|
|
Home » City Government » Planning Commission » Minutes Archive; 2000 - 2002 » Planning Commission Minutes 2001 » June 13, 2001
June 13, 2001
The Lindon City Planning Commission held a regularly scheduled meeting on Wednesday, June 13, 2001 at 7:00 P.M. in the Lindon City Council Chambers at 100 North State Street, Lindon, Utah.
Conducting: Jim Peters
Invocation: Jim Peters
PRESENT
Ron Anderson, Commissioner
Lori Atchison, Commissioner
Bill Johanson, Commissioner
Evan Nixon, Commissioner (arrived 7:23 P.M.)
Jim Peters, Vice Chairman
Lindsey Bayless, Councilmember
Kevin Smith, Planning Director
Venla Gubler, Administrative Clerk
Adam Cowie, Planning Intern
ABSENT
Loren Morse, Chairman
Jeff Southard, Commissioner
The meeting began at 7:09 P.M.
BUSINESS
1. Approval of Minutes
The minutes of the regular meeting of the Planning Commission held on May 23, 2001 will be reviewed on June 27, 2001.
2. Public Comment
There was no public comment.
3. New Business (Reports by Commissioners)
Commissioner Anderson commented in response to the flyer sent about parking on the sides of the roads. He had noticed a trailer that was blocking traffic on Geneva Road near the Discount Spa business.
Vice Chairman Peters asked Mr. Smith for an update on the Council’s design review of the Church on 600 North. Mr. Smith reported that the Council had approved the removal of the trees, widening the road to the full 34-foot width the full unfinished distance between Locust Avenue and 75 North Street, curb and gutter on both sides of the street and sidewalk on the south side.
4. Center Street Estates, Plat “A” - 800 East Center Street - Preliminary Subdivision Request
This is a request by the applicant for approval of a 9-lot residential subdivision.
Mr. Smith commented that this application was a continuation from a previous meeting. He displayed the plat map. Vice Chairman Peters asked if the applicant, Mr. Bill Bang, was present. He was not present, so this request was postponed for a few minutes until he arrived.
5. Phil Hadaway - 322 East 680 North - Conditional Use Permit - Accessory Apartment
This is a request by the Hadaways for approval of an owner-occupied Accessory Apartment in their home.
Vice Chairman Peters announced that this application had been withdrawn by the applicant and would not be heard tonight.
6. Dirker Farms, Plat “A” - 64 South 200 East - Preliminary Subdivision Request
This is a request by the applicant for approval of an 11-lot residential subdivision.
Mr. Smith commented that this was an item that had also been seen before. He displayed the aerial photo showing the location of the property and the surrounding neighborhood. He also displayed the previous plat and then the new plat to point out the differences. Mr. Smith noted that the road alignment on 300 East would be corrected to line up exactly. He pointed out that a temporary turnaround would be constructed at the end of 70 South Street until the road improvements would be needed for 300 East.
Commissioner Johanson asked Mr. Rick Murano if he had worked things out with the neighboring property owners. Mr. Murano explained that he would be installing utility lines on both 70 South and 300 East to the borders of his property. He would also be installing the full road improvements on 70 South. However, the road improvements on 300 East would be completed for only 35-feet of the width south of 70 South Street and connecting with the current 300 South Street because the Austins had changed their mind about participating at this time. The curb, gutter, sidewalk and asphalt would be completed on only the west side of the street. The curb, gutter, sidewalk and asphalt would be bonded for on the section of 300 East Street north of 70 South Street that abuts the Johnson property.
Vice Chairman Peters asked where Mr. Murano planned to connect into the City water and sewer systems. Mr. Murano replied that the connections would be made on 200 East and looped to 300 East. Commissioner Anderson asked where the Austin’s home connected at the present time. Mr. Murano replied that the Austin’s home was serviced from 300 East.
Vice Chairman Peters verified that no curb, gutter, sidewalk and asphalt would be installed at the present time on the section of 300 East north of 70 South to the edge of the property. Mr. Murano replied that he intended to bond for this section. Vice Chairman Peters also verified that the street improvements would be installed on the section of 300 East south of 70 South to the existing paving and curb, gutter and sidewalk. Mr. Murano showed the Commission that he owned more than half of the road at this end and would be putting in the curb, gutter and sidewalk and pavement on the west half of the street a total of 35-feet wide. The east portion of the street will be the responsibility of Mr. Vaughn Austin. Vice Chairman Peters asked if Mr. Austin was agreeable to this plan. Mr. Murano indicated that Mr. Austin had signed a letter to this effect.
(Commissioner Nixon arrived at 7:23 P.M.)
Vice Chairman Peters verified that the lot numbers had been reduced from the previous plat. Mr. Murano replied that since Mr. Wayne Johnson and Mr. Vaughn Austin had declined to participate in the project and their property removed, the lots had been reconfigured from 14 lots to 11 lots in the plat. Vice Chairman Peters asked Mr. Murano which direction Lot #2 faced. Mr. Murano pointed out that Lot #2 was a corner lot and could face either north to 70 South Street or west to 200 East Street. Commissioner Anderson questioned the front direction of Lot #11. Mr. Murano stated that Lot #11 was the location of an existing home. He would be constructing curb, gutter and sidewalk on 200 East in front of this home.
Commissioner Nixon asked if 200 East was classified as a collector. This was confirmed. Commissioner Nixon observed that the homeowner on Lot #11 may want to move his driveway onto 70 South Street to facilitate access. He expressed concern about backing into a busy street.
The easement across Lots 1 through 6 was explained as a power line easement. Councilmember Bayless asked Mr. Smith if a pathway was planned for this side of 200 East. Mr. Smith examined the General Plan and indicated that the pathway was planned for the opposite side of the street. Mr. Murano mentioned that he had asked for a pathway as part of the neighborhood. The access to Center Street through the Walkers was discussed. It was decided that further research and negotiation with the neighbors was needed. Councilmember Bayless mentioned that Mr. Murano could make provisions for a pathway along 70 South Street to facilitate the start of a pathway in the neighborhood. The cross-sections of a City street with a pathway were explained. Mr. Murano indicated agreement to possibly using this cross-section for the construction of 70 South. Commissioner Nixon observed that he would like to see this cross-section implemented and used for streets in the City.
COMMISSIONER ANDERSON MOVED TO APPROVE THE REQUEST BY RICK MURANO FOR PRELIMINARY APPROVAL OF DIRKER FARMS, PLAT “A,” AN 11-LOT SUBDIVISION, AND RECOMMEND APPROVAL TO THE CITY COUNCIL WITH THE FOLLOWING RECOMMENDATIONS:
1) THAT THE DEVELOPER INSTALL WATER AND SEWER LINES IN 300 EAST STREET FROM THE EXISTING DEVELOPMENT TO THE NORTH PROPERTY LINE;
2) THAT THE DEVELOPER BOND FOR CURB, GUTTER, SIDEWALK, ASPHALT AND A TRAIL ON THE SECTION OF 300 EAST NORTH OF 70 SOUTH TO THE PROPERTY LINE.
3) THAT THE DEVELOPER ATTEMPT TO INTEGRATE THE NEW PATHWAYS AND TRAILS CROSS SECTION FOR 70 SOUTH.
COMMISSIONER NIXON SECONDED THE MOTION.
At this point, the Johnsons and the Eggetts arrived at the meeting and the motion was explained to them. Mr. JaLynn Eggett of 312 East Center Street, commented that if 300 East Street was not extended through to Center Street and he was required to put a cul-de-sac on the end of the street, he would probably not have enough property left to build a home on. Mr. Wayne Johnson of 33 South 200 East, told the Commissioners that he was ready to develop his parcel now and asked to have Mr. Murano complete the section of road north instead of bonding for it. He was informed that the Commissioners could not require Mr. Murano to construct the half-road from 70 South to the property line until Mr. Johnson had submitted an application for a subdivision. Until then the bond would be in place and Mr. Murano could choose to let the City use the bond to construct the street, or Mr. Murano could construct the street himself.
Commissioner Johanson questioned whether the City should allow not only a half-street, but a half-cul-de-sac since the Eggetts and Austins were not ready to develop their half of the street improvements. Commissioner Nixon commented that this discussion would have to take place when Mr. Johnson submitted his application.
Mr. Johnson asked about a pathway or trail to help ease the trespassing problem in the neighborhood. He was told that this would be discussed further between the City and the neighbors. At this time, the access to Center Street still needs to be negotiated.
Vice Chairman Peters reminded the Commission that a motion was on the floor. He asked for a vote. ALL PRESENT VOTED IN FAVOR. THE MOTION CARRIED.
It was decided to return to Item #4.
4. Center Street Estates, Plat “A” - 800 East Center Street - Preliminary Subdivision Request
This is a request by the applicant for approval of a 9-lot residential subdivision.
This discussion was returned to because the applicant had arrived. Mr. Smith explained that this proposed subdivision plat consisted of 9-lots, of which one lot was planned for a future R-2 overlay project of 6 units. Center Street was planned to eventually cross the Murdock Canal, but for the present a temporary turnaround was proposed near the south side of the Canal. Center Street would be fully improved where the full street width was confined withing the confines of this property, however, there would be a half-street access in front of the Bentley property of 28 feet wide. This minimum width was determined by the Planning Commission on April 25, 2001. This proposed plat is for 8 home sites with a potential of 20 homes with the R-2 Overlay and the future development of the Bentley property.
Mr. Brad Olsen and Mr. Bill Bang were present. Mr. Olsen told the Commission that there presently exists a 27-feet and 1-inch width on Center Street from the curb face to the survey stake in the middle of the street. He asked the Commissioners to find this width sufficient for a half-street. He listed 8 items to cover which had been determined in the design reviews previously conducted at Planning Commission meetings. These 8 items are: 1) Access and right-of-way issues with the Bentley family; 2) Access and right-of-way issues with the Walker family; 3) Possible future development scenarios for the Hal Richins property; 4) A temporary turnaround at the end of Center Street near the Murdock Canal; 5) Rotate lots #2 & #3 to front 850 East Street and limit access to Center Street; 6) Notification of the neighborhood that this proposed plat will be discussed at Planning Commission meeting; 7) Decision of disposition of remnant lot south of Center Street near the turnaround; and, 8) Decision of disposition of remnant lot in the northwest corner near the Bentley property.
Mr. Olsen told the Commission that he felt an agreement with the Bentley family was imminent. He repeated the request to approve the width of 27-feet and 1-inch. He said that the Walker family was not interested in development and would not consider allowing access through their property. He presented a plan to develop Mr. Hal Richins property. He noted that the requested turnaround for Center Street had been added to the plat and lots #2 & #3 had been rotated to face west. He informed the Commissioners that he had either delivered or posted notification to each home in the neighborhood east of the LDS Chapel and presented a copy of the notification to the Commission. Mr. Olsen addressed the remnant lots by offering to give the southeast remnant to the City or to the Walkers and to sell the northwest remnant to the Bentley family or absorb the piece into Lot #8. He told the Commissioners that the Bentley family would not be developing now as a part of this plat.
Commissioner Nixon told the applicants that he was glad to see plans for a trail from 850 East to the existing trail to the north of this property. He suggested that the trail location may be more appropriate on the west side of Lot #8 rather than the east side. He also suggested that if the remnant is not sold to the Bentley family, that the bulb in the road where it turns from 850 East Street to the east should be removed to make a “T.”
Mr. Smith addressed the issue of the half-road by observing that if the Commissioners had safety questions of a 27-foot and 1-inch street, he had copies of a study from Colorado that had determined that safer streets were the streets with narrower widths. He presented a chart from this study that showed fewer injury-related accidents occurred on streets of 22-foot to 24-foot widths. He suggested that the width of Center Street would become more of a problem when the bridge was constructed over Murdock Canal, but for the present application of 8 homes this width was sufficient. Mr. Curtis Harwood of 790 East Center objected by pointing out how close the street already came to his front porch. He expressed concerns for the safety of children, pets, other pedestrians and vehicle traffic on a narrow road. He asked how the City planned to widen Center Street to 66-feet wide in the future. Mr. Smith acknowledged that a 66-foot wide easement did not exist the full length of the street and some adjustments may become necessary to accommodate the widened street similar to those that were made on 200 South. He suggested that the half-road in front of Bentleys transition to the current street width in front of the Nyal Richin’s home by improving a gradual shift to the south through the street easement in front of Hal Richin’s home. He demonstrated his suggestion by putting pictures of the street and aerial photos on the overhead projector.
Mr. Gordon Van Wagoner of 65 South 800 East mentioned that the Planning Commissioners had set the minimum width standard for a half-street at 28-feet. He strongly suggested that this standard be maintained. He also reminded the Commissioners of a discussion on painting the curb face red for “no parking.” He asked if this was still a requirement. Mr. Smith replied that the discussion of the minimum width had been a recommendation to the City Council members, city engineers and staff, and that the Planning Commissioners could accept an alternative width to recommend to the City Council. Commissioner Nixon observed that the “no parking” zone had been considered for minimum widths less than 28-feet. Mr. Van Wagoner observed that there was a considerable grade difference between that necessary to cross the Murdock Canal and the current level of the surrounding land. Commissioner Nixon thanked Mr. Van Wagoner for this observation and told the developers that the remnant parcel in the southeast corner may be needed for overspill from the approach to the canal. Mr. Van Wagoner recommended a traffic study. He expressed the opinion that any extra traffic on Center Street would endanger the homeowners there. He recommended more width and improvements to Center Street before allowing this subdivision.
Vice Chairman Peters asked Mr. Van Wagoner to comment on the Walker family stance against the use of the portion of Center Street owned by the family and currently paved. Mr. Van Wagoner asserted that the portion of the road belonging to the Walker family will be fenced to prevent public use of this land. He claimed that the Walker family wanted to maintain their privacy and their private property. He asserted that he did not want to made out the “bad guy” for protecting the family property from encroachment and the family did not want to be forced to develop their land. Mr. Smith agreed with Mr. Walker Van Wagoner that he should not be made to feel bad for not wanting to develop their land. He told the Commission, audience, and Mr. Walker Van Wagoner that the City would work with the property owners to find the best solution available. He referred again to the compromise found on 200 South.
Mr. Van Wagoner asked if the General Plan was “set in stone” or if there was a possibility that it could be changed. It was explained that the General Plan is a goal statement. As such, it is not a static document, but is subject to changes and amendments as new and improved solutions are found or unforseen conditions arise. It was acknowledged that the need for a bridge may not be needed in the future, but for now, it is recognized that the need exists.
The Commissioners discussed the city ordinance dealing with half streets. Vice Chairman Peters asked about condemnation. It was determined that the city was unlikely to condemn property to facilitate the development of a subdivision, and the state statutes regarding condemnation were discussed.
Commissioner Anderson recommended that the portion of Center Street easement lying in front of Hal Richins be improved to allow for a gradual realignment from the Bentley easement to the original pavement line by Nyal Richins’ home. There was a short discussion on possibly putting a speed hump near the narrow portion to slow motorists. It was decided that a speed hump was unnecessary.
Mr. Hal Richins of 785 West Center Street asked about the plan to develop his property that had been presented earlier. He asked that any plans for Center Street not preclude development of his land. The plan was examined and determined to not conform to the subdivision ordinance. The 25-foot access was not sufficient to put more than one lot. Mr. Richins told how previous plans for 800 East would have allowed him to put in 3-lots if combined with Mr. Nyal Richins’ property. Ms. Loudell Bentley of 811 East Center confirmed this analysis and told how the City had required her to setback her home from the west property line to allow for the construction of 800 East. The question was raised on the setback of her home from the east property line since now a road would be constructed at 850 East. Mr. Smith replied that the home would not meet the minimum setback and so would be considered a “legal non-conforming” lot.
Mr. Nyal Richins of 775 East Center commented that the reason the plans for 800 East had been changed and the Richins property had become landlocked was because, when Mr. Joyner had developed property to the north of this, he donated, as a trail and not as a street, the property that would have tied 800 East to Canal Drive. Mr. Richins expressed concern about the new neighbors complaining of his animals and changes occurring to remove animals from Lindon. Ms. Bentley agreed with this assessment of the reasons behind the change in street plans and mentioned that these developers (Mr. Bang and Mr. Olsen) had been good enough to consider her needs and not landlock her back pasture land. Commissioner Nixon asked Ms. Bentley if she had any concerns about having a street on her east property line. Ms. Bentley replied that she had 20-feet and a block wall between her home and the proposed 850 East Street. Commissioner Anderson observed that the removal of 800 East from the General Plan demonstrated how the General Plan is revised by changing circumstances. He pointed out that streets are built by developers and therefore meet the needs of their development.
Mr. Van Wagoner also suggested that the right-of-way in front of Mr. Hal Richins be improved. He expressed concern that the access and right-of-way issues on Center Street were being postponed to the future and not being dealt with now. He again recommended that the Commissioners accept no less than a 28-foot right-of-way access. He also suggested that the motion include the developers assumption of the responsibility for the improvements in front of Hal Richins’ home. The Commissioners discussed the right-of-way for Center Street and how to straighten it somewhat. Mr. Nyal Richins explained how he still owned the easement for Center Street. Mr. Hal Richins’s desire for future development options was also briefly discussed. Commissioner Nixon pointed out that the Bentley’s did not desire to have a road on both east and west sides of their home. Mrs. Bentley concurred.
COMMISSIONER NIXON MOVED TO APPROVE THE REQUEST BY BILL BANG FOR APPROVAL OF CENTER STREET ESTATES, A 9-LOT RESIDENTIAL SUBDIVISION AND RECOMMEND APPROVAL TO THE CITY COUNCIL WITH THE FOLLOWING RECOMMENDATIONS:
1) THAT CENTER STREET BE IMPROVED BY THE DEVELOPERS IN THE STREET RIGHT-OF-WAY WEST OF THE BENTLEYS ALONG HAL RICHINS’ PROPERTY FRONTAGE WITH AN ASPHALT TRANSITION, AS RECOMMENDED BY STAFF, TO LINE UP WITH THE IMPROVEMENTS IN FRONT OF BENTLEY’S HOME AND NYAL RICHINS’ HOME;
2) THAT 27-FEET AND 1-INCH BE DEEMED ADEQUATE BECAUSE THE NARROW STREET WIDTH MAY HAVE A TRAFFIC CALMING EFFECT, AND ESPECIALLY DUE TO THE REST OF CENTER STREET EAST OF THE LDS CHAPEL BEING NARROW;
3) THAT THE REMNANT PARCEL IN THE SOUTHEAST CORNER BE DEDICATED TO THE CITY;
4) THAT THE CONNECTION TO THE TRAIL SYSTEM BE MOVED TO THE WEST LINE OF LOT #8;
5) THAT THE ISSUE OF THE WEST PROPERTY LINE OF LOT #8 BE RESOLVED WITH THE BENTLEYS, AND IF THE LINE MOVES TO THE WESTERN PROPERTY LINE BETWEEN THE BENTLEYS AND THIS DEVELOPMENT, THAT THE BULB BE REMOVED FROM 850 EAST STREET WHERE IT TURNS TO THE EAST.
6) THAT THE TEMPORARY TURNAROUND BE EXAMINED BY STAFF TO DETERMINE THE GRADE NEEDED TO CROSS THE MURDOCK CANAL AND TO DETERMINE THE AREA NEEDED FOR A SPILL SLOPE SO THAT THE ROAD DOES NOT ENCROACH ON THE PROPERTY TO THE SOUTH.
COMMISSIONER ATCHISON SECONDED THE MOTION. ALL PRESENT VOTED IN FAVOR. THE MOTION CARRIED.
(Commissioner Nixon was excused at 9:05 P.M.)
7. Zoning Ordinance Map Amendments - Commercial Zone
This is a request by City Staff to amend the Lindon City Zoning Map along State Street and the 600 South Commercial corridors.
COMMISSIONER JOHANSON MOVED TO OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING. COMMISSIONER ANDERSON SECONDED THE MOTION. ALL PRESENT VOTED IN FAVOR. THE MOTION CARRIED.
Mr. Smith introduced this item as a continuation from a previous meeting. He informed the Commissioners that these proposed changes to the zoning map of Lindon City will make the map more consistent with the General Plan that was just approved. He also pointed out that items 7, 8, and 9 of this agenda are interrelated since 8 and 9 are somewhat dependent on this zoning change. This amendment to the map is more comprehensive because it involves more than just the area affected by the change requested by Total Health Institute. Mr. Smith explained the impetus of this change by showing that the previous zoning map arbitrarily designated a demarcation between the commercial and residential zones at 550-feet from the State Street centerline. He pointed out how this line bisected some parcels and some residential neighborhoods. He explained that presently, this zoning would allow a 7-11 or a dentist office to locate within that residential neighborhood right next to a home. He showed the Commissioners suggestions to change the map on State Street and also on 600 South near the Home Depot to bring it more in line with the General Plan and protect the residential neighborhoods. He directed their attention to the area near Home Depot.
Mr. Smith pointed out a change in the zoning for the Modus Media building from Light Industrial to Research and Development Business to conform to the surrounding zone to the north of the building. He showed a commercial corridor extending east of the Modus Media building on 600 South Street to include the LDS Church and Alpine School District property, and west across the freeway to Geneva Road. He said that the General Plan designates the commercial area to go north on Geneva Road to 200 South, however, that area is presently used as an industrial area and he felt it was appropriate to leave the zoning, for now, in the light industrial zone. Councilmember Bayless asked why the northwest corner of the proposed commercial zone near 800 West and 400 South was pointed. Mr. Smith indicated that the zone followed the curve of the road and the parcel boundary lines in that corner.
Commissioner Johanson questioned the zoning of the parcel between 400 West and 280 West along 600 South. He asked if that could be considered “spot zoning.” Mr. Smith assured him that the parcel was large enough. Commissioner Johanson commented that he was agreeable to the changes proposed on the map of the area near the freeway and Home Depot. The Commissioners agreed.
The map of the changes along State Street was next examined. Mr. Smith showed the proposal to move the commercial zone out of residential areas. Vice Chairman Peters observed that the commercial zone had been extended west along the 700 North corridor towards the freeway.
Ms. Kathy Rockhill of 380 West 600 North asked for a buffer zone where the commercial zone will be extended east on 600 North Street. Vice Chairman Peters expressed the opinion that the commercial zone should move to the back property line of the homes and said that Commissioner Nixon, before he had left, agreed that the buffer should not be along a street. Ms. Rockhill asked for a landscaping buffer along the street.
Mr. Lamar Barrington of 420 West 600 North observed that the commercial designation would attract commercial traffic to 600 North which is now a residential street. He expressed concern that the extra traffic would make the homes “unliveable.” He commented that if this happened, he wanted his home zoned commercial so it would be more sellable. If his home was downgraded to residential, the possibility existed that if he opted to sell, others would not want to live there and he may not be able to sell it as a residential property. Commissioner Johanson indicated that he didn’t disagree with Mr. Barrington. He expressed a preference to moving the line behind the houses because he believes that all the area will turn commercial eventually. Ms. Rockhill disagreed. She does not believe that a commercial business would pay the price for the homes. Councilmember Bayless observed that zoning the homes commercial may give the homeowner’s grandchildren a windfall, but may make the homes unlivable in the present.
Mr. Smith suggested that the next agenda items would help determine the outcome of this item. He suggested that the Commission hear the developer’s proposal and allow them to answer the homeowners’ question and concerns. The Commissioners agreed to hear items #7, #8 and #9 together.
8. Total Health Institute, Plat “A” - 600 North State Street - Preliminary Subdivision Request
This is a request by the applicant for approval of a 1-lot subdivision.
9. Total Health Institute - 600 North State Street - Site Plan Approval Request
This is a request by the applicant for approval of a new 8,000 sq. ft. office building in the General Commercial Zone.
Mr. Smith presented the proposed plat map for the Total Health preliminary subdivision request. He told the Commission that this one lot would contain two buildings and the lot would be condominiumized with limited common and cross easements. The site plan shows that one building would be constructed now, with space for the future building nearer to 600 North Street. He recommended that the Commission consider requiring the first proposed building be moved to the south.
Ms. Rockhill objected to the location of the future second building being so close to the street and not having a buffer. Commissioner Anderson asked Mr. Richard White of Rimrock Construction, representative for Total Health Institute, which way the buildings faced. Mr. White indicated that the first building would face west and the second, south. Ms. Rockhill asked about traffic concerns. Vice Chairman Peters directed this question to Mr. Smith. Mr. Smith replied that these were medical offices that would be open only from 8:00 A.M. to 5:00 P.M. and would generate less traffic than retail. He showed that the access to the property would be to the north from 600 North and to the west from the remaining parcel fronting on State Street. Ms. Rockhill requested a raised berm between the buildings and 600 North Street for a buffer.
The buffer between commercial and residential districts was discussed. The specific ordinance was read. Councilmember Bayless asked if a wall, or landscaping, along 600 North was appropriate. Commissioner Johanson observed that the tendency was not to put in a wall along a street. Commissioner Anderson pointed out that a wall would be needed on the east boundary between this project and the Ivory Homes subdivision. Mr. White indicated that a wall was planned for this border.
Vice Chairman Peters asked what the setback of the second building was from 600 North. Mr. White indicated 20-feet. Commissioner Johanson suggested that the building be pushed to the south 30-feet or more and a landscaped berm along the street be considered. He expressed concern that 30-feet may even not be enough and should match the homes across the street. Mr. Barrington expressed concern that the remaining parcel between this project and State Street would be used for retail and that these businesses’ customers would prefer to access 600 North rather than trying to turn onto State Street.
Mr. Ross Childs of 388 West 600 North expressed the opinion that 600 North should stay as a residential road, especially since 600 North has opened to Locust and will now open to 400 East. He said that the traffic along this street had increased since the Ivory Homes project opened the road and would increase even more as it opened further east. He suggested that commercial traffic would further compound the problem.
Mr. White observed that this project was a “one-stop” total health maintenance concept. He said that the buildings were designed to have a large, open, water-featured central reception area that would access the examining rooms of doctors, dentists, physical therapists...all kinds of health related practitioners. He did not anticipate the large traffic volumes associated with retail businesses. The size of the buildings and the fact that they were two story was disclosed. Ms. Rockhill objected to two story buildings looking over into her yard.
Vice Chairman Peters asked about the parking requirements. Mr. White indicated that the minimum was exceeded. Mr. Barrington commented that these were larger buildings than he had anticipated. He expressed concern with the many vehicles that would be accessing this parking lot from 600 North. He estimated 80 cars a day. Mr. Smith talked briefly about average daily trips and the amounts on residential streets versus what would access this medical building. Ms. Rockhill expressed concern that traffic was already increasing and speeding. She relayed the information that a neighborhood police officer had clocked one motorist at 80 mph.
Mr. White commented that he understood the concerns of the neighborhood. He invited them to visit a similar project in Lehi so they may understand what it will look like and the traffic it attracts. Vice Chairman Peters asked Mr. White what plans were being made for the area between the first building and the south property line. Mr. White replied that this area was planned for an enclosed garden and a pool for rehabilitation use by patients and not for use by the general public. Commissioner Anderson suggested moving the pool to the north side and using it as the buffer between the tall buildings and the street.
Mr. White indicated that the driveway access furthest to the east was for back-of-the-building employee access. All of the patient access would be from the west driveway. Planning Intern Adam Cowie commented that the buildings were aesthetically and architecturally pleasing. He observed that they may be the highlight of State Street. Mr. White agreed and told of the materials proposed to be used in construction, the large windows, water features and amenities.
Vice Chairman Peters questioned Mr. White on plans for the remaining parcel between this lot and State Street. Mr. White informed the Commission that his firm had an option on the front parcel for one year. They planned to expand the medical office space with a campus atmosphere. Mr. Cowie commented that this would be comparable, on a smaller scale, to the Novell campus on 1600 North in Orem. He did not consider this proposal visually destroying to the neighborhood. Ms. Rockhill objected to looking at the back of the second building. She advocated a buffer like that around the University Mall in Orem of a block wall between the parking lot and the residential neighborhoods. Mr. White replied that the back of the buildings would have a “nice face” too. Although the second building was not designed yet, the buildings would be faced in slate, brick and glass, with interesting roof lines.
Mr. Barrington asked if Mr. White planned more accesses to 600 North. Mr. White replied that he did not plan any more access to 600 North. The front parcel would access State Street.
Commissioner Anderson suggested that Mr. White move Buildings #1 and #2 to the south and create a buffer zone along 600 North. Ms. Rockhill asked for a landscaped berm. Mr. Barrington commented that the neighborhood had not heard of any plans for this property prior to this notice for meeting and felt that some secrecy about the project was perceived. He felt that if the developer talked with the neighbors and they worked together, a workable compromise could be found for both and confrontation avoided. Mr. White offered to push the second building 3-feet south. He commented that he had nothing to hide from the neighborhood. Mr. Barrington commented that the neighborhood just wanted something built there that they could live with, visually and traffic-wise.
Mr. Smith said that he would research the traffic impact of a medical building and compare it to a residential street. Mr. Cowie commented that the medical traffic would be slowing to turn into the parking lot and not speeding up to get to go through to Locust Avenue. Councilmember Bayless asked the residents if the speed trailer had been placed on 600 North. They replied “no.”
The Commissioners and Mr. White discussed this project’s timetable restraints and the processes necessary to effect the changes. It was discussed that the zoning change would need to be approved by the City Council. The changes to the site plan were reviewed. Commissioner Johanson confirmed with Mr. White that he was willing to move the buildings south and berm along 600 North. Ms. Rockhill requested a 7-foot berm. Mr. Barrington requested no further accesses on 600 North. Mr. Smith told him that the City could record an access restriction.
COMMISSIONER ANDERSON MOVED TO CONTINUE AGENDA ITEMS #8 AND #9 TO ALLOW THE CITY COUNCIL TIME TO REVIEW THE ZONING AMENDMENT. COMMISSIONER ATCHISON SECONDED THE MOTION. ALL PRESENT VOTED IN FAVOR. THE MOTION CARRIED.
Item #7 was returned to the floor. Commissioner Johanson commented that the Wooten home on 40 South should not be in commercial. The map was examined and it was found that the new home was in the residential zone and the older home was in the commercial zone. Vice Chairman Peters asked why the line had been moved to the back of the Hatch property on State Street. Mr. Smith replied that the line had been moved at the request of the owner. The Harper subdivision property was discussed. Pheasant Brook subdivision was discussed.
COMMISSIONER JOHANSON MOVED TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. COMMISSIONER ANDERSON SECONDED THE MOTION. ALL PRESENT VOTED IN FAVOR. THE MOTION CARRIED.
COMMISSIONER JOHANSON MOVED TO APPROVE THE REQUEST TO AMEND THE LINDON CITY ZONING MAP AS SHOWN IN EXHIBIT “A” AND RECOMMEND APPROVAL TO THE CITY COUNCIL. COMMISSIONER ANDERSON SECONDED THE MOTION. ALL PRESENT VOTED IN FAVOR. THE MOTION CARRIED.
10. L.A. Lee Enterprises - 70 South Center Street - Design Review
This is a request by Mr. Lee for a design review for a potential office/shop development proposal.
Mr. Smith introduced this item by identifying the location on a satellite photo and showing the proposed site plat. He suggested that the Commissioners may want to question the access issue to State Street and Center Street and determine the use of the building.
Commissioner Atchison asked Mr. Leonard Lee to address the use of the building. Mr. Lee described the buildings as flexible office or general commercial space for rent. The buildings can be divided into spaces ranging from 1500 to 12000 square feet.
Vice Chairman Peters asked if the access to Center Street was a main or secondary access and if access was planned through his Datapad property on State Street. Mr. Lee replied that his real estate agent had advised him that he would experience a lack of interest in this project if his only access was across the back of the mall through the Datapad and Wallaby’s parking lots. The main access would be from Center Street. Vice Chairman Peters noted that the project had no frontage on Center Street. He asked if Mr. Lee planned on a sign on State Street directing the business traffic to Center Street for access to this business plaza. Mr. Lee replied “no.”
Mr. Lee commented that Mr. Smith had suggested dedicating a city street into the project and putting a cul-de-sac at the end of the street. He wanted to have the Planning Commission look at this idea first. Vice Chairman Peters referred to the minutes of the Planning Commission and City Council attached to the staff report and quoted two major concerns of the neighbors and city officials. These are drawing commercial traffic through a school zone and accessing commercial property from a residential street.
Mr. Lee observed that if he put homes on the property, there would still be more traffic on Center Street. He pointed out that he had left a residential lot facing Center so no commercial business would be fronting on Center Street. The minutes of the previous meetings were discussed and concerns revoiced about allowing commercial traffic on Center Street because of the school and homes there.
Mr. Lee pointed out that he had a 5-acre parcel that was landlocked if he could not get access to Center Street. He suggested that allowing him access may have advantages. The types of businesses that may locate in this complex were discussed. Mr. Lee commented that the engineer that had drawn these plans had expressed interest in a unit. He said there may be an interest in property that is close to State Street, but does not have State Street prices. Commissioner Atchison asked if the buildings were two story. Mr. Lee replied “yes.” Commissioner Johanson told Mr. Lee that even if the Planning Commission approved his proposal, he doubted very much that the City Council would approve it. He suggested to Mr. Lee that the buildings would need to be restricted to offices, like an engineer or architect. He did not see a retail business locating in this complex.
Mr. Smith suggested that Mr. Lee consider rezoning the property back to residential. Mr. Lee replied that this plan was not economically feasible. He could only get possibly 8-lots. There was discussion of the possibility of an R-2 Overlay project if the distance requirement could be met from an existing project on 200 East.
Mr. Lee asked the Planning Commissioners for a suggestion on how he could make this work. He requested an offering from them on how to use this property with the commercial designation. Commissioner Anderson commented that there had been no clear ideas on how to do this when Mr. Lee had bought the property from Mr. Ercanbrack, and he could offer no suggestions now either. Commissioner Anderson asked if there was the possibility of extending Datapad into the parcel. Mr. Lee replied that his business was down two-thirds and he was considering consolidating into the front building and leasing out the back building. He still had the problem of access.
Mr. Smith commented that the only options he could see were to build homes or expand Datapad. Mr. Lee reiterated his request for options to develop the property. Councilmember Bayless suggested homes.
Vice Chairman Peters asked Mr. Lee what possibility may exist in alternate access to State Street through the property directly to the west of this parcel and north of Datapad. The ownership of the lots there were discussed. Possibilities for development were discussed. Mr. Lee questioned the Main Street turn from State Street and how that may affect this proposal. This was discussed.
Vice Chairman Peters summarized the discussion by advising Mr. Lee to examine other recourses for development, but the Planning Commission could not consider allowing commercial access to Center Street.
11. Chapter 17.47. - Mixed Commercial - Proposed Ordinance Design Review
This is a staff initiated review of a new commercial zoning district for the area primarily in and around the new freeway off-ramp on the west side of Lindon.
The Commissioners discussed the types of businesses that would be allowed to locate in the new Mixed Commercial zone. Vice Chairman Peters questioned the definition of “low intensity light industrial.” Mr. Smith replied. Commissioner Anderson questioned where the guidelines had originated from. Mr. Smith answered that this was compiled as a place to start discussion.
Vice Chairman Peters suggested that contractor yards be excluded. Commissioner Johanson suggested that no outside storage be allowed. There was discussion and it was pointed out that the exclusion of all outside storage would preempt sales tax generators like Burton Lumber.
Commissioner Anderson expressed concerns over the amount of open space required. He reviewed his understanding of the purpose of the zone. The MC zone allows businesses which are heavier than commercial and lighter than light industrial to locate there. He expressed the opinion that the 30% open space may be too restrictive. He also suggested that the number and spacing of trees be more consistent with the commercial and light industrial zones. Mr. Smith asked him to suggest an appropriate figure other than 30%. Councilmember Bayless observed that this zone allowed businesses with dissimilar uses to locate next to each other. She suggested that the extra landscaping may be needed to separate, buffer and define the disparate businesses.
Mr. Smith used the Springville Industrial Park as an example of a large amount of open space. He estimated the requirement there to be about 40% and stated that he considered this too much. Commissioner Atchison asked why Utah communities should require grass, since this is a dry state. Commissioner Anderson answered by citing the ease of maintenance over some other types of landscaping.
Commissioner Anderson expressed concern that 30-40% of the space on a lot in this zone would be wasted. He didn’t think that businesses would pay for that much open space. Mr. Smith asked him if he wanted this provision reduced or struck from the ordinance. Commissioner Anderson preferred to strike the open space provision. Commissioner Johanson observed that the Levi Strauss complex in San Francisco had renewed a whole neighborhood by planning a large amount of open space. Vice Chairman Peters and Commissioner Atchison suggested that the requirement be reduced rather than stricken. Mr. Smith asked if the Commissioners would like to see examples of various amounts of open space. They replied affirmatively.
Commissioner Anderson also questioned the landscaping standard for the T zone within the Mixed Commercial ordinance. Mr. Smith asked if he would prefer to match the underlying zone or require a higher standard. Commissioner Anderson expressed concern that too high of standards would make the property in the Mixed Commercial zone unmarketable. He felt that most of the Mixed Commercial zone was too far away from the freeway interchange to allow for marketing of the land if the restrictions were onerous. Mr. Smith suggested that the landscaping requirements be standardized with the commercial or planned commercial requirements. This was agreed to by the Commissioners.
12. Standard Land Use Table Review
This is a staff initiated review of the Standard Land Use Table which regulates the types of land uses allowed in each zone in the City.
Vice Chairman Peters suggested that the Commissioners review the completed standard land use table at home. The Commissioners agreed.
Mr. Smith suggested that the Commissioners consider cutting off all used car sales lots on State Street for the time being. There was discussion of the proliferation lately and why they were coming to Lindon. There was talk of restricting auto repair shops to Geneva Road also.
ADJOURN
THE COMMISSIONERS AGREED TO ADJOURN BY CONSENSUS AT 11:40 P.M.
Certified as Correct, June 27, 2001
Loren Morse, Chairman
Attest,
Kevin Smith, Planning Director |
|
|
