2000 Minutes & Agendas: Minutes - May 24, 2000
CENTERVILLE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES OF MEETING
Wednesday, May 24, 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 7:00 p.m. by Chairman Bruce Powell.
Bruce Powell, Chairman
Steven Bateman, arrived at 7:35 p.m.
Paul Allred, Community Development Director
Mirinda Gibbons, Planning Intern
Connie Larson, Recording Secretary
David Putnam Jr, .Richard Kohler, Phil Sessions, Chad Maddox,
Debbi Allred, Ben Maddox, Julie Ban, Lawrence Barber, Andrea Dawson, Ann Fadel,
Sherri Lindstrom, Stacy Steed
INVOCATION: Scott Vaterlaus
COMMISSION BUSINESS: Chairman Powell made a motion
to approve the May 10, 2000 Planning Commission meeting minutes as amended.
Paula Tew seconded the motion which was approved by unanimous vote (4-0). Brian
Hulse abstained from voting as he was not present at the meeting.
Chairman Powell made a motion to approve the May 16, 2000
Planning Commission meeting minutes as amended and to incorporate the changes
that are listed in the interoffice memorandum dated May 23, 2000. Paula Tew
seconded the motion which was approved by unanimous vote (4-0). Brian Hulse
abstained from voting as he was not present at the meeting.
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT - RESTAURANT FAST FOOD WITH DRIVE-IN
- CHAD & BEN’S CHICKEN - PROPOSED TO BE LOCATED AT 260 SOUTH MAIN STREET
- C-1 ZONE - LAWRENCE BARBER, OWNER.
Mr. Allred explained the property in question is zoned C-1. Staff
is hesitant to recommend approval of the conditional use permit at this time
because of the development on Main Street. Most of the requested uses along
Main Street that are coming to staff are becoming more controversial. The proposed
property has residential uses directly behind it to the west and there is a
home directly across the street to the east. Mr. Allred displayed a transparency
of the proposed building and parking lot. The Planning Commission needs to consider,
as a minimum, the following analysis:
1. Is this use at this location necessary or desirable to provide
a service or facility which will contribute to the general well being of the
community and the neighborhood?
Staff believes the use is generally desirable. It is probably
better to have a site that is occupied rather than unoccupied. The outdated
sign would have to be removed and there would be landscaping added. However,
the City Traffic Engineer did not speak highly of the site. While it does meet
the minimum requirements, he feels the use is not appropriate because of the
amount of traffic it would generate on Main Street and Walton Lane. There are
also issues of the food smells, lighting at night, and the noise generated by
2. Will this use under the circumstances of the case be detrimental
to the health, safety and general welfare of persons residing or working in
the area or will it be injurious to property or improvements in the area?
It must be determined if the projected increase in traffic at
this location will have too great an impact to be allowed. Economically it will
benefit the city and the site will be occupied. On the other hand, will it negatively
impact the neighbors with the smells and noise. Staff’s biggest concern is the
impact the business would have on Walton Lane. Walton Lane is a narrow street
that is undergoing road improvements at this time but the improvements will
not widen the street and the residents were successful in pressuring the City
Council to keep the road narrow.
3. Will the use comply with regulations and conditions specified
in the ordinance for the use?
The Planning Commission needs to look at the provisions for the
C-1 Zone and other sections to determine if the proposed use can comply with
City ordinances. The site plan does not conform and it cannot conform without
concessions from the Planning Commission. There needs to be secondary water
for irrigation but the applicant does not want secondary water. There is no
landscape buffer on the west side of the building and there is suppose to be
a six-foot visual buffer on the west side that is not shown on the plan. Staff
feels there is enough parking. There is a nonconforming sign that must come
down but there is no room for a monument sign.
4. Does this use conform to the General Plan?
Staff’s opinion is that this use is generally in compliance with
the Main Street commercial area portion of the General Plan. However, the General
Plan specifically states, "Future commercial development in this area should
conform to performance guidelines which require landscaping, appropriate parking,
minimal traffic impact on Main Street, and buffering from adjacent residential
areas." It remains to be seen if the use can conform to City standards.
5. Does the use conform to conditions imposed by the Planning
Commission considered to be appropriate for the use?
If the Planning Commission imposes conditions on the use and they
are not implemented, the City has an obligation to make sure they are done or
the use may be terminated or suspended until there is compliance. The last conditional
use granted on Main Street is still not in full compliance and this has angered
the neighbors and caused some frustration on the part of staff.
Staff’s recommendation is to receive public comment and not approve
the conditional use permit at this time, and direct staff and the applicant
to provide more information so that action can be taken at a later date.
Chairman Powell asked the applicant to comment.
Richard Kohler, architect for Lawrence Barber, said he has met
with Paul Allred, and he has also met with Fred Campbell about drainage on the
proposed site. Lawrence Barber is the owner of the property and Chad Maddox
and Ben Maddox would operate the restaurant. Mr. Kohler said the existing building,
which was Gregg’s Auto, is still there. The City wishes to slightly widen Walton
Lane at 280 South from 26-feet to 28-feet which takes two-feet of land from
Mr. Barber, which he has agreed to do. This makes the distance from the existing
property line 47 feet. This means the parking stall depth and driveway backing
space will be slightly smaller. It was recommended by staff to provide the employee
parking stalls at the rear and eliminate the grass buffer but provide the grass
buffer at the front of the property along Main Street. Mr. Kohler said it is
his understanding that the drive-up window is what makes the use conditional.
There will be 21-feet of setback to the rear property line for the drive-up
window. The restaurant would be open six days a week with hours of operation
from 10:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m. and it would be closed on Sunday.
Paula Tew asked how many cars would be anticipated going through
the drive-up during the peak hours. Chad Maddox replied between 50-100 cars
would go through the drive-up during the peak hours of 6:00 p.m. - 8:00 p.m.
It takes about five minutes to serve each customer. The restaurant would also
be a sit-down restaurant.
Chad Maddox asked who would be bothered by the noise, lights,
and smells from the restaurant as there is nobody living in the apartment above
the bicycle shop. He was reminded that the property next to the bicycle shop
on the west is zoned Residential R-2. Paula Tew replied the problem is if the
cars are backed-up onto Main Street trying to get into the drive-thru.
Mr. Allred said there could be problems at night with the headlights
from the cars shining on the residential properties. Mr. Kohler said there would
be a four-foot high chainlink slated fence that would be installed on top of
the existing retaining wall along the west wide of the property. Chairman Powell
said a slated fence is not acceptable as this is a problematic site that requires
a solid fence. Paula Tew suggested a cinder block fence.
Mr. Kohler said he has met with Mr. Allred and Mr. Barber on this
location. He feels staff is asking for more expense than is justified in a renovation.
The landowner said if it costs too much to renovate then it will be leased as
an auto dealership. The Planning Commission needs to be somewhat sensitive to
this issue when asking for a block wall because it is a tremendous expense relative
to the rest of the expense that is being spent on the building. The applicant
is willing to spend money on the landscaping because it is contained in the
ordinance, but to buffer extensively from a commercial use next door is inappropriate
and not in the spirit of the ordinance.
Chairman Powell said this is a site plan issue and the applicant
needs to understand this is a problematic site and anything that is done to
improve this site is important for any kind of an approval. Mr. Kohler said
if too many things are required, the property will remain a car lot. If light
pollution is a problem to the west, than perhaps the security lighting should
not be added.
Mr. Kohler said if the existing building were demolished and a
new building were built, the dimensions would still be about the same. The new
addition will be towards Main Street and the HVAC equipment on the roof cannot
be seen from Main Street. The new building will be stucco and the dumpster enclosure
will be a chainlink fence. Mr. Kohler said there is a drain sump that is dispersed
into the water table. If the water is drained down Walton Lane into the new
drain, the storm water will contribute to the storm water that causes more floods.
The City is requesting a change in the drainage system but the applicant is
requesting no changes because it is fine the way it is. Brian Hulse asked about
the monitoring well next to the drain. Mr. Kohler said there will be no change
proposed on the monitoring well.
Chairman Powell said the proposed site has many problems and concerns.
On March 3, 2000 a letter was sent to Lawrence Barber regarding the site he
owns that is occupied by Domino’s Pizza informing him that the required landscaping
and fencing at this site has not been met. Also, screening on the heating and
air conditioning unit has not been provided and angle iron sticking up out of
the ground has not yet been removed. A letter was also sent on May 12, 2000
to Mr. Barber informing him that he had until May 22, 2000 to have the required
items taken care of. The conditional use of the Domino’s Pizza property has
been abused and with this proposed site also having many problems, there is
concern that the owner will not comply with the required conditional uses.
Mr. Barber replied the Domino’s Pizza people are the ones who
agreed to do the things that need to be done on that site. Mr. Barber said the
only thing he knows about that has not been completed is the fencing that needs
to be installed. The landscaping on the southwest corner of the property was
a thorn from day one. UP&L were the ones that held the landscaping up. When
the electrician was finally ready to do the work, the City required a $10,000
bond from him in order to go under the sidewalk. All of the landscaping that
was asked for has now been completed on that property. The shroud around the
HVAC has been completed for six weeks. The only thing that has not been completed
is the fence at the rear of the property and it will be installed by June 1,
2000. The problem is trying to get fencing people to do the work on a small
job. Chairman Powell said a shroud around the air conditioning unit is not acceptable,
it must be properly screened. The City will be asked to inspect the screening
to make sure it complies with the ordinances. The corner of the property has
not been bermed properly. Mr. Barber replied the berming was completed yesterday.
Chairman Powell said the landscaping that has been done is an improvement but
it still does not meet what is expected. Mr. Barber said the angle iron cannot
be removed until the wood fence is gone.
Chairman Powell stated he will not want to go forward with this
new conditional use permit application until staff has verified the screening
around the air conditioner is appropriate, the angle irons have been cut to
their satisfaction, the vinyl fence is completed, and additional berming must
be completed on the corner of the lot.
Chairman Powell opened the public hearing for comments.
Phil Sessions, 70 East 200 South
Mr. Sessions said there are many problems on this location and
it should not be approved. Main Street is deteriorating and businesses like
the one being proposed will make it worse. Fried chicken smells six days a week
all day is offensive. The drainage hole has not worked for years and the water
runs down 280 South. The property to the west is zoned R-2 and he believes it
will become duplexes. He believes the proposed landscaping shown on the transparency
is not ten percent.
Sherri Lindstrom, 224 West Porter Lane
Ms. Lindstrom said she is opposed to the site being developed
since it will impact the residential areas. The residents in the area are against
heavy commercial development. The Planning Commission and City Council, at some
point, are going to have to clean up Main Street and make the heavy commercial
go near the Gateway area.
Stacy Steed, 224 South Main
Ms. Steed is representing Farmer’s Insurance that is next to the
proposed business to the north. She said parking is tight and some businesses
have put a lot of effort into beautifying Main Street and a couple of feet of
dry landscaping along Main Street is not acceptable. With the noise and the
tight parking situation, she would like to see a fence as a buffer on the north
side of the proposed business.
Chad Maddox asked the Planning Commission what they want to happen
to the property? Chairman Powell replied the Planning Commission is discussing
the site approval of this property and what has to comply with the ordinances,
and how we can make it work with the ordinances that are in place. Mr. Kohler
said he has been trying to meet the ordinances but nobody has told him what
portions of the City ordinances he has not met. The Staff Report says the applicant
is in compliance with the City ordinances. He believes there is a hidden agenda
that he does not know about. Chairman Powell said the Traffic Engineer stated
"the proposed site plan is extremely tight and circulation is very poor. However,
the plan does meet the minimum standards for parking circulation." Mr. Kohler
said he is being tabled because Domino’s Pizza was not in compliance and because
staff is not ready to act, and the Planning Commission is not ready to think.
He believes this is inappropriate.
Chairman Powell closed the public hearing for comments.
Mr. Allred said the site does not meet the ordinances and he never
told Mr. Kohler that it meets the ordinances. Staff is trying to get a reuse
of the sight that works, but staff cannot cut a deal at staff meeting. The landscaping
does not meet the ordinances but staff will make positive recommendations because
they know the sight does not work for landscaping. The buffering in the back
of the building and the backing distance does not meet standards. The proposed
site does not conform to the City regulations. Jerry Blair’s standards are different
than the City’s standards. Fred Campbell does not want the drainage to sheet
flow. He wants the drainage to tie into the drain on Walton Lane because there
is a high water table in that area. Mr. Kohler said he believes there was an
agreement and now it is not there.
Mr. Barber said he feels it is inappropriate of the Planning Commission
to suggest that because of problems at Domino’s Pizza, that is out of his control,
this new proposal is being punished . Chairman Powell stated that final approval
for this site will not be given until additional action is taken on the Domino’s
Pizza site. This problem will not be a factor in tonight’s decisions.
Brian Hulse said what makes this site a conditional use is the
drive-thru. There are certain findings that need to be considered such as the
impact on the surrounding properties. A specific issue is the traffic that will
be generated in the area and will it adversely affect the neighbors.
Paula Tew said she would like Main Street to look as nice as possible.
She would like the pole sign removed and split weber granite added to the building.
She feels there should be a ten-foot buffer of landscaping on the site and there
is no buffer on the west side. Other business owners on Main Street have stepped
up and done the required landscaping and this site should be no exception.
Robert Chamberlain said he believes the applicant has picked a
site that has a lot of problems, mainly the size, that unfortunately cannot
Chairman Powell said he is concerned about the site. The specific
items that are in noncompliance are:
1. Landscaping, front, side and back.
2. Size of the parking stalls and backing lane.
3. Potential congestion on Main Street.
5. Health, safety, and welfare of the community, including noise,
lights, smell etc.
Mr. Kohler said the entrance into the site is 22-feet. Brian Hulse
said he is concerned about the lights on the drive-thru, the sound from the
menu board, and the traffic as it leaves the drive-thru.
Mr. Allred said that just off west of the bluff from Farmer’s
Insurance is a proposed PUD and if it is approved, there will be homes right
next to the proposed business. Also, the dumpster should tie in with the building.
He said a slated fence is not acceptable.
Steven Bateman made a motion to table the conditional use
permit for Chad & Ben’s Chicken to allow staff to research the following
1. Will the proposed conditional use be detrimental to the health,
safety, and well being of the community.
2. Possibility of mitigating the food smells.
3. Anticipated traffic flow projections at the drive-thru and
4. Revised site plan incorporating landscaping, buffering, and
Chairman Powell seconded the motion which passed by unanimous
Chairman Powell and Paula Tew left the meeting at 9:20 p.m. Brian
Hulse was designated as Acting Chairman.
SITE PLAN - AMENDED - RESTAURANT, FAST FOOD WITH DRIVE-IN -
CHAD & BEN’S CHICKEN PROPOSED AT 260 SOUTH MAIN STREET (FORMER SITE OF GREGG’S
AUTO) - C-1 ZONE - LAWRENCE BARBER OWNER.
Acting Chairman Hulse opened the public hearing for comments.
Julie Ban 224 West Porter Lane
Ms. Ban asked if it would be possible to eliminate the exit on
Walton Lane. If there has to be an exit on Walton Lane, would it be possible
to have a high curb angled to the southeast to discourage movements onto Walton
Lane so the traffic would have to turn left to Main Street. Scott Vaterlaus
said the high curb is a possibility.
Acting Chairman Hulse closed the public hearing for comments.
Acting Chairman Hulse made a motion to table the site plan
until the applicant has had an opportunity to discuss the conditional use issues
and the site plan issues that have been discussed. Staff was directed to contact
the applicant and discuss the possibility of eliminating the exit on Walton
Lane, or installing a high curb that would direct traffic to turn east after
leaving the drive-thru. Steven Bateman seconded the motion which passed by unanimous
SMALL SUBDIVISION - RECONSIDERATION OF CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
- HOLLINGSHEAD LOT SPLIT - R-1-10 ZONE - APPROXIMATELY 100 EAST & 125 SOUTH
- BRIAN LAYTON, APPLICANT.
Mr. Allred explained that Mr. Layton has purchased and built a
home on the old Hollingshead property that was involved in a lot split process
last year. One of the conditions of approval was that before he could move into
his home that the sidewalk must be installed. The home is ready for occupation
but now Mr. Layton says he cannot afford to install the sidewalk until September
30, 2000. Staff’s recommendation is to approve the extension of the installation
until September 30, 2000 but not without some type of security from Mr. Layton.
Acting Chairman Hulse said he and Robert Chamberlain originally opposed the
motion on April 12, 1998 that gave approval for the lot split without the agreement
of the sidewalk installation.
Steven Bateman made a motion that staff be directed to
communicate to the applicant that the Planning Commission is unwilling, presently,
to grant a deferral of the installation of the sidewalk, except only upon the
evidence of a security bond being provided to the City before the permanent
Certificate of Occupancy being issued. Scott Vaterlaus seconded the motion which
passed by unanimous vote (4-0).
DISCUSSION - R/UDAT FOR CENTERVILLE CITY AND DISCUSSION DRAFT
AFFORDABLE HOUSING ELEMENT OF THE CENTERVILLE CITY GENERAL PLAN.
Acting Chairman Hulse made a motion to table items four
and five on the agenda and asked that they be discussed at a future Planning
Commission meeting. Robert Chamberlain seconded the motion which passed by unanimous
Staff is recommending a joint City Council/Planning Commission
meeting on June 21, 2000 at 6:00 p.m. The purpose of the meeting is to discuss
land use matters.
The meeting was adjourned at 9:45 p.m.
Bruce Powell, Chairman
Connie Larson, Recording Secretary