October 29, 2015 Special Work Session Minutes

Minutes of the Centerville City Council Special Work Session Thursday, October 29, 2015 at 7:00 p.m. at Centerville City Hall, 250 North Main Street, Centerville, Utah.

MEMBERS PRESENT

Mayor                          Paul Cutler

Council Members        Ken Averett
Tamilyn Fillmore
John Higginson
Stephanie Ivie
Lawrence Wright

STAFF PRESENT        Steve Thacker, City Manager
Corvin Snyder, Community Development Director
Lisa Romney, City Attorney
Kathy Streadbeck, Recording Secretary

VISITORS                    Interested Citizens

SOUTH MAIN STREET CORRIDOR OVERLAY ZONE – Discuss proposed edits to the South Main Street Corridor Overlay Zone

Steve Thacker, City Manager, updated the Council on the recent work and discussions regarding the South Main Street Corridor Plan (SMSC). Staff has recently researched the right-of-way for Main Street. Main Street is 50 feet in width from back of curb to back of curb and is placed in the middle of a 66-foot right-of-way. Staff is optimistic the proposed SMSC Public Space Plan may be possible without the off-set as originally discussed. Staff believes with a minimal use of an additional two (2) feet of public utility easement on either side of Main Street, the City may be able to create a 10-foot public corridor plan for both sides of Main Street. Staff meets with UDOT on Tuesday, November 3rd to discuss possible options for this public corridor. Staff has also included a landscape architect in these discussions.

The Council discussed mixed-use and the pros and cons of removing mixed-use from the SMSC all together. Councilman Wright suggested eliminating the mixed-use option all together. He said mixed-use has not proven to be a useful tool for redevelopment. He suggested eliminating all residential uses on Main Street and going back to commercial only. This would also reduce density which is the number one concern of residents. The Council discussed live-work units, floor area ratio, horizontal mixed-use, and vertical mixed-use. Concern was raised over the ratio between commercial and residential uses. The Council does not want to see the primary commercial uses overtaken by residential uses. Staff suggested calling out a 50% first floor commercial minimum with the mixed-use option. Councilwoman Fillmore expressed concern with live-work units and how they may be interpreted. She is concerned the proposed amendments weaken the ordinance and could possibly allow a home office for the required primary commercial use. She is not opposed to home office uses buts believes they need to be secondary to the required commercial use and not counted as the primary commercial use. It was suggested that definitions be made clear that a home office is not intended for the commercial portion of mixed-use. The Council discussed the possibility of separate entrances for each use (commercial and residential) and clarification on what type of residential uses are appropriate on Main Street. Councilwoman Fillmore suggested calling for ground floor entrances to each individual unit. She believes this will provide more of a townhome feel rather than an apartment feel. Staff said clarification on appropriate residential product types can be called out. Staff said separate entrances could be problematic with the vertical mixed-use option.

The Council discussed density caps including units per building and units per acre. The Council raised concern with the conditional use option for additional units. Councilwoman Fillmore said that 6-8 units per building feels more like an apartment rather than a townhome. The Council was more comfortable with a maximum density of no more than 4-units per building with no conditional use option (Traditional and City Center Districts). The Council also agreed the term multiple-family should be removed from the ordinance. Council members debated the difference in the overall number of units possible, in the area as a whole, with regard to 4-units vs. 8-units an acre and how this may impact the city. Councilwoman Fillmore said the difference between 4-units an acre and 8-units an acre is not that significant and referred the Council to the data collected that showed 72 units possible in this section of the corridor if the ordinance is set at 8 units per acre. Even that number is very unlikely in that it assumes all the likely-to-develop properties would use the mixed-use option to its maximum. The total number of units possible within this area wouldn’t even double given other limitations of the ordinances. Councilman Wright and Councilwoman Ivie disagreed. Councilman Wright said a lower set maximum is the best way to control density which in turn will control traffic and congestion. Councilwoman Ivie said anything over 4-units an acre is too dense.  Concerns were expressed regarding the “exception” clause that would allow at least two dwelling units per parcel. Council members discussed the probability of a property owner subdividing their property in an effort to get more units. Councilwoman Fillmore said this is not likely because of the cost to build, marketability and the limitations that setbacks and easements impose on a property. She also mentioned that property owners should not feel they have to combine their property with another in order to make redevelopment possible. Councilman Averett expressed concern that too many limitations will hinder redevelopment all together. Staff suggested the term “legal” be added to clarify that only “legal lots” can be considered for development.

The Council discussed restaurant uses. Staff clarified the difference between restaurant, general and restaurant, eatery. The Council discussed options to allow restaurants without the mixed-use component. Councilwoman Ivie expressed concern with a restaurant-use mixed with a residential use. She said there are impacts from a restaurant use that would negatively affect a residential use attached to it, i.e., smell, deliveries, noise, etc.  Staff discussed the intensity of a general restaurant use and how it may impact the area. Mayor Cutler discussed some of the currently existing restaurant businesses on Main Street stating it is important to provide these businesses options for redevelopment as well.

The Council discussed the North Gateway District. Once again the Council agreed that no more than 4-units per building maximum is appropriate with no conditional use option. The Council agreed this is a limited area and agreed with the Planning Commission’s recommendations for this area of Main Street. Councilwoman Fillmore discussed the surrounding residential uses specifically east of the North Gateway District. She said this is currently zoned Residential-Medium and the Council may want to consider reducing this area to Residential-Low.

The Council discussed the Pages Lane District. Staff explained the Planning Commission’s recommendation of a graduated density. The Council questioned if it may be best to return this area to commercial only until there is a better direction of what may be desired in the future. A majority of the Council agreed the mixed-use option for Pages Lane may not be the best fit and that this area is prime for commercial if the right application were made. The Council agreed this area has great potential for mixed-use, residential, and commercial. In an interest to keep density at a minimum, as desired by the community, the Council agreed commercial only may be the best option for now.

The Council discussed building setback and building height for the SMSC. The Council debated aesthetics (pitched roof), how buildings frame the street, and how buildings may shadow homes behind them. Councilman Wright said he is concerned with the shadow a 35-foot building may impose on a neighboring residence. Councilman Higginson said a 25-foot flat building and a 35-foot pitched building create the same shadow. Councilwoman Ivie said taller buildings closer to Main Street will create the feeling of a “luge.” Councilwoman Fillmore said all residential zones currently allow a 35-foot building height and it may seem unfair to limit commercial building heights in the SMSC. She said if the concern is shadow then perhaps a graduated setback to building height may be appropriate. The Council debated the possibility of allowing an increased building height proportionate to the rear and/or front setback. The Council also debated the option of allowing a greater building height only with a pitched roof. Some Council members were comfortable increasing the building height to 35 feet. The Council had mixed feelings on whether it is the community’s desire to keep building heights at a minimum. Councilman Wright and Councilwoman Ivie said the community has been clear that building heights should be kept to a minimum. The Council also discussed setbacks stating they are comfortable with the currently proposed 10-15 foot setback.

The meeting was adjourned at 9:21 p.m.

_________________________________            ___12-01-2015______
Paul Cutler, Mayor                                                   Date Approved

__________________________________
Kathleen Streadbeck, Recording Secretary