|
|
Home » City Government » Planning Commission » Minutes Archive; 2000 - 2002 » Planning Commission Minutes 2002 » March 27, 2002
March 27, 2002
The Lindon City Planning Commission held a regularly scheduled meeting on Wednesday, March 27, 2002 at 7:00 p.m. in the Lindon City Center Council Chambers at 100 North State Street, Lindon, Utah.
Conducting: Loren Morse, Chairman
Invocation: Ron Anderson
PRESENT
Loren Morse, Chairman (arrived at 7:55p.m.)
Ron Anderson, Commissioner
Lori Atchison, Commissioner
Bruce Carpenter, Commissioner
Jim Peters, Commissioner
Marilyn Simister, Commissioner
Lindsey Bayless, Councilmember
Kevin Smith, Planning Director
Venla Gubler, Administrative Clerk
Matt Perkins, Planning Intern
ABSENT
Evan Nixon, Commissioner
The Meeting began at 7:10 P.M.
1. MINUTES
Review of the Minutes of March 13, 2002.
The Minutes of the regular session of March 13, 2002 were not ready for review. They will be reviewed on April 9, 2002.
2. PUBLIC COMMENT
Mr. Dan Frandsen told the Commissioners that he owns property at 2000 West and 400 North near Goodfellow. He would like to put storage units on the property. Mr. Smith noted that storage units are allowed in the MC zone. Commissioner Anderson asked what requirements the ordinance requires for aesthetics on a storage unit project. The Commissioners discussed the fence and what landscaping would be required. Commissioner Anderson asked if Mr. Frandsen planned to use the whole parcel for the units. Mr. Frandsen replied that he planned to use only about half. Commissioner Peters asked if his parcel fell into the T-zone. Mr. Smith replied that Mr. Frandsen’s parcel was north of is transected by the T-zone.
Mr. Smith observed that the ordinance requires 20 feet of landscaping on 2000 West. Mr. Frandsen commented that he planned to put landscaping on the side that faces the freeway behind Goodfellow also. Commissioner Carpenter verified that the Goodfellow right-of-way was located between this parcel and the freeway. Commissioner Anderson asked if Mr. Frandsen would access his parcel from the Goodfellow right-of-way. Mr. Frandsen replied that his access would be close, but not actually on that right-of-way. Commissioner Anderson observed that the Goodfellow right-of-way is temporary.
Commissioner Peters asked the elevation of the freeway in relation to this parcel. Mr. Frandsen replied that the freeway was higher. Commissioner Peters commented that motorists would be able to look down and see the roofs of the structures. He asked what construction Mr. Frandsen planned for the units. Mr. Frandsen replied that he planned block walls with steel doors and a steel roof. Commissioner Peters asked if he planned some outside storage also. Mr. Frandsen answered that he had no plans for outside storage. There would be no open RV or boat storage.
Commissioner Peters asked Mr. Frandsen what his preferences were on a fence. Mr. Frandsen noted that the ordinance requires chain link unless the parcel is adjacent to a residential district. He added that he was not opposed to a block wall or brick pillars with wrought iron, but he would prefer chain link. Commissioner Peters commented that he would be happier with a block fence. Mr. Frandsen asked if the pillars and wrought iron would be okay. The Commissioners agreed that this would be acceptable.
Mr. Smith asked about the surface of parcel between the units. Commissioner Anderson commented that inside the wall could be packed gravel. He noted that asphalt may be advisable if there is a drainage problem. Mr. Frandsen noted that storm water may be another issue that needs resolving. He commented that he would contact the City Engineer to find a solution. He also said that he may need to have a utility easement through the Blackhurst or Goodfellow parcel. There was a discussion on water and fire protection. Mr. Frandsen commented that he just wanted to know the Planning Commission’s attitude on this project. Commissioner Peters replied that the project needs to look good.
3. NEW BUSINESS (Reports by Commissioners)
Commissioner Peters reported speeding problems on the partially developed street near 600 North and Center Street. He asked if there was a possibility of lowering the speed limits. Mr. Smith noted the problem and replied that he would check. Commissioner Peters noted that there was some new red curbing at the Chapel on Canal Drive. He observed that this did not solve the problem. Mr. Smith commented that this item was on the agenda for later.
4. BUNNELL/WINTERTON TRIPLEXES - 675 - 695 WEST 200 SOUTH - CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT - R2 OVERLAY
This is a continuation from the March 13, 2002 meeting. The applicant has amended his application to include 2 duplexes.
Mr. Brent Bunnell and Mr. Rex Winterton were present to discuss this application with the Commission. Commissioner Peters, acting as chairman until Chairman Morse arrives, noted that this item is a continuation from the last meeting. He informed the audience that Mr. Bunnell has amended the application to two duplexes instead of two triplexes. Mr. Smith disclosed that he had calculated the residential acreage in R2 District #17 at 17 acres. According to the R2 Overlay ordinance, this would allow two duplexes and Mr. Bunnell amended his application to reflect this. Mr. Smith displayed the revised elevations and noted that the location would not change.
Mr. Bunnell described the amended project. He indicated that he was looking for direction on the site plan to meet the design concerns of the Commissioners and the neighborhood. He proposed that the units would have two separate combined driveways adjacent to each other that would access front facing two-car garages for each unit. He commented that there would be no problem with lights shining into Mrs. Hooley’s home at night because the vehicles would be backing into the street and not pulling out forwards. There would now be no parking in the rear of the units. The back yards will be landscaped.
Commissioner Peters asked the width of the driveway. Mr. Bunnell replied 26 feet. He noted that the east side included a 20 foot buffer from the Stratton home. This would allow more spacing between the units. Commissioner Atchison noted that there was fencing between the units for individual back yards. Mr. Bunnell acknowledged the fencing and noted that there would also be perimeter fencing. It was noted that the rear of the property borders the Gateway Technology Center and the required fencing between residential districts and the Research and Business District would be installed when that parcel is developed. Mr. Bunnell added that until the final fence is installed, he would put in a temporary chain link fence for security and privacy. Commissioner Peters asked if the fence would be sight obscuring. Mr. Bunnell replied that he was planning slats in the chain link.
Commissioner Peters asked for any comment. Mrs. Christine Curley told the Commissioners that she lived next to the Bunnell project by the cannery. She pointed out that these homes are a business that is making the owner some money. She noted that, as a homeowner, she had paid good money for her “little bit of country,” and if these units do not change the value of her property, they certainly affect the sellability. Ms. Curley reminded Mr. Bunnell of his agreement to discourage parking on the street, and pointed out that the residents are parking there every day. Mr. Bunnell thanked her for the advisory and told her that the residents were required to park in the rear in their rental agreements. Ms. Curley told Mr. Bunnell that she wanted should not have participated with the vinyl fence between her and the other project.
Commissioner Peters asked the audience to please address their comments to the Commission. Mr. Ted Lott expressed a concern that the units on 200 South would not be sold as 1/4 acre lots in the future. He was assured that the minimum lot size is 20,000 square feet in this area and although the units may be sold as condominiums, they cannot be separated and sold with 1/4 acre lots.
Mrs. Shauna Powell expressed a concern about parking on the street. She was concerned that her children would not be seen by drivers if cars were parked along the curb. It was noted that each unit has a two car garage and a driveway in front of the garage. There would be room for two cars in the driveway in front of the garages. There was discussion of putting another parking pad on the east lot line. There was also discussion of moving the units back to the south to make the driveways longer to allow for two more cars for each unit.
Commissioner Carpenter observed that the extra pad would be an invitation to unit residents to park their boats. Mr. Bunnell noted that the R2 Overlay ordinance required two and one-half spaces per unit. Moving the units back would make these units have six spaces each: two in the garage and four in the driveway. Commissioner Peters asked if there was other comment.
Commissioner Peters asked about the finish on the units. Mr. Smith observed that the ordinance requires the units to blend with the neighborhood. He read the requirement from the code. The neighborhood style was discussed and it was determined that the units would match the predominant style in the neighborhood. The size of the units and the floor plans were discussed. Mr. Bunnell mentioned that he would like to have a basement. Mr. Lott told him that there was water at 18 inches in this area.
Commissioner Peters commented that the units look like duplexes. He felt they should look more like a single family residence. Mr. Bunnell suggested a false dormer above the garage. Commissioners Anderson, Atchison and Simister commented that they felt the dormer would help the appearance.
Commissioner Peters asked the size of the garage. Mr. Bunnell replied that the garages would be 24 X20. Commissioner Peters expressed a concern about storage taking the garage and the residents parking in the driveway and putting their visitors back on the curb. Mr. Bunnell replied that part of his design criteria was the larger garage so there would be room for storage of bikes and lawnmowers. There was discussion of requiring a shed for storage or making the garages larger. Mr. Smith suggested that the parking situation could be reviewed six months after the units are occupied. Commissioner Atchison commented that she preferred this alternative to requiring a storage shed. Mr. Lott mentioned that moving the units back could create a problem with the sewer. This was also discussed.
Chairman Morse arrived at 7:55p.m.
COMMISSIONER CARPENTER MOVED TO APPROVE THE REQUEST BY BRENT BUNNELL FOR A FOUR UNIT R2 OVERLAY PROJECT AT 675 AND 695 WEST 200 SOUTH WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS:
1. REVIEW THE PARKING AND STORAGE IN SIX MONTHS FROM THE DATE OF OCCUPANCY TO ENSURE THERE IS ADEQUATE OFF STREET PARKING.
2. FENCING TO BE SITE OBSCURING AS LAID OUT ON THE SITE PLAN AND AS AGREED TO BY THE STRATTONS.
3. BUILD A DORMER ON THE GARAGE AS WIDE AS POSSIBLE.
COMMISSIONER ATCHISON SECONDED THE MOTION. ALL PRESENT VOTED IN FAVOR EXCEPT CHAIRMAN MORSE WHO ABSTAINED. THE MOTION CARRIED.
5. MCOMBER DUPLEX - 108 SOUTH DENALI DR. - R2 OVERLAY
This is a request for approval of one duplex in Canberra Heights.
Chairman Morse apologized for being late and took over as chairman. Mr. David McOmber and Mr. Jed Miner were present. Mr. Smith introduced this item by displaying an overhead transparency of the area, a photo of the lot and the home elevations. He explained that this twin home was proposed for Lot #7 of the Canberra Heights Subdivision Plat “A” which is in R2 District 3. He noted that four accessory apartment units have been approved in this district and 37 units are available. He explained the background of the R2 Overlay ordinance for those present in the audience.
Chairman Morse asked if there was a covenant recorded with the subdivision plat that restricts dwellings other than single family. Mr. Smith informed the Commission that the City is not a party to and does not enforce CC&R’s (Covenants, Conditions & Restrictions). The Homeowner’s Association or any member of that association enforce this document.
Ms. Julie Bryner and Mr. Michael Moffet presented the CC&R’s that have been recorded at the Utah County Recorders Office. They read the specific clause in the CC&R’s. Ms. Bryner read section 3.14 of the document about who is to enforce and noted that the City is specifically mentioned. Commissioner Anderson replied that the City does not approve the CC&R’s or sign them as a party to the contract. Mr. Moffet noted that the document was recorded at the County and would be part of any real estate transaction. Chairman Morse asked if the applicants were aware of the CC&R’s. Mr. Miner denied knowledge of any CC&R’s.
Mr. Miner told the Commission that there would be only one extended family living in the home. Mr. McOmber is Mr. Miner’s father-in-law. Commissioner Carpenter pointed out that if the home is approved and then sold, or his circumstances change in the future, the units can be occupied by unrelated persons. Ms. Bryner observed that the neighborhood is not opposed to the home being occupied by family members, they object to the appearance of the home as separate residences with two front doors and two garages.
Commissioner Carpenter asked if the units could be changed to an accessory apartment so that it could not be sold separately. Mr. Smith replied that the accessory apartment ordinance requires a maximum size of 1200 square feet in the apartment. This would not qualify. Mr. Smith observed that if an application meets the requirements of the ordinance, the City is obligated to approve it. Commissioner Simister asked how the City can fulfill the requirements of moderate income housing laws if the neighborhoods have CC&R’s that exclude them. Mr. Smith replied that there is no way for the City to know what the individual CC&R’s have included in them nor can the City enforce them. Commissioner Peters asked if the ordinance could be amended to declare CC&R’s invalid. He observed that the CC&R’s force the city ordinance to be invalid if they are left in place.
Mr. Floyd Holdman commented that he had signed an Occupancy Restriction on his second kitchen downstairs. He asked about duplex standards. Commissioner Peters replied that if the downstairs unit had been approved as an duplex unit, he would have had to build the structure to commercial building standards.
Ms. Bryner observed that the homeowners in Canberra believe that the City is obliged to enforce the CC&R’s. Mr. Mike Harris observed that the homeowners were not trying to defeat the purpose of the ordinance. They just wanted to make sure that the units could not be sold separately, or rented out separately from the family. Mr. Moffett observed that a homeowner’s largest investment is usually his own home and this duplex would hurt the value of the homes in the neighborhood. Mr. Miner commented that the home would have one owner–himself. Ms. Bryner asked if he could guarantee that the home would always remain as one unit.
Chairman Morse asked the total square footage of the home. Mr. Miner replied 5,400. Ms. Bryner observed that most of the homes in the neighborhood were equally 5,400 square feet individually. Commissioner Peters commented that the appearance and size of the home fits the architecture of the neighborhood. Mr. Moffett observed that if the home really fit the neighborhood it would be twice that size because it is two homes. He also pointed out that rental units are generally not maintained as well as a owner-occupied units. Ms. Bryner suggested that the architecture be modified so that there is one door and all the garages are on one side.
Chairman Morse observed that the Planning Commission has an obligation to uphold the ordinances. If this application complies, then they are bound to approve it. Commissioner Anderson commented that all R2 Overlay projects are unpopular, and although the houses are bigger in this area, the Commission still has to observe the city ordinances. He added that it is up to the homeowners association to enforce the CC&R’s. Mr. Truman Child asked how much the Commission weighs neighborhood opinion and their quality of life when considering these applications. Commissioner Anderson replied that the opinions are weighed, but they must also try to be fair equally across the City. Mr. Moffett noted that all of Lindon objects to R2 projects. Commissioner Peters replied that the State has a requirement that Lindon has to meet for moderate income housing. It was decided long ago to meet this requirement by spreading the impact equally across all the residential zones of the City rather than impacting one area only. He added that the Commission is always open to public comment but the City has put a tremendous amount of work into this ordinance to make it fair and equal.
There was discussion on the architecture of the home. Mr. Moffett agreed that the aesthetics of the home were fine. His objection was the impact of the home on the value of the other homes in the neighborhood. Commissioner Peters invited Councilmember Bayless to comment as a member of the City Council. Councilmember Bayless observed that the City is not in the CC&R enforcement business. She added that it was unfortunate that the developer has put Lindon City as part of the enforcement process as the City is not a party to CC&R’s. She commented that, as an individual, she strongly believes in the R2 Overlay ordinance and feels that the community is better off for it. She explained that having one designated area for multi-family housing would be a detriment to our community. She has heard comments that if the multi-family housing is “over there,” it won’t impact our neighborhoods, but it will impact us through our schools. She observed that it is better to integrate varied housing types into the whole city. She suggested that the homeowners sit down together to find a solution. Mr. Smith suggested that the homeowner discuss a possible redesign of the home with Lindon’s Chief Building Official Phil Brown. Mr. Brown may be able to find a way to redesign the home so that two families can occupy it and it will not be rented in the future. Mr. Miner, the Commissioners and the neighbors discussed this possibility.
Commissioner Peters asked the length of the driveway. Mr. Miner replied 30 feet. Mr. Miner added that they did not want to do anything that wouldn’t be accepted by the neighborhood. Commissioner Peters observed that he felt the proposal fit the ordinance and commented that he was willing to make a motion to approve. Mr. Miner asked the Commission to continue the item to allow him to discuss options with the neighborhood.
COMMISSIONER PETERS MOVED TO CONTINUE THE REQUEST BY DAVID MCOMBER FOR A TWO UNIT R2 OVERLAY PROJECT AT 108 SOUTH DENALI DRIVE, CANBERRA HEIGHTS, PLAT “A” LOT 7. COMMISSIONER CARPENTER SECONDED THE MOTION. ALL PRESENT VOTED IN FAVOR. THE MOTION CARRIED.
Commissioner Peters suggested that the Commission revisit the R2 Overlay ordinance. He expressed concern that CC&R’s force other neighborhoods to carry the burden of the moderate housing requirement. He also suggested that six units per acre may be too many. He felt that the maximum size should be reduced to four units per acre.
6. TEMPORARY ZONING ORDINANCE - OFF PREMISE ADVERTISING
The City Council would like a recommendation for from the Planning Commission on the attached temporary zoning ordinance which would temporarily restrict the acceptance of applications for the establishment, restoration, reconstruction, extension, alteration, expansion or substitution of all off premise advertising signs.
Mr. Smith introduced this temporary zoning ordinance that places a six month moratorium on accepting billboard applications until the ordinance is redrafted. Commissioner Carpenter asked if no applications are being accepted, does this lock a property owner that is currently in negotiation with a sign company into signing another lease. Chairman Morse asked if all the parties interested have been notified that the ordinance is under consideration. Mr. Smith replied yes. Mr. Jaime Evans and Mr. Paul Magleby discussed the need for a moratorium, the need for a timely decision and what constitutes the meaning of acceptance of an application. Mr. Magleby was advised to address his question to the City Attorney at the City Council meeting the following week. Chairman Morse asked if there was any further comment.
COMMISSIONER PETER PETERS MOVED TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL TO THE CITY COUNCIL OF AN ORDINANCE ADOPTING TEMPORARY RESTRICTIONS WITH RESPECT TO THE ACCEPTANCE OF APPLICATIONS FOR THE ESTABLISHMENT, RESTORATION, RECONSTRUCTION, EXTENSION, ALTERATION, EXPANSION, OR SUBSTITUTION OF AN OFF PREMISE SIGN, FOR AT MOST SIX MONTHS PURSUANT TO UTAH CODE ANN. SECTION 10-9-404. COMMISSIONER ATCHISON SECONDED THE MOTION. ALL PRESENT VOTED IN FAVOR. THE MOTION CARRIED.
7. ZONING ORDINANCE AMENDMENT - DISCUSSION ITEMS
1. Definition of inoperable motor vehicle.
2. Off-street parking requirement for Churches.
3. When to require sidewalks on City streets and when not to.
Mr. Smith commented that he had looked up the word inoperable in the dictionary but it did not help him to define the word for zoning purposes. He told the commission that he has requested the APA to send some materials. There was a discussion on what is considered junk in each person’s eyes, storage inside, and placing limits on storage of inoperable vehicles.
Mr. Smith next discussed the off street requirement for Churches. There was a suggestion to base it on maximum capacity rather than fixed seating. The particular chapel that initiated this discussion was examined and pictures shown. Commissioner Peter suggested that the conditional use permit be reviewed. Mr. Smith replied that the review was in process.
Mr. Smith initiated discussion on when to require sidewalks and curb-gutter combinations. Chairman Morse asked if there was a good reason to not require these items on every street. This was discussed and situations examined. Councilmember Bayless commented that the situation of a developer not wanting to spend money is not a reason to allow alternate street improvements. Commissioner Peters suggested that a bond be required for the full improvements anyway. Chairman Morse observed that the City would have to be very careful about why this one alternative project was exempted and this other specific project was not. He also asked if this would only affect new construction. Mr. Smith replied that if it would affect new construction and reconstruction. He also observed that alternative treatments were similarly priced and in some cases more expensive than the sidewalk, curb and gutter combination. Chairman Morse asked if there were other comments. Commissioner Anderson replied that the only issue he could see is the arbitrary one.
8. PLANNING DIRECTOR’S REPORT
1. Combined meeting with Council - URMMA Training on April 3, 2002 at 7:00 p.m.
2. Utah Local Governments Trust Training
Mr. Smith reminded the Commissioners of the URMMA Training and the ULGT training opportunities.
ADJOURN
COMMISSIONER PETERS MOVED TO ADJOURN AT 10:28 P.M. COMMISSIONER ATCHISON SECONDED THE MOTION. ALL PRESENT VOTED IN FAVOR. THE MOTION CARRIED.
APPROVED - April 9, 2002
_______________________________________
Loren Morse, Chairman
Attest,
_______________________________________
Kevin Smith, Planning Director |
|
|
