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
April 22, 2015
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES OF MEETING
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.
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
OPENING COMMENT/LEGISLATIVE PRAYER Commissioner Kjar
MINUTES REVIEW AND APPROVAL
The minutes of the Planning Commission meeting held March 25, 2015 were reviewed and amended. Chair Hirschi made a motion to approve the minutes as amended. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Merrill and passed by unanimous vote (6-0).
PUBLIC HEARING | CENTERVILLE GATEWAY SUBDIVISION | 782 W 400 N Consider a proposed small subdivision waiver/lot split for the Centerville Gateway Subdivision, located on property at 782 West Parrish Lane (Island Parcel). Russell Mackey, Mackey Investments Centerville LLC, Applicant.
Brandon Toponce, Assistant Planner, reported the applicant desires to subdivide the proposed property (Island Parcel) into two (2) Lots. The proposed subdivision would create Lot 1, the existing Iggy’s Sports Grill, and Lot 2, an additional commercial lot ready for sale. In 2013, the applicant received approval by the Planning Commission for a small subdivision, yet never finished the recording process; therefore, the applicant is coming to the Commission once again. The proposed subdivision is consistent with the General Plan as it promotes additional commercial development within the gateway area. The proposed subdivision will not require any additional public right-of-way dedications as it is already surrounded by adequate, existing public streets and accesses. The proposed subdivision appears to meet Zoning Ordinance requirements with regard to lot size, frontage, and setbacks. In addition, all the necessary utility easements and improvements already exist on the site.
Chair Hirschi asked about cross access and parking agreements. Mr. Toponce explained the two lots will share parking and will also share the two (2) existing accesses on the east and on the west. The Island Parcel also has a parking agreement with the MTC property across the street to the east. In addition, any new commercial development on Lot 2 will require additional shared parking stalls as part of that development.
Russell Mackey, applicant, said Lot 2 will accommodate approximately twenty-five (25) additional parking stalls. He said they plan to develop a professional office on Lot 2.
Chair Hirschi opened the public hearing. Seeing no one wishing to comment, Chair Hirschi closed the public hearing.
Commissioner Randall made a motion for the Planning Commission to approve the small subdivision waiver/lot split for the Centerville Gateway Subdivision, 782 West Parrish Lane, Parcel 02-024-0064, with the following conditions:
Reasons for the Action (Findings):
The motion was seconded by Commissioner Ince and passed by unanimous roll-call vote (7-0).
PUBLIC HEARING | HAFOKA PROPERTY | 564 WEST PORTER LANE (400 S) Consider the following proposed items for the purpose of developing a multi-family project: 1. General Plan Amendment to allow for residential-high density in Neighborhood 2, Southwest Centerville (Porter Lane), Section 12-480-3(1)(a)(1); and 2. Zone Map Amendment for property located at 564 West Porter Lane from Residential-Medium (R-M) to Residential-High (R-H). Taylor Spendlove, Brighton Centerville LLC, Applicant.
Brandon Toponce, Assistant Planner, reported in August 2014, the applicant received approval for a Zone Map Amendment (rezone) from Residential-Low (R-L) to Residential-Medium (R-M). The plan was to rezone the 6.47 acres and develop an assisted living center. Those plans have since dissolved and the applicant now desires to rezone the property from R-M to Residential-High (R-H), in order to provide an opportunity for a viable development. The proposed R-H Zone would allow for a higher density of 8-units per acre permitted or 12-units with a conditional use permit. Currently, the General Plan discourages R-H for this property; therefore, the applicant is also requesting a General Plan text amendment. The applicant believes that both requests are appropriate since there is already Commercial-Very High (C-VH), Commercial-High (C-H), and Residential-Medium (R-M) to the north and south.
Mr. Toponce explained the proposed site is surrounded by a variety of different zones and uses. It appears the applicant’s request to amend the General Plan would be consistent with the objectives and overall goals. An R-H Zone would help buffer existing high intensive commercial to less intensive uses of Agricultural-Low (A-L), R-L and R-M. Shaela Park, a multi-family development is found to the south in the R-M Zone, making the Hafoka property a more logical transition. Staff believes the proposed higher density would allow the developer to maximize the use of land and help create a harmonious flow from commercial to residential. In the past, staff was concerned about isolating a small portion of property located between the Hafoka property and the commercial zones to the west. Staff now believes this property will further assist in the transition from commercial to residential. The property owner will have the ability to choose between commercial or residential use if he ever chooses to redevelop. Another concern may be traffic. However, most traffic generated by a residential development is staggered throughout the day and is not as intense as a commercial use. Overall, it does not appear that any serious adverse effects would occur with the proposed rezone, and that it would be a fitting transition from commercial to residential.
Cory Snyder, Community Development Director, explained the General Plan language regarding zones operates from east to west. Starting with lower density residential (east) and moving to higher density commercial (west). This will continue to hold true with the proposed R-H Zone on the Hafoka property. He explained the highest density possible in the R-H Zone is 12-units per acre with a conditional use permit. A conditional use permit requires additional regulations for the development, including traffic, landscaping, buffers, etc. The Planning Commission would have the ability to request more with a conditional use permit, thus having the ability to mitigate many concerns.
Taylor Spendlove, applicant, presented two (2) scenarios for the Hafoka property. The first was a development with 8-units per acre and the second a development with 12-units an acre. He explained how the higher density option creates a greater open space for residents and better circulation and functionality. He said their proposed plans would require a conditional use permit which will provide the Planning Commission more discretion. He said the proposed plan is to build a newer townhome design with rear-loaded garages and front doors opening to the common space. He explained Brighton Homes has not decided whether to keep or demolish the current Hafoka home.
Chair Hirschi opened the public hearing.
Heather Strausser, Shaela Park Resident, asked if Brighton Homes is required to bond for the completion of the project. She would hate to see an unfinished project. She asked what the height limitation and setbacks are for homes on this site. She asked what the plans are for the two (2) additional homes owned by the Hafoka's that front on Porter Lane. She said she supports a traffic study and encouraged the City to require such. She asked if a feasibility study is required. She said Brighton Homes is looking to develop another high density project just east of this site on Main Street. She wonders if this many units is really feasible and necessary. She said she is not in favor at this time and would like to maintain this quiet small neighborhood. She is concerned the traffic and noise associated with high density will be too intense for Porter Lane.
Robin Mecham said she is frustrated that staff continues to promote high density. She said it has been made clear by residents across Centerville that high density is not wanted. She claims the City Council and Mayor have even requested lower density developments. She said the Hafoka property has already been granted R-M and that is enough. R-H is not needed. She said Brighton Homes can build a viable project within the current R-M standards. She said this is an older quiet neighborhood and high density will ruin the area. She too expressed concern with the amount of traffic that will be generated from such a development.
Dale McIntyre said if Brighton Homes builds a high density development just east of this property on Main Street then Centerville does not need another high density development on the Hafoka property. He said R-H is too intense and traffic will be too great. He said high density will negatively affect this neighborhood.
Stephanie Mecham said the current R-M Zone is plenty. She said the proposed 8-unit development plan looks great and there is no need to go to 12-units an acre. She too is concerned with traffic and with pedestrian safety. She said several Junior High kids walk Porter Lane and 400 West daily. She believes the traffic will be too dangerous. She believes Centerville already has enough residents to support the city and its businesses.
Chair Hirschi closed the public hearing.
Mr. Snyder answered the public's questions. He said all projects are required to bond for development according to the phasing plan and ordinance requirements. However, there is no guarantee a development will be a successful project and/or fully occupied. He reviewed the maximum building height (35 feet) and required setbacks (25 feet).
Mr. Snyder said the Planning Commission has an obligation to the future. Centerville has General Plan policies set to help prepare for future growth. He said R-M is acceptable and a project will likely still move forward, but an R-H Zone would allow for more options and a greater quality of project. He explained the projected growth and housing needs for the Wasatch Front and Davis County. There will be an influx of needs and additional housing will be required at some point in the future to handle this growth. Centerville must consider cost effective multi-family options. The Hafoka property may or may not be the appropriate location for higher density, but the Planning Commission needs to be mindful of future needs for housing.
Mr. Spendlove said Brighton Homes has spoken with Dave Bell, the property owner of the A-L parcel between the Hafoka property and the commercial uses on the Frontage Road, and he will likely rezone his property as well. Mr. Spendlove said Brighton Homes has offered to purchase Mr. Bell's property, but he is not interested in selling. Mr. Spendlove said Mr. Hafoka will be keeping his two (2) additional properties/homes which front onto Porter Lane. He believes Mr. Hafoka is looking to renovate and/or rebuild these homes. Mr. Spendlove said Brighton Homes does conduct a feasibility study with each development and townhomes are needed. He said there are many townhome options that are more cost effective than renting which is why they are in such high demand.
Commissioner Kjar said it appears Shaela Park is about 8-units per acre. He believes 8-units an acre is appropriate for the Hafoka property as well. He said 8-units may be allowed with a conditional use permit under the current R-M Zone and the conditional use will allow the Commission greater discretion as discussed. He is not comfortable allowing a higher density for this property at this time. He is concerned with the existing home on this site as it could significantly change the development if demolished.
Commissioner Randall said it may be the Commission’s job to plan for growth, but it is also the Commissions job to manage growth. She believes the current R-M Zone is sufficient. She too agrees that 8-units an acre is appropriate for this area.
Chair Hirschi suggested dealing with each application individually, i.e., General Plan Amendment and Zone Map Amendment. Chair Hirschi made a motion for the Planning Commission to recommend to the City Council the following amendment to the Centerville City General Plan:
General Plan Amendment 12-480-3(1)(a)(1)
The motion was seconded by Commissioner Johnson.
Commissioner Merrill said he is concerned with traffic. He said 400 West and Porter Lane are both busy and additional high density could negatively affect the area.
Commissioner Johnson said he is comfortable amending the General Plan to allow for higher density in the future but he is not comfortable rezoning the Hafoka property to R-H at this time. He believes allowing for higher density within the General Plan will provide for more option and creativity in the future.
Chair Hirschi agreed this neighborhood has a quiet nature. He also agreed the Commission needs to look for future growth solutions. He said amending the General Plan will help plan for the future and then the City can deal with applications as they come.
Chair Hirschi called for a vote on the General Plan Amendment motion. The motion passed with a roll-call vote (4-3). Commissioner Ince, Commissioner Randall, and Commissioner Kjar opposed.
Commissioner Hirst also expressed concern with the possible traffic impacts. She believes 8-units an acre is acceptable. She is not willing to allow R-H without more input from a traffic engineer. Commissioner Johnson said he is concerned with buffers and with the possibility of isolating Mr. Bell's A-L property.
Chair Hirschi agreed that the possible impacts may need more attention before an R-H Zone is allowed. He said he likes the design of the higher-density development option but also recognizes that there are some impacts that need to be addressed. He suggested tabling the Zoning Map Amendment until more information regarding possible impacts can be addressed.
Chair Hirschi made a motion to table the Zoning Map Amendment (rezone 6.47 acres, parcels 03-001-0125 & 03-001-0145 owned by Atieli & Monalisa Hafoka from R-M to R-H) until traffic issues can be studied further. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Hirst and passed by roll-call vote (4-3). Commissioner Kjar, Commissioner Randall, and Commissioner Johnson opposed.
Commissioner Randall was excused.
LEGACY TRAIL APARTMENTS DEVELOPMENT | PARRISH & 1250 WEST Consider a proposed phasing plan and final site plan for Lot 4 of the Legacy Trail Apartments Development, on property located at the corner of Parrish Lane and 1250 West. Fred Hale & Chad Salmon, H & S LLC, Applicants.
Cory Snyder, Community Development Director, reported the applicant’s desire to receive final site plan approval for the Legacy Trail Apartments Development project. The project consists of four (4) lots. The applicant is seeking an allowance to develop each lot separately in phases. This will require each lot to receive its own final site plan approval; meaning the Planning Commission will be able to review each phase individually to ensure each lot can function independently.
Mr. Snyder said staff has reviewed the conditions of the associated Planned Development Overlay (PDO) Conceptual Site Plan approval. Several items still need attention; staff is willing to work with the applicant to tweak the plan as needed prior to final construction approvals if the Planning Commission feels it appropriate. If there is any item that staff and the applicant cannot agree on then the applicant will be required to come before the Commission for a final decision on that issue. At this time, the applicant is seeking final site plan approval for Lot 4, the residential component of the project. Mr. Snyder reviewed Lot 4 including the sub-phasing plan, architecture, color scheme, landscaping, and parking. Staff will ensure each sub-phase has adequate utilities, fire protection, and access. The plans depict a “village style” architecture and muted color scheme, which are consistent with the PDO and the Parrish Lane Design Guidelines. The applicant still needs to address fencing design and materials as well as screening of mechanical equipment. The plans show adequate parking including garages, tandem parking, and extra visitor parking for 329 total parking spaces. He explained Lot 4 requires 162 trees and the plans show only 90 trees. The applicant can apply for a 30% reduction, which would drop the required trees to 113; either way the applicant will be required to increase the number of trees on Lot 4. The applicant may seek approval from the State Department of Transportation to connect to their secondary water system. The applicant has not yet submitted a lighting plan.
The Commission asked for clarification on the access points for the project. The Commission also expressed concern with the number of issues still remaining. Commissioner Ince asked how this project and Legacy Crossing, the project to the east, differ.
Mr. Snyder reviewed the access points. He said the Fire Marshal has approved the plans. If during phasing more access is needed to sustain that phase, those points will be required. Staff believes the proposed application is substantially complete and is comfortable moving forward with the final approval for Lot 4. Mr. Snyder said this project has a lower density than the Legacy Crossing project to the east. In addition, this project has individual garages and exterior accesses. Legacy Crossing includes 4-story buildings with exterior parking and all interior accesses.
Commissioner Kjar made a motion for the Planning Commission to approve the final site plan for Legacy Trail Apartments project to be located at the southwest corner of 1250 West and Parrish Lane, with the following conditions:
Reasons for the Action (Findings):
The motion was seconded by Commissioner Johnson and passed by unanimous roll-call vote (6-0).
PUBLIC HEARING | MAVERIK CONVENIENCE STORE | PARRISH & 1250 W Consider a proposed conceptual site plan for a Maverik Convenience Store, on property located at the corner of Parrish Lane and 1250 West, Lot 1 of the Legacy Trail Apartments Development. Don Lilyquist, Maverik Inc., Applicant.
Cory Snyder, Community Development Director, reported the applicant’s desire to construct a convenience store with gas service (Maverik) on Lot 1 of the Legacy Trail Apartment project. Overall, the proposed project complies with the conditions of the associated Planned Development Overlay (PDO) Conceptual Site Plan approval and the Parrish Lane Design Guidelines. Mr. Snyder reviewed the proposed plan for Lot 1 including setbacks, landscaping, fencing, and architecture. The Parrish Lane Design Guidelines require a 30-foot setback along Parrish Lane and a 15-foot setback along 1250 West. The proposed plans show a 25-foot setback for both Parrish Lane and 1250 West. The applicant may seek an option to purchase additional right-of-way from the State to increase the setback as needed. Otherwise, the plans will need to be adjusted to accommodate the required setback. In addition, the applicant will be required to include a site feature, within the setback, at the corner of Parrish Lane and 1250 West. Mr. Snyder explained the proposed landscape materials will need to match surrounding lots and include 10% on-site landscaping. He said the applicant will be required to address fencing materials and will be required to submit a lighting plan. Mr. Snyder said the biggest issue is architecture. The proposed Maverik uses a heavy timber frame, flat roof, and canopy which are not consistent with the PDO required “village style.” The applicant may choose to seek an amendment or change the style.
Don Lilyquist, applicant, said most of the remaining issues can be easily addressed with some simple re-designing. He said the fence will be CMU not chain link. He plans to seek an amendment to the PDO to allow flat roofs for commercial buildings. Also, he will likely seek to purchase any excess right-of-way from the State in order to meet the required setback. As another option, he asked if there is a variance or waiver possibility to the setback requirement. He also asked if landscaping can be clustered as Lot 1 lacks the required trees.
Mr. Snyder said there is a waiver process that can be explored with regard to the required setback. He also said staff is willing to work with the applicant on tree spacing.
Commissioner Ince asked about the standards for the underground fuel tank with regard to water table and earthquake safety. Mr. Lilyquist said Maverik uses a double walled fiberglass tank that is set with concrete anchors to ensure the tank does not float. The tanks are also monitored electronically at all times and have safety mechanisms in place to alert staff in the case of cracks or leaks. He said he does not have any earthquake safety information at this time but is happy to research and report back.
Chair Hirschi opened the public hearing. Seeing no one wishing to comment. Chair Hirschi closed the public hearing.
Commissioner Hirst made a motion for the Planning Commission to accept the conceptual site plan for the Maverik Convenience Store to be located at the southwest corner of 1250 West and Parrish Lane, with the following conditions:
Reasons for the Action (Findings):
The motion was seconded by Commissioner Ince and passed by unanimous roll-call vote (6-0).
PAUL HOLMES RESIDENTIAL BUILDING LOT | 150 EAST 200 SOUTH Consider a proposed final 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 previously received (March 25, 2015) a conceptual acceptance from the Planning Commission to create a buildable lot for a single-family home. This proposed property is not part of a platted subdivision. The applicant would like to sell the property as a developable lot. In order to do this, he must first receive approval from the City for development. Mr. Snyder reviewed the conditions of the conceptual approval. A majority of the conditions have been met. The building height will be determined as part of the building permit application process. The applicant will still be required to record all necessary easements and pay any additional fees as required. The proposed final site plan is in harmony with the conceptual site plan and meets all applicable zoning ordinances.
Reasons for the Action (Findings):
The motion was seconded by Commissioner Merrill and passed by unanimous roll-call vote (6-0).
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR’S REPORT
1. The next Planning Commission meeting will be Wednesday, May 13, 2015.
The meeting was adjourned at 10:00 p.m.