|
|
Home » City Government » Planning Commission » Minutes Archive; 2000 - 2002 » Planning Commission Minutes 2002 » April 10, 2002
April 10, 2002
The Lindon City Planning Commission held a regularly scheduled meeting on Wednesday, April 10, 2001 at 7:00 p.m. in the Lindon City Center Council Chambers at 100 North State Street, Lindon, Utah.
Conducting: Loren Morse, Chairman
Invocation: Lori Atchison
PRESENT
Ron Anderson, Commissioner
Lori Atchison, Commissioner
Bruce Carpenter, Commissioner
Jim Peters, Commissioner
Marilyn Simister, Commissioner
Kevin Smith, Planning Director
Venla Gubler, Administrative Clerk
Robert Hammond, Planning Intern
ABSENT
Loren Morse, Chairman
Ron Anderson, Commissioner
Evan Nixon, Commissioner
Lindsey Bayless, Councilmember
The Meeting began at 7:13 P.M.
1. MINUTES
Review of the Minutes of March 13, 2002 and March 27, 2002.
The minutes of the regular meeting of March 13 were reviewed. The following corrections were made:
Page 3, Line 17: Add the word “the” before the word “public.”
Page 3, Line 30: Replace the word “is” with the word “in.”
Page 4, Line 23: Delete the word “to” after the word “stop.” Add the word “to” after the word “her.”
Page 5, Line 27: Replace the word “zone” with the word “district.”
Page 5, Line 42: Replace the word “who” with the word “which.”
Page 6, Line 17: Add the word “keep” after the word “to.”
Page 7, Line 38: Replace the word “it” with the word “is.”
Page 9, Line 10: Replace the misspelled word “damm” with the word “damn.”
Page 10, Line 36: Replace this words “he is” with the word “his.”
Page 11, Line 9: Delete the word “is” after the word “intent.”
Page 11, Line 16: Replace the word “them” with the word “then.”
Page 11, Line 20: Add the word “to” before the word “appear.”
Page 11, Line 22; Replace the word “though” with the word “thought.”
COMMISSIONER CARPENTER MOVED TO APPROVE THE MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF MARCH 13, 2002 AS CORRECTED. COMMISSIONER ATCHISON SECONDED THE MOTION. ALL PRESENT VOTED IN FAVOR. THE MOTION CARRIED.
The minutes of the regular meeting of March 27, 2002 were reviewed. The following corrections were made:
Page 2, Line 1: Replace the phrase “was north of” with the phrase “ is transected by.”
Page 3, Line 13,14: Delete the words “two” and “combined.” Add the phrase “adjacent to each other” after the word “driveways.”
Page 3, Line 36: Replace the word “wanted” with the phrase “should not have participated with the.”
Page 5, Line 4: Add the phrase “and took over as chairman” after the word “late.”
Page 6, Line 8: Add the words “and size” after the word “appearance.”
Page 7, Line 16: Replace the word “for” with the word “from.”
Page 7, Line 31: Replace the name “PETER” with the name “PETERS.”
Page 8, Line 12: Add the word “asked” after the name “Chairman Morse.”
Page 8, Line 18: Replace the word “if” with the word “it.”
COMMISSIONER CARPENTER MOVED TO APPROVE THE MINUTES OF THE MEETING OF MARCH 27, 2002 AS CORRECTED. COMMISSIONER ATCHISON SECONDED THE MOTION. ALL PRESENT VOTED IN FAVOR. THE MOTION CARRIED.
2. PUBLIC COMMENT
Mr. Skip McWhorter told the Commissioners that he has obtained a lot reservation in Hidden Meadows (formerly Center Street Estates) and wanted to express concerns about the horse trail up the cul-de-sac. He observed that the CC&R’s do not allow horses and wondered why the trail ended in the subdivision if there are not horses there. Mr. Smith offered to answer his question for the Commission. He told Mr. McWhorter that the trail is not solely a horse trail, but a multi-use trail that will eventually connect to a trail on Center Street as part of the Lindon City Trails and Pathways Plan. Mr. McWhorter asked about transitions over the driveways. Mr. Smith assured him that these were taken into account. Commissioner Anderson encouraged Mr. McWhorter to look at the Trails and Pathways Plan.
Mr. McWhorter asked if the trail could be moved to the rear line of the lots and mentioned that the trail near 100 North by 900 East was used only occasionally by horses. Mr. Smith replied that the trail was approved in the present location and was similar to other trails approved by the Commission. Mr. McWhorter asked where the other trails were being built. Mr. Smith replied that trails were under construction in the Dirker Farms Subdivision and the Bald Mountain Subdivision. Mr. McWhorter asked if other undeveloped areas in Lindon would be required to add to the trail and pathway system. Mr. Smith replied that if the Planning Commission and City Council decide that the subdivision meets the criteria and goals of the trails and pathways ordinance, the developers may be required to install additions for the trails and pathways system.
Mr. Smith addressed the subject of animals and noted that the city is concerned about subdivision CC&R’s overruling animal rights. They have talked about not allowing that restriction on subdivisions. He informed Mr. McWhorter that there may be horses in the subdivision in the future. Mr Harlow Clark, newspaper representative, asked how homeowners can replace CC&R’s. This was discussed. Acting Chairman Jim Peters asked if there was any other public comment. There was none.
3. NEW BUSINESS (Reports by Commissioners)
Mr. Smith reported that he had talked with Jeff Acerson, Executive Secretary for the Lindon East Stake about the parking problems at the chapel on Canal Drive. They have asked the young adult ward to either change times or carpool. It was noted that there was one ward in the chapel that was from the West Stake and would be temporary until the new stake center is finished. Acting Chairman Peters asked if the stake has considered expanding the parking lot. Mr. Smith replied that the church would prefer to preserve the vacant property for recreation. They would like to try to solve the parking problem internally. Mr. Smith added that if they can’t, the Planning Commission can call them back in and make it a requirement of the conditional use permit.
Acting Chairman Peters asked about the speed limit signs. Mr. Smith reported that he had talked with Public Works Director Don Peterson and he will check on the signs. Acting Chairman Peters asked if there were other reports or comments. There were none.
4. SCHAEFFER INDUSTRIES - 200 SOUTH GENEVA ROAD - CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT REVIEW
This is a City-initiated review of Schaeffer Industries operations. The City would like to review with the Schaeffer Industries the methods which could be implemented at their factory which will decrease the public safety risks.
Mr. Clark Taylor was present to represent Schaeffer Industries. Mr. Smith presented the background of this review. He commented that the intention of the City on calling them in was not to beat them up or close them down. He disclosed that City Staff had met this morning with Mr. George Schaeffer and Mr. Ray Quinones. The City’s concern was acid containers that have leaked twice in the last year. The last leak was about 50 gallons.
Commissioner Anderson asked if the leak had anything to do with the sewer problems. Mr. Smith replied that the sewer was a different issue and had been solved. Mr. Smith, Chief Building Inspector Phil Brown, Fire Chief Mark Hales, and representatives of the State Department of Hazardous Waste and the Federal Environmental Protection Agency participated in a surprise inspection. They found that, of the four buildings that Schaeffer has on this site, the one housing the “pickling plant” where they use the acid is in the worst shape. Mr. Schaeffer had explained that with the closure of Geneva Steel, the pickling plant was not currently operating and if Geneva did not reopen, would permanently close on August 31. Mr. Smith noted that it is the staff’s perspective that if the pickling plant is closed, verified by extra inspections, there is no need for further requirements to build a containment system to enclose the acid containers. Mr. Schaeffer has told the City that he will refurbish the building after it is closed and will address Chief Building Inspector Phil Brown’s concerns on the safety of the building. Mr. Schaeffer is planning a new building of acid resistant plastic to house the pickling plant if operations continue at this site.
Acting Chairman Peters asked if the acid dissipates in the atmosphere in a spill situation. Mr. Smith disclosed that the acid containers are in a “bathtub” that holds a spill. Gas forms off the surface and creates deadly vapors. The last leak of about 50 gallons was discussed and the measures taken to contain the damage. The freeway was closed and nearby residents in the area were advised to stay inside. Mr. Smith noted that these precautions were somewhat unnecessary since the leak was not as serious as was at first thought.
Commissioner Carpenter asked if the spill incurred expenses to the City. Mr. Smith replied that Schaeffer Industries had been billed by the Fire Department. Commissioner Carpenter asked if an incident happens in the next four months before the building is closed, will the city be held liable for knowing about the dangers and not requiring remedies before they happen. Mr. Smith acknowledged that this may be a question for the City Attorney, but he didn’t think that the City would be liable. He noted that there are other businesses in this area that are much more hazardous. Commissioner Carpenter commented that he felt once there is an incident, if the City does not plan with the business to prevent further incidences, they are liable. Mr. Smith noted that Schaeffer Industries has a heightened awareness of the danger and Mr. Quinones is inspecting the tanks daily.
Acting Chairman Peters suggested that if the company is planning to replace the tanks in August, they may not have a regular maintenance schedule for them. He suggested that Fire Chief Mark Hales do a monthly inspection. He asked if there was a policy in place for a spill situation. Mr. Clark Taylor replied that he did not know the procedure, but he could find out. Acting Chairman Peters commented that the plan should be in the fire department hands so they can respond accordingly. Commissioner Carpenter agreed.
Mr. Smith observed that the building is heavily corroded. Some electrical sockets are corroded and live wires were exposed. At the last inspection, these were noted and shut off. Commissioner Anderson suggested that Mr. Smith see about the liability to the city for letting the business operate in substandard conditions until August.
Mr. Taylor submitted a faxed letter from Mr. George Schaeffer. He read the letter aloud for the record (copy attached.) He commented that this letter responds to the Commissioners’ questions. The intentions expressed in the letter were discussed. Commissioner Carpenter asked if the business would want an extension in August to allow construction of a new building. Mr. Smith suggested some ways that the Planning Commission could make sure the building was closed in August. Commissioner Anderson commented that the Commission needs to make it clear so everyone understands. Commissioner Carpenter suggested that in the interim, the fire chief inspects the tanks to ensure there is no spill. Acting Chairman Peters suggested that it be mandatory to notify emergency services in the event of a spill. He agreed with Commissioner Anderson that the business cannot hold off until August to decide to close the building. Commissioner Carpenter noted that the business was making an effort to correct the situation. Mr. Smith suggested that the conditional use permit be reviewed again in August.
ACTING CHAIRMAN PETERS MOVED TO ALLOW SCHAEFFER INDUSTRIES, INC. TO OPERATE THEIR PICKLING OPERATION THROUGH AUGUST 31, 2002 ON THE CONDITION:
1) THAT FIRE MARSHAL MARK HALES PERFORM MINIMUM MONTHLY INSPECTIONS OR AT HIS OPTION MORE FREQUENT INSPECTIONS.
2) THAT SCHAEFFER SUBMIT THE EMERGENCY PROCEDURES FOR THE PICKLING OPERATION FOR THE FIRE MARSHAL’S REVIEW AND APPROVAL WITHIN FOURTEEN DAYS.
3) THAT SCHAEFFER BE REQUIRED TO NOTIFY EMERGENCY SERVICES OF ANY SPILLS WITH INSTRUCTIONS AND SUGGESTIONS ON HOW TO DEAL WITH SAID SPILLS.
4) AND, THAT THE PICKLING OPERATION BE SHUT DOWN, OR THE ACID TANKS TOTALLY CONTAINED AND THE BUILDING REFURBISHED IF THE OPERATION IS TO REMAIN IN THE EXISTING BUILDING BY THE DEADLINE OF AUGUST 31, 2002.
COMMISSIONER CARPENTER SECONDED THE MOTION. ALL PRESENT VOTED IN FAVOR. THE MOTION CARRIED.
5. TIMPANOGOS ACADEMY, PLAT “A” - 100 EAST CENTER STREET - REVIEW OF DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT
This is a request for Planning Commission approval of the Development Agreement which will govern and regulate the types of land uses allowed on the lots in the Commercial Zone.
Mr. Smith observed that the Planning Commission and City Council had expressed concerns on the compatibility of the commercial businesses locating on Lots #2 and #3 of this plat with the nearby residential zone and with the Lindon Elementary and Timpanogos Academy. This development agreement would restrict the types of land uses to those that may be compatible and it will be recorded against all the lots in the subdivision.
The uses listed in the agreement were discussed. Mr. Lee has chosen these uses as appropriate for the lots. Mr. Smith noted that he agrees on most, but there are a few retail uses that he is not sure about. He noted that the amount of traffic should be the limiting factor. He also commented that if there is a use proposed that is not in the Standard Land Use Table, then the Compatibility Standard is applicable.
It was noted that some uses listed are not retail businesses but wholesale businesses. Commissioner Anderson suggested that the fireworks uses be eliminated. Commissioner Simister agreed. Mr. Smith observed that the Commission would see the site plans for any business locating on these lots. Commissioner Atchison suggested that kennels and runs be eliminated also. Commissioner Simister asked the acreage of the lots. Mr. Lee replied that lot #3 is about two acres. He noted that he had received inquiry from the Timpanogos Academy for Lot #3 as additional playground for the school.
COMMISSIONER ANDERSON MOVED TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL TO THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE TIMPANOGOS ACADEMY, PLAT “A” DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT WITH THE FOLLOWING RECOMMENDATIONS AND AMENDMENTS:
1) THAT USES 0301 AND 6515 BE REMOVED FROM THE LIST.
COMMISSIONER ATCHISON SECONDED THE MOTION. ALL PRESENT VOTED IN FAVOR. THE MOTION CARRIED.
6. PUBLIC HEARINGS - ZONING ORDINANCE AMENDMENTS
1) This item is a proposed amendment and revision of Section 17.32.120(6)(e) - Streets - of the Lindon City Code. This proposed amendment would allow more flexibility by the Planning Commission and City Council to consider alternatives to the standard street cross section design.
2) This item is a proposed amendment and revision of Section 17.32.320 - Deep Lots, of the Lindon City Code. The City will consider language to clarify the purpose and intent of the deep lot ordinance.
COMMISSIONER ANDERSON MOVED TO OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING FOR ITEM 6(1), AMENDMENT AND REVISION OF SECTION 17.32.120(6)(E) - STREETS. COMMISSIONER CARPENTER SECONDED THE MOTION. ALL PRESENT VOTED IN FAVOR. THE MOTION CARRIED.
Mr. Smith noted that the Commission had talked about this item at the last meeting. The Council has looked at it, too. Per suggestion, he has removed the last line of the amendment and reworded the last sentence to include the DRC in the recommendations required. The standard cross section and the pathway cross section can then be modified to meet the needs of the subdivision or neighborhood. Commissioner Carpenter asked if an application comes to the Planning Commission and no other cross section is recommended by the DRC, can the Planning Commission consider another type of cross section? Mr. Smith replied that the order is not specified. A recommendation can be received from DRC after a preliminary investigation by the Planning Commission. Commissioner Anderson clarified that a recommendation is needed from both reviewing bodies, and that they may be received in no particular order. Acting Chairman Peters asked if there was public comment. Mr. Harlow Clark clarified where alternate cross sections may be considered. There was no other comment.
COMMISSIONER ANDERSON MOVED TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. COMMISSIONER SIMISTER SECONDED THE MOTION. ALL PRESENT VOTED IN FAVOR. THE MOTION CARRIED.
COMMISSIONER ANDERSON MOVED TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL TO THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE REQUEST TO RESCIND AND REPEAL THE CURRENT SECTION 17.32.120(6)(e) AND REPLACE SUCH WITH THE AMENDED AND REVISED 17.32.120(6)(e) AS ATTACHED. COMMISSIONER ATCHISON SECONDED THE MOTION. ALL PRESENT VOTED IN FAVOR. THE MOTION CARRIED.
COMMISSIONER ATCHISON MOVED TO OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING ON ITEM #6(2) TO AMEND AND REVISE 17.32.320 - DEEP LOTS. COMMISSIONER CARPENTER SECONDED THE MOTION. ALL PRESENT VOTED IN FAVOR. THE MOTION CARRIED.
Mr. Smith commented that this amendment was requested by the City Council from their discussion of the Stable Ridge Plat B deep lot application. He informed the Commissioners that the amendment basically affects the purpose and intent section of the ordinance. The City Council’s discussion decided that when the parcel could have been developed by normal subdivision standards is important. He explained that the deep lot ordinance was controversial from the initial adoption. The Council discussed the concept that this ordinance can only be used for those parcels that cannot be developed any other way when they passed this ordinance. A question has been asked about a seller who creates a parcel that can only be accessed by a driveway. The buyer did not create the problem, so who should be penalized? He asked how the ordinance can be written to prevent such situations. The Council’s solution was to require a wait of five years before the parcel can receive approval. Mr. Smith expressed concern on how the City would know if the lot could have been developed normally in the last five years.
Commissioner Carpenter did not feel that a five year wait was an incentive not to manipulate the deep lot ordinance. He felt that many developers will hold a parcel to sell in the future. Acting Chairman Peters agreed. He asked how often this situation has arisen. Mr. Smith replied that the City has received three deep lot applications since the ordinance was adopted. Mr. Murano’s is the only case that is questionable. The other application’s situations were as the Council intended when considering this ordinance.
Mr. Smith observed that he had labored over the language of the amendment. He suggested that some criteria similar to the Board of Adjustment may be appropriate. Commissioner Carpenter asked if deep lots were a problem for other cities. Mr. Smith replied that other cities’ deep lot ordinances were not as restrictive. He informed the Commission that Pleasant Grove’s ordinance was three lines and Orem’s allow two contiguous deep lots. Commissioner Atchison asked why the Lindon Council was against the deep lot concept. Mr. Smith explained that Lindon’s proclaimed motto of a “little bit of country” makes a priority of preserving open space. Most Some of the Council feel that allowing deep lots is a way to circumvent the subdivision ordinance, although Councilmember Dain has expressed the opinion that if a developer puts in a 50-foot right-of-way and a cul-de-sac, they may have three homes– instead of one home with a long driveway. Commissioner Anderson agreed that some developers would look favorably at the difference in the cost of a cul-de-sac over one large lot. He suggested that in some instances the deep lot ordinance would preserve open space more than the subdivision ordinance.
Acting Chairman Peters expressed the opinion that he felt it was a mistake to put a five year limit in the ordinance. He felt that it was too restrictive and would create an administrative burden that was unnecessary. He suggested that deep lots are not a big problem in Lindon and all the applications come to the Planning Commission anyway. He suggested that a condition like “not self-imposed” or “the position of the home does not fit in the neighborhood” may be more appropriate and allow the Planning Commission to deny an application if necessary. Mr. Smith suggested “and such property is now and has been impossible or impractical to develop for reasons other than financial or other self imposed hardship” as possible wording. Commissioner Carpenter suggested that since the Planning Commission is “administering the law,” the passages be clear and unambiguous. Acting Chairman Peters suggested that the Commission strike paragraph “b” and in its place put something to the effect that “in the opinion of the Planning Commission and the City Council, this is the best way to develop this property.” The word “optimal” was suggested in place of the word “best.” Commissioner Anderson suggested that the wording be specific so that it cannot be construed as arbitrary or capricious. Acting Chairman Peters added that the property around any applications should be considered. He asked if there was any public comment.
Mr. Rob Bentley, 528 North 675 East, commented that it appeared to him that the City can’t say no to Rick Murano, and so this rework of the ordinance. Mr. Smith replied that Mr. Murano’s application had brought to light this loophole in the language that was not foreseen. Commissioner Anderson added that most ordinances are amended after they are adopted because situations arise that point out something wrong. He noted that there may be other things come to light in the future. Mrs. Wendy Bentley, same address, commented that the changes did not seem to affect their family situation on Center Street. Mr. Smith agreed that this was just a clarification of the intent of the ordinance.
Mrs. Wendy Bentley clarified that the ordinance states that the parcel can be accessed no other way. Mr. Smith noted that the Planning Commission and the Council are the decision bodies of this intent. Mrs. Loudell Bentley, 811 East Center, commented on the situation that occurred when she and her husband bought and built their home, allowing for 800 East Street. She expressed the opinion that the change in the General Plan has possibly landlocked their large parcel and they are looking to the possibility of the deep lot ordinance to develop their back acreage. She added that she felt she needed protection for this lot to allow her children to build a home. She noted that she was not looking to make money, just to take care of her family.
Mrs. Loudell Bentley and Commissioner Carpenter discussed the circumstances of her required setback and the change in the master plan. Commissioner Anderson suggested that the Bentleys may be interested in the City Council meeting to discuss this item also. Mr. Smith informed the Bentley family that the Council would consider this item on May 7, since it appeared that the Planning Commission would continue the item to review the changes suggested. Commissioner Simister suggested that the Commission needs to consider the surrounding area when they make a recommendation to the Council. She added that if it is found then that there is no other way to develop, then it should be considered in the decision. There was a discussion of notice to the neighborhood and how that might help avoid situations where someone loses access to their back parcel.
IT WAS DECIDED BY CONSENSUS TO CONTINUE THE PUBLIC HEARING TO APRIL 24, 2002.
7. PLANNING DIRECTOR’S REPORT
1) Review of the URMMA Training given on April 3, 2002.
Mr. Smith observed that the URMMA training had turned out well. He mentioned that there is a handout and one-hour video for those who missed the event. This needs to be completed before December 2002. He added that the URMMA representative had told them that most of the expense of the City’s insurance is legal fees defending cities. Commissioner Anderson commented that this training session was different and better than others in the past and included a synopsis of Mr. Craig Call’s seminars (State of Utah Ombudsman).
Mr. Smith informed the Commission that Commissioner Nixon would be in Denver for another four months. The Mayor has decided to appoint another Commissioner and then appoint Commissioner Nixon as an Alternate Commissioner to fill an open chair when occasionally needed.
The Commission discussed the Bentley situation. The ramifications of condemnation for access was explained and discussed. Responsibility for sewer location and depth was also discussed.
ADJOURN
COMMISSIONER ATCHISON MOVED TO ADJOURN AT 9:25 P.M. COMMISSIONER PETERS SECONDED THE MOTION. ALL PRESENT VOTED IN FAVOR. THE MOTION CARRIED.
APPROVED - April 24, 2002
_______________________________________
Loren Morse, Chairman
Attest,
_______________________________________
Kevin Smith, Planning Director |
|
|
