|
|
Home » City Government » Planning Commission » Minutes Archive; 2000 - 2002 » Planning Commission Minutes 2002 » February 13, 2002
February 13, 2002
The Lindon City Planning Commission held a regularly scheduled meeting on Wednesday, February 13, 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: Loren Morse
PRESENT
Loren Morse, Chairman
Ron Anderson, Commissioner
Lori Atchison, Commissioner
Bruce Carpenter, Commissioner
Marilyn Simister, Commissioner
Lindsey Bayless, Councilmember
Kevin Smith, Planning Director
Venla Gubler, Administrative Clerk
Matt Perkins, Planning Intern
ABSENT
Evan Nixon, Commissioner
Jim Peters, Commissioner
Justin Draeger, Planning Intern
The Meeting began at 7:07 P.M.
1. MINUTES
Review of the Minutes of January 23, 2002.
The minutes of the regularly scheduled meeting of January 23, 2002 were reviewed. The following corrections were made:
Page 2, Line 32,33: Add the phrase “that were not about the survey, but his opinion in general,” after the word “of.”
Page 2, Line 35: Replace the word “are” with the word “have.”
Page 5, Line 20: Delete the sentence “The vote was taken by secret ballot.”
COMMISSIONER ANDERSON MOVED TO APPROVE THE MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF JANUARY 23, 2002 AS CORRECTED. COMMISSIONER ATCHISON SECONDED THE MOTION. ALL PRESENT VOTED IN FAVOR. THE MOTION CARRIED.
2. PUBLIC COMMENT
Mr. Neil Winterton, introduced himself as Brent Bunnell’s partner. He would like to propose an R2 Overlay project with two triplexes on a lot located at approximately 800 West 200 South. He commented that this project would look similar to the last project by the LDS Cannery. He informed the Commissioners that the developers had notified the neighbors and would be having a neighborhood meeting soon.
Mr. Smith commented that Mr. Winterton would like the Commissioner to look at the proposal and make suggestions before going further into the approval process. Chairman Morse informed Mr. Winterton that the Commission had a limit on the public comment of 15 minutes. Mr. Winterton acknowledged that the review would be cursory, but observed that the developers would like to anticipate the Planning Commissioner’s concerns. The location of the proposed project was determined. Chairman Morse commented that the design was very similar to the previous project. Mr. Winterton agreed that the buildings would have similar floorplans and pointed out that the driveway would be different. The Commissioners discussed the entrances, the covered parking, the fences, and the location of the trail that was adjacent to this project. Mr. Winterton mentioned that the developers had considered moving the lot lines to make each of the lots more symmetrical.
Commissioner Anderson suggested that the driveway may need to be 24 feet wide rather than 20 feet wide. The Commissioners agreed. The Commissioners discussed visitor parking with Mr. Winterton. He indicated that the plans include one visitor parking space per unit as well as two per unit for residents. Commissioner Anderson suggested that the curb on 200 South may have to be painted red to encourage visitors to park in the appointed spaces.
Chairman Morse asked if there were other comments from the Commission on this item. It was determined that the R2 District would allow the development of this project. Mr. Smith commented that this project would be the last one on 200 South because of the proximity of other projects.
Mr. Glen Ricks presented a proposal to locate a commercial photography studio in a historic home located at 125 West 400 North. He presented his business as a high-quality, low-volume type. He indicated that he was very interested in preserving and enhancing the look and feel of the historic home.
Mr. Smith commented that Mr. Ricks could comply with the home occupation ordinance if he or an employee lived in the home, except for the square footage requirement of the ordinance. He observed that the home was located a complete block away from the commercial zone on State Street and the acreage included with the home was too small to consider a rezoning application. He suggested that a modification of the code may be necessary to allow this use. Commissioner Anderson suggested that the historical character and designation of the home may be a criterion to consider for an amendment to the City Code. He also observed that the home was located on a collector street. Commissioner Carpenter commented that using the “commercial zoning will help preserve historical homes” reasoning may be pushing rationale. Commissioner Atchison asked what other kinds of commercial business may move into the home if Mr. Ricks decides to sell the property in the future.
Councilmember Bayless responded to Commissioner Carpenter’s comment by pointing out that many historical homes are not suitable to a contemporary lifestyle and so are not marketable as a residence, as evidenced by the length of time this home has been for sale. She commented that, as a member of the Lindon Historical Preservation Commission, she would hate to see the home lost. Chairman Morse asked how many historical homes are located in Lindon. Mr. Smith replied that this home is the only one on the National Register, although there are others on the City Register.
Mr. Ricks commented that he has been considering using a California firm specializing in converting historic homes into commercial photo galleries/studios. He had hoped to have a flyer from the firm to show the Commission, but it did not arrive. He assured the Commission that the home would be a showpiece.
Chairman Morse asked if the site had adequate off street parking to accommodate this purpose. Mr. Smith replied that it would meet the requirements of the off-street parking ordinance. He asked the Commissioners if they would like to explore the possibility of an ordinance amendment. Commissioner Carpenter expressed agreement. Mr. Smith suggested an amendment to the Standard Land Use Table to allow commercial photography studios in homes that are more than 100 years old.
Commissioner Anderson asked if it was feasible to make the business a home occupation by living in the home. Mr. Ricks commented that putting an employee or tenant into the home would be almost impossible because of the layout of the home. Chairman Morse asked if he had talked to any of the neighbors about his proposal. Mr. Ricks indicated that he had only talked with the Holdaways, who had endorsed the project. Chairman Morse commented that he would like to see if there was a way to allow this use, preserve the home, and not create other peripheral problems. Commissioner Atchison observed that she would like to hear comment from the neighbors. Commissioner Anderson commented that because of the home’s proximity to State Street and its historic character, he felt this may be a compatible use. Mr. Smith explained the process needed to amend the land use. Mr. Ricks commented that before he bought the property, he needed some assurance that he would be able to use the property for the purpose intended. Chairman Morse responded that it may be in his interest to also approach the City Council for their opinion in a public comment session similar to this.
Mr. James Hacking, presented himself as the owner of an acre on about 850 West Center in the R1-20 zone. He explained that his dilemma was what to do with the property. It is located between the LDS Cannery and Brent Bunnell’s R-2 Overlay project. He asked if he could use the property to expand Mr. Bunnell’s R2 Overlay project with more units. Mr. Smith explained to the Commission that Mr. Bunnell’s project consists of three units on one-half acre. He posed the question, “Can someone come back later and add three units to an existing R2 project?”
Commissioner Carpenter observed that it may be similar to adding an accessory apartment in the basement of an existing home. Mr. Smith asked if the project would be considered adding to the existing one, or would it be considered a new project. Commissioner Anderson commented that this may be the intent of the distance requirement of 750 feet between projects. Mr. Smith pointed to another nearby project, the Jasper duplex, and asked if the Commission would consider a request to add to the existing project by adding another duplex.
The Commissioners discussed the ramifications. Mr. Hacking commented that he didn’t feel the lot was marketable as single-family residences because of its proximity to the surrounding light industrial and multi-family uses. He felt the land was most marketable as either multi-family or another light industrial use, such as storage units. Chairman Morse commented that there are few topics that generate more citizen input to the Commission than mulit multi-family housing project proposals. He added that the intent of the R2-Overlay ordinance is to minimize the impact of these projects on the neighborhood. He suggested that this is the intent of the 750-foot distance requirement. Commissioner Anderson suggested that Mr. Hacking consider exploring other uses. Commissioner Simister noted that this R2 Overlay section was not full. Chairman Morse observed that the Commission would be establishing policy if they made the decision to consider adding to an existing project. Commissioner Carpenter expressed the opinion that if the Commission were to consider the project an extension, there were two different landowners. Even to “finish” a project with the same owner may be hard to justify to the neighbors.
Mr. Smith suggested that this may be a topic for the next combined work session of the City Council and the Planning Commission. Chairman Morse agreed and told Mr. Hacking that the Commission needed an opinion from a “code expert.” He suggested that Mr. Hacking consider rezoning the property from R1-20 to Light Industrial. There was comment that the City Attorney should look at the proposal and see if it may extend to other places adversely. Commissioner Anderson commented that the City may have other property owners trying to “finish” their projects and suggested that there may be a better use for the property as Light Industrial. Commissioner Carpenter observed that part of the logic inherent in the 750-foot distance restriction is that the first project in an area precludes other projects within that radius. Commissioner Anderson asked if there may be grounds for a variance from the Board of Adjustments. Mr. Smith expressed the opinion that it would be a “hard stretch,” although there may be grounds in the State Code.
Chairman Morse told Mr. Hacking that he had concerns about a multi-family project getting approved with the emotion involved that such projects almost always engender. He suggested that Mr. Smith research the topic and get back to Mr. Hacking. Mr. Hacking asked the probable time frame of a decision. Mr. Smith indicated that the Council may discuss this topic at the scheduled Retreat in the first of March, or a combined Work Session could be planned soon. Commissioner Anderson suggested that Mr. Hacking seriously consider rezoning to a light industrial use. Mr. Hacking thanked the Commissioners.
3. NEW BUSINESS (Reports by Commissioners)
The Commissioners had no new business to report.
4. CENTER STREET ESTATES - 800 EAST CENTER STREET - R2 OVERLAY - 6-UNITS TWIN HOME PROJECT
This is a request by Bill Bang for approval of a 6-unit twin home project on one acre on Center Street next to the Murdock Canal.
Mr. Smith presented this proposal for an R2 Overlay project on one of the lots of the recently approved Center Street Estates. There are six units proposed in a twin home design that will face Center Street and 840 East Street. He informed the Commissioners that this is located in R2 District #5, which has 38 units available and 29 units used. Concerns that have been expressed to Staff are for Center Street’s width and traffic management.
Mr. Bill Bang passed out pictures of the proposed design. The homes are single-floor, rear entry homes. All the driveways will access 850 East Street. Mr. Olsen told of the neighborhood meeting on January 30. The main concern expressed there was traffic. He addressed the concerns of the residents present at the meeting. He said there were 25-30 people in attendance who expressed concerns about traffic and renter’s slums. He pointed out a traffic study in Longmont, Colorado, which summarized that narrow streets are safer streets. He said that the price of the units would encourage stable buyers, not renters.
Chairman Morse asked the square footage of the units. Mr. Bang replied 16 to 18 hundred square feet in each unit. Mr. Smith pointed out that the study says there are fewer accidents on 24-foot streets. Chairman Morse asked if there would be a sidewalk on Center Street. This was affirmed. Chairman Morse asked the setback from Center to the homes. Mr. Bang replied 30 feet. Chairman Morse asked the setback distance to the back property line. Mr. Bang replied at least 30 feet.
Commissioner Anderson asked the width of the driveway. Mr. Bang replied that the driveway was not engineered yet, but it will meet the requirements of the ordinance. Mr. Anderson explained that although it was good to have the driveway enter off 850 East rather than Center Street, the driveway needs a design which will allow cars to back from their garages without hitting their neighbor’s cars. Mr. Smith suggested a hammerhead design. Chairman Morse asked where the driveways that would access the units facing 850 East would be located. Mr. Bang replied that these driveways may enter from the back also. Commissioner Atchison commented on the one story units. Commissioner Carpenter commented on the fact that Center Street was the street master planned to extend over the Murdock Canal in the future. Chairman Morse opened the discussion to comment from the public.
Mr. Danny Bentley asked if the Commissioners had been to the end of Center Street lately. He said that a fence has been erected blocking access to the part of the street owned by the Walkers. He suggested that the road be finished with sidewalks before adding any more homes. Chairman Morse commented that there had been a lot of discussion on the width of the road. Mr. Bentley replied that the width was approved for 10 lots, but not for additional units. He pointed out that with the fence right on the edge of the street there was nowhere for pedestrians to get off the road.
Ms. Jerri Fuhrman pointed out that the developers knew access was restricted before they started their project. She added that the neighborhood is not responsible for the developer’s financial success. She has lived on Center Street for 18 years and feels that the street cannot handle more traffic. If the street is widened, it will require the removal of mature trees and yards and will ruin the quality of their life. The neighborhood is depending on the city to defend their rights.
Mr. Dennis Wilson asked why the City is so persistent on extending Center Street over the Murdock Canal. He will lose his front yard and have the street on his doorstep. He added that he already has apartments behind his lot. Chairman Morse commented that the extension of Center Street is in the City’s master plan because it is a good idea. He added that the Center Street project does not put forward any plans for the extension.
Ms. Wendy Bentley commented on the narrowness of Center Street and the dangers of driving it at night. She pointed out that the street is unfinished in sections and now there is the fence to avoid.
Mr. Roy Shepherd commented that the neighborhood is negatively affected already. He asked the Commissioners to understand why the fence is there. The Walkers were forced to give up 2-feet, and if they did not put up the fence, they may then lose more. He foretold of a time in the not too distant future when more land in the neighborhood would be taken to widen the street. There will be more cars and then it will only be a certain amount of time before the bridge will go over the canal and the street will require widening. He told the Commission that it was not too long ago when there were no plans to put the road through by the Junior High School. Now there are buses and a lot of traffic. This will change the complexion of the neighborhood by 400% to 600%.
Mr. Bentley pointed out that with trail access on the cul-de-sac, more foot traffic will access Center Street to get to the Junior High and there is only one sidewalk. This was discussed.
Ms. Fuhrman observed that most homes have two cars and if there is a teenager, one more. Mr. Smith commented that traffic engineers figure 10 trips per day per residence. This R2 project may add 150 trips per day. Commissioner Carpenter asked how this compares to other areas of Lindon. Mr. Smith compared the number of homes to 600 North with 17 houses. He concluded that although it works, the situation is not ideal.
The width of Center Street was discussed. The narrowest points were identified. Mr. Curtis Harwood commented that if the only cars were from residents, it would be better. He informed the Commissioners that test drivers from the car lots on State Street regularly use Center Street, and when they find that it does not go through, they turn around. Mr. Shepherd agreed that most of the traffic is test drivers. Mr. Olsen suggested a dead end sign. It was noted that a sign already existed. Mr. Harwood asked how a fire truck would get into the last unit up the driveway. The public safety aspects and visitor parking in the driveway were discussed.
Mr. Fuhrman pointed out that there was no shoulder to the road by the fence. Chairman Morse verified that there was no shoulder with Mr. Olsen and Mr. Bang. Mr. Bentley asserted that the neighborhood did not need the R2 Overlay until after a full road was in place. Commissioner Anderson asked how the required road transition in front of the Hal Richin’s home will affect the width of the street and the fence. Mr. Olsen replied that the road will be wider and added that the developers have done what they can do to make the road safer and wider as required by the City.
Mrs. LuDean Bentley expressed concern for children on the narrow road. Chairman Morse asked Mr. Smith to discuss roadway widths from the City’s perspective. Mr. Smith discoursed on the various types of streets: collectors, local streets, and the new trail profile streets. He commented on the types of street dictating the width, and how to make streets more pedestrian friendly. He added that Center Street is designated as a collector street along with 200 South, 400 North and 800 North to carry traffic east and west. He described the reactions of the neighborhood when 400 East was extended over the Canal there.
Ms. Holly Whiting observed that the widening of Center Street depended on the development of the Walker’s property. The City does not have the right of way. She expressed opposition to the R2 Overlay based on the width of Center Street. Ms. Bentley pointed out that most streets have open space on both sides. If that condition was met here, the neighborhood may be more accepting.
Mr. Harwood asked if the R2 District count takes into account accessory apartments. Mr. Smith replied yes and explained the R2 Overlay districts, and showed them a map of the Districts. Commissioner Anderson pointed out that the R2 Overlay Districts were a city policy for many years before the R2 Overlay ordinance was passed. The districts were discussed as to their size, number of units and the requirements for distance between projects.
Mr. Harwood felt that the fence was a possible public safety issue. This was discussed. Mr. Wilson felt there were enough apartments in the neighborhood. Mr. Olsen commented that the developers have spent months decided working with the City to determine a safe width of the street to get to this point. They feel that they have gone to extreme measures to meet the demands of the City and the neighborhood. Commissioner Anderson pointed out that the City has never given any guarantees up front. They will also consider not only the developer but the neighborhood.
Chairman Morse observed that his major concern is safety. He noted that pressure to provide for the future will change the neighborhood. Mr. Smith pointed out that the situation is identical to 200 South. The City worked with the neighbors and modified the street width to meet the current situation. There are no current plans to widen or extend Center Street. Chairman Morse commented that the plans exist only in the master plan. Mr. Shepherd observed that the City was classifying Center as a major street, treating it as a local street and pushing in housing. Mr. Smith replied that, yes, Center is classified as a collector, but it is not built to standard. Commissioner Carpenter commented that the street would not be built to standard without development of the Walker parcel. Mr.Harwood pointed out that there are parts of Center that are not owned by the City. Mr. Smith replied that access is a legal issue, but the reason the City and residents can use that property is because they always have.
Chairman Morse asked if the City Engineer had looked at the transition in front of Richins. Mr. Smith replied that it is functional, but not ideal. He wants to address the issue of the safety of the fence with the City Engineer. Chairman Morse agreed. Mr. Shepherd asked again that the City remember why the fence is there. He foretold a future where Center Street will be a “freeway with speeds of 50 mph,” more cops to try to slow people down, or more stops signs, or more speed humps. Ms. Fuhrman observed that once the project is in, the developers will be gone and the neighborhood will be the ones to deal with it.
Mr. Wilson commented on the volume of cars using Center without it going through. Chairman Morse asked if the width of the streets and the density of homes were the same above the canal. Ms. Bentley observed that the homes above the canal had sidewalks and open spaces not fences. It was determined that the density was similar to the homes above the canal if the R2 project was added in.
Chairman Morse asked if there were any more comments from the Commissioners. Commissioner Carpenter commented that the discussion had been far ranging. Mr. Bang recognized the issue of traffic, but added that traffic is always an issue. He added that traffic is going to drive whether we build houses or not. He asked if kids are getting hit right and left in Lindon now. Commissioner Atchison commented that this is a unique situation.
Mr. Shepherd objected to Mr. Bang’s statement that development and growth are inevitable. He suggested that Mother Nature puts limits, such as overbuilt water capabilities.
Chairman Morse asked if there were comments from the Commissioners. Commissioner Anderson suggested that more design criteria be presented. Mr. Smith agreed that the plans needed to show more details. Chairman Morse expressed concern with the setbacks, driveways, and garages. He also suggested that the traffic engineer address safety and kids. Commissioner Anderson expressed a desire to see how the transition will work.
Mr. Olsen expressed the opinion that the City Engineer had already addressed these issues. Mr. Smith replied that the consultation was brief. Chairman Morse expressed a desire to have the engineer address the pedestrian and vehicle traffic from the intersection of 750 East to the end of Center Street. Mr. Shepherd asked if the neighborhood would be notified of this meeting. Chairman Morse replied that the issues would be addressed on February 27.
Chairman Morse asked if the criteria were available that would make the building of the bridge over the Murdock Canal a priority. Mr. Smith observed that the City maintained a priority list that he could bring in. Commissioner Carpenter commented that there is a clear feeling in this area that an R2 project would bring the bridge closer. Mr. Smith observed that he did not know the timetable of the bridge, but he did know it was not in the near future. Mr. Shepherd commented that probably much of the delay was the cost. Chairman Morse requested Mr. Smith to bring an idea of where the bridge stood on the improvement plan for the City. Commissioner Carpenter also suggested that if the neighborhood was interested in amending the general plan, that Mr. Smith could inform them on how to approach the Council. Chairman Morse thanked everyone for their interest and expressed appreciation for their comments. He invited them back in two weeks.
COMMISSIONER CARPENTER MOVED TO CONTINUE THE REQUEST BY BILL BANG FOR CENTER STREET ESTATES, A 6-UNIT R2 OVERLAY PROJECT AT APPROXIMATELY 800 EAST CENTER STREET TO THE NEXT MEETING. COMMISSIONER ATCHISON SECONDED THE MOTION. ALL PRESENT VOTED IN FAVOR. THE MOTION CARRIED.
5. TIMPANOGOS ACADEMY SUBDIVISION - 100 EAST CENTER STREET - PRELIMINARY SUBDIVISION
This is a request by Leonard Lee for approval of a 3-lot subdivision plat. A site plan application has been submitted for a Charter School for lot 2 which will be reviewed at a future meeting.
Mr. Smith displayed a vicinity map and the subdivision map. He commented that a site plan for a school on Lot #2 would come for approval on March 13. He noted that a development agreement was still needed to restrict the uses on Lot #3 to those that would be compatible with the school and the residential zone along Center Street. This agreement would be recorded with the plat.
Commissioner Simister noted that the public safety easement to the Datapad parking lot is dividing Lot #3 and verified with Mr. Lee that it would remain closed to everyday traffic. Commissioner Atchison asked if the easement was paved. Mr. Lee replied that the easement was graveled. Mr. Harlow Clark asked if the easement would prevent the development of Lot #3. Mr. Smith replied that the easement only required that the access remain open on both the Datapad parking lot and on Lot #3, not that it can’t be used for parking lots or other adjuncts to a commercial use. The restriction to the lot is that a building cannot be placed within the easement.
Commissioner Anderson asked if the development agreement should be instigated by the City or Mr. Lee. Mr. Smith asked if Mr. Lee had picked up a Standard Land Use Table to indicate what, in his opinion, were compatible uses. Mr. Lee indicated that he had picked one up and checked the uses, but was not sure if he had brought it back to the City. Mr. Smith replied that it was not in the file. Mr. Lee observed that he would bring that into the City. Chairman Morse verified that Mr. Lee had no plans for Lot #3 in the near future. Mr. Smith suggested that the Commissioners could make the review of the development agreement a condition of approval. He noted that Mr. Lee would be back on March 13 for the site plan and it could be reviewed with the Commission then. Chairman Morse confirmed with Mr. Lee that he was agreeable with the limitations that would be set by the development agreement. Mr. Lee indicated his agreement. There was a short discussion of possible compatible uses like professional offices or a karate school.
Chairman Morse asked about the fences indicated on the site plan. Mr. Lee replied that the chain link fence would be installed to discourage children from the school accessing the irrigation ditches on the other lot. The fences were described and the locations identified. It was noted that there would be no fence between the school lot and the residential lot facing Center Street. Mr. Lee commented that this lot would be used for an extra playground until sold. Commissioner Carpenter questioned the wisdom of encouraging the children to use the vacant lot for a playground. He added that the home next door would then have playgrounds on two side and asked if that would be fair to that neighbor. He agreed that more playground is nice, but it gives the children more access to Center Street also. Mr. Lee offered to put up a temporary fence along this line. He felt that the permanent concrete fence was not necessary until there was a home there, but he would do what the Commissioners felt necessary. Mr. Smith commented that this was a site plan issue and could be addressed again.
Chairman Morse observed that the Commission had discussed a limitation of professional offices in a development agreement. He asked if the Commissioners had any other issues. Commissioner Anderson suggested that the Commission could recommend approval to the Council and have them approve the development agreement. Ms. Robin Openshaw-Pay asked the time frame of the approvals. She indicated that many parents were present to support the school, and they were concerned that the school would be open by Fall. The residents and parents were assured that the project was progressing and the site plan would be heard at the next Planning Commission meeting on February 27.
COMMISSIONER ANDERSON MOVED TO APPROVE THE REQUEST BY LEONARD LEE FOR PRELIMINARY APPROVAL OF A 3-LOT SUBDIVISION, TIMPANOGOS ACADEMY, PLAT “A,” AT APPROXIMATELY 100 EAST CENTER STREET WITH THE FOLLOWING RECOMMENDATIONS TO THE CITY COUNCIL:
1) THAT A DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT BE PREPARED SHOWING APPROPRIATE LAND USES FOR LOT #3,
2) THAT SUCH DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT BE APPROVED BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION AND CITY COUNCIL BEFORE RECORDING WITH THE SUBDIVISION PLAT
COMMISSIONER CARPENTER SECONDED THE MOTION. ALL PRESENT VOTED IN FAVOR. THE MOTION CARRIED.
6. CANBERRA HEIGHTS PLAT “E” - 61 SOUTH KINGS PEAK DRIVE - SUBDIVISION AMENDMENT
This is a request to add additional acreage to Canberra Heights, Plat “C,” Lot 31. This change necessitates a vacation of Canberra Heights Plat “C,” Lot 31 creating Canberra Heights Plat “E,” Lot 43.
Chairman Morse verified with Mr. Steve Tanner of Canberra Development that this proposal increases the acreage in the lot. He asked if this jeopardized future development of the remaining land being held by Canberra Development. Mr. Tanner replied no. Councilmember Bayless confirmed that future development is not an issue now. Chairman Morse confirmed that the building envelop did not change and this addition was to add open space to the lot only. Mr. Tanner replied that because of steepness issues and the hillside overlay, the primary building site did not change. Chairman Morse asked if this was understood by the owners. Mr. Tanner replied that their concern was more acreage. Chairman Morse asked if there were any concerns from staff. Mr. Smith replied that staff had no issues.
COMMISSIONER ATCHISON MOVED TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL TO THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE REQUEST BY STEVE TANNER TO CREATE A ONE LOT SUBDIVISION BY AMENDING AND VACATING CANBERRA HEIGHTS, PLAT “C,” LOT 31 AND CREATING CANBERRA HEIGHTS, PLAT “E,” LOTS 43. COMMISSIONER CARPENTER SECONDED THE MOTION. ALL PRESENT VOTED IN FAVOR. THE MOTION CARRIED.
7. STABLE RIDGE SUBDIVISION, PLAT “B” - 75 NORTH 640 EAST - PRELIMINARY SUBDIVISION - DEEP LOT PROPOSAL
This is a request for approval of a 2-lot subdivision on the south border of Stable Ridge Subdivision Plat “A.”
Mr. Smith identified the location and described the application for this subdivision with a deep lot proposal. He commented that Lot #2 was approved by the Commission as a metes and bounds description lot. Lot #1 is the new deep lot. He informed the Commissioners that the plat meets the physical requirements of the ordinance.
Commissioner Anderson asked if Lot #2 was sold under the previous metes and bounds approval. Mr. Murano replied that a home has been built on the lot. Commissioner Carpenter asked how long the house has been finished. Mr. Murano replied that they moved in over Christmas. Commissioner Simister asked about the “jog” in the driveway access of the deep lot #1. To explain how the lots were configured, Mr. Murano told the Commissioners that these parcels were originally attached to his home lot and not part of the Stable Ridge Subdivision.
Commissioner Carpenter raised the issue that if the neighboring lots had been configured originally to allow for this lot, it would not be “impossible or impractical to develop the lot according to normal subdivision standards” now. He wondered if there was discussion in the Planning Commission minutes of the subdivision or the metes and bounds lot that would clarify this issue. There was a discussion about using the deep lot ordinance to not plan ahead, and building on the lots and forcing the issue. Mr. Murano told the Council that although he had planned to develop this lot, at the time he subdivided Stable Ridge, he left this parcel as part of his home lot to save tax liability.
Chairman Morse asked the length and width of the driveway. Mr. Murano indicated that the driveway was 25-feet wide and no longer than 35 to 40-feet. This orientation of the house was discussed. Chairman Morse asked if there were any safety concerns with the driveway. Mr. Smith replied that there were none.
Chairman Morse asked if there were other questions or concerns. Commissioner Carpenter commented that his only concern was the issue of preplanning to take this lot into account. Commissioner Anderson recalled that some discussion may have been held during Commission meetings. Chairman Morse asked if staff had reviewed this and had a recommendation. Mr. Smith observed that the decision needed to be made of whether this lot could have been developed under normal conditions. He left it up to the Commissioner’s judgement.
Commissioner Anderson reiterated his opinion that it was discussed when Stable Ridge was approved. Commissioner Carpenter asked if the minutes of that meeting needed to be reviewed. The application was discussed. Commissioner Carpenter suggested getting feedback and an opinion from the Council. Making a bulb in the end of the curve was discussed. Commissioner Atchison expressed the opinion that the lot should have been planned for earlier so it wouldn’t be a deep lot.
COMMISSIONER CARPENTER MOVED TO CONTINUE THE REQUEST BY RICK MURANO FOR PRELIMINARY APPROVAL OF A 2-LOT SUBDIVISION, STABLE RIDGE, PLAT “B,” AT APPROXIMATELY 75 NORTH 640 EAST TO ALLOW THE MINUTES OF THE APPROVAL OF THE STABLE RIDGE SUBDIVISION, PLAT “A” TO BE REVIEWED. COMMISSIONER ATCHISON SECONDED THE MOTION. THE VOTE WAS TAKEN AND TWO COMMISSIONERS (CARPENTER AND ATCHISON) VOTED IN FAVOR AND TWO COMMISSIONERS (ANDERSON AND SIMISTER) VOTED NAY. THE MOTION DIED.
COMMISSIONER SIMISTER MOVED TO APPROVE THE REQUEST BY RICK MURANO FOR PRELIMINARY APPROVAL OF A 2-LOT SUBDIVISION, STABLE RIDGE, PLAT “B,” AT APPROXIMATELY 75 NORTH 640 EAST. COMMISSIONER ANDERSON SECONDED THE MOTION. THE VOTE WAS TAKEN AND TWO COMMISSIONERS (ANDERSON AND SIMISTER) VOTED IN FAVOR AND TWO COMMISSIONERS (CARPENTER AND ATCHISON) VOTED NAY. THE MOTION DIED.
Chairman Morse suggested that the motion be changed to include City Council review of the minutes pertaining to the approval of Stable Ridge Subdivision.
COMMISSIONER SIMISTER MOVED TO AMEND THE MOTION TO INCLUDE THE CONDITION THAT THE CITY COUNCIL REVIEW THE PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF STABLE RIDGE SUBDIVISION, PLAT “A.” COMMISSIONER ANDERSON SECONDED THE MOTION. ALL PRESENT VOTED IN FAVOR. THE MOTION CARRIED.
8. WHEELER MACHINERY - 239 NORTH 1800 WEST - POLE SIGN REQUEST
This is a request for approval of a pole sign along the I-15 corridor. Such requests require a permit from the Planning Commission.
Mr. Smith informed the Commissioners that the sign ordinance requires Planning Commission approval and a 200-foot separation between signs. He pointed out that the location is across the freeway from Goodfellow. The pole sign will be built on property owned by Wheeler and is out of the freeway right-of-way. He noted that staff had no concerns with this application.
Commissioner Carpenter verified that the design had been reviewed and approved by the City Engineer. Mr. Smith confirmed that the Chief Building Official had reviewed the plans, not the City Engineer. Commissioner Anderson asked the representative present from the Young Electric Sign Company (YESCO) if the sign would be lighted. He replied that the lights were inside the cabinet and the sign would be lit from inside. Chairman Morse verified that the closest sign is 342-feet from this one, which is greater than the minimum distance of 200-feet. Mr. Smith confirmed the distance measurement. Chairman Morse asked if there was a limitation in the ordinance on lighting. Mr. Smith replied that the limitations on lighting are contained in the nuisance ordinance as light pollution. Chairman Morse verified with the YESCO representative that the sign would contain no rolling or rotating parts. This was confirmed. Mr. Smith added that there also would be no flashing or reader board elements. Chairman Morse verified that the height of the sign is 30-feet, which was confirmed by Mr. Smith to be under the maximum height of 35-feet.
COMMISSIONER ANDERSON MOVED TO APPROVE THE REQUEST BY WHEELER MACHINERY FOR A POLE SIGN AT THEIR BUSINESS AT 239 NORTH 1800 WEST AS PRESENTED ON THE SUBMITTED PLANS. COMMISSIONER ATCHISON SECONDED THE MOTION. ALL PRESENT VOTED IN FAVOR. THE MOTION CARRIED.
9. 17.04.140 - CITY COUNCIL REVIEW - ORDINANCE AMENDMENT
In order to facilitate occasional City Council review of conditional use permits, site plans and other items, it is necessary to amend the City Code adding a provision to allow the Council, at their discretion, to review such items.
Mr. Smith explained that the City Council has requested to review applications with community impact that would normally be considered only by the Planning Commission. To make it clear that the City Council has the final authority to approve all applications to the Planning and Zoning Department of the City, the ordinance requires amendment. Chairman Morse questioned whether the applicant will clearly know in advance that the City Council will review and approve their application. Councilmember Bayless explained that the City Council reviews the tracking list at each Council meeting to decide which applications have ramifications to the community. Chairman Morse commented that he did not want the applicant to feel the City Council has chosen this application arbitrarily or at random. Mr. Smith verified that the City Attorney has given the opinion that a requested review by the Council is within their jurisdiction, it just needs clarification in the City Code. He also noted that many members of the community expect the Councilmembers to know the details of projects within their neighborhoods.
Chairman Morse asked if there was a specific item that had precipitated this decision by the Council. Mr. Smith replied that it was no specific item. Commissioner Anderson explained that the City Council also sits as the Redevelopment Agency Board and approves development projects under this aegis. There have been discrepancies between what had been approved by the Redevelopment Board and the final site plans approved by the Planning Commission. If the City Council reviews these site plans, these discrepancies will no longer occur.
Commissioner Carpenter restated the intent of the amendment. He observed that the Planning Commission already recommends approval to the City Council on applications that they have requested to see. They have always had the ability to see these applications, but this amendment will make it statutory. He noted that the elected body is the final authority, but they have installed auxiliary boards to assist in the day to day decisions. The City Council will make the final decisions on those items that they determine have high impact and/or are controversial.
Commissioner Anderson suggested that copies of City Council minutes be given to the Planning Commissioners for Redevelopment Agency issues. Chairman Morse asked if the Commissioners had suggestions on improving the written amendment. Commissioner Carpenter suggested wording that would make it clear that the request by the Council for a review would occur prior to the time the item would appear on a Planning Commission agenda. He also suggested that the last sentence of the amendment requiring a written finding should be deleted because staff reports detail the conditions and findings of the Planning Commission for the Council’s consideration. The Commissioners discussed the changes suggested. Mr. Smith volunteered to put a tracking sheet in the Planning Commissioner’s staff reports for their review also.
COMMISSIONER CARPENTER MOVED TO APPROVE SECTION 17.08.140 - CITY COUNCIL REVIEW AND RECOMMEND APPROVAL TO THE CITY COUNCIL WITH THE FOLLOWING RECOMMENDATIONS:
1) ADD THE WORDS “PRIOR TO AGENDA PLACEMENT” TO THE SECOND SENTENCE.
2) STRIKE THE LAST SENTENCE, “THE PLANNING COMMISSION SHALL MAKE WRITTEN FINDINGS DESCRIBING REASONS FOR A RECOMMENDATION.”
COMMISSIONER SIMISTER SECONDED THE MOTION. ALL PRESENT VOTED IN FAVOR. THE MOTION CARRIED.
10. PLANNING DIRECTOR’S REPORT
Mr. Smith sought approval of his decision to send a notice to Hub Cap City to revoke their Conditional Use Permit. He told the Commissioners of his inspection of the premises and noted that the conditions have still not been met. He informed the Commissioners that the business had ignored nine letters and two personal appearances in Planning Commission meeting. He suggested that the City clean up the property as required and send the business owner a bill for reimbursement. He expressed his opinion that the business had no intention of complying. The Commissioners agreed and approved the notification.
Mr. Smith informed the Commissioners that the business AMP-Arcade, Music and Pool, has decided to move to the Golds Gym site across the Southtowne Business Mall. Commissioner Anderson asked if this new lease would move them further away from the residences in the rear. Mr. Smith replied that it did, but moved them closer to others. He told the Commissioners that he was concerned about noise bleeding out the back of the building and would be using the City’s PA system to test this possibility. Commissioner Carpenter asked about neighboring businesses. Mr. Smith replied that the neighboring units were empty. The location of the stage was discussed. Mr. Smith was directed to give them a chance, but to keep on top of potential problems.
There was discussion of the APA Conference in Moab.
ADJOURN
COMMISSIONER CARPENTER MOVED TO ADJOURN AT 10:35 P.M. COMMISSIONER ATCHISON SECONDED THE MOTION. ALL PRESENT VOTED IN FAVOR. THE MOTION CARRIED.
APPROVED - February 27, 2002
_______________________________________
Loren Morse, Chairman
Attest,
_______________________________________
Kevin Smith, Planning Director |
|
|
