NOTICE OF MEETING AND AGENDA

PLANNING COMMISSION AUGUST 11, 2020 AT 7:00 P.M.

City Council Chambers 110 South Main Street

Springville, Utah 84663

The Commissioners will meet for a briefing of the regular session agenda items at 7:00 p.m. This will be a public meeting; however, no testimony will be heard, and no action will be taken on the agenda items. The regular session will follow immediately after the briefing meeting. The agenda will be as follows:

Call to Order

• Approval of the Agenda

• Approval of Minutes: June 23 and July 14, 2020

Consent Agenda The Consent Agenda includes items that are administrative actions where no additional discussion is needed. When approved, the recommendations in the staff reports become the action of the Commission. A call for objection or comment will be made on the consent agenda items. If there is any opposition or comment, the item will be taken off the consent agenda and put on the regular administrative session meeting agenda for discussion. If there are no objections or comments, the item(s) will pass without further consideration

1. Commercial Site Plan Approval for the Springville Tennis Center located at 2069 W 1150 N in the

HC-Highway Commercial Zone. Legislative Session — Public Hearing Administrative Session

2. Discussion regarding Westfields Central Zone. 3. Planning Commission Training

Adjournment

THIS AGENDA SUBJECT TO CHANGE WITH A MINIMUM OF 24-HOURS NOTICE

This meeting was noticed in compliance with Utah Code 52-4-202 on August 7, 2020. Agendas and minutes are accessible through the Springville City website at www.springville.org/agendas-minutes. Planning Commission meeting agendas are available through the Utah Public Meeting Notice website at www.utah.gov/pmn/index.html. Email subscriptions to Utah Public Meeting Notices are available through their website. In compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act, the City will make reasonable accommodations to ensure accessibility to this meeting. If you need special assistance to participate in this meeting, please contact the Community Development department at (801) 491-7861 at least three business days prior to the meeting.

Approved Date: Draft Minutes Date of Meeting: June 23, 2020

Page 1 of 8

MINUTES Planning Commission

Work Session Tuesday, June 23, 2020

IN ATTENDANCE Commissioners Present: Chair Brad Mertz, Genevieve Baker, Frank Young, Karen Ellingson, Michael Farrer Rod Parker and Kay Heaps City Staff: Josh Yost, Community Development Director John Penrod, City Attorney Heather Bakker, Executive Assistant City Council: Matt Packard

CALL TO ORDER Chair Mertz called the meeting to order at 7:05 p.m.

DISCUSSION OF AGENDA Chair Mertz asked if there were any corrections to the agenda. There were no corrections to the agenda. DISCUSSION OF MINUTES May 26, 2020 Chair Mertz asked if there were any corrections to the minutes. There were some typographical corrections emailed before the meeting and the changes will be made. He encouraged the Commissioners to send corrections to minutes in advance of the meeting.

CONSENT AGENDA No Items

LEGISLATIVE SESSION No Items

Approved Date: Draft Minutes Date of Meeting: June 23, 2020

Page 2 of 8

ADMINISTRATIVE SESSION No Items

With nothing further to discuss, Commissioner Heaps moved to adjourn the briefing meeting. Commissioner Baker seconded the motion. The vote to adjourn the briefing meeting was unanimous. Chairman Mertz adjourned the meeting at 7:11 p.m.

Approved Date: Draft Minutes Date of Meeting: June 23, 2020

Page 3 of 8

MINUTES

Planning Commission Regular Session

Tuesday, June 23, 2020 IN ATTENDANCE Commissioners Present: Chair Brad Mertz, Genevieve Baker, Frank Young, Karen Ellingson, Michael Farrer Rod Parker and Kay Heaps City Staff: Josh Yost, Community Development Director John Penrod, City Attorney Heather Bakker, Executive Assistant City Council: Matt Packard

CALL TO ORDER Chair Mertz called the meeting to order at 7:11 p.m.

APPROVAL OF THE AGENDA Commissioner Farrer moved to approve the agenda as written. Commissioner Baker seconded the motion. The vote to approve the agenda was unanimous.

APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES May 26, 2020

Commissioner Baker moved to approve the May 26, 2020 meeting minutes. Commissioner Heaps seconded the motion. The vote to approve the meeting minutes was unanimous.

CONSENT AGENDA No Items LEGISLATIVE SESSION: No Items

Approved Date: Draft Minutes Date of Meeting: June 23, 2020

Page 4 of 8

ADMINISTRATIVE SESSION

1. Presentation/discussion of the Main Street South Gateway Zone in preparation for a public hearing next month

Director Yost presented. He gave a timeline of the Allen’s block planning process. He clarified unfamiliar terms in the proposed design standards. He stated that design is as important or more key than location and use.

Per Commissioner Farrer’s request, Mr. Yost showed several examples of design

standards and how they work, as he went through the Title 11, Chapter 4, Article 7 –

MAIN STREET SOUTH GATEWAY ZONE draft ordinance with the Commissioners.

The Commissioners discussed the following: Commissioner Baker expressed concern about the amount of specificity in the language and leaving too much ambiguity. In regards to design standards, Commissioner Baker said a closed rolling door looking imposing. Mr. Yost said that in its closed position, it would have to meet all the regulations. A roll up door would need to be primarily glass with framing that has man doors in it. Chair Mertz asked if it would be helpful to put language in about a backlit sign. Mr. Yost said that internally illuminated means that to him, but the language could be changed. Commissioner Baker said in regards to pedestrian building entrances, it states it has to be a man door; it cannot be a garage door. Mr. Yost confirmed that it must meet the requirements that state it has direct access into an interior enclosed commercial tenant space, public lobby or residential unit. He added that town homes are not allowed to be loaded across a sidewalk. They must be alley loaded or interior parking lot loaded. Commissioner Ellingson asked if paint is prohibited, such as seasonal paint. Mr. Yost

said no.

Commissioner Baker asked about stained glass and if it is allowed at a certain percent.

Mr. Yost discussed that it would be good to look into adding stained glass or art glass

into the ordinance stating what would be allowed and at what percentage.

Mr. Yost covered balcony requirements. Commissioner Baker asked about potted plants

and if they would they be considered décor or storage. Mr. Yost said he would consider

it décor, unless someone grew a forest of climbing plants, which could be a problem.

Commissioner Baker asked if people are prevented from having something that

protrudes on balconies. Mr. Yost stated that the ordinance can get more prescriptive

and delineate that everything on the balcony needs to stay within the footprint of the

balcony or behind wall plane or railing. Commissioner Ellingson pointed out that may

Approved Date: Draft Minutes Date of Meeting: June 23, 2020

Page 5 of 8

prohibit flags and Christmas decorations, which are not bad. Commissioner Heaps &

Mertz feels that it is OK as written. Commissioner Baker agreed.

Commissioner Heaps asked about enforcement. Mr. Yost answered that enforcement

could happen by City Code Enforcement, because it is part of our code, or by the rental

contract or community covenants.

Commissioner Young expressed that mechanical equipment shouldn’t need to be

screened if it is not visible from a street or adjacent street frontages.

Commissioner Ellingson asked about fiber based panel brick like on the building across from Walgreens. There are veneer bricks that are very good, so we want to be careful about not allowing those. Not fully mandating that it has to be full coarse laid brick, but he will research and see how other localities have regulated them. Thin brick is a natural, fired clay product, it is just thin. Commissioner Young added that they use it at UVU all the time and it is a good product. Commissioner Ellingson asked about painted brick. Mr. Yost said that for new construction, he wouldn’t make a mandate for that, but for the Historic District, he would say never. Thin brick is also employed because it significantly reduces the structural engineering requirements on the building. We want to have some flexibility with that as long as we are getting a good result. Mr. Yost stated that stucco or EIFS is proposed to be limited to 10% of façade area on street facing facades. It may not be used on the ground floor of any street facing façade. It does not hold up at street level. Commissioner Heaps asked if there is any value at all if not having EFIS at all on Main Street. Mr. Yost said that it exists and is on historic buildings. He wouldn’t mind losing it all together. Commissioner Heaps suggested not allowing it on Main Street or 4th South. He doesn’t want to be too restrictive, just feels that it would be classier. Commissioner Mertz said where it is limited to 10%, that it would be just for edges. Commissioner Young said that it is just to smooth finish and looks like plaster. He is good with 10%. Commissioner Ellingson asked if the drive entries would apply along the back of townhomes, because it is still public area. Mr. Yost said on the alley loaded side where the garage doors are, he wouldn’t want to mandate it there, but if the townhome faces a courtyard or paseo or pedestrian walkway, on the primary façade and frontage, they would need to meet the requirements. Commissioner Farrer asked about walkways for retail to get to the front of the store and if they will they have entrances to the back of the store as well. Mr. Yost said that they could if they desired it. He doesn’t want it to be a necessity, as it takes up floor space. Commissioner Baker pointed out where it says maximum lot coverage for all buildings is 90%. Mr. Yost said that does not apply and this section is not finished and being looked into internally. We are working on changes to height recommendations which changes the site area ratios and stepped requirements on open space for smaller lots.

Approved Date: Draft Minutes Date of Meeting: June 23, 2020

Page 6 of 8

Commissioner Baker asked if the foundation plantings part of the 800 square feet and if they could have no plantings and use the entire 800 square feet for the building. Mr. Yost said it could be that way. There is a required five-foot setback across from residential, unless it is on 300 South across the street, then it can be zero. Technically it couldn’t because you almost always have stairs, and have to mediate between private and public space, and that is hard to do at a zero-foot setback. Commissioner Baker asked about Line 41 ‘The Planning Commission may approve increased setbacks.’ She feels that this means the Commission always has to say yes. Mr. Yost said that is why is says ‘may approve’, not shall, and is based on compliance with the following standards, so the Commissioners are not making arbitrary decisions. Commissioner Ellingson added that it gives the Commissioners flexibility to review. Mr. Yost stated that the Commissioners can make findings as to how the applicant meets the criteria. It depends on how the Planning Commission sets up the regulation. And staff would make their recommendation. Mr. Yost is going to add ‘each’ so it says ‘each of the following standards’. And he will review with Mr. Penrod to make sure he is comfortable with the objectivity of this criteria. It does say may, but we will look at it. Commissioner Heaps spoke about building heights and talked about the Holladay Market. He recently took a tour of it with the Mayor of Holladay and the developer. He found it very attractive and nice. He didn’t think we would duplicate it, but it helped him see the height value. Maybe it would be beneficial to max out at 3 stories or 40 feet, or 30 feet or 2 stories. Commissioner Baker pointed out there is a provision for curb floor height on line 102. Mr. Yost said that for commercial it is 14 foot clear first floor and all upper floors are 9 feet. It is not possible to get more than 2 stories in 30 feet. Mr. Yost said that they are changing ordinance in Holladay to allow 3 stories. Commissioner Young asked why 40 feet is the limit. Mr. Yost explained that 40 feet is the recommendation from City Council, not the recommendation from staff. The majority of the council wants it to be lower. Commissioner Baker asked what the height of the Pier 49 Pizza building is. Mr. Yost said it is 30 plus feet. Commissioner Heaps thinks it is going to look OK with 3 stories and it would have a hard time with it if it went higher. Adding the extra story, it helps the developers. Mr. Yost explained there is a fear that it will feel enclosed if it is taller, but it will feel more hospitable with the additional height. Mr. Yost said 300 South would be a good festival street. It could be drivable, but primarily for people. Commissioner Heaps would like to see a gathering place people to have fun, maybe have food trucks. Commissioner Ellingson agrees. She wants to make this area more pedestrian friendly. Commissioner Heaps asked about the Land Use Table, what is permitted and not, specifically assisted living. Mr. Yost said it has been struck from the newest version. He asked if independent living is still included. Mr. Yost said that it is, because it is an economically viable use, that provides income and feasibility to a project, and brings

Approved Date: Draft Minutes Date of Meeting: June 23, 2020

Page 7 of 8

active, healthy, higher income seniors to a place that needs people on the street. It provides equity where people of all ages and abilities can live. Provides vibrancy, diversity and economic feasibility. Commissioner Heaps thinks that there won’t be much interest in independent living without the assisted living component. Commissioner Farrer thinks there will be a lot of interest in that use. Mr. Yost stated that is a valid point. Without the ability to have a continuum of care, for a transitional basis, an independent living facility is not licensed under the State to provide that additional care, it does decrease the feasibility of the use. Commissioner Heaps asked about dwelling for publicly owned subsidized housing and if we must have that provision in the ordinance. Mr. Yost said it is hard to say no to. It is a protected class. We have to put it in. He explained that If people are allowed to live there, we have to allow people over age 65. Mr. Penrod confirmed that it is a protected class and must be allowed. Commissioner Baker asked since this says the area of 400 South and Main, does that consider Walgreens and surrounding that are included in the zone and could this be applied to all four corners and somewhat to the South. Mr. Yost stated that after we got through the process to adopt a zone, either the City or the developer could apply for a zone map amendment to apply it. This process we are doing now will not re-zone any property. Each time a property is to be rezoned, it will come back to the Planning Commission to make a recommendation for City Council. We are anticipating that it is tailored to the South gateway. Commissioner Baker said that there could now be properties alternating zones within the South gateway. If the Planning Commission made a recommendation to the City Council, they could approve a rezone. Applying this zone in the area as it is meant to be used, will not require them to have a General Plan amendment. This zone is compatible with the General Plan map for the area. Commissioner Baker asked about minimum parking stall requirements. Mr. Yost said that the parking section in Title 11 is where that is addressed.

2. Planning Commission meeting start time discussion Chair Mertz asked the Commissioners what they thought about adjusting the meeting schedule start time. Commissioner Baker asked Director Yost when he has Council Work Session. He stated it is on the second Tuesday from 5:30 to 7:00 pm. Mr. Yost also pointed out the public participation considerations and that holding the meeting at 7:00 p.m. allows more people to attend. Commissioner Farrer suggested meeting at 6:00 for training time. Chair Mertz mentioned that switching times can be confusing. Mr. Yost agreed. The Commissioners agreed to leave the meeting at 7:00 p.m. and revisit this in the fall.

3. Training

Approved Date: Draft Minutes Date of Meeting: June 23, 2020

Page 8 of 8

Chair Mertz moved to postpone training to another meeting. The vote to postpone the training portion of this meeting was unanimous. With nothing further to discuss, Commissioner Ellingson moved to adjourn the meeting. Commissioner Young seconded the motion. Chair Mertz adjourned the meeting at 9:21 p.m.

Approved Date: Draft Minutes Date of Meeting: July 14, 2020

Page 1 of 16

MINUTES Planning Commission

Work Session Tuesday, July 14 2020

IN ATTENDANCE Commissioners Present: Chair Brad Mertz, Genevieve Baker, Frank Young, Karen Ellingson, Michael Farrer, Rod Parker and Kay Heaps City Staff: Josh Yost, Community Development Director John Penrod, City Attorney Heather Bakker, Executive Assistant City Council: Matt Packard

CALL TO ORDER Chair Mertz called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m.

DISCUSSION OF AGENDA Chair Mertz asked if there were any corrections to the agenda. There were no corrections to the agenda. DISCUSSION OF MINUTES No Minutes

CONSENT AGENDA No Items

LEGISLATIVE SESSION

1. Springville Community Development requests amendment of Springville City Code Title 11, Chapter 4, Article 3, Section 1, Land Use Matrix, and adoption of Title 11, Chapter 4, Article 7 – Main Street South Gateway Zone.

2. Springville Community Development requests amendment of the zoning map for parcels

06:005:0001, 06:005:0002, 06:005:0003, 06:005:0004, 06:005:0006, 06:005:0007, and 06:005:0008, constituting Block 5, Plat A, Springville City Survey, and bounded by Main Street, 100 West, 300 South, and 400 South; from the Community Commercial (CC) Zone to the Main Street South Gateway (MSSG) Zone.

ADMINISTRATIVE SESSION Chair Mertz called the briefing meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. He mentioned this is a chance to commissioners to get basic information and to ask clarifying questions regarding the regular

Approved Date: Draft Minutes Date of Meeting: July 14, 2020

Page 2 of 16

meeting agenda. He asked if there were any questions regarding the agenda or for staff members. There were none. Chair Mertz turned the time to Commissioner Heaps and provided copies of information from Commissioner Heaps to staff. Commissioner Heaps thanked staff for putting the packet together. He indicated that there was some rationale and recommendations regarding building height. Community Development Director, Josh Yost requested that this topic be discussed during the regular meeting. Commissioner Young motioned to close the briefing session. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Baker. The motion passed unanimously. Chair Mertz adjourned the work session meeting at 7:04 p.m.

Approved Date: Draft Minutes Date of Meeting: July 14, 2020

Page 3 of 16

MINUTES

Planning Commission Regular Session

Tuesday, July 14, 2020 IN ATTENDANCE Commissioners Present: Chair Brad Mertz, Genevieve Baker, Frank Young, Karen Ellingson, Michael Farrer Rod Parker and Kay Heaps City Staff: Josh Yost, Community Development Director John Penrod, City Attorney Heather Bakker, Executive Assistant City Council: Matt Packard CALL TO ORDER Chair Mertz called the meeting to order at 7:04 p.m.

APPROVAL OF THE AGENDA Commissioner Farrer moved to approve the agenda as written. Commissioner Heaps seconded the motion. The vote to approve the agenda was unanimous.

APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES Chair Mertz indicated there were no minutes to approve but he had requested the last draft minutes from the meeting this agenda item was last discussed to be provided to the Planning Commission. CONSENT AGENDA No Items LEGISLATIVE SESSION:

1. Springville Community Development requests amendment of Springville City Code Title 11, Chapter 4, Article 3, Section 1, Land Use Matrix, and adoption of Title 11, Chapter 4, Article 7 – Main Street South Gateway Zone.

Chair Mertz invited Josh Yost, Community Development Director to present. Mr. Yost explained that they have two agenda items: Consideration of incorporating a new zoning district into the code and the application of this zoning district onto a piece of property. He mentioned he would discuss both applications together. Each application will require a separate motion and vote. Mr. Yost mentioned the City Council prioritized planning for the Allens block prior to him starting with the city last year. They have drafted a new zone and this will be the fourth meeting before the Planning Commission. They have met four times with the City Council as well. He stated that

Approved Date: Draft Minutes Date of Meeting: July 14, 2020

Page 4 of 16

no application has been received regarding the Allens block. The Planning Commission will not be voting on any specific development proposal or J.B. Earl Company’s concept. Mr. Yost then overviewed the zone’s purpose statement and highlighted that the zone’s intent is to create unique places of lasting value. They hope the zone will provide vibrant and intense quality development. A wide range of uses are proposed to be mixed vertically and horizontally. Proposed building forms are reflective of traditional downtowns and will incorporate traditional materials. This zone will promote large scale development on the Allens block and redevelopment in other areas. Appropriate transition is required to existing residential uses. He overviewed numerical standards of the proposed code and compared these standards with standards located in the existing zoning code covering the Allens block. Standards Proposed Main Street South

Gateway Zone Existing CC Zone

Minimum Lot Size 2,500 sf or 800 sf for townhomes

20,000 sf

Minimum Lot Width 25 feet or 20 feet for a townhome

50 feet

Maximum Lot Coverage

60%-90% 50%

Minimum Landscape Area

5% 10%

Maximum Height 40 feet for 25% of Main Street and 4th South block faces and 30 feet for the remaining portions of those block faces. Height will decrease incrementally as this zone approaches neighboring zones.

45 feet for 50% of the block area, with no transitional requirements

Maximum Stories 3 stories in 40-foot zone and 2 stories in 30-foot zone

Two stories of residential over one story of commercial. A building containing only residential may have four stores but is still limited to 45 feet in height.

Maximum Residential Units

Limited by height and parking standards.

No unit limit

Commissioner Young asked how large the Allen’s block is. Mr. Yost responded that it is 3.9 acres, about 412 feet square. Commissioner Baker asked what the minimum lot size and width is in the Town Center District. Mr. Yost commented it is substantially less and mentioned he would check. Commissioner Heaps stated that it also calls to raise the height as the block transitions back to 400 South and Main Street.

Approved Date: Draft Minutes Date of Meeting: July 14, 2020

Page 5 of 16

Mr. Yost replied that 40 feet is the maximum height but in instances where the block front is limited to 30 feet in height, once you step back to a certain distance, a height of 40 feet is allowed. Commissioner Baker asked if 30 feet would be the maximum height on 100 West and 300 South. Mr. Yost stated that this is correct and that the transitional requirement for frontages along 300 South is 30 feet for 50 feet South of the property line. On 100 West, between 0-20 feet, the maximum height is 30 feet, and from 20-70 feet, building height can extend to 40 feet. Between 20-75 feet you would draw a line and would not be able to extend above this plane. Commissioner Ellingson inquired about the height of the Reynolds Building. Mr. Yost stated that it is 53 feet to the top of the parapet. He indicated that the existing CC zone permits a height of 45 feet for 50% of the block area with no transitional requirements. Commissioner Baker asked how high the bell tower is on the city center. Mr. Yost mentioned that according to Troy, its 45 feet in height. Commissioner Baker asked what the maximum number of units that could be built on the block. Mr. Yost responded that there are too many variables with unit size, number of bedrooms and unit configuration. He mentioned if units were 800 square feet to 1,000 square feet then they could build around 150 units. He mentioned that if surfaced parking was used, then the number of units would be substantially less. Underground parking is difficult to construct. Commissioner Baker asked if there is a limit to a unit’s square footage. Mr. Yost indicated that it would be limited by the building code, which may be around 200 square feet Mr. Yost stated that the proposed zone allows for stand-alone residential on frontages other than Main Street and at least 60 feet from the corner on 400 South. He mentioned that senior independent living will be permitted up to 20% of the total area’s units. Assisted living will not be permitted. Commissioner Heaps asked if the 20% of the total units is in regards to the total block. Mr. Yost said that it is an area with a radius of 1,000 feet centered on the intersection of 400 S and Main. This would comprise an area of approximately four blocks. Commissioner Baker asked if there was already 20% senior independent living units in the area would a developer be restricted from constructing more. Mr. Yost responded that they would have to build a commensurate number of other units in order to build more senior independent living units. He explained that these units are not permitted in the current CC zone but assisted living is allowed. He mentioned that there are very few lots in the CC zone that meet the 50-foot width or 20,000 square feet lot size requirements. Commissioner Baker asked if a new business coming into the downtown needs to contain at least 20,000 square feet of floor area. Mr. Yost clarified that this standard is for lot size and not interior building square footage. Mr. Yost commented that the new Main Street South Gateway Zone would make the existing buildings on the site nonconforming. The nonconforming ordinance indicates that nonconforming building may be enlarged or altered provided the proposed changes are in

Approved Date: Draft Minutes Date of Meeting: July 14, 2020

Page 6 of 16

conformance with the current zone. Any work beyond maintenance would need to move the buildings towards compliance with the current zone. Substantial structure and design changes would be required. The point of the code is to allow the buildings to be used but to encourage gradual conformance over time. Ms. Baker asked if changes only apply to the exterior of the building or would they apply to interior changes. Mr. Yost indicated that the word “altered” in the code is up to interpretation. He does not believe an interior improvement would meet this threshold. Ms. Baker asked if this property was not changed would the buildings still be nonconforming. Mr. Yost indicated there are elements of the site that are nonconforming such as landscaping and parking. He believes the existing buildings are conforming to the current code. The CC zone does not have any design standards. Ms. Baker asked if the buildings were remodeled would the parking and landscaping need to be brought into conformance. Mr. Yost indicated that they would need to analyze this. Commissioner Heaps asked if the nonconforming standards would apply only if 100% of the value of the building was modified. Mr. Yost commented there are several different types of nonconforming ordinances and some have a percentage of change or value threshold, if met, would trigger a requirement to come into compliance. He indicated that if a building is not used for a certain amount of time, then the nonconforming rights would go away. He mentioned that now this zone would be limited to the Allen’s block. Commissioner Baker asked if the zone would only be applied to the Allen’s Block. Mr. Yost stated that she was correct. The 20%-unit requirement calculation would apply to the area designated by the 1,000-foot radius. Mr. Yost indicated that he will now review the zoning uses. He directed the Planning Commission to his PowerPoint reflecting the proposed use matrix. He mentioned the row highlighted contains the proposed uses. He provided the following information:

• A “P” is being placed under the Main Street column with a superscript 5 which notes the 1,000-radius requirement.

• General retail, up to 80,000 square feet is permitted. Only 40,000 square feet is permitted in the CC district. Staff believes that 80,000 square feet could be an appropriate use on the ground floor in this district.

Commissioner Baker asked how many floors of commercial are allowed under the new zone. Mr. Yost stated that commercial could be built with three floors up to 40 feet in height and a six-foot parapet. Commercial stories are much taller than residential buildings which would make it difficult to get four floors. Commissioner Heaps asked for clarification on what the P’s and C’s mean. Mr. Yost explained that “P” means permitted use. A permitted use is allowed by-right as long as the standards of the ordinance are met. A “C” is a conditional use, which is not much different than a permitted use. Conditional uses are allowed by right if any adverse effects of the use can be mitigated. A conditional use is not discretionary. Commissioner Baker mentioned that anything 80,000 square feet and above is a conditional use now in the CC Zone. Mr. Yost indicated that this was correct and the proposal would be to limit the square footage to 80,000 square feet.

Approved Date: Draft Minutes Date of Meeting: July 14, 2020

Page 7 of 16

Commissioner Baker asked what the square footage of the Allens store is. Mr. Yost responded that it is 50,000 square feet and the total on site square footage is 70,000 square feet. All stores are considered general retail and there is no mechanism to restrict one store over another.

• Food and Beverage Service allows bars and taverns as conditional uses. Bed and breakfasts, brew restaurants, restaurants, cafes, and fast food establishments are permitted uses.

• Drive-ins and drive throughs are not permitted.

• Dancehalls, indoor recreation, fitness facilities, sports clubs, roller rinks and theaters are permitted.

• He overviewed a diagram showing the 1,000-radius area for senior independence units. The radius does pick up a large chunk of the Fox Ridge Project.

Mr. Yost explained that staff’s recommendation is to allow a 50-foot maximum with a 40-foot secondary height. There is not a limitation on the number of floors. However, there is a minimum floor to ceiling height. Commercial ground floor is 14 feet and the minimum floor to floor for residential is nine feet. A 50-foot height would limit the number of stories to four. A parapet and screening wall of six feet is permitted. He mentioned the City Council in their last meeting asked staff to present to the Planning Commission a maximum height of 40 feet and alternate height of 30 feet with a 75:25 ratio along with a maximum floor limit of three stories in the 40 feet area and two stories in the 30-foot areas. These suggestions are provided in the recommended motion. He referenced the Reynolds Building and indicated it is 53 feet high with three stories and the Pier 49 Pizza building is 36 feet to the top of the pinnacle and contains two stories. The high floor to ceiling floors is characteristic of buildings in downtown. Mr. Yost overviewed information regarding findings from studies that demonstrate a consistent relationship between enclosures and comfort and safety. He mentioned that Reid Ewing, professor at the University of Utah, described this idea as “Creating a room-like outdoor space surrounding by vertical elements or buildings.” He then showed photos of Pioneer Courthouse Square in Portland and mentioned that this public square functions well because it is located in an environment which creates an enclosure and has active edges along the enclosure. He mentioned the literature has varying theories by planners of what the ideal ratio is. The best research shows that the optimal height to width ratio is a 1:2. He stated that Main Street is 132 feet wide. A 1:2-foot ration would mean having a building height of 66 feet. The same research shows that the space will become less inviting if the building height gets too high. Staff’s recommendation and the comments from the City Council fall below the 1:2 ratio. He provided a few examples of enclosures. There is also a measurable effect on slowing vehicular traffic. He indicated that it is not outside the realm of possibilities in the future the city tries to reclaim more pedestrian space in Main Street. Mr. Yost stated that definitions were created for minimum habitable floor depth, habitable, story and main floor. For lot coverage an exemption was included for individual townhome lots. He commented that under Plazas, there were concerns about the subjective nature of the criteria and they added language indicating that “each” standard will be met. Mr. Yost mentioned that under Building Height they replaced the allocation verbage with a table. Inconsistencies were corrected between how numerical measurements were worded. He indicated that there was a question regarding the treatment of side walls. A clarification was submitted at the beginning of the design standards section which indicates the standards will apply to all buildings and elevations. Under glazing a provision was added to permit stained glass or other types of art glass at the transom windows of storefronts and clear story windows. Under the Rooftop Equipment Screening they provided flexibility and clarity by defining what “fully screened” is. A parapet wall does meet the fully screened criteria. Under Materials, they added a prohibition on artificial brick veneer panels.

Approved Date: Draft Minutes Date of Meeting: July 14, 2020

Page 8 of 16

He mentioned that since the last meeting they added new provisions that were taken from the Holladay Village Ordinance. The first is regarding corners. Buildings on corners need to address their corners through architectural features. The next is regarding awning configurations. Awnings need to be within individual windows or store fronts and not cross multiple storefront bays or windows. He showed an example of a building on Center Street in Provo. He overviewed a new section requiring site amenities. One site amenity is required for the first 7,000 square feet on new construction, plus an additional amenity for each additional 20,000 square feet. These amenities can be outdoor areas, plazas, public art, landmark, all weather features or public restrooms. Mr. Yost stated that under agenda item two, they are proposing to apply this new district to property and amending the zone map. He displayed a map showing the area they had in mind when crafting the zone. He mentioned they will be making a recommendation to the City Council to amend the Springville Zoning Map from Community Commercial (CC) to the Main Street South Gateway Zone for Block 5 Plat A, or the Allen’s Block. Commissioner Young indicated that staff recommends 50 feet in the staff report Mr. Yost said that this is correct. He explained that the Planning Commission may include suggested ordinance changes in their motion tonight. The Planning Commission has the latitude to make changes in their motion. Commissioner Young mentioned that he is confused by the use of stories in determining height. He asked if it is possible to have a residential first floor. Mr. Yost commented that it is as long as it is not on Main Street or within 60 feet of Main Street intersection on 400 South. Commissioner Yong inquired if it is possible to have a first floor of residential in the area allowing for 50 feet building height. Mr. Yost stated that you could build a mid-block building on 400 South to 50 feet. Chair Mertz turned the time to Commissioner Heaps to present his findings. Commissioner Heaps commented he has completed a lot of research on what constitutes a sense of enclosure. He mentioned that a lot of academic research has been done on this topic. He referenced Professor Ewing and indicated that Ewing has stated that a lot of disagreement is found regarding sense of enclosure. He presented a table showing different ratios from 1:1 to 1:6. He commented that according to three of the experts, if they followed their recommendation, it would require a building height of 132 feet with 15 stories. He stated that he does not want to make mistakes by focusing to much on the ratio theory. He pointed out that building form and character is important in establishing a sense of place. He stated that the City Council recommendation does fall within the ideal sense of enclosure with one expert, strong sense of enclosure with another and a minimum sense of enclosure with three others. He indicated that the Holladay Village zone is a benchmark for the state as it looks good and functions great. This area feels right and is only two stories. He suggested they allow an architectural feature on the corner for a clock tower which would go higher. He asked Mr. Yost if there is any language that would allow additional height for architectural features. Mr. Yost stated that currently they do not allow this. Commissioner Heaps suggested they allow additional height for an architectural feature like a clock or bell tower. He indicated that he wants this development to fit in with the rest of the historic downtown.

Approved Date: Draft Minutes Date of Meeting: July 14, 2020

Page 9 of 16

Chair Mertz invited the developer interested in the Allen’s block to present prior to the public hearing. Bruce Bastian commented there are lots of opinions on what should be done with the block. He indicated that 99% of the people believe the block should be revitalized. They understand in order to redevelop the property they need to navigate the constraints of politics and economic forces. He mentioned they have made a lot of progress since they last met with the City Council. He indicated that they will not get into the details of their concept, but they would like restaurant, residential and senior housing. He indicated the owner of the block is nervous about their ability to redevelop the block. He indicated that they do not own or control the property. CCA Acquisitions has the contract to redevelop this property. CCA Acquisitions is a retail investment firm. He mentioned different projects they are connected with. This company does not redevelop property. He commented that his company J.B. Earl has spoken with CCA Acquisitions and told them there is a better use and opportunity for this block. He mentioned that retail generates a lot more traffic than residential. He believes they can create something unique and lasting for downtown. He stated that since the height was reduced from four stories to three stories and assisted living was removed, the owner has opened talks with Planet Fitness and Dollar Tree. He indicated their proposal was slightly taller than the Reynolds Building, but after working with staff they have brought the height down and reduced the number of residential units. The June 16th changes have created hurdles that make the project infeasible. Independent living facilities require at least 15% assisted living. He showed a picture of what the Allen’s block used to look like. Storefronts were located all the way down the sidewalk. They would love to recreate this again. He presented examples of how the buildings would look and mentioned the height would be similar to the Pier 49 building. Townhomes and condos would be located on the other side of the block. He showed a rendering of the independent living units and described what the massing of buildings. He mentioned that the height allotment needs to be modified in order to make the project work. The ordinance now proposes only 25% of the project’s frontage to contain the maximum height. He indicated that this will create large flat massing. With the current draft, he indicated the third floors would not be feasible and the project would be limited to two stories. The numbers do not work with two stories. He continued that independent living is needed on this property. This site is great for seniors that do not want to care for yard spaces. There are no independent living facilities in south Utah County. He explained that many independent seniors may end up needing assisted living due to injuries which is why they need at least 15% assisted living. He asked the Planning Commission to consider a motion to increase the height as staff had recommended, adding an allowance for assisted living up to 15%, and to adjust the height allocation from the 25% allocation. Justin with J.B. Earl indicated that they are local and shares a property line with one of the commissioners. He mentioned he got involved in this project because he loves Springville. They were able to drop the unit count by changing the unit type mix from a for rent product to for-sale independent living units. They believe the City Council proposal does not work but staff’s proposal does work. Commissioner Baker asked what Justin is proposing for a height allocation percentage. Justin responded that they are requesting, if varied stories are requested, they allow the building code to dictate the percentage. The building code states that you can have no more than a 30-foot dead end corridor. This means if he has a four-story building height that steps down to a three-story height, he wont be able to step-back the four story back more than 30 feet. He requested the required story variation be dictated by dead end corridors and stairways than an arbitrary percentage.

Approved Date: Draft Minutes Date of Meeting: July 14, 2020

Page 10 of 16

Commissioner Baker asked if they would have a different height every 30 feet. Justin stated no, but the language suggested by Mr. Yost have standards for a varying roofline. Commissioner Heaps asked if they would be able to build up to five stories. Justin commented that he would not be able to under the suggested code. He mentioned that the per-captia income in Holladay is double that of Springville. He indicated that the economic for real estate is very different between Holladay and Springville. Justin requested that the building code dictate the step backs for stairwells. Commissioner Heaps asked what the square footage is of a Dollar Tree store and Planet Fitness. Justin replied they depending on the market, Dollar Trees are between 20,000-40,000 and Planet Fitness facilities are between 20,000-80,000 square feet. Chair Mertz stated that they are required to read in all emails. Mr. Yost commented that if all of the Planning Commissioners have read the emails, then this would not be necessary. The Planning Commissioner agreed to take a recess to allow for commissioners to finishing reading emails. Commissioner Baker motioned to take a ten-minute recess. Commissioner Young seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously. Meeting was resumed. Jackie Snelson, 1454 E. 975 S. (Recording started in middle of comments) stated that this block provides an opportunity to practice the arts. She commented they do not need additional housing or restaurant space. A theater experience is something that would serve a wide range of age groups. Chad Kidder, 1129 W. 250 N. stated that he is happy a TIF is not being proposed to pay for the development. He believes it is clear they do not understand the impact of what is being proposed. He suggested that they spend more time understanding the project and its impacts before approving it. Curtis Eppley, 314 S. 100 W. commented that he lives adjacent to the block. He mentioned he was on an ad hoc committee regarding historic downtown. He believes this area should be redeveloped to be economically feasible. He indicated that mixed use could be valuable. He is concerned with impacts to sight lines. He has invested a lot of money in restoring his historic home. He mentioned it would be nice to have places for his kids to live in the future. The building design should be historic in nature and match the rest of downtown. Justin Arbuckle, 238 S. Main Street stated that he has been a business owner on Main Street for 20 years. He indicated he would like more information on parking. He is fine with the proposed zoning. He indicated that residents park for longer periods than business. He commented that the dance studio next to his businesses uses his parking spaces. Owen Sneed, Springville resident, stated that he and his partner have agreed to manage the independent living facility of this project. He asked if the new owners have the property in their name. He heard this will be a Planet Fitness or another box store that will come in if this zone is not approved. Tatton Baird, Hatters, Springville resident, indicated that he has been to several city meetings to discuss the proposed options. He encouraged people to think differently about the project and

Approved Date: Draft Minutes Date of Meeting: July 14, 2020

Page 11 of 16

what the possibilities are. He believes, they are passed the time of allowing big box stores onto this block. He mentioned his business makes high-end hats and has little traffic. He would like to have the site updated to something more. Logan Millsap, 531 S. 300 E. explained what the buildings used to look like before the Allen’s

store. George Edward Anderson was a famous photographer and had his studio on this block. It

was called the Art Bazaar. It was a beautiful building and looked like the Pier 49 building. He

mentioned Orem State Street and indicated that it is an awful area where tenants move in and

out. The form of a downtown creates a sense of place. They are at a cross roads in the city.

They can choose to put another tenant in the building or create a zone that will allow the block to

be sensibly developed. He believes the difference between 40 and 50 feet is minimal.

Karen Effeiba, 450 S 100 E, congratulated staff for have several meetings to come up with the

new re-land use option for this area. She believes the proposal makes sense economically and

aesthetically. It is not the responsibility of the Planning Commission or City Council to make sure

investors maximize the amount of money they make on a project. It is their responsibility to

determine what is best for Springville City. She believes height does have an impact on the area

and that assisted living is not a good use for the block.

Commissioner Young motioned to close the public hearing. Commissioner Heaps seconded the

motion. The motion passed unanimously.

Chair Mertz asked how many of the last multifamily units approved in the last couple years been

two stories or less. Mr. Yost stated the last two projects were not.

Chair Mertz asked if nothing changes would a fitness center or retail be allowed. Mr. Yost stated

both uses are allowed, and could come in with the new changes, but the site would need further

consideration.

Commissioner Baker asked if compliance to the new standards would be required for new

development. Mr. Yost stated yes and referenced East Bay Shopping Center on University in

Provo which has added a Ross, Planet Fitness and At Home store. These retailers required

substantial upgrades to the exterior of the building. This would not be allowed on this block as all

buildings would have to be brought into compliance with the new zone.

Commissioner Baker indicated that she could not find another frontage requirement as small as

20 feet in regards to townhomes. She mentioned the Riverwoods had 26-foot minimum frontage.

She asked where they got the 20-foot frontage minimum and 800 square foot minimum lot size.

Mr. Yost explained that they looked at more traditional urban townhome products. Many of these

were in Salt Lake County and included Daybreak and Sugarhouse.

Commissioner Baker asked what the size is of the townhomes in Soda Row. Mr. Yost

responded that those are their larger townhomes. He mentioned it is difficult to find a public

interest in the minimum lot size of a townhome. He does not believe this will have a negative

impact on the area.

Chair Mertz suggested they use the staff notes as a guide to their discussion. He asked if there

were any questions or concerns regarding lot area configuration and coverage. Commissioner

Baker stated that she is concerned the frontage is 6-7 feet smaller than other communities. She

Approved Date: Draft Minutes Date of Meeting: July 14, 2020

Page 12 of 16

mentioned that the smaller the lots are, the number of units will increase. She mentioned

parking could become a problem because residents of the townhomes could own more vehicles

than the parking supply provided. There could become parking overflow onto other sites.

Commissioner Heaps stated that there will be a residential which will create parking issues. He

indicated that from a developer stand point, believes they should give a little more on the size of

the units, rather than the height of building. This will be more conducive with the Springville look.

Commissioner Ellingson commented that she lived in a town home and a small apartment in the

past. This living arrangement worked for her at the time. The proposed size is not unusual.

Commission Baker indicated that the size is unusual. She does not want to increase the building

heights.

Chair Mertz asked if there were questions regarding setbacks. There were none. He indicated

that they will skip building heights for now. He asked if there were concerns regarding permitted

ground floor uses. Commissioner Baker indicated she is concerned with allowing 80,000 square

feet. This will become something like a grocery store which may not fit in the character of uses

on the block. She mentioned there are small businesses in the area which have a historic feel.

Commissioner Young replied that they will control this through other requirements in the code

like fenestration and facades.

Commissioner Baker indicated if most of the commercial space is taken by one use, then they

will lose variety. She would like the larger uses to be taken out.

Commissioner Heaps stated that they are talking about and developing a zone that could be

used in other places. He stated that Holladay City has built a two-story building with a Harmons

Grocery Store. This looks great because of the code that was put in place. It may be interesting

for a developer to create an anchor. He believes it has helped out Holladay.

Commissioner Baker stated the Town Center code max’s out 35,000 square feet in the Town

Center Code. She believes this block is more similar to the Town Center Zone than the

Community Commercial Zone.

Commissioner Park indicated that retail is changing. It will be difficult to find someone wanting

80,000 square feet. The proposed code requires that the exterior architecture appear to be

broken up so you would have no idea that it is business is 80,000 square feet asked

Commissioner Baker if she would be okay with three 35,000 square feet business.

Commissioner Baker responded that this would be more consistent with what’s across the

street. Commissioner She indicated there is a vast difference between a small retail store front

and an 80,000 square foot business. Commissioner Park stated they would limit their options if

they restricted larger stores. She mentioned that a large big box store will limit pedestrian

activities.

Commissioner Ellingson commented that due to the design standards and parking

requirements, a large big box store most likely would not be able to come in. Commissioner

Baker indicated that she would rather prohibit in the code.

Commissioner Farrer asked if they could amend the code in the future if they find a larger store

that they want needing more square footage. Mr. Yost stated the City Council can amend any

Approved Date: Draft Minutes Date of Meeting: July 14, 2020

Page 13 of 16

ordinance at any time. Commissioner Baker stated that the use should have to match the Town

Center code to permit up to 35,000 square feet.

Chair Mertz asked how many would be for the 35,000 square feet. The Planning Commission

appeared split on this. Commission Ellingson mentioned she would be more in favor of 40,000

square feet. Chair Mertz indicated that there appears to be a majority in favor of keeping it at

80,000 square feet.

Commissioner Ellingson recommended removing auto parts sells and repair services

conditioning. She mentioned these uses don’t fit the character of downtown.

Commissioner Farrer stated that he uses the Napa Auto Parts on Main Street.

The Planning Commission appeared to be fine with repair services.

Commissioner Farrer stated that independent living facilities are fine. He indicated that if a

spouse falls and breaks a hip, it is the responsibility of the family to decide if they need to go to

an assisted living facility. He does not want assisted living.

Commissioner Baker commented that it would be good to have a small percentage of the units

used for assisted living. She mentioned that if home health services can come in then she is fine

living assisted living out.

Commissioner Park asked who would be enforcing this. Mr. Yost responded that staff would. To

retain a business license, they would need maintain compliance with city code.

Chair Mertz asked if there were any comments for design standards and if they want to add an

architectural feature. Commissioner Baker recommended they save this for the height

discussion.

Commissioner Farrer stated he is comfortable with 50 feet with a six-foot parapet and believes it

is consistent with what is in the community now. Commissioner Young mentioned he is fine with

the 50 feet and a six-foot parapet wall. Commissioner Parker stated he is more favor of 40 feet

and a six-foot parapet. Commissioner Baker stated the Pier 49 building is 36 feet with the

parapet. She is in favor of the 40 feet in height.

Commissioner Heaps stated that the Reynolds building is only on an 1/8 of an acre. He is not

sure its height would be appropriate for an entire block. He would rather have the 40 feet of

height. He recommended they allow an architectural feature go up to 60-65 feet.

Commissioner Baker asked if the zone addresses breaking up the massing. Mr. Yost stated that

they have the 25:75 allowance and her referenced a provision in Section 7.08 (2)(e) - line 101 -

for building height. It states each block face shall have at least two building heights, differing in

height by at six feet at a minimum ratio of 1:4. Commissioner Baker stated she is open to

increasing the percentage up from 25%.

Commissioner Ellingson stated that the Reynolds building is one of her favorites and is in favor

of going up to 50 feet. Commissioner Baker indicated if they do this, it will add another floor.

Commissioner Heaps indicated that there should be something to allow a clock tower feature

like Holladay City. He feels it looks really nice.

Approved Date: Draft Minutes Date of Meeting: July 14, 2020

Page 14 of 16

Chair Mertz asked if 15 feet above the building height would work for an architectural feature.

Commissioner Heaps indicated that he would be for this if the maximum height were limited to

40 feet.

Commissioner Ellingson stated she is in favor of the 50-foot height but not sure what an

additional 15 for an architectural feature will look like. Mr. Yost referenced the tower in the Night

Block of Provo kiddy corner from the temple. He explained that the proposed code either allows

for a 40-foot height with a six-foot parapet or a 50-foot height with a six-foot parapet. There is

nothing in the code that allows for an architectural feature to go above either of these heights.

Commissioner Baker stated that the design standards now will ensure the buildings are

interesting and may not need a clock tower.

Commissioner Heaps stated that he wanted to at least provide an option to allow for this in the

future.

Commissioner Parker stated if the committee votes for 50 feet then there is no need for an

architectural feature but if they go with 40 feet there should be an allowance for an architectural

feature.

Commissioner Ellingson asked if there is a minimum height so they do not get a single floor strip

mall. Mr. Yost stated that there is not a minimum height but he recommends they require at least

two stories.

Commissioner Baker asked if this is something that should be required on just Main Street and

60 feet of 400 South. Mr. Yost indicated they could do this anywhere on the block. He suggested

they require two stories in the entire zone. He mentioned that the transitional standards are the

same in both the City Council recommendation and staff’s recommendation. He explained you

can build up to 50 feet if the building is stepped back 70 feet from the frontage. The sight studies

show you cannot see the 50-foot building over the 30-foot frontage. It would not impact the

viewsheds of the neighbors to the west.

Chair Mertz asked Mr. Yost what he suggests regarding the developers comment of having the

building code dictate the percentage. Mr. Yost replied that it would mean removing the

percentage from the ordinance. The building code does not dictate having to step up and down,

only the maximum length of dead-end corridors without a staircase.

Commissioner Baker asked where the 25% number came from. Mr. Yost stated that it was in

response to the recommendation of the City Council. They looked at the Reynolds Block for

guidance, but this number was not arrived at scientifically. Commissioner Baker asked what the

frontage on the Reynolds Block. Mr. Yost replied it is around 60 feet.

Chair Mertz asked what language could they use instead. Mr. Yost responded that they could go

back to the original language and rely on the transitional standards to handle the edges.

Chair Mertz indicated he would rather keep the percentages at 25% and 75%.

Commissioner Baker asked for the length of the block. Mr. Yost indicated it is just over 400

linear feet. Commissioner Baker indicated that this will give the developer at least 100 feet for

greater heights and is longer than the Reynolds Building.

Approved Date: Draft Minutes Date of Meeting: July 14, 2020

Page 15 of 16

Commissioner Heaps stated he would like to have a minimum two story. He mentioned that he

feels strongly about the height issue and would vote against the 50-foot height.

Commissioner Ellingson asked if there is a different height requirement for 100 West. The

Planning Commission indicated there is a transition on 100 West with the frontage at 30 feet in

height.

Commissioner Young motioned to recommend approval of the amendments to Springville City

Code Title 11, Chapter 4, Article 3, Section 1, Land Use Matrix, and adoption of Title 11,

Chapter 4, Article 7 – Main Street South Gateway Zone, with a change to 11-4-708-1 stating 50-

feet as the maximum with 4 stories and a two story minimum for the project. Motion was

seconded by Commissioner Farrer.

Commissioner Baker stated it will look weird if the transition is from 30 feet to 50 feet. Mr. Yost

stated that he does have a written description of what would need to change in the code to

accomplish what the Planning Commission is looking for. He indicated that he can get a copy of

this for the commission to read into the record. The motion failed unanimously.

The Planning Commission waited for Mr. Yost to retrieve the drafted motion language. Chair

Mertz stated that the next meetings are on July 28 and August 11. Commissioner Ellingson and

Chair Mertz indicated they would not be in attendance on August 11. The Planning Commission

confirmed that they will be in attendance on August 25.

Mr. Yost stated that they Planning Commission can add language to the motion to direct staff to

add a two-story minimum.

Commissioner Young motioned to recommend approval of amendments to Springville City Code

Title 11, Chapter 4, Article 3, Section 1, Land Use Matrix, and adoption of Title 11, Chapter 4,

Article 7 – Main Street South Gateway Zone, with the following changes to the draft text:

• 11-4-708 (1) to read as follows: No building shall exceed a maximum height of 50

feet. Maximum building height varies by location, as set forth in this section.

• Modifications to table 11-4-708 (2) and modifications to table 11-708 (3)

• Directs staff to add a two-story minimum

Commissioner Farrer seconded the motion. Vote passes 4-3, as follows: Farrer aye, Young aye,

Parker nay, Baker nay – She states that the building height and commissioner square footage

are not in keeping with the character of the area, Heaps nay, Ellingson aye, and Mertz aye.

2. Springville Community Development requests amendment of the zoning map for parcels 06:005:0001, 06:005:0002, 06:005:0003, 06:005:0004, 06:005:0006, 06:005:0007, and 06:005:0008, constituting Block 5, Plat A, Springville City Survey, and bounded by Main Street, 100 West, 300 South, and 400 South; from the Community Commercial (CC) Zone to the Main Street South Gateway (MSSG) Zone.

Chair Mertz asked Mr. Yost if he had anything to add prior to the public hearing. Mr. Yost

responded that he did not.

Approved Date: Draft Minutes Date of Meeting: July 14, 2020

Page 16 of 16

Chair Mertz opened the public hearing. No one spoke. Commissioner Baker motioned to close

the public hearing. Commissioner Young seconded the motion. The motion passed

unanimously.

Commissioner Ellingson motioned to recommend approval of the amendment to the Springville

Zoning Map for parcels 06:005:0001, 06:005:0002, 06:005:0003, 06:005:0004, 06:005:0006,

06:005:0007, and 06:005:0008, constituting Block 5, Plat A, Springville City Survey, and

bounded by Main Street, 100 West, 300 South, and 400 South; from the Community

Commercial (CC) Zone to the Main Street South Gateway (MSSG) Zone.

Commissioner Farrer seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously.

ADMINISTRATIVE SESSION No Items ADJOURNMENT Commissioner Heaps motioned to adjourn the meeting. Commission Farrer seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously. Chair Mertz adjourned the meeting at 10:30 p.m.

1

Petitioner: Doug Fowkes 820 E 1125 N Springville, UT 84663 Summary of Issues Does the proposed site plan meet the requirements of the Springville City Development Code, particularly sections? §11-7-4 Site Plan Review and Procedure; and §11-4-5 Commercial and Industrial Site Development Standards. Background The proposed project is for a private 45,900 square foot indoor tennis center, which also includes outdoor tennis and pickleball courts. The site consists of 3.69 acres just east of the Infomercial Building. Analysis DEVELOPMENT REVIEW COMMITTEE (DRC) The Development Review Committee reviewed the site plan on July 28, 2020 and provided the applicant with a copy of redlined comments on the submitted plans and checklist. Any items not addressed or any additional revisions needed are listed below in the “POST DRC COMMENTS” section.

PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT

Agenda Item #1 August 11, 2020

August 6, 2020

TO: Planning Commission Members FROM: Laura Thompson, City Planner II RE: Commercial Site Plan Approval for the Springville

Tennis Center located at 2069 W 1150 N in the HC-Highway Commercial Zone.

2

POST DRC COMMENTS

1. Need to include required street trees along both streets and provide the City tree planting detail on landscaping plans.

2. Address any comments on the civil drawings given by the DRC on July 28, 2020. Staff Recommendation Staff finds the site plan meets the requirements of Springville City Code and recommends approval contingent upon the applicant addressing the items listed in the “Post DRC Comments” of this report. Recommended Motion Move to grant Commercial Site Plan Approval for the Springville Tennis Center located at 2069 W 1150 N in the HC-Highway Commercial Zone, contingent upon the applicant addressing the items listed in the “Post DRC Comments” of this report.

PROJECT NUMBER

REVISIONS

SHEET TITLE

PROJECT/OWNER

ARCHITECT

DATE

SHEET NUMBER

NIC

HO

LS •

NA

YLO

RA

R

C

H

I

T E

C

T S

10459 S

. 1

300 W

ES

T S

UIT

E 2

01

SO

UTH

JO

RD

AN

, U

TA

H 8

4095 •

(801)

487�3

330

1/1

6"

3/3

2"

1/8

"3/1

6"

1/4

"3/8

"1/2

"3/4

"1 1

/2"

3"

6/15/2020 2:31:24 PM

AS1

19-37

AR

CH

ITE

CT

UR

AL S

ITE

PL

AN

2069 W

. 1150 N

.S

PR

ING

VIL

LE

, U

T 8

4663

SP

RIN

GV

ILLE

TE

NN

ISC

EN

TE

R

10/30/2019

#D

AT

ED

ES

CR

IPT

ION

BUILDING: 45,900 SQFT

1150 NORTH

FRO

NTA

GE

RO

AD

TOTAL SITE AREA 3.69 ACRES160,894.6 SQFT

TOTAL BUILDING AREA 45,900 S.F.PARKING 47 STALLS PROVIDED

INDOOR TENNIS COURTS 5 COURTSOUTDOOR TENNIS COURTS 5 COURTSINDOOR PICKLE-BALL COURTS 8 COURTSOUTDOOR PICKLE-BALL COURTS 8 COURTS

LANDSCAPED AREA 50,001.8 SQFTLANDSCAPE % 31.1%PARK-STRIP LANDSCAPING 5,712.1 SQFTTOTAL LANDSCAPED AREA 55,713.9 SQFT

N 0

°00'

00" E

297.

16'

N 90°00'00" E 519.07'

L = 23.29'R = 15.00'Chord = 21.02'Bears = S 45°30'54" E

S 1°

01'4

8" E

146.

83'

S 0°

07'1

0" E

140.

85'

N 89°26'30" W 537.03'

Indoor Tennis Courts45,900 sq.ft.FFE 4501.00

L a n d s c a p i n gL a n d s c a p i n gL a n d s c a p i n g

L a n d s c a p i n g L a n d s c a p i n g

L a n d s c a p i n gL a n d s c a p i n g

Tennis Courts

Tennis/PickleballCourts

Date

Scale

By

Tracing No.

Rev

isio

nsSp

ringv

ille T

enni

s C

ente

r

Uta

h

Site

Pla

n

Sheet No.

C - 2.0

Springville Tennis Center

DU

DLE

Y AN

D A

SSO

CIA

TES

ENG

INEE

RS

PLAN

NER

S SU

RVE

YOR

S

801-

224-

1252

353

EAST

120

0 SO

UTH

, OR

EM, U

TAH

5-29-2020

1" = 30'

TD

L -

1150 North

Fron

tage

Roa

d (2

000

Wes

t)

Sprin

gville

Ferry Road LLC23:024:0056

Sam Dexy Properties LLC66:582:0006

CJC Springville LLC66:582:0001

Sam Dexy Properties LLC66:582:0002

Bradley Neel

Text Box

1) Appears to have no landscaping in the right-of-way along 1150 North and the Frontage Road. What is the landscape and street tree plan in the planter strip (greater than 72 inches)? a. 11-6-207 Right-of-Way Park Strip Improvements: The intent of the landscaped park strip is to provide an attractive edge between pedestrian and vehicular traffic and the requirements of this Section apply to all zoning districts, excepting those areas included in a City-approved, specialized streetscape plan. Where park strips are of sufficient width to support a street tree as defined below, trees are to be provided to shade sidewalks for pedestrians and to shade the street surface and help protect it from the detrimental effects of direct sun and to create a comfortable microclimate in the right-of-way. b. Park strips of six feet (6') or wider shall be landscaped with groundcover, shrubs and other plantings and City-approved shade trees, located every forty feet (40') on center. Rocks used as groundcover shall be between one and one-half inches (1.5") and four inches (4") in size or over one foot (1') in size. Rocks of over one foot (1') in size must be located at least one and one-half feet (1.5') from the back of curb and the edge of the sidewalk. In nonresidential areas where street trees are required for park strips and street frontage landscape borders, trees may be alternated forty feet (40') on center between the park strip and street frontage landscape border. All deciduous trees shall be ball and burlap stock, shall be a Springville approved species and shall be planted in accordance with Springville City planting details. Evergreens are not allowed in the right-of-way park strip. c. Please refer to Tile 4; Chapter 11 of the City Code for Street Trees and Tree Planting requirements 2) All landscaping on the private property side will need to be reviewed, approved, and inspected, per the approved plans, by their landscape architect before the City can issue a landscape bond agreement for CofO. The Landscape Architect must make sure City code is followed with all landscape installation and that International Society of Arboriculture Standards (ISA) are followed. 3) City tree planting detail is required for the planting of all trees per City code 4) All trees and landscaping in the right-of-way will need to be inspection by the City Arborist prior to and after installation. Street tree species selection must be approved by the City Arborist. All street trees must be B&B stock and planted per ISA standards per the City code.

PROJECT NUMBER

REVISIONS

SHEET TITLE

PROJECT/OWNER

ARCHITECT

DATE

SHEET NUMBER

NIC

HO

LS •

NA

YLO

RA

R

C

H

I

T E

C

T S

10459 S

. 1

300 W

ES

T S

UIT

E 2

01

SO

UTH

JO

RD

AN

, U

TA

H 8

4095 •

(801)

487�3

330

1/1

6"

3/3

2"

1/8

"3/1

6"

1/4

"3/8

"1/2

"3/4

"1 1

/2"

3"

6/15/2020 2:31:10 PM

A2.3

19-37

CO

LO

RE

DP

ER

SP

EC

TIV

E2069 W

. 1150 N

.S

PR

ING

VIL

LE

, U

T 8

4663

SP

RIN

GV

ILLE

TE

NN

ISC

EN

TE

R

10/30/2019

#D

AT

ED

ES

CR

IPT

ION