museum emergency recreation construction maps calendar


          City News

Planning
2002 Minutes & Agendas: Minutes - October 23, 2002



PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES OF MEETING
Wednesday, October 23, 2002, 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. by Chairman Brian Hulse.

MEMBERS PRESENT

Ken Averett
Steven Bateman, arrived at 7:10 p.m.
Ann Hewlett
Brian Hulse, Chairman
Lewis Nielsen
Scott Vaterlaus

MEMBERS ABSENT

Diana Moesinger

STAFF PRESENT

Blaine Lutz, Interim Community Development Director
Aric Jensen, Contract Planner
Kathleen Streadbeck, Recording Secretary

VISITORS

Terry Tate
Chad Bangerter

INVOCATION Ken Averett

NEW COMMISSION MEMBER

Chairman Hulse welcomed Lewis Nielsen as the new Planning Commission member.

COMMISSION BUSINESS

Minutes from the Planning Commission work session held October 9, 2002 were reviewed and amended. Scott Vaterlaus made a motion to approve the minutes as amended. The motion was seconded by Chairman Hulse and passed by unanimous vote (3-0). Ken Averett and Lewis Nielsen abstained from voting as they were not present at the meeting.

Minutes from the Planning Commission meeting held October 9, 2002 were reviewed and amended. Scott Vaterlaus made a motion to approve the minutes as amended. The motion was seconded by Ann Hewlett and passed by unanimous vote (4-0). Ken Averett and Lewis Nielsen abstained from voting as they were not present at the meeting.

ZONING MAP AMENDMENT (REZONE) - previously held public hearing on this item 8-14-02 - Tabled from the 8-14-02 Planning Commission meeting - Rezoning of 5.16 acres of land from HHSF to R-3 - Located at the corner of Chase Lane and the Frontage Road - Johnson Land Enterprises LLC, property owner and Garrison Construction Company, petitioner.

Chairman Hulse said that he received a phone call from Bob Eaton, representative for land owner, who said that he was not ready for tonight’s meeting and would not be able to attend. Chairman Hulse said that he discussed various options with Mr. Eaton regarding this rezone. He explained to Mr. Eaton that the General Plan does not allow for R-3 in this area of the city and that Mr. Eaton would need to go through a General Plan amendment process before seeking this rezone. He told Mr. Eaton that it would be his recommendation to the Planning Commission to table this item until a General Plan amendment is completed.

Commission members agreed that this item should be tabled until the applicant obtained a General Plan amendment. Blaine Lutz, Interim Community Development Director, and Chairman Hulse gave some background on this item so those new Commission members could have a better understanding. Ken Averett said that he has had numerous phone calls from residents in the area opposed to this rezone.

Chairman Hulse made a motion to table this rezone petition to give the applicant the opportunity to pursue a General Plan Amendment, since the General Plan does not allow for the R-3 Zone as currently requested. Further, the Planning Commission encouraged the applicant to provide, in their application for the General Plan amendment, information addressing the issues that were raised in the August 14, 2002 Planning Commission meeting, including public comment, as well as any other issues that may be appropriate. Steven Bateman seconded the motion, which passed by unanimous vote (6-0).

AMENDED SITE PLAN - Tabled from the October 9, 2002 Planning Commission meeting - Full Throttle Power Sports is proposing to delay several conditions of approval of this project - Located at 240 North Frontage Road - C-2 Zone - Donald Bangerter and Chad Bangerter, property owners and applicant.

Blaine Lutz, Interim Community Development Director, reported that the applicant is requesting an amended site plan. The site plan as approved required the relocation of an existing fence and power line along the south boundary of the property. The property adjacent to the subject property is currently vacant. The applicant feels it is futile to relocate the fence and install landscaping prior to development of this adjacent property. The applicant feels it would be difficult to maintain landscaping, with respect to weeds on the adjacent property, and feels future development would require the fence to be re-done again if relocated at this time. Mr. Lutz said that Chad Bangerter (property owner) has signed an extension agreement that binds him to make the improvements, in addition to a bond that the City has also required for the improvements. He explained that all improvements have been completed with the exception of the fence relocation and some landscaping. He asked the Planning Commission to review the site plans, approve or deny the amended site plan with respect to the fence relocation and landscaping, and decide whether or not to release the entire bond or a portion thereof.

Chairman Hulse asked how long the fence has been in its current location. Mr. Bangerter said that he believes the original fence has been there since the late 1970's. Chairman Hulse stated that if this is the case, this may be a boundary by acquiescence problem, in which case, the fence should not be moved as it may be on the property boundary as it stands currently.

Chairman Hulse asked if the site currently complies with required landscaping percentages. If not, he would recommend all landscaping be completed prior to releasing the bond. He said he feels the extension agreement would be sufficient, if amended to state that the fence must be relocated at the time development occurs on the adjacent property or the City finds it necessary for the health and safety of the community. Mr. Lutz said that he will recalculate the totals to verify if the site is within the landscape requirement.

Scott Vaterlaus said that he, too, feels the extension agreement is sufficient, but wouldn’t want to release the entire bond until all the landscaping issues are resolved, proving the site meets the ten-percent landscape requirement.

Steve Bateman made a motion to direct staff to work with the current property owner in completing the following:

1. Amend the existing extension agreement to state that the City will not exercise its right to demand the relocation of the fence and power line with corresponding landscaping until the adjacent property to the south is developed or the City determines that the health, safety and/or welfare of the public is impacted.

2. Determine what issues are remaining with respect to landscaping on the property not related to the fence and recalculate the percentage of landscaping on the entire parcel exclusive of the current site plan’s landscaping on the south boundary line to ensure that the site meets the ten-percent landscape requirement.

3. Review past and current site plans to determine any uncompleted improvements.

4. Recommend an estimate for the amount of bond release.

Based on those findings, the Planning Commission will review this issue once again at their next meeting on November 13, 2002.

Ann Hewlett seconded the motion, which passed by unanimous vote (6-0).

AMENDED PLAT - Sports Sales Plaza Phase 3 Subdivision - Located at 463 North 1000 West - B-P Zone - Terry Tate, property owner and applicant.

Blaine Lutz, Interim Community Development Director, reported that the applicant is requesting to amend his plat by dividing one lot into three. This plat has been reviewed by the City Engineer and the City Recorder and they recommend approval. He explained that one of the lots has frontage on a public road, but that the other two lots will be accessed by a private road with a public utility easement.

Scott Vaterlaus said that, typically, it is required that each parcel have frontage on a public road and asked if a private road was acceptable. Mr. Lutz explained that it is legally acceptable and that the Public Works Director and the City Engineer feel it appropriate.

Aric Jensen, Contract Planner, explained that the private drive and the two lots accessed by the private drive are already developed. The only lot actually being created has frontage on a public road.

Scott Vaterlaus asked if each of these parcels would be able to stand alone as an individual lot, with respect to all necessary requirements, i.e. parking, landscaping, setbacks, etc. He is concerned that they may be approving nonconforming lots. Mr. Lutz said that he would verify that each of these lots meet compliance in the B-P Zone.

Scott Vaterlaus made a motion to recommend approval to the City Council with the following condition.

1. Staff review and verify that all appropriate conditions have been met for each parcel to stand alone in the B-P Zone. If all conditions are met, staff and the applicant may submit this application to the City Council for final approval.

Steven Bateman seconded the motion, which passed by unanimous vote (6-0).

DIRECTORS REPORT

1. Planning Commission Special Work Session - Wednesday, October 30, 2002.

Blaine Lutz explained that this meeting is to discuss the Nursery property with respect to the text amendment, zoning application, and development plan.

Chairman Hulse asked what assurances the City will have to guarantee complete development. He would like to see bonds and/or covenants put in place for this purpose. Mr. Lutz stated that bonds, covenants, and the development plan should protect the City and that all of these items will be discussed in further detail at the work session. Mr. Lutz said that he would get a copy of the proposed text amendment to each member prior to the meeting for review.

Ken Averett asked if the text could be posted on the City’s website to facilitate the educational process and to allow for community input. Mr. Lutz said that this was an excellent idea.

Lewis Nielsen and Ann Hewlett stated that they would not be able to attend the work session, but would review the text amendment and let the Chairman know of any concerns prior to the meeting.

2. Next regularly scheduled Planning Commission meeting will be held on Wednesday, November 13, 2002 at 7:00 p.m.

3. Upcoming Training

  • Utah APA Conference - October 25, 2002 in Deer Valley
  • Envision Utah Training on Transit Systems - November 15, 2002
  • Utah League of Cities & Towns - www.ULCT.org

4. Miscellaneous

Ken Averett asked if Stokers car wash applied for a building permit for the recent improvements made. Mr. Lutz said that Stoker’s did speak to the building inspector, but that he has not been able to speak with the inspector to find out why a building permit was not issued. Mr. Lutz said that he believes there has probably never been a site plan for this parcel since it has been in business for so long. He said that this is probably a grand-fathered nonconforming use, but that if the Planning Commission feels the improvements are an expansion of a nonconforming use, then they can request the owners go through the conditional use process for approval.

Mr. Averett said that he feels this is an expansion of a nonconforming use and would like to see some landscaping and a conditional use approval. Given this use is on Main street, which the Planning Commission has tried hard to improve, he would like staff to enforce this issue. Chairman Hulse agreed.

Ken Averett made a motion to direct staff to research whether Stoker’s car wash meets existing ordinances and if not, to send a letter requesting conditional use approval. Lewis Nielsen seconded the motion, which passed by 5-0 vote. Ann Hewlett opposed.

The meeting was adjourned at 8:35 p.m.

 

Brian Hulse, Chairman
Kathleen Streadbeck, Recording Secretary



 
 
MuseumEmergencyRecreationConstructionMap Calendar