|
|
Home » City Government » Planning Commission » Minutes Archive; 2000 - 2002 » Planning Commission Minutes 2002 » January 9, 2002
January 9, 2002
The Lindon City Planning Commission held a regularly scheduled meeting on Wednesday, January 9, 2002 at 7:00 p.m. in the Lindon City Center Council Chambers at 100 North State Street, Lindon, Utah.
Conducting: Jim Peters, Commissioner
Invocation: Lori Atchison
PRESENT
Ron Anderson, Commissioner
Lori Atchison, Commissioner
Bruce Carpenter, Commissioner
Evan Nixon, Commissioner
Jim Peters, Commissioner
Marilyn Simister, Commissioner
Lindsey Bayless, Councilmember
Kevin Smith, Planning Director
Venla Gubler, Administrative Clerk
Justin Draeger, Planning Intern ABSENT
Loren Morse, Chairman
The Meeting began at 7:05 P.M.
1. MINUTES
Review of the Minutes of December 12, 2001.
The Minutes of the regular meeting of December 12, 2001 were reviewed. The following corrections were made:
Page 2, Line 13: Replace the name “Center Street” with the name “400 North.”
Page 5, Line 8: Replace the direction “North” with the direction “West.”
Page 6, Line 27: Replace the word “no” with the phrase “a one foot.”
Page 6, Line 30: Add the phrase “and three other property owners” after the word “he.”
Page 6, Line 31: Replace the word “his” with the word “their.”
Page 7, Line 11: Replace the name “Center” with the name “Main.”
Page 7, Line 36: Replace the word “wan” with the word “was.”
Page 9, Line 6,7 Replace the word “agreed” with the word “agree.”
Page 11, Line 34,35: Delete the words “not all” after that word “that.” Replace the phrases “this ordinance. He observed that they must be handled in other ordinances” with the phrase “other sections so it is probably not necessary here.”
COMMISSIONER CARPENTER MOVED TO APPROVE THE MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF DECEMBER 12, 2001 AS CORRECTED. COMMISSIONER ANDERSON SECONDED THE MOTION. ALL PRESENT VOTED IN FAVOR. THE MOTION CARRIED.
2. PUBLIC COMMENT
Mr. Steve Larson, the owner of S & L Construction, observed that he had appeared before the Planning Commission in October about a conditional use permit and site plan approval for a building across the street from the LDS Cannery. Since then, with input from the neighbor to the east and input from Mr. Smith, he has talked with this neighbor about buying her property. He pointed out that this will reduce potential problems with this neighbor, however, the price she is asking is higher than the market will bear. He suggested that he may still consider the purchase if the Planning Commission will change the type of fence required from a block wall to a chain link fence. He would like to leave her house and property as is, change the fence, and rent the house to an employee. Commissioner Peters asked Mr. Smith to review the zone requirements. Mr. Smith replied that a 7-foot block fence is required to buffer residential uses unless the Planning Commission finds that the proposed fence provides an adequate buffer, the appearance of the fence does not detract from the residential use, and the proposed fence will shield the residential use from the noise, storage and/or traffic of the industrial use.
Commissioner Nixon commented that Mr. Larson may buy the house, put up the chain link fence and then decide to sell the house. Mr. Smith observed that the new owner would know what they would be moving next to in advance of the purchase, rather than having the use move in after they are living there. Commissioner Nixon replied that Mr. Larson was not changing the zone of the home and a chain link fence would not provide a sound barrier. Commissioner Anderson suggested that if the chain link was slatted, it may provide some sound resistance. He pointed out that the Planning Commission had allowed trees in place of a fence in some instances. There was discussion of a stipulation that a masonry fence would be required if the property is sold.
Mr. Larson asked if the industrial zone would someday continue to the east. He noted that the property to the south is designated by the General Plan to be industrial. He commented that, if he bought the property, he planned to someday apply for a zone change. Mr. Smith observed that this parcel is right on the border between industrial and residential zones. He noted that this property is a jog in the separation line and other property across the street is zoned industrial further east. Commissioner Nixon asked Mr. Larson if he really need to keep the zone of the home as residential. He suggested that Mr. Larson apply to change the zone to industrial now, and then if he did decide to sell in the future, he could sell it to an industrial use.
Commissioner Anderson commented that changing the zone would change the problem. It would require the east side of the home to be fenced. Mr. Smith replied that although the zone would be changed, the use is not changing, so a fence on the east side of the house would not be needed until an application for a conditional use permit is reviewed. Commissioner Anderson asked Mr. Larson if this would help facilitate the purchase. Mr. Larson agreed that this may solve the problem. Commissioner Nixon suggested that Mr. Larson could make the purchase contingent on the zone change. Mr. Smith observed that a zone change would also require a General Plan change. Mr. Larson replied that he would try to negotiate with the present owner on the suggested terms.
3. NEW BUSINESS (Reports by Commissioners)
Commissioner Nixon, referring to a previous discussion of the LDS Chapel on 400 North and Canal Drive, suggested that the Church be called back in for discussion of their parking plan and possibly conversion of the field into parking. Commissioner Peters commented that the situation had become worse in that last two weeks. Mr. Smith verified that the Commissioners wanted to review the Church’s conditional use permit. Commissioner Peters replied that it was needed. The Commissioners agreed.
4. GOODFELLOW CORP. - 390 NORTH 2000 WEST - AMENDED CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT
This is a request by the applicant to expand his outside display area to include the old rest stop area next to his existing building along I-15.
Mr. Smith commented that the Planning Commission had requested a review of the original conditional use permit when hearing the application for an amended conditional use permit. He introduced Mr. Rich Hansen of Goodfellow to the Commissioners. Commissioner Nixon asked Mr. Smith if the conditions have improved at the site to the point that the Commissioners do not need to discuss revoking the conditional use permit. Mr. Smith asked Mr. Hansen to address this issue. He presented the amended site plan and explained that Goodfellow had acquired the rest area from UDOT and would like to expand their sales area. He directed the Commissioners’ attention to copies of the minutes pertaining to the Goodfellow conditional use permit.
Mr. Hansen apologized for the owner who is now retired. He introduced himself as the General Manager of Goodfellow, and promised to follow through better than in the past. He explained that the business of Goodfellow is to bring in old rock crushing equipment, repair and refurbish it, and resell. He showed the Commissioners the proposed changes in the site plan. He talked about trees, an 8-foot precast concrete fence on top of a 3-foot elevation change, replacing the substandard container building with a suitable building to be used in sandblasting and painting the equipment, and hauling out junk by May.
Commissioner Simister asked how Mr. Hansen proposed to use the new space by the freeway. Mr. Hansen replied that it would be for display of finished and sellable equipment, not for junk storage. Commissioner Peters asked if he planned to take out the trees in the old rest area. Mr. Hansen replied that they would stay. The only ones to be removed are the dead trees.
Commissioner Nixon pointed out that one of the conditions of the original permit was planting trees west of the building. Mr. Smith observed that the trees were there, but were just small. Mr. Hansen added that they had planted the eight trees, but one had died and needed replacement. He commented that he would like to dress the site with more boulders and wood chips.
Mr. Smith observed that another condition of the original permit was that the access road be asphalted within five years if it was made permanent. He commented that the date of the original permit is September of 1998. He asked if the road is now permanent. Mr. Hansen replied that the access road had been surfaced with crushed asphalt, 8-inches thick, to alleviate the dust.
Commissioner Carpenter asked about visibility of the storage area from the freeway. Mr.
Hansen explained that the freeway and the old rest area are about the same elevation. There is a three-foot drop from the rest area to the storage area. He plans to put the eight-foot precast concrete fence on the top of the rise, so the elevation of the storage area will be about eleven feet below the top of the fence. The fence will continue north along the ditch bank to the north edge of the property to shield the storage area from view of the freeway.
Commissioner Nixon asked about the elevation of the ditch that runs along the east side of the property. Mr. Hansen replied that the ditch bank has been built up and is higher than the elevation of the storage area. Commissioner Anderson questioned the location of the property line along the ditch bank. As a neighbor, he suggested that the line be determined before a fence is put on the ditch bank. He also noted that the culvert under the freeway plugs occasionally. He suggested that access to clean the ditch be considered. He observed that the billboard sign recently installed on the rest stop property may not have the correct setbacks when the property line is surveyed and may need to be moved. Mr. Smith pointed out some sewer and storm drain easements that cross the property too.
Commissioner Nixon asked if the parts containers shown on the site plan were similar to the containers used in the “building.” Mr. Hansen answered yes and noted that they would not be stacked double high and would be painted.
There was discussion of the fence continuing along the north property line between the back of the proposed “wash building” to the existing building. Mr. Hansen indicated that he would be willing to do this and enclosed enclose the whole storage yard.
Commissioner Nixon asked if the neighboring property to the north, the Blackhurst property, was the parcel involved in the Trophy Homes purchase. The answer was yes. Commissioner Anderson talked briefly about previous problems between the Blackhurst family and Goodfellow concerning fencing and berming the ditch.
Mr. Smith observed that the options available to the Commissioners are to give the applicant a list of things to do and invite him back when the list is complete, or to deny the amendment. Commissioner Peters suggested that the setback of the sign be checked. Commissioner Anderson suggested that the property line along the ditch be checked. Commissioner Peters included a maintenance access for the ditch, storm drain and sewer easements for the City on the east property line, details of the fence and the proposed building in the storage area, progress shown on the previous conditions, and paving of the access road from the west. Mr. Hansen commented that the reason the access road was previously left unpaved was because access may be changed to the east side when the future 1700 West is built. Commissioner Anderson noted that 1700 West is now on the General Plan. There was a discussion on the General Plan and the Trophy Homes project. Commissioner Carpenter suggested extending the condition on the access road for another five years. Mr. Smith suggested that Goodfellow examine other options of hard surfacing the existing access road.
Commissioner Nixon renewed the request for photos of the Kanab operations. Commissioner Anderson explained to Mr. Hansen the concerns of the Planning Commission. He observed that the Goodfellow business is essentially a heavy industrial business in a light industrial zone. This zone has now changed from light industrial to mixed commercial where the architectural requirements are even more stringent. With the promises of the past and the record of noncompliance, the Planning Commission is very concerned about this application to expand. Commissioner Peters thanked Mr. Hansen for appearing on behalf of Goodfellow.
5. CINDY EVANS - 390 NORTH GILLMAN LANE - STATUS REPORT ON COMPLIANCE WITH CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
Ms. Evans desires to report to the Planning Commission her plan to comply with the original conditions of approval for her stallion permit.
Mr. Smith directed the Commissioners’ attention to the copies of minutes of previous meetings concerning this item and displayed an aerial photo of the area in question. He explained that Ms. Evans asked to meet with the Commission. He noted that the horses are still there and well cared for.
Commissioner Anderson asked Ms. Evans how many horses are on the property. She replied that there are two fillies, two mares, and the stallion. It was noted that the fillies are now more than six months old. Commissioner Nixon observed that the limit of horses allowed by ordinance on a half acre is four. Ms. Evans replied that she had the stallion sold at one time, but her ex-husband refused to sign the sale papers until the divorce was final, so she lost the sale. Commissioner Anderson commented that, at the last meeting, Ms. Evans had told the Commission that one mare was leaving and one filly was sold. Ms. Evans answered that if she has to sell the stallion, she would prefer to keep the fillies. She added that an interested person had called today on the stallion.
Commissioner Anderson pointed out that since neither the stallion nor the filly was sold, she is over the number allowed in the ordinance. The sale of the stallion would bring the number of horses on the property to the correct amount. He suggested that Ms. Evans agree to move a mare to keep the number down until the stallion is sold. It was discussed that the fillies were not consider considered a horse until they are six months old.
Commissioner Carpenter asked Ms. Evans to clarify her request to the Planning Commission. Ms. Evans asked for time to sell the stallion. Commissioner Carpenter asked for an estimate of the time needed. Ms. Evan suggested the end of March as this is the start of the breeding season and is only two months away.
Commissioner Peters told Ms. Evans that the problem is not just with the stallion, but that she has too many horses on the property. Ms. Evans replied that she does not want to sell a mare and would like time to try and sell the stallion. Commissioner Anderson explained that the Planning Commission cannot give permission to break the ordinance. Mr. Smith added that the ordinance allows four horses. If one of those four horses is a stallion, a conditional use permit is also required. The conditional use permit does not allow more horses than the limit. Commissioner Carpenter suggested that the temporary conditional use permit be extended to the end of March if Ms. Evans either boards one of the horses off-site or sells one of the mares.
Commissioner Peters observed that his personal opinion is that four horses on a half acre are too many and need constant maintenance. Ms. Evans aired her conflicting opinion and pointed out that the dairy near her smells more than her corral. Commissioner Peters asked if the Commission had a motion. Commissioner Nixon observed that Ms. Evans could be liable for a ticket if the horse is not moved soon. Mr. Smith commented that he and the animal control officer would be checking in about a week to see if a horse is removed from the property. He added that a ticket for an animal violation is a Class B misdemeanor. Commissioner Carpenter asked if Ms. Evans could board the stallion until he is sold. Ms. Evans replied that boarding fees on a stallion are too much. Commissioner Nixon observed that March 31 is not a review date, but an end date.
COMMISSIONER ANDERSON MOVED TO EXTEND THE TEMPORARY CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO THE END OF MARCH TO ALLOW MS. EVANS TO SELL THE STALLION. MS. EVAN IS ADVISED TO COME INTO COMPLIANCE WITH THE ORDINANCE AS SOON AS POSSIBLE. COMMISSIONER CARPENTER SECONDED THE MOTION. ALL PRESENT VOTED IN FAVOR. THE MOTION CARRIED.
6. ENTERTAINMENT CENTER - 135 SOUTH STATE STREET - CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT
This is a request by Mike Donahue for approval of an entertainment center which will include arcade games, billiards, etc. They also would like approval of a 3,200 sq. ft. area to have small concerts and comic type events.
Mr. Smith introduced this application for an entertainment center in the South Towne Mall. He displayed the proposed layout of the business and noted that this would be in the former Peddlers Cottage area. He pointed out the stage area of about 2,300 square feet and told the Commissioners that staff’s concerns are with parking needs and security.
Mr. Mike Donahue and Mr. Matt Brown were present. Mr. Donahue confirmed that this business was intended to appeal to all ages and explained the types of entertainment that would be available: from arcade games and pool tables to concerts of all types and genres. Mr. Brown commented that as most of the businesses are closed in the evenings when events would take place, he felt there was ample parking. He added that there is parking in the back of the building. Mr. Donahue commented that he works at Datapad and has received permission to park there too. Mr. Smith discussed the number of parking stalls and suggested that employees are required to park in the back of the building.
Commissioner Peters asked about lighting in the back parking lot. Mr. Smith reported that there were building-mounted lights. Mr. Brown talked about the owner of the building’s plans to outline the complex in neon. Commissioner Nixon asked if they planned access from the interior to the back or to have an entrance to the business on the back. Mr. Brown replied that it would be more of an exit than an entrance. Mr. Donahue informed the Commissioners that when the establishment added food to the offerings, he would like access to the Datapad side to allow those employees to come there for lunch and breaks.
Commissioner Nixon asked for details about the business “Uprok.” Mr. Donahue informed the Commissioners that this is a skating and retail supply store. There is no live skating involved in the business. Commissioner Nixon asked if they had permission to close off the breeze way. Mr. Smith answered and said that permission was given to the owner of the buildings some time ago.
Commissioner Nixon asked what kind of food would be served. Mr. Brown replied that snacks only, like nachos and drinks, would be available. Commissioner Anderson asked if there was enough seating room in the entertainment and stage area. The applicants informed the Commissioners that the patrons usually preferred to stand while watching a group perform. There would no be dancing and only minimal movement. Commissioner Carpenter asked what the capacity of the facility is estimated. Mr. Smith observed that the capacity would be determined by the building and fire departments. Mr. Brown estimated a capacity of 200-300 persons. Commissioner Anderson asked the length of the shows and questioned the patrons standing. Mr. Brown replied that a performer usually does three sets of 35 minutes each. The patrons would not just be standing, but would be roaming through the whole complex. He explained that they intended to “stamp their hands” so they can move freely throughout the establishment. He said that seating can be offered, but most prefer to stand.
Commissioner Peters asked the proposed hours of operation. Mr. Brown proposed 10:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m. on weekdays and 10:00 a.m. to 12:00 a.m. on weekends. He compared this to some similar businesses in Provo. Commissioner Anderson pointed out that this building lies adjacent to a residential area and expressed concern about discernible noise outside of the business and patrons loitering outside. Mr. Donahue indicated that Public Safety Director Tom Paul had agreed to help patrol the outside and parking lot. He added that Director Paul had told him that this may help the loitering problem at Walkers and may help keep kids out of trouble.
Commissioner Nixon asked if there would be an admission fee. Mr. Brown replied that the arcades are paid by the game. He talked about soundproofing the building to minimize outside noise. Commissioner Carpenter expressed concern about patrons leaving by the back exits after a late concert and disturbing neighboring residences. Mr. Smith commented that he would be surprised if any of the patrons parked in back. He suggested that the employees use the parking there.
Mr. Brown promoted the standards of the business - no alcohol, narcotics or cigarettes. He added that they wanted to help kids do constructive things. They would like to be positive role models. He observed that there were few venues in Utah County like this for bands to play, so if requested to, they will mute their sound as it gets later. He said that they would not allow loitering outside of the premises, and since there were so few places for kids to go, 99% of time they will comply.
Mr. Brown informed the Commission that they planned one certified security guard for every 100 people. They want a presence of authority on the premises and to promote an atmosphere of fun without compromises to family values. They want to make it comfortable for kids and parents to enjoy themselves without large expenditures. He estimated a night of arcade playing and compared it to a night at the movies.
Commissioner Simister pointed out that there were two schools within walking distance of the Mall with the new Charter School going in the neighborhood. She suggested that having a back entrance may not be a good idea. Mr. Donahue replied that they were not there to encourage sluffing school. He added that they would ask questions of young patrons during school hours and would not encourage them to play the games.
Commissioner Carpenter asked if Lindon City had a dance hall ordinance. It was reviewed and found not applicable. Mr. Smith observed that all conditional use permits are reviewable upon complaint. Mr. Brown commented that the business intended to have security measures, and if they have to, will add searches and metal detectors. They want parents to feel safe about allowing their children to come here and will send out a flyer inviting parents to come and inspect the premises.
Commissioner Simister asked how many employees they anticipated. Mr. Donahue replied that there would be two during the day and from four to six at night to start, and possibly more later. Mr. Brown enumerated the positions of the night shift as a floor person, a security guard, a sound man, and a food counter service person. He added that Uprok would have one person also.
Commissioner Carpenter advised the young business owners to be constantly vigilant. Mr. Brown responded that they would do their best to assure a safe and family-oriented atmosphere. Commissioner Carpenter added that the acts invited to the stage would be a factor in determining the atmosphere. Mr. Brown agreed and added that they prefer those acts with minimal offensive language. Commissioner Peters advised them to “keep a tight rein.” He added that they wouldn’t be able to control some of the patrons, but they can control the acts. Mr. Donahue told of a venue in Provo that has patrons who use offensive language wear a paper bag over their head. He commented that he would like to keep the atmosphere fun but controlled. Mr. Brown observed that the rules would be painted large and prominent, and would be enforced.
Commissioner Anderson commented that he thought there is a need for this type of business to entertain kids, however, his concern is that this location backs onto a residential area. Soundproofing will help, but he encouraged the applicants to watch for problems in back and in the parking lot. Commissioner Nixon commented that security is a good idea and suggested that the security guards patrol outside the business periodically. He also suggested that access to the back be limited, particularly after dark and during school hours. He commented that if the business was not open to the back, it would minimize the activity in back. He suggested that if they wanted to cater to Datapad’s lunch and break crowd, be open then, but otherwise the back access is closed.
Mr. Brown commented that they would clean the parking lot after closing. This was accepted as a good idea. Commissioner Peters asked if there were other comments. Commissioner Simister agreed that this business was a great idea for teenagers if it is kept under control. Mr. Brown reiterated that their primary concern is safety and fun.
COMMISSIONER CARPENTER MOVED TO APPROVE THE REQUEST BY MIKE DONAHUE FOR A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR AN ENTERTAINMENT CENTER IN SOUTH TOWNE BUSINESS MALL AT APPROXIMATELY 139 SOUTH STATE STREET SUBJECT TO THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS:
1) THE HOURS OF OPERATION BE LIMITED TO 10:00 P.M. ON WEEKDAYS AND 12:00 A.M. MIDNIGHT ON WEEKENDS.
2) NO PUBLIC ACCESS IS ALLOWED FROM THE REAR OF THE BUILDING. REAR ACCESS IS LIMITED AND/OR RESTRICTED TO EMPLOYEES ONLY.
3) ONE CERTIFIED SECURITY GUARD WILL BE ON DUTY FOR EVERY 100 PATRONS.
4) SECURITY PERSONNEL SHOULD PATROL OUTSIDE OF THE BUSINESS, INCLUDING THE PARKING LOT AND REAR OF THE BUILDING.
5) APPROPRIATE ACOUSTICAL CONTROLS SHOULD BE INSTALLED SO THAT MINIMAL NOISE WILL BE HEARD OFF THE SITE.
6) AN ATMOSPHERE OF TRADITIONAL FAMILY VALUES AND “G-RATED” CONDITIONS BE MAINTAINED BY POSTING RULES AND BEHAVIORAL STANDARDS PROMINENTLY, INCLUDING NO FIGHTING, DRUGS, ALCOHOL, TOBACCO OR OFFENSIVE LANGUAGE.
7) THE PARKING LOT AND AREAS SURROUNDING THE BUSINESS BE KEPT CLEAR OF RUBBISH AND TRASH BY THE BUSINESS OWNER.
COMMISSIONER ATCHISON SECONDED THE MOTION. ALL PRESENT VOTED IN FAVOR. THE MOTION CARRIED.
7. SUMMIT DEVELOPMENT - LAKEVIEW DRIVE AND STATE STREET - DESIGN REVIEW
This is a request for design review of a proposed multi-family housing proposal primarily to consist of town homes.
Mr. Smith presented the location on an aerial photo. He said that, if approved, this project would require a General Plan amendment, a zone change and an ordinance change. He noted that this is a design review and no decisions will be made. Commissioner Atchison asked what the present zoning is on the proposed parcel. Mr. Smith replied that the property is zoned commercial. He added that it has been the opinion of the City that Lindon has minimal State Street frontage and it should be preserved for commercial businesses.
Mr. Heath Johnston and Mr. Otto Belvedere presented their proposal. Mr. Johnston pointed out that much of the retail space on State Street is vacant. He observed that the deep shopping malls with acres of parking in front have low visibility that hurts the businesses locating there. He is proposing two commercial sites right along State Street with a complex of higher density housing to blend the commercial businesses to the single-family neighborhoods to the west. He proposed two entrances onto Lakeview Drive from the complex and promoted the project as the “best use for the ground.” Mr. Johnston informed the Commissioners that one of the commercial sites would be occupied by Mr. Belvedere’s restaurant, Ottavio’s Ristorante Italiano. The housing complex would have a density of about 10.5 per acre, contain a pool and clubhouse and 125 units in the $120,000 range. He added that there was not much affordable housing in Lindon.
Mr. Belvedere introduced himself and told the Commission that he has been in the restaurant business since 1955. Eleven years ago, he opened Ottavio’s in Provo. He has also done development since 1968. He described some of the projects he had been involved in and promoted Lindon’s need for something like this. He informed the Commission that he would spend $1.5 million to build and equip the restaurant which would include an eating area and a banquet area. He is considering the middle parcel.
Mr. Johnston commented that not everyone can build a multi-family project and have it last. He observed that this project will be quality construction of brick and stucco. He also told of various projects that he had been involved in and added that one near Eagle Mountain Ranches had 135 units sold in the first year. He promoted the project as “not a rental, not a house, but a home with increased amenities.” He pointed out the pattern of the project as “heavy traffic, retail, high density, then single family.” Mr. Belvedere said that the high density provides a transition area.
Commissioner Atchison expressed concern about people accessing Lakeview and State Street with left turns. Commissioner Anderson commented that it was a problem now and this project would add to it. Mr. Johnston acknowledged that he did not have all the answers, but if a retail business builds on the site the same problem will be there. Commissioner Anderson observed that Lindon’s commercial zoning ordinance is a General Commercial zone, which allows for other types of commercial businesses besides retail. He suggested that a business may locate there that does not generate the kinds of traffic a retail or high density project would entail. Mr. Johnston commented that the real estate broker had said there is a three to four-year supply of office space available now and the area is experiencing a trend of less growth.
Commissioner Anderson commented that Lindon’s General Plan Committee agrees that high density is needed in the city, however, they envision and provided for this possibility on the west edge of town. He added that Lindon does not have many east-west roads and so traffic is concentrated in specific corridors. The General Plan states that density will be considered between Geneva Road and the freeway.
Mr. Belvedere asked if traffic was the only concern. Mr. Anderson observed that Lindon traditionally preserves animal rights. He added that those who do not have animal rights, like town home dwellers, are not always tolerant of those who have animals. Mr. Belvedere disagreed and pointed out a project he had developed on the west side of Provo. He said the people there like having animals nearby. They knew what they were buying when they acquired the property to start with and are not worried about it.
The discussion moved back to traffic and Mr. Johnston asked the Commissioners to compare the traffic a commercial business might potentially bring to this project’s potential traffic counts. Mr. Smith commented on the potential traffic counts. Mr. Belvedere observed that Albertson’s is higher. Commissioner Anderson agreed, but again pointed out that this is General Commercial, not necessarily retail commercial. Mr. Johnston commented that it would be more profitable to bring in office condos, but there is no market for them. The market is projects like this. The traffic is less than retail commercial and it will have a fence around it so animals will not be a problem.
Commissioner Anderson expressed the opinion that more of the area should be devoted to commercial, rather than less. Mr. Johnston promoted Mr. Belvedere’s restaurant as a revenue generator for the City. He commented that he uses the Lindon/Pleasant Grove area to shop because there is less traffic than Orem. He also pointed out that this project has less density than those they have built in Orem; they are at 44 units per acre. Mr. Belvedere promoted the units as “good for first time buyers.”
Commissioner Carpenter asked about incorporating the train station site into the project and squaring it up. It was explained that this parcel is under different ownership. Mr. Belvedere noted that he had looked at the building for his restaurant, but was not interested in a two-story building.
Commissioner Nixon observed that he was concerned about the density. He added that the Trophy Homes project is nine units per acre. Lindon’s current high density ordinance only allows six units per acre and the project size is limited to one acre. He observed that State Street is Lindon’s commercial corridor and is limited. He suggested that the developers reserve more commercial area behind the old train station. This area still has exposure to State Street and could be put to higher use than housing. He expressed concern about pedestrian traffic trying to cross State Street to the Lindon City Park. Mr. Johnston commented that the project includes a tot lot and extra amenities not found in the park. Mr. Belvedere added that the units are affordable to young families. Commissioner Nixon suggested that the density is what makes the units affordable. He added that possibly the developers were paying too much for the property and if the density were less the project would not be viable.
Mr. Johnston acknowledged that high density was not in Lindon’s master plan for State Street. He suggested that this is a good project for this community. Commissioner Simister listed her concerns as: the density is too high, it covers too much acreage, the potential traffic problem at the corner of Lakeview and State Street, and then added that she did like the restaurant. Commissioner Peters asked if there would be a parking problem at the restaurant like the one at Los Hermanos. Mr. Belvedere replied that this site was larger and he did not foresee a problem. The differences in the lot size and the parking problems at Los Hermanos were discussed. Mr. Belvedere told of his parking problems in downtown Provo.
Commissioner Atchison commented that she agrees with Commissioner Simister’s assessment of the project. Mr. Johnston asked if the Commission would consider less density, or should he abandon the project. Commissioner Simister felt that the restaurant should not be abandoned. Commissioner Nixon suggested that the developers should talk to the City Council before abandoning the idea. He also suggested lower density, more open space, more commercial in the northeast corner and a solution to the pedestrian traffic access to the Lindon City Park. Mr. Johnston suggested stacking the units to three levels to open up space. Commissioner Nixon observed that this type of unit had been removed from the Trophy Homes proposal. Commissioner Atchison suggested that the developers lessen the total units of the project. Commissioner Carpenter suggested more commercial area and less residential units and added that he was nervous about having this many units concentrated in one area. Commissioner Anderson observed that he would consider high density housing, but not on State Street. He commented that high density housing needs to be limited to areas that need utility expansion. This project would not add these assets to the City. Commissioner Carpenter commented on the citizen objections that would also need to be addressed. The Trophy Homes project was discussed. Commissioner Peters commented that he hoped the Commission had satisfied some of their questions.
8. DISCUSSION ITEM - ALTERNATE ROADWAY EDGE TREATMENTS - SUBDIVISION ORDINANCE (FUTURE AMENDMENT)
This is a request initiated by the City Council to consider different styles of curb, gutter, and sidewalk. This is a discussion item only.
Mr. Smith observed that when the Council had adopted the amended residential ordinance, they had asked for some way to allow alternative treatments for roadway edges. He listed the possible choices as asphalt gutter and swells as alternatives to curb and gutter. He observed that this is the first discussion. He added that he had pictures of alternative treatments, particularly of the Suncrest Development on the Point of the Mountain. He turned the presentation to City Engineer, Mark Christensen.
Mr. Christensen presented a comparison of roadway edge treatments that discusses the traditional barrier type curb and gutter, roll type gutter, drainage swales, and unimproved shoulders. Commissioner Peters commented that roll type gutters allow access to properties without having a driveway approach. The pathway cross section was discussed and delineated for the new commissioners. Mr. Christensen directed the Commissioners to the evaluation considerations of the types of edge treatments. He acknowledged that the evaluation is subjective, so backup explanations were included.
The pictures of Suncrest were examined. Mr. Smith pointed out that the biggest disadvantage of their project was the deterioration of the asphalt edges of the roadways. Mr. Christensen commented that more space was needed between the edge of the roads without curb and gutter for protection of pedestrians. Commissioner Nixon asked if the right-of-way would remain the same. Mr. Christensen replied that the right-of-way remaining the same is not a given. He explained that a swale treatment would need space for the swale itself and a distance for protection of pedestrians from motorists.
Councilmember Bayless asked why drainage swales were rated as high maintenance treatments. The Commission discussed the landscaping maintenance, the propensity for motorists to use the swales for parking, the culverts necessary for each drive approach, and the deterioration of the asphalt edge because of the lack of support. He also pointed out that drainage swales were unsuitable for areas of high ground water and steep slopes. Commissioner Anderson commented that the study appears “prejudiced against swales.” Commissioner Carpenter asked if there was an advantage in the cost difference. He noted that barrier curb, roll type curb and swales were all rated poorly for construction costs. This was discussed. Mr. Christensen commented that swales reduce storm water run off rate. Commissioner Carpenter asked if this was the only advantage. Commissioner Nixon observed that swales improve water quality. Mr. Christensen agreed that they can improve water quality, but they can also increase erosion if they are not properly maintained. Commissioner Nixon agreed and noted that the problem is parking in the swales. It is hard to keep the grass in maintained condition if people are parking in wet swales.
Commissioner Anderson suggested that swales may be used on the larger lots in Lindon. Mr. Christensen observed that barrier curbs are necessary for high traffic, or high speeds, or protection of pedestrians, or less space in the right-of-way. The other types of roadway edge treatments may be used in the absence of these criteria. Commissioner Nixon asked if there were defined cross sections available for places where these situations may apply. He asked Mr. Christensen for his proposal on these types of edge treatments that would allow for protection of non-vehicular traffic. Mr. Christensen replied that he recommends considerable space between roll type gutter and pedestrian walkways. Commissioner Nixon asked if the drainage swale would require the same space requirements as the roll type curb. He asked how the types can be evaluated if they are not defined. There was a discussion of the protection afforded to a pedestrian with a barrier type curb. Mr. Christensen commented that the roll type curb would require less right of way than a swale because of the width needed for the swale itself. Commissioner Nixon observed that another name for roll type curb is mountable curb. The different types of roll type curb were drawn on the overhead and discussed.
Commissioner Anderson asked if Lindon was making these options available for a developer to choose between. Commissioner Peters asked why this discussion was taking place. Mr. Smith referred to Councilmember Bayless. Councilmember Bayless replied that there are although there are strong reasons to go with the standard curb and gutter, the edge treatments are not as important as what is behind them. “What happens behind the curb and gutter?” she asked. She asked what kind of pathways would there be; what form the sidewalks would take; and how to retrofit semi-developed areas into their neighboring developments. She commented that it was not necessary to issue a blanket statement for the whole city. It could be dependent on the type of street, or limited to new developments. She added that most residents agree that the streetscape is important.
Commissioner Nixon expressed the opinion that the City should promote the barrier type curb and gutter with a landscaping strip. Commissioner Peters agreed. Mr. Christensen noted that transportation experts agree with this type of treatment also. Commissioner Peters described the pretty streets of the Avenues area in Salt Lake City where the sidewalk was placed twenty feet back from the edge of the street with landscaping between. Parking is in the long driveways. Mr. Smith described a new development with similar sidewalk treatment.
Commissioner Nixon asked if it had been made a standard requirement to put in a pathway. Mr. Smith replied that if the pathway is shown on the General Plan it is now a required part of development, however, local streets are not mandated. Commissioner Nixon asked if there was any reason not to mandate a pathway on a local street. Mr. Smith pointed out Center Street and 600 North as inappropriate places for a pathway profile.
Commissioner Nixon felt that even there the curb could move in and out. Mr. Smith commented that there may be areas of Lindon that do not need curb. Commissioner Simister observed that Lindon needs to stay away from high maintenance items of any kind. She expressed the opinion that Lindon should not do drainage swales. She promoted a standard that would give a community feeling and not confuse with a thousand different looks. She also likes the barrier type curb, grass, and sidewalk. She would like to see the community plant trees.
Mr. Harlow Clark, newspaper representative, asked if the safest alternative is the barrier curb and gutter and distance. This was confirmed by Mr. Christensen. Commissioner Carpenter asked where there are circumstances where barrier type curb and gutter is not needed. Councilmember Bayless replied that there may be situations where no sidewalk is needed, only curb, gutter, and landscaping. She observed that many walkers do not want to walk on concrete. It is an extra expense that may not be needed. She promoted a pathway in some form in more areas. Mr. Smith asked for suggested approaches. Commissioner Nixon suggested sidewalk on only one side of the street. Commissioner Carpenter asked how to distinguish between those areas that would be required to have sidewalk on only one side and those who would be required to have sidewalk on both sides. Commissioner Nixon suggested the length of the street, whether it is a collector, or in the proximity of a school.
Councilmember Bayless considered that too complicated and suggested that the pathway system be used. Commissioner Nixon suggested that alternatives may be used on review by the City. Mr. Smith felt this may allow the contractor to tell the City what he wants to build. Commissioner Anderson expressed the opinion that Lindon would have a “hodgepodge.” Councilmember Bayless agreed and added that Lindon would probably need a narrower definition. Commissioner Simister commented that she will push for pathway and asked when the pathways would be built. Mr. Smith replied that the first pathway will be built this summer. He cautioned against being too aggressive too fast and allow residents to get used to the concept. Commissioner Carpenter observed that it would be hard to fill in the gaps of any system chosen. Councilmember Bayless observed that a decision needs to be made whether to require pathways in every subdivision and on every road. Mr. Christensen asked how cul-de-sacs would be handled. “Do you see pathway on one side and around the end?” he asked. He wondered also about how the pathway would end in the cul-de-sac. Councilmember Bayless suggested that pathway replace sidewalks on both sides of the street. Mr. Christensen replied that there was not sufficient right-of-way for that. This was discussed and alternatives suggested. Commissioner Nixon suggested that sidewalks be put in on the front yards beyond the street right-of-way.
The discussion was suspended to allow for more input and direction from the Council.
9. PLANNING DIRECTOR’S REPORT - STATUS REPORT ON THE FOLLOWING:
1) Membership subscriptions for Planning Commissioners.
Mr. Smith asked who among the Commissioners is not a member of the American Planning Association. It was determined that Commissioners Carpenter and Simister were the only ones. Mr. Smith informed them that the dues would be paid and information from the APA would be forthcoming to them.
2) Future training opportunities for Commissioners.
Mr. Smith asked who would like to attend the Spring Conference in Moab in March. Those interested responded. Mr. Smith observed that the reservations would be made. The agenda was discussed.
3) Appointment of Chairperson and Vice Chairperson for the January 23, 2002 meeting.
Mr. Smith reminded the Commissioners that the Chairperson and Vice Chairperson would be elected at the January 23, 2002 meeting of the Planning Commission. He asked the Commissioners to be thinking about who to nominate and vote for.
Mr. Smith asked when the Commission would like to have the next joint meeting of the Council and Planning Commission. It was decided that it was not necessary to have one now unless the City Council had something they wanted to discuss.
ADJOURN
COMMISSIONER ATCHISON MOVED TO ADJOURN AT 10:32 P.M. COMMISSIONER CARPENTER SECONDED THE MOTION. ALL PRESENT VOTED IN FAVOR. THE MOTION CARRIED.
APPROVED - January 23, 2002
_______________________________________
Loren Morse, Chairman
Attest,
_______________________________________
Kevin Smith, Planning Director |
|
|
