Centerville Planning Commission tables landscape/water-conservation ordinance for more staff work
Loading...
Summary
After a staff presentation and discussion on definitions and applicability (hardscape, redevelopment, park-strip standards), the commission opened the public hearing, received no public testimony, and unanimously tabled the landscape/water-conservation amendments without date certain, directing staff to refine language and return when more 'baked.'
The Centerville Planning Commission on Dec. 10 opened the public hearing on proposed amendments to the city’s landscaping and water-conservation code and then unanimously voted to table the item without a date certain for further staff refinement.
Staff (Community Development Director Mike) summarized changes drafted after an earlier October discussion with a basin water representative and identified key issues that require additional work before the commission advances the ordinance for Council consideration. Staff told commissioners the code currently lacks a clear definition for "hardscape" and that the proposal’s treatment of "redevelopment" (illustratively tied in the draft to a 2,000-square-foot building-alteration threshold) could have broader code implications.
City Attorney Lisa Romney and staff discussed options to avoid applying a landscaping "redevelopment" definition in a way that would inadvertently change legal vesting or nonconforming-use expectations across unrelated chapters of the zoning code. Counsel suggested using established nonconforming/vesting doctrine or carving out a narrowly tailored "substantial redevelopment" definition that only applies within the landscaping chapter to avoid code-wide impacts.
Commissioners raised practical questions about park-strip standards, allowable materials (gravel, porous rock vs. impermeable concrete), mulch/bark concerns, plant-height restrictions for sight triangles, enforcement (typically complaint-driven), and program eligibility for an expanded landscape rebate program. Staff clarified that some detailed standards for plant size and coverage should apply to commercial, multifamily and industrial projects, whereas state law limits mandating specific landscaping standards on single-family residential lots.
With no members of the public speaking during the hearing, Chair moved to table the ordinance "without date certain" and directed staff to work with the city attorney and basin program representatives to produce a more refined draft (staff suggested bringing the item back when it reaches a higher level of readiness). The motion to table was seconded by Commissioner Hoth and carried unanimously by voice vote.
Quotes: Staff summarized the drafting issues: "We don't have a definition for hardscape," and warned that redevelopment language could trigger broader code implications. Chair said staff had identified areas needing correction and that the commission would like the item returned when it was more "baked." Commissioner Hoth seconded the tabling motion.
What happens next: Staff will revise the draft (definitions, cross-references, applicability by land-use type, and program language), coordinate with the city attorney and basin program for technical clarifications, and return the item to the Planning Commission for further hearings when ready.
Authorities referenced: draft landscaping amendment language included in the planning packet (specific code citations in the packet referenced as CMC 11.02.xx and related sections; the transcript shows variable formatting of those citations).
