June 24, 2015

PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES OF MEETING
Wednesday, June 24, 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 P. Hirschi, Chair
Gina Hirst
William Ince
Logan Johnson
Scott Kjar
Kevin Merrill, Vice Chair

STAFF PRESENT
Corvin Snyder, Community Development Director
Brandon Toponce, Assistant Planner
Lisa Romney, City Attorney
Katie Rust, Recording Secretary

VISITORS
Patrick Scott, Brighton Development Utah, LLC
Taylor Spendlove, Brighton Development Utah, LLC
Interested citizens (see attached sign-in sheet)

OPENING COMMENT/PRAYER    Commissioner Hirst

PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE

MINUTES REVIEW AND APPROVAL

The minutes of the June 10, 2015 Planning Commission meeting were reviewed.  Chair Hirschi and Commissioner Johnson requested changes.  Commissioner Ince made a motion to approve the minutes as amended.  Commissioner Hirst seconded the motion, which passed by unanimous vote (7-0).

PUBLIC HEARING – PORTER LANE TOWNHOMES, 564 WEST PORTER LANE

Cory Snyder, Community Development Director, explained the application for Conceptual Site Plan for the Porter Lane Townhomes, on property located at 564 West Porter Lane (the Hafoka property), and clarified that Brighton Homes has withdrawn the application for rezone to Residential-High (R-H) and decided to proceed with the existing Residential-Medium (R-M) Zone.  The previous rezone to R-M was considered by both the Planning Commission and the City Council based on whether R-M was appropriate for that property under the City’s General Plan.  Brighton Homes has chosen to move in a different direction from the initial assisted living center idea, and has submitted an application for a multi-family residential development.  Mr. Snyder suggested that the proposed 48-unit townhome community, with one existing single-family dwelling, would be comparable visually to the Florentine Townhomes development south of Walmart.  Two applications have been submitted – the Conceptual Site Plan, and a Conditional Use Permit to allow the density of 8 units per acre in the R-M Zone.  Multi-family is a permitted use in the R-M zone.

Mr. Snyder pointed out concerns regarding parking and street width within the proposed development as they relate to emergency vehicle access on the private road, and a concern regarding how refuse collection would be accommodated.  Mr. Snyder stated that, generally, it is very likely that Brighton Homes will be able to meet the R-M standard for a multi-family development, and said that, from a planning perspective, it would be feasible to move on to the next step with the Conceptual Site Plan.  However, Mr. Snyder said staff does not recommend approval of the Conditional Use Permit until more details are provided.  More information regarding drainage of the property and traffic impact of the proposed development is needed.  He said the Frontage Road certainly has capacity for more traffic, but 400 West would tap out quickly.  Fire hydrant flow and location needs to be addressed, as well as additional parking and circulation.

Mr. Snyder explained the concept of pocket parking.  Commissioner Merrill pointed out maintenance difficulties with pocket parking, and asked if the street width could be increased from 24 feet to 29 feet to allow parking on one side.  Commissioner Ince asked for clarification regarding acreage and landscaping, and Mr. Snyder responded that the Conceptual Site Plan appears to include enough landscaping that some of the space could be used for additional parking.  Commissioner Hirst asked if the wetland area would be usable by the community.  Mr. Snyder responded that the space is considered drainage easement to capture rainfall, not wetland.  Mr. Snyder explained that hydrants are in place along Porter Lane, the question is whether the developer will choose a hydrant system on the private streets, or sprinkler systems in the units.  Commissioner Hayman asked what would be included in a traffic study, and who would pay for the study.  Mr. Snyder responded that City ordinances allow the Planning Commission to require a traffic study at the developer’s expense.  A second opinion, if desired, would be done at the cost of the City.  A traffic study would determine flow and congestion patterns, and recommend mitigation for unacceptable congestion levels.  Commissioner Hayman stated she would presume that traffic would be going east to the schools.  Mr. Snyder stated that the School District could be asked to weigh in regarding capacity and whether students in the development would be bussed.

Patrick Scott with Brighton Homes explained that the existing home would remain a single-family residence, with the addition of 48 townhome units on the property.  No street parking is planned, and Brighton has added 18 more parking stalls based on experience with other developments.  The Site Plan includes a total of 4.3 parking spaces per unit (2.3 guest stalls per unit), which Mr. Scott said Brighton Homes has found more than sufficient, with the exception of occasional large family gatherings, which do require more parking.  Mr. Scott said they have changed the Plan to include corner units with master suites on the main floor, which will provide more resident diversity.  The units all have 3-4 bedrooms, 2-car garages, and 1600–2100 square feet, with no basements.  The development includes 44% open space and 7.95 units per acre.  Mr. Scott said the proposed development will be for-sale housing that he feels will bring permanency to the neighborhood.  There are no wetlands within the property.  The property includes an Army Corps of Engineers drainage easement that can be manicured, and Mr. Scott said that, although the existing home may seem a little out of place, it is not uncommon for development to occur around existing structures.  He said he feels the development design integrates the home into the community.

Mr. Scott stated several traffic engineers have indicated that a traffic study is not usually needed if a development includes fewer than 50 units.  He said he believes the roads have capacity, considering that highest traffic counts occur during commuter hours, and he feels commuter traffic is savvy at finding the quickest access.  The Frontage Road provides access to I-15 without going through the 400 West intersection.  Mr. Scott suggested that the proposed development would include more commuting professionals than families.  Sidewalk is already in place on Porter Lane between Frontage Road and 400 West, and fire access will be addressed with the Final Site Plan.  He said he does not feel emergency access should have bearing on the Conditional Use application, since the Conditional Use Permit is density based.  He said he also feels that drainage is more of a Final Site Plan issue.  Mr. Scott stated that, from a developer standpoint, Conditional Use is an approved use unless substantial negative impact to the community is found.

Commissioner Hayman pointed out that the additional 18 parking stalls are all on the east side of the development.  Mr. Scott responded that some additional spots are on the west side.  The overflow parking is intended to handle large-scale events.  The two driveway stalls per unit will provide short-term visitor parking for the units.  Commissioner Johnson stated he thinks the design for open space could be improved, and changing the design may help with the location of additional parking.  Mr. Scott said he feels it makes sense to have a majority of the open space within the drainage area.  The open space on the south side provides a buffer from Porter Lane.  Commissioner Hayman pointed out that the concern with the 24-foot street width has to do with emergency vehicle access, not with parking.  Mr. Snyder stated that no-parking within an HOA on a private lane to ensure emergency vehicle access is enforced by the HOA, often by contracting with a towing company.  Mr. Scott pointed out that, because of driveway placement, there would be very few places where vehicles could be parked on the street.  A clearance of 20 feet is needed for emergency access.  Mr. Scott said he feels it would be a well parked community with the 4.3 parking stalls per unit.  Mr. Snyder confirmed that 4.3 is well above the City standard, and parking for large-scale events will depend on management of the neighborhood.

Commissioner Johnson asked Lisa Romney, City Attorney, if she agrees with Mr. Scott’s presentation of conditional use permits.  Ms. Romney said she agrees with Mr. Scott’s description of the law.  State statues have changed to provide that a conditional use permit shall be approved if reasonable conditions can be imposed to mitigate detrimental impacts.  Ms. Romney stated she supports staff’s recommendation to table approval of the Conditional Use Permit to receive more information.

Chair Hirschi opened a public hearing for the Porter Lane Townhomes Conceptual Site Plan and Conditional Use Permit at 8:17 p.m.

Kami Layton, Centerville – Ms. Layton showed two building-block cities built by her grandchildren (ages 2 and 4).  She said her four-year-old grandson said that “people” make a city busy.  Ms. Layton said she does not want to live in a busy city.  She stated that too many people ruin the quality of experience.  Centerville is referred to as “the City in between”.  She does not want to feel like a citizen squeezed in between.  She stated that the citizens would like to see the property zoned 1-4 units per acre.  There are more than 600 units between Parrish Lane and Pages Lane.  She suggested the developer drive around and look at all the townhomes and apartments all over.  Single-family homes would be a change.  Ms. Layton said she feels many will want to move away if higher-density development occurs.

Dave Farnsworth, Centerville – Mr. Farnsworth expressed that he does not feel the proposed amount of parking is sufficient.  He asked if a traffic study has been done.  He asked how the towing policy would work, with no police enforcement of traffic and parking within the property.  He asked what makes the City Planner such a strong advocate of this development, and asked if the “standards” referred to represent the thinking and view point of the community.  Mr. Farnsworth said he does not feel the proposed development reflects the feel of Centerville.

Stephanie Carter-Nielsen, Centerville – Ms. Carter-Nielsen mentioned several high-density developments that have occurred since she bought her home.  She stated that the traffic on 400 West has become sensational.  She said she knows that having renters in a neighborhood reduces property values, and said she would be interested in finding out how many existing units in the area are owner occupied.  Ms. Carter-Nielsen expressed concern with the lack of sidewalks within the proposed development for children to use to get to the common area to play.  She said she is concerned about the safety of children and concerned that the units will not be owner occupied.  She said it is not the right density for the property, and proposed allowing five units per acre with 3-bedroom patio homes as an alternative.

Dale McIntyre, Centerville – Mr. McIntyre said he is concerned with the application being called a project.  He said he views it as two different projects, with two different types of use – one project being used to justify the other high-density project.

Bruce Madsen, Centerville – Mr. Madsen said that when he moved to his home, 400 West was not a through road.  He said he feels like the south end of the City is getting everything that those on the north end do not want.  He compared the proposed development to the Shaela Park development across the street, which has 16 buildings.  Mr. Madsen said he believes the landscaping in the proposed development is configured to maximize profit.  He compared the situation to Foxboro in North Salt Lake, and stated that residents use their garages for storage rather than parking.  He added that most of the residents have three vehicles, with the third vehicles utilizing the overflow parking.  Mr. Madsen said that people will park up and down the streets whether or not it is posted no-parking.  Neighborhoods of seven or more units per acre are the biggest areas for crime.  He said that the viaduct near the Legacy Parkway is better patrolled than 400 West through his neighborhood.  The Frontage Road is not used because it is not easily accessible.  He added that he does not believe developers care what happens to neighborhoods after development is completed.

Ms. Romney asked the public to direct all comments to the Planning Commission, and to remember that the Planning Commission is considering applications for Conceptual Site Plan and

Conditional Use Permit.

Mr. Madsen concluded by pointing out that theory is different from what occurs in reality.

Janice Frost, Centerville – Ms. Frost stated she is not anti-development, but she does not like what is being proposed.  She said it looks to her like high-density, and agreed with Mr. McIntyre’s comments.  She said she does not think it is realistic to include the existing home in the development.  She stated that she does not think the 48 units have really been thought out.  Ms. Frost said she feels the Planning Commission should consider the interests of the entire community, and how the proposed development would impact the entire community.  She said the proposed parking is inadequate based on personal experience, and the traffic flow makes no sense.  She stated she thinks the proposed development would more closely resemble the Country Cottages development than the Florentine Townhomes development.  She feels 8 units per acre on that property is too many.

Patricia Braithwaite, Centerville – Ms. Braithwaite read comments from Dean Williams, who could not attend the meeting.  The comments included concern that no-parking on the streets would be unrealistic to enforce.  Garages are used as storage units, with parking in the driveways and streets.  Concern was expressed regarding space for emergency vehicles to maneuver, and it was stated that the City has a responsibility to not approve any development that does not provide for the safety of the residents.  A copy of Mr. Williams’ comments is attached.

Rick Dudley, Centerville – Mr. Dudley said he has spent hours at the park at Shaela Park, and he appreciates that the sidewalk goes all the way around the development.  He pointed out that all the open space in the proposed development is along the boundaries, and stated he feels it has gotten to the point that developers are asking themselves what can be excluded from a community.  Mr. Dudley said he already avoids the 400 West Porter Lane intersection because of the wait time, and stated that a traffic study will not tell the Commission how many citizens are avoiding the intersection.

Heather Strasser, Centerville – Ms. Strasser thanked the Planning Commission for all they do.  She said she has spent time reviewing the Site Plan and reading the City’s ordinances.  She pointed out flaws in the Site Plan, including the lack of “ample access”, insufficient parking, and streets that are not wide enough.  She stated that very few residents of Shaela Park are able to park two vehicles in their 2-car garages.  She commented that much of the green space in the proposed development appears to be in the Army Corps of Engineers drainage area, and there is no indication of sidewalks within the development and no indication of trash dumpsters.  She asked if the proposed development has sufficient drainage, and stated she feels the existing home is a major concern with no buffer between the multi-family units and single-family home.  Ms. Strasser stated she feels a traffic study must be required, and the Site Plan must be tabled.  She said she feels 48-units and one home are too much for the property.  A copy of Ms. Strasser’s concerns is attached.

Dave Bell, Centerville – Mr. Bell thanked the City Planners, and mentioned the impacts of everyone commuting each day to work.  He commented that the population will continue to grow, and said he feels that a development that is done right would be a benefit.  Mr. Bell stated that the Shaela Park development was opposed by the neighboring residents, but the City made sure it was done well.  The population can either continue to spread out, or accept nice little communities that can control the impact.  He expressed confidence that the City will ensure emergency services accessibility, and stated that he does not agree with most of the public comments.

Marti Money, Centerville – Ms. Money stated she respects the work done by the Planning Commission and Planning staff.  She commented that Shaela Park is lovely, with 5.33 units per acre and green space.  Ms. Money said Ms. Strasser stated that the Conceptual Site Plan differs from City ordinances in many ways, and asked the Planning Commission to table the Site Plan and Conditional Use Permit.  She asked Brighton Homes to try again, because the bare bones concept is not good enough for Centerville.  Ms. Money expressed disappointment that Brighton Homes did not agree to meet with residents more than once before the Planning Commission meeting.

Laura Dudley, Centerville – Ms. Dudley said she is concerned about the density of the project, and said she believes it should be reduced to 30 units, allowing more green space, wider roads, sidewalks, and a nicer feel.  She stated if people wanted to live in a high-density area they would move to Salt Lake City.  She quoted requirements for wetlands, and added that wetlands attract frogs and snakes, and is not an appropriate place for a playground.  She asked the Planning Commission to protect Centerville’s wetlands and drainage areas by keeping the zoning on the lower end and keeping the feel of Centerville.

Rita Johnson, Centerville – Ms. Johnson said she grew up in California.  She said it is appealing to her that Centerville is limited geographically, and highly encouraged five units per acre on the subject property.  Ms. Johnson said the community needs more children and more families.  She said she avoids making a left turn onto 400 West because of existing traffic congestion, and stated that the 400 West Porter Lane intersection is not safe for pedestrians.  Ms. Johnson thanked the Planning Commission for their work.

Seeing no further public comment, Chair Hirschi closed the public hearing at 9:20 p.m.

Chair Hirschi asked the Brighton Homes representatives to explain the HOA plans and what will happen when Brighton Homes leaves the development.  Mr. Snyder commented that HOA conditions would be part of the subdivision process.  Mr. Scott responded that the proposed development would be an HOA community.  Brighton Homes typically turns a community over to an HOA once all the units are sold.  If HOA fees are not enough to pay all maintenance bills, the developer must pay.  Mr. Scott said it is in the developer’s best interest to ensure that a community is well managed.  Mr. Snyder added that conditions can be imposed to ensure the best possible outcome.  Mr. Scott stated that medium density was allowed on the property before it was owned by the Hafoka family.  The assisted living facility concept was deemed not feasible.  He expressed a desire to make it the best development possible, but added that it needs to be economically feasible.  A single-family development would not be feasible for Brighton Homes on that property at this time.  Mr. Scott said they are willing to do a traffic study, but they do not feel it is necessary.  Regarding enforcement of parking restrictions, Mr. Scott stated a towing company would be provided with the rules of the community and would take over policing the area.  Neighbors would not be required to rat on each other.  He stated that there seems to be consensus that a problem exists at the 400 West Porter Lane intersection, and emphasized that Brighton Homes’ traffic study will be identifying impact that would be caused by their development.  They do not feel their development would cause significant impact above and beyond what already exists.  Mr. Scott said it is common for private roads to not have sidewalks, but they would be willing to discuss adding sidewalks.  He commented that Brighton wants to address the concerns, but a certain level of reasonableness need to be maintained.  Responding to a question from Mr. Scott, Mr. Snyder stated that a typical City street is 29-31 feet wide gutter to gutter.  Mr. Scott pointed out that public streets are narrower than 24 feet if cars are parked on both sides.  He stressed that Brighton Homes wants to make sure the development is safe and well done.

Chair Hirschi asked about the width of the streets in Shaela Park, and was informed they are 28 feet wide on the asphalt.  Mr. Scott stated that sidewalks could be added to the proposed development.  Commissioner Hayman asked if adding sidewalks would reduce the small amount of green space around the homes.  Mr. Snyder explained that the calculations are complex.  Mr. Scott commented that 10-15 foot rear-yard setbacks are common in townhome communities.  He added that a large open space with a park feel is more usable than small pockets of open space.  Taylor Spendlove, also with Brighton Homes, emphasized that a tot lot and a pergola are included in the landscape plan for community gatherings, and it is their hope to include a dog park on the east side.  Commissioner Kjar asked if Brighton will be able to re-grade the drainage area.  Mr. Spendlove responded that they cannot re-grade the drainage area, but it will be landscaped and useable.  Grading would require a permit from the Army Corps of Engineers.  Mr. Snyder confirmed that the wetlands restrictions posted near the property apply to the regional detention off the property.  He explained that Centerville ordinances have a broad definition of open space that includes both passive and active open space.  Chair Hirschi asked what Brighton plans to do with the detention pond on the southwest corner of the property.  Mr. Scott responded that the detention pond is included as open space, and will be a landscaped, manicured area.  Mr. Snyder gave examples in town where detention areas are included as open space.

Commissioner Johnson asked Mr. Scott what design elements are included to make the existing home fit well with the community.  Mr. Scott responded that enough open space will be maintained around the home that it will not feel out of place.  Referring to a comment made during the public hearing, Mr. Snyder explained that the buffer requirement applies to single-family development areas.  A buffer is not required for a single-family home in the R-M Zone.  He also explained that the parks and recreation space requirements referred to during the public hearing apply to the west side of the City.  Mr. Snyder pointed out that the use of “should” and “encourages” in the General Plan does not mean “mandatory”.  It is preferable to use a grid street system wherever possible, but geographic difficulties are taken into account.  No through connections can be made on the property in question.  Ms. Romney added that for a site plan the Commission is looking to the criteria of the ordinances regarding open space.  Commissioner Ince said it seems to him that some questions ought to be looked at early on in the process because it is difficult to backtrack after the ball gets rolling.  Mr. Snyder explained that if everything is required in a one-step process, there is significant friction between expenditure and risk for the developers.  Centerville’s ordinances create a partnership between the Planning Commission, the public, and developers.  Developers contribute to building the community with infrastructure – water, roads, and parks.  Developers initially give the City a conceptual sketch to compare to City ordinances, the public is given a chance to comment, and developers can then determine whether or not to take the risk of the bigger expenditures moving forward.

Commissioner Kjar stated he feels better about the open useable space in Shaela Park than the open space in the proposed development.  He added that the drainage area is a ditch, and he would be more comfortable with more green space in the middle of the development that could be seen from the road.  Mr. Snyder commented that concerns need to be tied to impacts that require mitigation.  Commissioner Kjar stated that the open space needs to be more usable.  Mr. Snyder confirmed that an internal sidewalk could be required as a conditional use.  Mr. Scott stated that, if the Conditional Use Permit is tabled, it would be helpful if Brighton is provided with specific issues to address.

Chair Hirschi made a motion to accept the Conceptual Site Plan for the Porter Lane Townhomes Project, to be located on property at 564 West Porter Lane, with directives 1-3 and reasons for the action a-c.  Commissioner Merrill seconded the motion.

At 10:05 p.m. the Planning Commission took a brief recess, returning at 10:10 p.m.

Commissioner Kjar commented that Shaela Park has 6 units per acre, which looks good to him because of the useable, accessible park and the 28-foot roads. He said he understands the argument that people do not park in their garages, and stated he would prefer the proposed development to include useable open space in the middle, and more parking.  Commissioner Kjar acknowledged that the developer needs to make money on the project, but said he would prefer more open area visible from the road.  Chair Hirschi suggested that the conditions could be amended to include consideration of additional green space, interior sidewalks, and parking.  Commissioner Johnson made a motion to amend the motion to accept the conceptual site plan with the addition of directive #4: the developer should to look at and address (1) rearrangement of green open space to allow for better visibility from the street and more access to the community in general; and (2) impact on the pedestrian situation in the community, specifically sidewalks and interconnectivity.  Commissioner Merrill pointed out that the Shaela Park usable space is not visible from the street, and Commissioner Hirst added that they would not want children playing out on Porter Lane.  Commissioner Johnson struck “visibility from the street” from his amendment.  Commissioner Hirst pointed out that the tot lot is far away from most of the units.  Commissioner Ince seconded the motion to amend, which passed by unanimous vote (7-0).

Commissioner Ince made a motion to amend the motion by adding that the developer should look at the ability to achieve the overall goals with fewer than 5 units per building.  Chair Hirschi suggested that would be more of a conditional use issue.  Commissioner Hayman said she would like to give the developer an opportunity to come up with a way to improve the green space situation.  Commissioner Ince withdrew his motion to amend.  Commissioner Hayman made a motion to amend the motion by adding a fifth directive requiring a traffic study.  Commissioner Merrill mentioned that the traffic study would be a conditional use issue.  Commissioner Hayman withdrew her motion to amend.  The Commission and staff discussed the appropriate order of directives and conditional use issues, as well as the possible scope of a traffic study.  Commissioner Hirst stated she sees the existing home as a potential issue if it becomes abandoned, unsalable, and becomes an eye sore.  Mr. Snyder explained the City’s ability to mitigate structures deemed unsafe.  Chair Hirschi made a motion to amend the motion to accept with an additional reason for action (d) regarding safety concerns.  The motion to amend was seconded by Commissioner Hayman and passed by unanimous vote (7-0).  The motion to accept the Conceptual Site Plan as amended, with directives 1-4 and findings a-d, passed by unanimous vote (7-0).

Directives:

1.    The applicant must submit a final site plan application meeting the standards found in Section 12-21-110(e) of the Zoning Ordinance.
2.    The final site plan submittal must also address the following:
a.    The fire code regulation requiring a minimum 20-foot clear lane
b.    How the fire requirements will be perpetually maintained, particularly with the visitor parking during family events, holidays, and other social activities
c.    Details indicating the number of dumpsters to be provided
d.    All dumpsters must be completely screened from view with an opaque six-foot wall or fence
e.    The wall or fence must be compatible in material and color of the main buildings on the site
f.    Provide a Landscaping Plan, prepared by a landscape architect, which must be submitted to address the standards of Chapter 12-51-Landscaping & Screening
3.    A site signage package must be submitted for review by the Planning Commission and the Zoning Administrator in accordance with Chapter 12-54-Signs.
4.    The developer should look at and address:
a.    Rearrangement of green open space to allow for better access to the community in general.
b.    Impact on the pedestrian situation in the community, specifically sidewalks and interconnectivity.

Reasons for the Action:

a)    The conceptual site plan submittal has adequately shown how the property may be developed [Section 12-21-110(d)(2)].
b)    The development appears to satisfy the goals and objectives found within the Centerville City General Plan [Section 12-480-3].
c)    The proposed conceptual site plan, with the directives given, appears to be capable of meeting applicable Development Standards for the R-M Zone, Off-Street Parking, and the
Landscaping and Screening Standards of the Zoning Ordinance.
d)    Safety concerns must be addressed.

Commissioner Kjar made a motion to table the Conditional Use Permit (CUP) Application for the Porter Lane Townhomes Project, to be located on property at 564 West Porter Lane, with the following directive and reasons for the action:

Directive:

1.    The conditional use application submittal shall also address the anticipated CUP issues and concerns, as outlined in the June 24, 2015 Planning Staff Report.

Reasons for the Action:

a)    A conditional use permit application to consider allowing multi-family density of up to 8 units per acre must address the standards found in Section 12-21-100(e) of the Zoning Ordinance.
b)    The anticipated list of issues to be addressed with the final site plan assists with the determining if there is sufficient evidence to support approval of the CUP.

Commissioner Ince seconded the motion, which passed by unanimous vote (7-0).  Mr. Scott asked if the Commission wants a traffic study to specifically address the project as a whole, or the impact of 5-8 units per acre.  Chair Hirschi recommended Brighton Homes perform a traffic study that Brighton believes would be necessary for the Planning Commission to make a reasonable decision.

PUBLIC HEARING – RON SHULTZ SUBDIVISION/LOT SPLIT

Commissioner Merrill stated that the applicants are neighbors of his, and expressed a desire to recuse himself from this matter.  Brandon Toponce, Assistant Planner, explained the application for a lot division to create a new single-family lot.  The application meets development standards for frontage, footage, and setbacks for both lots.  A sidewalk will need to be included along 200 South as part of the development.  The applicant has provided all necessary utility provider sheets and has shown necessary property easements.  Mr. Toponce explained concerns expressed by a neighbor regarding drainage and building height, and stated that the concerns are all addressed during the building permit process.  Staff recommends approval of the small subdivision.  Ms. Romney presented a new standard set of conditions of approval regarding public improvement bonds to replace condition 2 in the staff report.

R. Ronald Schultz, property owner and applicant, said he is unsure how to proceed, and stated that he does not have any prospects for a buyer at this time.  Commissioner Kjar suggested Mr. Shultz consult with staff regarding how to proceed.

At 10:54 p.m. Chair Hirschi opened a public hearing, and closed the public hearing seeing that no one wished to comment.  Commissioner Kjar made a motion to approve the small subdivision waiver/lot split for the Schultz Subdivision located at 590 East 200 South, with the following conditions and reasons, eliminating condition #2 in the staff report and replacing it with the three conditions submitted by Ms. Romney.  Commissioner Hayman seconded the motion, which passed by unanimous vote (6-0).

Conditions:

1.    The small subdivision waiver/lot split shall be for the property located at 590 East 200 South.
2.    Developer may install public infrastructure and utilities within the subdivision prior to recording the final plat as allowed by Utah Code Ann. 10-9a-604.5, subject to entering into an
Infrastructure Development Agreement (Prior to Recording Final Subdivision Plat) with the City.  Pursuant to such agreement, the developer may install public infrastructure and utilities
within the subdivision prior to recording the final plat and without posting a bond for such infrastructure and utilities within the subdivision.
3.    Developer may install public infrastructure and utilities outside the subdivision and/or within the public right-of-way prior to recording the final plat, subject to developer entering into an
Improvements Agreement with the City and posting a bond for such public infrastructure and utilities outside the subdivision or within the public right-of-way. Any work within the public
right-of-way shall also require an Excavation Permit from the City.
4.    When developer is ready to record the final plat, developer shall enter into an Improvements Agreement with the City and post a bond for all remaining or unfinished public infrastructure
and utilities for the subdivision (whether inside or outside the subdivision) prior to recording the final plat.
5.    The applicant shall record the lot split at the Davis County Recorder’s Office prior to obtaining a building permit.
6.    A 4-foot sidewalk shall be constructed along 200 South meeting the required Centerville City Engineering Standards.
7.    All public utility easements shall be accepted by the Centerville City Council.
8.    A building permit shall be issued prior to any construction on the property.

Reasons for the Action (Findings):

a.    The applicant has submitted a complete application for a small subdivision waiver/lot split [Section 15-2-107].
b.    The subdivision qualifies for the small subdivision waiver, in accordance with the criteria found in Section 15-2-107 of the Subdivision Ordinance.
c.    Two residential lots for single-family development is consistent with the goals of the Centerville City General Plan concerning development within Neighborhood 1, Southeast Centerville
[12-480-2].
d.    The proposed subdivision meets the required development standards for the R-L Zone [Chapter 12-32].
e.    With the above conditions being met, the general requirements for all subdivisions have been addressed and fulfilled [Chapter 15-5].

PUBLIC HEARING – DRUMPF RESIDENTIAL LOT, 540 SOUTH 400 WEST

Mr. Toponce explained the application for Conceptual Site Plan for an unplatted residential building on property located at 540 South 400 West, for the purpose of constructing a new dwelling within the Agricultural-Low (A-L) Zone.  A single-family home is acceptable under the General Plan in A-L.  He explained that the property is legally nonconforming by fronting both 400 West and Shaela Park.  The plan is to construct a new home in the center of the lot.  The final site plan would need to clearly mark streets and measurements.  Staff recommends the Planning Commission accept the Conceptual Site Plan.

Scott Drumpf, applicant, stated that he has obtained all easements and legal descriptions, and he is ready with a full plan.  Chair Hirschi opened a public hearing at 11:02 p.m. and closed the public hearing seeing that no one wished to comment.

Commissioner Kjar made a motion to accept the conceptual site plan for the Scott and Susan Drumpf Residential Lot, located at 540 South 400 West, with conditions 1-11 and reasons for the action 1-4.  Commissioner Hayman seconded the motion, which passed by unanimous vote (7-0).

Conditions:

1.    All fees shall be paid; including all related development fees.
2.    The applicant shall submit a final site plan application meeting the standards found in Section 12-21-110(e) of the Ordinance.
3.    All utilities shall be indicated on the final site plan.
4.    All utility provider sheets shall be submitted to City staff at the time of the final site plan application.
5.    Surrounding properties and property owners shall be depicted on the final site plan.
6.    The final site plan shall depict an accurate scale and legend along with accurate setbacks and measurements.
7.    A grading and utility plan shall be depicted on the final site plan and reviewed by the City Engineer.
8.    The final site plan shall depict the public right-of-way, including streets, curb and gutter and the sidewalk.
9.    All necessary easements shall be provided; including one 10-foot easement along 400 West and two other sides of the proposed lot at 7 feet.  The applicant shall provide the legal
description of these easements to the City Engineer for review and approval.
10.    A current title report shall be submitted to the City Attorney for review.
11.    All related impact fees shall be paid, as per the City’s Fee Schedule.

Reasons for the Action:

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 application [Section 12-21-110(d)(1)].
3.    Proposed utility easements are required on all developed lots [Section 12-21-110(e)(2)(iii)(d), 15-5-106-(8)].
4.    A final site plan application shall be required for submittal [Section 12-21-110(e)].

COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR’S REPORT

The Planning Commission will meet next on Wednesday, July 8, 2015.

ADJOURNMENT

At 11:05 p.m. Commissioner Hirschi made a motion to adjourn the meeting.  Commissioner Ince seconded the motion, which passed by unanimous vote (7-0).

_______________________        ____07-08-2015________
David P. Hirschi, Chair                       Date Approved

___________________________
Katie Rust, Recording Secretary