July 8, 2015

PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES OF MEETING
Wednesday, July 8, 2015
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.

MEMBERS PRESENT
Cheylynn Hayman
David Hirschi, Chair
Gina Hirst
William Ince
Logan Johnson
Kevin Merrill

MEMBERS ABSENT
Scott Kjar

COUNCIL MEMBERS PRESENT
Paul Cutler, Mayor
Ken Averett
Tamilyn Fillmore
Stephanie Ivie
John Higginson

COUNCIL MEMBERS ABSENT
Lawrence Wright

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

VISITORS
Interested citizens

PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE

OPENING COMMENT/LEGISLATIVE PRAYER     Commissioner Hayman

MINUTES REVIEW AND APPROVAL

The minutes of the Planning Commission meeting held June 24, 2015 were reviewed and amended. Commissioner Hirst made a motion to approve the minutes as amended. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Hayman and passed by unanimous vote (6-0).

PUBLIC HEARING | DRUMPF RESIDENTIAL LOT | 540 SOUTH 400 WEST - Consider proposed Final Site Plan for an unplatted residential building lot on property located at 540 South 400 West, for the purpose of constructing a new dwelling.  Scott & Susan Drumpf, Applicants.

Cory Snyder, Community Development Director, reported the Planning Commission previously accepted the conceptual site plan for the proposed single family home. The applicant has addressed the conditions of approval from the conceptual acceptance and is now ready for a final site plan review. The applicant will still be required to pay all applicable fees, submit all necessary utility provider sheets, and receive final approvals from the City Engineer. In addition, a current title report will still need to be submitted to the City Attorney for review. Overall, the final site plan is in harmony with the previously approved conceptual site plan. A building permit is required prior to any construction taking place and will need to meet all applicable standards found within the Zoning Ordinance.

Chair Hirschi opened the public hearing. Seeing no one wishing to comment; he closed the public hearing.

Commissioner Hirst questioned if all utilities are available to this site and if any connections will need to be adjusted. Mr. Snyder said all utilities are available to the site and staff will ensure all connections are appropriate during the building permit process.  He said all utility companies have been contacted; the applicant is awaiting responses.

Scott Drumpf, applicant, reviewed the site plan explaining its unique layout. The hammerhead driveway will ensure fire safety access and turn-around. He also explained his hopes to utilize this property for some small farming activities, including small animals.

Chair Hirschi made a motion for the Planning Commission to approve the final site plan for the Scott and Susan Drumpf Residential Lot, located at 540 South 400 West, with the following conditions:

Conditions:
1.    All professional service fees, development fees and related impact fees shall be paid.
2.    A bond for all public improvements must be posted prior to the issuance of a building permit.
3.    The submitted grading and utility plan shall be reviewed and approved by the City Engineer prior to a building permit being issued.
4.    Applicant shall provide appropriate public utility easements and submit to the City. All easements shall be accepted by the City Council and recorded with the Davis County
Recorder’s Office.
5.    A current title report shall be submitted to the City Attorney for review prior to issuance of a building permit.

Reasons for Action (findings):
1.    The applicant has clearly shown how the property may be developed [Section 12-21-110(d)(2)].
2.    The applicant has submitted a full final site plan application [Section 12-21-110(e)(2)].
3.    Proposed utility easements are required on all developed lots [Section 12-21-110(e)(2)(iii)(d), 15-5-106(8)].

The motion was seconded by Commissioner Merrill and passed by unanimous roll-call vote (6-0).

WORK SESSION | SOUTH MAIN STREET CORRIDOR PLAN & PUBLIC COMMENTS REVIEW - The City Council and the Planning Commission will discuss the South Main Street Corridor Plan and review all the public comments received from various meetings.

The Planning Commission and City Council reviewed and discussed several aspects of the South Main Street Corridor Plan (SMSC), including the many public comments that have been made over the past several meetings. Mayor Cutler explained the City Council recently reviewed the proposed density cap as recommended by the Planning Commission and after a lengthy discussion the issue was ultimately tabled for further review and discussion. In addition to density caps the Commission and Council also discussed viability, mixed-uses, building heights and framing, and public spaces.

City staff reviewed conditional use permits and how this tool is used to allow additional development options if negative impacts are appropriately mitigated. Staff also reviewed the Planned Development Overlay (PDO) tool, which also provides an option for additional density but also ensures an overall better developed project. Staff explained there may be some ways to take a more conservative approach to density including a density cap. Several Council and Commission members agreed each tool can be useful but that each tool also presents its own challenges with respect to the SMSC. A majority of the members present agreed a density cap is an appropriate safeguard for the SMSC.

Chair Hirschi said density and viability go hand in hand; the viability of commercial uses depends on residential roof tops. He said if residential density is too restricted then commercial uses will struggle. He said residential density should promote both commercial and retail uses. He said commercial is important and should be encouraged along Main Street in addition to appropriate residential uses. He said there have been many comments made that residential only is the way to go. He is not sure this is best for Main Street. He said single-family uses are more difficult to control. He questioned if the city really wants single-family homes with yards and structures that cannot be specifically regulated along Main Street. He also questioned if people would really be interested in raising a family on a busy Main Street. He believes the mixed-use concept is still the best option for Main Street. He said he is also concerned with the idea of a single-family PDO on Main Street. He said this could potentially put a fence along Main Street with single-family homes facing interior. He does not believe a “wall” on Main Street is a good idea. He is also concerned with “down zoning” Main Street from commercial to residential only. He said this is unfair to current property owners who have been paying commercial taxes for many years.

Councilwoman Fillmore said the SMSC uses form base standards to help unify development along the frontage of Main Street, but does not address the rear parcels very well; perhaps some clarification may be appropriate for rear residential uses. She believes the mixed-use concept is still the best option for Main Street. She said economic viability is very important. There needs to be enough return so a property owner is able to demolish an old building and build a new high quality project. However, she is concerned comments made regarding viability may be just that, comments. She believes viability needs to be studied more thoroughly to know for sure if this is an issue. Councilwoman Fillmore stated that she had received today an email from Jeff Cook, a business owner on Main Street, which said:  “I have concerns about some of the proposals for zoning ordinance changes in this corridor.  The current ordinance which was adopted only a few years ago is and will continue to be instrumental in retaining the small local business atmosphere on Main Street, which is an important part of our history and our future.”  Councilwoman Fillmore noted that a majority of the property/business owners on Main Street are local Centerville residents, which allows them to live and work in Centerville.  She said the SMSC is appropriate because it provides flexibility. She said current property owners have expressed a desire for flexibility so they can find the best redevelopment option for their situation. Councilwoman Fillmore read again from what Jeff Cook had sent her, stating that he has discussed this issue with several small business owners that want to express their concern as citizens and property owners.  This is a statement Jeff believes summarizes their feeling:  “We express our desire that the zoning in this area, which allows for mixed use development of commercial and residential remain.  The ordinances that are currently in place are the results of more than a year of public input, study, professional consultation and compromise.  A substantial change would in fairness require that the same process be followed as when the current ordinance was adopted.  We believe that a moderate change such as a medium density cap would be more fair and balanced.”  She said Main Street is intended to be primarily commercial. She suggested keeping commercial as the primary use and residential or mixed-use as secondary, and writing in language to that point. She is concerned a density cap could be detrimental for smaller properties and may hinder their ability to redevelop. She believes a required commercial use or mixed-use will help control density. She said the majority of the comments made in the past few meetings have been concern over density, not necessarily negatives toward the SMSC plan. She believes eliminating commercial on Main Street will intensify residential uses and density. She supports a density cap as appropriate for larger parcels, but is worried that if set too low could encourage blight because there is no incentive for redevelopment. She believes it is important to maintain the synergy of the SMSC and encourage consistent redevelopment.

Commissioner Merrill said single-family lots are not as sought after with rising generations. Research has shown that generations to come prefer smaller mixed-use homes with little to no maintenance and services within walking distance.

Mayor Cutler said flexibility is important and questioned if there is a need to promote townhomes or other forms of multi-family housing on Main Street. Commissioner Johnson said he likes the flexibility of either residential, commercial, or mixed-use. Commissioner Hayman agreed flexibility is best, but does not believe residential only is the best or viable option. She said townhomes could be appropriate with a suitable density cap and green space requirement. She questioned if a lower density cap could be set with incentivized increases? She too is concerned with blight, but also wants to find a balance in keeping Centerville’s unique small town feel.  Councilwoman Fillmore stated that multi-family housing is what she had heard the most concern over, so promoting town homes would be opposite of the public’s input.

City staff discussed possible density caps (i.e., 4, 6, and 8). Staff believes there are pros and cons to each density cap option. Staff is willing to research possible incentive options and tools. Staff also discussed the General Plan for Main Street explaining some changes to the SMSC may also require a change to the General Plan. Staff explained it may be possible to cap residential densities and/or size of parcel with some type of tiered density system. Staff explained that a density cap will affect viability and the City needs to be careful not to negatively impact property owners. Staff agreed the higher the density cap the more likely it will not negatively affect smaller parcels.

Councilman Higginson agreed commercial uses should be encouraged along Main Street. He said commercial uses should front Main Street with residential uses behind. He is not concerned with catering to every demographic. He said Centerville is different and unique. He said walkability is often discussed but is rarely a reality. He said there are walkable developments but most people drive to them, then walk around. He said Main Street will not likely ever become a true walkable area. He said he is in favor of a density cap and is also in favor of keeping commercial uses on Main Street.

Councilman Averett questioned if the City is planning for the past or planning for the future. He said retail is not viable on Main Street mostly due, he believes, to online sales. He said current research shows that 1 in 5 Americans work from home at least once a week and trends show that number will only increase in the future. He agrees live/work concepts are important and should be encouraged. He agreed future generations want to live in smaller PDO type developments with no maintenance. He said it seems the future is leaning toward mixed-use options.

The Planning Commission and City Council discussed density with regard to the Pages Lane area which is set at a much higher density. Members present were not as concerned with this area as it is different from the Core District and will bring a different type of redevelopment. A majority of the members present agreed the Pages Lane area may still require a density cap but at a much higher option in order to maintain flexible redevelopment options. The Planning Commission agreed to research and discuss the Pages Lane area and provide a recommendation for density to the City Council in the near future.

Councilwoman Ivie said she is not comfortable with any density over four (4) units per acre along Main Street including the Pages Lane area. She said Centerville already has over 600 units within this small SMSC area, which is too dense. She said any additional density will only negatively impact the area.

City staff discussed public open space options along Main Street, including sidewalk, trees, street furniture, parking and lighting. Staff explained how UDOT is involved with these decisions as Main Street is a State owned road. The City intends to complete a public space plan for Main Street in the future. The public right-of-way is narrow and options are limited. Any public space plan will require feasibility studies and coordination with UDOT. The Commission and Council discussed requiring aesthetic public space improvements as part of redevelopment plans thus placing the burden on property owners. Staff reminded those present that these types of burdens are generally balanced with density increases. Chair Hirschi suggested creating a PDO option for Main Street with bonus density provisions for public space improvements. This possible PDO option could also maintain the SMSC building structure/framing and commercial use requirements. The Planning Commission agreed to research and discuss possible public space options in the near future.

The Commission and Council discussed building heights for Main Street. The building height for all residential homes across the city is 35 feet. A majority of the members present agreed a maximum building height of 35 feet is appropriate for Main Street and will help encourage redevelopment. It was also mentioned that building height can be mitigated with setbacks. City staff discussed the “framing” concept. If buildings are brought forward then parking is pushed behind providing less vehicular accesses on Main Street and a buffer between the commercial fronts and residential uses behind. It was mentioned that “framing” should provide more commercial viability because the cost from UDOT to install an access on Main Street is excessive.

The Commission and Council discussed street width. Concerns were raised regarding the challenges that sub-standard street widths can produce (i.e., maintenance, fire access, density, parking, etc.). City staff debated the challenges that can come when full-width streets are required in private developments (i.e., parking lots, car ports, decreased circulation, speed, etc.) Staff agreed to research possible options to increase street widths where possible.

COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR’S REPORT

1.    The next Planning Commission meeting will be Wednesday, July 22, 2015.
2.    Upcoming Agenda Items
•    Porter Lane Townhomes, Conditional Use Permit & Final Site Plan
•    Youngblood Storage, Conceptual Site Plan

The meeting was adjourned at 9:45 p.m.

____________________________                   ____09-09-2015______
David Hirschi, Chair                                               Date Approved

__________________________________
Kathleen Streadbeck, Recording Secretary