Centerville City Hall
250 N. Main Street
Centerville, UT 84014
(801) 292-8034 fax
8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m.
Monday - Friday
August 24, 2016
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES OF MEETING
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.
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
OPENING COMMENT/LEGISLATIVE PRAYER Scott Kjar
RECOGNITION OF RECORDING SECRETARY
Chair Hirschi took a moment to recognize Kathy Streadbeck for her excellent work as Recording Secretary. Tonight’s meeting will be her last meeting. She is starting Paramedic School on Monday. Chair Hirschi read a letter to Kathy from the Mayor expressing appreciation of the City Council, Planning Commission and citizens of Centerville for her exemplary service as a Recording Secretary for the past 15 plus years.
MINUTES REVIEW AND APPROVAL
The minutes of the Planning Commission meeting held August 10, 2016 were reviewed and amended. Commissioner Hayman made a motion to approve the minutes as amended. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Daly and passed by unanimous roll-call vote (6-0).
PUBLIC HEARING – LEGACY CROSSING STORAGE - 150 NORTH 1250 WEST - Consider the proposed Final Site plan and a Conditional Use Permit for a self-storage facility (Legacy Crossing Storage). Ken Menlove, Menlove Construction, Applicant.
Cory Snyder, Community Development Director, reported the applicant has requested this item be postponed to the September 14, 2016 Planning Commission meeting.
PUBLIC HEARING – YOUNGBLOOD BUILDING - 650 NORTH 1250 WEST - Consider the proposed Conceptual Site Plan for Don Youngblood for the purpose of constructing a new industrial building. Don Youngblood, Property Owner & Applicant.
Brandon Toponce, Assistant Planner, reported the applicant previously requested approval for outdoor storage but has since decided to construct a building on his property. The applicant is now seeking conceptual acceptance for a new office/warehouse. The applicant is unsure exactly what type of user will show interest in the building so there is not an exact user indicated at this time. The applicant desires to utilize a portion of the interior of the building and the outdoor storage area for his individual use (racing equipment). Outdoor storage is allowed, as long as it is completely screened from view with a solid wall or chain link fence with slats. After review, it appears the proposed development meets the goals and objectives of the General Plan and meets applicable development standards. The applicant will need to submit architectural details, a landscape plan, and screening details during the final site plan process. Mr. Toponce reviewed the parking options with regard to the perceived use, i.e., office/warehouse. The applicant will be required to install the necessary parking stalls once the use is established. Mr. Toponce reviewed the parking stalls on the west side of the building which are 2-feet larger than required. He said this could be modified to allow for greater outdoor storage if desired by the applicant. The applicant will be required to provide all necessary utilities and will continue to work with the City Engineer regarding drainage, utilities and bonding.
Chair Hirschi expressed concern with the parking stalls. He asked if the use will be known by final site plan submittal. He questioned if parking dictates use or if use dictates parking. He asked if there are currently utilities to this site. He also asked if the bonding requirement should be a condition of approval.
Cory Snyder, Community Development Director, reported that the use is typically addressed prior to final site plan approval but there have been occasions when the applicant is unsure and the site plan was approved anyway. In these cases, the applicant may be required to apply for an amended site plan if and when a use is established and only if the parking is not adequate. He explained the proposed configuration of the parking is such to accommodate an office/warehouse use. Mr. Snyder said the City Engineer is currently reviewing the utilities and that the applicant will be required to submit all utility provider sheets. He believes there is currently limited utilities available to the site. Mr. Snyder explained the bond will be established at final site plan approval once the City Engineer has completed his review of the plans.
Don Youngbood, applicant, responded to questions from the Commission. He said it is likely the use will be office/warehouse. He said he does not have a tenant as of yet, but office/warehouse is what he believes is best suited for the proposed building. He explained he has maximized the parking for an office/warehouse tenant. He hopes this maximized parking will eliminate the need for an amended site plan once a use is established. He said this should all be worked out prior to final site plan approval.
Chair Hirschi opened the public hearing. Seeing no one wishing to comment, he closed the public hearing.
Commissioner Daly made a motion for the Planning Commission to accept the Conceptual Site Plan for the Youngblood Office/Warehouse, to be located at 650 North 1250 West, with the following conditions:
Reasons for the Action:
The motion was seconded by Commissioner Wright and passed by unanimous roll-call vote (6-0).
BARTILE SHEDS - 725 NORTH 1000 WEST - Consider the proposed Final Site Plan for Bartile Roofs on property located at 725 North 1000 West, for the purpose of constructing new storage sheds. Lewis Evans, Bartile Roofs Inc., Applicant.
Cory Snyder, Community Development Director, reported the applicant desires to construct three (3) large storage buildings on his existing property. Mr. Snyder reviewed the site plan including the building placement, building architecture, and the proposed parking on the site. The plan also depicts a showroom expansion to the main building of the business. Mr. Snyder reviewed the non-conformities of the site and explained the applicant’s desire to remain below the 30% reconstruction threshold in order to continue under the non-conforming status. However, any additional future redevelopment, beyond this application, will require full compliance with current zoning regulations. Mr. Snyder reviewed the architectural design and materials proposed (cement tilt-up board with score marks for design). He also reviewed the applicant’s plan to use Bartile product as the wainscot material. The Commission must decide if these products are acceptable according to building standards, i.e., “substantially maintenance free.” Mr. Snyder said this type of cement board has been used in the past and showed pictures of currently existing structures in the area that have used the same material. Staff believes the proposed materials are reasonable and given the fact that these proposed buildings are accessory and are out of direct public view.
Mr. Snyder reviewed the proposed parking reconfiguration. He explained the current parking situation (parallel stalls at the back of building #4, south side) do not meet current standards. The applicant is proposing to eliminate these existing parking stalls and landscape this area. Current code requires that any eliminated stalls be replaced and, in addition, parking lot landscaping must also be installed. The plans indicate the replacement of these parking stalls interior to the site but does not show the required parking lot landscaping. Staff believes this can be worked out during the building permit process. He said if staff and the applicant cannot come to an agreement with the reconfigured parking and landscaping the applicant will be required to come before the Planning Commission for a final decision.
Lewis Evans, applicant, explained the existing parking behind building #4 is about 20 feet deep and is used by the employees of a neighboring company. He said none of his employees or clients ever use this parking because there is enough parking in front of the showroom and interior to the site for his purposes. He explained the configuration of this parking is parallel to the building with three (3) access points, but those that park there pull straight in. He said the parking was approved to be used as configured. He believes it is a burden for him to remove and replace this parking, especially with the requirement to landscape both this current site and the parking relocation site. He said he would rather clean-up the current parking behind building #4 and restripe the stalls so it can be used as originally intended. He said he chose the proposed concrete tilt-up building material with score marks because it is similar to the Bryson Company building nearby.
Mr. Snyder said the plan is to eliminate the existing parking (behind building #4) including numerous access points from 725 North and install a high-back curb with a 4-foot parkstrip/landscaping. The remaining footage can be gravel, rock, or some other type of dry-scape. He explained the new parking lot landscaping is required per Zoning Ordinance [Section 12-51-070(e)]. He agreed that this is a difficult issue. He said staff could look at the exact count necessary for parking and perhaps the applicant will only have to landscape for those necessary stalls and not all the relocated parking. He explained parking is a tool used specifically to ensure appropriate standards are followed.
Commissioner Wright said she likes the idea of using Bartile product as the wainscot. She said this is a smart business move and would like to see more of the Bartile product on the other proposed buildings.
Chair Hirschi said it seems as though the City is getting a benefit from the applicant because he is beautifying the street front and it seems the applicant is getting punished by having to landscape the relocated parking as well. He said this seems excessive especially given that this relocated parking is interior to the site. Commissioner Johnson agreed saying the beautification of the street front is a gift and it seems that, in addition, the ordinance requires a second gift. Several Commission members expressed concern that this may be burdensome to the applicant especially when his employees do not use this parking. Some Commission members questioned if the parking is even necessary because it is not actually needed by the applicant. The Commission discussed several options including keeping the current configuration and possible Board of Adjustment intervention.
Mr. Evans said he would like to keep the parking as it is and not have to upgrade this area with the exception of general clean-up and restriping. He said he could also install signage to ensure correct alignment is followed. He explained many of his employees use crew vehicles which helps minimize the need for parking stalls.
Chair Hirschi said the plan before the Commission tonight includes the reconfigured parking. He said the Planning Commission would have to wait for a revised plan to accept the current parking situation. He said the Commission could table this item to allow the applicant to revise the plan and allow staff time to research the original approved site plan, but that would take more time. He asked the applicant if he is willing to wait or if he would prefer this scenario be approved.
Mr. Evans said they would like to move forward as quickly as possible because the construction season is coming to an end and they would like to get started. He said they agreed to the new parking configuration in order to move forward but do feel it is a cost burden. He also explained that interior parking is a risk to his company. He would prefer to keep parking out of the fenced industrial area. He said there is plenty of parking in front of the showroom to accommodate the needs of his customers.
Lisa Romney, City Attorney, agreed this item could be tabled for further research if the applicant prefers. She said parking provisions are set to ensure a site is adequately parked and the way those provisions are applied depends on the specific situation. In this situation, the provisions require that any eliminated parking be relocated with landscaping. She explained the original approved plan could be reviewed to ensure it had adequate parking, prior to any alterations. She said it may be possible the site is sufficiently parked without the 12 stalls behind building #4. Ms. Romney said the parking stalls in front of the showroom may be illegal because they back into the street right-of-way.
Mr. Snyder explained the Public Works Director and the City Engineer are concerned with the safety of many of the parking stalls including those in front of the showroom and those behind building #4. He said they are also concerned with the number of access points and curb cuts for this site. He said both the Public Works Director and the City Engineer have the ability to request specific changes for safety hazards. Mr. Snyder said the original site plan may show a different parking configuration than what is actually being used today. He said staff can review the original plan and see what parking was originally approved. He said staff would then review the addition of the proposed buildings and calculate any additional parking needed. In addition, the Public Works Director and the City Engineer would need to review and approve for all safety hazards. Mr. Snyder explained the applicant can choose to revert back to the original plan with further staff review or the proposed application can be approved as submitted this evening which already reflects these issues, albeit at a cost to the applicant. He said this application could be approved and if the applicant chooses to revert back in the future, then an amended site plan could be submitted.
Chair Hirschi said that perhaps a motion to approve is best. He said this would provide the applicant a choice to move forward or to have staff review further with a possible return to the original parking plan.
Chair Hirschi made a motion for the Planning Commission to approve the Final Site Plan for the proposed Bartile Sheds Final Site Plan - Amended, subject to the following conditions:
Reasons for the Action:
The motion was seconded by Commissioner Johnson and passed by unanimous roll-call vote (6-0).
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR’S REPORT
CITY COUNCIL ACTIONS REPORT
The meeting was adjourned at 8:45 p.m.