|
|
Home » City Government » Planning Commission » Minutes Archive; 2000 - 2002 » Planning Commission Minutes 2002 » August 14, 2002
August 14, 2002
The Lindon City Planning Commission held a regularly scheduled meeting on Wednesday, August 14, 2002 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
Loren Morse, Chairman
Ron Anderson, Commissioner
Lori Atchison, Commissioner
Bruce Carpenter, Commissioner
Jim Peters, Commissioner
Marilyn Simister, Commissioner
Dustin Sweeten, Commissioner
Lindsey Bayless, Councilmember
Kevin Smith, Planning Director
Venla Gubler, Administrative Clerk
Karen Devine, Planning Intern
Robert Hammond, Planning Intern
ABSENT
The Meeting began at 7:07 P.M.
1. MINUTES
The minutes of the regularly scheduled meeting of July 10, 2002 will be reviewed on August 28, 2002.
2. PUBLIC COMMENT
Chairman Morse welcomed Scout Troop 1183 to the meeting. He asked if there was any public comment. There was none.
3. NEW BUSINESS (Reports by Commissioners)
Commissioner Peters reported that he had recently attended a Green Valley Condo
Association meeting where the property owners are concerned about previously promised streetlights for 40 West and 80 West on the corner of 480 North. He informed Mr. Smith that the power company says that the lines are put in the wrong place and are estimating $4,000 per line to move or replace them. The Association is concerned about crossing sidewalks and driveways. They are wondering what the City can do to help. Mr. Smith replied that he would check into the situation. Chairman Morse asked if there were other reports. There were none.
4. EVE HANSON - 137 NORTH 550 EAST - DESIGN REVIEW FOR DEEP LOT PROPOSAL
Ms. Hanson would like the Planning Commission to review a potential plan for the creation of a deep lot to the rear of her home in Country Villa Estates, Plat “C,” Lot 16 & 17.
Planning Intern Karen Devine presented this potential plan for a deep lot to the Commissioners. She reported that the Commissioners’ comments had been delivered to Ms. Hanson and that Ms. Hanson had requested this meeting to present extra information for consideration. Ms. Eve Hanson asked the Commission to describe what can be divided into a flag lot and what cannot. She asked the Commission to elaborate why Mr. Murano was allowed to create a flag lot and she had been denied.
Mr. Smith was asked to explain on behalf of the Commission. He displayed an aerial photo of the city and showed her that many of the lots are long and narrow. He explained that these lots were created years ago, before the subdivision ordinance was created in 1978. He informed Ms. Hanson that any lot created after 1978 has to comply with the requirements of the subdivision ordinance. The deep lot ordinance was adopted to allow these original lots to be subdivided and used. He noted that when a larger parcel is being subdivided now, no deep lots are allowed in the subdivision design. This is the situation in her subdivision, which was created in 1992. The developer of this subdivision appears to have intended to create large lots to meet a certain market and the parcel could have been developed into smaller lots in 1992. Based on that premise, the Commission has determined that Ms. Hanson’s proposed plan does not meet the purpose and intent of the deep lot ordinance, specifically the sentence “Subdividing hardships created by previous development plans, thereby making a deep lot necessary to develop property, shall not be considered as a reason for approval of a deep lot.”
Ms. Hanson disagreed that her situation is different from Mr. Murano’s. She commented that Mr. Murano purchased the parcel from the Fords, who wished to sell part of their property just as she does. She added that she lives on a street and acreage that are atypical from those surrounding her in that they are larger lots. She claimed that it was not her intent to discredit property value, but she has more land than she can use and would like to use part of it to help her family. She had not considered subdividing until her parents had asked her if it was a possibility. They will build a nice rambler that will not be intrusive. She added that they have the frontage and the acreage necessary to make a normal lot out of her atypical lot.
Chairman Morse commented that it appeared to him that the reason these large lots had been developed was to appeal to a certain market. Mr. Karl Ford agreed and told the Commission that this was the reason he had chosen to move to Lindon. He had purposely picked an acre lot with other large lots around it, and that was what had been presented to him by the developer. He felt that the Murano situation was different. He expressed the opinion that Ms. Hanson’s proposal would change the neighborhood and affect the sellability and value of his property.
Ms. Hanson asked for an explanation of “subdividing hardships.” Mr. Smith replied that it was the developer’s option to divide the property into smaller lots, which he did not do. Chairman Morse and Commissioner Sweeten added that her lot had been developed subsequently to 1978 and so does not qualify. Commissioner Carpenter added that the Council had intended for this ordinance to only be used in rare instances, and not for every large lot in Lindon. Ms. Hanson asserted that, in her mind, her proposal is not different from Mr. Murano’s. Mr. Ford disagreed and explained that the time when it was developed is the difference. Commissioner Anderson agreed with this assessment and explained that in the future 50 years from now, the situation may change. Chairman Morse disagreed that the proposal is the same as Mr. Murano’s. Ms. Hanson replied that she was trying to sell a half acre just like him. Commissioner Carpenter observed that the intent of the subdivider was not to create ½ acre lots in this subdivision. This subdivision is regarded as complete and Ms. Hanson is asking for a revision of it. Ms. Hanson pointed out that a deep lot is the only way she can subdivide like the ordinance requires. She asked why she was being denied and the other individual had been allowed to create a deep lot.
Mr. Kevin Gillman pointed out that Mr. Murano’s deep lot was not part of a subdivision. There is no way to add another road or to create the frontage needed for a regular lot. Ms. Hanson replied that Mr. Murano had purchased additional land to put a driveway into his lot. Mr. Gillman added that there are large parcels similar to hers in the subdivision north of Mr. Murano’s deep lot that will not be allowed to subdivide either. Chairman Morse observed that he considered Ms. Hanson’s proposal as “haphazard planning,” and it will change the character and intent of the subdivision. Mr. Murano’s application did not change the character because the area was already impacted by the new subdivision. Commissioner Sweeten pointed out that the purchaser of a lot in a subdivision buys the lot the way it is and cannot change the boundaries.
Ms. Hanson asked if she was going to be forever bound by the actions of the developer.
Commissioner Sweeten replied that the developer had used the current rules when he had subdivided the parcel. Ms. Hanson commented that in Georgia, her grandmother had a twenty-acre parcel that she had divided up to her family and she had been raised in close proximity to her grandmother. She felt that Lindon should consider some proposal that allows for circumstances like this family situation. She felt that her proposal meets the requirements. She asked, “Where is the developer God.”
Commissioner Peters replied that the developer proposed a subdivision that met the requirements and was approved as is by the Planning Commission. Commissioner Carpenter explained that even if there were no houses built in the subdivision, a deep lot would not be allowed. Mr. Smith added that the developer had the chance to develop differently and had chosen this way to sell the lot, and she had purchased under that premise. Commissioner Sweeten explained that the subdivision as constituted complied with the subdivision ordinance. Commissioner Peters added that the Commission and Council had tried very hard to be fair with the deep lot ordinance and had spent a lot of time ensuring that every circumstance was covered. Chairman Morse summed up the discussion by saying that Ms. Hanson’s proposal does not, in the opinion of the Planning Commission, comply with the terms of the ordinance as written. Commissioner Anderson told Ms. Hanson that if she wishes, she can present her proposal to the City Council for their opinion. It was explained that although Ms. Hanson’s intentions are to care for her parents now, the future would also change her circumstances and the property may be sold to someone not in Ms. Hanson’s family. Ms. Hanson contended that she still did not understand why her proposal was different. Real property is used for a purpose and over time, that purpose may change. The needs of individuals change over the years and they should be allowed to make the changes in their property that fit their circumstances. She thanked the Commission for their time.
5. MIKE ANDERSON - 600 W LAKEVIEW DRIVE - DESIGN REVIEW FOR SUBDIVISION
This is a request for a 25-lot subdivision which includes an R2 Overlay project as well as an assisted living center. Further information will be given by the applicant.
It was determined that Mr. Mike Anderson was not present. Commissioner Peters suggested that the neighbors that had come to air their opinions should be allowed to comment. Commissioner Sweeten suggested that a review would be nice, so that when Mr. Anderson is present, the Commissioners will have some background and a chance to view the property. Mr. Smith displayed an aerial photo of the proposed parcel. Ms. Devine explained that the project consists of 25 half-acre lots between Gillman Lane and Lakeview Road and includes an R2 Overlay project and an assisted living center.
Commissioner Carpenter asked if the street widths had been examined on the plan to see if the number of lots needed to be reduced. Mr. Smith agreed that the street widths needed consideration and a lot or two may need to be removed. He indicated the proposed locations of the R2 Overlay project and the assisted living center. Commissioner Carpenter asked about the maximum number of units allowed in an R2 Overlay project. Mr. Smith explained that a one acre project can have up to six units, either as two triplexes or three twin homes. He also pointed out the locations of other R2 projects within the neighborhood and the distances between the projects.
Commissioner Anderson asked if there was sufficient area to widen Gillman Lane to a 50-foot road. Mr. Smith replied yes and showed how the road would be widened. Commissioner Carpenter asked if the home on the corner of Gillman Lane and Lakeview Drive had a sufficient setback to allow widening of Gillman Lane there. Mr. Smith replied that for now the road would be widened to that point and then narrowed again. When the homeowner on the corner develops his lot, the balance of the corner will be widened to required street width.
Mr. Kevin Gillman pointed out a multi-unit development on Gillman Lane already. Mr. Smith replied that this is an accessory apartment that has been illegally made into a duplex. One unit is required to be owner occupied. He is in contact with the owner to correct the situation. He explained that the owner of these units may submit an R2 Overlay application and this may prevent the present proposal from having R2 units. He added that the Overlay zone will permit the approval of seven more units subject to the separation requirement. Commissioner Anderson observed that applications are reviewed and approved on a first come-first serve basis, so whoever get gets their application in first will probably prevent the other from meeting the terms of the ordinance. He expressed concern about the distance from the Bunnell triplex. Mr. Smith displayed the 750-foot circle and how the Bunnell project was just beyond the borders.
Commissioner Simister asked what the ordinances prescribe for an assisted living center. Mr. Smith replied that the larger centers are restricted to commercial zones. Smaller ones fall into the group home ordinance and are integrated into residential zones. He reported that this center would be about 16-20 beds.
Chairman Morse asked about anticipated traffic to an assisted living center and noted that Lakeview Road is a 66-foot collector. Mr. Smith replied that the traffic counts for a center are not large, because the residents do not travel. They get visitors more than they leave the center on their own.
Mr. Gillman asked if the City was aware of possible drainage problems in that acreage. He pointed out the location of culverts that drain property to the east into this acreage and added that if these are fouled and back up, the homes on the east side of Gillman Lane are in danger of flooding.
Mr. Smith summed up the discussion by stating that it appears that the Commissioners are in consensus that the half acre lots do not seem to present a problem. The additions of the R2 Overlay project and the assisted living center are the questionable items. More details are needed on these items. Commissioner Peters asked if there was a limit in the ordinance on the number of beds in a residential group home. He pointed out that Beehive Homes are limited to six beds and this is almost 20. Mr. Smith replied that there is no limit on beds specified in the ordinance. Commissioner Carpenter asked if the center would be for short or intermediate term care rather than retirement living. This was conceded as a possibility.
Chairman Morse asked if commercial building requirements were applied to a residential living group home. Mr. Smith replied that the application will be a conditional use permit and it will be up to the Planning Commission to require landscaping and other commercial details. Commissioner Peters suggested that the group home ordinance be reviewed. Chairman Morse commented that the location of the assisted living center on Lakeview Road, a collector, was an added bonus. He added that the living center needed more definition and information submitted, and the acreage of the lots on Gillman Lane needs examination. He observed that the R2 Overlay is questionable. He asked if there were other comments from the Commissioners or audience. There were none.
6. GUNNOR VANDEBURG - 80 N STATE STREET - DESIGN REVIEW FOR FIREWORKS SQUARE
This is a request for design review on a potential retail/office building project. Indoor storage units will also be included within the development.
Mr. Smith displayed an aerial photo to help identify the location. Commissioner Anderson commented that this is the Keetch property. This was confirmed. Photos of the location were shown. Mr. Smith displayed the proposed site plan and pointed out retail pads and storage units. Commissioner Sweeten asked the depth of the parcel. The applicants replied that it equaled three football fields. Commissioner Sweeten asked if the parcel was zoned commercial that far back. This was confirmed and Mr. Smith displayed the boundaries of the commercial zone in that neighborhood.
Mr. Scot Hazard and Mr. Gunnor VanDeBerg introduced themselves. Mr. Hazard explained their plans for the parcel. He detailed plans for two retail pads on the State Street frontage, one for a restaurant and the other for a bank or c-store. He showed a retail strip mall in 40-foot bays and a pad for an auto-related center like Checker or Tunex, and added that it would not be a full automotive repair site, but a quick stop service center.
Commissioner Carpenter asked if they planned a road through these retail pads or expected access though the parking lot. Mr. Hazard said that they had considered a cul-de-sac. He commented that the parcel is too deep for State Street exposure and most businesses would have a hard time staying in business. They felt that mixing up the project would help and suggested self-contained storage for the very western end. He explained “self-contained” storage as walk-in storage, not drive-up storage like most. The building will be two stories with elevators to the second floor. They also proposed some covered and uncovered recreational vehicle storage that is walled and gated.
Chairman Morse asked if the developers would consider office space instead of storage. Mr. Hazard replied that there is no demand for office space and there are many available units at the present. Commissioner Carpenter commented that there is no allowance for storage in a commercial zone. Mr. Smith agreed, but added that the restriction addresses outdoor storage units. He asked if the Commissioners would consider a self-contained storage unit as explained.
Chairman Morse commented that the displayed picture was fairly attractive and asked if the units would generate tax revenues for the City. Commissioner Anderson suggested that RV storage may create a problem. Mr. Hazard asked if the Commissioners could foresee a problem if the units are all covered. Commissioner Sweeten replied that the City code would have to be changed to allow it. He asked about the composition of the wall. Mr. Hazard explained that it would be a block wall with open carport type covers. Commissioner Sweeten commented that the RV units will still be seen by neighbors and passers-by.
Commissioner Anderson commented that the units would be better if covered completely so they are not seen. He could also foresee a problem with owners creating noise while picking up or dropping off their units in early morning hours or late evening hours. He suggested that the units may not be compatible with the residents across the wall.
Commissioner Carpenter commented that the self storage building’s appearance is better than the traditional storage units. Mr. Smith observed that the units are attractive and are climate controlled. Commissioner Carpenter explained that the unattractiveness of outdoor storage is the problem with the State Street location. He added that the Tunex may also work, because the storage needs of traditional vehicle repair shops are the problem being addressed in the restriction.
Mr. Smith suggested that the plans include future access to the parcel on the north between this property and Lakeview Road. He explained that staff was hoping to see both parcels develop as one project and improve access for both. Commissioner Peters agreed and suggested requiring cross easements. Mr. Hazard commented that they had looked at acquiring the other parcel, but the problem is the size of the parcel and the location. He explained that the size of the parcel would need some “big box” development plans and the location is too close to Pleasant Grove and Orem to support that kind of project. Commissioner Peters brought up a study done for Home Depot that supported the theory that a “big box” would survive on the regional and commuter traffic that most commonly uses State Street. Mr. Smith agreed and explained that the study’s conclusions stated that the “house tops” help, but the State Street traffic is more important. Commissioner Anderson explained that the study also concluded that if 1600 North included more than a single lane on each side, more retail would be supported than is presently.
The Commissioners asked Councilmember Bayless for her opinion of the project. She suggested that the customers visiting the retail units should not cross the access road to the back of the parcel to reach the businesses. She could foresee potential safety problems with this design. Commissioner Carpenter suggested that the access road be moved to the north edge of the property. Commissioner Peters suggested improvement on several ideas of the project, including traffic flow, and tying in with the neighboring parcel. He expressed discomfort with the outside storage concept. Mr. Smith cautioned the applicants that this was a design review only and not approval.
Chairman Morse expressed favor to the Tunex. Commissioner Sweeten commented that outside storage that can be seen will not be considered. It needs to be covered and enclosed. Chairman Morse suggested that traffic to the storage area may also be a concern to the neighbors because of the noise. Mr. Hazard offered to approach the neighbors with the concept and to see if they could accommodate the neighborhood concerns. Chairman Morse thanked Mr. Hazard and Mr. VanDeBerg for coming to present their proposal.
7. DISCUSSION ITEM - R2 OVERLAY PAMPHLET
The Planning Commission is required to review and make recommendations on the R2 Overlay pamphlet. The pamphlet is required to notify project applicants of relevant information.
Mr. Smith observed that the last revision and amendment of the R2 Overlay ordinance required an informational pamphlet to be created and approved. He asked for comment from the Commissioners on the layout and content. Commissioner Carpenter congratulated Mr. Smith on the pamphlet’s presentation. He suggested that the wording of the sentence that explained the 4 percent rule would be more clear if it is explained that the “product” of an R2 Overlay District’s total acreage multiplied by 4% is then divided by six to determine the maximum number of units in that District. He also suggested that a lot of confusion arises in differentiating between owner-occupied accessory apartments and R2 Overlay projects. He felt that the distance requirement explanation should also include a statement to the effect that accessory apartments are included in the total number of units in a District, but not in the distance requirement. Commissioner Anderson agreed and added that the distance requirement is measured from building to building.
Commissioner Carpenter suggested that the statement concerning the number of buildings in an R2 Project be corrected to specify that there is a maximum of six units in a project, which can be three duplexes or two triplexes or six small individual units, but no combination of units larger than a triplex. He also suggested a statement added that would state that the Planning Commission understands that these projects incite public clamor, but that, although these objections are heard, it does not other factors are also important and fit into the decision whether to approve or deny an application. R2 projects are judged on their compliance with the ordinance. He added that any project creates extra traffic. He commented that this may help the homeowners understand that showing up in force does not help make the decision.
Commissioner Atchison commented that the 4 percent rule has never been clearly understandable to her, and this explanation still does not clear it up. The Commissioners discussed it and finally decided to leave out the calculations and explain that a maximum of 4% of the acreage in an Overlay District is allowed for R2 Overlay projects. Commissioner Carpenter noted that he had minor spelling and grammar errors that he would give to Mr. Smith at the end of the meeting. Mr. Smith thanked him.
Chairman Morse asked if there were other comments or suggestions. Commissioner Simister asked where she could find the rules for accessory apartments. Mr. Smith replied that the requirements are located at the end of the R2 Overlay ordinance. Commissioner Carpenter suggested that an addition be made that the R2 Overlay ordinance cannot be superseded by restrictive covenants. Mr. Smith thanked the Commissioners for their comments and told them he would bring the corrected brochure back for their approval.
8. PLANNING DIRECTOR’S REPORT
a. PRATT GRADING PLAN
Mr. Smith explained that the Pratt parcel is located east of the Salt Lake Aqueduct and so needs approval of their grading plan per the Hillside Overlay ordinance. He presented that plan and noted that the lot is almost flat and requires no “fancy” grading and only minimal retaining walls. Chairman Morse asked if City Engineer Mark Christensen had reviewed the plan. Mr. Smith replied yes and that he had no concerns. Commissioner Carpenter pointed out that the lot’s back grade will be level with the walk out basement. The Council discussed the average height of the structure and the elevations. Mr. Smith explained that if a structure is submitted with a flat vertical wall, it is not approved. The elevations must show some variation in the vertical distances. Chairman Morse asked if there were any concerns. There were none.
COMMISSIONER ANDERSON MOVED TO APPROVE THE GRADING PLAN SUBMITTED BY DEWEY PRATT ON CANBERRA HEIGHTS SUBDIVISION, PLAT “C,” LOT 2. COMMISSIONER SWEETEN SECONDED THE MOTION. ALL PRESENT VOTED IN FAVOR. THE MOTION CARRIED.
b. UPCOMING TRAINING OPPORTUNITIES
Mr. Smith informed the Commissioners of upcoming training sessions presented by ULCT on September 11-13, 2002 at the Salt Lake Sheraton. He commented that the APA Conference is usually held in October in Deer Valley. He asked that if anyone wants to go, let him know and he will register for them. Mr. Smith demonstrated the ArcView program on the City’s new projector and computer.
ADJOURN
COMMISSIONER CARPENTER MOVED TO ADJOURN AT 9:04 P.M. COMMISSIONER ANDERSON SECONDED THE MOTION. ALL PRESENT VOTED IN FAVOR. THE MOTION CARRIED.
APPROVED - August 28, 2002
_______________________________________
Loren Morse, Chairman
Attest,
_______________________________________
Kevin Smith, Planning Director |
|
|
