September 23, 2015

PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES OF MEETING
Wednesday, September 23, 2015
7:00 p.m.

A quorum being present at Centerville City Hall, 250 North Main Street, Centerville, Utah.  The meeting of the Centerville City Planning Commission was called to order at 7:00 p.m.

MEMBERS PRESENT
Cheylynn Hayman
David Hirschi, Chair
Gina Hirst
Logan Johnson
Scott Kjar
Kevin Merrill

MEMBERS ABSENT
William Ince

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

VISITORS
Howard Sain                Mark Allsop               John Hollingshead
Taylor Spendlove        Tamilyn Fillmore        Travis Davis
James Romer               Dale McIntyre            Brett Kearney
Catherine Rasband      Grace McIntyre          Nancy Smith
Roy Rasband               Robyn Mecham          Tim Hawkes

PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE

OPENING COMMENT/LEGISLATIVE PRAYER     Commissioner Johnson

MINUTES REVIEW AND APPROVAL

The minutes of the Planning Commission meeting held September 9, 2015 were reviewed and amended. Chair Hirschi made a motion to approve the minutes as amended. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Hirst and passed by unanimous vote (6-0).

PUBLIC HEARING | ELYSIAN AUTO SALES LLC | 1140 WEST 725 NORTH - [Postponed from September 9, 2015 Meeting] - Consider proposed Conditional Use Permit for used car sales in the I-H Zone, for property located at 1140 West 725 North. James Romer, Applicant.

Brandon Toponce, Assistant Planner, reported the applicant is seeking a conditional use permit for vehicle sales and detailing. The proposed use includes a maximum of seven (7) cars; three (3) parked in warehouse, two (2) parked outside, and two (2) for business owner use. The applicant proposes to address customers by appointment only and all exterior washing of the vehicles will be performed off-site. It appears the proposed use is limited in nature and could be deemed consistent with the goals and objectives of the General Plan. Since the proposed use will be occupying an already existing building, the use will not incur additional impacts on the built environment by way of added utility services or supportive infrastructure. It does not appear that the proposed use will create a large amount of noise, harmful irritants, or increased traffic to the surrounding community. The applicant proposes to include "interior detailing" as part of this business. This may not include engine cleaning and/or transmission repair as that would require additional approvals. In addition, no junk vehicles, vehicles in need of repair, or wrecked vehicles may be stored on site. Staff is concerned with the loading/unloading of the transport truck. Staff recommends provisions be included to prohibit transport truck deliveries. Staff is also concerned with the applicant using common parking stalls for sale vehicles. Staff suggests the use of outside parking staff for vehicle display be prohibited and or limited as this practice tends to inhibit needed customer and employee parking. This is especially problematic when sharing a building and parking with other tenants. Staff recommends display of vehicles take place in the warehouse only.

James Romer, applicant, said the warehouse is large enough to accommodate more than three vehicles. He believes he could comfortably display up to five (5) vehicles within the warehouse. He said he would like the ability to display a vehicle outside just prior to a customer appointment. He said his lease designates two (2) parking stalls for his use and given that he has no employees these stalls would be available. This is where he would display a vehicle for customer appointments. He said this is a part-time hobby; he has an additional full-time day job.  He said he will likely only be working at this location after hours and on weekends. He said prohibiting truck deliveries is not an issue.

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

The Commission discussed options for vehicle display both inside and outside the warehouse. Commission members were comfortable allowing the applicant the ability to display as many cars as will fit inside the warehouse. The Commission discussed the option of allowing the applicant the ability to display a vehicle outside for customer appointments only. Since the applicant will be working after hours and on weekends only this should not impact the neighboring tenants who will likely be closed during these times.

Cory Snyder, Community Development Director, said staff is comfortable allowing five (5) cars for display inside the warehouse. He reminded the Commission that any approval runs with the land and not the tenant.

Chair Hirschi made a motion for the Planning Commission to approve the Conditional Use Permit for Elysian Auto Sales LLC, located at 1140 West 725 North, Unit “C”, with the following conditions:

Conditions:
1.    This Conditional Use Permit shall apply only to the user space located at 1140 West 725 North, Unit “C.”
2.    This CUP approval is for vehicle sales, limited for the suite.
3.    The accessory uses proposed shall consist of, and be limited to, interior detailing of the vehicles. “Interior detailing” does not mean the washing of vehicles or engine and/or transmission repair or other like major repairs.
4.    All display vehicles shall be operable and in good condition, and the display of vehicles shall be located within the warehouse space for Unit “C” with limited rights to display such vehicles outdoors for sales purposes after 5:00 p.m. on weekdays by appointment only and anytime on the weekends up to no more than two (2) vehicles.
5.    All deliveries and transporting of vehicles shall occur between the hours of 6:00 a.m. to 9:00 p.m.
6.    The delivery of inventory vehicles by transport truck is prohibited.
7.    The applicant shall submit an Automobile Dealer License from the State of Utah to the Business License Coordinator and obtain a City Business License prior to occupying or operation of the business.
8.    A sign permit application shall be submitted to City staff for approval of any proposed signage relating to the business.
9.    All applicable application and professional service fees shall be paid.

Reasons for the Action (Findings):
1.    The applicant has submitted a complete application for a Conditional Use Permit [Section 12-21-100.d.1].
2.    The use of vehicle and equipment rental or sales is a permitted use within the Industrial-High Zone with a Conditional Use Permit [Chapter 12-36].
3.    The use is consistent with the expectation of the City’s General Plan [Section 12-430-1 & Future Land Use, Goal 1, 12-480-6].
4.    The use does not appear to have any negative impacts to the existing property and the surrounding community that have not been mitigated by the conditions of approval [Section 12-21-100(e)(3)(A-D), 12-21-100(e)(5)(A-K)].

The motion was seconded by Commissioner Johnson.
Commissioner Hayman expressed confusion between inventory vehicles and display vehicles. She made a motion to amend to change Condition #4 as follows:

#4 - All inventory vehicles shall be located within the warehouse space for Unit “C.” All display vehicles shall be operable and in good condition. The display of vehicles shall be limited to no more than two (2) vehicles with limited rights to display such vehicles outdoors for sales purposes after 5:00 p.m. on weekdays by appointment only and anytime on weekends.

Commissioner Merrill seconded the motion to amend which passed by unanimous roll-call vote (6-0).

Chair Hirschi called for a vote on the motion as amended. The motion passed with a roll-call vote (6-0).

PUBLIC HEARING | HUFFAKER DENTAL DUPLEX | 134 SOUTH MAIN ST. - [Postponed from September 9, 2015 Meeting] - Consider the following proposed items: 1. Zone Map Amendment for the rear portion of the Huffaker Dental property located at 134 South Main Street from C-M (Commercial-Medium/SMSC Overlay) to R-M (Residential-Medium), and 2. Small Subdivision Waiver/Lot Split for the purpose of creating a flag lot. Jeff Cook, Cook Builders, Applicant.

Cory Snyder, Community Development Director, reminded the Commission that at their last meeting (September 9, 2015) there was some discussion/confusion regarding this application in relation to the Temporary Zoning Regulation Ordinance (TZRO) or moratorium along Main Street.

Lisa Romney, City Attorney, said she has reviewed the TZRO and the applicant’s applications for the Huffaker Dental project. She said the applicant filed for a Conceptual Site Plan prior to the enactment of the TZRO and therefore has the right to continue that application process onto the Final Site Plan. However, the application in question is for a Zone Map Amendment and a Small Subdivision Waiver/Lot Split which are separate and new applications from the site plan process. Ms. Romney recommended these applications be tabled until the TZRO is lifted, amended, or repealed. She said she has spoken with the applicant and he is aware of the situation and understands the limitations.

Commissioner Johnson made a motion to table this item indefinitely until the TZRO is lifted, amended, or repealed by the City Council. The motion was seconded by Chair Hirschi and passed by unanimous roll-call vote (6-0).

PUBLIC HEARING | RASBAND PROPERTY REZONE | 85 EAST CHASE LANE - Consider proposed Zone Map Amendment for property located at 85 East Chase Lane from A-L (Agricultural-Low) to R-L (Residential-Low) Zone. Glade Jones, Calute Homes, Applicant.

Brandon Toponce, Assistant Planner, reported the applicant recently purchased said property for the purpose of building a single-family home. The applicant desires to rezone the property from Agricultural-Low (A-L) to Residential-Low (R-L). Barnard Creek runs through this property, which has a 20-foot access and maintenance easement measured from the center of the creek. The current zoning, A-L, requires a greater front setback which would put the back of the home within four (4) feet of the creeks edge. The proposed rezone to R-L would allow the home to be closer to Chase Lane placing the back of the home eight (8) feet from the creeks edge.

Mr. Toponce reviewed the criteria for a rezone approval. The proposed rezone is consistent with the General Plan as it is compatible with surrounding uses and will maintain the low single-family residential desire for this neighborhood. Staff does not anticipate any negative impacts, and in fact, the proposed single-family home will enhance the surrounding neighborhood and improve the appearance of the current vacant lot. The proposed lot is surrounded by development and the adequacy of services and facilities is likely. The applicant will be required to go through the site plan process to establish easements and ensure adequate utilities can be provided. In addition, the applicant will need to continue working with Davis County to ensure proper grading and construction takes place adjacent to the Barnard Creek channel.

Ray Rasband, applicant, said he has already completed the necessary easements as required by Davis County. He said an access bridge will be built on the east end of the property that can support equipment needed to clear the creek as required by the County.

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 recommend to the City Council the following amendment to the Centerville City Zoning Map:
85 East Chase Lane (.48 acres) shall be rezoned from Agricultural-Low (A-L) to Residential-Low (R-L).

Reasons for the Action (findings):
a)    The proposed zoning changes are consistent with the goals and objectives of the General Plan [Section 12-480-3(1)(d)(1)].
b)    The proposed zoning changes are in harmony with the surrounding neighborhood [Current Centerville City Zoning Map, Section 12-21-080(e)(2)].
c)    The applicant has provided sufficient evidence as to why the rezone is necessary for development of property at 85 East Chase Lane [Submitted application September 4, 2015].

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

MARK L. NELSON DENTAL OFFICE BUILDING | 782 WEST PARRISH LANE - Consider proposed Final Site Plan for the Mark L. Nelson Dental Building on property located at 782 West Parrish Lane (Island Parcel – North of Iggy’s), for the purpose of constructing a new office building. Brett Kearney, JZW Architects, Applicant.

Brandon Toponce, Assistant Planner, reported the Planning Commission previously accepted the Conceptual Site Plan for the Mark Nelson Dental Office to be located on the Island Parcel adjacent to Iggy’s Sports Grill. The proposed dental office was found to be consistent with the General Plan and the proposed use is allowed by Ordinance. The applicant is now ready for final site plan approval. The proposed site is located within the Parrish Lane Gateway which requires additional criteria. The applicant has satisfied these criteria. In addition, the applicant has received approval by the Redevelopment Agency (RDA) as required by ordinance. As part of that approval, the RDA amended the Development Agreement reducing the total square footage of the building to 5,000 square feet. This does not affect the proposed structure or development plans. Mr. Toponce explained there was a previous concern with some of the parking stalls backing into the drive lane. This configuration has been corrected and is no longer a concern. The applicant has requested financial assistance from the RDA for the landscaping on the northwest corner (possible water feature). The applicant and RDA are still working out these details.

Mr. Toponce reviewed the conditions of the conceptual site plan discussing how each item has been fulfilled. The final site plan is in harmony with the conceptual site plan. The proposed project meets applicable Zoning Ordinance requirements, Development Standards, and Parrish Lane Design Guidelines. The applicant will continue to work with City staff and the RDA as required including adherence to all governing documents for the Island Parcel.

Brett Kearney, applicant, submitted a copy of the new landscape/parking plan showing the parking stalls no longer back into the drive lane and how the landscaping has been adjusted for this area. He thanked the Commission for their time and said they are excited to move forward.

Commissioner Hirst made a motion for the Planning Commission to approve the final site plan for the Mark L. Nelson Dental Office, to be located at 782 West Parrish Lane, with the following conditions:

Conditions:
1.    All professional service fees and other applicable fees for the development on this lot shall be paid.
2.    A bond shall be posted for all public improvements prior to the issuance of a building permit.
3.    The applicant shall address additional lighting detail with the Public Works Director, including, connection location and exact type of pedestrian lighting.  This shall be submitted as part of the building permit process.
4.    Any wall signage will need to be reviewed by City staff through a separate review permitting process.
5.    If the applicant desires to pursue a contribution from the RDA for upgraded landscaping or entry feature on the lot, applicant should return to the RDA with options for this feature and requested amount of contribution.   Any revised plans as approved by the RDA shall be included as part of final site plan approval.
6.    Developer and the development shall comply with all governing documents for the Island Parcel, including but not limited to: (1) the Parrish Lane Gateway Neighborhood Development Plan, as amended; and (2) the Parrish Gateway Design Standards; and (3) the Agreement for Disposition of Land, as amended.  The Fourth Amendment to the Agreement for Disposition of Land, as approved by the RDA, shall be signed and recorded against the property prior to issuance of a building permit for Lot 2. Developer shall be required to sign and record against the property an Assignment and Assumption Agreement regarding development on Lot 2, as approved by the RDA, prior to issuance of a building permit for Lot 2.  Developer shall be subject to the use and user restrictions as set forth in the Agreement for Disposition of Land, as amended, and the Assignment Agreement entered into by Developer and recorded against the property.
7.    A building permit shall be issued prior to any construction taking place on the property.
8.    The new landscaping plan submitted this evening by the applicant will be reviewed and deemed compliant by staff in accordance with applicable landscaping requirements.

Reasons for the Action (findings):
1.    A complete final site plan application has been submitted [Section 12-21-110(e)(2)].
2.    The use of “Medical Services” is allowed within the C-VH Zone [Chapter 12-36].
3.    This project is in harmony with the Goals and Objectives of the General Plan [Section 12-480-5].
4.    This location is found within the Parrish Lane Gateway, and all applicable standards have been satisfied [Chapter 12-63].
5.    The proposed location is part of the Island Parcel and an RDA designated area, which required the applicant to obtain approval for the “use” and “building style” [September 15, 2015].
6.    The project meets all landscaping and site development requirements for the C-VH Zone [Chapters 12-51, 12-34].

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

PUBLIC HEARING | PORTER WALTON TOWNHOMES | 564 W PORTER LN - Consider proposed Preliminary Subdivision Plat for the Porter Walton Townhomes Planned Residential Unit Development, on property located at 564 West Porter Lane, for the purpose of platting the approved multi-family project. Taylor Spendlove, Brighton Homes, Applicant.

Cory Snyder, Community Development Director, reported the developers of Porter Walton Townhomes project are seeking to subdivide and plat the dwellings units to allow each unit to be purchased for home ownership. The Commission previously accepted the proposed conceptual subdivision plan and will now be reviewing and approving the preliminary plans and plat. Mr. Toponce reviewed the conditions of the conceptual subdivision approval. The preliminary plat and plans appear to be consistent with the original final site plan and conditional use permit approvals. The City Engineer has deemed the construction plans sufficient and has requested several minor changes to the subdivision plat document related to survey standards and plat format expectations. Mr. Snyder reviewed the submitted CC&Rs which generally reflect the expectations and management of the subdivision.

Taylor Spendlove, applicant, said their attorney is currently reviewing the CC&Rs to make sure everything is in order. He said they have reviewed the list of items called out by the City Engineer and are accepting of all requirements.

Chair Hirschi opened the public hearing.

Dale McIntyre said he does not agree with this project. He said the large single-family home is out of place and was only included to show acceptable density. He said the density of this project is too high and it should not be allowed to move forward.

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

Commissioner Merrill made a motion for the Planning Commission to approve the Preliminary Subdivision Plans and Plat for the proposed Porter Walton Townhomes Development, located at approximately 564 West Porter Lane, subject to the following:

Conditions:
1.    The applicant shall prepare and submit an application for final subdivision plat and associated construction drawings, as outlined in Chapter 15-3, Final Plat of the Municipal Code.
2.    The layout and design of the final plans and plat submittal must be consistent with the related City approved final site plan and conditional use permit.
3.    The applicant shall finalize any plat related formatting and/or survey errors and omissions, which shall be deemed acceptable by the City’s Engineer and Attorney.
4.    In accordance with the City’s addressing system, the final plat shall depict the address of each dwelling and be deemed acceptable by the City’s Public Works Director.
5.    The applicant shall provide an updated title report (within 30 days) for review and acceptance of any final paper and/or linen plat, at a time deemed appropriate by the City’s Attorney and/or Recorder.

Reasons for the Action (Findings):
a)    The preliminary subdivision plans and plat are in harmony with the relevant provisions of the City’s General Plan [Section 12-480-1(a)].
b)    The new subdivision is in harmony with the provisions of the Residential-Medium Zone, and as approved by the City for the related final site plan and conditional use permit.
c)    With the directives listed, the acceptance is consistent with the expectations for PUD subdivisions, as outlined in Chapter 15-6, Planned Unit Development.

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

PUBLIC HEARING | ZONING CODE TEXT AMENDMENTS | SOUTH MAIN STREET CORRIDOR (SMSC) OVERLAY ORDINANCE, CHAPTER 12-48 - Consider proposed Zoning Code Text Amendments for the South Main Street Corridor (SMSC) Overlay Ordinance (Chapter 12-48); including changes to the City Center District, Traditional District, North and South Gateway Districts, adding a Public Space Plan for Main Street, and other related changes.  Centerville City, Applicant.

Cory Snyder, Community Development Director, reported the Planning Commission and the City Council have hosted several open meeting sessions and work sessions to discuss the public's concerns over re-development within the South Main Street Corridor (SMSC). After extensive discussion and proposals the City is now requesting several changes to the SMSC Overlay Ordinance (see Staff Report dated September 23, 2015). Mr. Snyder reviewed and discussed each of the proposed text amendments to the SMSC Overlay Ordinance in detail (see power point prepared by Cory Snyder dated September 23, 2015). The proposed amendments include changes to the mixed-use definitions, density caps, public space plan, build to range distances (setbacks), and building heights.

The Commission discussed the Public Space Plan. Commissioner Merrill said he would like to see additional striping on Main Street to include bike lanes and wider sidewalks. Chair Hirschi said he would like to see options to increase the furnishings (i.e., planter boxes, lighting, bike racks) along Main Street to protect the pedestrian from traffic. He said any buffer from Main Street seems reasonable. Commissioner Hayman agreed. She would like to see the same buffer on both sides of the street. Commissioner Hirst said she would also like to see wider sidewalks and more usable pedestrian space.

Mr. Snyder explained that UDOT’s purpose is to keep traffic flowing. He does not see a struggle when it comes to re-striping the road to include bike lanes, but furnishings is a different issue. He said UDOT does not view furnishings as a protection to the pedestrian but rather an obstruction or possible hazard to a moving vehicle. However, if these amenities are something the Commission feels strongly about he encouraged them to continue to include them in the plan.

The Commission expressed concern with the definition of units vs. dwellings. The Commission is confused by units per acre, units per building, dwellings per buildings, and buildings per acre and how these are each applied to density calculations. Commissioner Hayman expressed concern with allowing 2 dwellings for any size property. She is concerned how this might work on some of the smaller lots. In this regard, Lisa Romney, City Attorney, questioned if there are any provisions that limit or prohibit subdividing in order to get additional dwellings.

Mr. Snyder said whether a lot is small or large the same rights should apply. He said development standards will limit a property, whether large or small, and in turn will control density and dwellings. All dwellings will be required to meet setbacks, buffers, easements, etc., all of which will limit the number of dwellings possible for any given property.

Chair Hirschi opened the public hearing.

Robyn Mecham said the General Plan (Section 12-420-1) states that the citizens of Centerville desire low density residential. She has spoken with hundreds of Centerville residents who do not want high density in Centerville. She said if the City wants to represent its citizens, then the SMSC plan should reflect low density options. She said the Porter Walton Townhome project was allowed because ordinances do not adequately reflect a low density desire. She said the City Council put the Temporary Zoning Regulation Ordinance (TZRO) in place to allow time for changes to take place. She said changes should reflect low density. She agreed the definitions for units and dwellings per acre are confusing. She said the density calculations are also confusing. She cautioned against conditional use densities. She said conditional use densities should not be any higher than 4-units per acre on the east side of Main Street and 6-units per acre on the west side. She said it is easy to add density in the future, but you can never take away density once you realize it is too high. She said she was surprised at the change in building height. She was not aware this was ever discussed or an option for amendment. She is not comfortable increasing the building height from 25 feet to 30 feet. She would also like to see a maximum of 2-story buildings called out specifically. She expressed concern regarding Pages Lane. She believes 12-units an acre is too high for this area given the surrounding single-family developments. She suggested this area be allowed an option for patio homes for the 55 and older population. She reminded the Commission that the Wasatch Front Regional Council has researched and determined that each residence in Centerville generates eleven (11) vehicle trips per day. This is a significant and negative impact that will affect Main Street, which is another reason for keeping density at a minimum. She is concerned that too much density will raise Main Street to a level where light rail is required.

Nancy Smith said perhaps the City is trying to put a square peg in a round hole. She said mixed-use may not be appropriate for Main Street in Centerville and perhaps the whole concept should be thrown out. She is not sure mixed-use is what Centerville wants to become. She said the SMSC Overlay Ordinance has become convoluted and difficult to understand. She said the original vision for Main Street was a downtown walkable community, but perhaps this concept is not the best option with major commercial hubs already located nearby in Farmington and Salt Lake City. She said no one is walking Main Street and no one is asking for mixed-use, so why force it. She said residents want residential development at a low density. She suggested keeping the density at 1-4 units per acre total. She said any density higher than 4-units per acre is in conflict with the General Plan principles. She is concerned the SMSC Plan could be trumped by a Planned Development Overlay (PDO) allowing for even higher density. She said if the City chooses to keep the SMSC Plan in place then provisions should be put into place that limit PDOs from using the mixed-use concept to maximize density.

Travis Davis said he too is concerned with mixed-use and how it will change the character of Centerville. He said mixed-use has had its chance for several years and has proved to be difficult. He said it is time to try something new and throw out the mixed-use concept. He suggested using mixed-use as a conditional use and not a requirement. He said 8-units an acre is too high a density and agreed 4-units is acceptable with a conditional use of 6-units per acre. He also agreed that 12-units for the Pages Lane area is too high and believes the density should be capped at 4-units per acre as well.

Tim Hawkes expressed concern over density. He agreed density should be kept low. He agreed the concept of mixed-use is not working. He said the current economic drive is for high-density residential, which is the one thing Centerville residents do not want. He cautioned the Commission not to incentivize density. He said Centerville residents do not care if high density will buy wider sidewalks, more landscaping, increased architecture, or greater amenities. He said residents have been clear that high density is not their desire. He agreed that the Porter Walton Townhome project was passed simply because it met current ordinances. He said this is the City’s chance to fix the ordinances and lower density. He said since mixed-use is not working then perhaps commercial options should remain until future needs determine otherwise. He said Centerville is a bedroom community and should be maintained as such with low density. He said Main Street is not the place for transit-oriented development. He said Centerville does not have to guarantee a developer can maximize their revenue. He understands that property owners have a right to develop their property, but that right ends when it negatively impacts its surroundings. He said he finds it interesting that Centerville does not impose an impact fee for traffic. He said this essentially subsidized developers and high-density.

Tamilyn Fillmore said she would like to see the Public Space Plan list specifics when it comes to the expectations for Main Street. She understands the difficulties of working with UDOT to make some of these public space amenities happen but believes if these details are on paper it will make negotiations easier and will show UDOT that Centerville has a vision. She said past difficulties have been a result of no formal plan. She would like to see the SMSC Public Space Plan include more space, wider sidewalks, and more amenities. She said she walks this area often and would like to feel more protected and have more room.

John Hollingshead agreed the definitions are confusing (units vs. dwellings). He suggested taking out any consideration for apartments. He said Centerville has enough apartments and there are better options for development. He said residents do not need or want more apartments on Main Street.

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

Mr. Snyder explained the City has done extensive research on traffic impact fees and the laws that govern such an action and Centerville cannot justify such a fee. Centerville does not own nor control Main Street or Parrish Lane. These roads are owned/controlled by the State of Utah.  Mr. Snyder explained the distinction between units and dwellings but agreed the language of the ordinance could be altered for clarification. He said units refers to the number of buildings on a lot and dwellings refers to the number of units within a building. Mr. Snyder cautioned the Planning Commission to remember the needs of future generations and encouraged them to keep mixed-use and commercial options available. He explained housing desires are changing and future generations are not as interested in single-family developments. He said mixed-use may not be highly sought after today, but that will likely change in the future.

The Commission discussed concerns regarding the Pages Lane area. The Commission agreed Pages Lane has a variety of surrounding uses including commercial uses, apartments, townhomes, and single-family homes. Chair Hirschi suggested a graduated zoning for this area from west (higher density) to east (lower density).

The Commission once again discussed the Public Space Plan and many expressed the need to get a solid plan on paper. No matter how grand the vision, this is the City’s opportunity to let UDOT know their desires. Chair Hirschi said he would like to see more room/width thus increasing the pedestrian corridor. He believes furnishings and wider sidewalks will increase the visual appeal and provide a necessary buffer from traffic. The Commission also discussed options to increase the public easement on the west side of Main Street to match the east side. Commissioner Hayman agreed with increasing the pedestrian corridor and increasing pedestrian safety. She also likes the idea of bike lanes and wider sidewalks. Commissioner Hirst said there is a shift in the way people are choosing to live. She said more and more people are biking and walking and the City should take steps to provide for this in the future. Commissioner Johnson agreed with increasing curb appeal but cautioned that amenities should not be tied to density incentives. Commissioner Kjar said increasing the public space easement on the west side may be problematic as most property owners do not favor additional easements.

The Commission discussed density and mixed-use options. Commissioner Merrill said he does not agree that mixed-use and commercial uses are not viable on Main Street. He said there have been many businesses that have located to Main Street over the past several years. He also believes the density cap of 8-units per acre is reasonable. The Commission discussed the balance between density, marketability, and redevelopment costs. Mr. Snyder reminded the Commission that many redevelopment projects require tear down and complete rebuild in addition to pedestrian improvements. This is what makes the balance between density and marketability so difficult.

The Commission agreed the proposed amendments are a good start for discussion and agreed a work session would be beneficial to discuss the many details of the proposed amendments. The Commission agreed to meet for a work session next Wednesday, September 30, 2015 at 7:00 p.m. to discuss the proposed amendments in more detail.

Commissioner Johnson made a motion to table this item until the next meeting. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Hirst and passed by unanimous vote (6-0).

COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR’S REPORT

1.    The next regularly scheduled Planning Commission meeting will be Wednesday, October 14, 2015.
2.    A Planning Commission Work Session is scheduled for September 30, 2015 at 7:00 p.m.

The meeting was adjourned at 10:30 p.m.

______________________________            ____10-14-2015_________
David Hirschi, Chair                                            Date Approved

__________________________________
Kathleen Streadbeck, Recording Secretary