|
|
Home » City Government » Planning Commission » Minutes Archive; 2000 - 2002 » Planning Commission Minutes 2002 » December 11, 2002
December 11, 2002
The Lindon City Planning Commission held a regularly scheduled meeting on Wednesday, December 11, 2002 at 7:00 p.m. in the Lindon City Council Chamber, 100 North State Street, Lindon, Utah.
Conducting: Loren Morse, Chairman
Invocation: Dustin Sweeten
PRESENT
Loren Morse, Chairman
Ron Anderson, Commissioner
Lori Atchison, Commissioner
Bruce Carpenter, Commissioner
Jim Peters, Commissioner
Marilyn Simister, Commissioner
Dustin Sweeten, Commissioner
Kevin Smith, Planning Director
Venla Gubler, Administrative Clerk
Robert Hammond, Planning Intern
Dustin Huler, Planning Intern
ABSENT
Evan Nixon, Alternate Commissioner
Lindsey Bayless, Councilmember
The Meeting began at 7:06 p.m.
1. MINUTES
Review of the Minutes of September 25, 2002, October 9, 2002, and October 23, 2002.
The Minutes of the regular meeting of September 25, 2002 were reviewed. There were no corrections.
The Minutes of the regular meeting of October 9, 2002 were reviewed. The following corrections were made:
Page 2, Line 28,29: Replace the words “put on” with the phrase “given to.”
Page 2, Line 29,-31: Replace the phrase “decide whether to renew their CUP to allow them more time to come into compliance, or deny the CUP and put the company out of business” with the phrase “before the CUP is issued.”
Page 6, Line 12: Add the words “the existing” before the word “trees.” Add the words “on State Street” after the word “trees.”
The Minutes of the regular meeting of October 23, 2002 were reviewed. The following corrections were made:
Page 3, Line 17: Replace the word fragment “nd” with the word “and.”
Page 3, Line 19,20: Replace the phrase “get what they deserve” with the phrase “receive what is owed to them.”
Page 4, Line 12: Replace the word “sawing” with the words “light manufacturing.”
Page 4, Line 24,25: Replace the word “lose” with the words “no longer have.” Add the word “close” after the word “family.”
Page 5, Line 14: Replace the name “Peter” with the name “Peters.”
Page 6, Line 12-14: Add the phrase “ON COMMISSIONER SIMISTER’S MOTION” after the word “REVOTE.” Add the phrase “OF THIS THIRD MOTION” after the word “FAVOR.”
Page 7, Line 16: Add the name “Walker” after the name “Howard.” Replace the name “Howard” with the name “Walker.”
Page 7, Line 37,38: Add condition 6 “REACH AN AGREEMENT WITH THE NEIGHBOR ON THE SOUTH SIDE ON THE FENCE.”
Page 8, Line 38: Replace the phrase “be the cause” with the phrase “have made the spring temporarily dry.”
Page 10, Line 6: Replace the word “Commissioner” with the word “Commissioners.”
The Minutes of the joint field trip of November 13, 2002 were reviewed. The following corrections were made:
Page 1, Line 30: Add the name “Noorda” after the name “Trisha.”
Page 2, Line 18, 19 Clarify that the complex houses mostly singles, not young families with children.
COMMISSIONER PETERS MOVED TO APPROVE THE MINUTES OF SEPTEMBER 25, OCTOBER 9, OCTOBER 23, AND NOVEMBER 13, 2002 AS CORRECTED. COMMISSIONER CARPENTER SECONDED THE MOTION. ALL PRESENT VOTED IN FAVOR. THE MOTION CARRIED.
2. PUBLIC COMMENT
Mr. Rex Daley commented that he would like to publically apologize to Planning Director Kevin Smith. There was no other comment.
3. NEW BUSINESS
Commissioner Peters distributed pictures and observed that the pictures were of the new stake center on 600 North. He expressed concerns about the height of the road and creation of a possible flooding problems. He then expressed concern about the landscape berm at the new doctor’s office on 600 North and State Street. Mr. Smith replied that the berm was part of the bond. Commissioner Peters expressed concern about the quality of the building and commented that the second building was not as nice as the first. He added that he could not envision how the landscaping berm would be added later. There was no other comment.
4. WARDLEY PROPERTY - 500 NORTH 2600 WEST - DESIGN REVIEW
This is a request by Wardley Properties to discuss with the Planning Commission various potential multi-family and mixed use development projects for property west of the new I-15 off ramp.
Mr. Smith displayed an aerial of the new freeway interchange as the proposed location of this project. He observed that this design review is a follow up to the joint field trip taken by the Planning Commission and City Council to consider ideas for a west-side residential master plan. The applicants would like the Commissioners to give them an idea of where opinion rests on residential use of land in the west side of Lindon. He added that City Staff’s opinion is that there is a place for this residential use, but there are reservations on this proposed location in close proximity to the sewer treatment plant and what sewer upgrades may be required to service these homes.
Mr. Peter Staks and Mr. Troy Sanders presented their plans to build high density housing on 40 -50 acres near the new interchange. They suggested that this development would accelerate the commercial development of this area. They alluded to the field trip and the examples they had presented of the types of uses that are proposed. They asserted that the project would be upscale, but that single family ownership in this area is not viable or appropriate. The developers told the Commissioners that the demand is for apartments. They have explored options with the city engineer to improve the sewer system on the west side as part of the funding for this project, but they don’t want to push an undesirable or unwelcome project to the City.
Commissioner Peters asked about the sewer system capabilities. Mr. Smith replied that there are challenges to the sewer system in building additional pumping stations and the size of the outfall line. He informed the Commission that the outfall line is located by Home Depot and will only be adequate for about 200 to 300 additional homes. He asked if it was the Commissioner’s opinion that homes should be built in this area. The Commissioners discussed the sewer line restrictions and the future of the treatment plant.
Commissioner Simister expressed concern about how 300 homes added to the limited system would affect the rest of the City. Mr. Smith replied that this is a concern and all solutions to the problem will cost the City, however, any heavy water user in this area will create the same problem. He pointed out that most light industrial uses are not heavy water users. Commissioner Atchison expressed concern about the proximity of the sewer treatment plant. She suggested that long-term renters will be hard to find unless the rent is less to compensate for the odor problem. Commissioner Carpenter agreed with these concerns and added that the odor will be a challenge with any project there.
Mr. Staks asked if the Commissioners had a density figure that would be allowed. He agreed that the sewer would be a problem that may be overcome by reasonable rent and adequate density. Commissioner Carpenter replied that his concern is that the project is not only large, but also dense. He observed that he was not sure that there is a solution to his concern that would also be compatible with his vision of Lindon. Commissioner Sweeten agreed that he also is not convinced that Lindon should change the current density level. Commissioner Carpenter observed that as development moves west, it becomes problematic how to use the land. He commented that Lindon’s west side may be less desirable because of the proximity of Utah Lake, high ground water levels, the treatment plant, main train lines and the freeway. Mr. Staks replied that the development company was not unhappy with the location and felt that it was a viable site. He complimented the City on the pleasing appearance of the interchange. He added that they would like to tie into the use of water features to blend their mixed use project with the landscaping. He noted that retail uses are planned for the area nearest the interchange, but if it appears that residential is not preferred for the remainder, they will redesign it for commercial uses.
Commissioner Peters agreed with the concerns voiced by Commissioner Carpenter. He encouraged the developers to consider other alternatives to high density housing. Mr. Smith commented that the City wants to make something work in this area but it may not be housing. Commissioner Carpenter observed that his vision of Lindon would prefer pasture and he does not necessarily view warehouses as better than housing, but the load on the city services is better. Mr. Staks noted that Lindon and Pleasant Grove have hundreds of acres of commercially zoned land with the opening of the new interchange. He commented that even a major mall only uses about 40-50 acres. Mr. Smith replied that a recent meeting with property owners and commercial real estate brokers revealed that the number of trips generated on 700 North will help to develop the commercial potential more than “rooftops.” Commissioner Anderson noted that this area now has good access, which adds to its commercial development potential. Mr. Smith agreed and pointed out that eventually this interchange will extend to Saratoga Springs. Commissioner Anderson agreed and pointed out that the city has limited resources to meet the demands for services that this number of units will need. He commented that the design appears to be appealing, but he would like to see it aimed at commercial rather than housing. The developers thanked the Commissioners for their comments.
5. KIM CASPER - 739 EAST 600 NORTH - CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT
This is a request for approval of a 2 unit (twin home) multi-family housing project in Meadows at Bald Mountain Subdivision.
Kim and Brian Casper were present in the audience. Mr. Smith displayed an aerial photo of the lot where the proposed R2 Overlay twin home would be built. He explained that this lot is part of District 1 which has five units used and 19 allowed. He added that this project, if approved, would preclude the building of any other projects in this area because of the distance requirement in the ordinance. He explained the R2 Overlay ordinance for the audience and noted that this ordinance helps Lindon City to meet the State mandate for median income housing. He noted that this ordinance is not new, but was revised in 1995 to be more restrictive, i.e., a maximum project size of six units and a 750-foot separation requirement. Mr. Smith showed the audience the proposed elevations of the project that were side by side units with a garage between. He noted that the setbacks were required at 30 feet both front and back. Mr. Casper replied that it would be no problem to adjust the units on the site plan to allow for the required setback.
Mr. Smith referred to the copies of the neighborhood meeting minutes included in the information packet. Ms. Casper asked if the Commissioners had questions. Commissioner Sweeten suggested that the Planning Commission discuss the concerns expressed by the neighborhood in their meeting. He added that the neighborhood has C, C, & R’s that exclude R2 projects and asked if they could do that. Mr. Smith replied that the City was put in a difficult position. The City does not either create or participate in C, C, & R’s. The City also does not enforce C, C, & R’s. He explained that if an R2 Overlay application is received by the City and the project complies with the City Code, the City is obliged to approve that project. If C, C. & R’s restrict such projects, the dispute is between the homeowners association and the property owner, not the City. The City cannot deny a project based on C, C, & R’s. A denial can only be based on the City Code.
Commissioner Simister asked if a developer can legally establish C, C, & R’s that are against the city code. Mr. Smith replied that this question is for a judge to decide. If the City feels that their ability to comply with the state mandate is jeopardized, then they may step into a pending lawsuit to defend their position, but the City cannot restrict legal action taken by a homeowner’s association. Ms. Casper pointed out that the City had put language in the R2 Overlay ordinance that restricts C, C, & R’s from “trumping” the R2 Overlay ordinance. Mr. Smith agreed that this language had been added to clarify the City’s position.
Commissioner Peters asked if the C, C, & R’s had been recorded. This was confirmed. Mr. Jeff Southard commented that he was a member of the Planning Commission when the Bald Mountain project was reviewed. He asked if the R2 Overlay ordinance was explained to the developers. Mr. Smith replied that the City does not review a developer’s C, C, & R’s to know what they say. The City has no means to enforce or even to know what they say. Chairman Morse noted that the City has developed a new brochure that explains the R2 Overlay ordinance. Ms. Jenny Warner identified herself a living directly “kiddie-corner” to the proposed project. She observed that they had not been told that there was a potential for a higher density project in their neighborhood. She noted that they had bought and signed the C, C, & R’s. She objected that they had not been told about an underlying potential that will reduce their property values and make them less protected.
Mr. Smith commented that the City is obligated to enforce what is in the code. C, C, & R’s are an agreement between the property owners, which may be a contract issue, but does not involve the City. Commissioner Sweeten commented that if C, C, & R’s can restrict these projects, it creates a situation where the City may find difficulty to comply with the State mandate. Ms. Rose Southard pointed out that the developer could refuse to sell the property if he knows what is planned and the state mandate will still not be met.
Ms. Warner asked the Commissioners why the City does not designate certain areas for high density projects rather than putting them within housing areas. She pointed out that the residents seem to want Lindon to be certain way and asked if there were areas that may be more appropriate. Commissioner Carpenter replied that the City Council has discussed and struggled with this issue. They made the decision not to concentrate such housing because it is often viewed as burden and therefore should be shared equally and not disproportionately by one area. Ms. Warner asked if they held this view even when the reduction of property values is considered. Commissioner Carpenter replied that this had been considered also. Ms Warner commented that this project will affect her property values. She noted that this effect on values had been verified by surveys in other areas. Commissioner Carpenter agreed that property values are always one of the concerns of such projects. Ms. Warner pointed out that renters are the problem.
Mr. Daniel Ault commented that whether the units might lower property values is debatable, but that the project will not help values is not debatable. He pointed out that the neighbors had invested in nice homes and want these new property owners to be held to the same contract. Commissioner Sweeten replied that if the owners have applied for a project that meets the requirements, the City has to approve it. He agreed that these projects are not always what one wants for their neighborhood, but he lives across the street from one now too. Mr. Rex Daley asked if the project does not meet the setbacks as presently planned, will the Planning Commission turn down the proposal? Ms. Rose Southard asked if this project goes in, could more go in? Mr. Smith replied that there is a distance requirement between projects, so no more would go into this development as it is presently platted. He noted that if the subdivision is expanded to the north, there may be more there. He added that homeowners are still allowed to build owner-occupied accessory apartments within their homes. Commissioner Simister observed that the five approved units in this district were five accessory apartments. Mr. Smith agreed that these are approved, but there may be other accessory apartments in the district that are not approved. Commissioner Simister asked how many units are allowed in this district. Mr. Smith replied that the district is allotted 19 units before there is no further development of R2 projects.
Mr. Greg Southard commented that he was the second person to buy in the Bald Mountain Development and one of his chief concerns was the C, C, & R’s. He wanted to know what the neighborhood would be like. He signed and bought under these conditions. These new owners have also purchased under the same contract. He felt there should be restitution made to him and the other neighbors by a judge. Mr. Jeff Southard asked what the city would do if there was a suit. Would the construction stop? Was an injunction needed? Mr. Smith replied that if the project is approved by the Planning Commission, the neighbors can appeal to the Council and also file a lawsuit. If a Judge orders an injunction delivered to the City, then a building permit will be held until the issue is resolved. Commissioner Carpenter noted that a Judge can issue an injunction at any point of the building process.
Commissioner Sweeten asked if other cities had found a solution to this dilemma. He asked the audience and staff for suggestions on how Lindon could comply with the state mandate other ways. He pointed out that the alternative of large projects in one area was not acceptable. These projects are at least small and spread out. Mr. Jeff Southard recommended that the City make developers aware of the R2 Overlay ordinance. Mr. Smith agreed that in the future the Community Development Department would be more aggressive and had developed the new pamphlet to help. He added that there are many zoning issues in the code that people are not aware of until they are asked to correct the violation. Commissioner Carpenter suggested that there was a breech of responsibility on the part of the attorneys who prepared the C, C, & R’s without looking at the City Code.
Mr. Greg Southard asked what standards are used to build the units. Chairman Morse replied that the standards are listed in the code, and one of the requirements is that the units must look compatible with the neighborhood. Ms. Suzanne Cox asked about changes to the R2 Overlay ordinance. Mr. Smith explained the evolution of the ordinance. Mr. Daley suggested that it may be helpful to developers if the City specified a lot that could be used for these projects. Commissioner Anderson suggested that developers could do this themselves. Ms. Casper asked if smaller lots would achieve the same objective. Mr. Smith replied that the smallest lot allowed in Lindon is 12,000 square feet.
Mr. Casper observed that the neighborhood meeting had not went gone well. The neighborhood had many objections, but not once had the developer offered to buy the lot back. Chairman Morse asked Mr. Casper if he had made his intent to put in a duplex known. Mr. Casper replied that he had informed the realtor of his intent. There was a question about distribution of notices for the public meeting. Mr. Smith answered that notices are sent to the owner shown on the county assessor records.
Commissioner Peters commented that the Commission cannot deny a project based on the C, C, & R’s. He suggested that the Commission look at how the project will fit into the neighborhood. He asked the Caspers if it was possible to build this size of a unit on this lot and preserve the setbacks. He pointed out that the rear setback as presently set at 28 feet. Ms. Casper noted that the units are presently staggered on the front. The garage is set forward of the front of the units. This can be set back into the house to give the necessary setback. Commissioner Peters asked about the size of the building. Ms. Casper replied that the units are 1550 square feet each, not including the garage. Commissioner Carpenter verified that the building was then 1550 square feet per floor. This was confirmed. Commissioner Peters asked about the exterior finish and the pitch of the roof. Ms. Casper replied that the roof was 6/12 and the front of the units would be 25% brick. Mr. Peters asked if their plans would be compatible with the neighborhood. Mr. Casper replied they had attempted to follow the standards of the C, C, & R’s as much as possible.
Commissioner Peters pointed out that no autos or trailers can be stored on the street. He noted that these units only have single car garages. There may be potential parking problems, especially if storage is put in the garage. Mr. Chris Bishop pointed out that the setback is 30 feet from the property line and not the back of the sidewalk so there may be a potential problem there also.
Commissioner Carpenter observed that the interpretation of the requirement to be compatible with the neighborhood is that the project must generally conform to the C, C, & R’s. This is to be applied generally and not specifically and so does not argue for a standard beyond the C, C, & R’s. Mr. Smith agreed that the C, C, & R’s can be used only as a guide to what is appropriate to blend into the neighborhood.
Chairman Morse asked if the Caspers had a response to the garage issue raised by Commissioner Peters. Ms. Casper replied that the plans allow for a standard garage, but they could widen the driveway to have two cars. She would rather not have the whole front yard become a cement “eyesore,” but would if this was required. Commissioner Carpenter agreed that meeting the requirements is part of the challenge of building an R2 project. He asked what the scale of the cement in comparison to the lot and building would be. Mr. Smith replied that the driveway would be about 50 feet. Ms. Casper suggested a planter down the middle so it would not be solid cement.
Mr. Jeff Southard suggested that the standard of the neighborhood is to have a two-car garage per household, so there should be a four-car garage in this project. Mr. Smith pointed out a similar project on 200 South with single car garages and displayed pictures. The parking requirements were discussed. Commissioner Peters observed that the ordinance requires two off street parking spaces. He asked if the garage was included in this requirement. It was decided that the garage was included as an off street parking space.
Chairman Morse asked if there were other questions. Ms. Casper commented that the building would be stucco on the sides and the back. The front would have about 25% of brick facing and possibly a contrasting stucco trim around the window. Mr. Jeff Southard suggested that it may be helpful to require the final plans before approval. Commissioner Peters commented that it is the staff’s responsibility to make sure the project complies with the requirements and conditions set by the Planning Commission, and that other builders are not required to submit final plans before approval. Mr. Smith agreed.
Mr. Daley pointed out that the units don’t meet the minimum size requirements of the C, C, & R’s. Ms. Casper observed that the units are 775 square feet each per floor. Commissioner Carpenter suggested that the C, C, & R’s are a guide not a standard and this may be for a judge to decide. Mr. Bishop asked what items of the C, C, & R’s the Commissioners picked to abide by. Commissioner Anderson replied that the ordinance requires the units to blend in aesthetically with the neighborhood. Commissioner Peters agreed that the units don’t meet the minimum. Mr. Casper suggested that the units could be widened to the 10-foot side setback requirement to make up the square footage. Commissioner Sweeten suggested that the square footage requirement of the C, C, & R’s is not something that the Commission could require because there is not a square footage requirement in the ordinance, but that the owner might want to meet it to fit into the neighborhood better.
The Commissioners discussed whether to have the owners bring back final plans if substantial changes are made to the square footage of the building. The setbacks were discussed.
COMMISSIONER PETERS MOVED TO DENY THE REQUEST BY KIM CASPER FOR A 2-UNIT R2 OVERLAY PROJECT AT 739 EAST 600 NORTH IN THE MEADOWS AT BALD MOUNTAIN SUBDIVISION BECAUSE THE CURRENT PLANS DO NOT MEET THE PROPER SETBACKS.
Ms. Casper asked if the Planning Commission could approve based on the proposed changes. Mr. Casper asked how long this denial would set back their plans. Mr. Smith replied that the next Planning Commission meeting would be held on January 8, 2003.
After discussion, COMMISSIONER PETERS WITHDREW HIS MOTION.
Commissioner Sweeten suggested that conditions be set by the Commissioners and Mr. Smith could make sure that the project complied with these requirements. Chairman Morse suggested that the rear setback and the driveway width could be conditions. He asked if the owners had decided on a color for the stucco. Ms. Casper replied that this had not been decided.
Mr. Sam Morgan observed that he understands that the City is not bound by the subdivision C, C, & R’s, however, if this project is approved, he wants to make it known that a lawsuit will be filed.
COMMISSIONER PETERS MOVED TO APPROVE THE REQUEST BY KIM CASPER FOR A 2-UNIT R2 OVERLAY PROJECT AT 739 EAST 600 NORTH IN THE MEADOWS AT BALD MOUNTAIN SUBDIVISION WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS:
1. COMPLY WITH ALL MINIMUM SETBACKS.
2. MATCH THE AESTHETICS OF THE EXISTING HOMES IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD WITH THE PITCH OF THE ROOF, EXTERIOR TREATMENT AND SQUARE FOOTAGE REQUIREMENTS. COMMISSIONER PETERS RECOMMENDED THAT THE OWNERS PLAN A MINIMUM OF 1,600 SQUARE FEET OF LIVING AREA WITHIN THE BUILDING ON THE MAIN FLOOR IN ORDER TO FIT INTO THE NEIGHBORHOOD.
3. PROVIDE TWO OFF STREET (9 x 18 FEET) PARKING SPACES PER UNIT.
COMMISSIONER SWEETEN SECONDED THE MOTION.
The Commissioners discussed the justification for requiring the 1,600 square feet. THE VOTE IS RECORDED AS FOLLOWS:
COMMISSIONER ANDERSON NAY
COMMISSIONER ATCHISON NAY
COMMISSIONER CARPENTER AYE
CHAIRMAN MORSE NAY
COMMISSIONER PETERS AYE
COMMISSIONER SIMISTER NAY
COMMISSIONER SWEETEN AYE
THE MOTION DID NOT CARRY. (3-4)
COMMISSIONER ANDERSON MOVED TO APPROVE THE REQUEST BY KIM CASPER FOR A 2-UNIT R2 OVERLAY PROJECT AT 739 EAST 600 NORTH IN THE MEADOWS AT BALD MOUNTAIN SUBDIVISION WITH THE SAME CONDITIONS AS ABOVE WITHOUT THE MINIMUM SQUARE FOOTAGE REQUIREMENTS.
COMMISSIONER ATCHISON SECONDED THE MOTION. ALL PRESENT VOTED IN FAVOR EXCEPT COMMISSIONER PETERS WHO VOTED NAY. THE MOTION CARRIED. (6-1)
The appeal process was explained to the neighborhood representatives.
6. WALKER OIL - 797 NORTH STATE STREET - PRELIMINARY SUBDIVISION
This is a request for approval of a one lot subdivision for a new service station/fast food restaurant.
Mr. Ivan Walker and his project engineer, Roger Dudley, were present. Mr. Smith presented the preliminary subdivision proposal for this new Walker/Wendys station. He noted that the site plan had been approved in October and the construction was almost complete. Commissioner Peters asked about the sales tax revenue possibilities of this project and where the RV dump station would be located. Mr. Walker pointed out the planned location of the dump on the Pleasant Grove side of the property. The driveways and the circulation plan were discussed with Mr. Walker. The planned construction of 700 North and the removal of the Saderup home was discussed. Chairman Morse asked if there were questions. There were none.
COMMISSIONER ANDERSON MOVED TO APPROVE THE PRELIMINARY SUBDIVISION APPLICATION FOR WALKER OIL, PLAT “A” AT 797 NORTH STATE STREET AND RECOMMEND APPROVAL TO THE CITY COUNCIL. COMMISSIONER SWEETEN SECONDED THE MOTION. ALL PRESENT VOTED IN FAVOR. THE MOTION CARRIED.
7. LES SCHWAB TIRES - 600 WEST 600 SOUTH - DESIGN REVIEW
This is a request for Planning Commission review of a new tire retail and installation center in the Lindon Gateway area.
Mr. Paul Grady, project coordinator for Les Schwab was present. Mr. Smith displayed the proposed parcel and informed the Commission that this was a design review. He noted that this project is part of the Redevelopment project and the Agency had also performed a design review. He suggested that he review their concerns. He listed the Redevelopment Agency’s questions and comments.
Commissioner Peters asked what direction the building would face. Mr. Smith replied west. The artist conception of the building was shown. It was discussed that the building should blend aesthetically with the area, particularly Home Depot. It was noted that the drain in the back is planned for a tire wash and is not part of the storm system. The landscaping, particularly the berming, spacing of trees, and location of the sign were discussed. It was noted that there may be conflict between the utilities and the preferred sign location. The size, shape, and height of the sign were noted. Mr. Grady was informed that Lindon requires pedestal signs.
The Commissioners discussed the color of the building. Chairman Morse observed that the business was trying to draw traffic from the freeway. The possible compatibility of the colors with the neighboring business of Home Depot was discussed. Mr. Grady passed out the artist’s drawings of the alternative color scheme of rust and cream, rather than the corporate colors of red and white. The Commissioners preferred the rust and cream.
The Commissioners discussed the request by the Redevelopment Board for white vinyl fencing on the entrance and main streets. Commissioner Peters asked if the State Street theme is intended to be extended into this area. The Commissioners discussed the idea that it was better for Lindon to decide the theme before the developers decided it for them. Mr Grady was asked to incorporate the berming wherever possible. Mr. Smith noted that the ordinance required the fence on public streets. The parking requirements were discussed. Commissioner Peters asked if the company planned outside storage. Mr. Grady replied no, that the warehouse would be used for any storage needs. Commissioner Peters asked the width of the entrance driveway and the cross easement from Home Depot. Commissioner Sweeten asked if the entrance from Home Depot existed. Mr. Grady replied yes and disclosed that the entrance was 29 feet wide and the cross easement from Home Depot is 32 feet wide. The island in the center of the road and left turns were discussed. There was a short discussion of the park and ride across the street. The Commissioners reviewed the list from the Redevelopment Agency and decided that the questions from that Board had been covered.
Commissioner Anderson asked how soon the company planned to start construction. Mr. Grady replied that they hoped to let the bids by May and start in June for an opening in September. Chairman Morse asked if there were other questions or comments. There was a discussion about access from the east side of the parcel from the Home Depot right of way. It was decided not to limit access on this side.
8. FRANDSEN STORAGE - 400 NORTH 2000 WEST - DESIGN REVIEW
This is a request for Planning Commission review of a proposed storage unit facility next to Goodfellow Corporation on I-15.
Mr. Dan Frandsen and Mr. Bruce Frandsen were present to show their proposal to the Commissioners. Mr. Smith referred the Commissioners to the minutes of March 27 where Mr. Frandsen and visited and asked for comments from the Commissioners. He noted that the proposal is a storage unit complex north of the Goodfellow Corporation on 2000 West. He informed the Commissioners that staff’s concerns are on the aesthetics of the complex, especially as the location is near the freeway. He asked the Commissioners to address the subjects of landscaping, walls and phasing.
Commissioner Atchison asked how many units are planned in the complex. Mr. Dan Frandsen replied about 530 units. Commissioner Peters asked how many units will be in the first phase. Mr. Frandsen replied that they had not decided–they would like to build the whole thing at once, but it depends on financing. Mr. Smith pointed out that the Frandsens owned several lots or parcels in this area. The development is proposed for the lot fronting on 2000 West. The lots on the back and on the north will be for future development.
Commissioner Peters asked the elevation of the freeway at that point. He expressed concern that passersby see the fence rather than the roofs of the units. Mr. Smith replied that the property is partially obscured by the overpass and a billboard. Commissioner Peters asked about the type of fence that is planned. Mr. Dan Frandsen replied that they are planning a vinyl coated chain link security fence. Chairman Morse asked if they were planning a sign. Mr. Frandsen replied that they would like a pole sign. Commissioner Sweeten suggested a sign on a block wall. Mr. Smith informed the applicants that a pole sign would not be allowed.
Commissioner Peters referred to the previous minutes that recorded Mr. Frandsen’s intention at that time to put in wrought iron fence with block pillars. Commissioner Carpenter suggested that possibly this could be used in the front of the complex and some greenery added to conceal the back. Mr. Frandsen commented that he would prefer not to have a sight-obscuring fence because of security issues. Commissioner Carpenter confirmed that there would be no outside storage.
Mr. Smith asked what kind of building was planned. Mr. Frandsen replied that the units would be block on the exterior with garage doors. Commissioner Simister asked about security measures. Mr. Frandsen replied that he planned a security gate with a code. Commissioner Simister asked about a 24 hour office. Mr. Frandsen replied that he had not decided, but would prefer an onsite residence.
Commissioner Anderson asked about plans to use the Goodfellow/UDOT access. Mr. Frandsen replied that he had talked with UDOT and may use the access on the north end. Commissioner Anderson observed that this access needs improvement and was only intended as a temporary access for Goodfellow. Mr. Frandsen replied that it would be to his benefit to improve the access.
Mr. Smith brought up staff’s concerns. He noted that although the use is permitted in the MC zone, there are specific regulations on architectural design and landscaping. He informed the Commission and applicants that chain link with a gravel lot, metal doors and metal roofs with some block facing would not fit the ordinance requirements. He read the ordinance. He suggested an attractive wall although he stated that he understands Mr. Frandsen’s defensible space concerns.
Commissioner Anderson agreed that the typical storage unit would not fit the ordinance. He suggested split block and a decorative door with nice fencing. Commissioner Carpenter suggested decorative fence on the sides that face roads. Commissioner Simister asked about the directions the units will face. Mr. Frandsen replied that the doors will face east and west. Commissioner Atchison suggested that color may help to break up the institutional feel. Mr. Frandsen suggested colored doors in dark blue or forest green with different trims. Commissioner Carpenter suggested that the end walls of the unit rows could be finished higher than the roofs to break up the continuous roof lines.
Mr. Smith asked if the applicants planned a caretaker facility. Mr. Frandsen agreed that this is his preference. Commissioner Anderson raised the issue of the sewer line location. Mr. Frandsen was aware of the distance to a sewer line and suggested a septic tank. Chairman Morse asked about lighting of the complex. Mr. Frandsen replied that he planned to light each aisle. Commissioner Carpenter asked about drainage issues. Mr. Frandsen replied that he had submitted a hydrology report that recommends a drain and detention basin that will drain into the culvert under the freeway. The irrigation water was discussed.
Chairman Morse asked about the landscaping requirements of the ordinance. Mr. Smith gave him a copy. Commissioner Carpenter observed that the ordinance requires 15% of the total parcel in landscaping, trees, and berms. He noted that the ordinance does not require a fence, but that this use requires a fence for safe keeping issues. Chairman Morse asked about the gravel yard. Mr. Frandsen informed the Commission that he planned to asphalt the first row for ease of access, but that the rest of the lot will be gravel. Commissioner Carpenter commented that the entrance will see the heaviest traffic. Mr. Frandsen asked if the wrought iron fence would be okay just on 2000 West. The Commissioners agreed and specified no corrugated metal on the units–all colored metal like dark green, the fence as suggested, and ways to break up the long roof lines–possibly contouring and stepping the units. Commissioner Anderson asked about landscaping the east side. Mr. Frandsen replied no, because there are empty fields only there. Commissioner Anderson agreed and then joked that he was the only one who would notice.
Mr. Frandsen thanked the Commissioners for their suggestions and ideas. He commented that he would incorporate them into his plans and would bring back for the site plan.
9. 17.46. - ACCESSORY APARTMENTS - ORDINANCE AMENDMENT
The Planning Commission will review potential ordinance amendments allowing detached accessory apartments when associated with agricultural uses on large parcels (over 10 to 15 acres).
Mr. Smith told the Commissioners that the R2 Overlay ordinance does not allow detached accessory apartments. After long discussion by the Council and Commission, the decision had been that apartments must be “substantially attached” to the main dwelling. He asked about situations such as if a farmer needs housing for his workers. He asked if that housing must be attached to the main house.
The Commissioners discussed the specific instance that had brought up this issue–Wardley Farms. Commissioner Peters pointed out the location with a chapel on the north side, antique barns and a total of 17 acres. Mr. Smith asked the Commissioners to interpret a section of the supplemental provisions. Chairman Morse commented that the one of the reasons for attaching the apartments to the main house was so the owner could supervise and be in closer contact. Mr. Smith added that another reason was to prevent the building of two homes on one lot.
Mr. Allen Colledge told the Commissioners about his operations. He informed them that he would like to put an apartment in a restored chicken coop for a couple to live in that would to help with the farm and wedding business. Mr. Smith agreed confirmed that the barn would have an apartment upstairs. He asked if the Commissioners would consider allowing this according to the supplemental provision. Commissioner Peters noted that the provision makes no limit on how many dwellings there can be on one lot, no limit on the size of the farm and no limits on the number of units that can be built. Mr. Smith suggested that if the Planning Commission decides to allow this use, that they specifically state why and then amend the code to limit and add requirements.
The Commissioners discussed the fact that the proposed remodel outbuilding is on the same lot as the main house. It is contiguous to the house. There are 17 acres. The house and outbuilding are on a single parcel at as shown in the County records. The Commissioners agreed that they approve the concept, however, they asked Mr. Colledge to present his plan to the City Council for their opinion. Mr. Colledge agreed and thanked the Commissioners.
10. KBR SYSTEMS - 17.49.070. - ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN - ORDINANCE AMENDMENT
The applicant is requesting that the Planning Commission allow metal buildings in the Light Industrial zone.
Mr. Robinson was not here, so this item was continued. There was discussion on how to define what is an acceptable metal building. Commissioner Carpenter suggested that a clause about general attractiveness and maintaining that attractiveness for a long period of time. Mr. Smith suggested that he have Mr. Robinson submit his suggestions for a draft ordinance. It was decided to have Mr. Smith do some research on how other cities address this issue.
11. RECOMMENDATION FROM PLANNING COMMISSION REGARDING STATE CODE SECTION 10.9.305 - PURCHASE OF PROPERTY
Discussion concerning future acquisition of property for parks.
Mr. Smith read U.C.C. 10-9-305 which requires advice from the Planning Commission to the Council on any land issue. He told the Commissioners that Lindon City is in the process of acquiring land for additions to existing parks. He asked the Commissioners if they have any advice as the City makes these purchases. Commissioner Carpenter suggested that the City negotiate the best price possible. Commissioner Simister observed that she felt these purchases were a good idea–they round out the parks and provide future sites for location of a recreation or a senior center. Commissioner Sweeten agreed. Commissioner Simister commented that she really appreciates the expansions that have been done on the rodeo arena and the Veteran’s Hall. There was discussion of plans for an east bench park, and future improvements in the Pheasant Brook Park and the Geneva Resort Park.
12. PLANNING DIRECTOR’S REPORT
1. Approval of 2003 Meeting Schedule.
The Commission discussed the schedule and decided to cancel in advance the meetings of November 26, July 23 and December 24. It was noted that the elections for chairman would be held on the second meeting of January.
Mr. Smith gave an update on Hub Cap City and Wasatch U-Cart. There was a discussion of R2 Overlay Projects and neighborhood meetings, safety and value issues, and C, C, & R’s.
ADJOURN
THE COMMISSIONERS AGREED UNANIMOUSLY TO ADJOURN AT 11:18 P.M.
APPROVED - January 22, 2003
Loren Morse, Chairman
Kevin Smith, Planning Director |
|
|
