museum emergency recreation construction maps calendar


          City News

Planning
2000 Minutes & Agendas: Minutes - May 10, 2000



PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES OF MEETING

Wednesday, May 10, 2000 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 7:03 p.m. by Chairman Bruce Powell.

MEMBERS PRESENT:

Steven Bateman
Robert Chamberlain
Bruce Powell, Chairman
Paula Tew
Scott Vaterlaus

MEMBERS ABSENT:

Brian Hulse
Grant Talbot

STAFF PRESENT:

Paul Allred, Community Development Director
Mirinda Gibbons, Planning Intern
Steve Thacker, City Manager
Lisa Romney, Assistant City Attorney
Colleen Sessions, Recording Secretary

VISITORS:

Janet O. Gill, DeOrr Wight, Ruth Malar, Vernon B. Carr, David Putnam Jr., Sherri Lindstrom, Roy W. Griffin, Susan Leatham, Bud Stanford, Terry Pomeroy, Kathy Luke, Sharol Bangerter, Jessie B. Casper, Margo Turner, Julie Ban, Ann McGee, George Nichols, Clara Goudy, Brian Gold, Robert Buehl, Tad Lindsey, Susan Brown, Steve Blackham, Ralph Mitchell, George M. Herrmann, Roland and Jean Howe, Brad Brown, Ward McDonald, Harold and Ruth Yancey, Helene Huff, Dan J. Kadrmas, J. Roscoe Hunt, Jeffrey Love, Cherie King, Blaine Crawford, Lisa Wayman, Jamie Brown, Stephanie Yorgason, Barbara Butler, Randy Weaver, Elyse Hayes, Diane Weaver, Bret Millburn, Andrea Richman

INVOCATION: Steve Bateman

COMMISSION BUSINESS:

Minutes for the joint meeting with the City Council and Planning Commission on May 3, 2000 were approved and amended. Minutes for the Planning Commission meeting on April 26, 2000 were approved.

PUBLIC HEARING -- CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT -- Planned Commercial Development in Commercial C-2 Zone -- Centerville Corporate Park Subdivision -- Commercial C-2 Zone -- Approximately 500 North Marketplace Drive -- Steve Thacker, Director, Centerville Redevelopment Agency, applicant.

Paul Allred, Community Development Director, reported the Centerville Redevelopment Agency is asking approval of a conditional use permit for Planned Commercial Development (PCD) for Lot 1 of the new Centerville Corporate Park Subdivision. Generally, PCD is defined as retail and service establishment (or in this case professional office) which are guided by an integrated design assuring an aesthetically attractive project with effective traffic circulation, etc. The City has used PCD in the past to regulate multiple buildings and high-intensity land use sites such as the Marketplace project across the street. Lot 1 of this proposed development meets the specific criteria listed in the PCD section items A-J of the PCD ordinance.

Staff feels that the Planning Commission could approve conditional use for Planned Commercial Development upon the following findings:

1. The project as proposed is necessary and desirable and provides a service and facility which will contribute to the general well being of the community and neighborhood in the following ways:

a. The use, professional or corporate office of this scale, are not currently found in the City. Corporate offices will provide a place for some residents to work without leaving the city and thereby reducing the demand on city streets and the freeway.

b. The PCD, because of its integrated design and attention to detail, will draw attention to the City’s gateway and will spur needed economic development not only on the site itself but on adjoining properties in the Parrish Lane area.

c. The use of the site has been shown by the City’s Traffic Engineer to have a less deleterious effect on city streets than other allowable uses on the same site such as large scale retail development. Additional street improvements in the general vicinity will occur because of this use and may assist the City in obtaining other scheduled infrastructure improvements from UDOT more quickly than if the development were not occurring at this time.

d. The buildings on the site will be attractive and in the opinion of the City are above average in style and quality than other such developments in the immediate vicinity and region.

e. The buildings will not be out of scale for this particular site as they relate to the context of the surrounding land uses to the south, east, and west.

f. The proposed use is not contrary to the land use goals of the City’s General Plan for this area and is an allowed use in the Commercial C-2 Zone.

2. The use will not be detrimental to the health, safety and welfare of persons residing or working in the vicinity or injurious to property or improvements in the area in the following:

a. PCD does not involve heavy intensity uses such as manufacturing or fabricating which could cause noise, fumes, heat, glare, etc., on abutting properties. Specifically, the PCD for this site has no building close to any residence and provides ample screening and buffering of the buildings and parking area.

b. The buildings are placed on the site to minimize disruption of view and allow for proper light and shade for the adjoining residences and businesses.

c. Related street improvements and ingress/egress are designed to minimize impact on surrounding residential areas.

3. The PCD will comply with City regulations for land use and conditions as specified in the ordinance, or as may be amended in the future for this use in the following:

a. Professional Office is a permitted use in the C-2 Zone.

b. The site provides integrated design and coordination of architecture.

c. Each lot in the project will provide ample landscaping and parking to handle the projected traffic and parking needs.

d. The buildings are located away from residential areas in order to minimize their impact.

e. Appropriate ingress/egress are planned to minimize impact.

f. Signs on the site will be minimal and tastefully done to meet City ordinances.

g. An ownership association will be set up to properly maintain the site.

h. The site is at least two acres in area as required by the C-2 Zone.

I. The buildings have the required setback from property lines per the C-2 Zone.

4. The proposed use will conform to the intent of the City’s General Plan in the following:

a. Professional office is a permitted use not a conditional use in the zone. The General Plan allows for even more intensive land use than is being proposed, and therefore, complies with the General Plan

b. The PCD proposes heavy landscaping, minimal signs, few curb cuts, coordination of ingress/egress, the development of integrated commercial use instead of "strip commercial".

c. Provides a landscaped buffer between the residential to the north and this project.

d. The PCD provides as appropriate "Gateway" image as called out in the General Plan for the Parrish Lane Commercial District.

5. Conditions imposed by the Planning Commission shall be based on options in the ordinance.

a. The Planning Commission and City Council have and will consider optimal options during site plan review over and above the conditions for PCD.

The recommended conditions of approval for the Planned Commercial Development are as follows:

1. Development of any lot or parcel within the property must be developed in accordance with all City Ordinances; including, but not limited to: Section 12-3330-1 (Planned Commercial Developments); Section 12-340-0 (Landscaping); Section 12-340-2 (Off-Street Parking); and Section 12-340-3 (Signs).

2. Developer shall be required to submit a site plan for the development of any lot or parcel within the property in accordance with Section 12-350-1 (Site Plan Review). Such site plans shall meet all applicable City Ordinances regarding buffering, landscaping, off-street parking, etc.

3. Buildings in excess of 45 feet may be permitted as approved in conjunction with site plan approval but may not exceed 66 feet on Lots 1 and 2 to the top of HVAC enclosure. Lot 3 will be limited to 52 feet.

4. Developer shall provide and record restrictive covenants and/or an operating easement agreement for maintenance and conditions of approval which will be approved by the City.

5. Developer shall create an ownership association to ensure maintenance of required improvements and landscaping.

6. Compliance with all applicable City ordinances regarding lot size, traffic circulation, buffering, landscaping, off-street parking, etc., including, but not limited to Section 12-330-1 (Planned Commercial Developments); Section 12-340-9 (Landscaping); Section 12-340-2 (Off-Street Parking); Section 12-340-3 (Signs); and Section 12-350-1 (Site Plan Review).

7. Compliance with terms and conditions set forth in the Development Agreement to be entered into by the Developer and the City prior to issuance of the building permit.

8. Overall landscaping of 26%--23% on-site and 3% off-site.

9. All subsequent buildings within the project will be required to be individually approved by the City during site plan review with substantial architectural compatibility in terms of exterior materials and colors with the building on Lot 1.

10. Overall parking shall be not less than 3.4 stalls per 1000 square feet of floor area. This figure will be allowed to comply for requirement of Section 12-220-1-(2)(J).

11. Uses shall be limited to those specifically addressed in the Development Agreement.

Steve Bateman asked Mr. Allred to discuss "1 c" concerning the additional street improvements that might occur.

City Manager and Executive Director of the RDA, Steve Thacker, responded to Commissioner Bateman. He reported that most people in the city are concerned about the traffic impact this project will create. The City’s Traffic Engineer, Jerry Blair, submitted a follow up report at a previously held workshop meeting that answered a number of specific questions. Mr. Thacker regrets that Mr. Blair was not invited to the meeting tonight to answer questions since a flyer was mailed to residents in Centerville concerning traffic problems that might occur with this project. The allegations in the flyer are not correct and a member of the group who signed the letter will speak during the public hearing portion of the meeting. Mr. Thacker discussed the memorandum from Mr. Blair concerning traffic questions regarding the Centerville Corporate Park Subdivision. (See attachment). He indicated that the improvements would be paid for by the tax increment that comes from these improvements as well as the improvements that already exist in the redevelopment area. These improvements need to be in place by spring. Since there will be no tax increment from MTC improvement by that point, by that point the tax increments from Home Depot and Target can be used to fund those improvements up front. The RDA could also make a loan arrangement to make the improvements and then use the tax increments from the MTC buildings to pay back the loan. He indicated that of all the commercial uses that could occur on this property, an office complex such as MTC would have one of the lowest traffic impacts on the surrounding area.

Chairman Powell opened the public hearing.

DeOrr Wight, 334 West 850 North, indicated he signed the letter that was mailed to the general public today. This letter was sent out prior to a meeting he attended with Mr. Thacker and Blaine Lutz. The intention of the letter was not meant to give out false information or to inflame the public. His intention was to have as many people as possible come to the meeting to voice their concerns. He expressed concern about access to the project from Parrish Lane and 400 West.

Steve Thacker responded that the right-turn only lane could be extended east to the driveway on Parrish Lane. Also the second access on 400 West (onto Lot 3) could possibly be moved further north to allow the traffic additional room to stack in the left turn lane on 400 West. He indicated that the "D" rating at the intersection of 400 West and Parrish Lane applied to the morning peak rush hour, and may only apply to the east-bound traffic waiting to turn north onto 400 West. He suggested clarification be sought from the traffic consultant before the Commission considers final site plan.

Mr. Wight learned at the meeting with Mr. Thacker and Mr. Lutz that although there could be a few more accidents on 400 West, he assumes the speed at which people will be traveling would not cause life threatening accidents. He expressed his opinion that compromise is difficult. He felt that the people in charge have been trying to do what would be in the best interest for the citizens of Centerville. He realized that MTC needs four stories for economic reasons. He would rather have them on this property than some other project.

Garn Ford, 1416 North 50 West, expressed his opinion that MTC would be good for Centerville. In the long run, it will add to the beauty of the area and will be a great tax base for the City. He would hope that this project would not be derailed at this point.

Sherri Lindstrom, 224 West Porter Lane, passed out a letter written by her and Julie Ban (attached) on October 27, 1999. She suggests a fully documented impact study be completed before any further decision or development occurs. She would hope that the architectural design on the MTC building compliment the designs being discussed with the Calthorpe Study. She agrees that this property needs to be sold and that a corporate gateway use for this property is mandatory at this time. She would not like to see MTC leave Centerville. She still has concern with the size of the buildings and the impact they will have on Centerville. The corridor to Centerville is so small that the buildings will be too overpowering for the area. She would like to see a R-udat or other workshop where UDOT, UTA, and citizens of Centerville discuss what complications might occur with the social, economic and traffic issues Centerville is facing. She distributed pictures to the Planning Commission from the Riverwood Complex in Provo. She would like to see the MTC project and the Calthorpe area be pedestrian and bicycle friendly and complement one another.

Kathy Luke, 292 West Windsor Lane, would like to see some personality in the MTC building as well as creating an identity or image for Centerville as people come off Interstate I-15. She expressed concern over the height of the building and would like to see a small-town image projected for Centerville.

Robert T. Beuhler, owner of Arby’s, commends the City of Centerville and the Planning Commission on the great plan for the MTC building. The business community in Centerville needs to help on the tax base. If MTC needs four floors then they ought to be able to build what they need.

Harold Yancey, 270 Sunset View Drive, appreciates the spirit of cooperation he has felt in the meeting. He has great confidence in the Planning Commission. He feels the MTC project has great potential for additional economic development to occur. He feels it would be a tragedy to lose this kind of project.

Margo Turner, 75 West Chase Lane, has concerns with the height of the MTC building. This is 20 feet higher than what is allowed in the current City Ordinance. She asked why MTC did not follow the ordinance.

Sharol Bangerter, 555 North 400 West #27, lives closer to the MTC project than anyone else. She stated that the buildings are way too high. MTC could blend into the city better if they wanted to. She asked if the Marketplace road could be widened to take the burden of traffic on 400 West especially the 18 wheelers going into Colonial Lumber.

Scott Vaterlaus, Planning Commissioner and a traffic engineer responded that this is the first phase of the project. There is not much choice as where the entrance and exit should be on Marketplace Drive. It works better on 400 West. Later as additional phases occur, the traffic will change with more people exiting on Marketplace Drive.

Andrea Richman, 327 West Windsor Lane, commented that there have been good people doing good things. Her neighbors do not want this high of a building. She would like to see a nice looking, small-town city. A petition in opposition to the MTC design was submitted and she asked the Planning Commission to please listen to the citizens of Centerville.

Chairman Powell indicated that the design of the MTC building has been significantly changed since that petition was submitted.

Roger Griffin, attorney representing certain Centerville residents, stated the citizens he represents feel that a win/win situation can occur and be beneficial for the city. The concerns include where the monies are going from this RDA purchase and what is the long-term use of taxes from this property. If the money is going to be used for parks, then it should be earmarked as such from the onset of this meeting. The second concern is the safety factor. As a Commission, the parking, traffic and safety concerns should be revisited every 6 months. The third concern is the time frame. What is the long-term plan for this area? Why not sit back and before approving MTC, finalize the Master Plan. Several problems could be curtailed if a plan were in effect. The Planning Commission on March 23, 2000, approved this development only if it were a three-story building. The clients Mr. Griffin represents are concerned that a vote was conducted and now without another public meeting that vote has been changed. The Planning Commission should address this problem and the architectural scheme that was approved should be adhered to. MTC should be a corporate player and want to work with the Commission.

Chairman Powell indicated that when he moved into Centerville in 1984, the Master Plan was already in place. It has been reviewed twice in the last few years. MTC appealed the decision of the Planning Commission in regard to the three story idea. The City Council remanded that back to the Commission for another look at the building. This architectural plan has been modified from what was originally proposed. These are the issues that the Planning Commission is addressing at this meeting tonight. No vote was taken; however, the Planning Commission was polled as to their feelings on the matter.

Tad Lindsay, 952 North 500 East, supports this MTC project. He and his wife are excited with the idea and feel it will generate restaurants and retail in Centerville. He feels that MTC should build what they need and enjoy the economic development that will occur.

Ward McDonald, 567 West 925 North, and store director of Dicks Market in Bountiful, expressed concern that Centerville is compromising their standards in regard to the ordinances. If the ordinance states 45 feet for the height of the building, why are they allowing 64 feet? His main concern is traffic since he has children attending Jennie P. Stewart Elementary School. If the freeway is too busy, motorists will travel along Main Street and then cut down to 400 West along Chase Lane. He also expressed concern over the semi’s that deliver to Pineae Greenhouse that enter from 400 West. Traffic is stopped to allow for several trucks to make the turn into Pineae, which will cause a problem if traffic is backed up to Parrish Lane.

Brian Gold, Pineae Nursery, stated that this is the first time he has heard of any problem with trucks turning into Pineae off of 400 West. These trucks are only there for about six weeks in the spring. During the rest of the year, traffic is pretty light. He suggested the Planning Commission be forward thinking and address the needs for additional tax base to help in keeping taxes down.

Susan Leatham, 222 East 500 North, asked how the public citizens learn about the Master Plan and who develops and revises the plan. She also asked about green space in the Master Plan and why a park was being eliminated.

Chairman Powell indicated she could obtain a copy of the General Plan from the City. Subcommittees made up of citizens developed the General Plan based on the needs of each neighborhood. Committees are formed to work with the Planning Commission on a needs basis to study changes that might be needed.

Lisa Romney, Assistant City Attorney, stated there is a statutory procedure for amending a General Plan that requires a public hearing before the Planning Commission and a public hearing before the City Council. It is a lengthy process and Centerville has adopted and updated its General Plan in accordance with this process. Such plan is being used as a guiding document in this matter.

Chairman Powell stated the value of the property in question is about $2.5 million. The bulk of that money will go to the purchase and development of other parks.

Steve Thacker responded to the parks issue. The sale of this property is key to implementation of the Parks Master Plan. This will include a park in the southwest area of the city, the expansion of the Community Park and the development of a park in the northeast part of the city. Total acreage of these three sites will be 20 acres or more by selling this site, which only includes seven to eight acres of park. The net gain is substantial and these parks will be more strategically placed as recommended by the Parks Master Plan.

Janet Gill, 438 North Main Street, stated that she has learned a lot from this meeting. She asked that the Planning Commission spend the time and energy to make certain that we do the very best that we can.

Sue Brown, 331 West 950 North Circle, asked that the human side of the traffic issue be addressed. This is very hard to do on paper. She expressed concern over her children walking up Chase Lane to go to school, trucks on 400 West, sitting through four stop lights to come to the City Hall. These issues are the real human side of the traffic issue. She interprets the Master Plan to have the city remain as a residential community. She recognizes the need for economic growth and development. However, she is concerned that the company is very large and there are other people in Centerville that feel the same. She didn’t move to Centerville to shop here but just to reside here. She would prefer to have this remain as a residential community and drive to other cities to do her shopping.

James Kenning, Pheasantbrook, likes the general overall upscale atmosphere that this development will bring to the area. If we want a forward looking community, we need to okay these types of buildings without trying to put modifications on the building which we are not qualified to suggest.

Vernon Carr, former Mayor, stated that these are very important issues that need to be decided. He suggested one caution for the Planning Commission to remember. If as a group, we are too hard on these developers that come in and word gets out it could be detrimental to the growth of Centerville for a long time. We need to do whatever we can to invite them here since that will be the network that will bring other good businesses into the area. We can’t live as a residential community without a tax base.

Chairman Powell thanked the public for their input and closed the public hearing. He suggested the following six reasons why this project would be good for the Community: increased tax base; more employment; kick start other business development in the area; beautiful landscaping; it is in keeping with the General Plan; and it will add to our parks program. This business will have a long-range impact to Centerville for generations to come. He asked for comments from the Planning Commission.

Paula Tew asked what this project will do for the City’s tax base.

Paul Allred explained the spin off effect and benefits. It will attract future development for Marketplace which has been fairly slow to develop. It could also assist in developing commercial and residential development on the Security Investment and Porter Lane Nursery properties.

Steve Thacker indicated from the first building the estimated property tax is $100,000 a year that will go to the school district and other taxing entities. As the second and third buildings are built, additional monies will be available. The sales tax will be substantial from the number of employees from this development. He also mentioned that the police chief expressed that an office complex would create a low demand on police services. Retail development is a high demand as far as impact on the police department; therefore, the Police Chief supports the proposed project.

Steve Bateman asked the Assistant City Attorney to clarify the responsibilities of the Planning Commission in respect to this issue which is before the Planning Commission this evening.

Lisa Romney, Assistant City Attorney, indicated that this is a complicated project that involves three processes: a subdivision of this property; a site plan review of this property and a conditional use permit. At this point, the Planning Commission is dealing with the conditional use permit. The role of the Planning Commission when considering an application for a conditional use permit is set forth in the City Ordinances which require the Commission to consider certain matters and make specific findings. Negotiations before the Planning Commission is to determine whether the proposed Planned Commercial Center is an appropriate use for this property. Mr. Allred has provided the Planning Commission with a discussion of these consideration and proposed findings which should be discussed.

Scott Vaterlaus expressed the corporate office will have the least impact as far as traffic is concerned. He would rather see a nice looking office building than more retail and automotive use in this area.

Chairman Powell asked what portion of the money would go to parks?

Mr. Thacker responded that the previous City Council agreed that at least half of the money should be used for parks. The current City Council has not taken a formal position on it at this point. He is confident that this Council will spend at least half if not more on parks.

Steve Bateman made a motion that the Planning Commission agree with and adopt the findings for approval of conditional use permit as prepared by staff as follows:

1. The project as proposed is necessary and desirable and provides a service and facility which will contribute to the general well being of the community and neighborhood in the following ways:

a. The use, professional or corporate office of this scale, are not currently found in the city. Corporate offices will provide a place for some residents to work without leaving the city and thereby reducing the demand on city streets and the freeway.

b. The PCD, because of its integrated design and attention to design will draw attention to the City’s gateway and will spur needed economic development not only on the site itself but on adjoining properties in the Parrish Lane area.

c. The use of the site has been shown by the City’s Traffic Engineer to have a less deleterious effect on city streets than other allowable uses on the same site such as large scale retail development. Additional street improvements in the general vicinity will occur because of this use and may assist the City in obtaining other scheduled infrastructure improvements from UDOT more quickly than if the development were not occurring at this time.

d. The buildings on the site will be attractive and are above average in style and quality more so than other such developments in the immediate vicinity and region.

e. The buildings will not be out of scale for this particular site as they relate to the context of the surrounding land uses to the south, east, and west.

f. The proposed use is not contrary to the land use goals of the City’s General Plan for this area and is an allowed use in the Commercial C-2 Zone.

g. This particular type of development provides the lowest crime impact for police service.

h. This development provides a positive economic impact to the city.

2. The use will not be detrimental to the health, safety and welfare of persons residing or working in the vicinity or injurious to property or improvements in the area because of the following:

a. PCD, in this particular case for Preferred Office, does not involve heavy-intensity uses such as manufacturing or fabricating which could cause noise, fumes, heat, glare, etc., on abutting properties. Specifically, the PCD for this site has no building close to any residence and provides ample screening and buffering of the buildings and parking area.

b. The buildings are placed on the site to minimize disruption of view and allow for proper light and shade for the adjoining residences and businesses.

c. Related street improvements and ingress/egress are designed to minimize impact on the abutting residential areas.

3. The PCD will comply with City regulations for land use and conditions as specified in the ordinance, or as may be amended in the future for this use in the following:

a. Office use is permitted in the C-2 Zone.

b. The site provides integrated design and coordination of architecture.

c. Each lot in the project will provide ample landscaping and parking to handle the projected traffic and parking needs.

d. The buildings are located away from residential areas in order to minimize their impact.

e. Appropriate ingress/egress are planned to minimize impact.

f. Signs on the site will be minimal and tastefully done to meet City Ordinances.

g. An ownership association will be set up to properly maintain the site.

h. The site is at least two acres in area as required by the C-2 Zone.

i. The buildings have the required setback from property lines per the C-2 Zone.

4. The proposed use will conform to the intent of the City’s General Plan in the following manner:

a. Professional office is an allowed use in the zone and complies with the General Plan

b. The PCD proposes heavy landscaping, minimal signs, few curb cuts, coordination of ingress/egress, the development of integrated commercial use instead of "strip commercial".

c. Provides a landscaped buffer between the residential to the north and this project.

d. The PCD provides an appropriate "Gateway" image as called out in the General Plan for the Parrish Lane Commercial District.

5. Conditions imposed by the Planning Commission shall be based on options in the ordinance.

a. The Planning Commission and City Council have and will consider optimal options during site plan review over and above the conditions for PCD.

It is further motioned that we approve the conditional use permit for a Planned Commercial Development as outlined, subject to the following conditions:

1. Development of any lot or parcel within the property must be developed in accordance with all City Ordinances; including, but not limited to: Section 12-330-1 (Planned Commercial Developments); Section 12-340-7 (Landscaping); Section 12-340-2 (Off-Street Parking); and Section 12-340-3 (Signs).

2. Developer shall be required to submit a site plan for the development of any lot or parcel within the property in accordance with Section 12-350-1 (Site Plan Review). Such site plans shall meet all applicable City Ordinances regarding buffering, landscaping, off-street parking, etc.

3. Buildings in excess of 45 feet may be permitted as approved in conjunction with site plan approval but may not exceed 66 feet on Lots 1 and 2 to top of HVAC enclosure. Lot 3 will be limited to 52 feet.

4. Developer shall provide and record restrictive covenants and/or an operating easement agreement for maintenance and conditions of approval, to be approved by the City.

5. Developer shall create an ownership association to ensure maintenance of required improvements and landscaping.

6. Compliance with all applicable City Ordinances regarding lot size, traffic circulation, buffering, landscaping, off-street parking, etc., including, but not limited to Section 12-330-1 (Planned Commercial Developments); Section 12-340-9 (Landscaping); Section 12-340-2 (Off-street Parking); Section 12-340-3 (Signs); and Section 12-350-1 (Site Plan Review).

7. Compliance with terms and conditions set forth in the Development Agreement to be entered into by developer and the City prior to building permit.

8. Overall landscaping of 26%--23% on-site and 3% off-site.

9. All subsequent buildings within the project will be required to be individually approved by the City during site plan review with substantial compatibility in terms of exterior materials, and architectural style with the building on Lot 1.

10. Overall parking shall be not less than 3.4 stalls per 1000 square feet of floor area. This figure will be allowed to comply for requirement of Section 12-330-1-(2)(J).

11. Uses shall be limited to those specifically addressed in the Development Agreement.

Robert Chamberlain seconded the motion.

Voting was unanimous (5-0).

COURTESY HEARING -- SITE PLAN-- CONCEPTUAL (Reconsideration) -- Management and Training Corporation, Corporate Office --Lot 1, Centerville Corporate Park Subdivision-- Approximately 500 North Marketplace Drive -- Commercial C-2 Zone -- Mike Wright, SAHARA Construction, Scott Henriksen, GSBS Architects, applicant for MTC.

Paul Allred, Community Development Director, reminded the Planning Commission that they approved a conceptual site plan on March 23, 2000. MTC appealed the conditions of the approval and a hearing was held on April 26, 2000 by the City Council to hear the matter. At that time, the City Council remanded the issue back to the Planning Commission on 3 of 5 conditions of approval. Those three conditions to be reviewed were:

1. Building Height

2. Architectural Design

3. Landscaping

ANALYSIS

Landscaping -- Staff had recommended that the size of trees be increased to reflect the scale of the buildings. Staff recognizes that the larger trees will grow more slowly and have a higher mortality rate. The most recent landscaping plan shows a very nice overall plan with most of the trees in the large scale category. Given the expert advice of Councilman Gold in this regard, staff supports the revised scaled down tree planning plan since it is well over the ordinance requirements. Staff also recommended that building height not be reduced since it would replace the excellent landscape plan for the site.

Building Height and Architectural Design -- The revised drawings are more attractive than the first set and staff would recommend they be more strongly considered. Specifically, staff would recommend the revised elevation be approved as acceptable with the caveat that some artistic elements be added to the west elevation of the building such as the use of flag(s), the placement of a clock on the middle to lower portion of the facade and/or the addition of bold, yet tasteful lettering near the entrances on the face to identify each particular building. Staff would suggest that any or all of these elements would enhance the building and would not disturb the overall design as envisioned by the architect and MTC for this site. Staff is supportive of the building height and recommends that a height not to exceed 66 feet to the top of the equipment enclosure be allowed. This requirement needs to be tied into the conditional use permit for Planned Commercial Development.

Staff recommends approval of the conceptual site plan upon discussion of the above items and with any direction the Planning Commission feels is needed before this matter is considered for final site plan approval on May 16, 2000.

Chairman Powell opened the meeting for a public hearing.

Garn Ford, 1416 North 50 West, likes what has been presented. Four floors will screen the equipment on the top so that you will see more of a beautiful building. In his opinion it will not be too massive or invasive.

Sherri Lindstrom, 224 West Porter Lane, feels strongly that the design guidelines for the Calthorpe area need to reflect Neighborhood 2. She commends the MTC group for the adjustments that have been made; however, both of these areas need to complement one another. GSBS Architects are corporate donors to the Heritage Foundation. They can be very creative people and, therefore, should be able to work with Centerville in regard to the look of the buildings. The Heritage Foundation is the corporation that can help with donations of funding guidelines in connection with the Utah State Historical Society.

Susan Brown, 331 West 950 North Circle, attended the previous work session and does not see any tweaking that should have taken place. The changes are too minor and it still looks like gray flannel suit to her.

DeOrr Wight, 334 West 850 North, asked if the building needs to be four floors to be economically feasible? He asked that the question be answered.

David Putnam, Jr., 1173 North 350 West, commented that as he has driven through Farmington he has noticed the Kendall Building and how attractive it is with the fieldstone on the columns. Could the architect look at that with a theme in mind for Centerville? He would still like to see this property saved as a park and MTC locate across the freeway in the Industrial Park.

Steve Thacker indicated to the Planning Commission that a developer, who had approached the City about this property last year, indicated a construction cost would be $75-$80 per square foot. The cost for the MTC building will be around $100.00 per square foot because of their desire to make this building a very high class quality building. Economically they will need to have a building sufficient to recover that investment.

Scott Henriksen, GSBS Architects, stated that in his opinion, the cost of the property is relevant to the economics. The purchase price has been established. MTC is constructing a building for their company to expand into. In the beginning, MTC will lease space to help compensate for the economics of the building. MTC hopes to fully occupy the building, with their own employees, at the end of five years.

Steve Thacker stated that a previous developer initially proposed a total of 160,000 square feet on the RDA property and later in the negotiations wanted to increase it to 190,000 square feet because of economic considerations to make it viable. Those figures might be a good reference point to go by. MTC will have a maximum of 200,000 square feet with the three buildings.

Chairman Powell closed the public hearing.

Chairman Powell expressed his feelings in regard to the landscaping being very adequate. He is persuaded that the four story building will not be out of place. He felt that the architecture of the building has substantially changed. He felt that the first design had a corporate image and now the building had an institutional appearance. He would still like to see some gables and different types of architectural accents. The arch window that was added gives a distinctness and it would be nice to have the granite at the top arched as well. He would like to see lettering over the doorway.

Paula Tew commented that she was willing to concede on the landscaping; however, she would like definite size requirements for the trees and the amount of trees that will be used.

Mr. Allred recommended that 85% of the trees be three-inch caliper.

Brian Gold stated three-inch trees are readily available in a large number of varieties.

Paula Tew indicated there should be a statement that the traffic issue be revisited in six months after completion of the building and would MTC stagger their business hours to off-set the peak times of traffic.

Mike Wright, architect, indicated that MTC already schedules the hours of some employees to come earlier or leave later to deal with employees in other time zones.

Chairman Powell thought he remembered MTC saying that 10% to 15% come in early to work which leaves the rest coming at the traditional time. Steve Thacker remembered that as 25%, but suggested a clarification be sought from MTC.

Paula Tew stated she voted for conditional use since it is a good use for this site. However, she feels that the changes to the building are very minor. She would like to see a better treatment on the west face of the building having it come out just the same as on the east face. She would like to see more changes before she will vote to approve the final architectural design. She will vote to approve height, landscaping and traffic at this time; however, she would like to see more depth and texture to the building. This building should also tie into the look of the Calthorpe area.

Scott Vaterlaus stated if the building needs to have a set square footage requirement he would rather have it higher with more landscaping than spread out and diminishing the landscaping.

Steve Bateman requested Lisa Romney to state the Planning Commission’s authority as opposed to the City Council’s authority in regard to these issues.

Lisa Romney, Assistant City Attorney, stated at this point the Planning Commission is dealing with the conceptual plan approval. This reconsideration of that conceptual plan approval is dealing with three of the five issues that were approved on March 23, 2000. The City Council denied the appeal on two of the issues but remanded three of the conditions back to the Planning Commission. Those issues on remand are: building height, landscaping, and architecture. Under the City ordinances, site plan is a two step process: conceptual site plan and final site plan. Conceptual site plan is reviewed and approved by the Planning Commission. Final site plan is reviewed by the Planning Commission with a recommendation to the City Council who makes the final decision. The purpose of the conceptual site plan is to provide the applicant with an opportunity to consult with and receive assistance from the City regarding the regulations and design requirements applicable to the site plan development of the property. The City site plan ordinance provides that the Planning Commission approves the conceptual site plan, such approval shall not constitute a final acceptance of the plan by the Planning Commission but provides the applicant general guidance as to the requirements and constraints for applicant’s proposed site plan development within the city and merely entitles the applicant to file an application for final site plan approval. The final site plan should reflect the Planning Commission’s recommendations, although the City Council has the final authority in reviewing and approving the final site plan.

Chairman Powell asked that the building have some artistic traits added to it to build a unity of feeling in Centerville’s community. A clock at the top of the arch or other suggestions would be helpful. He also suggested that the 8 inch pop-out be increased to 12 inches.

Steve Bateman made a motion to approve the conceptual site plan based upon the findings and recommendations of staff, subject to the following:

1. Revise the landscaping plan to require that a minimum of 85 percent (100 percent recommended) of the trees shown be three inches in caliper.

2. It is strongly encouraged, but not required, that the face of the building be altered as much as possible and within reason to not only tie into the adjacent Marketplace properties but also to reflect the overall desire of the citizens such as a gabled roof on both sides, a clock on one side, lettering and/or other distinctive architectural ideas that might be considered before final site plan approval.

3. The total height of the building shall not exceed 66 feet to the top of equipment enclosure. However, if a gable treatment is added to the building, consideration will be given for flexibility to that 66 feet height limitation to allow for such an architectural feature.

4. A traffic review and impact study be completed within six months of completion of the building.

5. The right only turn lane (deceleration) westbound be extended as far east as possible subject to review and approval of the Traffic and City Engineer. Any required revision shall be made to the applicable subdivision plat(s).

6. The City to receive assurance from the owner as to the staggering of employee shifts.

Scott Vaterlaus seconded the motion.

Voting was unanimous (5-0).

SITE PLAN -- FINAL -- (This item was noticed for action at this meeting but will not be acted upon by the Planning Commission until a meeting set to begin at 6:00 p.m. on Tuesday, May 16, 2000) Management and Training Corporation (MTC) -- Lot 1, Centerville Corporate Park Subdivision -- Approximately 500 North Marketplace Drive -- Commercial C-2 Zone -- Mike Wright, Sahara Construction, Scott Henriksen, GSBS Architects, applicant for MTC.

This item was noticed to adjoining communities for action but the matter has been postponed until May 16, 2000 for action by the Planning Commission and City Council. The Planning Commission should not take any input on this matter at this time but rather defer actions. This item is not a public hearing.

SUBDIVISION -- FINAL PLAT Pheasant Village Subdivision -- Approximately 95 West Chase Lane -- Residential R-1-85 Zone -- Dale Anderson & Keith Russell applicants.

Paul Allred, Community Development Director, reported the applicants have submitted a final plat which has been reviewed by staff. Staff recommends approval of the final plat with the following conditions:

1. Final check by staff of the details of the plat.

2. Obtain U.S. Army Corps of Engineers permit before building permits are allowed.

3. Utilities must be stubbed to two future buildings lots for Dean Christensen along Kagie Circle.

4. City Council approval of the protection strip along Kagie Circle as shown on the plat with the attendant restriction on abutting property as has been done recently with Shaela Park and Emerald Subdivisions.

5. Signed agreement with Steeplechase project to allow for utilities if needed.

Paula Tew made a motion to recommend approval of the Pheasant Village Subdivision final plat with the following conditions:

1. Final check by staff of the details of the plat.

2. Obtain U.S. Army Corps of Engineers permit before building permits are allowed.

3. Utilities must be stubbed to two future buildings lots for Dean Christensen along Kagie Circle.

4. City Council approval of the protection strip along Kagie Circle as shown on the plat with the attendant restriction on abutting property as has been done recently with Shaela Park and Emerald Subdivisions.

5. Signed agreement with Steeplechase project to allow for utilities if needed.

Steve Bateman seconded the motion.

Voting was unanimous (5-0).

SUBDIVISION -- PRELIMINARY PLAT -- Steeplechase Farm Planned Unit Development (PUD) Subdivision -- Approximately 223 West Chase Lane -- Residential R-1-85 -- Dan Loewen and Bob Roberts, applicants.

Paul Allred, Community Development Director, reported the City Council reviewed the conceptual site plan and recommended that the design be changed to add a sidewalk to the north side of the street. A subsequent meeting with Chairman Powell and Council member Nancy Smith on behalf of both bodies resulted in a new sidewalk plan that staff favors which has a standard 50 foot cross section including a four-foot walk and park strip on both sides of 925 North street. The density of the project has been lowered to a total of 19 units instead of 23. No units are attached which will give the project a single-family feel. Staff feels that the layout of the buildings, open space, and setback should be reviewed again. The site should look like one with plenty of visible, useable open space as is usually the case with any PUD. This new plat does not yet reflect that look. Staff would also recommend a pedestrian linkage to Pheasantbook to the west where the road bends and turns to the north. Staff recommends approval of the preliminary plat upon the following:

1. Accept the new sidewalk plan with corresponding standard cross section for most of the public street except the west side of 250 West to the bend in the road and encourage a pedestrian link with Pheasantbrook if possible.

2. Finish any engineering matters with staff.

3. Do not accept the layout of the homes as a definitive approval of where the lots and homes may be built but rather defer that matter to the final plat and conditional use permit stage of the review.

Paula Tew made a motion to approve the Steeplechase Farm PUD Subdivision preliminary plat with the following:

1. Accept the new sidewalk plan with corresponding standard cross section for most of the public street except the west side of 250 West and encourage a pedestrian link with Pheasantbrook if possible.

2. Finish any engineering matters with staff.

3. Defer the approval of the layout of the lots and home to the final plat and conditional use permit stage of the review.

Robert Chamberlain seconded the motion.

Voting was unanimous (5-0).

DIRECTOR’S REPORT

1. Mirinda Gibbons, Assistant Planner, is putting together a community survey. If the Planning Commission has questions for the survey they need to give them to Mirinda.

2. Several items will be coming before the Planning Commission in the next few months.

The Planning Commission adjourned at 11:15 p.m.

 

Chairman Bruce Powell
Colleen Sessions, Recording Secretary

 



 
 
MuseumEmergencyRecreationConstructionMap Calendar