Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

Looks like we are all set to go. Okay, I'll call us to order. Welcome everybody uh to the Centerville Planning Commission for January 28th, 2026. Um we are going to do a quick roll call. I think of the people that were missing, it's uh Vice Chair Patterson and let's see, Commissioner Jorgensson's walking in. Oh, excellent. Just in time. We were just calling things to order for roll call and you'll be next on the agenda with your thought. Yeah. Um anyways, so we're missing Vice Chair and Commissioner Moss. Moss.

Moss. Commissioner Moss. Okay. So, um we will proceed with the uh legislative prayer and vot if you have one and then we'll go to the pledge of allegiance. Oh, okay. Well, then we will do a legislative prayer and I'll do it and then I'll we'll go the pledge of allegiance. Our father in heaven, we're very grateful to come together and to do the bit public's work here. We're very grateful for the blessings we have to live in this community. We're also grateful for the freedoms that we enjoy. We ask for thy spirit to bless us as we make these decisions. And we say this in the name of Jesus Christ. Amen. Amen. All right. If you'll all stand, please.

I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. So, we have three business items. The most important ones first. So, welcome Mr. Mendal. Thank you. Or, you know, Commissioner Mendenhal. I suppose you've graduated up. Um, but who who's is anybody going to do an intro?

I'll do a intro. Yeah. Yeah. So, um, Paul Menden Hall was ratified by the council upon the mayor's, uh, selection on the January 6th or during the January 6th, uh, city council meeting. Very excited to have him. I had a discussion with, uh, Commissioner Menden Hall. I think it was last Friday or Thursday for a little while. We talked about a lot of things, planning commission, gave him the planning commission training materials and things, given up to speed, got to know him. I think he's going to do great. He has had previous experience. if you're okay with me sharing that on the plan commission uh many decades ago. It's been a long time. Things have changed.

So, we had a very good discussion about about the history and about uh the the uh position opportunity and filling this role and I think he's going to be a great addition to the planning commission. He asked a lot of great questions. Um seems very interested in learning and getting caught up to speed. So hopefully you'll you'll welcome him the same way that with the same I guess excitement and and uh opportunity to get to know him in that capacity. So I think that's that's all I really have Paul. Hopefully that's enough. But uh I guess I'll turn it over to you. I think that's sufficient. I think that's well done. Do

you have anything you'd like to say? Should I I don't know that I have any I I mean my wife and I have lived in Centerville since 1973 and this is home. We love the community. We love the people and want to serve. Excellent. When did you serve on planning commission? Uh 1986 thereabouts. Nice. Welcome back. It's good to be back. It's all changed. felt different. Things have things have changed a lot in Centerville in that time frame.

Fair enough. Um well, we we all welcome you. Thank you. Um we're going to move on to uh agenda item two, public hearing on the zoning maps amendments for the packer property. Before we do that, I believe Mr. Mend or Commissioner Mendal, you want to do a quick disclosure? Just a just quickly uh just so you're aware I uh we remodeled our home twice and Spence has been our contractor in both cases. I don't think that that will be anything that I need to recluse myself on the matter for all of us tonight. Okay. Do any commissioners have an issue that they'd like to raise? Okay. We'll proceed to number two. Mr. Egget, are you leading out? Actually, it's Mr. Mr. Whis. Thank you. All right. Take the floor.

All right. Uh, as you guys know how I do my staff report. I hope that you guys have read it and I will give you a brief overview. So, the applicant Spencer Packer is requesting a zoning map amendment associated with the property uh currently zoned residential low. The owner is requesting to reszone the property to agriculture low. Um, basically what how all of this came about was that Spencer and his son came in um a couple months ago and wanted to figure out what they wanted to do with the property. They gave us that they wanted to put a barn on there and with the current zoning zoning code for an agriculture low property, having a barn or a shed on the property is permitted. Uh residential low, that's not permitted. a household hash to be on there. So, what we're looking to do is to reszone the front property so then it is permitted and then uh dissolving the property line in between at a later time and at a later date so then they can do what they want with the property. Um so with that once again we will just be strictly looking at the reszone in question. We're going to switch over to page three of the staff report for the code requirements and review of the analysis. Um, is the proposed amendment consistent with the goals, objectives, and policies of the general plan? Yes, for the current general plan and for the proposed general plan. Just as a reminder though that this should be a guiding document. It it um should be more so of a guiding document. Question number two, is the proposed zoning amendment harmonious with the overall character of the existing development in the vicinity of the septic property? I said yes. Per CZC 12.31 which is the agriculture zoning code the property would match the use

and standards of the applicability to all of the surrounding zones which even though they are residential low and agriculture low the use that uh the applicant is wanting to do that is it would be very much so aligned with the surrounding areas. Number three, what is the extent to which the proposed amendment may adversely affect the adjacent properties? Staff believes minimal to nothing at all. Most of the surrounding properties once again um are proposed um for this zone and the primarily primary use of the area would not change. Number four, what is the adequacy of facilities and services intended to serve this subject property? Uh this area already has utilities available. The only addition is the utility um the utility adjustments that may be adding some stubs into that property. Um but we will be reviewing that at the time of building and that's just a typical process that we do. So that's my brief overview of my staff report. Um if you have any questions, please feel free to ask me or um the applicant is also here today.

Perfect. Would you mind pulling up the map, please? Yeah, just the aerials. That works. So when you say that there's a parcel to the east, what's the parcel that Mr. Packer owns? So he owns this one right here, which is where the proposed shed. And then this is the subject property that we're reszoning. It's right on fourth west. Yeah.

So my my one concern was, you know, we're we're exacerbating a landlocked parcel. Um I'm just wondering if they were ever sever ownership in the future, what's to be done, if anything? So these parcels are going to be merged together eventually. That's the goal. But we don't have we the city don't aren't requiring that correct for the use that they if they want to follow up with having a barn or a shed on there then they will need to merge the parcels because of that very reason they need to have frontage which is why then we are reszoning to agriculture low

and that's I want just wanted to tease that out into the record and make sure we're understanding that. Um, right. Okay. Thank you. Anybody else have questions for staff? Yeah. Does does Centerville uh allow line consolidation and just like bypassing all of the reszoning? Is that something that Centerville does or allows? Chang changing the zoning

just instead of like Well, I guess maybe that's probably not an appropriate question. So, uh, one thing I was more not concerned about, like I I honestly don't see much of an issue with this at all, but in reading the zoning code, it says, and the way I interpret it, it says, "No accessory use, building, or structure shall be allowed on a lot or parcel unless a permitted or conditional use has been and is currently being established." Um, so he wants to build the the the barn first, but the way I interpret that is unless there is already an agricultural activity occurring, that's not allowed without a main building first. Does that make sense? Is that how it's interpreted or am I misunderstanding that? My interpretation of that is that because I'm and I'm and if I got this question beforehand, I would definitely be able to find it in the code, so bear with me on this, but I'm pretty sure that in an agriculture um zone, it specifically calls out that a barn andor agriculture use structure is permitted as primary use on an agriculture.

There's a second it's in 12.31.040B2. It's sent you read sentence one. So it's it's creating an opportunity for the pre-existing to continue existing. But then there's a second sentence that says this. An agricultural accessory building accessory to a permitted or conditional agricultural use of the water parcel may be constructed prior to a main building on any water parcel located with an agricultural zone. and that it has a minimum acre of 1/2 acre or larger. So that sentence holds on its own merit.

Okay. I mean, I guess that's kind of contradictoring contradicting itself where you know, it says that, but then where I read it's it's not allowed unless the conditional use or permit has been granted and is already established. So again, I I mean that's semantics kind of, but and that will be have to be analyzed when they come in for that building permit, but there are um special carveouts under state law for agricult agricultural uses and buildings. And so um that was why the recommendation to, you know, reszone this back to agriculture, then they could get to what they want to do.

Okay. But I agree if if both lots were zoned residential then it's a main residential use is what they would need. So the I think the agricultural zoning helps them overcome that under the code that Mr. Egg just read. Would the shed be able to be used for any any way other than I mean would it would they would they have a doicile there?

Needs to be agriculture. Yeah, it has to be an agricultural building in order to fall under that. So no, they can't use it to just store boats or other, you know, residential uses or commercial uses without that primary use. Centerville, if you have a residential lot, you can't just build a building or a shed or any or a garage and store stuff. You need that primary use, right? And nobody can live in this shed. Correct. Okay. Any other questions for staff? All right. Who's here for the applicant? Welcome, sir. If you'll state your name. Spencer Packer.

Welcome, Mr. 581 Valley Drive and have this property on Northwest. Um, I've held this property for a number of years and uh explored different ways and means of how I could utilize it. Currently, it's I use it as pasture ground and have horses on there that I rotate in and out depending on the feed and actually bail hay on the east parcel that's residential one. Um uh it was I think March uh not quite a year ago. I met with uh staff with uh Mike Egget and Lisa and Sydney and also the city manager and just reviewed uh what my goal was was to place an out building. I'd actually chatted with the previous uh development director, Mr. Snider and uh he opened the window of well you you know it's a you can build a building there before you build a house and uh that kind of set to where okay that's kind of the direction or goal I was uh going to try to achieve and uh then I came back and met with staff and reviewed what it would take to accomplish that and I didn't weigh so deep into the ordinances by Fine. I I did investigate with Mike just doing a lot line adjustment and not reszoning. And Mike uh gave me some state statutes and things that basically said that was a bigger Everest to climb than a reszone that was uh the suggested direction. Um, so that was the genesis of my application, wanting to reszone so I can put this barn out building in the back. So,

excellent. Thank you. Any one second. Anybody have questions for the applicant? I mean, do you continue to plan on using it like agriculturally for your horses and stuff like that? Is that its intended use going forward? Yes, I'll use the front pasture. I still need pasture.

Okay. um putting a building there and having things like horse trailers and I have a myriad of farm equipment and things um will reduce what my grazing is, but I I I do have an intent to put power there and water. I need year- round water obviously to maintain animals. So, those are elements I'm going to push forward as well. Any other questions? Do you already have water rights available there? I have secondary water right. Yes. And year round water, city water for your animals. Pardon? And that will be sufficient for your animals.

Not secondary water because it's seasonal. I need year round water. If I were to winter horses there, I currently don't. So, where do you plan to obtain those from? from the street from this parcel has street frontage. So the city water's available there and actually the um I I investigated utilities for future home. The uh sewer lateral actually is within the the my I'm going to say back of sidewalk uh in that particular location, right,

as well. So that's an easy access for sewer waters across the street. I've met with some contractors that talked about the process of that is likely boring to reach that utility and and I haven't determined yet where the gas is. Um so I'm looking at it as a stepping stone to the master plan which is to have the building in the back and then eventually a future home. And my goal there is not a sale home. Even though I'm in construction, this is a residence that I'm been planning to to build for myself. Uh at my age and Paul's age, single level living is quite some more attractive

both assuredly. Yeah. Excellent. Any other questions? Thank you, Mr. Becker. Mr. Chair, can I may I ask a question to Sydney? Yeah, go ahead. properties that that go behind the properties that front on 2025 north and front on 1950s that just that strip in there. What are those zoned currently? Are you agricultural that whole strip? Yes. Yep. So this is this is this is consistent with the zoning on all of those. We're not doing any kind of spot zoning for this. And thank you. Um, any other questions for staff or the applicant before I open things up?

Okay. So, I am going to open up the public hearing if anybody would like to provide comment. Uh, if you'll please come to the podium, state your name, your address, and your question or comment. Okay, seeing none, I'm going to close the public hearing and we'll bring it back to the commission for questions or discussion. Does anybody have any Okay. Well, then let's um consider a motion. Would anybody like to make a motion? I will make

Very good. uh for the planning commission to recommend city council approval of the zoning map amendment for the property located approximately at 1000 North 400 West known as parcel 07-072-0115 from residential low zoning to agricultural low zoning uh with the following findings for action 1 through 4. I'll second. So I have a first and a second on the table. Uh any further discussion? Okay, we'll start down here. I I I I I And that passes unanimously. Thank you.

Thank you. All right, moving on to item number three on the count. That is the zoning code and municipal code amendments for everybody's favorite, LMA chapter 20. Yay. Let's mix all the numbers. Take it. I'm assuming Lisa, you're going to lead out on this. Yes. There you go. Thank you. There you go.

The state legislature adopted in their first special session. So, they sort of snuck it in on us in October of last year um 10008, which completely reorganizes and renumbers the municipal land use code. And for those of us that have been dealing with it at 10-9A for 20 years, this is hard. It's rough.

This is so you right now, you just know, you know, chapter 8 is subdivisions this. And anyway, but that being said, I do think that they've made some good organizational changes, things, you know, as as codes develop, they would just put things at the end and they've moved those out. So, and then they've also made a separate chapter. they sort of pulled out the housing policies and affordable housing and put those in chapter 21. So, you may hear me still say title 10, chapter 9A. Um, we're just trying to catch ourselves now, though. This is the first step is going through our entire municipal code and zoning code to change all references um to rather than title 10 chapter 9A to title 10 chap uh chapter 20 and chapter 21 depending on the section that's been amended. So, um, it was quite a task until I found a provision, I guess, just on the league's website that they call it a crosswalk. And so, they were comparing where these were over to to all of these because if you look at the actual bill, they had the numbers. These are the ones that are amended, but then rather than putting them all in order, they're like, "Oh, but these are the ones that are, you know, repealed or, you know, just reumbered." So, it wasn't uh sequential. So anyway, um we're just proposing this to come into compliance with the new state numbering and um it does require a public hearing, but staff recommends that we approve these minor corrections to our municipal code and zoning code.

So I'm sure this is going to be a contankerous discussion, but I am going to bring it back to the commission. Does anybody have any issues? Can we deny it just for her sake? Unfortunately, hierarchy doesn't punch up. They just get to punch down. But we do agree. We have to please this out. Um I just obviously but u experiencing the same disorientation as Lisa. I I echo the concerns. However, I do not see any problem with agenda item three. I'll entertain a motion. We just have to have our public hearing.

Oh, yeah. Thank you. Okay. Okay. I am going to open this up for public hearing. Anybody who wishes to discuss the code amendment changes, please come to the podium, state your name, your address. Another one, your comment, and we'll wait seven seconds. That's what I do. Okay. All right. Seeing none, I'm going to close the public hearing. I'll bring it back to the commission for a motion. Make a motion to put it to file.

I'm sorry. It's just in the recommend report cover recommendation. That's where the the substance of the motion could be. Got to know what right before that. Right before that, I'll make a motion to recommend approval of ordinance number 2026-01 amending various proision provisions of the Centerville zoning code and the centerville municipal kono to address comprehensive reumbering of the Utah land use development and management act from title 10 chapter 9A of the Utah code to title 10 chapters 20 and 21. Nice. So be Yeah, go ahead. Oh, no, no, no. Go ahead. I just I second.

Okay. So I have a first and a second on the table. Um my question for you, Lisa, is um sometimes when we do these things, we allow staff's scriveners power to, you know, make modest changes. Yes. Is there an error? No, no, no, no. I'm just saying like as as you're going through, I can imagine with all of this, there's the potential for things like style, edit, commas, you know, just stuff like that. I'd like to add to the motion that staff has scrivener's powers to just adjust things to make them smooth and appropriate. Yes, I appre Yes. Okay. So, that's my amendment to the motion if you're willing to add that to your motion. I'm willing to friendly amendment and Mr. Second. Are you okay with that? I am okay with that.

Okay. So, the amended motion would basically say the same thing and that staff be delegated scrier's powers to make adjustments. Thank you. Um and then I am ready for a call on the motion. Yes. I I I I All right, that passes unanimously. We are moving rapidly forward to the commissioner or the community development report.

Thank you. Um just wanted to let you know that with tonight's recommendations, one or both of those will be at the city council meeting obviously Tuesday. We'll move those forward. And then um the meeting that we have next in February, what date is that? February. I don't know the date. The following one is that what's the first meeting in February? Anyway, the second

Oh, I can't think. February 10th. There you go. February. No, 11th. At any rate, we have where I was going is we have uh an applicant who will likely be bringing an item for a a proposed or requested um zoning code text amendment. So, just that kind of give you a highlight, but that is the only item we have on the upcoming agenda. The other thing I would note is that the legislative policy committee is fully in session.

So, if you haven't had a chance to pay attention to what's going on, you should. Um there are there are things that do affect land use that are being negotiated and um one of those things is is something that we will I don't know do we bring would we bring woo we to this body as well probably um if it impacts the zoning or subdivision ordinance but if it's just the municipal code it would not we do have to adopt some amendments for that

that's where I was going at any rate we also as part of discussing legislation and the reason I tied to LPC because the legislative of the legislature is looking at even more amendments to a bill that was passed last last year, HB48 of 2025, which requires wire wildland urban interface mapping and ordinance revisions to be added to city codes. So, be watching for that. It may not come to this body, but it is something at least worth watching even if it just goes to the the city council. be aware of every city in the state of Utah is has either engaged in this process or is engaging in this process and then they're already talking about revisions to it with this current session. So um other things that they're talking about with the current legislative session is uh they are talking about um different variations on ADUs. There is some discussion about detached ADUs. So we'll see where that goes. Um trying to think if there's anything else really highlight on I know uh I know Representative Ward has a bill that's that's being scrutinized um regarding smaller lots in on traditional residential lots regardless of the zoning code lot size. So you can look at that one. Um trying to think if there's any others that I missed. At any rate, I'm I'm not an encyclopedia of all of them. I couldn't be with how many come through day in and day out, but I highly recommend that you try to pay attention to different variations of categories if there's things you look at. Even even um there are some things relative to as you've probably seen in the news, tax codes relative to how city assessments on taxes will be be looked at and there's different levels of scrutiny and a lot of different funding bills that are being looked at that the league is following. So,

is that the one that's going to impose or allegedly oppose or wants to impose the 5% cap? There's that one. That's one. And then the other is the 6545 with commercial and residential. So, but I didn't see one where ConX's can be tiny homes. So, there's that. We're not there yet. But, you know, without speculating too much, if we did have smaller lot sizes, who know? I know, right? What are you going to fit there? Double stack a ConX container. Oh, it's it's tough to think about. But anyway, it's efficient.

Yeah. And so, we're It's been a week that we're on the second week. Um, so just very much I would recommend paying attention as much as you're able to accomplish with how much is out there. Just be aware what's coming. Uh, there there's quite a bit of of highlighting. You can go to the Utah League of Cities and Towns website. They have a tracker and that will give you some highlights of of bills that maybe would be more relevant to cities, but even as the resident of the community, you know, there may be things that that might be applicable to you as even a homeowner and a community member. So that's all I would say in plugging that conversation. Other than that, I don't have any other comments at this time unless you have questions for me. Thank you. No, thanks for keeping the pulse on it, especially given how chaotic things are.

Oh, it's I usually wait till the last day. Absolutely. You know, that's when the real business. That's when the real happens and even then. Um, okay. Thank you very much, Mr. Egot. Let's move on to the minutes. Um, I reviewed those.

Excellent. Um there are some additional proposed uh additions to the minutes that we we would like to consider. If I could, chair and planning commission. Um, typically staff doesn't amend many of the minutes, but I thought since this was an important um, decision forwarded to the city council on the general plan and very lengthy. I relistened to the video and it was about a 45 to 50 minute motion. Yeah.

So, we had a motion and then we added some things. So anyway, I I am suggesting that the planning commission consider adding the following and this is to the main motion when commissioner care added two things. It was a friendly amendment that was accepted. So it would say commissioner Hoth accepted a friendly amendment to the motion by chair care to clarify that the version of the proposed amendments is the version referred to the planning commission most recently from the consultants. point number one and also adding a delegation between now and when it appears for consideration by the city council that mechanical changes can be made by staff including such things as formatting, scribers errors and factual remedying. So I think it's important to add that second point because we did talk extensively about well what about this chart and what about that and I think the direction from the planning commission was well

we think those are all formatting like if there's a number that's wrong then fix it. Um so those are all encompassed under that comment. We did also talk about the active transportation comment recommended by staff but that was picked up in um the amendment. So, I'd like to go to the other suggested changes on Vice Chair Patterson's amendment to the motion, which said because the original motion just said we move this on, we forward a positive recommendation to the city council with the noted advice provided by the planning commission. So, I did relisten and that's what was said. So, it didn't give a lot of direction. So, then the amendment is really where most of the direction came from. And this is after the 45m minute conversation. Uh, Vice Chair Patterson moved to amend the motion and I'm suggesting that we add to modify the recommendation to indicate that there are specific categories being called out by the planning commission based on written and verbal public comments and that these categories should be emphasized for more detailed review by the city council, including the following specific categories. So, I think that in a more helpful way to the city council says these are the sections that we think are important because of all of this public comment um that we want to look at these and then

in listening we don't have to add these parentheticals but in listening to the recap of the motion this is actually verbatim where it was said you know for instance on Parish Lane and then the suggested changes it was said needs to be re-evaluated based upon written verbal public comment Same thing on the west side, same thing on the town center. Um, and then chart B,

the corrections we wanted there, which again I think is helpful to the council said, make sure it's conforming to fact and accurate organizational structure because there were multiple issues there where some of the numbers were not accurate, but then also it said something like, well, this is the the resident's number one priority when really it was number three. So anyway, trying to get more detail, but that's what was said. Same thing with housing. Um and then just stating on this active transportation plan that it needs to be re-evaluated pursuant to the staff recommendations which um I think were earlier in the minutes. Yeah. So, I I suggest I I rarely suggest amendments, but again, these I think are important to um reiterate that the planning commission struggled with the you know, all of the public comment and you know what they wanted to forward to the council, but basically they did say we want you to focus on these eight topics at a minimum.

Nice work. Yep. Yeah, I agree. I think that's helpful. They're still going to have to go back and watch the video probably. There was there was a lot there. But I mean, this is this is a great road map and we will forward all the public comment to the council as well, including the one that was excluded at the planning commission because it was untimely, right? They'll see that. Right. Okay. So, um, aside from staff's suggested revisions, does anybody else want to walk through the other parts of the minutes to make any revisions or suggestions? I think we just add these.

Sure. But before we do that, I want like pages one or Yeah. No, that's fair. Anybody else have any additional I had no other see anything else. Okay. As always, staff, you guys are doing a great job on them. This is this is helpful. So, I'll make a motion. I move that we um amend the minutes as indicated in the handout that's been provided to us, the red line handout, so that those then become the accurate minutes um as amended. I will second that motion. Okay, I have a motion and a second. Any further conversation? All right, I'll take um just a poll from here. I I I

And I'm going to abstain because I wasn't at the meeting. So fair. Yeah. Thank you, Commissioner Mendenhal. And so that then is a four four nil or whatever four dash. All right. I think we have arrived. I'll take a motion. Ajourn. Okay. I'll make a motion to adjurnn. Uh all those in favor say Oh, yes. I'll second it. All those in favor say I. I. Any opposed? Stay in your seat. I eat up you.