March 23, 2016

Wednesday, March 23, 2016
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.

Kevin Daly
Cheylynn Hayman
David Hirschi, Chair
Gina Hirst
Scott Kjar
Logan Johnson
Becki Wright

Corvin Snyder, Community Development Director
Lisa Romney, City Attorney
Brandon Toponce, Assistant Planner
Kathy Streadbeck, Recording Secretary

Interested Citizens




The minutes of the Planning Commission meeting held March 9, 2016 were reviewed and amended. Commissioner Johnson made a motion to approve the minutes as amended. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Wright and passed by unanimous vote (7-0).

PUBLIC HEARING | THE MANOR AT LUND LANE | 77 WEST LUND LANE - Consider the proposed applications: Request #1: Zone Map Amendment from A-L (Agricultural-Low) to R-L (Residential-Low), 4.85 acres; and Request #2: (Pending Actual Rezone Approval) Conceptual Subdivision Plan, 12-Lots. Phil Holland, Wright Development Group, Applicant.

Commissioner Johnson recused himself from this matter.

Brandon Toponce, Assistant Planner, reported the applicant desires to rezone (zone map amendment) their property from Agricultural-Low (A-L) to Residential-Low (R-L) and then subdivide the property into twelve (12) lots, which calculates to approximately 2.47 units per acre. The R-L zone permits four (4) units per acre. Mr. Toponce reviewed the criteria for a rezone approval explaining the proposed use is consistent with the General Plan, is harmonious with surrounding uses, does not appear to pose an adverse effect on its surroundings, and has adequate services available for each lot. Overall, staff recommends approval of the rezone.

Mr. Toponce reviewed the conceptual site plan for the proposed development of twelve (12) lots. He explained each lot is a bit different in size but all lots are larger than required for the R-L Zone. He said the 12-lot subdivision includes the existing home as one of the lots, so only 11 properties will be available for construction. He reviewed the proposed setbacks, street frontage, lot widths, and required public utility easements. He explained the preliminary plans will be required to show all setbacks, buildable pads, sidewalk, curb and cutter, street improvements, utilities, and fire protection. All properties and driveways will front on Lund Lane. Mr. Toponce reviewed the Subdivision Ordinance with regard to the proposed plan. He explained the Ordinance states the City may require a mid-block walkway for blocks over 800 feet in length. The proposed lots exceed this 800-foot length but staff believes a walkway is unnecessary for this subdivision since Main Street has an existing dedicated sidewalk, the road to the west will have a completed sidewalk, and there is no knowledge of future development to the south. Staff has requested a soil report due to concerns of fill dirt on the property. In addition, the applicant will be required to work with City staff on an appropriate drainage plan. Overall, staff is comfortable with the proposed subdivision concept and recommends approval.

Commissioner Wright asked how the existing home is calculated into the proposed density. She asked if the proposed 4-foot park strip is standard or if the Commission could require a greater width for appropriate street trees and public space. She said the Commission has discussed (past meetings) proactive planning and urban trails. She said this may be an opportunity to require a greater public space since the mid-block walkway is not being required.

Cory Snyder, Community Development Director, said the density calculation includes all lots, even the existing home. He said the only allowable use in the R-L Zone is single-family. Mr. Snyder explained Lund Lane is owned by both Centerville City and Farmington City. The municipal boundary runs down the middle of Lund Lane. He said Centerville’s public utility easement runs along the south side of Lund Lane. Any street improvements will be required to the south side of Lund Lane only. He also explained the City is only allowed to ask for the standard 4-foot park strip as required per City Ordinance. He said the Commission could ask the applicant their opinion on a greater public space, but cannot require it.

Chair Hirschi said Lund Lane always seems to be in disrepair and improvements have always been a challenge because of the duel ownership. He encouraged staff to use this
opportunity to work with Farmington City and make the necessary road improvements to better this area and community.  Commissioner Wright said the staff report mentioned a complete street plan per the City Engineer. She said the applicant should make the necessary improvements as if a full road repair were to be completed.

Phil Holland, applicant, said the R-L Zone is the biggest zone in Centerville. He said the R-L Zone allows up to 4-units per acre but they have chosen to go with larger lots (2.43 units per acre) because of the surrounding area which includes A-L Zones. He believes the larger lots will help maintain the feel of the community in this area. He said all standards and ordinances as discussed and required will be completed for the project. He plans to follow the ordinances as outlined. He agreed the mid-block walkway does not make sense because it would end in the middle of the block at the property line, essentially making a sidewalk to nowhere.

Lisa Romney, City Attorney, explained there are two (2) applications for this applicant. The first application is for the rezone from A-L to R-L. This is a legislative process and the City Council will provide the final approval for the proposed rezone. The second application is for the conceptual subdivision plan, i.e., the proposed layout for 12 lots. She explained the rezone would permit 4-units per acre which is allowed regardless of the accepted conceptual subdivision plan.

Chair Hirschi opened the public hearing for both the zone map amendment (rezone) and the conceptual site plan.

Chris Cutler said he owns the A-L property to the south of this site. He said he would prefer this property remain A-L as well. He said the applicant could slightly increase the lot sizes to ½-acre allowing the A-L Zone to remain. He said most of this area is agricultural and should be allowed to remain as such. He also agreed the mid-block walkway would lead to nowhere and is unnecessary because it would dead end at his horse pasture.

Lisa Robinson said she too lives in the vicinity and her property is also zoned A-L. She too would prefer a ½-acre lot subdivision that is kept agricultural. She said larger lots will help maintain the diversity of the community. She also said Centerville residents have been very clear they prefer lower density in Centerville.

Brent Robinson also requested the property remain A-L. He said he has no aversion to development but believes it could be nicely developed with ½-acre lots. He said the majority of Centerville is already R-L and this area should be kept as A-L. He expressed concern that the R-L Zone will tempt the developer to amend his plan and increase it to the permitted 4-units per acre. He said keeping the A-L Zone will ensure the community gets a larger ½-acre lot development.

Mila Cutler said she would like the A-L Zone to stay. She expressed concern with child safety. She said this development will bring more children to the area and will put them at risk as they will be next to her horse property which can be dangerous.

Josh Christensen said he recently purchased a home in the area because of the large lots and open feel. He would prefer it stay that way.

John Higley said he is happy to see a larger lot development concept rather than a high density, small lot development like the one to the west recently built on the Frontage Road. He said Centerville will continue to grow and develop and this is a good option for this area that will help encourage compatible future development.

Seeing no one else wishing to comment, Chair Hirschi closed the public hearing.

Mr. Snyder explained the higher-density project to the west was a development of mutual benefit. He explained the City and this neighborhood got a much needed, significant water drainage system upgrade and in return the development got a slightly higher density allotment.

Mr. Holland thanked the public for their comments. He reviewed the zoning map for this area showing the majority of the area is zoned R-L with a limited A-L Zone remaining. He said the only reason these properties have not rezoned to R-L is because they have been owned by the same families for years. He projected the entire area will develop at some point in the future and said his larger lot concept will be beneficial when that happens because it will allow the City to require development similar to those existing. He said he has no intention of maximizing the density for this development. He said this is the best plan for the market.

Commissioner Daly asked if the applicant would still be required to install street improvements if the rezone was not approved.  Commissioner Wright questioned how many lots would be possible if the developer chose to increase the development to the permitted 4-units per acre.

Mr. Snyder said any development, whether in the A-L Zone or the R-L Zone, would be required to make all necessary street improvements. However, he is unsure if a development would be cost effective if the density was too low. He also said he is unsure how many lots would be possible at 4-units an acre as there are many factors involved.  The Commission estimated that a potential of 15 lots may be possible.

Chair Hirschi made a motion for the Planning Commission to accept the Zone Map Amendment for the property located at 77 West Lund Lane from Agricultural-Low (A-L) to Residential-Low (R-L), and to recommend approval to the City Council.

Reasons for the Action:
1.    The proposed amendment meets the requirements found in Section 12-21-080(4)(e).
2.    The proposed Zone Map Amendment meets the goals and objectives of the General Plan concerning Neighborhood 4 [Section 12-480-5].
3.    Adequate facilities are located within the subject property along Lund Lane [Section 12-21-080(e)(5)].
4.    Any further conceptual plat acceptance by the Planning Commission is subject to approval of the rezone by the City Council.

The motion was seconded by Commissioner Kjar.

Chair Hirschi said although this carves out a small portion of the A–L Zone there are also several R-L zones in the vicinity including residential uses across the street in Farmington. He said the proposed development is the least impacting option for this area.

Commissioner Kjar said the residential lots across the street in Farmington are substantially smaller than the lots proposed for this development. He said the proposed lot sizes are very nice and will make for an upscale development that will greatly enhance the area.

Commissioner Wright disagreed. She said the lots are so close to the ½-acre mark she believes the A-L Zone could remain and the developer would only loose one lot. She is not comfortable allowing 4-units per acre for this area.

Commissioner Hayman expressed concern that rezoning this property will box in the A-L Zone creating an island. She agreed the layout is nice but is worried this will create a domino effect for future smaller lot development.

Mr. Snyder reminded the Commission that a finding related to the four (4) approval criteria would need to be called out if the rezone is not recommended. He said the General Plan encourages R-L development for this area.

Commissioner Wright said she does not believe the proposed development is harmonious with surrounding uses. She said keeping this property A-L is consistent with the character for this area and will still allow the applicant to develop.

Mr. Snyder said, as a planner, he does not see a reasonable way to deny the rezone. He said the plan for the future is to move toward development. He said the purpose of the A-L Zone is to allow animals and a ½-acre lot cannot adequately accommodate horses or other farm animals. He said the General Plan defines both A-L and R-L as low density. Centerville’s General Plan policy is to move to low density 4-units per acre lots. The proposed plan follows that policy.

Chair Hirschi said the proposed concept will set an acceptable precedent for future development in this area. This will allow future Commissions to require the same large lot, high standard. He agreed A-L does not serve the purpose of the General Plan policy for the future.

Chair Hirschi called for vote on the motion. The motion passed with a roll-call vote (5-1). Commissioner Wright opposed.

Commissioner Wright said she does like the proposed layout and believes it will bring some diversity to the area but also believes compatible development is possible while maintaining the A-L Zone. Commissioner Hayman thanked the developer for maximizing the lot sizes and said she would be disappointed if the developer reduces lot sizes to maximize density following a rezone approval. Commissioner Hirst said she likes the proposed development and lot sizes and she too would be disappointed if the density was increased from this original concept.

Commissioner Kjar made a motion for the Planning Commission to accept the Conceptual Subdivision Plat for The Manor at Lund Lane Subdivision, located at 77 West Lund Lane, subject to the following directives:

1.    Conceptual subdivision acceptance is subject to the rezone approval by the City Council.
2.    The applicant shall submit an application for a preliminary plat and meet all the standards found in Chapter 15-3 of the Subdivision Ordinance.
3.    The preliminary plat shall indicate the following information:
a.    Correct setbacks standards found on Table 12-32-1 of the Zoning Ordinance
b.    Buildable pad on each lot.
c.    A 4-foot sidewalk, 4-foot park-strip, curb and gutter and extension of asphalt as needed.  All public improvements shall meet City specifications and be bonded for by the developer.
d.    Three public utility easements on each lot with the front easements measuring 10 feet and all other sides measuring 7 feet.
e.    Adequate fire protection including all existing fire hydrants and any new fire hydrants as required by the Fire Marshal.
4.    All driveways for each lot shall be located off Lund Lane.
5.    A soils report and drainage information shall be submitted to City staff for review.
6.    Utility provider sheets shall be submitted indicating all utility providers can service each lot.
7.    The midblock access as stated in Section 15-5-101(5) of the subdivision should not be required for this development.

Reasons for Action (findings):
1.    The conceptual plat acceptance is subject to the rezone approval by the City Council from A-L to R-L [Section 12-21-080(d)(4)].
2.    The conceptual subdivision is in harmony with the General Plan [Section 12-480-5].
3.    The new subdivision meets the objectives for development within a Residential-Low Zone [Section 12-30-020(b)(1)].
4.    It appears all applicable development standards for development within an R-L Zone have be satisfied [Table 12-32-1].
5.    It appears all general requirements for all subdivisions have been satisfied [Chapter 15-5].
6.    All applicable standards found in the Subdivision Ordinance pertaining to a conceptual subdivision application have been satisfied [Chapter 15-2].
7.    Staff does not believe the midblock pedestrian access as stated in Section 15-5-101(5), is necessary since Main Street has a dedicated sidewalk, there is no knowledge of future development
to the south, and eventually the road to the west of the project will be completed with an additional sidewalk.

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

PUBLIC HEARING | BARTILE ROOFS | 725 NORTH 1000 WEST - Consider the proposed Amended 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.

Commissioner Johnson rejoined the meeting.

Cory Snyder, Community Development Director, reported the applicant desires to construct three (3) large storage buildings on his property and possibly reconfigure some of the parking on site. The purpose of the site plan amendment is to house most of the current outdoor product storage. The site does not currently comply with the architectural, landscaping, and parking provisions of the current ordinances and is required to come into compliance unless the expansion is less than 30% of the floor area. The applicant desires to limit the new construction to just below the 30% threshold. The applicant previously built some storage sheds in the northeast corner of the property without proper approvals. Those sheds will need to be brought into compliance as well. The proposed new buildings and the unsanctioned sheds will be required to meet current architectural and building standards. The applicant will address drainage and public utility easements as required. The applicant will be required to install parking lot landscaping dependent of the parking lot reconfiguration. Overall, staff believes the proposed changes to the site will enhance the site by upgrading the condition and appearance as encouraged by the General Plan.

Commissioner Daly said the applicant may choose to remain under the 30% threshold for these improvements but questioned if the applicant could choose to do another upgrade in the future, again staying under the 30% threshold, and again be exempt from coming into compliance.  Mr. Snyder said that any additional improvements after this point would require full compliance. He said the record will show that the applicant is over the 30% with any additional upgrades.

Lewis Evans, applicant said there is currently about 400 pallets of product outside. He plans to build the sheds in order to move all this outside storage into covered buildings. He said they have had plans to upgrade the site for some time but are just recently in a position to do it. He said these improvements will clean up the site and improve the area. He said he will work with staff on the parking configuration and landscaping, but said this is an industrial operation and he does not intend to install too much landscaping. He reviewed the site plan and the history of the site explaining the drainage, current parking configuration, easements, and property lines.

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

Commissioner Hayman made a motion for the Planning Commission to accept the Conceptual Site Plan for the Bartile Roofs Inc. Site to construct the proposed accessory storage buildings subject to the following directives:

1.    The allowable floor area of the new constructed accessory buildings must be less than 30% of the existing gross floor area of the current buildings.
2.    The final site plan submittal must provide the calculation of each existing building and the new buildings to verify compliance with the less than 30% allowance, as addressed in the
“Nonconforming” provisions of the Zoning Ordinance.
3.    All new building construction design must comply with the architectural design requirements of the Industrial-High Zone.
4.    The final site plan submittal must address the non-approved building construction located in the northeast corner area of the site as follows:
•    Compliance with applicable Building Codes, as deemed appropriate by the City’s Building Official
•    Compliance with the I-H Zone architectural design provisions
5.    The final site plan shall address the required internal parking lot landscaping provisions for “Parking” in the Zoning Ordinance.
6.    The final site plan submittal must address the issues identified by the City Engineer, as mentioned in this report.
7.    All the parcels be combined into one property.
8.    The developer shall provide all recorded and proposed easements for the property.

The motion was seconded by Commissioner Daly.

Commissioner Kjar said this is a good opportunity to improve this site. He said Bartile has been a part of Centerville for a long time and he is happy to see the City work with the applicant to bring this site into conformance.

Chair Hirschi expressed concern with the parking. He said it makes sense to upgrade the parking and improve the circulation according to current ordinances.  Mr. Snyder explained the parking is an ongoing discussion to determine what is actually feasible.

Chair Hirschi called for vote on the motion. The motion passed by unanimous roll-call vote (7-0).

PUBLIC HEARING | CENTERVILLE DEUEL CREEK HISTORIC DISTRICT - Consider the proposed Zone Map and Code Text Amendment for the Centerville Deuel Creek Historic District (Chapter 12-49), which includes boundary modifications (400 East from Parrish Lane to Porter Lane, east side only) and addressing commercial building incentives. Centerville City, Applicant.

Brandon Toponce, Assistant Planner, reported the Planning Commission previously reviewed and recommended approval of the Deuel Creek Historic District. The City Council reviewed the matter as well and requested several changes to the Ordinance including increased incentives, expansion of the District, and clarification on the relationship between the Historic District and the South Main Street Corridor Overlay (SMSC). The Landmarks Commission reviewed the City Council request and recommends approval of the proposed amendments. The Planning Commission is now being asked to review these proposed amendments and forward a recommendation onto the City Council for final approval.

Mr. Toponce reviewed the Historic Landmark Register, contributing properties, and non-contributing properties. He reviewed the proposed incentive program explaining the potential loss in revenue to the City, which is insignificant (only 0.2%). The proposed incentives will hopefully encourage property owners to maintain the historic value of their homes and the historic nature of this area. He reminded the Commission that participation in the Historic District is strictly voluntary. He said there are eleven (11) properties on Main Street that could contribute to the Historic District. He explained these homes would have the option to participate in the Historic District or upgrade to the South Main Street Corridor (SMSC) standards. He said the SMSC District and the Historic District standards are similar in style and would blend well.

Mr. Toponce reviewed the proposed boundary modification. It is proposed the Historic District be expanded to include the east side of 400 East. The rear boundary will follow the rear property lines of each of the homes along this street. This is not a new concept, but rather an idea that has been discussed and/or raised by all bodies that have reviewed this Ordinance. He said the proposed amendments are consistent with the General Plan and clarifies the incentive program and the District boundary.

Commissioner Daly asked for clarification regarding contributing properties on Main Street, the Historic District and the SMSC plan. He is concerned there may be confusion on which ordinance trumps which. He wants to make sure there is coordination between the SMSC Overlay and the Historic District program.  Mr. Toponce explained that if a contributing property chooses to maintain the historic nature of their home and participate in the incentive program then they are not required to upgrade to the SMSC Overlay standards. If a contributing property on Main Street chooses not to participate in the Historic District then they will be required to comply with the SMSC Overlay standards. He said Section 12-49-110(a) was created to clarify this point.  Lisa Romney, City Attorney, suggested this point also be highlighted in the SMSC Overlay language for further clarification.

Chair Hirschi asked how the proposed SMSC Public Space Plan may be affected by contributing properties within the Historic District.  Cory Snyder, Community Development Director, said the Landmarks Commission is not concerned about maintaining the SMSC public space plan if a contributing property chooses to participate in the Historic District. In fact, the Landmarks Commission believes the SMSC public space plan may be a burden and a disincentive to maintaining a historic structure. He explained this idea would leave “gaps” in the SMSC public space plan unless the City chooses to make these improvements themselves within their own public right-of-way.

Commissioner Wright said there may be other contributing properties just outside the proposed Historic District boundary, (e.g. west side of Main Street, south of Porter Lane, and the north side of Parrish Lane). She questioned why the boundary is not expanded even further to allow some of these homes an opportunity for incentive.  Mr. Toponce agreed there are other homes that may be contributing but the original idea was to create a walkable Historic District near the original town site, i.e., Deuel Creek area. He said this is a good start. It may be beneficial to see how the proposed amendment is utilized and perhaps an expansion can be considered in the future.

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

Commissioner Hirst made a motion for the Planning Commission to accept the Zone Text Amendment for Section 12-49-100, and the creation of Section 12-49-110, as stated within the Staff Report dated March 23, 2016 and to recommend approval to the City Council.

Reasons for the Action:
1.    The proposed amendments meet the requirements found in Section 12-21-080(4)(e).
2.    The proposed Zoning Text Amendments meet the goals and objectives of the General Plan concerning a historic district [Section 12-480-8(3)].
3.    Proposed amendments to Chapter 12-49, Centerville Deuel Creek Historic District, will be consistent with other objectives found in this Section.
4.    The proposed amendments will not have a negative impact on the surrounding community.
5.    Through research, site visits, three public work sessions and several meetings, the Landmarks Commission believes they have covered important aspects of location, guidelines and
6.    The Landmarks Commission believes the proposed district and subsequent created documents will be beneficial to the neighborhood.
7.    The proposed amendments meet the requested clarification by the City Council, which was stated at the January 5, 2016 Council Meeting.

The motion was seconded Commissioner Hayman.

The Commission discussed at length the possible conflicts between the Historic District and the SMSC Overlay. Several Commission members expressed concern with the potential “gaps” that could be created by contributing properties. The Commission questioned which properties exactly are considered contributing on Main Street, discussing whether there is a string of homes that could leave a significant “gap” within the public space. The Commission agreed a closer look at the Historic District and the SMSC public space plan together may be beneficial to understand the relationship. It was suggested that staff bring back the proposed Deuel Creek Historic District ordinance in its entirety with red-lines. It was also suggested a map showing all contributing properties would also be beneficial. Several Commission members agreed the historic incentive program is appropriate and has value but they would like to review these issues further.

Chair Hirschi made a motion to table the previous motion until the next Planning Commission meeting and requested staff bring back the full Deuel Creek Historic District ordinance with redlines and additional information regarding how this historic district and the South Main Street Corridor Plan mix. In addition, staff was requested to bring back a map showing all contributing properties. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Daly and passed by roll-call vote (6-1). Commissioner Johnson opposed stating he believes the Historic District could be passed and these issues could be resolved during the pending SMSC public space plan review.

Chair Hirschi made a motion to table the Zone Map Amendment to extend the Deuel Creek Historic District until the next Planning Commission meeting. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Daly and passed by roll-call vote (6-1). Commissioner Johnson opposed.

PUBLIC HEARING | CODE TEXT AMENDMENTS FOR THE SOUTH MAIN STREET CORRIDOR (SMSC) OVERLAY ORDINANCE (CHAPTER 12-48) [Postponed from February 24, 2016 meeting] - Consider the Code Text Amendments for the South Main Street Corridor (SMSC) Overlay Ordinance, which includes the City Council directives and changes to the South Main Street Corridor (SMSC) Public Space Plan. Centerville City, Applicant.

Chair Hirschi made a motion to postpone this item until the next Planning Commission meeting. The motion was seconded by Commission Hirst and passed by unanimous roll-call vote (7-0).

Cory Snyder, Community Development Director, said he has been a part of the South Main Street Corridor (SMSC) planning process since the beginning. He said the Planning Commission worked hard on the public space plan and he believes the space plan is appropriate but he does not believe the space plan will ever come to fruition because the redevelopment plan and associated density have been watered down significantly. He said the SMSC plan was prepared in such a way to encourage redevelop through density incentives. This is no longer the case. The SMSC plan has been amended to a point where it must work within its existing confines which hinders redevelopment because it limits economic return. He believes a few properties will redevelop and the public space plan will be implemented on those limited properties creating a sporadic, spotty public space. He said the public space plan will never cover the entire Main Street corridor as imagined. Eventually, the corridor may redevelop but by that time the initial redeveloped properties and associated public space will likely be deteriorated. He said, as a professional planner, he believes the public space plan is no longer feasible. He knows there are many City Council members and Planning Commission members that do not agree, but he wanted to make his position known.


Commissioner Wright made a motion to postpone this item until the next Planning Commission meeting. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Kjar and passed by unanimous vote (7-0).


Lisa Romney, City Attorney, shared the Centerville City Noticing Matrix for Zoning Applications for both the City Council and the Planning Commission. She said the Commission may find this helpful as they review and discuss possible changes to the application procedures and processes.


1.    The next regularly scheduled Planning Commission meeting will be Wednesday, April 13, 2016 at 7:00 p.m.
2.    Upcoming Agenda Items:
•    Deuel Creek Historic District
•    South Main Street Corridor, public space plan

The meeting was adjourned at 10:05 p.m.

_____________________________            ___04-13-2016_______
David Hirschi, Chair                                         Date Approved

Kathleen Streadbeck, Recording Secretary