museum emergency recreation construction maps calendar


          City News

Planning
2000 Minutes & Agendas: Minutes - June 14, 2000



PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES OF MEETING

Wednesday, June 14, 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.

MEMBERS PRESENT:

Steven Bateman
Robert Chamberlain
Brian Hulse
Bruce Powell, Chairman
Grant Talbot
Paula Tew
Scott Vaterlaus

STAFF PRESENT:

Paul Allred, Community Development Director
Mirinda Gibbons, Planning Intern
Colleen Sessions, Recording Secretary

VISITORS:

Bob Roberts, Jeff & Robynn Parrish, Beverlee Tanner, Chris & Michelle Morris, Derwin & Minnie Lewis, Marva S. Farnsworth, Marlene Page, Terry & Debbie Harvey, Terri Hammond, David Crary, Wendi Bishop, Brad Knowlton, Kim O’Neal, Margo Turner, Tracy Leavitt, Les Goforth, Cynthia Allred, Kathleen Nielson, Tiffin Tullis, Ann Fadel, Jim Hite, Bob Crane, Kerry Gunther, Phil Sessions, Kaye Rollins, Joe Rollins, Dan Spangleberg, Russ Naylor, Ken Jones, Clark Jenkins, Dan Loewen, Tec Klor, Lawrence Barber, Chad Maddox, Ben Maddox

INVOCATION: Steve Bateman

PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE: Paula Tew

COMMISSION BUSINESS:

Minutes for the Planning Commission meeting held on May 24, 2000 were amended and approved.

PUBLIC HEARING -- CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT -- Planned Unit Development in Residential R-1-85 -- Proposed clustered housing development for Steeplechase Farm Planned Unit Development (PUD) Subdivision -- Approximately 223 West Chase Lane -- Applicants, Dan Loewen and Bob Roberts.

Paul Allred, Community Development Director, reported staff recommends approval of the Steeplechase Farm PUD Subdivision for final plat. Mr. Allred gave the following analysis:

A Planned Unit Development is a different way of developing a single-family subdivision. This proposal is a good one in the following ways:

1. The density is lower than could have been requested.

2. The open space exceeds the minimum required.

3. The units have been placed in such a way as to create usable common spaces.

4. The units have been placed in such a away as to create a creative and attractive street scape.

5. The design attempts to minimize impact on adjoining properties through the use of fences, buffering landscaping, coordinated lighting, moving of the road as far as possible from Pheasantbrook and other design features.

6. The project incorporates an on-site amenity for all owners.

7. Ample parking is provided.

8. The project will not create a negative drainage impact on the surrounding properties, which was a major concern at the time rezone and conceptual subdivision plat were considered.

9. The project will have a variety of floor plans and attractive and flexible building elevation schemes.

10. The project provides the community with an attractive housing alternative that should be welcomed and applauded.

11. The proposal has probably increased cooperation among neighbors in the area to solve common concerns such as traffic, drainage, buffering, facilitation of utility easements, etc.

12. The project will have a well designed landscaping plan, which includes decorative lighting and fencing.

Staff suggests the following findings for approval of the conditional use permit:

1. The use is desirable and necessary in the particular location and will contribute to the general well being of the community and neighborhood.

2. The use will not, under the circumstances of the particular case, be detrimental to the health, safety and welfare of the persons residing or working in the vicinity or injurious to property or improvements in the vicinity.

3. The use will comply with the regulations and conditions specified in this ordinance for such use, (Section 12-330-3) and also appears to conform to Section 12-350-2(8), Optional Conditions.

4. The use conforms to the intent of the Centerville City General Plan for this area.

Staff recommends approval of the conditional use permit with the following conditions:

1. Density for the project shall not exceed 19 units.

2. Common, usable open space must be no less than 35% of the total site area.

3. Parking for the site shall not be less than 4.5 stalls per unit.

4. A decorative six-foot, vinyl, three-rail fence be placed on the east boundary of the site adjoining the Pheasant Village project. Lots and patios may be enclosed by solid white-vinyl fencing, as proposed by the applicant. Such fence shall be installed prior to occupancy of abutting units.

5. Fences for the enclosed patio or rear yards for all units must be approved of the three types of white vinyl fence as submitted by the developers. Motif fencing shall be allowed as shown on the plan with no obstruction of visibility on corners. Three-foot height will be allowed in front yards, if open type fence.

6. At least three different floor plans will be available to prospective owners. These plans may be reversed to allow for different driveway locations or to add interest to the project. The exterior elevations of the dwellings may be as submitted in the attached architectural plans submitted by the developer. Flexibility to add or drop bay windows or chimneys may be allowed at staff level with any permit. The amount of stucco, brick, or stone may vary with each home. Exterior siding may constitute no more than 50% of any dwelling. A color palette shall be approved by the Planning Commission with all units in the project adhering to the palette.

7. No accessory building will be allowed for any individual unit in the project. A temporary sales trailer/facility may be used for one year or until the first dwelling is completed. The project will be allowed a single-common accessory facility in the location of an existing barn.

8. Developer may maintain a clubhouse/pavilion at the location of an existing barn. Such structure shall have a compatible exterior color scheme or architectural style with units within the project. Such structure may be used for both recreational and project maintenance purposes. Structure may not be used later than 10:00 p.m. and may not have lighting or sound systems that may interfere with the peace of surrounding properties.

9. All common space and facilities shall be maintained by the homeowners association in accordance with Section 12-330-3. The developer shall record Articles of Incorporation for the project and submit proof of such to the City.

10. A landscaped buffer shall be installed along the west side of 250 West near Pheasantbrook PUD to minimize visual impact of the road and traffic.

11. Setbacks for buildings within the site shall be as follows:

a. Minimum front setback = 22 feet. Chase Lane minimum = 30 feet.

b. Side to side = 12 feet

c. Rear to rear = 20 feet

d. Side to rear = 20 feet

e. Side to project boundary = 7 feet

f. Rear to boundary = 10 feet for Lots 13 and 17. All others shall be 15 feet minimum.

12. Building height shall not exceed 35 feet.

13. The conditional use permit must comply with the layout and any conditions of the recorded final plat.

14. Occupancy of final unit in project will be withheld until all project landscaping is completely installed inspected and approved by staff for compliance with the approved plan. Landscaping shall, to the extent possible, be installed as quickly as practicable of the common open space areas and for the space around each dwelling as it nears occupancy to reduce heat, dust, noise and to provide beauty to the site.

15. Landscaping plan shall follow the approved plan as checked by staff and must be stamped by a licensed landscape architect. The total number of trees within the site shall be no less than 92. This total represents less than the ordinance requires. However, Shaela Park PUD was granted a 35% reduction in the total number of trees required since a strict application of the ordinance appeared to be excessive from both an aesthetic and maintenance perspective. The 92-tree figure for this plan represents a 40% reduction from the ordinance but is generally in line with what the Planning Commission did with Shaela Park, if it recognized a credit to be given to the developer for preserving large existing trees on the site. Staff recommends a 3:1 credit be given for the retention of these large trees. Staff also recommends a 10% equivalent of trees be planted in 5 gallon shrubs on the site to bring compliance to within 70% of compliance. If this is acceptable to the Planning Commission, the Planning Commission must grant a landscaping variance, or administrative relief as allowed per Section 12-340-9(10). The findings to allow for such may be considered as follows:

1. The strict application of the regulation is unreasonable given the development proposal;

2. That the imposition of the full requirement of the landscaping provisions would result in an unattractive aesthetic and maintenance effect;

3. That the intent of the ordinance is preserved;

4. The granting of the relief will not result in an adverse impact on surrounding properties; and

5. These findings shall be documented and included in the actual permit.

Dan Loewen, applicant, addressed the Planning Commission. The theme of this property is based on the idea of horses, therefore, the name Steeplechase. The developers want to create a restful atmosphere with the green spaces. The targeted market will be empty nesters with the homes being $225,000 to $300,000.

Chairman Powell opened the public hearing.

Margo Turner, 75 West Chase Lane, expressed concern with the houses being so close together on Chase Lane. She suggested that the open spaces be rearranged so that the homes on Chase Lane could be spread apart. She asked if there would be sidewalks on the private road.

Paul Allred responded that there would be no sidewalks on the private road, only on the public road. He explained that the units are closer together in some areas so as to provide larger open spaces.

Chairman Powell closed the public hearing. He asked Mr. Allred if emergency vehicles could negotiate effectively on the hammerhead street. He asked the applicant concerning the condition of the barn that will be renovated.

Mr. Allred indicated that the hammerhead street was designed and signed off by the South Davis Fire District.

Mr. Loewen indicated that the barn is structurally sound. There will be no plumbing installed but it will have electricity. It will be used by the homeowners.

Grant Talbot questioned Mr. Allred concerning #8 which states "Developer may maintain a clubhouse/pavilion". He asked if this were an option with the developer.

Mr. Allred indicated that would be a decision made by the Planning Commission. If the developer decided not to have a clubhouse/pavilion and elected to have open space instead that would be allowed.

Chairman Powell asked about a color palette.

Mr. Loewen indicated that they purposefully left off the colors so that the homeowner could choose colors as well as exterior materials. The project will allow rock, brick, stucco, or stone. There will be no vinyl siding on the homes.

Robert Chamberlain indicated that he likes the idea of different styles and materials. However, he would like to see a color palette.

Mr. Allred indicated the applicant could come back to the Planning Commission to amend the conditional use permit in regard to the color and styles. He recommended to the applicant to return with a spectrum of colors that the homeowners would be able to choose from.

Brian Hulse made a motion to recommend approval of the conditional use permit for the Steeplechase Farm PUD Subdivision with the following specific conditions:

1. Density for the project shall not exceed 19 units.

2. Common, usable open space must be no less than 35% of the total site area.

3. Parking for the site shall not be less than 4.5 stalls per unit.

4. A decorative six-foot, vinyl, two-rail fence be placed on the east boundary of the site adjoining the Pheasant Village project. Side yards adjacent to open areas would not be fenced. Patios may be enclosed by solid white-vinyl fencing as proposed by the applicant. Such fence shall be installed prior to occupancy of abutting units.

5. Fences for the enclosed patio or rear yards for all units must be approved of the two types of white-vinyl fence, as submitted by the developers. Motif fencing shall be allowed as shown on the plan with no obstruction of visibility on corners. Three-foot height will be allowed in front yards, if open type fence.

6. At least three different floor plans will be available to prospective owners. These plans may be reversed to allow for different driveway locations or to add interest to the project. The exterior elevations of the dwellings may be as submitted in the attached architectural plans submitted by the developer. Flexibility to add or drop bay windows or chimneys may be allowed at staff level with any permit. The amount of stucco, brick, or stone may vary with each home. There will be no vinyl siding. A color palette shall be approved by the Planning Commission with all units in the project adhering to the palette.

7. No accessory building will be allowed for any individual unit in the project. A temporary sales trailer/facility may be used for one year or until the first dwelling is completed. The project will be allowed a single-common accessory facility in location of an existing barn.

8. Developer may maintain a clubhouse/pavilion at the location of an existing barn. Such structure shall have a compatible exterior color scheme or architectural style with units within the project. Such structure may be used for both recreational and project maintenance purposes. Structure may not be used later than 10:00 p.m. and may not have lighting or sound systems that may interfere with the peace of surrounding properties.

9. All common space and facilities shall be maintained by the homeowners association in accordance with Section 12-330-3. The developer shall record Articles of Incorporation for the project and submit proof of such to the City.

10. A landscaped buffer shall be installed along the west side of 250 West near Pheasantbrook PUD to minimize visual impact of the road and traffic.

11. Setbacks for buildings within the site shall be as follows:

a. Minimum front setback = 22 feet. Chase Lane minimum = 30 feet.

b. Side to side = 12 feet

c. Rear to rear = 20 feet

d. Side to rear = 20 feet

e. Side to project boundary = 7 feet

f. Rear to boundary = 10 feet for Lots 13 and 17. All others shall be 15 feet minimum.

12. Building height shall not exceed 35 feet.

13. The conditional use permit must comply with the layout and any conditions of the recorded final plat.

14. Occupancy of final unit in project will be withheld until all project landscaping is completely installed inspected and approved by staff for compliance with the approved plan. Landscaping shall, to the extent possible, be installed as quickly as practicable of the common open space areas and for the space around each dwelling as it nears occupancy to reduce heat, dust, noise and to provide beauty to the site.

15. Landscaping plan shall follow the approved plan as checked by staff and must be stamped by a licensed landscape architect. The total number of trees within the site shall be no less than 92. A 3:1 credit will be given for the retention of the large trees. A 10% equivalent of trees to be planted in 5 gallon shrubs on the site to bring compliance to within 70% of compliance. The Planning Commission grants a landscaping variance in accordance with Section 12-340-9(10). The findings to allow for such is as follows:

a. The strict application of the regulation is unreasonable given the development proposal;

b. That the imposition of the full requirement of the landscaping provisions would result in an unattractive aesthetic and maintenance effect;

c. That the intent of the ordinance is preserved;

d. The granting of the relief will not result in an adverse impact on surrounding properties, and

e. These findings shall be documented and included in the actual permit.

16. That staff verify the sign is out of the visibility triangle.

17. The landscaping be amended to show the 92 trees.

18. That fencing be allowed on side yards where two lots are adjoining, on rear yards, and on that portion of a side yard adjoining open space where there is a patio but no where else. All fencing must be of the two styles either solid or slatted vinyl and white in color.

19. The applicants are to bring back to the Planning Commission a decorative lighting fixture plan along with architectural colors.

The findings for this recommendation are as follows:

1. The use is desirable and necessary in the particular location and will contribute to the general well being of the community and neighborhood.

2. The use will not, under the circumstances of the particular case, be detrimental to the health, safety and welfare of the persons residing or working in the vicinity or injurious to property or improvements in the vicinity.

3. The use will comply with the regulations and conditions specified in this ordinance for such use, (Section 12-330-3) and also appears to conform to Section 12-350-2(8), Optional Conditions.

4. The use conforms to the intent of the Centerville City General Plan for this area.

Paula Tew seconded the motion.

Voting was unanimous (7-0).

Chairman Powell reopened the issue.

Brian Hulse amended the motion to add that the applicant needs to bring the color palette and decorative lighting plan before the Planning Commission within 60 days.

Chairman Powell seconded the motion.

Voting was unanimous (7-0).

PUBLIC HEARING -- REZONE --7.864 acres from Agriculture A-1 to Residential R-2-- Approximately 100 West Pages Lane -- Clark Jenkins and George Fadel, applicants.

Paul Allred, Community Development Director, reported the applicants wish to build a planned unit development (PUD) near the corner of Pages Lane and Main Street. This is the vacant field directly across the street to the west from Courtyard at Pages Lane. Staff is supportive of the sketch design layout of the site, including the proposed density. The corner of this intersection is tentatively planned for commercial use and is also scheduled during this meeting for public hearing for potential rezoning action. The proposed density of this site is barely into the medium-density category or lower end of the Residential R-2 Zone. The property is bordered on the north by Residential R-2 single-family detached dwellings and on the west by luxury twin homes located in Bountiful City which were developed by the applicant. Any decision the Planning Commission makes on this petition will have a profound impact on the disposition of the ultimate land use of the corner.

ANALYSIS:

1. Is the change reasonably necessary? Staff opinion is that the use is a good one for this area of the city given the fact that the surrounding zoning is similar to the north, east, and west. Agriculture A-1 zoning will not accommodate medium density, and, therefore, the zone must be changed to allow for any use other than very low-density single-family use or agricultural use. The site has not been actively used for agriculture for many years.

2. Is the zone change in the public interest? Perhaps a better question would be, Is a vacant field better than the proposed development? A vacant field provides a nice buffer and open space. However, it could be argued that a nice, fairly low- density use with its own planned open space amenity, in the form of a PUD, is a better alternative. The site could be developed as a city park, but staff understanding is that the site has not been made available to the City for this purpose. Residential development in this area of the city is good if developed in a PUD format. In 1995, a preference for PUD type development was expressed in a change to the General Plan. The proposed residential rezone site is away from the corner where homes backing onto the intersection would not be desirable to the residents in those dwellings or to the general public. A PUD of the density proposed at 6 units per acre will not generate an unreasonable amount of traffic.

3. Is the rezone change in harmony with the objectives and purposes of the Centerville City General Plan? The General Plan is silent about the future land use for this part of the city. It was also not considered in the Southwest Area Traffic Study done in March 1997. The Plan does state a preference for PUD developments for future medium density land uses. Staff believes that a PUD with medium-low density is a good use for this area. Another important consideration would be if the entire parcel of land, approximately 10 acres, should be the same zoning.

SUMMARY

The General Plan would not object to the rezone and definitely supports the use of PUD’s for medium development. The density requested is less than that east across Main Street and works well with the immediately surrounding land uses to the north and west.

Staff recommends approval of the rezone petition to change from Agriculture A-1 to Residential R-2 with the following findings used to justify the action:

1. The petition requests zoning that would allow for medium density. The General Plan specifically suggests the use of PUD development for medium-density projects. The development proposal is for PUD of medium-low density.

2. Medium-density residential use at this location is compatible with surrounding land uses and zoning on three sides of the site and only provides a slight increase over the density of the abutting single-family subdivision to the north.

3. The property, if developed at the density proposed, should not generate unreasonable traffic for the area and will provide ample open space opportunities for the residents within the project and will be required to provide buffers from adjoining properties.

4. Access to Pages Lane from the north will be enhanced.

Clark Jenkins, applicant, showed the Planning Commission and audience three designs of houses being proposed. He indicated that there would be no duplexes. These homes will average in cost around $255,000. In a PUD situation the landscaping can be controlled.

Chairman Powell opened the public hearing.

Michelle Morris, 83 West 850 South, indicated the neighbors have tried to educate themselves as to what could take place. Their basic concerns are over the traffic. She indicated that the road into their neighborhood from 7 am to 8 am and from 4:30 pm to 6 pm is completely blocked by traffic from the high school students and commuters. Their neighborhood is mostly children under the age of 12 with most of them being five and under. This project will be a speed way for high school students who will try to beat the Main Street and Pages Lane traffic light. Their neighborhood has a U-shaped road. She asked the developers to reconfigure the homes so that the traffic will not come through their neighborhood. She feels that the homes are appropriate and will add to the value of their neighborhood. However, she would like the density lower.

Wendi Bishop, 18 West 850 South, asked what the General Plan suggests for this area? She asked that the zoning be Residential R-1-85, especially since the General Plan is not specific in this area.

Mr. Allred stated that the General Plan does not recommend anything for this parcel. It does give an overall preference for a Residential R-2 for a PUD which would be this site. He indicated that not every piece of vacant ground has been identified with a specific verbiage for each site. The General Plan has been in place for many years. It was updated in 1995. He reminded the audience that there will be three public hearings to voice their concerns and participate in.

Jim Hite, 852 West, also expressed concern about the traffic. He lives at the bottom of the U-shaped road and sees people trying to cut the light by going through their subdivision and consequently not being able to go through, skidding around the U and racing back down the street. He also does not like the idea of medium density for this project.

Bob Crane, 47 West 780 South, feels that the Planning Commission is creating a dangerous situation if they allow for this project to proceed. There needs to be some type of traffic flow different from what is being proposed. He explained that at his work at Taylorsville High School there is a subdivision like this one. For twenty years students have tried to avoid the light at the corner by going through a subdivision. There have been numerous accidents and one death where they come out of a subdivision onto a main road. He strongly suggests that the Planning Commission come up with a different idea for this area.

Terry Harvey, 81 West 780 South, expressed his concern with the traffic and asked the Planning Commission to have right and left turn lanes on Pages Lane and Main Street which would encourage people to use the intersection.

Les Goforth, 17 West 850 South, disagreed with staff’s report that traffic would not be highly impacted. He also stated that the density would be too great if the rezone was granted.

Kerry Gunther, expressed concern that J. A. Taylor Elementary School would be negatively impacted with the increase of students who would attend.

Chairman Powell indicated the school district has stated they could accommodate as many children as needed at any school. He stated Centerville Elementary and J. A. Taylor have had decreased enrollment for the past two years.

Chairman Powell closed the public hearing.

Brian Hulse asked Mr. Allred to state what is permitted in a Residential R-2 Zone.

Mr. Allred indicated to the best of his knowledge, single- family dwellings, duplexes, residential health care facilities, elderly care facilities with everything else being conditional.

Brian Hulse indicated that this process will be very lengthy. For this plan to be adopted, it will require conditional use. By making a recommendation that a Residential R-2 Zone be allowed here does not mean that there will automatically be 18 units per acre.

Chairman Powell indicated that with the adoption of the rezone it would not necessarily mean adoption of this particular plan.

Paula Tew indicated that as a Planning Commission they are very much in tune with the residents’ concern with traffic. They will address that issue carefully at each step of the process. There are some innovative ideas that can be looked at in regard to traffic flow.

Clark Jenkins, applicant, indicated as developers they have been working with staff very closely. They are not opposed to being flexible in working with the plan. They are more than willing to work with residents since at this point this is just conceptual. He asked the audience for feedback as to what they would like to see done prior to bringing back a final proposal.

Paula Tew asked the developers to look at an alternative instead of a road that goes from this project straight to Pages Lane.

Chairman Powell made a motion to approve the rezone petition from Agriculture A-1 to Residential R-2 at approximately 100 West Pages Lane in connection with the following findings:

1. The petition requests zoning that would allow for medium density. The General Plan specifically requests the use of PUD development for medium-density projects.

2. Medium-density residential use at this location is compatible with surrounding land uses and zoning on three sides of the site and only provides a slight increase over the density of the abutting single-family subdivision to the north.

3. The property, if developed at the density proposed, should not generate unreasonable traffic for the area and will provide ample open space opportunities for the residents within the project.

4. Access to Pages Lane from the north will be enhanced.

Grant Talbot seconded the motion.

Voting was unanimous (7-0).

PUBLIC HEARING -- REZONE -- 1.557 acres from Agriculture A-1 to Commercial C-1 -- Northwest corner of Pages Lane and Main Street -- Clark Jenkins, applicant.

Mr. Allred, Community Development Director, reported this proposal is to rezone the northeast corner of Pages Lane and Main Street to Commercial C-1. The purpose of the rezone is to consider allowance of a professional office building. It should be noted that the General Plan states no commercial north of Parrish Lane or South of Porter Lane. However, the General Plan is a guide, not necessarily a hard fast rule and staff likes the idea of limited commercial use on the corner as a buffer to the proposed residential use that would surround it as outlined in the immediately proceeding staff report. Residential use on the corner, in staff opinion, is ill-advised. A well designed commercial use on the corner could be a major benefit to the intersection in that it would provide a significant amount of landscaping near the corner to dress up this important entrance to the community. It would provide a low-intensity use at the location instead of retail use which has been proposed in the past. It would also make possible important street improvements to the intersection including the widening of Main Street for better right turn movements, the relocation of the traffic signal and the possible construction of a community entrance sign. There are some potential drawbacks to the proposal, however. There is no question that proper and safe traffic circulation at this location is very important and that the proposed use may represent a greater traffic impact with the additional residential units. Also, it is critical to weigh the impact of commercial use at this location in the community where the General Plan states no commercial use is allowable on this part of Main Street.

ANALYSIS

1. Is the change in zoning necessary? Staff reiterates support for this type of use at this location. If the Planning Commission and City Council are amenable to the zone change to provide this type of use in the community, then a zone change is needed. However, the zoning ordinance allows Professional Office use as a conditional use in the R-2 Zone. It could be argued that a change in zoning is not necessary. This may add a level of protection to the residents in that the use/building could not be converted to a retail use at a future date without an additional zone change. On the other hand, is it appropriate for a residential zone to have Professional Office as a conditional use in the zone? It might be better to recognize the use for what it is and not mix the concept of residential and commercial in the same zone. A review of the purpose section heading of the R-2 Zone does not seem to indicate that professional office use was considered as a viable use in the zone. Additional review of the zoning ordinance shows that, beginning with the R-2 Zone, professional office/commercial use is allowable. The definition of professional office seems to indicate that a medical building fits the intended use at this location. A definition of "quasi-public use" almost fits the medical use planned for this location. Quasi-public use is also conditional in the Residential R-2 Zone and permitted in the Commercial C-1 Zone.

2. Is the rezone change in the public interest? Staff feels that the use is in the public interest, but as listed above is not sure that the zone change is needed. The Planning Commission must consider if the zone change will open the door at a later date for a more undesirable commercial use or if they desire the control that a conditional use would provide if the zoning were to be required at R-2. Staff would ask the question, What if the building is abandoned at some point in time? Is it better to have the property already zoned for potential commercial reuse under Commercial C-1 zoning or to have a building that will be more difficult to reuse under Residential R-2 zoning?

3. Is this rezone in harmony with the objectives of the City’s General Plan? The Plan simply does not address commercial use in this part of the neighborhood and is not included in any discussion of the Pages Lane Commercial District in Southeast Centerville. This would appear to be either an oversight on the part of those who drafted the General Plan years ago or a deliberate attempt to exclude any consideration of commercial use on this site. The Main Street Commercial Area states, "To preserve the residential integrity of surrounding areas, future commercial development on Main Street shall not be allowed south of 400 South or north of 400 North, and shall not extend more than one-block west of Main Street. If this language is taken at face value, then the professional office use is not recommended. If the Planning Commission feels, as staff does, that this use is reasonable and appropriate, then the zoning could be approved and the General Plan language should be disregarded as not applicable for this particular location. If the Planning Commission feels constrained to follow the strict wording, then the best option would be to entertain a change in the General Plan for this part of Neighborhood 2.

Staff recommends the following actions for the Planning commission to consider:

1. Approve the rezone to Commercial C-1 with findings that the General Plan was not referring to this specific location of the neighborhood or the prohibition was not intended for this location and that the use and zone are necessary, desirable, and appropriate upon proper design of the project.

2. Deny the rezone upon the following findings:

a. The use is not desirable and does not follow the City’s General Plan

b. The zoning will constitute a possible dangerous inclusion of commercial use in an area that will have negative impact on the surrounding properties.

3. Table the rezone and direct the applicant to include the proposed professional office site in an amended petition for Residential R-2 and then allow the applicant to have the office use considered under a conditional use permit in the Residential R-2. If this option is considered, the Planning Commission should indicate for the public record that their findings would be the same as those listed in #1 above.

Chairman Powell opened the public hearing.

Phil Sessions would not recommend this property for Commercial C-1 Zone. This would allow for a cafe locating there. If you zone it Residential R-2 then it will be an office building only.

Les Goforth, 17 West 850 South, disagrees with the residential and commercial being together. If you are driving north and pull up to the light you see nice green lawn and condos on the east. If you are driving south and you look east you see Chevron. If you are introducing people to our community of Centerville, it is better to show them that our community is a place to live rather than a place only to get services in. We have plenty of services in Bountiful and he doesn’t see the need for additional services in Centerville. He also is concerned with additional traffic that will be using the commercial site along with additional traffic created by high school students and the proposed residential area previously discussed. He expressed concern for the safety of the elementary students who will be crossing at the intersection of the proposed commercial site to J. A. Taylor Elementary.

Dave Crary, 118 West 850 South, feels that this is not an appropriate site for commercial. The development on the east side of the street has a very green wide open area to it. It welcomes you to Centerville appropriately. Something similar on the west would be more appropriate. He indicated that there are several empty commercial sites available in the center of Centerville on Main Street that would be usable. There is no need for an office building in this area.

Michelle Morris, 83 West 850 South, expressed concern about the intersection. She feels this site is not good for commercial, especially with the pedestrians who will be walking along this area.

Clark Jenkins, applicant, discussed putting in a turning lane and plans additional improvements to meet the needs of the traffic and pedestrians.

Chairman Powell closed the public hearing.

Brian Hulse expressed his concern about having commercial at this site. He asked Mr. Allred what is permitted in a Commercial C-1 Zone.

Mr. Allred, to the best of his recollecting, responded that in a C-1 Zone sit down restaurants, general merchandise sales of 10,000 square feet or less, professional office, dry cleaning pickup station, and a few others are permitted in the zone.

Brian Hulse asked if there would be much site plan control if it were a Commercial C-1 Zone.

Chairman Powell indicated there would be more control if it were zoned Residential R-2.

Paula Tew agrees with Mr. Goforth that the entrance to the city should be more compatible with the green open space that is on the east side of Main Street. She would prefer to see as much green space as possible on this site. She would like to see less office space and more residential at this site and is appreciative that the General Plan states no commercial south of Porter Lane.

Brian Hulse made a motion to table the rezone petition and schedule additional discussions with the applicant concerning a Residential R-2 Zone at this location instead of a Commercial C-1 Zone.

Chairman Powell seconded the motion.

Voting was unanimous (7-0).

Chairman Powell directed staff to work with Mr. Jenkins to understand the potential of the road connecting the two subdivisions and reminded the Planning Commission that there should be at least two exits and entrances to a project. He reminded the public there would be no further notices mailed out to the public in regard to the zoning action. They would need to stay in touch with staff as to when a rehearing of this issue will come before the Planning Commission again.

PUBLIC HEARING -- SITE PLAN -- CONCEPTUAL -- Main and Center LLC. Professional Office Building -- 15 South Main Street -- Commercial C-1 Zone -- Ken Jones & Brad Knowlton, applicants.

Paul Allred, Community Development Director, reported the proposal is to build a two-story office building facing Main Street on the south side of Center Street and applicants have requested an expedited review to get a recommendation for final at this meeting. The use is permitted in the zone and complies with the goals of the General Plan. The site appears to be well designed and appropriately situated on the site. Staff likes the proposal and feels that the use and building will enhance the Main Street corridor. The site currently has a home and a couple of accessory buildings that will need to be removed. The land use to the south is the Sunny or Not Tanning building, to the north is Leon Nielsen’s office and small commercial, to the west across Main Street is the IHC medical building and to the east is a single-family home, which is located approximately 50 feet to the east of the property line. The overall layout of the site is good, with the building being located only 20 feet from the sidewalk. The Commercial C-1 Zone allows for such a setback and staff encourages the building to be close to the street to encourage the parking to be located to the rear of the site where it will be screened from public view. There is ample landscaping on the site with about 28% of the area. The applicant will save as many existing trees as possible. The Planning Commission will need to grant the applicant a credit toward the total number trees as an incentive to keep the large trees in place. There is good buffer landscaping and screening for the residence to the east and site lighting will be kept to a minimum. There will be approximately 4-6 security lights on the building that will be on a photocell system and only a couple of low watt lamps on short poles are being requested. Parking is tight but should work. The building is attractive and uses brick with stucco accents on the upper portion of the elevations. Main Street has no required architectural appearance. The following are items that need correcting before proceeding:

1. Correct location of secondary water stub and the relocation of the culinary water meter.

2. Show on the plan and provide legal descriptions for a seven-foot Public Utility Easement on Main and Center frontages.

3. Dedicate to the City two feet of frontage on the Center Street frontage.

4. Design and detail of the monument sign on the corner.

5. Have the City Engineer approve the grading and drainage plan.

Staff recommends approval of the conceptual site plan as submitted. Staff also recommends approval of the final site plan upon the submission and approval by staff of the above listed items. Any final site approval for the submitted plan must be accompanied by the granting of administrative relief as per Section 12-340-9(10), and any findings thereof, for a landscaping credit for large tree retention on site as a trade off for the reduction of one total tree on the site.

Russ Naylor, architect, indicated the brick will be earth tone in color and a little smaller in size. The brick will vary from dark brown to a lighter brown. There will be lighter colored stucco lintels above the windows and key stones will also be used.

Steve Bateman asked if the building was pre-leased.

Ken Jones, applicant, indicated it has been leased to professional entities such as real estate and insurance groups.

Chairman Powell opened the public hearing.

Kaye Rollins, 118 South 100 East, expressed concern about the lighting. She would prefer lighting that is less intense than Gregg’s Auto. She also asked if the public utilities will be hooked on the same Utah Power transistor that she is currently on. She indicated that their home loses power at least once a week and is wondering if this large of a building will make the power go off more often during the week.

Mr. Jones indicated it will have softer lights on shorter poles. The lights will have a lower wattage and will also be on a photo cell.

Mr. Allred indicated he has never been approached with the problem of power shortages. He indicated that Utah Power has signed off on the project.

Dan Spangleberg, 80 South 100 East, asked how many units are planned in the development. He is concerned with the parking, especially along the street by the Beehive Homes. He would prefer to see split faced block on the building which would maintain a old time feel in Centerville. He also expressed concern with the fire escapes being on the outside of the building.

Mr. Jones stated the number of tenants depends on how much square footage each wants.

Mr. Allred stated the parking stalls are figured two stalls per thousand square feet plus one per employee. As far as the fire escapes, in order to place it inside the building, the overall building would need to be reduced in size or receive a variance in the number of parking stalls that is required.

Joe Rollins, 118 South 100 East, asked if they could tie into the storm drain along Main Street.

Mirinda Gibbons, Planning Intern, responded the storm drain plan has been approved by the City Engineer.

Chairman Powell closed the public hearing.

Chairman Powell asked about the location of the dumpster as far as accessibility with the truck. If the parking lot is full, he could not reach the dumpster to empty it.

Paula Tew also asked about the smell of dumpster and suggested it be moved closer to the building.

Brian Hulse counted only 41 parking stalls with the plan calling for 42 stalls. He would also be willing to grant a parking variance since he does not like the fire escapes being on the outside.

Mr. Naylor suggested moving the trees on the east row and putting another parking stall there.

Steve Bateman asked about the long-term future of the building.

Mr. Jones indicated that they would not be spending $1.6 million dollars on a building if they did not expect to make it work financially.

Chairman Powell made a motion to approve the conceptual site plan with changes to the location of the dumpster, an additional parking stall being added to the northeast corner, granting administrative relief in regard to the landscaping and modification to the fire escapes.

Paula Tew seconded the motion.

Voting was unanimous (7-0).

Chairman Powell made a motion to table the final site plan until the above items of concern, parking, fire escapes, etc. are brought back to the Planning Commission for further review.

Steve Bateman seconded the motion.

Voting was unanimous (7-0).

SUBDIVISION -- FINAL -- Steeplechase Farm Planned Unit Development (PUD) Subdivision -- Approximately 223 West Chase Lane -- Applicants, Dan Loewen and Bob Roberts.

Paul Allred reported the applicants are asking for final plat approval. The following is a list of items that needs to be addressed:

1. Correct the following:

a. Determine a lowest floor elevation (LFE) for Lots 1-5. This information needs to be provided through the recommendation of a professional engineer. Basements will be no deeper than 2-3 feet.

b. Have lot addresses approved by staff and the postmaster.

c. Correct legal description problems with the title report.

Staff recommends approval of the final plat subject to the above being completed and the following condition being met:

1. The plat shall only be built and occupied in accordance with the approved conditional use permit.

Chairman Powell made a motion to approve the final site plan with the following items being completed and met:

a. Determine a lowest floor elevation (LFE) for Lots 1-5. This information needs to be provided through the recommendation of a professional engineer. Basements will be no deeper than 2-3 feet.

b. Have lot addresses approved by staff and the postmaster.

c. Correct legal description problems with the title report.

d. The plat shall only be built and occupied in accordance with the approved conditional use permit.

Steve Bateman seconded the motion.

Voting was unanimous (7-0).

CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT -- Restaurant, Fast Food with Drive-In -- Chad & Ben’s proposed at 260 South Main Street (former site of Gregg’s Auto) -- Commercial C-1 Zone -- Lawrence Barber, owner.

Paul Allred, Community Development Director, reported this item was tabled at the last meeting for further study. Staff and the applicants have met twice to iron out the details of the conditional use permit and site plan. Staff is still not sure that this use works on the site but is confident that many of the objections the staff and the Planning Commission had regarding this property have been resolved through redesign. Specifically, the following items have been suggested as ways to mitigate many of the concerns regarding the impact of the use on adjoining properties and to make the use and site function better:

1. Overhead lighting will be removed in front of the store and security lights will be kept in the back of the store.

2. Parking has been reduced by two stalls, with the handicapped stalls being relocated closer to the front of the store. Staff recommendation is that the number of stalls, 20, is sufficient and meets ordinance minimum.

3. Backing width for the parking area have been widened by two feet in the most critical area near the south side of the store. The backing aisle is now acceptable, even though it is still one foot short for three stalls. Staff recommends that the new plan is acceptable, but just barely.

4. Landscaping has been altered to move most of it to the Main Street frontage and to an acceptable depth of 10 feet in most places and 15 feet, which is the technical requirement, in another. Also, all the landscaping on-site will be irrigated instead of the dry xeriscape that was proposed before. The landscaping on Walton Lane will only be two feet wide but will consist of ground covers instead of pavement. The Planning Commission must grant administrative relief, accompanied by findings, for landscaping variations allowed.

5. Buffers. The west side of the site abutting the Residential R-2 land will have a four-foot tall fence on top of the concrete wall to provide a minimum six-foot fence/wall to visually separate the site from the property to the west. This wall should minimize spill over effect of car lights, reduce noise, etc. Staff recommendation is that the wall extend to within 25 feet of Walton Lane. The trash dumpster will be a six- foot tall block enclosure painted to match the building with metal or vinyl gates. Staff does not recommend at this time that a fence or buffer be required along the north property line with Ann Fadel.

6. Traffic Circulation. Staff still has some concerns about circulation. However, as a group they are in agreement that a no right-turn prohibition on Walton Lane, with its proposed guided curb cut, is not necessary. The guided curb will damage the whole viability of the Walton Lane ingress/egress and is too large for the area proposed. Staff are concerned that the queuing of cars may become hazardous since the type of food takes longer to cook and receive. If the conditional use permit is granted, this will have to be closely monitored.

7. Hours of operation. Staff is satisfied that the proposed hours are appropriate at 10:00 am to 10:00 pm with no Sunday operation.

8. Architecture. The building has added some rock in the form of a planter box in the front of the building. Earth tone stucco colors are proposed with painted wood trim and a pitched, shingled roof for the front of the store. The rooftop mounted equipment does not appear to be fully screened, rather about two-thirds. It will be fully screened from the front of the building, however, which is the most important side. It is suggested that the Planning Commission approve a specific color scheme so there is no confusion about what was or was not approved.

9. Grading and drainage. The City Engineer requires that the sump must tie into the new drain and that a new four-foot storm drain be installed with catch basin at Walton Lane with a 12" pipe to the new drain.

In summary, staff opinion is that new project design has moved the site significantly in the right direction. The Planning Commission is still faced with the difficult task of deciding if there are sufficient findings to grant the use. The Planning Commission should be reminded that the conditional use section states very clearly that a conditional use permit shall not be approved unless findings are made to support the use such as:

1. Is this use at this location necessary or desirable to provide a service of facility which will contribute to the general well being of the community and the neighborhood? Generally yes. It can be argued that the improvements to the site such as landscaping, better architecture, better parking, screening, etc., making this use better than the previous use or another less desirable use.

2. Will this use under the circumstances of the case be detrimental to the health, safety and general improvements in the area? Probably not. Smell will likely be the biggest problem. At some point in the discussion, the Planning Commission ought to ask the applicants how they plan to mitigate the smell on a continual basis and commit to a specific plan. Hopefully, turn movements and stacking will not prove to be a hazard. Certainly, there will be no blocking of the street for long periods to unload cars as was the case with Gregg’s Auto. The concern, of course, is stacking into Main Street.

3. Will the use comply with regulations and conditions specified in the ordinance for the use? Yes, if variances are granted for landscaping and parking.

4. Does this use conform to the General Plan? Yes, as long as the impacts on traffic and circulation are minimized.

5. Does the use conform to conditions imposed by the Planning Commission considered to be appropriate for the use? Staff opinion is that if proper conditions are imposed by the Planning Commission and strictly maintained by the applicants, the use should operate correctly. Also, if problems become apparent at a later time, the item can be reviewed again for any needed adjustments.

If the Planning Commission can make findings in support of the issue, staff would recommend approval of the conditional us permit upon the following conditions:

1. Hours of operation shall be from 10:00 am to 10:00 pm with no Sunday operation.

2. Developer shall devise an odor and smoke mitigation plan upon documented and justifiable complaint.

3. Approve parking plan at 20 stalls with rearranged handicapped parking.

4. Approve circulation plan as shown with requirement for courtesy no left turn movement signs for the south Main Street driveway.

5. Remove nonconforming pole sign. No financial assistance is recommended.

6. Noise from menu board to be minimized or reduced upon demonstrable complaint.

7. Remove overhead lighting fixtures in front of the building.

8. Require applicant to advise customers to pull through to an open stall or other waiting area if stacking reaches out to Main Street and hinders proper traffic movement.



 
 
MuseumEmergencyRecreationConstructionMap Calendar