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
March 25, 2015
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES OF MEETING
Wednesday, March 25, 2015
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.
David Hirschi, Chair
Gina Hirst (excused from the meeting at 7:08 p.m. and returned at 7:33 p.m.)
Corvin Snyder, Community Development Director
Brandon Toponce, Assistant Planner
Lisa Romney, City Attorney
Kathy Streadbeck, Recording Secretary
Interested Citizens (see sign-in sheet)
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
OPENING COMMENT/LEGISLATIVE PRAYER Commissioner Hirst
MINUTES REVIEW AND APPROVAL
The minutes of the Planning Commission work session March 11, 2015 were reviewed. Chair Hirschi made a motion to approve the minutes as written. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Ince and passed by unanimous vote (5-0).
The minutes of the Planning Commission meeting held March 11, 2015 were reviewed and amended. Commissioner Randall made a motionto approve the minutes as amended. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Merrill and passed by unanimous vote (5-0).
PUBLIC HEARING | PAUL HOLMES RESIDENTIAL LOT | 150 E 200 S - Consider a proposed conceptual site plan for an unplatted residential building lot on property located at 150 East 200 South, for the purpose of constructing a new dwelling. Paul Holmes, Applicant
Brandon Toponce, Assistant Planner, reported the applicant desires to build a single-family home on an un-platted parcel. According to City records, it appears the property was divided before the Subdivision Ordinance was enacted. The proposed application allows the Commission to review and ensure that the lot is buildable, all applicable building standards are met, and to require all proper public utility easements. The proposed lot is located within the Residential-Low (R-L) Zone which allows for single-family dwellings. The proposed development is consistent with the General Plan and appears to meet all development standards. Mr. Toponce reviewed the site plan explaining the layout, topography and easements. The applicant will need to verify the overall height of the building. The applicant will need to provide information regarding the adequacy of utilities. The applicant will need to ensure all public utility easements, including nearest fire hydrant, are verified by the City Engineer, indicated on the plans, and appropriately recorded with the County.
Paul Holmes, applicant, said he purchased this property about 10 (ten) years ago as an investment. He plans to get the property approved for development in order to make the property more marketable.
Chair Hirschi opened the public hearing.
Dale McIntyre provided some history on this site stating this piece of property was the original site of Centerville’s tennis courts. He played there as a child.
Chair Hirschi closed the public hearing.
Commissioner Kjar made a motion for the Planning Commission to accept the conceptual site plan for the Paul Holmes residential lot, located at 150 East 200 South, with the following 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. The applicant shall submit detail to City staff concerning the expected overall height of the residential building as part of the final site plan.
6. Required public utility easements and any other easements required by the City Engineer shall be prepared by the applicant and submitted to the City for acceptance by the City Council within thirty (30) days from the date of final site plan approval.
7. All related impact fees need to be paid, as per City’s Fee Schedule.
Reasons for the 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 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)].
The motion was seconded by Commissioner Merrill and passed by unanimous roll-call vote (5-0).
PUBLIC HEARING | HUFFAKER DENTAL DUPLEX | 134 SOUTH MAIN - Consider a proposed conceptual site plan for the Huffaker Dental property located at 134 South Main Street, for the purpose of constructing a duplex. Jeff Cook, Cook Builders, Applicant
Jeff Cook, applicant, said the property owner would like to build a duplex on a vacant pad within an existing commercial site. The applicant owns a dental office on Main Street with a leftover parcel on the southwest corner of the site. Mr. Cook reviewed the site explaining there is ample room for a 2-3 unit townhome/duplex, but the current zoning presents many challenges. He explained there is existing residential units to the south and west of this site. He said this site is not ideal for commercial use because it is setback too far off Main Street. He said there are several steps and applications that would need to be completed in order for a residential use to be developed on this site. He asked the Commission to review the site and determine if they feel it could be feasible.
Cory Snyder, Community Development Director, reported there is no simple answer for this request. The existing Dental Office was built prior to the South Main Street Corridor Plan (SMSC), which means the current site is a grand-fathered non-conforming use. The SMSC allows for mixed-use, but presents other significant challenges. If the applicant were to re-develop he would be required to bring his entire site into compliance under current ordinances which would require significant changes and cost (i.e., total reconfiguration of the site including buildings). Staff has reviewed the possibility of a residential use on the proposed site but it would require several significant steps, which the City may or may not find appropriate; including rezone, subdivision, ordinance amendments, and flag lot amendments. In addition, there are likely site plan issues including parking, landscaping, and buffering, that may still require some site reconfiguration. There is no guarantee any of these steps will result in approval for the applicant. However, the applicant is here tonight to ask the Planning Commission to review and consider if the proposed concept may be reasonable and worth exploring further.
Chair Hirschi asked if a commercial building would also require several steps for approval or if it only applies to the proposed residential use. He questioned if there are any redevelopment options that would not require as many steps.
Mr. Snyder said he believes there was a commercial pad envisioned for this site with the original development application. He is unsure if that commercial pad was part of the final approval. If so, the applicant could pursue a commercial option. Otherwise, any redevelopment, of 30% or more on the site, will require compliance with current zoning ordinances. Mr. Snyder reviewed the site with the Planning Commission explaining some of the modifications that would likely be required including shifting the driveway, increasing buffers between uses, possible shared parking, and landscaping.
Commissioner Kjar said residential makes more sense on this site than commercial. The site is already surrounded by residential and the parcel is too far of Main Street to make any commercial use viable. There is little to no exposure. He is comfortable allowing a residential use on this site.
Commissioner Merrill agreed that conceptually a residential use makes sense for this site. He said a shared parking option may be needed as he believes this parking lot is generally full during business hours. He questioned if any other commercial investment opportunities may be available for this site.
Mr. Cook said the applicant has explored several investment options, but it seems residential is the best fit. He said Centerville does not have a significant commercial market on Main Street and with this site being set back off Main Street it makes it even less marketable. He said this is a large parcel which can accommodate a few residential units and still have room for any needed reconfiguration.
Chair Hirschi opened the public hearing. Seeing there was no one wishing to comment, he closed the public hearing.
Commissioner Kjar made a motion for the Planning Commission to accept the conceptual site plan for Huffaker Dental Property Duplex, as follows:
1. The acceptance of this conceptual site plan is not intended to permit actual development of property and such review does not create a vested right (e.g. City authorization) to develop.
2. The acceptance of this conceptual site plan is intended to represent how the property could be developed so that the applicant can receive feedback from the Planning Commission.
3. The acceptance of this conceptual site plan does NOT indicate that the proposed plan meets the current relevant City Codes and Ordinances. Furthermore, several significant steps would need to happen to make the current proposed layout even feasible, such as, but not limited to, the following:
• Lot Frontage Width Regulations – Obtain an amendment to the Subdivision Ordinance to allow flag lots to be used in the multi-family zoning districts, or amend the “lot frontage width” requirements for the residential zones.
• Site Plan Amendment – Obtain a site plan amendment for the commercial use and address the applicable Zoning Ordinance requirements, including but not limited to, parking, landscaping, and buffers.
• Subdivision of Land - Secure a subdivision approval to facilitate establishment of a zone boundary opportunity between the area of the Traditional Main Street District and the area for the duplex to be zoned multi-family.
• Rezone of Duplex Site – If the subdivision and site plan amendments are secured, obtain a rezone for the duplex site to a multi-family zoning district (e.g. R-M Zone).
4. The acceptance of this conceptual site plan does NOT indicate the City’s commitment or the future probability of making the current proposed layout even feasible.
The motion was seconded by Commissioner Randall and passed by unanimous roll-call vote (5-0).
Commissioner Hirst recused herself as she is a personal acquaintance of both the applicant and the property owner.
PUBLIC HEARING | ZONING CODE TEXT AMENDMENTS, CHAPTER 12-60 - ACCESSORY DWELLING UNITS (ADUs) - [Continuation from February 25, 2015 Meeting] - Consider proposed zoning code text amendments for Chapter 12-60-Accessory Dwelling Units, Chapter 12-12-Definitions and Table 12-36-Tables of Uses for the new Accessory Dwelling Units (ADUs) Ordinance. Centerville City, Applicant
Cory Snyder, Community Development Director, reviewed the proposed Accessory Dwelling Unit (ADU) ordinance draft. The Planning Commission has been working toward the proposed draft for the past year. After much research, meetings, public input, and discussion it was evident such a housing type might be appropriate, provided sufficient use regulations could be developed. The proposed draft Ordinance was compiled using typical standards found throughout many Utah cities. The draft ordinance also includes modifications to reflect Centerville’s Zoning Ordinance style and characteristics. Mr. Snyder reviewed each section of the proposed Ordinance and responded to questions from the Commission. The Commission reviewed the draft ordinance making non-substantive changes. The Commission discussed impact fees and agreed with the proposed language.
Chair Hirschi opened the public hearing. Seeing there was no one wishing to comment, he closed the public hearing.
Commissioner Ince said he does not agree with the maximum floor area of 25% (Section 12-60-060[b]). He said if he were to rent his basement it would be closer to 35%. He said for many homes that calculation could jump as high as 50% for a basement. He believes 25% is too restrictive. Commissioner Kjar agreed that 25% may be too limiting. He said if he were to rent his basement and keep to this restriction it would require significant remodeling and cost.
Chair Hirschi said over this past year it has been determined there is value in allowing ADUs, but cautiously. He believes the 25% is cautious and appropriate. He said this number will help ensure that Centerville does not become a city of duplexes, which is possible with a 50% allowance. Commissioner Randall said 25% is plenty if you consider a separate structure may be used as an ADU. Mr. Snyder agreed that 50% is too great and no longer considered accessory, but rather creates two (2) primary dwellings or a duplex.
Commission Merrill made a motion for the Planning Commission to recommend approval of the proposed text amendments for allowance of Accessory Dwelling Units (ADUs), as follows:
1. Amend Title 12–Zoning by adding Chapter 12-60-Accessory Dwelling Units, as submitted, or modified by the Planning Commission.
2. Amend 12-12-Definitions regarding ADUs, as submitted to the Commission.
3. Amend 12-36-Table of Uses to allow ADUs as a conditional use in the A-L and R-L Zones, as submitted to the Commission.
Reasons for Action (findings):
a. The Planning Commission finds that the proposed Ordinance is consistent with the City’s Moderate Income Housing Element concerning the use of ADUs.
b. The Planning Commission finds that the proposed Ordinance includes several compatibly elements to maintain expected neighborhood characteristics.
c. The Planning Commission finds that the proposed Ordinance also includes parameters, restrictions or limitations to prevent or mitigate impacts to adjacent properties.
The motion was seconded by Commissioner Hirst and passed by roll-call vote (4-2).
Commissioner Kjar and Commissioner Ince opposed. Commissioner Kjar said he agrees with the concept of ADUs and believes they should be allowed. He is uncomfortable with the 25% limitation. He said 50% may be too great, but perhaps somewhere in between is appropriate. Commissioner Ince agreed. He too believes ADUs are appropriate but believes a greater percentage may be best.
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR’S REPORT
1. The next Planning Commission meeting will be Wednesday, April 8, 2015.
2. Upcoming Agenda Items
• Maverick Convenience Store, conceptual site plan
The meeting was adjourned at 8:28 p.m.
David Hirschi, Chair Date Approved
Kathleen Streadbeck, Recording Secretary