The Centerville Planning Commission voted unanimously July 9 to recommend that City Council approve a conceptual site plan for Porter Lane Estates and a zoning map amendment to apply a residential‑medium planned development overlay (RM‑PDO) to the 1.04‑acre property at 522 West 400 South, with conditions including a requirement that no parking be allowed on the private drive.

The recommendation follows staff review and a public hearing. "After thorough review of the proposed conceptual site plan, staff is in support of the application as presented so long as the zoning map amendment PDO gets city council approval," planning staffer Sydney Duis said during the meeting. The commission’s recommendation is advisory; final approval rests with City Council.

Why it matters: the PDO process lets the city couple a legislative zoning decision with a site plan that authorizes variations from development standards for a specific parcel. Staff and the applicant said the property’s shape and size make it difficult to meet some of the city’s residential‑medium development standards even though the zoning permits the density. The developer is seeking the PDO to allow the proposed configuration and setback variations while delivering single‑family homes and shared open space.

What the commission heard and decided: applicant Greg Larson described the plan as six single‑family homes on one private road with three‑car garages. "We all have 3 car garages. They all have enough parking in the driveway for another 3 cars," Larson told commissioners when asked how visitor parking would be handled. The project includes a small common area and a covered amenity with a pickleball court shown on the conceptual plan.

Commissioners and residents focused their questions on parking, emergency access, drainage, fencing and lot size. Staff and the applicant said the private drive would be built to the city code minimum of 28 feet of asphalt; city staff noted the 28‑foot minimum was established after experience with narrower private streets in earlier projects. The fire marshal and development review committee members participated in the review and, according to staff, expressed comfort with the proposed configuration as a conceptual plan.

Drainage details discussed during the hearing include retention basins in a triangular common area and an engineered design that will direct stormwater to the street and through two 8‑inch pipes under the road to a canal or ditch. The applicant and staff said the design intent is to prevent additional drainage impacts on neighboring properties.

Conditions attached to the commission’s recommendation require final council approval of the RM‑PDO rezoning before staff will process subsequent approvals. Commissioners added a recommended condition that the project’s covenants, conditions and restrictions (CC&Rs) and homeowners association rules prohibit parking on the private street, so the no‑parking requirement would be enforced by the HOA/CC&Rs rather than direct city on‑street enforcement.

What remains: the commission’s votes are recommendations. The next steps are City Council consideration of the RM‑PDO zoning map amendment and the PDO itself; if Council approves the legislative change, the applicant must then return for final site plan, preliminary subdivision and final subdivision approvals. Staff emphasized multiple later review stages where technical details (trash collection locations, final snow storage plan, exact parking enforcement language, and final engineering for drainage and utility work) will be resolved.

Meeting outcome and context: the planning commission approved both the conceptual site plan recommendation and the RM‑PDO rezoning recommendation unanimously. Commissioners who expressed concerns said those issues could be handled through conditions or the subsequent development review steps. Public commenters raised parking and noise questions related to the amenity court; those comments were discussed during the hearing but did not prevent the commission from forwarding the recommendations to council.

Note on authority and limits: the commission’s action was a recommendation; zoning and any formal permits require City Council action and later approvals. Several items discussed (private‑street parking enforcement, final dumpster/collection plans, and exact building heights and home sizes) were described as subject to later, more detailed review.