|
|
Home » City Government » Planning Commission » Minutes Archive; 2000 - 2002 » Planning Commission Minutes 2002 » June 12, 2002
June 12, 2002
The Lindon City Planning Commission held a regularly scheduled meeting on Wednesday, June 12, 2002 at 7:00 p.m. in the Lindon City Center Council Chambers at 100 North State Street, Lindon, Utah.
Conducting: Jim Peters, Acting Chairman
Invocation: Ron Anderson
PRESENT
Ron Anderson, Commissioner
Lori Atchison, Commissioner
Bruce Carpenter, Commissioner
Jim Peters, Commissioner
Lindsey Bayless, Councilmember
Kevin Smith, Planning Director
Venla Gubler, Administrative Clerk
Robert Hammond, Planning Intern
ABSENT
Loren Morse, Chairman
Evan Nixon, Commissioner
Marilyn Simister, Commissioner
The Meeting began at 7:24 P.M.
1. MINUTES
Review of the Minutes of May 22, 2002.
The Minutes of the regularly scheduled meeting of May 22, 2002 were reviewed. The following corrections were made:
Page 1, Line 6: Replace the name of “Loren Morse, Chairman” with the name “Jim Peters, Acting Chairman.”
Page 1, Line 13: Commissioner Lori Atchison was present.
Page 2, Line 40: Add the word “retaining” before the word “walls.”
Page 4, Line 16: Add the word “about” before the word “his.”
Page 4, Line 30: Replace the word “there” with the word “the.”
Page 5, Line 3: Replace the word “APPROVE” with the word “APPROVAL.”
COMMISSIONER CARPENTER MOVED TO APPROVE THE MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF MAY 22, 2002 AS CORRECTED. COMMISSIONER ATCHISON 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)
Mr. Smith asked if the sight obstructing real estate sign had been removed from Geneva Road. Commissioner Anderson replied that it had been cut down, but not removed. He added that the tree had been cut down also. Mr. Smith asked if there had been improvement in the parking situation at the church on Canal Drive. Acting Chairman Peters replied that it had improved over the last weeks. Commissioner Carpenter observed that the LDS Bishop of the Young Adult Ward had changed and the new Bishop may need notification that the parking situation needs monitoring. Commissioner Carpenter mentioned a broken secondary water line at the Oak Canyon Jr. High School. Mr. Smith replied that the Public Works Director was aware of the broken line and was attempting to contact the facilities director of the school.
Acting Chairman Peters asked if there were any more reports or questions. There were none.
4. CANBERRA HEIGHTS, PLAT “F” - 150 SOUTH DRY CANYON DRIVE
This is a request for an amendment to Lots 38 and 39 of Canberra Heights Plat “B.”
Mr. Smith explained to the Commissioners that Canberra Development had been in negotiations with the Forest Service for land adjacent to the Canberra Heights Subdivision. In anticipation of this possible trade, the developers had left this access between two lots. The trade has not taken place and now the developers are requesting that the land reserved for access be added to and combined with the two lots. Mr. Smith informed the Commission that staff had no issues with the amendment to the plat. The access was never dedicated to the City and is owned by Canberra Development.
Acting Chairman Peters asked if the access was needed for fire fighting. Mr. Smith showed the alternate routes for fire access into the foothills. Mr. Harlow Clark, New Utah representative, verified that the original plat had reserved the area for future right-of-way, but that the new plat would add the area to the adjacent lots. Commissioner Carpenter noted that the request is for preliminary approval. Mr. Smith agreed and added that staff will do the final approval after the engineering is completed and approved by the City Engineer.
COMMISSIONER ANDERSON MOVED TO APPROVE THE REQUEST FOR PRELIMINARY APPROVAL OF CANBERRA HEIGHTS, PLAT “F,” A TWO LOT SUBDIVISION AND AMENDMENT TO CANBERRA HEIGHTS PLAT “B” LOTS 38 AND 39 AT APPROXIMATELY 150 SOUTH DRY CANYON DRIVE AND RECOMMEND APPROVAL TO THE CITY COUNCIL. COMMISSIONER CARPENTER SECONDED THE MOTION. ALL PRESENT VOTED IN FAVOR. THE MOTION CARRIED.
5. ZONING ORDINANCE AMENDMENT - 17.06. - INOPERABLE MOTOR VEHICLES AND VEHICLE STORAGE
The Planning Commission will review, discuss and possibly make a recommendation to the City Council to amend and revise this code section.
Mr. Smith introduced this latest draft of an amendment to Chapter 17.06 of the Lindon City Code. He noted that this is an attempt to clarify the provisions of the ordinance. Acting Chairman Peters observed that the time limit in 17.06.030 may be an impossible amount of time to restore a vehicle. Commissioner Atchison agreed. Mr. Smith asked the Commission how “reasonable progress” should be defined. Acting Chairman Peters agreed that a definition was not easy.
Mr. Smith pointed out examples in Lindon where a homeowner has a vehicle that he intends to restore, but there is no progress and the vehicle “just sits there.” Commissioner Carpenter observed that, according to the comments of the last meeting, if a vehicle is really going to be restored, then it is moved into a garage out of public view. Acting Chairman Peters pointed out that some homeowners don’t have a garage that they can dedicate to restoring a vehicle.
Mr. Smith asked if 120 days was enough time. Acting Chairman Peters commented that this may allow enough time to sell the vehicle if they are not restoring it themselves. Mr. Smith suggested that a period of 90 to 180 days would allow a homeowner to restore a vehicle, put it in storage, or sell it. Mr. Smith observed that when a neighbor calls to complain about a inoperable vehicle in public view, if he tells them that the homeowner has six months before the City can do anything, the neighbor will probably think that is too long. He suggested that a shorter time period will allow the homeowner to dispose, store or fix the vehicle without creating a neighborhood disagreement.
Acting Chairman Peters suggesting adding the phrase “enforceable upon written complaint” into the ordinance.” This would clarify to future City employees that an aggressive stance is not encouraged. Mr. Smith confirmed that city employees currently do not enforce unless there is a complaint. Commissioner Anderson commented that it was his understanding that if there is a complaint, the enforcement officers cite other offenders in the neighborhood without a specific complaint on them. Mr. Smith agreed and explained that when a homeowner calls to respond to a citation, he always and without exception points out the other offenders in the neighborhood and wants to know why he has been singled out. They are able to explain to him that he has not been singled out and the other violators have also received citations.
Commissioner Carpenter asked if there were problems with courts upholding selective enforcement. Mr. Smith replied no, it has been upheld in court. There is still a violation of the code. He noted that a violator can file a complaint against the other violators that he knows of in the neighborhood. Commissioner Carpenter verified that Mr. Smith would rather not add the phrase “upon complaint.” Mr. Smith explained that this would not allow the City to initiate complaints and it is implied that anyone else can file a complaint.
Acting Chairman Peters observed that he was uncomfortable with paragraph two of Section 17.06.030, however, the next paragraph allows some leeway. Mr. Smith asked if the Commission wanted to change the 90 day limit. The Commissioners indicated that they may consider an increase to 120 days. Commissioner Anderson commented that reasonable progress is hard to decide. Acting Chairman Peters posed a situation where a person may not be able to afford to register a vehicle. Mr. Smith replied that if a neighbor complains about the number or appearance of unregistered vehicles, this would allow the City to alleviate the situation. Commissioner Carpenter asked how common it was to get a complaint within 90 days of when a vehicle appears in a neighborhood. Mr. Smith observed that when a complaint is received, then an investigation is started. The resident will have 90 days from the time of investigation, not from the time the vehicle was brought onto the property. Commissioner Carpenter confirmed that investigator does not work from affidavit of the neighbors to determine the 90 day limit. Commissioner Anderson agreed that this situation is more fair.
Mr. Smith informed the Commission that the only way the City can impound directly is if the vehicle is on a city street. The only other way a vehicle can be removed is through an order by Judge Bullock. Mr. Harlow Clark asked about a situation where a vehicle is restored and registered, but is still not being used. Mr. Smith replied that this vehicle is registered and operable. Commissioner Atchison confirmed that the 90 day limit would start from the time of written complaint.
Commissioner Carpenter asked if a Judge sets a penalty, can a resident remove the vehicle and avoid the penalty at that phase of the procedure. Mr. Smith replied yes and explained that the Judge usually sets a fine and a time limit, and then he abates the fine if there is removal within the time limit. Acting Chairman Peters suggested that paragraph three of Section 17.06.040 - Storage of Vehicles - Non Residential Zones, should mirror the same paragraph of the previous section concerning Residential zones.
Commissioner Carpenter expressed concern that there is no quantity mentioned as a restriction for numbers of recreational vehicles. He suggested that not addressing the quantity creates “a hole in the ordinance.” He pointed out that many residents own a motor home, boat, snowmobiles, and/or wave runners or other trailered recreational devices and commented that the neighborly thing to do is to rent a storage unit. He asked Mr. Smith if this issue has come up in the recent past. This was discussed. Commissioner Carpenter noted that this paragraph includes the phrase “not stored within the required front yard setback” that is not included in the other clauses. Acting Chairman Peters noted that campers are not licensed or registered and wondered how they may affect the vehicle storage requirements. Mr. Smith asserted that there are not that many problems with recreational vehicles and suggested that the Commissioners deal with problems as they arise. This was discussed and agreed to.
COMMISSIONER CARPENTER MOVED TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL TO THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE REQUEST TO AMEND AND REVISE 17.06. - INOPERABLE MOTOR VEHICLES AS ATTACHED WITH THE FOLLOWING RECOMMENDATIONS:
1. THAT SECTION 17.06.030(2) AND 17.06.040(3) BE REVISED TO EXPAND THE PHRASE “WITHIN A 90 DAY PERIOD FROM NOTIFICATION BY THE CITY.”
COMMISSIONER ANDERSON SECONDED THE MOTION. ALL PRESENT VOTED IN FAVOR. THE MOTION CARRIED.
6. ZONING ORDINANCE AMENDMENT - DISCUSSION ITEMS - 17.49.060 - LANDSCAPING STANDARDS FOR I-15 CORRIDOR
The Planning Commission will review and discuss possible changes to the landscaping requirement for businesses locating along I-15. There will be a slide presentation demonstrating different types of landscaping ideas for the I-15 corridor.
Mr. Smith presented this item as one that has been talked about before. He explained that the issue concerns the requirement for ten feet of landscaping along the I-15 right-of-way. The problem arises because there is a tree requirement which cannot be complied with as there is a buried high pressure gas line on the west side of the freeway. Acting Chairman Peters suggested that water conservation issues should also be considered. Mr. Smith agreed.
Commissioner Anderson noted that the grade of the freeway compared to the surrounding property makes it hard to see any grass that is planted. He suggested that landscaping be moved to surround the buildings rather than on the frontage. Mr. Smith agreed and suggested that the ordinance possibly encourage parking near the freeway to open up and widen the right-of-way. He presented some slides of landscaping examples along I-15.
Commissioner Carpenter commented that the landscaping in the UDOT right-of-way seems to make the difference in the appearance of the freeway frontage. Mr. Smith agreed, but pointed out maintenance and water issues. Acting Chairman Peters acknowledged that the ten foot landscaping strip is not accomplishing what was intended and suggested landscaped islands and trees if parking lots are encouraged along the freeway frontage. Mr. Smith agreed that the side of a building facing the freeway could be dressed up more. He noted that the Hemingway building has been a successful example and may be copied by other developers.
Mr. Smith asked Councilmember Bayless to comment on the possible Council response to such a suggestion by the Commission. Councilmember Bayless replied that she would agree with Commissioner Carpenter that the UDOT property makes a difference to the landscaping. She commented that the setback could be widened and landscaping put around the buildings rather than along the freeway frontage. Commissioner Carpenter suggested a thirty foot setback combination. Commissioner Anderson agreed that the move in recent years is for nicer buildings and landscaping, but noted that any requirements should be economically viable. Mr. Smith commented that the Commissioners should consider the information presented until the next discussion.
7. ZONING ORDINANCE AMENDMENT - 17.04.440 - HOME OCCUPATIONS
The Planning Commission will review, discuss and possibly make a recommendation to the City Council to amend provisions allowing for home occupations to employ persons not residing in the home.
Mr. Smith commented that this proposed amendment adds a provision for an employee in the home. Commissioner Carpenter observed a typographical error and suggested that one full time employee could be part time equivalents, just so that there are no overlapping work schedules. Mr. Smith agreed. Commissioner Anderson added that any and all employees should park off-street.
Various home occupations in Lindon and how this provision would affect their operations were discussed. Mr. Smith directed the Commissioners’ attention to the addition of clause “k.” Commissioner Carpenter suggested a rewording of clause “b.” The process of complaint and review of a home occupation were outlined and discussed.
COMMISSIONER CARPENTER MOVED TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL TO THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE REQUEST TO AMEND AND REVISE 17.44.440 - HOME OCCUPATIONS, AS ATTACHED WITH THE FOLLOWING RECOMMENDATIONS:
1. THAT CLAUSE (5)(c) BE CHANGED FROM ONE EMPLOYEE TO ONE FULL TIME OR PART TIME EQUIVALENT EMPLOYEES WITH NONCONCURRENT WORK SCHEDULES.
COMMISSIONER ATCHISON SECONDED THE MOTION. ALL PRESENT VOTED IN FAVOR. THE MOTION CARRIED.
8. PLANNING DIRECTOR’S REPORT
Mr. Smith reported on the progress of the new 700 North Street and the west side commercial plan.
ADJOURN
COMMISSIONER ATCHISON MOVED TO ADJOURN AT 9:37 P.M. COMMISSIONER CARPENTER SECONDED THE MOTION. ALL PRESENT VOTED IN FAVOR. THE MOTION CARRIED.
APPROVED - July 10, 2002
_______________________________________
Loren Morse, Chairman
Attest,
_______________________________________
Kevin Smith, Planning Director |
|
|
