|
|
Home » City Government » Planning Commission » Minutes Archive; 2000 - 2002 » Planning Commission Minutes 2001 » April 11, 2001
April 11, 2001
The Lindon City Planning Commission held a regularly scheduled meeting on Wednesday, April 11, 2001 in the Lindon City Council Chambers at 100 North State Street, Lindon, Utah.
Conducting: Loren Morse
Invocation: Lori Atchison
PRESENT
Loren Morse, Chairman
Ron Anderson, Commissioner (arrived 7:17 P.M.)
Lori Atchison, Commissioner
Bill Johanson, Commissioner
Evan Nixon, Commissioner
Jim Peters, Commissioner
Lindsey Bayless, Councilmember (arrived 7:54 P.M.)
Kevin Smith, Planning Director
Venla Gubler, Administrative Clerk
Adam Cowie, Planning Intern ABSENT
Jeff Southard, Commissioner
The meeting began at 7:09 P.M.
BUSINESS
1. Approval of Minutes
The minutes of the regular meeting of March 28, 2001 were reviewed. The following corrections were made:
Page 2, Line 43: Add the name “Roger Dudley, engineer for” after the word “Mr.”
Page 3, Line 7: Replace the name “West” with the name “Dudley.”
Page 3, Line 8: Replace the name “West” with the name “Dudley.”
Page 3, Line 10: Replace the name “West” with the name “Dudley.”
Page 3, Line 11: Replace the name “West” with the name “Dudley.”
Page 3, Line 24: Replace the name “West” with the name “Dudley.”
Page 3, Line 28: Replace the name “West” with the name “Dudley.”
Page 3, Line 30: Replace the name “West” with the name “Dudley.”
Page 3, Line 31: Replace the name “West” with the name “Dudley.”
Page 3, Line 32: Replace the name “West” with the name “Dudley.”
Page 4, Line 8: Replace the name “West” with the name “Dudley.”
Page 4, Line 21: Replace the phrase “RESTORES NATURAL VEGETATION” with the phrase “PROVIDES EROSION CONTROL AND REVEGETATION.”
Page 4, Line 32: Replace the title “COMMISSIONER” with the word “COMMISSION.”
Page 5, Line 26: Add the sentence “The Commissioners told Mr. Robinson that the zone required a minimum of 3-acres lots.” to the end of the paragraph.
Page 5, Line 38: Add the phrase “was not present and” after the name “McMurray.”
THE COMMISSIONERS PRESENT APPROVED THE MINUTES OF MARCH 28, 2001 AS CORRECTED BY CONSENSUS.
2. Public Comment
There was no public comment.
3. New Business
Commissioner Nixon questioned the large “For Rent” sign at the Skyline Duplexes at 700-750 East and 200 South. Mr. Smith observed that this sign predates the current sign ordinance. Commissioner Johanson commented that a “For Rent” sign should not be displayed on a permanent basis, but only a small sign periodically. Mr. Smith agreed to follow-up on this issue.
Commissioner Peters reported on the American Planning Association Convention in Springdale that he and Mr. Smith had attended. He discussed the innovations that Springdale had instituted with the National Park Service to shuttle visitors into the park from the town. He commented that he was impressed with the information presented at the conference. Commissioner Peters observed that Lindon was on the “cutting edge” of many innovative programs and mentioned the R2 Overlay Ordinance and the secondary water system. He mentioned that he felt impressed to make a suggestion to the City concerning the development of State Street. He wanted to recruit development of State Street in a positive direction instead of waiting for proposals.
Mr. Smith mentioned that the Fall Convention would be held in Logan and urged the Commissioners to attend.
Chairman Morse asked for approved copies of the General Plan. Mr. Smith replied that he would issue copies to the Planning Commissioners when the corrections had been made and approved on the City Council’s Consent Agenda.
4. Skywriter Signs - 105 South 1385 West - Review Architectural Design for Building
This is a request by Gayle McMurray to change the style of architectural treatment to his metal building constructed in Westlind Industrial Park.
Mr. Smith reminded the Commissioners that this item was continued from 1 ½ months ago. He showed them the location map and some pictures of the building on the overhead. He informed the Commissioners that the ordinance requires 30% of the building facing the street and freeway and 25% of the building on the other two sides to be brick, block, or stucco. Commissioner Nixon asked what material was approved in the original plans. Mr. Smith replied that brick had been approved.
Mr. McMurray told the Commissioners that his concrete contractor had been ahead of his architect. The building’s foundation, floors, and outside walkways had been poured before the architect drew the brick on the building. Since the foundation had been poured and the building constructed without allowing for the brick facing, he had been faced with finding an alternative architectural treatment. His architect had suggested the stucco system that he had talked to the Planning Commission about at the previous meeting. He submitted more samples of this material. Commissioner Peters, Commissioner Nixon and Chairman Morse commented to Mr. McMurray that the Planning Commission had already reviewed and denied this material as unsuitable and not meeting the requirements of the ordinance. Several of the Commissioners commented on how easily the stucco flaked away from the sheet metal backing.
Mr. Smith commented that he had talked with an architect that day to discuss architectural treatments that would be economical yet meet the ordinance requirements. He described an alternate stucco system and quoted the Commission $5.00 per square foot. He told the Commissioners that the City had foreclosed on Mr. McMurray’s on-site improvement bond and could use the proceeds to finish the building to meet the standards.
Mr. McMurray told the Commissioners that this material could be made to look like brick or rock. Commissioner Peters discussed the method of attaching the material to the building in panels. Commissioner Nixon commented that he was not satisfied with the drip edge. Commissioner Peters expressed the opinion that the building looked better without this material installed and commented that the material flakes too easily and would not weather well. Commissioner Johanson agreed with this assessment. Mr. McMurray explained that he had applied the stucco to the sheet metal that day and that the longer the stucco was on the surface the stronger it adhered. Commissioner Peters expressed concern that the sheet metal was galvanized and so would need to be treated before application to make the material adhere.
Mr. Smith reiterated that the money from the bond could be used to complete the structure to meet the requirements. He offered to consult further with an architect on a suitable stucco system. Mr. McMurray objected to reconstructing his building. Commissioner Nixon observed that what he had seen of Mr. McMurray’s preferred system is not suitable. Commissioner Anderson commented that this problem could have been corrected during the construction of the building and now it had been two years that the building had not been in compliance with the zoning requirements. Mr. Smith suggested that he assemble a cost estimate on two alternative methods to bring back to the Planning Commission in two weeks. Mr. McMurray was encouraged to also submit his own alternative method. The plans would be examined, a suitable system chosen, and the bond proceeds used to construct it.
COUNCILMEMBER NIXON MOVED TO DENY THE ARCHITECTURAL TREATMENT REQUESTED, AN EMBOSSED METAL SYSTEM SUBMITTED FOR CONSIDERATION BY GAYLE MCMURRAY, BECAUSE IT DOES NOT COMPLY WITH THE LINDON CITY CODE OR LOOK LIKE BRICK, BLOCK OR STUCCO. STAFF IS REQUESTED TO PRESENT TWO ALTERNATIVE METHODS AND THE PETITIONER IS ALLOWED TO SUBMIT HIS OWN ALTERNATIVE METHOD FOR CONSIDERATION AT THE NEXT MEETING IN TWO WEEKS. COUNCILMEMBER PETERS SECONDED THE MOTION. ALL PRESENT VOTED IN FAVOR. THE MOTION CARRIED.
5. Heritage Court, Plat “B” - 40 North 400 East - Amended Subdivision Plat
This is a request by the property owner to amend the existing subdivision plat to accommodate the changed driveway as per the Planning Commission meeting of October 25, 2000.
Mr. Smith presented the amended plat to receive formal approval from the Planning Commission. It was determined that Ms. Ginger Romriell was not present. Commissioner Peters verified that asked if the plat met the 40% greenspace rule. Mr. Smith replied that the plat seems deceiving, but the actual greenspace “back of the curb” is 42%. Chairman Morse observed that the Planning Commission was only reviewing the driveway on Unit #5, the footprint of the units was approved at the meeting of October 25, 2000. He commented that Ms. Romriell had appeared in the public comment section of the December 13, 2000 meeting to discuss the driveway redesign. She cited the public complaint about the danger of the previous driveway design as the impetus for changing.
Commissioner Peters expressed concern about the required setbacks and the direction Unit #5 faced. He felt that the developer had circumvented the required 30 foot setback by turning the home sideways. The Commissioners discussed what constituted the “front door” of the structure.
The Commissioners discussed the objections of the neighbors that were heard at the October 25, 2000 meeting. Their concerns were the driveway and reducing the greenspace. It was decided that the plat met the requirements and the majority of the neighbors favored the single-story units.
Chairman Morse asked if there was any public comment. There was no comment. Commissioner Peters questioned approving the plat without Ms. Romriell present. Mr. Smith observed that it was not necessary that she be present. Commissioner Nixon asked if construction standards in the UBC required sound insulation between the garage and living unit. He pointed out where the garage of Unit #4 overlaps Unit #3's living area in the detail. Mr. Smith observed that the plat map stipulates the common and private areas. Chairman Morse asked the Commissioners if they wanted to continue this item or approve it as submitted. Commissioner Peters observed that this proposal was better than it started out.
COMMISSIONER NIXON MOVED TO APPROVE THE REQUEST BY GINGER ROMRIELL TO AMEND HERITAGE COURT PLAT “A,” AND CREATE HERITAGE COURT PLAT “B,” AND RECOMMEND APPROVAL TO THE CITY COUNCIL WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS:
1. SOUND INSULATION IS REQUIRED BETWEEN UNITS 3 & 4 WHERE THE LIVING AREA ABUTS AGAINST THE GARAGE.
2. A LETTER, REVIEWED AND APPROVED BY STAFF, THAT OUTLINES THE CHANGES MADE TO THE PLAT BE SIGNED BY THE EXISTING PROPERTY OWNERS OF HERITAGE COURT, AND SIGN THE PLAT AS WELL.
COMMISSIONER ATCHISON SECONDED THE MOTION. ALL PRESENT SIGNED VOTED IN FAVOR EXCEPT COMMISSIONER PETERS WHO VOTED NAY. THE MOTION CARRIED.
6. Center Street Estates - 800 East Center Street - Preliminary Subdivision
This is a request for approval of a 9-lot residential subdivision.
Mr. Smith introduced this proposal for a subdivision at the end of Center Street, west of the Murdock Canal. He pointed out that Lot #1A was planned for a future R2 Overlay project. He observed that the property owner to the south of this proposal was not interested in development at the present time. He told the Commissioners that City Ordinance will allow half-streets if one property owner wants to develop and the other doesn’t. One property owner should not be able to hold the other hostage and deny his right to develop.
Commissioner Peters expressed concern that development be allowed on a half street. He commented that the same situation occurred on 600 North. A half street was built and now that a new LDS Stake Center is planned beyond the development, there may be a traffic problem in the area of the half street. Commissioner Anderson commented that this application is for 8 lots only. If the R2 Overlay project, or more lots develop, the road completion may be required before they are approved. Commissioner Peters told the Commissioners that the 600 North situation may require the City to step in and help resolve the access issue. Commissioner Nixon asked if the City’s policy was to avoid “eminent domain.” Mr. Smith agreed and said that the City only uses the procedure if absolutely necessary. Commissioner Nixon asked if the City could make the developer reimburse the City for access. Mr. Smith asserted that would probably be an aggressive stance for the City to take since this plat was only eight lots. The City has required traffic studies for projects of this size and the impact has been found to be very minimal. He cited Heritage Court which has 9 units.
The Commissioners discussed the City’s plans for the extension of Center Street over the Murdock Canal to 900 East. Mr. Smith told the Commissioners that the extension of Center Street was shown on the General Plan. Disbursement of traffic from the east side to State Street along several routes would help traffic calming measures and the Council has considered this in recommending Center Street for status as a collector street.
Commissioner Nixon suggested that since this access would only be a half-street, the curb could be painted red so parked cars cannot block the street. Chairman Morse asked Mr. Bill Bang if he had any comments. Mr Bang did not have anything to add, but asked for questions. Commissioner Nixon suggested that the lot frontage along Center Street be minimized. He was concerned that if Center Street was opened over the Canal, the traffic would create problems for homeowners that faced the street. He suggested that Lots 2 and 3 be turned so they face 850 East. Mr. Bang said that he would consider this suggestion.
Chairman Morse asked if there was any comment from the public on this application. Mr. Gordon Van Wagoner of 65 South 800 East, raised questions concerning the dedication of the Bentley right-of-way. Mrs. Loudell Bentley of 811 East Center explained that when she and her husband had received the building permit for their home, they had been required to allow for a 66 foot right-of-way for Center Street in front of their home and also set back enough to allow for 800 East on the west side of their lot. She continued by saying that later it was discovered that, through an error of Lindon City, the right-of-way dedication had not been signed. Mrs. Bentley acknowledged that it should have been signed when the plat for her lot was recorded, however, she asserted that she was glad it had not been done because now she had leverage over the City to work out some of her concerns. She expressed concern that the right of way for Center Street was narrow near the LDS Chapel on Canal Drive. She felt that adding more homes beyond her property would impact traffic patterns and place more pressure on the homes in this narrow area. She also asked that the property behind her home and her neighbor’s homes not be landlocked. She showed how the plans for extending 800 East on the west side of her home set back her home to the east, and now this plan would put a road up her east side instead. She wondered why the other homeowners on Center were not required to dedicate a sufficient right-of-way, and why, since the road was narrow, she had been required to made make room for a 66 foot road.
Mr. Van Wagoner asserted that he was not willing to dedicate his half of the easement across from Bentley’s home. He told the Commission that he had closed the road one day a year to maintain the land as private property. He was not interested in development of his property and would put a fence in the middle of the road to maintain his property rights.
Commissioner Nixon asked if the neighborhood would be interested in a Special Service District to put in curb and gutter and improve Center Street. Mr. Van Wagoner did not think the neighbors would be interested because they would lose a good share of their front yards. Commissioner Nixon asked Mrs. Bentley if she agreed with the plans submitted by Mr. Bang. He asked specifically if she wanted the road on her east side as proposed by Mr. Bang. Mrs. Bentley affirmed that they had worked with Mr. Bang and the present design was in response to their request that their back lot not be landlocked. She agreed with the design. However, she expressed concern that her neighbor, Hal Richins, also not be landlocked. She disclosed that she had called Mr. Richins and described this proposal. He had not returned her calls.
Mr. Bang declared that he had changed his plat to accommodate the Bentleys which gave him frontage on only one side of a road that he was constructing entirely. It was costing him more to oblige the needs of the Bentleys. Mrs. Bentley expressed concern that a half road with no parking would create a hazard for her visiting grandchildren. Councilmember Bayless asked if the City could realistically expect to complete Center Street to a 66 foot width in the future. Mr. Smith admitted that some compromises may be dictated. He suggested that City Engineer Dave Thurgood look at this situation to see if a 66 foot road could be extended through this area. He discussed the plan to disperse traffic through several East-West routes, of which Center Street is one. Chairman Morse agreed that if Center Street was tied into 900 East over the Murdock Canal that motorists would use the route in greater numbers. Commissioner Nixon expressed concern over the area that was narrowed and the traffic problems that may occur there. Chairman Morse discussed briefly the probable traffic to the Junior High School. Councilmember Bayless advised the Planning Commission to look to the future.
Mr. Van Wagoner asked who would be responsible for making the road wider. He alleged that his neighbor, Mr. Nyal Richins, had also not dedicated a right-of-way for Center Street across his property. He asserted that his number one concern is safety. He claimed that these proposed lots would add more traffic to an already-strained, narrow road, and if the R2 Overlay project for Lot 1A was approved, there would be more traffic. He stated that one of his neighbors had a signed statement from former Mayor Greenwood that Center Street would never be extended over the Canal.
Councilmember Bayless expressed concern over not having appropriate access for this proposed subdivision. Commissioner Nixon verified the width of the asphalt in front of the Bentley’s home. Mrs. Bentley declared that there was no easement signed and no right-of-way through her property. She claimed that the City had installed secondary and storm water lines into Center Street across her property without getting an easement. Commissioner Nixon verified the location of the water lines. Commissioner Peters questioned the easement across the Nyal Richins’ property.
Mrs. Bentley told the Commission that she had received a reimbursement check from the City for some of the asphalt that was installed in front of her home. She discussed the fact that it had taken a year to receive it and that she was unsure what she was being reimbursed for. Mr. Smith told Mrs. Bentley that he was not sure why the City had not allowed her to bond for the improvements in front of her home, but the check was to reimburse the Bentleys for the additional width required for Center Street being designed as a collector. Councilmember Bayless explained that there was a short period of time that Lindon City or the State of Utah did not allow bonding for improvements. She surmised that the Bentley’s home may have been built during this period.
Chairman Morse asked if there were concerns that needed to be addressed other than the road easement. Commissioner Nixon questioned whether the Commission should contact Hal Richins about the possibility of landlocking his back parcel. Commissioner Anderson contended that Mr. Richins could have a flag lot and would not necessarily be landlocked. Commissioner Johanson asked if the Commission had an obligation to not landlock neighboring properties. Commissioner Nixon suggested that consideration be given to reducing the number of little access roads and cul-de-sacs. Councilmember Bayless questioned whether planning for a neighbor two lots away from a project is onerous on a developer, and may be meddling. Chairman Morse confirmed with Mrs. Bentley that they approved of Mr. Bang’s proposal in design. Mrs. Bentley replied yes.
Mr. Van Wagoner reiterated his desire not to develop his property and his right not to give a right-of-way on his side of the street. He discussed the chain of owners of Mr. Bang’s property and their problems over the years. Commissioner Anderson asked Mr. Van Wagoner if he represented the Walkers also. He replied affirmatively.
Chairman Morse suggested that Mr. Bang work out a solution with the neighbors before the Commission discussed this further. Commissioner Peters proposed that the Commission consult with the City Engineer on the decision to cross the canal with Center Street. Commissioner Anderson commented that Center Street would not cross the Murdock Canal this year or next year, but in 20 years it may be necessary. Commissioner Nixon observed that this proposal was in the General Plan. Mr. Smith said that he would follow up with the City Engineer. Mr. Van Wagoner requested that the City look at the full picture and the impact on all the homes in the neighborhood.
Commissioner Nixon suggested that the Commissioners continue this discussion until the impact on all the neighbors is considered, not just the next door neighbor, but the whole area. He wanted to see options for development of the Richins’ property. Mr. Smith offered to call Hal Richins for his input. Commissioner Peters agreed, but thought that with only nine homes and the easement worked out with Bentleys, the half street may be enough for now. Commissioner Nixon reviewed the conditions that had been discussed. He suggested that Mr. Bang turn lots 2 and 3 to 850 East and not Center Street. He recommended that the easement across the Bentleys be resolved. Mrs. Bentley again expressed concern for the safety of children with a half street.
Chairman Morse asked Mr. Bang to work with the Bentleys. Commissioner Peters considered the potential of 20 homes with the full development of the Bang and Bentley properties. Commissioner Anderson observed that the proposal for an R2 Overlay may not be considered with only a half street for access. Commissioner Peters suggested that Mr. Bang work with the Walkers. Commissioner Nixon suggested that the remnant parcel shown on the southeast corner of the plat be traded to Walkers for an easement. Commissioner Nixon also recommended that the size of Lot 8 by the Bentleys be finalized and a temporary turnaround be planned on Center Street west of the Murdock Canal.
Mr. Van Wagoner asked for an estimate of the number of vehicles that may be expected from nine homes. Planning Intern Adam Cowie replied that he had learned in a traffic engineering class at BYU that a single family home will generate 4.3 trips per day. Mr. Van Wagoner expressed appreciation for the Planning Commissioners’ attention to his concerns. Mrs. Bentley also expressed appreciation.
COMMISSIONER NIXON MOVED TO CONTINUE THE REQUEST BY BILL BANG FOR APPROVAL OF CENTER STREET ESTATES, A 9-LOT RESIDENTIAL SUBDIVISION WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS:
1. INFORMATION AND RECOMMENDATIONS BE REQUESTED FROM THE CITY ENGINEERS ON WIDENING CENTER STREET TO COLLECTOR STANDARDS.
2. ACCESS AND RIGHT-OF-WAY ISSUES FOR CENTER STREET BE RESOLVED.
3. FUTURE DEVELOPMENT PLANS OF NYAL AND HAL RICHINS BE SOUGHT AND CONSIDERED.
4. THE POTENTIAL FATE OF THE REMNANT PARCELS ON THE NORTHWEST AND SOUTHEAST CORNERS BE DETERMINED.
5. A TEMPORARY TURNAROUND BE SHOWN AT THE END OF CENTER STREET WEST OF THE MURDOCK CANAL.
6. TURN LOTS 2 AND 3 TO FRONT ON 850 WEST RATHER THAN CENTER STREET.
7. NOTIFY NEIGHBORS AND RESIDENTS OF EAST CENTER STREET OF THE NEXT PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING WHEN THIS APPLICATION WILL BE DISCUSSED.
8. A TRAFFIC STUDY BE REQUESTED FROM AND COMPLETED BY THE CITY ENGINEERS.
7. Standard Land Use Table Review
This is a staff-initiated review of the Standard Land Use Table which regulates the types of land uses allowed in each zone in the City.
Mr. Smith introduced this item by stating that this table is the first thing potential buyers look at when they come to Lindon. They want to know what they can do on a certain piece of property. Councilmember Bayless commented that the Utah League of Cities and Towns recommends that conditional uses be removed from the Standard Land Use Table as much as possible. Mr. Smith agreed and observed that a conditional use allows a developer to mitigate concerns. If the Planning Commission has real concerns about a use in a particular zone, he recommended that they consider putting it in another zone where it would be more appropriate. The Commissioners discussed being restrictive for sexually-oriented businesses.
Commissioner Atchison asked for clarification on the acronyms and initials used in the table. Mr. Smith was asked to explain how the table had been changed from the previous version. He described the simplification of the table and the elimination of obscure categories. He commented that this table is an amended copy of Orem’s new table.
The Commissioners discussed each entry and made recommendations for changes. They felt that Solicitors should not be allowed in the Travel Zone and Itinerant Merchants be a conditional use in the Planned Commercial zone. Commissioner Anderson suggested that Christmas Trees Sales and Fireworks Stands be identical lines and not allowed in the Travel Zone. The Travel Zone was defined and discussed. It was decided that since the underlying zone prevailed, they could avoid potential contradictions by not making any uses allowed in the Travel Zone.
Commissioner Johanson questioned why residential homes were not allowed in the General Commercial Zone. He mentioned allowing the neo-traditional concept of homes and apartments over businesses. Councilmember Bayless observed that the General Plan stated that these concepts would be considered, but did not really allow them. Mr. Smith commented that the General Commercial Zone was reserved for revenue generation and residential was not allowed.
Bed and Breakfast facilities were added to the hotels, motels and tourist courts category. Explosives Manufacturing was discussed and prohibited in the city. Tobacco Product Manufacturing was also prohibited. Motion Picture Production was permitted in the General Commercial Zone. Telephone Communications were defined as telephone lines and permitted in all zones. Telephone Exchange Stations were not permitted in the Mixed Use Zone. Radio and Television Broadcasting Stations were discussed. Gas Production Plants and Storage/Distribution Points were not permitted in the Light Manufacturing Zone. Sewage Pressure Stations were changed from Conditional to Permitted in the Mixed Use Zone. Solid Waste Disposal and Incineration was changed from conditional to not permitted in the Light Manufacturing Zone. Aseptic Services was pointed out as an example of an undesirable business in this zone.
Mr. Smith informed the Commission that they would review the next four pages at the next meeting.
8. Planning Director’s Report
Mr. Smith asked if any of the Commissioners were receiving the American Planning Magazine. Mr. Smith informed the Commissioners that he was starting a subscription in each of their names. He felt that the magazine was a helpful resource on planning information.
Citizen Planner Certification was discussed.
Commissioner Nixon asked to have timely information forwarded to the Commissioners. Mr. Smith offered to set up pick-up boxes for each Commissioner.
Commissioner Atchison announced that she and her husband were the Chairs of the 2001 Lindon Days Celebration. She asked for suggestions on committee chairs for the Parade and Fair.
Eagle Project suggestions were sought.
ADJOURN
THE PLANNING COMMISSION ADJOURNED BY CONSENSUS AT 10:20 P.M.
Certified as Correct, April 25, 2001
________________________________________
Loren Morse, Chairman
Attest,
____________________________________
Kevin Smith, Planning Director |
|
|
