|
|
Home » City Government » Planning Commission » Minutes Archive; 2000 - 2002 » Planning Commission Minutes 2001 » December 12, 2001
December 12, 2001
The Lindon City Planning Commission held a regularly scheduled meeting on Wednesday, December 12, 2001 at 7:00 p.m. in the Lindon City Center Council Chambers at 100 North State Street, Lindon, Utah.
Conducting: Loren Morse, Chairman
Invocation: Ron Anderson
PRESENT
Loren Morse, Chairman
Ron Anderson, Commissioner
Bruce Carpenter, Commissioner
Evan Nixon, Commissioner
Jim Peters, Commissioner
Marilyn Simister, Commissioner
Lindsey Bayless, Councilmember
Kevin Smith, Planning Director
Venla Gubler, Administrative Clerk
Matt Perkins, Planning Intern
Justin Draeger, Planning Intern
ABSENT
Lori Atchison, Commissioner
The Meeting began at 7:05 P.M.
1. MINUTES
Review of the Minutes of November 14, 2001.
A review of the Minutes of the regularly scheduled meeting of November 14, 2001 was held. The following corrections were made:
Page 2, Line 28: Replace the name “Farr” with the name “Farrer.”
Page 4, Line 5: Replace the phrase “in this development” with the name “Trophy Homes.”
Page 4, Line 6: Delete the word “possible.”
Page 4, Line 8: Delete the word “possible.”
Page 4, Line 13: Replace the words “twin homes” with the words “rental apartments.”
COMMISSIONER PETERS MOVED TO APPROVE THE MINUTES OF THE REGULARLY SCHEDULED MEETING OF NOVEMBER 14, 2001 AS CORRECTED. COMMISSIONER ANDERSON SECONDED THE MOTION. ALL PRESENT VOTED IN FAVOR. THE MOTION CARRIED.
2. PUBLIC COMMENT
There was no public comment.
3. NEW BUSINESS (Reports by Commissioners)
Commissioner Nixon commented that parking was a problem at the LDS Church on Center Street 400 North and Canal Drive. He noted that this chapel had three wards meeting there and consequently a lot of vehicles. He observed that church members were parking on the street and in an undeveloped area which was tracking mud on the streets. Councilmember Peters concurred that parking is a tremendous problem. He suggested that the overflow parking lot be graveled. He observed that the problem was exacerbated by the student ward that was meeting there. He also suggested that staff consult with the church architect on parking standards. The Commissioners discussed the parking ordinance. Commissioner Peters suggested that the parking ordinance be revised to require more church parking. Mr. Smith commented that the parking requirements were determined by the amount of fixed seating. Commissioner Nixon commented on the general standards used by the LDS Church to determine the size of parking lots. Mr. Smith observed that the general standards may not be adequate in this situation. Commissioner Peters added that up to 50 cars are parking outside of the parking lot. Mr. Smith observed that the Chief Building Official, Phil Brown, could call the Stake Facilities Director to suggest that the auxiliary parking lot be graveled or paved.
Commissioner Anderson suggested that the Commissioners consider attending one of the land use seminars presented by State Ombudsman Craig Call. He added that Mr. Call explains land use particulars in a way that is easy to understand. Commissioner Nixon suggested that Mr. Call be invited to give one of his seminars to a joint session of the City Council and Planning Commission. Mr. Smith observed that he felt this was a good suggestion and would check into the possibility.
Commissioner Peters asked for an update on Farrer Construction’s zoning violation. Mr. Smith commented that the deadline given on the violation notice was approaching fast. He noted that Mr. Farrer was using the residential property as a staging area for his excavation and gravel business. Commissioner Peters asked if Mr. Farrer could change his practices and comply with the home occupation ordinance. Mr. Smith replied that the home occupation ordinance did not allow a business to operate visibly within a residential district. He did not feel that Mr. Farrer could continue his current operations at that location. The Commissioners discussed the length of time possibly necessary to require Mr. Farrer to meet the ordinance requirements.
Chairman Morse asked for an update on Cindy Evan’s horses. Mr. Smith noted that this item was scheduled for discussion later in the agenda.
4. CANBERRA HEIGHTS, PLAT “D” - 65 SOUTH DENALI CIRCLE - SUBDIVISION PLAT AMENDMENT
This is a request by Canberra Development to combine three building lots into one lot.
Mr. Smith presented this application to combine Lot 12, 29, and 30 in the Canberra Heights subdivisions. Commissioner Nixon asked if the street improvements were completed. Commissioner Peters verified that the proposal affected three one-half-acre lots. Mr. Steve Tanner confirmed that the street improvements were complete and the three lots were approximately one-half acre each. He explained that the purpose of the request is to vacate the utility easements to free the back yard for building the home and auxiliary buildings.
Commissioner Nixon observed that combining the lots would create a double frontage lot. Mr. Smith suggested that the Commissioners could consider restricting access to the front of the lot. Chairman Morse asked if this would create a public safety problem. Commissioner Nixon commented that the driveway should not continue through the lot between the two roads. Mr. Tanner replied that the owner had no intention to access the lot from the rear. Commissioner Nixon explained that this restriction is for future owners also. Mr. Smith noted that the lots are presently fenced, gated and landscaped to preclude access from the rear. Mr. Tanner verified this.
COMMISSIONER NIXON MOVED TO APPROVE THE REQUEST BY STEVE TANNER TO CREATE A ONE LOT SUBDIVISION BY AMENDING CANBERRA HEIGHTS, PLAT “A,” LOTS 12 AND 30 AND PLAT “C,” LOT 29, COMBINING SUCH LOTS INTO CANBERRA HEIGHTS, PLAT “D,” LOT 42 AND RECOMMEND APPROVAL TO THE CITY COUNCIL. COMMISSIONER PETERS SECONDED THE MOTION. ALL PRESENT VOTED IN FAVOR. THE MOTION CARRIED.
5. ULTIMATE SPORTS - 325 NORTH 925 WEST - CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT
Mr. Smith observed that this application is identical to the Flyerz Gym application approved in a previous Planning Commission meeting. He pinpointed the location of this proposal for the Commissioners and noted that the only concern identified by Staff is parking.
Commissioner Nixon confirmed with Mr. Smith that this proposal would occupy an existing building. Mr. Smith commented that parking may be a problem for a big event only. He informed the Commissioners that this building and its neighbors are owned by Mark Snow. He noted that although the buildings are on separate lots, there are easements between the buildings for parking. Mr. Smith also confirmed with Mr. Kevin Moe that all of the neighboring businesses had been noticed of this meeting. Commissioner Peters asked how the notices had been delivered. Mr. Moe replied that the notices had been handed out individually. Mr. Dane Ord, a part owner of the business, was recognized.
Commissioner Nixon asked if the public would like to make a comment. Mr. Mike Garrett noted that he was here to represent Mark Snow. Commissioner Anderson asked Mr. Garrett if he had talked with the other tenants of the buildings about this application. Mr. Garrett confirmed that the application was explained to each tenant, and he had signed releases from each.
Commissioner Peters asked how many employees would be needed to operate the business. Mr. Moe replied that there would be four instructors and some other extra help after 5:00 p.m. and on Saturdays. Commissioner Peters inquired the hours of operation. He was informed that the business would be open Monday through Saturday from 10:00 a.m. to10:00 p.m. Commissioner Nixon wondered if the parking would conflict with the neighbors between 2:00 p.m. when High School gets out and 5:00 p.m. when the other businesses close. Mr. Moe replied that he had compared this facility’s parking issues with a similar facility in Nashville, Tennessee. He did not feel that the parking would be a problem. The facility in Nashville was discussed. Mr. Moe noted that kids would not be encouraged to use the facility to “hang out.” This is an instructional facility. He pointed out the amount of parking between this building and next buildings.
Commissioner Anderson commented that if the neighboring business did not bring in a semi truck, there is a lot of room between the business for parking. Commissioner Nixon asked about the possibility of a semi using a loading dock in a neighboring building. Commissioner Peters asked if the parking area needed striping to designate stalls. The neighbor’s use of their parking, buildings and loading docks was discussed.
Chairman Morse asked if the facility would cater to a particular age group. Mr. Moe replied that all age groups were encouraged to use the facility. Commissioner Carpenter asked if scheduled games would be held at the facility. Mr. Moe answered that no games would be held there. There would be some golf practice and treadmills for waiting parents. Mr. Ord confirmed that the business was not in the babysitting business.
Commissioner Carpenter asked about striping the parking area. Mr. Garrett replied that there was some striping already in place. Commissioner Peters informed the applicants that part of the ordinance is that this conditional use does not become a burden to the neighbors.
COMMISSIONER PETERS MOVED TO APPROVE THE REQUEST BY ULTIMATE SPORTS FOR A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO OPERATE A BASEBALL TRAINING SCHOOL AT 325 NORTH 925 WEST. COMMISSIONER ANDERSON SECONDED THE MOTION. ALL PRESENT VOTED IN FAVOR. THE MOTION CARRIED.
6. MT. VIEW INDUSTRIAL PARK - 240 NORTH GENEVA ROAD - PRELIMINARY SUBDIVISION RE-APPROVAL
Mr. Smith informed the Commission that this subdivision plat was approved in August of last year. Plats expire in six month if they are not recorded. He displayed an overhead transparency of the location and the four one-acre lots in the subdivision plat. He observed that the previous approval included a sewer line easement along the north property line for the use of the Pheasant Brook Park.
Commissioner Anderson pointed out that there is no other access to Geneva Road from the Pheasant Brook subdivision between 600 North and Center Street. He wondered if another entrance from Geneva Road into the subdivision is needed. He suggested that this would help funnel traffic away from the subdivision. Mr. Smith replied that there is a Park Committee of residents of the Pheasant Brook area that has discussed the needs of the area. They did not request access through the park to Geneva Road. Their plans for the park were discussed. Commissioner Nixon suggested that the road through may be planned as an option for the future. Mr. Smith did not feel that there was a pressing need for a street to be planned between 800 West and Geneva Road through the park. Chairman Morse asked if a road was identified there in the General Plan. Mr. Smith replied that no streets had been identified there in the General Plan.
The plans for the Pheasant Brook Park were discussed. Commissioner Carpenter commented that 800 North West was planned to extend north to 700 North. Commissioner Nixon noted that there was also an easement for a storm drain on the south property line.
Commissioner Anderson observed that he had noted the business Wasatch U-Cart stacking items on the front lot. Mr. Haynes replied that this business would be moving their operations to this lot.
Commissioner Nixon considered an access easement through to the park for users of the park facilities. Mr. Smith suggested that this may be a recommendation to the Council, however, he noted that he didn’t see the particular need for such an easement. He observed that the present need is for the ballfields planned for this end of the park. Commissioner Nixon asked if there was a road on the south property line. Mr. Smith replied that the easement was for the storm water ditch only. Chairman Morse confirmed with Mr. Haynes that the lots were one acre in size.
Commissioner Peters suggested that the access for Lot #1 be away from the intersection. The tenant of Lot #1, Wasatch U-Cart, was discussed. Mr. Smith informed the Commissioners that this business would be applying for a temporary conditional use permit, where they could review the site plan. Commissioner Anderson suggested that some aesthetic controls may be needed. Commissioner Peter observed that this business may generate some traffic. Commissioner Anderson inquired about the progress of the application to the south for a masonry business. Mr. Smith replied that it appeared the business would not be locating there for now.
COMMISSIONER NIXON MOVED TO APPROVE THE REQUEST BY JOHN HAYNES FOR PRELIMINARY APPROVAL OF A 4-LOT SUBDIVISION, MT. VIEW INDUSTRIAL PARK, PLAT “A” AT APPROXIMATELY 240 NORTH GENEVA ROAD AND RECOMMEND APPROVAL TO THE CITY COUNCIL WITH THE FOLLOWING RECOMMENDATIONS:
1) THAT A UTILITY EASEMENT BE REQUIRED ON THE NORTH SIDE OF LOT #4, AND
2) THAT THE COUNCIL REVIEW THE POTENTIAL NEED FOR AN ACCESS EASEMENT TO PHEASANT BROOK PARK.
COMMISSIONER CARPENTER SECONDED THE MOTION. ALL PRESENT VOTED IN FAVOR. THE MOTION CARRIED.
7. L.D.S. CHURCH STAKE CENTER - 600 NORTH STREET - CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT
Mr. Smith introduced the application for a proposed stake center on 600 North and displayed an overhead of the site plan. Commissioner Nixon commented that he was disappointed that the Council had decided to remove the trees on the west end of 600 North. He felt that the trees may fit the new typical street section and maybe should be left. He suggested that the Council reconsider this decision. Mr. Smith noted that the site plan would be going to the Council for their approval also, and suggested that Commissioner Nixon add his recommendation to this application for their consideration. Mr. Smith explained the background of the application, showed the surrounding area and roads, and noted that there are three remaining lots in the parcel for future development.
Commissioner Peters confirmed with Mr. Smith and the Commission that this application is for a one lot subdivision with road dedication on 600 North. It would border the expansion area for the Lindon City Cemetery on the west. The area and surrounding properties were discussed.
Chairman Morse suggested that Mr. Smith discuss the development problems previously heard in Planning Commission and City Council meetings. Mr. Smith showed the plan to widen 600 North near Locust Avenue to improve pedestrian access and safety for children. Commissioner Anderson asked if these plans included improving the storm drain to solve the water problem. Mr. Smith replied that the storm drain will be extended. Commissioner Peters declared a possible conflict of interest since he will be donating property to extend 600 North to the chapel. The number and content of the notices to the neighborhood were discussed. Chairman Morse verified that this application is proceeding with the full knowledge of the interested people in the neighborhood. Commissioner Peters specifically asked if the Lees had been noticed. Mr. Roger Knell, architect for the LDS Church replied affirmatively.
Commissioner Nixon discussed the contour map with Mr. Knell. Mr. Knell indicated that the proposed contours were to mitigate the need for a retaining wall on the south end of the property. Commissioner Peters asked if there was a difference in the elevation of 600 North from north to south. Mr. Knell replied that there is no a one foot difference in the finished grade. Commissioner Peters expressed a concern about the run off of irrigation water from the Alpine School District property. Mr. Knell indicated that a drainage field is planned north of the street to catch irrigation run off. Commissioner Peters noted that he and three other property owners had built berms to protect his their property from this run off. Mr. Knell indicated that the L.D.S. Church had an agreement with the Alpine School District to take care of the run off in exchange for dedication of the easements necessary for 600 North.
Chairman Morse asked how the parking planned for this chapel differed from the Stake Center on the east side. Commissioner Peters replied that there are 271 parking spaces planned for this Stake Center and the Lindon West Stake has 260 spaces. He noted that the Lindon West Stake is barely adequate. Mr. Knell observed that the standard is 250 spaces for three wards. Chairman Morse asked Mr. Knell if, in his experience, 250 spaces are adequate for the average chapel location. Mr. Knell replied that there are no complaints received with an average of 250 spaces. Mr. Knell noted that this particular stake center would have a few more members traveling from a longer distance and more teenagers, so he had planned 21 extra spaces. Commissioner Peters observed that his experience of the Lindon West Stake is that the parking is at capacity and there is some parking on the street. Mr. Knell noted that, because there are no close residences to this chapel, there is a possibility of more on street parking by the member’s choice.
Commissioner Peters asked Mr. Knell about his experience of limiting access to one street. Mr. Knell replied that the ideal is this horseshoe access with driveway entrances on both sides of the chapel accessing the same street. Commissioner Peters suggested an exit to Main Street. Mr. Knell replied that this would encourage cross traffic cutting through the parking lot to avoid the corner. He commented that there is also an elevation problem with an access to Center Street. The driveway would be steep with an 8.5% slope. Commissioner Nixon pointed out that 600 North is a local street, not a collector. He suggested that traffic problems may ensue on this size of a street. Mr. Knell noted that the chapel would only be used on Sundays and some weekday evenings. Commissioner Anderson observed that Center Main Street would be extended to this location sometime in the future and it is a collector road. There was a discussion of other chapels in Lindon and the propensity of some motorists to use the parking lots as shortcuts.
Chairman Morse asked what was planned for the fence construction materials. Mr. Knell replied “chain link and slats.” Commissioner Peters asked if there was a particular reason for this type of fence. Mr. Knell observed that chain link is the church standard and the ordinance requirement.
Mr. Alan Colledge noted that the drainage of the property is presently from northeast to southwest. It was noted that the drainage would be changed so that the property would drain north to 600 North. Commissioner Peters observed that the site plan showed collector drains in the parking lot that would collect and funnel the storm water into the 600 North storm drain system.
Commissioner Peters asked about future development of the cemetery. Mr. Knell observed that the pavilion area shown on the site plan is not an automatic part of the construction. The stake must first request a pavilion and have their request reviewed by the church authorities. If it is determined there is a need, the members will be expected to donate their time for the construction and the church will provide the materials.
Commissioner Peters asked about the plans to widen 600 North where it ties into Locust Avenue. He asked if the north side of the street would be finished also. Mr. Smith replied that the north side would be finished with curb and gutter. The city would have a reimbursement agreement to be repaid as homes are built in that section. Commissioner Peters asked if the sidewalks would line up with existing sidewalks on both sides of the street. He was assured that the sidewalks would align property. He also mentioned that there were utilities under the trees that were slated for removal. He suggested that care be taken in their removal. Commissioner Peters noted that the existing storm drain box on the corner of 600 North and 75 West wan was not on the plan.
Commissioner Peters suggested that a written agreement with the Lees concerning liability on the fence and outbuildings be considered. He felt this was in the interest of both the City and the Lees.
Commissioner Nixon observed that he felt that the proposed typical section for pathway should be used instead of removing the trees. Mr. Smith explained that there was concern about the width of the street and future development of a school in proximity of this church. Commissioner Nixon suggested that a modified version may still work. Commissioner Anderson pointed out that this is only a small portion of the street, just to get past one house. Mr. Smith added that with a church and school on the same street, it was felt that the width was necessary. Commissioner Nixon asked if the designation of 600 North should be changed from a local street to a collector street. Mr. Smith replied that this situation exists on other local street and “it works.” Commissioner Nixon suggested that this was not justification. Chairman Morse noted that there was only so much room past the house. Commissioner Nixon agreed and added that Main Street should be opened. Mr. Smith observed that when Main Street is opened, it may incorporate a pathway profile. He added that Main Street would probably be put in when the school is constructed. Chairman Morse asked if 600 North will be a collector. Mr. Smith replied that 600 North is not shown as a collector in the General Plan and the City Engineer does not recommend this designation.
Commissioner Peters expressed concern about traffic routes opening up between 400 East and State Street. He suggested that some kind of traffic calming be considered and recommended a stop sign on Main Street and some speed humps.
Chairman Morse asked if there were any other questions. Commissioner Peters suggested that the Church consider a different type of fence, preferably wrought iron. Commissioner Nixon observed that headlights would not shine through the chain link with slats as easily. Mr. Knell agreed and pointed out that homes would be built on the south and west sides. Commissioner Anderson asked Mr. Knell for the Church preference of fencing. Mr. Knell replied chain link with slats. Commissioner Peters pointed out that he was the closest neighbor and would be affected the most. Mr. Colledge felt that chain link was acceptable. He suggested that wrought iron was too open and would encroach on his privacy. He suggested solid vinyl privacy fence on the west side to protect the homes there. Mr. Knell admitted that solid vinyl had been used before on other churches. Commissioner Peters asked about maintenance. Mr. Knell pointed out that the wind may blow garbage through wrought iron.
Chairman Morse directed discussion back to the third exit question. He asked Mr. Knell if the church is strongly opposed to an exit to Main Street. Mr. Knell confirmed this assertion. He added that their concern is cross traffic through the parking lot, thus creating a traffic hazard. Commissioner Nixon observed that there are ways to alleviate cross traffic. Mr. Knell told of a chapel in Springville with four accesses that had continual problems. Commissioner Nixon pointed out that this access was not a shortcut into a neighborhood. Commissioner Simister expressed concern about vandalism where there was no visibility in the rear of the parking lot. Mr. Colledge observed that there was only asphalt there and no opportunity for vandalism.
Commissioner Nixon asked if consideration had been given to facing the chapel on Main Street. Commissioner Peters replied that it had been considered, however, that would put the lots between the cemetery and the church. Commissioner Nixon suggested that the main reason the church was planned to face 600 North was that the development of Main Street would cost significantly more. Mr. Knell observed that the development of 600 North was needed to loop the water and irrigation lines.
COMMISSIONER PETERS MOVED TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL TO THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE REQUEST BY THE L.D.S. CHURCH FOR A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO CONSTRUCT A STAKE CENTER MEETING HOUSE AT APPROXIMATELY 50 EAST 600 NORTH WITH THE FOLLOWING RECOMMENDATIONS:
1) A DECORATIVE WROUGHT IRON FENCE BE BUILT IN PLACE OF THE CHAIN LINK WITH PRIVACY SLATS.
Mr. Knell again pointed out that a wrought iron fence is open and will allow debris to blow. Commissioner Anderson commented that wrought iron does not give any privacy to neighboring property owners. Commissioner Peters asked if the Commissioners would agreed agree the motion if he changed it to solid vinyl on all three sides. COMMISSIONER ANDERSON SECONDED THE MOTION. Commissioner Peters asked if a six-foot fence on top of the retaining wall on the east side was really needed. Commissioner Anderson pointed out the possibility of someone jumping over the fence from the parking lot side if it was not six feet. Commissioner Nixon suggested that a six-foot fence was not needed on the east side that borders the cemetery. He felt that a lower fence could be used on that side and a tie in on the southeast corner could be considered. Commissioner Peters asked if the fence could be only 4-feet high all the way around. Mr. Knell felt the Church would have a safety issue with only a 4-foot fence.
Chairman Morse asked if City Staff had a suggestion. Mr. Smith replied that the purpose of the fence is to buffer neighboring land uses. There is no set standard in the ordinance. Mr. Knell felt that the fence could be either 4-feet or 6-feet on east side bordering the cemetery. Commissioner Peters discussed the height of the wrought iron fence at the chapel on Canal Drive. He suggested that there is no necessity of a fence on the east side. The City had a stone fence on the existing portion of the cemetery and would probably extend it when the rest of the cemetery is developed. Commissioner Anderson asked if the church wants a fence on the east side. Mr. Knell suggested that the Church be given the option of putting in the fence on the east side if they choose. COMMISSIONER PETERS AMENDED HIS MOTION TO INCLUDE SOLID VINYL FENCE ON THE SOUTH AND WEST SIDES. Commissioner Carpenter suggested that if the church chooses to put in a fence that it match the fence on the other two sides.
Commissioner Nixon asked if the Church would consider fill slopes rather than retaining walls on the south side adjoining Mr. Colledge’s property. This was discussed with Mr. Colledge. He expressed concern about irrigation water. Mr. Smith suggested that the Church representatives and Mr. Colledge discuss this and make a decision between now and the next City Council meeting.
COMMISSIONER PETERS AMENDED HIS MOTION TO INCLUDE THE PENDING AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CHURCH AND THE PROPERTY OWNER TO THE SOUTH TO CONSIDER A SLOPE EASEMENT INSTEAD OF A RETAINING WALL. COMMISSIONER ANDERSON SECONDED THE AMENDMENTS. ALL PRESENT VOTED IN FAVOR EXCEPT COMMISSION NIXON WHO VOTED NAY. THE MOTION CARRIED.
8. L.D.S. CHURCH STAKE CENTER - 600 NORTH STREET - PRELIMINARY SUBDIVISION APPLICATION
After discussion, COMMISSIONER CARPENTER MOVED TO APPROVE THE REQUEST BY THE L.D.S. CHURCH FOR PRELIMINARY APPROVAL OF A 1-LOT SUBDIVISION, 600 NORTH CHURCH SUBDIVISION, PLAT “A” AT APPROXIMATELY 50 EAST 500 NORTH AND RECOMMEND APPROVAL TO THE CITY COUNCIL. COMMISSIONER PETERS SECONDED THE MOTION. ALL PRESENT VOTED IN FAVOR EXCEPT COMMISSIONER NIXON WHO VOTED NAY. THE MOTION CARRIED.
9. CENTER STREET ESTATES - 800 EAST CENTER STREET - FINAL SUBDIVISION APPLICATION
Chairman Morse invited Mr. Bill Bang and Mr. Brad Olsen to the front. Mr. Smith observed that the Planning Commission has seen this application before. He informed the Commissioners that the 28-foot travel lane required by the City Council has been granted to the developers by District Court. The developers are now ready to finish the subdivision. He noted that preliminary approval had been granted based on the developers meeting specific criteria. He displayed the plat and observed that the lot layout had been changed so preliminary and final approval would be needed.
Mr. Bang commented on the condemnation proceedings and added that it was “ironic” that he had paid for the Bentley easement which should have been donated to the City 11-years-ago.
Mr. Smith discussed the future extension of Center Street over the Murdock Canal and the developers’ plans to make one of the subdivision lots into an R-2 Overlay project with the Commissioners. Commissioner Anderson observed that a previous condition of approval for this subdivision plat is to make a smooth transition on the north side of Center Street between the Bentley property and the Richins property.
Chairman Morse pointed out a potential driveway problem in the R-2 Overlay project. It was noted that this application would be discussed in more detail later. Commissioner Nixon made a suggestion to solve this potential problem. He also suggested that the slope easement for the future construction of Center Street be allowed for on Lot #10. This was discussed.
Commissioner Simister commented on the trail connection between the end of the street and the Timp-Lake Trail. Commissioner Nixon suggested that the pathway profile be considered for this subdivision. He commented that he liked the park strip that was part of this profile. The Commissioners discussed this proposal with Mr. Bang and Mr. Olsen. Mr. Bang observed that he could see no problem with this implementation. The future of the Murdock Canal was also discussed. He noted that this application is for ten lots, not nine lots as the staff report indicates.
COMMISSIONER SIMISTER MOVED TO APPROVE THE REQUEST BY BILL BANG FOR APPROVAL OF CENTER STREET ESTATES, A 10-LOT SUBDIVISION AND RECOMMEND APPROVAL TO THE CITY COUNCIL WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS:
1) THAT A SLOPE EASEMENT ON LOT 10 BE REQUIRED ON THE PLAT FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF CENTER STREET TO THE REQUIRED HEIGHT TO CROSS THE MURDOCK CANAL, AND
2) THAT THE PATHWAY CROSS SECTION BE USED TO CONSTRUCT THE 900 EAST CUL-DE-SAC.
COMMISSIONER CARPENTER SECONDED THE MOTION. ALL PRESENT VOTED IN FAVOR. THE MOTION CARRIED.
The R2 Overlay proposal was discussed further, in particular, the driveway suggestion. It was noted that there may be safety issues if six units are accessed from one driveway. Mention was made of the transition of Center Street in front of the Hal Richins’ property.
THE COMMISSIONERS REACHED CONSENSUS THAT THE PREVIOUS MOTION BE AMENDED TO INCLUDE A SMOOTH TRANSITION ON THE NORTH SIDE OF CENTER STREET BETWEEN THE BENTLEY PROPERTY AND THE HAL RICHINS PROPERTY.
10. DISCUSSION ITEM - 8.20. PUBLIC NUISANCES - ORDINANCE REVISION
Mr. Smith commented that recent changes in the Utah State Code allow cities more enforcement opportunities to regulate nuisances. He pointed out that Section #1of the proposed ordinance is the bulk of the present nuisance ordinance. He also noted that Pleasant Grove City is working to adopt a similar ordinance for the Police Department to enforce equally in our communities. He observed that the State Code and this ordinance allow physical eviction from a home if the person has been found in violation of certain nuisances, like drugs, prostitution, etc.
Commissioner Peters asked about determining noxious emanations. Mr. Smith explained that odors and noises will be handled by a committee of inspectors, who will determine if the emanation is sufficient to be considered a nuisance. Commissioner Carpenter asked if there was case law that will uphold this “committee of noses.” He was assured that case law will support the ordinance. Mr. Smith told the Commission that he has requested more information on abatement of odor nuisances from the American Planners Association in Chicago, Illinois.
Chairman Morse questioned the clause that makes leaving a garbage can in the road for 24 hours a nuisance. Commissioner Anderson asked if this was something that the city polices now. Commissioner Carpenter wondered who would care if the garbage can was left over 24 hours. Mr. Smith explained that if a neighbor cares enough to complain, the city needs to respond to the complaint. This is an effort to try and be careful of the neighbor’s needs.
Commissioner Anderson noted that not all attractive nuisances are covered in this ordinance. He observed that they must be handled in other ordinances. other sections so it probably not necessary here. Commissioner Carpenter observed that there is so much case law on attractive nuisances that it probably doesn’t need to be covered here.
Mr. Smith commented that when he contacts a resident about a complaint that has been received, the person always wants to know if this particular nuisance is written into the city code. He has found that if the item is covered, there is more “friendly compliance.” Commissioner Peters observed that this ordinance gives the City a lot of power. Mr. Smith explained that it is not the intent of the ordinance to harass the citizens of Lindon, but to allow enforcement officials the authority to prosecute known and persistent violators of the nuisance ordinance.
Commissioner Carpenter asked Mr. Smith to explain the enforcement procedures. Mr. Smith explained that an investigation is conducted after receipt of a written complaint. If the inspector finds evidence of a nuisance, a courtesy notice is sent to the resident with a time limit to respond. Commissioner Peters asked the length of the time limit. Mr. Smith replied that it is generally two weeks. If there is no response, a notice of violation is sent. Commissioner Nixon asked how a person could stop the process of getting kicked out of their house before the next Council meeting. Mr. Smith explained that an eviction order is issued by the court. There is a long process between the notice of violation and a notice of eviction. The person has many opportunities to abate the nuisance before getting to the point of an eviction.
Commissioner Simister observed that the clause concerning graffiti punishes the recipient of the crime, not the perpetrator. She asked whose responsibility it is to remove graffiti. She asked also if the City still had the contract with the youth group, Teens Against Graffiti (TAG), to clean up graffiti. She also discussed with the Commission adding vandalism and curfew violations to the section on “Inappropriate Conduct.”
Commissioner Peters commented on the provision declaring illegal accessory apartments as nuisances. He asked Mr. Smith if he was attempting to “put teeth” into the code. Mr. Smith agreed that if an inspector could declare an illegally occupied accessory apartment as a nuisance, the occupants can be evicted. He added that there are not many violations of this nature, but they are very hard to enforce.
Commissioner Carpenter commented that the section on “Finding of Nuisance” tended to tie the hands of enforcement if they were attempting to evict a drug dealer from a home. He asked how asking for voluntary compliance would help an inspector in this situation. Mr. Smith replied that the voluntary compliance in this situation is for the offender to leave. There was a discussion on the possibility and procedure of a person re-occupying a home owned by them if they are evicted for nuisance violations.
There was concern expressed that an inspector might become over vigilant in enforcing the ordinance. Councilmember Bayless pointed out the section dealing with the purpose of the ordinance. She noted that the purpose of this ordinance is to protect the public, not be “a vigilante.” Chairman Morse asked what stopped an inspector from going too far. Commissioner Nixon replied that the City Council could find an inspector “not in compliance with the purpose of the ordinance.” Commissioner Peters asked if the inspector office has been created. Mr. Smith replied that this office is created in another ordinance. Commissioner Anderson asked if other staff can be deputized. Commissioner Nixon asked if the office is designated by the City Council. Mr. Smith replied yes to both questions.
Chairman Morse commented that if you are the neighbor of a person creating a nuisance, you would want this. He added that enforcement will be a matter of balance; there is a need for enforcement of nuisance issues, however, care needs to be taken that an inspector does not become overzealous. Commissioner Carpenter observed that limited resources will help to restrict overzealous enforcement efforts. Mr. Smith noted that in his tenure, only two issues had to go to court. He added that only complaints are investigated.
Chairman Morse commented that he liked the statement of progressive enforcement in the purpose statement. He felt that this encouraged the matching of the punishment to the crime. Mr. Smith observed that some language on odor abatement needed to be added to the ordinance. Commissioner Peters commented on the situation when a new resident moves in next to a pre-existing odor problem. Commissioner Nixon asked how the animal ordinance balanced with the nuisance ordinance, and if one ordinance supersedes the other. Mr. Smith explained that when the odor is the result of animals, the animal ordinance, Chapter 6 of the Lindon City Code, applies to the situation. If the odor is the result of inadequate care, then it is a nuisance violation.
Commissioner Peters suggested that the Commissioners look over the ordinance on their own time and make further comments to Mr. Smith before the public hearings take place. Commissioner Carpenter commented that the ordinance seemed quite complete. Commissioner Nixon noted that all violations of the nuisance ordinance are subject to appeal to the City Council per section 8.20.110. Mr. Smith observed that public hearings would be held in City Council meeting in January 2002.
11. PLANNING DIRECTOR’S REPORT
a. Cindy Evans - Conditional Use Permit
Mr. Smith reported that Ms. Evans has requested additional time to sell the stallion. The new Commissioners were brought up to date on this matter and the requirements of the ordinance concerning horses and stallions. Commissioner Peters commented that one of the colts was supposed to be sold in September. Chairman Morse expressed the opinion that he thought the Commission had been very generous in time. The number of horses on the property and the ownership of the horses was discussed. Councilmember Bayless observed that the concern of the neighborhood is the quality of care given to the animals. She added that there is not a starvation problem, but the field is now “up past the fetlocks in slop.”
Chairman Morse commented that the Commissioners had given Ms. Evans until the end of September to sell the stallion. It is now December–more than adequate time. Commissioner Peters felt that February was not that far away and the Commissioners should consider allowing the extra time. Commissioner Nixon commented that there were reasons she was given the deadline of September. Councilmember Bayless observed that there are too many horses on the property, plus a stallion. She suggested that if another horse if removed from the property, the stallion may be allowed until February. Chairman Morse pointed out that the original deadline was September. Commissioner Carpenter asked how long the problem has existed. He was told about a year and a half. Chairman Morse observed that many letters from the neighbors had been received. Commissioner Anderson commented on the police reports also.
Commissioner Anderson asked Councilmember Bayless to conjecture on the City Council response if Ms. Evans appeals for an extension of time to them. Councilmember Bayless did not know what their response might be. Mr. Smith observed that the neighbors are watching to see the Commission’s response to this problem. Commissioner Peters concurred with Councilmember Bayless’s suggestion to allow her to remove one of her other horses now and let the stallion stay to February. If the other horse is not removed, the stallion goes now. Chairman Morse agreed and added that he thought the Commission had been lenient. Commissioner Nixon agreed and said that if the Commission had to remove a horse from the property, it should be the stallion. Commissioner Simister also agreed and suggested a deadline of January 1 to get rid of the stallion, or get it removed by order of the Commission. A consensus was reached on this suggestion.
b. Goodfellow Corp. - Conditional Use Permit
Mr. Smith reported that this item is scheduled for discussion on January 9, 2002. He added that some progress has been made but a problem still exists. The noncompliance with the terms of the Conditional Use Permit was explained to the new Commissioners. Commissioner Carpenter asked if Mr. Smith’s perception of the delay was an attempt to stonewall the Commissioners. Mr. Smith replied that he felt the business was trying to comply. Commissioner Carpenter asked if the manager of Goodfellow Corp. was aware that they were in danger of losing their Conditional Use Permit. Mr. Smith replied that he felt that they were aware of this contingency. The items needed to bring the business into compliance were discussed. Commissioner Anderson pointed out that the business is now located in the MC zone which has more stringent architectural requirements than the Light Industrial zone.
c. Hubcap City - Conditional Use Permit
Mr. Smith reported that this business has cleaned up their frontage, however, he felt that some of the cars do not operate as required. He also reported that the tires, the trusses and the insulation in back of the building had not been removed. Commissioner Anderson commented that Mr. Duane Gibb refuses to talk to the Commission. He added that he “hates to keep beating up on Nadine.” He pointed out a problem with the vehicles encroaching on the street right-of-way and blocking entrances. Mr. Smith observed that one of the conditions set by the Commission had been that the vehicles should be operable and this was not to be a “junk yard.” Commissioner Peters asked if the business had met the requirement to reduce the number of cars for sale. Mr. Smith thought that this requirement had been met. Chairman Morse asked how hard it was to access the items in back of the business along the railway easement. This was discussed. It was decided to ask the owners to appear before the Commission.
d. 2002 Meeting Schedule
Mr. Smith asked the Commissioners to examine and approve the new meeting schedule for 2002. He suggested that the meetings scheduled for the holidays on July 24, November 27, and December 25 be canceled. The Commission concurred.
COMMISSIONER NIXON MOVED TO APPROVE THE MEETING SCHEDULE FOR 2002 AS AMENDED. COMMISSIONER CARPENTER SECONDED THE MOTION. ALL PRESENT VOTED IN FAVOR. THE MOTION CARRIED.
ADJOURN
THE COMMISSION MOVED TO ADJOURN AT 10:10 P.M. BY CONSENSUS.
APPROVED - January 9, 2002
_______________________________________
Loren Morse, Chairman
Attest,
_______________________________________
Kevin Smith, Planning Director |
|
|
