and will provide a service and facility that will contribute to the general well being of the area.

Staff recommends approval of the conditional use permit request upon the following conditions:

1. Review of the continuing status of the permit upon compliant by the public or staff for alleged non-compliance with City regulations, and any other applicable health and safety ordinance or regulation.

2. That the use complies with any and all conditions of the final site plan for the office warehouse project as a whole and that it does not create an excessive need for parking over and above what is already approved for the site.

3. That the hours of operation be limited to 8:00a.m. to 5:00p.m., Monday through Saturday. The business will be closed on Sunday. Any changes to these hours needs to be approved by the Planning Commission.

4. That no storage of autos in a state of disrepair be allowed in public view.

5. That the total number of cars that may occupy the overall site for this use at any one time be limited to 10.

Craig Jewett, applicant, stated he has been a resident of Centerville most his life and feels a transmission repair shop will contribute to the community as it is something that is lacking in Centerville. He stated he will be serving the community by offering quality service at a fair price.

Chairman Powell opened the public hearing, seeing there was no comment he closed the public hearing.

Chairman Powell stated that Salmon and Alder has just vacated their office and he asked if they would be vacating the unit used for storage just south of this proposed use. Mr. Jewett stated that he has been told they will be keeping this unit for storage, but that the unit on the north will be vacated and eventually rented out. He stated that there is a sound wall between his proposed use and the unit to the north, so noise will still be kept to a minimum for any abutting business.

Brian Hulse asked Mr. Jewett if he was acceptable to a limitation stating he could not service any large commercial vehicles or perform any auto body work or painting. Mr. Jewett accepted.

Ken Averett asked Mr. Jewett if he would be welding and if so does the unit have sprinklers. Mr. Jewett stated that occasionally he would be welding and that the unit does not have sprinklers, but that he has obtained approval from the Fire District.

Scott Vaterlaus asked Mr. Jewett where he planned to hose the floor off to. Mr. Jewett stated that there are floor drains just outside the unit. Planning Commission members agreed that Mr. Jewett should obtain approval from the Sewer District for this purpose.

Steven Bateman asked why the hours of operation where limited. Mr. Allred stated that this was at the applicants request, but that he had no problem with the Planning Commission extending the hours to allow the applicant some flexibility.

Brian Hulse made a motion to approve the conditional use permit based on the following:

1. Review of the continuing status of the permit upon compliant by the public or staff for alleged non-compliance with City regulations, and any other applicable health and safety ordinance or regulation.

2. The use complies with any and all conditions of the final site plan for the office warehouse project as a whole and that it does not create an excessive need for parking over and above what is already approved for the site.

3. The hours of operation shall be limited to 8:00a.m. to 8:00p.m., Monday through Saturday and closed on Sunday. Any changes to these hours needs to be approved by the Planning Commission.

4. No storage of autos in a state of disrepair be allowed in public view.

5. The total number of cars that may occupy the overall site for this use at any one time be limited to 10.

6. No auto body repair or painting of vehicles may be performed on this site.

7. No servicing of large commercial vehicles may be performed on this site.

8. Welding will be permitted on the premises but only incidental to the transmission and auto repair business and is subject to all applicable permit requirements and approvals.

9. The applicant must provide MSDS sheets for any chemicals or materials that might be listed as hazardous either in State, Local or Federal laws and must obtain approval from all applicable governmental authorities to use those chemicals or materials on the premises.

With the following findings:

1. The use is located sufficiently far away from any dwelling to avoid undue impact and should not unduly negatively impact abutting properties due to noise, lighting, hazardous materials, etc.

2. The hours of operation are for regular business hours.

3. The site is existing and has already been approved and developed.

4. The use will comply with the General Plan for this area.

5. The site, if properly managed by the property owner, should be able to adequately park and screen the car storage areas.

6. The use as proposed is necessary and desirable, if managed properly, and will provide a service and facility that will contribute to the general well being of the area.

Chairman Powell seconded the motion and passed by unanimous vote (7-0).

Steven Bateman arrived at the meeting.

PUBLIC HEARING - SUBDIVISION - CONCEPTUAL - Rockwood Farms Phase 3 - 800 North 600 East - .5acres in the A-1 Zone - Charlie Rockwood, property owner and applicant.

Paul Allred, Community Development Director, reported that the applicant is proposing a ½-acre one lot subdivision for a single family home. This is permitted in the current A-1 Zone. The applicant will be required to extend 600 East at least 50 feet, giving him at least ½ the required frontage on a public street. Extending the road will also require the installation of new sewer and irrigation lines. Due to the current slope of the subdivision these lines will need to be re-engineered to avoid sewage from backing up on 600 East. Also, by extending 600 East an additional building lot will be created on the west side. Mr. Rockwood does not want to create two building lots, therefore, the current development agreement for phases I and II will need to be amended. 600 East is a master planned street which will eventually connect to 700 North through Mr. Rockwood’s property to the south. Staff does not recommend completing the connection at this time since it would create additional building lots and there is no proposal for development. There is some concern regarding backing from the 50-foot extension onto 825 North. Staff discussed with the applicant the possibility of extending the road to the end of the subdivision or installing a temporary turn around to alleviate this concern. The applicant would rather not spend the extra money for either of these options and the ordinance only requires 50 feet. As part of the hillside overlay zone the conceptual subdivision requires a soils report, however, staff feels this should be wavered since there is no ground water problems and seismic activity has been located above this phase.

Mr. Allred stated some concerns faxed to him by Mary and Alyn Rockwood who own property on 700 North. The Rockwood’s were under the impression that when they developed their property it would be called phase III. They are concerned that if their development is bumped to phase IV they will have to pay additional fees. Mr. Allred stated that he explained to them that the phase number corresponds with which ever development comes first and that any fees would be expedited based on a previous approval. Mr. Allred stated that Mary and Alyn also feel it is time to go ahead and extend the road all the way through to 700 North. They would like to build on a parcel which would corner 700 North and 600 East, when it does eventually go through. Mr. Allred stated he explained that the connection was not recommended at this time and if they wished to develop they would need to dedicate that land which would eventually become roadway.

Staff recommends approval of the conceptual subdivision plat based on the following conditions:

1. The applicant work with the City Engineer and Sewer District to engineer the sewer line to make sure this lot can be properly serviced.

2. Amend the current development agreement by having the City Attorney include Phase III and address such items as future development, roads, utilities, zoning, and development rights of remaining land prior to final plat.

3. Grant a waiver towards the soils report.

4. Require a fire hydrant near the lot for sufficient fire protection.

Chairman Powell opened the public hearing, seeing there was not comment he closed the public hearing.

Brian Hulse asked Mr. Allred if there are any other specific issues that would warrant a soils test other than ground water and seismic activity. Mr. Allred stated that there could be other issues, but that the main concerns for this area were those mentioned. He explained that extensive soils studies were performed for phases I and II and that staff is confident of the soil conditions based on those tests done in the same area around this site, but that the Planning Commission could still require the testing if they feel it is necessary.

Paula Tew questioned if the 775 North stub street east of the site would come down making this lot a corner lot and if this posed any additional problems. Mr. Allred stated that 775 North is not a master planned street but conceptually is intended to connect to 600 East make this subdivision a corner lot. He stated he does not foresee any additional problems with this subdivision as a corner lot in the future.

Chairman Powell made a motion to approve the conceptual subdivision plan with the following conditions:

1. The applicant work with the City Engineer and Sewer District to engineer the sewer line to make sure this lot can be properly serviced.

2. Amend the current development agreement by having the City Attorney include Phase III and address such items as future development, roads, utilities, zoning, and development rights of remaining land prior to final plat.

3. Grant a waiver towards the soils report.

4. Require a fire hydrant near the lot for sufficient fire protection.

With the following findings:

1. The proposed use follows the General Plan for the area.

2. The lot will meet the minimum area to retain it’s A-1 Zone.

3. The subdivision will not have a negative impact on abutting properties.

4. A soils report is not necessary due to the confidence level that there are no ground water problems or seismic activity within the proposed subdivision.

Brian Hulse seconded the motion and passed by unanimous vote (7-0).

PUBLIC HEARING - SUBDIVISION - CONCEPTUAL - Bamberger Station Planned Unit Development - 200 South Main Street - Approximately 6 acres in the R-2 Zone - John Clark, property owner and applicant.

Paul Allred, Community Development Director, presented four different concept plans developed by the applicant for consideration. Each of these concepts showed a medium density (about 8 units per acre) which is allowable in the R-2 Zone. The General Plan for this area talks about maintaining commercial property along Main Street which the applicant plans to follow by keeping commercial uses on Main Street. While the details of this project will be numerous and challenging, the overall concepts are quite basic. Staff suggests the Planning Commission consider at least the following when looking at each concept.

1. Arrangement of open space.

2. Location and size of roads.

3. Consideration of housing types - attached vs. detached.

4. Auto and pedestrian links to abutting properties, especially as they relate to the Village area and Walton Lane.

5. Interpretation of relevant statistical data - open space vs. paved areas.

6. Property acquisitions/exchanges.

7. Buffering/screening and relationship to abutting uses.

8. Mix of commercial and residential use within the same site.

Staff would recommend the Planning Commission table the matter or approve one of the concepts for further consideration at a special work session that would be devoted entirely to this application.

John Clark, applicant, stated he prefers the detached housing style as it is more marketable and more profitable. He would like to see one of the concept plans approved tonight so he can continue to move forward and start to fine tune the development. He explained that the reason they came up with the twin home concept was to create larger clusters of open space, but he would still prefer the detached units. He stated there was some discussion on installing a 6-foot sidewalk on only one side of the street instead of the traditional 4-foot on both sides. He stated he likes this concept, but would like some feedback from the Planning Commission. He also stated he feels and 8-foot walk on one side of the road might be best. He stated he intends to have a mixture of housing styles with rambler/basement style homes toward the east and 2-story homes towards the west due to the water table. He also intends to incorporate the architectural style of the homes into the commercial facilities proposed on Main Street.

Chairman Powell opened the public hearing.

Becky Money, 355 South 160 West, stated she is concerned with the safety of the road if sidewalks are only installed on one side of the street. She would like to see sidewalks on either side of the street continuing through the connection to 160 West.

Phil Sessions, 70 East 200 South, stated that the City needs to be careful when approving land exchanges/boundary adjustments not to affect existing projects total square footage with respect to allowable density. For example, he stated that Cedar Springs is now under the required acreage for their density due to boundary changes.

Debbie Allred, 441 South Windsor Lane, stated she feels the density for this project is too high and she feels the traffic impact on Walton Lane and 160 West will be significant.

Bruce Madsen, 374 West Williams Lane, stated, he too, is concerned about the impact traffic will have on this area.

Paul Allred informed the public that traffic studies have been completed for both Walton Lane and 160 West. He explained that the does City need a connection from 400 West to Main Street, but that they did not want a straight, fast connection. This proposal provides that connection but forces vehicles to make one or more turns, causing traffic to slow.

Debbie Randall, City Council member, 203 North 300 East, suggested making Walton Lane a one way street to defuse traffic.

Leon Lawson, Farmington (owns home - corner of Porter Lane and 400 West), stated he believes Mr. Clark has done is part and feels the Planning Commission should approve the conceptual plan so Mr. Clark can move forward.

Chairman Powell closed the public hearing.

Paula Tew stated she does not see any large clusters of open space and suggested the possibility of dropping one or two units to allow for a playground or other amenity for the residents within the project.

Chairman Powell stated that he is in favor of sidewalks on both sides of the road. He also asked Mr. Allred if the Planning Commission has the authority to require a lower density. Mr. Allred stated that they can require a lower density in consideration of more open space, they just can’t allow more than 8 units per acre in the R-2 Zone.

Chairman Powell asked Mr. Clark if, in fact, he and Mr. Carlson have come to an agreement to exchange the land north of the Walton Lane right-of-way. Mr. Clark stated that an arrangement has been reached.

Steven Bateman made a motion to approve conceptual subdivision plans F, H, and J as workable and encouraged the property owner to proceed with some semblance of any of these plans. The Planning Commission agreed to meet with the applicant at a special work session to discuss details to arrive at one acceptable concept plan on February 27, 2002 following the regularly scheduled Planning Commission meeting. Ken Averett seconded the motion and passed by unanimous vote (7-0).

(COURTESY) PUBLIC HEARING - REZONE - Proposed rezone from A-1 to R-2 - Approximately 1.3 acres at 370 West 400 South - Kim and Connie Dunn and Leon and LeAnn Lawson, property owners and applicants.

Paul Allred, Community Development Director, reported the applicants are requesting a rezone of their historic property from A-1 to R-2. The applicants would like to retain and restore the Nathan Porter historic home, develop a small office building on the corner of 400 West and Porter Lane by remodeling the other smaller historic home on the property, and build and sell 4 town homes on the north end of the site. The General Plan is somewhat vague about the long-range development of this property. It clearly calls for the allowance of R-2 development to the northeast, west, and southwest of this site. It also states that properties between Porter Lane and the City boundary to about 500 West should be developed as low-density, single-family. With Porter Lane as a natural physical boundary between low-density and medium-density, it would seem that this is a transitional land use area and that R-2 would be appropriate and supported by the General Plan. The property is in a state of disrepair and the development proposal would improve the maintenance and upkeep of the site. It would likely infuse some much needed capital to restore and protect the historic buildings and grounds. It should be noted that the Zoning Ordinance gives specific authority for the City to use conditional uses to protect valuable historic resources. The property has not been used for residential or agricultural purposed for some time. Staff opinion is that it is unlikely that the property, given the current configuration and zone, will ever be used for A-1 again. A zoning change is inevitable. Zoning the land to R-1-10 or R-1-85 makes little sense, since the geometry of the land works against a rational development plan for those zones. The R-2 Zone does not have the physical and philosophical constraints of the R-1-10 and R-1-85 Zones and would allow for a more creative land use plan. Since the HRSB/Cottage Commercial zones were never adopted, and since the newly adopted SD Zone cannot be applied to a site less than 10 acres, and PUD’s require at least 3 acres, the R-2 Zone provides the best alternative to consider this new development plan. Staff recommends approval of the rezone petition if the Planning Commission can make specific findings.

Steven Bateman asked Mr. Allred how they could ensure that the two historic building are preserved through a zoning change. Mr. Allred stated they could preserve the buildings through a contract zone, development agreement, or through the conditional use permit process.

Brian Hulse questioned why they needed to rezone the entire parcel. He asked if it were possible to divide the historic home from the proposed town homes and office building and zone it R-1-10. He stated he would like to keep it at a lower density if possible. Mr. Allred stated that this was a possibility to consider.

Chairman Powell opened the public hearing.

Becky Money, 355 South 160 West, stated she would be very sad to see an R-2 approval. She stated it was her understanding that efforts to lower density in this area were being made and that the Village Steering Committee stated that they also recommended low-density single family-development in this area of the City. She feels that granting an R-2 Zone will set an uncontrollable precedent.

Debbie Allred, 441 South Windsor Lane, stated that she doesn’t see that rezoning to R-2 will guarantee the preservation of this property. She stated that since the applicant purchased this property it has fallen into a state of serious disrepair and she sees no reasonable evidence to assume that the applicants intend to preserve it now. She feels the R-2 Zone goes against the Steering Committees Strategic Development Plan which specifically recommends single-family residential at the south end of the 50-acre parcel, which is clearly related to this parcel. She feels this is an example of piece meal development, which has been discouraged since the beginning of the discussion over the 50-acres. She believes an R-2 zone is setting a bad precedent and would open the way to further commercialization of this area. She stated that recently the City denied an application for commercialization of a residence at Parrish Lane and Main Street (Hobson Home) because neighbors did not want it adjacent to their residences. She feels granting the R-2 zone would be out of harmony with the City’s own policy elsewhere. She asked why it would be appropriate to rezone this parcel, which is strictly residential when it has not been appropriate in the past to down zone R-2 parcels that clearly abut commercial areas. She stated that the City is not here to help maximize the investment of an applicant but rather to work for the good of the community. She stated she would rather see the homes torn down and the lot divided into single-family residential than R-2 and commercial.

Bruce Madsen, 374 West Williams Lane, asked if driveways or structures could be built across the flood canal on Porter Lane. He stated he felt this is setting a precedence for other property owners in the same vicinity to rezone their land into a professional/commercial use through R-2 or something else. He feels that rezoning for the hope of improving the property is not a good argument. He feels that granting an R-2 zone will lower property value for those abutting residences. He also feels that the parking for an office building will pose an unacceptable traffic impact.

Debbie Randall, City Council member, 203 North 300 East, stated she has recently learned of someone’s interest in purchasing the property and improving and preserving all of the historical buildings as a primary residence. She feels this is would be a more acceptable use within the neighborhood. She, too, agrees that this parcel is directly related to the Steering Committees recommendation for single-family residential in this area. She feels rezoning to an R-2 is premature and may affect those neighbors to the east of this site, that if they do not have the required acreage their A-1 Zone might be in danger.

Connie Dunn, applicant, stated the property was run down when they bought it and that they have made numerous efforts to improve the home. She stated that they have totally gutted the small home and started re-framing. She stated that they believed the Cottage Commercial zoning would be approved quickly so they made little effort to improve the landscaping because they knew they would have to completely re-landscape once the zoning was approved and they did not want to have to rip out new landscaping. In addition, there was some garbage dumped on the lawn, which made maintenance impossible. She stated that another option would be to demolish both the historical homes and divide the lot into six single-family building lots, but that they would like to preserve the homes if possible.

Leon Lawson, applicant, stated that rezoning this property has been extremely time consuming and difficult. He feels this site makes good sense for a low key commercial use, but would be willing to split the lot into single-family units if that a more acceptable use. He stated he would just like to see some type of approval, so they can move forward with development.

Chairman Powell closed the public hearing.

Steven Bateman asked Mr. Allred if single-family lots are a viable option and if they would conform to the General Plan for this area. Mr. Allred stated that this is debatable, but feels that it is supported by the General Plan and would work. However, it would require the demolition of at least one of the historic homes which, in his opinion, is not the best option. He feels the proposed development is a good one and will not devalue abutting residential properties.

Steven Bateman asked the applicant why there would be more money infused into the project if the zoning were changed. Mr. Dunn stated that the value of the property is about 50% more than what people are willing to pay for it, thereby, making the preservation of all the historical elements impossible. He explained that the only way they could come up with a financial plan to salvage the historical home is to bring in other income from other parts of the property, i.e., converting the small home into an office building, and the development of town homes. Mr. Bateman asked the Dunn’s exactly how many homes would be on the parcel once complete. Mr. Dunn stated that with the 4 proposed town homes and the historical home, which will remain single-family, there would be a total of 5 homes on a one acre parcel with the business use on the corner. Mr. Dunn stated he believes a contract zone is a good idea and that he would be willing to accept such an agreement to guarantee the preservation of the historical homes. He explained that there is no guarantee in place right now and that he could demolish both the homes tomorrow if it were to his benefit, but his intent is to preserve them.

Brian Hulse asked how the City would deal with the precedence this may set for other corner lots in the area. Mr. Allred stated that all rezone petitions must be considered based on their own merits and he feels that by approving this rezone it won’t necessarily open every corner to the same situation. He stated that, in his opinion, the concerns raised by the public are genuinely valid but may not necessarily be "real", meaning can you really quantify or qualify those concerns with tangible data, i.e., will it definitely diminish the value of property, or actually cause an accident someday.

Paula Tew stated that she would like to see this property remain residential. She stated that the applicant bought the property under the A-1 zone knowing that it may incur a loss. Mr. Dunn stated that they are trying to make the best of the situation without demolishing the historical homes. Ms. Tew asked Mr. Dunn if he was seriously considering demolishing the historical homes. Mr. Dunn stated that this was a very strong option, but that he would like to avoid this, if possible.

Chairman Powell stated that over the past two years the Planning Commission has looked at this piece of property extensively. He stated that they have reviewed numerous plans and he feels this one is the most acceptable. He stated he hopes the City Council will recognize the struggle and the time the Planning Commission has spent on this property.

Scott Vaterlaus stated he would like to see this parcel remain residential, but that he would rather see the proposed development than lose the historical nature of the property to six single-family lots, which he feels would impact the area more significantly.

Brian Hulse stated he is torn between his desire to preserve the historical buildings and not put the Planning Commission in a position where the neighborhood or the city, in general, viewed this approval as somehow opening the door to more invasive zoning, changing the structure of this neighborhood. He stated he is dismayed that the Planning Commission is in this position, when, in his opinion, the HRSB Zone dealt with these issues and gave the Planning Commission the ability to control what happened on the site. He feels his options have been severely reduced because no one would allow the Planning Commission the tools to be able to make such a decision. He stated he is in favor of the rezone purely to preserve the historical buildings and because he does not want to see them demolished to put in six single-family units.

Steven Bateman made a motion to recommend approval of the rezone petition from A-1 to R-2 upon the following conditions:

1. Given the property’s geometry and overall scheme as laid out on the conceptual plan presented.

2. The rezone is reasonable and necessary given where this property is located in the community.

3. The rezone is in the public interest, specifically with the respect to the preservation of the two historical properties.

4. The petition will be in harmony with the objectives and proposed future development of the City both in this area and in general.

5. The rezoning shall be tied to either a specific development agreement and/or a contract zone struck between the City and the property owners relative to the preservation of the two historical properties to run with the property in perpetuity.

Grant Talbot seconded the motion and passed by a 6-1 vote. Paula Tew voted against the motion.

PUBLIC HEARING - CONCEPTUAL SITE PLAN AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT - Proposed Centerville City water storage tank facility - 700 East Parrish Lane - A-1 Zone - Randy Randall and Fred Campbell, applicants for Centerville City.

Paul Allred, Community Development Director, stated that the applicant, Centerville City, is requesting approval for a one million gallon storage tank. The proposed storage tank is a public facility which is a conditional use in the A-1 Zone. It will be located at the top of Parrish Lane which the City has found to be in the best functional interest of the city. The tank will sit fairly close to the street and will most likely require some special exceptions. Staff recommends approval of the conditional use permit for this public facility with findings to support the action and to approve the conceptual site plan with direction to the applicants to come back at a later date for a final site plan approval.

Randy Randall, Public Works Facility, stated that the tank will be placed east of the fault line per geologist recommendation. The tank has to be held at a certain elevation to match with an adjoining reservoir, otherwise, one would overflow and the other empty. The tank will be completely buried and natural vegetation re-planted. Long-term the City would like to create a nice road and eventually some parking stalls for the trail head to the north of the tank. There will be a small building just in front of the tank, pretty much underground and quite close to the street, which will likely require a special exception for setbacks. This building will be used to house the pumps and valves and all that will be seen is the face of it. Staff looked at moving the tank to the east to allow for a greater setback for the pump house, but the hill side is too steep and would require too big of a cut.

Chairman Powell opened the public hearing.

Mike Murphy, 635 East Parrish Lane, stated he thinks this land is an eye sore. He stated that the plan states the hill will be re-planted with "natural seed" and he feels it will once again become an eye sore. He would like to see something a little nicer planted there other than another "weed patch".

Craig Jewett, 569 East 400 North, stated that approximately 500 feet above this proposed tank site there is already an existing tank in the hill which is out of use. He stated he was up there just the other day and noticed that is was about three quarters full with run off and he is worried that if the tank ever collapsed it could possibly wash this proposed new tank out or cause erosion which could severely damage the new tank. He feels the old tank should be removed prior to installation of the new tank. He stated that he, too, would like to see this planted with some greener vegetation, especially if it will eventually become a trail head parking area and to avoid an undue fire hazard.

Fred Campbell, applicant for City, stated that since this tank is so close to foot hills they feel they should restore it to its original condition. He stated they have planned some shrub oak in the front and some fabric mesh with some native vegetation which would help with erosion control. They do plan on planting some trees but would prefer to use xeriscaping and water wise vegetation.

Royce Allen, neighbor, stated they understand the need for the water tank and are not against putting in it in. However, they are concerned with the small pump house. He questioned why the building could not be moved around the south side of the tank next to the hillside and preserve the front access for the trail head.

Mr. Randall stated that the hillside to the south of the tank is too steep and would cut into the neighbors retaining wall.

Chairman Powell closed the public hearing.

Chairman Powell asked Mr. Campbell about the existing tank mentioned by Mr. Jewett. Mr. Campbell stated that the tank was built about 80 years ago and was taken out of service about 30 years ago. He stated the City has some obligation to demolish the tank before it becomes a problem. He stated the tank is on Forest Service property. He doesn’t believe the tank is in any danger of washing out, but may constitute some liability.

Chairman Powell made a motion to approve the conditional use permit for the public facility as shown on the conceptual site plan based on the following conditions:

1. The City must work with the Forest Service in demolishing and removing, if possible, the tank just above the proposed sight, to eliminate any liability concerns.

2. The hillside for both the old tank and the proposed new tank must be re-graded, re-vegetated and maintained in a natural state.

With the following findings:

1. The use is necessary and desirable for the good of the community.

2. The use is not detrimental to health and safety of the community, but is, in fact, advantageous to the community.

3. The use complies with the conditions and regulations as set forth and the Planning Commission acknowledges the need for a special exception for the set backs do to the fact that the tank needs to be at a specific elevation to maintain serviceability.

4. The use con

 
 
MuseumEmergencyRecreationConstructionMap Calendar