September 14, 2016

PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES OF MEETING
Wednesday, September 14, 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.

MEMBERS PRESENT
Kevin Daly
David Hirschi, Chair
Logan Johnson
Cheylynn Hayman
Scott Kjar

MEMBERS ABSENT
Gina Hirst
Becki Wright

STAFF PRESENT
Cory Snyder, Community Development Director
Lisa Romney, City Attorney
Marsha L. Morrow, City Recorder

VISITORS
Interested citizens

PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE

OPENING COMMENT/LEGISLATIVE PRAYER    Chair Hirschi

MINUTES REVIEW AND APPROVAL

The minutes of the Planning Commission meeting held August 24, 2016 were reviewed and amended. Commissioner Johnson made a motion to approve the minutes as amended. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Hayman and passed by unanimous roll-call vote (5-0).

PUBLIC HEARING – BALLING TOWNHOMES, 323 EAST PAGES LANE - Consider the proposed Zone Map Amendment for property located at 323 East Pages Lane from C-H (Commercial-High) to R-H (Residential-High) - Scott Balling, Balling Engineering, Property Owner & Applicant.

Cory Snyder, Community Development Director, explained this report was originally prepared by the Assistant Planner, who as of Monday has taken a job as a planner in Amherst, Massachusetts. Mr. Snyder said this is a request for a rezone and is a legislative decision, so the Planning Commission will make a recommendation to the City Council.  The subject property is owned by Mr. Balling and located east of his business located on the corner of Pages Lane and 300 East. Mr. Balling has submitted an application to rezone his property from Commercial-High (C-H) to Residential-High (R-H).  He believes his property will be more compatible with adjacent properties if it is amended to allow for multi-family development.  The property east of the Balling lot is zoned Residential-High (R-H) and the property to the north, owned by the LDS Church is zoned Residential-Low (R-L).  To the west, adjacent to 300 East is the J.A. Taylor Elementary School zoned as Public Facility-Medium (PF-M).  Across Pages Lane to the south is the old Dick’s Market site, zoned Commercial-High (C-H).

Mr. Snyder explained the criteria review for a zone map amendment, as explained in the staff report.

1)    Is the proposed amendment consistent with the goals, objectives and policies of the City’s General Plan?

Mr. Snyder said the location of the proposed rezone is within the Neighborhood 1, Southeast Centerville, Section 12-480-2(2), and further divided into other subareas. The subject property is part of the Pages Lane Commercial Area.  He explained the general goals and policies of the neighborhood plan address the specific areas around Centerville Elementary and Centerville Junior High, but do not specifically address the area around or near J. A. Taylor Elementary. However, in the “Pages Lane Commercial Area” J. A. Taylor Elementary is referenced in relation to the use and development of commercial sites and detrimental impacts of commercial uses on the school are to be avoided. The debate for the Commission and the City is whether rezoning is: 1) equal to the commercial development concerns; and 2) is the request potentially detrimental to the elementary school?

Mr. Snyder said previous concerns when the applicant tried to rezone this property had to do with access off 300 East adjacent to the loading area of J.A. Taylor. He said the access issue will certainly be something that will need to be dealt with in regards to the impact on the school, whether the property remains Commercial-High or is rezoned to Residential-High. Staff’s position is that R-H would be a compatible zone and still maintain the spirit of the City’s General Plan.

2)    Is the proposed amendment harmonious with the overall character of existing development in the vicinity of the subject property?

Mr. Snyder stated that commercial potentially does have an impact because it is uniquely different than the residential uses. Historically, the main concern has been vehicular access and will mostly likely be a main concern whether commercial or residential.  Residential would bring family and children to the school area, where as commercial uses would not.  Whether that is good or bad, it could be looked at either way. He said, in his opinion, commercial is an oddity on that corner as all the other commercial is on the south side of Pages Lane. Except for the school, all the other property is zoned residential. Therefore staff does not think it would be disharmony to move it to Residential-High Zone.

3)    What is the extent to which the proposed amendment may adversely affect adjacent property?

Mr. Snyder stated that as indicated before, access has probably historically been the main concern.  Whether commercial or residential, access off of Pages Lane or 300 East each introduce a different set of impacts. Commercial does have some conditional uses i.e. car wash, car lot, fast food, etc. that the Planning Commission can use as mitigation.  However, this site is probably not feasible for some of those types of conditional uses. Residential-High you have conditional use on density—anything greater than 8 units an acre, that has ability to mitigate impact, but there is a permitted allowance of up to 8 units an acre.  He further explained the parking issues depending on the density.  This property is almost ½ acre in net density. Gross density is what our ordinance is and that would make this property nearly ¾ acre.  Physically the site might be limited on the number of dwellings that could actually be put on this site due to the number of parking stalls that would be required per unit, depending on the size.

4)    What is the adequacy of facilities and services intended to serve the subject property?

Mr. Snyder said the site would have adequate facilities and uses to serve the development.  Staff is of the opinion that the request for R-H is not out of character with the criteria for the rezone and support the idea of moving it from commercial to a multi-family zoning.

Chair Hirschi asked for clarification on the number of dwelling units that would be permitted on this site without a conditional use and with a conditional use. Mr. Snyder said with residential-high the number of units allowed would be 8 units per acre. With a conditional use it could be upwards of 9-12 units. With the size of the property you could probably be looking at 6 on the low end and 9 on the high end, or again 6-9 with a conditional use.

Commissioner Johnson asked about the current access points on the property and if they would be grandfathered in. Mr. Snyder said Centerville is different than UDOT.  UDOT controlled roads have very stringent access standards. Both Pages and 300 East are Centerville controlled roads. The engineer would look at distances from corners, i.e. the offset of left turns.

Scott Balling, applicant, distributed a handout to the Planning Commission (attached). Mr. Balling informed the Commissioners that he tried to deliver this to every neighbor within 500 feet of the property.  He said they own two parcels of land on the corner of 300 East and Pages Lane.  Each parcel was purchased at different times.  The parcel on the south contains the office building currently occupied by Balling Engineering.  The south parcel has access off Pages Lane.  The north parcel has a sole access from the frontage on 300 East Street.  He explained that about 10 years ago, he submitted a request to rezone the north property from C-H to R-H with the intention of developing a triplex on the property. This request was approved by the Planning Commission.  However, there was substantial opposition to the plan at the City Council level due to the vehicular access off of 300 East because of the loading and unloading at the elementary school across the street on 300 East. At their recommendation, the City Council tabled it for that reason and requested they meet with the adjacent property owners in hopes of reaching an agreement.  They met with several of the adjacent owners, but could not see a viable way of continuing their engineering business and also provide an access to the residential property to the north.  Because of economic reasons and their desire to meet these wishes, they decided to hold off on this request until the commercial uses to the south were changed or discontinued.

Mr. Balling said at this time their request is to rezone both parcels with a plan of a sole access to a multi-unit development on Pages Lane.  They would discontinue all the commercial uses of the property and remove all existing access and curb cuts from 300 East Street.  The existing “No Parking” restrictions along the frontage of this property are in agreement with his proposed plans and would remain.

As stated before, Mr. Balling said this is the only commercial property on the north side of Pages Lane and, therefore, is probably not in harmony with the adjacent areas.  The property was originally built as a banking facility with a drive-through teller window that exits onto 300 East Street.  That curb cut has remained as commercial access to 300 East Street. As commercially zoned property, there are permitted uses that are readily viable such as a bed and breakfast, rental services, child care facilities, laundry and dry cleaning services, printing and copying services, general retail and second-hand stores.  Many of these uses are less than desirable, particularly adjacent to the loading area at the elementary school. He said the demand for commercial property along Pages Lane has been diminished substantially the last 5 to 10 years, which is evident by the excessive vacancies.  These vacancies have a tendency to diminish and destroy property values, leave properties in disrepair and neglect and increase crime and loitering. In the last year they have had a masonry wall on the site tagged with graffiti and substantial theft on the property. They anticipate that this will increase. For these reasons they feel it best they move forward with a rejuvenating plan and discontinue commercial uses.  Their request for R-H zoning would be an up-zone from its current usage and is the only option which is compatible with the area.  This is the same zoning as the two properties to the east. The nearest single-family residence is over 300 feet from this property and within that same distances there are 12 multi-family apartment or townhome dwellings.  To mandate this property be zoned an R-M or R-L Zone would allow only single-family homes or lesser density and would not be in harmony with the adjacent properties. It would be spot zoning, arbitrary and capricious.  It would place an unjustifiable and damaging burden on this property, which is not required on adjacent properties.

Mr. Balling said should the R-H Zone be approved, the property would be granted a permitted use of up to 8 units per acre and a conditional use of up to 12 units per acre. The site has an attributed area of 0.73 acres, therefore the permitted use would be granted up to 5.7 units per acres and the conditional use up to 8.7 units. He is only proposing to have 6 units, as shown on the plans in the handout.

Mr. Balling said he wants to be upfront with his intentions of what they want to construct on this property from the beginning.  Therefore, the site plan has been provided (sheet 3 of the handout), along with floor and elevation plans for the proposed townhomes.  All the townhomes would be developed in a PUD type format so that each unit can be individually and separately owned. These townhomes would be similar to the townhomes found on the corner of Pages and 400 East Street. They will include 2-car enclosed garages, three or more bedrooms, three or more bathrooms, master bedroom suites and large family and gathering rooms.  It is their desire to have most of the master bedroom suites (4) on the main floor. The finished floor area of all units would be from 1,700 to 2,400 square feet (excludes the garage area). The expected value of all units will exceed $300,000.

Mr. Balling explained the elevation, heights and setbacks of the townhomes as shown in the handout.  He said in all cases the height of the townhomes would be less than the height of the existing commercial building. The setbacks would be equal to or less than the setbacks with the existing commercial building. He explained the exterior design and materials style architecture, the grade of asphalt shingles, pop-out supports, columns, and corbels as shown on the elevation views of the handout.

Mr. Balling said he just completed a traditional style 10-plex townhome development in Farmington. As designed, this proposed project would contain many extras that exceed the quality of this recent project.  He attached a picture in the handout.

Mr. Balling said that as property owners on Pages Lane, they can see that something needs to be done to revitalize this area and stimulate some attractive and updated uses.  He believes this project may be the first and set a beautiful precedence in the area, which they hope will be extended and followed.  He thanked the Planning Commission for their consideration.

Commissioner Kjar asked if these units would be for rental or sold units.  Mr. Balling responded they are hoping to be sold units. Whether they retain ownership he can’t say for sure.

Chair Hirschi asked about ownership at his Farmington project.  Mr. Balling responded that they retain ownership, rented all out within a month’s time and they receive $1,700 per unit.  He said these units are two story, so mostly are occupied by young families.

Commissioner Hayman asked staff how this project would compare with Shaela Park density if this project were to move forward with the density of 6 units on the ¾ acres.  Mr. Snyder responded that the Shaela Park was about 6.5 units per acre. It was less than the Hafoka property. That was approximately 7.7 or 7.8 units per acre.

Chair Hirschi opened the public hearing.

Marti Money, Centerville, thanked the Planning Commission for all the work they do.  She commented on all the work that has been done by the property owner. However, she feels medium density would be enough for neighborhoods such as this neighborhood.  The higher density, permitted use density seems to be a mistake.  She appreciated the comment regarding the Hafoka property. Certainly, there were a lot of lessons learned with that development. She said as a community we are still trying to learn those lessons, and it is her hope that the legislative body will see the merits in controlling the density. As Centerville continues to be built out, medium density should be the highest density that is permitted.

Richard Ryan, indicated that he lived in Centerville when Mr. Balling tried to get the previous building going and trying to get the access onto 300 East Street.  He said the biggest concern about 300 East was the wideness of the road.  It is not a typically wide road and with the school it makes it pretty difficulty to maneuver. He would prefer that there not be an access off 300 East.  He is not necessarily for high density and would rather see it as medium density, but would not really oppose it if the density was kept at 6 units per acre. He likes what Mr. Balling does and appreciates what he has done with the property the past few years. Mr. Ryan said he would much rather see it residential than commercial, however, he would prefer it be medium density.

Shauna Chumakov, reiterated what had already been said.  She appreciated residential coming in rather than staying commercial.  She does not agree with the fact that it be high-density.  She would prefer it be more of a medium-density, but understands the need to get what you want out of your property.  Centerville is a great place to live and is a very family-centered community.  She would prefer the units be owner-based and not rental units because of the transient factor.  Ms. Chumakov said she would like to have a statute that makes it so the highest density allowed or permitted would be medium-density. She doesn’t want Centerville to become like Salt Lake.

Dale Engberson, asked the Commission what the difference was between high density and medium density. He said he knows that Mr. Balling has invested a lot of money in the property over the years.  He said something less desirable could be developed if it were to remain zoned commercial-high. He thinks the rights of the property owner should be taken into consideration in the decision to rezone the property to residential-high.

Garth Heer, said he and his wife own the property to the east of Mr. Balling’s property.  He said Mr. Balling’s arrangement looks to him to be a very nice arrangement.  His concern is that the units have the back facing onto 300 East.  He would like to see this addressed so as not to have garbage cans or parking on 300 East to have a better curb appeal.  Mr. Heer said his units have some renters that have lived in his units for 20 years and are solid citizens.  He said Mr. Balling with his business next door has been very good neighbors.

Chair Hirschi thanked the citizens for their comments.  He said he had a letter submitted for the record from Heather Strasser and Marti Money because they were not able to attend the meeting tonight. However, Marti Money was present and presented her views.  The letter states they are essentially opposed to high density for a variety of reasons outlined in the letter.  Chair Hirschi said one of the reasons in the letter that hasn’t already been stated by others tonight is the potential precedent that would be set for changing the zoning here and what affect it might have on other areas, such as across the street, or other areas in south Centerville.

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

Chair Hirschi invited the applicant to respond to what has been said.  Cory Snyder, said he would like to respond to Mr. Engberson’s question regarding the difference between high density and medium density before the applicant responds.  Mr. Snyder said the density for R-H is up to 8 units an acre for permitted use and 9-12 for conditional use. He said the permitted use in the R-M is 1-4 units an acre and conditional use is 5-8. Chair Hirschi stated that even with a conditional use the R-M could still have 5-8 units per acre. Mr. Snyder concurred.

Mr. Snyder said he would also like to address the relation to surrounding properties, the commercial high is the predominant zoning in the area.  Over the past few years, this has deteriorated.  The goal is to look at redevelopment of this property.  It may or may not be related to the site being considered tonight, but the Planning Commission should at least keep that in mind.  In discussions that have taken place, there has been mentioned the possibility of replacing the commercial to residential.  The absorption rate for redevelopment would create a high- density neighborhood here.  Whether that would be in a year or 15 years, there is that possibility that if this property doesn’t remain commercial, it could be a high-density neighborhood area. The Planning Commission needs to look at weighing the balance with the surrounding properties.

Scott Balling, applicant, said he agrees with Mr. Snyder that the “details are in the design” of this.  They have put a lot of thought and design in this proposed project.  He said their intentions are to maximize the value of what they build on this site.  They are shooting for the high-end townhome. He feels quality is important and they are aiming for the highest quality with this project.  He reiterated their intentions to record these individually so they have the potential to sell each unit.

Mr. Balling responded to the comment regarding the view from the west.  He said they also think that is very critical.  He said all garbage facilities would be inside the courtyard (Section C of the handout shows the view from the west).  However, they are open to suggestions to make it look nicer.

Chair Hirschi asked Mr. Balling if he had any anticipation of privacy fencing along 300 East. Mr. Balling said he has thought about putting a nice wall of some kind, similar to the masonry wall they put in with the neighbors to the east.  They would certainly have to have approval from the LDS church. He said he would rather make the units look nicer that put a privacy fence on 300 East.

Commissioner Hayman asked about the backyards and how they would be cared for. Mr. Balling responded they are wanting to record this as a PUD, with each unit privately owned and all the yards are commonly owned, with a homeowners association being responsible for the maintenance of the grass areas.  Commissioner Hayman commended Mr. Balling for all the work he has put into this and for the handout, which has been very helpful for them to see what his intentions are for developing his property.

Chair Hirschi made a motion for the Planning Commission to accept the Zone Map Amendment for 323 East Pages Lane from Commercial-High (C-H) to Residential-High (R-H), and to recommend approval to the City Council for the following reasons:

Reasons For The Action:
a)    The proposed amendment meets the requirements found in Section 12.21.080(4)(e).
b)    The proposed Zone Map Amendment is consistent with the overall intent of the goals and objectives of the General Plan [Section 12.480.2(c)].
c)    According to the associated Neighborhood Plan, amending the zoning map for this location to Residential-High (R-H) appears to likely have less of a long-term impact on the surrounding neighborhood than the current zoning of Commercial-High (C-H) that is anticipated in the plan.

Commissioner Johnson seconded the motion.

Commissioner Johnson stated that when he first came onto the Planning Commission, there was a subject property for rezone and the public concern was the precedence that would be set, which would allow more and more to happen.  He didn’t think that was the case at the time, but that the Planning Commission considers each rezone request on a case-by-case basis.  In his opinion he thinks as a Commission they should look at what has happened in the past as to the surrounding properties and what effect the rezone would have on those surrounding properties.

Chair Hirschi asked about the 4-plex that was built on the corner of Pages Lane and 400 East and if staff knew the zoning of that property before it was rezone R-H.  Cory responded that was before his time.  Scott Balling said he did the work for Mr. Drumpf on that property.  It was a central PUD, all individually owned.  There is a homeowners association maintaining the yards.  Mr. Balling, did not, however, remember what the land was zoned prior to that.

There was further discussion on the density of the property if it were to be zoned R-M.  Cory calculated that the R-M caps at 8 so that would allow 5 units under the R-M and R-H is capped at 8 so 6 would be permitted.

Commissioner Kjar commented that he didn’t think the R-H zoning was out of character with the surrounding properties. He thinks it would be a nice addition to the area.  He said he is not troubled with the R-H request because that is what the zoning is just to the east and more than likely the reality is that it will be the same across the street.

Commissioner Daly said he doesn’t live too far from this area and his kids go to J.A. Taylor.  He is concerned about what will happen to the Dick’s property across the street.  He thinks that is very important to consider in their discussions. He said he would be greatly opposed to high-density on the Dick’s property and would fight against it.  He is also concerned about the precedent that would be set with this rezone request.  Centerville is a bedroom community and with all the discussions regarding Main Street he doesn’t think Centerville wants higher density.  What they are looking for his more R-M.

Commissioner Daly said he did contact the principal of J.A. Taylor to see how this would affect the school. The principal said J.A. Taylor does have the capacity for additional students, so this particular development would not necessarily overburden the school. The principal was, however, concerned about the timing. With school already started, adding an additional 20 kids could strain things.  He said the school cannot turn away any student that lives within the school boundaries. Commissioner Daly said this project wouldn’t necessarily be detrimental to the school but he would be very concerned with higher density across the street and what affect that would have on the school.  He said he would not object to the R-M Zone in this case and not the higher density because of the precedent that would be set, even though it is zoned higher density to the east.

Chair Hirschi commented that while it is important to look to the future, they have a property owner who is invested in his property, who has been paying commercial taxes on that property for a long period of time.  Mr. Balling has presented a plan on how to develop this property in a manner that has been presented, either in a 5 unit or 6 unit format. It is not going to make a detrimental impact to the school or surrounding properties with either case.  Chair Hirschi said he would weigh in on approving the zoning as requested because he doesn’t see any impacts that this would have that they couldn’t address at a future day, especially from the standpoint of precedent.

Commissioner Hayman commented that she came into the meeting thinking that R-M would be sufficient, but the applicant has presented a plan where she has changed her mind and she tends to concur with Chair Hirschi to be in favor of the R-H zoning for this property, especially since the property to the east is zoned R-H.

Commissioner Daly said the property is zoned commercial-high and the property owner has every right to develop his property as commercial-high. He said the Commission can be proactive in their planning to decide what it is they want in the south end of Centerville.   He said everything around Dick’s, with a few minor exceptions, is residential-low. He thinks it would be a mistake to put more than residential-medium in the neighborhood.

Following further discussion, Commissioner Johnson called the question on the motion. Commissioner Johnson said he tends to agree with Commissioner Daly. He feels whether they zone it R-M or R-H, they are sending two distinct messages that will be sent to the development community.

A roll call vote was taken and the motion passed by a (4-1) vote. Commissioners Kjar, Hayman, Hirschi and Johnson voted in favor of the motion.  Commissioner Daly voted against the motion.

PUBLIC HEARING – CHAPEL RIDGE COVE PUD, 2172 N CHAPEL RIDGE CIR - Consider the proposed R-L/PDO amendment for Chapel Ridge Cove P.U.D., which consists of amending use of specific house plans for Lots 5, 6, 8, 9 & 10 - Jacob Toombs, Millcreek Homes, Applicant.

Cory Snyder, Community Development Director explained that this project is on the north end of Centerville by the Park Hills Subdivision east of the LDS Chapel. This is a planned development overlay project with an R-M Zoning. The reason the PDO was put in place was due to the down-hill cul-de-sac and there were a number of problems associated with that.  Along with the approval were exceptions, including designs of the homes.  There are notes on the plat pertaining to designs and setbacks and how decks are measured.  Mr. Snyder said at the time, the developer committed to three elevations.  He said they didn’t really review the floor plans and approve the floor plans designs per say, but approved the front elevations of the Deuel, Parrish and the Grover plans. A couple of those plans and elevations have been built in the project. The new owner of the project, Millcreek Homes, owns the remaining lots and the petitioner, Mr. Jacob Tombs, desires to amend the architectural house style designs of the PDO Master Conceptual Plan and related approvals for the Chapel Ridge Subdivision. This proposed amendment can be summed up as follows:
•    In addition to the three (3) approved building elevations, known as Deuel, Parrish, and Grover, allow other house styles proposed as Plan 1, Plan 2 and Plan 3 (as shown on attachments in the staff report).
•    However, keep in place the approved architectural theme, materials list, and the 360 degree visual requirements of the original approvals.

Mr. Snyder explained that amendments to a PDO approval are subject to the original procedure used for obtaining a preliminary approval. Thus, the process to amend the Chapel Ridge PDO Master Plan is to review the changes, notice and hold a public hearing, debate the merits of the request, and make a recommendation to the City Council, whom repeats the same decision-making process.

According to Section 12.41.010, the purpose of the PDO provisions is to allow “…mixed residential/commercial projects to be developed in a manner that allows design flexibility, integration of mutually compatible uses, integration of open spaces, clustering of dwelling units, and optimum land planning with greater efficiency, convenience and amenity than is possible under conventional zone regulations.”

Thus, Section 12.41.070 allows for “variations from development standards” from both the Subdivision and Zoning Ordinances. However, the proposed amendments are not variations from our adopted standards, any such request was already approved. Nonetheless, in the original PDO approval, the developer (originally, Mr. Alan Prince) committed to specific design elevations relating to house plans for the subdivision lots. This request is not to make any other changes, but just adding three additional elevations to the original three elevations to try and market those lots.  It is staff’s opinion that the amendment request would remain consistent with the intent of the original PDO and Subdivision Plan review and approvals and staff is supportive of the request.

Jacob Toombs, applicant, explained their desire is to offer different floor plans and not restrict the floor plans to what is currently available. They want to be able to offer more options, yet still follow the design elements on the exterior.  They would keep the feel of the neighborhood the same. Mr. Snyder said the elevations drive the floor plan and they have been limited to the three floor plans.  Mr. Snyder asked for clarification.  He said it was his understanding that they were just wanting to add three additional elevations to the three currently approved.  But apparently Mr. Toombs is asking for the ability to be flexible in the floor plans they offer, providing those plans meet all the architectural requirements.  Mr. Toombs agreed that was their intention. Mr. Snyder said the Planning Commission can approve the modification without having to be renoticed.

Commissioner Daly said he wanted to make sure he understood that everything else would remain the same, the developer is just wanting the leeway to change the floor plans.  Mr. Toombs agreed. He said they wanted to keep the craftsman style architecture. Mr. Snyder said the plat notes would remain in place for the design and they would still be subject to the 360 degree elevation.

Chair Hirschi asked how many homes were occupied.  Mr. Toombs replied there were currently 5 occupied homes and 5 lots to be built on.

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

Cory Snyder reminded the Planning Commissioners that this is a recommendation to the City Council because it involves a PDO approval.

Commissioner Kjar made a motion for the Planning Commission to recommend to the City Council, to approve the petition to amend the Chapel Ridge Subdivision PDO approval, as follows:

1.     In addition to the three (3) approved building elevations, known as Deuel, Parrish and Grover, other house styles are approved and are labeled as Plan 1, Plan 2 and Plan 3, as submitted with the amendment request, dated August 23, 2016.
2.    However, the amendment shall keep in place the approved architectural theme, materials list, and the 360 degree visual requirements of the original approvals.

Reasons for the Action (Findings):
a)    The Commission finds that amendments to a PDO approval are subject to the original procedure used for obtaining a preliminary approval.
b)    The Commission finds that according to Section 12.41.010, the purpose of the PDO provisions is to allow “…mixed residential/commercial projects to be developed in a manner that allows design flexibility, integration of mutually compatible uses, integration of open spaces, clustering of dwelling units, and optimum land planning with greater efficiency, convenience and amenity than is possible under conventional zone regulations.”
c)    The Commission finds that Section 12.41.070 allows for “variations from development standards” from both the Subdivision and Zoning Ordinances.
d)    The Commission finds that the proposed amendments are not variations from our adopted standards, any such request was already approved with the original PDO approval.
e)    The Commission finds that original design concern seemed to entail the discussions around the setbacks and the house elevation design elements and not particularly focused on actual floor plans for the homes.
f)    Therefore, the Commission finds that the amendment request would remain consist with the intent of the original PDO and Subdivision Plan review and approvals.

Commissioner Daly seconded the motion.

Commissioner Daly made a motion to amend the motion to include other house elevations that are compatible in style, architectural feature and materials and meet all other requirements of the PDO.  Chair Hirschi seconded the motion to amend. The motion passed by unanimous roll-call vote (5-0).  Chair Hirschi asked for a vote on the main motion as amended.  The motion passed by unanimous roll-call vote (5-0).

PUBLIC HEARING – CODE TEXT AMENDMENT, CLIMATE CONTROLLED STORAGE - Consider the proposed Zoning Code Text Amendment to add a new business use of “Storage, Climate Controlled” to various sections of the code, in response to the application submitted - Steve Tate, Applicant.

Commissioner Johnson recused himself from this item because he has significant professional interest in this topic.

Cory Snyder, Community Development Director, reported this was brought before the Planning Commission in a prior meeting.  The request is to add “climate controlled storage” to utilize some space that he feels is currently underutilized or vacant.  Mr. Tate has interest in the Parrish Square shopping area just west of Dicks’ Market (where Auto Zone and TonyBurgers are located). Mr. Tate has a building suite (previously a gym) where he would like to establish a “climate controlled storage” type use. Currently, this type of use is not listed in Centerville’s Zoning Ordinance. Therefore, his petition is to create a definition, list the use in the Table of Uses, and allow such use to be located in the C-H Zone.

Mr. Snyder stated there was some discussion at the August 10, 2016 Planning Commission meeting and the Commission directed staff to re-evaluate the matter and consider options such as an “overlay district, new zoning district, etc.” to allow for the possibility of allowing this specific use within the area of the Parrish Square Shopping Center. Staff have identified the following three options for the Planning Commission to consider:

1)    OPTION #1 “ALL C-H ZONES ALLOWANCE” – Consider allowing “climate controlled storage” in all of the Commercial-High Zones. However, limit the allowable square feet to a maximum of 10,000 square feet to mitigate the over proliferation of this, as previously discussed by the Commission. The amendments would consist of adding the use to the C-H Zone, but restricting the size in the use Table 12.35, shown in the staff report.

Mr. Snyder explained the pros and cons of this option.  He said this would eliminate targeting specific location areas. Additionally, the purpose of the C-H Zone is to allow building sizes ranging from 10,000 to 50,000 square feet (see Section 12.30.020.d.2). However, this option allows the subject use in all C-H Zoning Districts.  The subject use would be the only listed use to the lower end of the allowable building size range.

2)    OPTION #2 “USE THE ZONING OVERLAY ALLOWANCE” – The subject area and use desired by the applicant is located in the “Parrish Square Shopping Center,” which is already located in an overlay district. It is in the South Main Street Corridor.  The South Main Street Corridor has the underlying zone uses and adds other uses that are not in other areas of the city, such as C-M cannot have single-family in all other C-M districts.  But in the SMSC there is C-M plus single-family.  So the overlay already exists in its framework.  However, some alterations and additions would have to be added, as explained in the example amendment in the staff report.

Mr. Snyder explained the pros and cons of this option. This amendment capitalizes on the existing South Main Street Overlay District using the North Gateway Area as distinctly differently than other C-H Districts.  The Parrish Square Shopping Area could be used differently and apart from the other C-H Zoning Districts to accomplish the desires of the applicant.  He stated the Main Street Overlay is primarily focused on allowing additional uses to incentivize re-development of buildings and uses to create a “gateway identify” for the Main Street Corridor.  Adding a secondary or “filler use” could act as a delay to the desire future anticipated by the overlay plan and promote keeping the area in an “as is” condition.

3)    OPTION #3 “ESTABLISH A NEW ZONE” – This would be the most intensive and complex option.  As was previously discussed by the Commission, consider creating a new Zoning District just for the Parrish Square Shopping Area. This would take a lot of effort to write up a new zoning district and all the associated language and regulations. A new zone would entail creating and writing up the following:
•    Purpose
•    Scope
•    Definitions
•    Uses Allowed
•    Development Standards
•    General Applicable Regulations
•    Regulations for Specific Uses (Optional)
•    Special Regulations

Staff’s concern is that the existing commercial areas are listed in a sequential use based on intensity, consisting of Medium, High, and Very-High. Is the Parrish Square Shopping Center and its existing uses something really different than one of these classifications?  Is there something at this location that calls for a new and specific district unlike or substantially unique from the commercial zones of the city? Staff believes that undertaking such a task for the limited purposed “climate controlled storage” is largely unwarranted if this is the focus for making any amendments.

Mr. Snyder said the Planning Commission should discuss the proposed options and determine if one of the listed options seems viable. The Commission could also provide any additional suggestions and ideas. Staff would then prepare the specific language and related text edits and bring back at a following meeting for the Commission to review, hold a hearing, and forward an official recommendation to the City Council.

Commissioner Kjar said that from his experience this kind of ‘climate controlled storage” is something that is on the horizon and is not something new.  He has seen more and more of it in the industry.  He thinks this is something that the Planning Commission needs to look at and consider.  He understands the difficulty in finding tenants for this kind of space.  Commissioner Kjar said he would prefer Option No. 1 creating a zoning use that can be used everywhere but there is a square foot limitation.

Steve Tate, applicant, said he has reviewed the three options and appreciates all the time and effort that Cory has put into it.  He questioned if a radius restriction could be added to Option 1, but was informed that this could not be an option.  Mr. Tate said he has continued to try and lease this space without success, but knows they could solve their dilemma if they were able to add the climate controlled storage. He said his concern with Option 2 about being removed from the South Main Street Corridor Overlay, with those requirements to pull buildings out to the street, would be catastrophic to them as a developer if they were subjected to those requirements for redevelopment.

Commissioner Daly asked the applicant the amount of square footage he was dealing with.  Mr. Tate responded he has two corner units. One is the dance studio which is approximately 4,400 square feet. The other corner, the one he is dealing with, is about 4,200 square feet with the 36 inches of frontage, which is the door.  If this request moved forward and he lost the dance studio in the future, his intent would be to have the same use for that corner.  They can be accessed in the back with loading docks. It would be key card access. The doors are the same size in the back, but he would consider expanding that so as to get a power jack through the door.

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

Chair Hirschi stated their task is to look at the alternatives and any other alternatives they might come up with and give direction to staff to prepare some specific language for their consideration at another meeting. Chair Hirschi said he liked Option No. 2 for two reasons: 1) it avoids the issue of opening it up to all commercial-high zones, and he would like to avoid the proliferation issue; and 2) it can accomplish more than one thing the way it is structured.  He does not anticipate Parrish Square changing anytime soon, but if it did change from a development perspective to make it look nicer, it would be prohibitive if it would have to follow all of the requirements of the SMSC in order to get that kind of redevelopment. Therefore, he would favor Option 2 and direct staff to bring back an ordinance to consider that would support that.

Commissioner Daly said he agreed with Chair Hirschi. He said if they were to go with Option 1, he would recommend a change to limit the square footage on C-VH as well to eliminate the possibility of the Walmart and Target areas falling into that possibility in the future.  He said Option 2 solves that problem without creating additional problems.

Chair Hirschi made a motion to direct staff to further explore Option No. 2 and bring back a specific ordinance by the first meeting in October.  The motion was seconded by Commissioner Daly and passed by unanimous roll-call vote (4-0).  Commissioner Johnson rejoined the discussion following the vote.

PUBLIC HEARING – CODE TEXT AMENDMENT, SOUTH MAIN STREET CORRIDOR (SMSC) – Scope Correction - Consider the proposed Zoning Code Text Amendment to the South Main Street Corridor (SMSC) Overlay Zone Public Space Plan in Section 12.48.180 - Centerville City, Applicant.

City Attorney Lisa Romney explained to the Planning Commissioners that when the City readopted the entire Zoning Code there was an unintentional change, an inadvertent correction to the term Residential "Boulevard" Subdistrict changed the intended applicability of the SMSC Public Space Plan. She said adding the term "Boulevard" to the Residential Subdistricts reference unintentionally made the SMSC Public Space Plan applicable to the North Gateway Mixed-Use Subdistrict and the Pages Lane Mixed-Use Subdistrict. This proposed amendment to Subsection 12.48.180(b) is to specifically list the Subdistricts subject to the SMSC Public Space Plan; i.e. the Traditional Main Street and City Center Subdistricts. As these amendments are to correct an inadvertent change to the applicability of the SMSC Public Space Plan, it is being brought back to the Planning Commission approval and recommendation to the City Council.

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

Commissioner Kjar made a motion to recommend approval of Ordinance No. 2016-26 regarding the Zoning Code text amendments as shown in the staff report. Commissioner Hayman seconded the motion and passed by unanimous roll-call vote (5-0).

Ms. Romney informed the Commissioners that this was scheduled for the September 20 Council meeting.  The Council will also be addressing the SMSC Public Space Plan. She has prepared three different ordinances because they are looking at several different options.  Ms. Romney explained the different ordinances for the Council’s consideration.

COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR’S REPORT
1.    Items scheduled to September 28, 2016:
•    Sal Barnum 100 ft. cell tower at approximately 1100 West Porter Lane
•    Code Text Amendment, Flag Lot Ordinance

Mr. Snyder informed the Commissioners that he would not be at the October 26 meeting as he will be out of the country.  He said he will try to lighten the load, noting that they only hold one meeting a month for November and December.  Lisa Romney, City Attorney, said she also will not be at the October 26 meeting.  There was some discussion on whether to change the night of the meeting. Nothing was determined.

Chair Hirschi said they also have some training scheduled for their next meeting.

CITY COUNCIL ACTIONS REPORT

Cory Snyder, Community Development Director, reported to the Commissioners recent actions taken by the City Council.
•    September 6, 2016: GP Amendment – Bicycle & Non-Motorized Vehicle Pathways & Trails Map - Motion: Tabled pending revised maps from City staff.
•    September 6, 2016: Accessory Building Setbacks & Flag Lot Ordinance Amendments - Motion: Planning Commission to consider removal from Subdivision Ordinance. Planning Commission to revisit accessory building requirements, specifically setbacks and heights.

Chair Hirschi made a motion to adjourn. Commissioner Kjar seconded the motion and passed by unanimous vote (5-0).

The meeting was adjourned at 9:27 p.m.

_____________________________            ___09-28-2016______
David Hirschi, Chair                                         Date Approved

_____________________________
Marsha L. Morrow, City Recorder