|
|
Home » City Government » Planning Commission » Minutes Archive; 2000 - 2002 » Planning Commission Minutes 2002 » May 22, 2002
May 22, 2002
The Lindon City Planning Commission held a regularly scheduled meeting on Wednesday, May 22, 2002 at 7:00 p.m. in the Lindon City Center Council Chambers at 100 North State Street, Lindon, Utah.
Conducting: Loren Morse, Chairman Jim Peters, Acting Chairman
Invocation: Jim Peters
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
Lori Atchison, Commissioner
Evan Nixon, Commissioner
Marilyn Simister, Commissioner
Karen Devine, Planning Intern
The Meeting began at 7:00 P.M.
1. MINUTES
Review of the Minutes of the regularly scheduled meeting of May 8, 2002.
The Minutes of the regularly scheduled meeting of May 8, 2002 were reviewed. There were no corrections.
COMMISSIONER ANDERSON MOVED TO APPROVE THE MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF MAY 8, 2002. 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)
Commissioner Anderson inquired about the progress of removing the sight obstructing sign on Geneva Road. Mr. Smith reported that a call had been made to the real estate company that needed follow up. Councilmember Bayless noted that there would be a MAG Conference on May 31concerning trails that may interest the Commissioners. The deadlines and cost of registration were disclosed.
4. FONSECA GRADING PLAN - 86 SOUTH KINGS DRIVE - HILLSIDE OVERLAY
This is a request for approval of a grading plan for a new home in Canberra Heights Subdivision.
Acting Chairman Peters asked if the applicant was present. Mr. Fonseca was in attendance. Mr. Smith introduced the application and showed the Commissioners the area and displayed the grading plan. He noted that staff’s concern is that an erosion control plan is needed, but there are no other problems.
Commissioner Anderson asked the distance between the retaining wall and the property line. Mr. Fonseca replied that there was a distance of 7-8 feet between the walls and the property edge. Acting Chairman Peters verified the location of the property and the scale of the grading plan. Commissioner Carpenter asked how much fill would be used in the back of the lot. Mr. Fonseca replied that there would be some fill. Commissioner Carpenter expressed a concern about the amount of fill and how the neighboring lots may have to accommodate the retaining walls. He felt the appearance of the home from below the hill may be that the home is on a pedestal.
Commissioner Anderson questioned the slope of the driveway. This was disclosed to be the maximum allowed by the ordinance. Commissioner Carpenter returned to his concern about the lot being made into a pedestal and how it will affect the surrounding lots. Mr. Smith explained that the fill and retaining walls will not affect the primary building site of the neighboring lots. The building sites of the surrounding lots were examined. Acting Chairman Peters asked Mr. Fonseca if he had submitted a temporary erosion plan to the City Engineer. Mr. Fonseca replied that he was working with the City Engineer to complete that requirement.
Commissioner Anderson asked what the reasoning was that had prompted the ordinance requirement that there be no retaining walls on property lines. Mr. Smith replied that the ordinance was adopted in 1980 and he was not privy to that discussion. Acting Chairman Peters suggested that reasons for this requirement may be aesthetics and safety. Mr. Smith agreed and commented that this home was spread out in its building envelope. Commissioner Anderson observed that the framers of the hillside ordinance probably envisioned larger lots in this area. He commented that the size of the homes being built negate what was envisioned. Commissioner Carpenter agreed and noted that this application would appear to be a “castle” with its steep walls. Acting Chairman Peters asked the planned composition of the retaining walls. Mr. Fonseca replied that the walls would be constructed of concrete with a rock facing. He noted that he was willing to change the appearance of the walls if the neighbors wished.
Acting Chairman Peters questioned how drainage would be handled on his portion of the hillside. Mr. Fonseca replied that this question is part of what is needed on the temporary drainage plan that is still being completed. Components of the plan showing on the grading plan were explained and discussed. Mr. Smith noted that the plan is to disperse drainage within the property and not allow it to disperse on the neighboring property.
Commissioner Carpenter commented that the elevations do not show a blending of the walls into the side properties. Acting Chairman Peters asked if the home fit into the designated building pad. Mr. Smith and Mr. Fonseca confirmed that the home lies within this boundary. Commissioner Anderson asked about landscaping at the base of the retaining walls. Mr. Fonseca replied that there would be natural ground at the base of the wall because of the requirement for no grading near the property lines. Commissioner Carpenter commented that the retaining walls change the grade “dramatically” and create an “eyesore” with the huge wall. Commissioner Atchison asked if there was another way to accomplish retaining the slope. Mr. Fonseca replied that he did not believe so, but he was open to suggestions. Commissioner Carpenter noted that the most severe and abrupt elevation change is near the driveway. The Commissioners discussed removing part of the driveway or shifting the driveway. Acting Chairman Peters observed that he was not as concerned about the wall by the driveway because it is on the side, not on the back where it is visible from below. Mr. Fonseca agreed and commented that the only one who would see that particular wall is the neighbor on that side. The facade was discussed.
Commissioner Carpenter asked if Mr. Fonseca planned a wall on top of the driveway retaining wall to prevent someone from accidentally driving over the edge. Mr. Fonseca replied that he had not considered that aspect, and thanked Commissioner Carpenter for his observation. Commissioner Anderson suggested that since a wall would add more height to the retaining wall, a low curb would provide safety.
Commissioner Carpenter and Mr. Fonseca discussed a retaining wall that may be unnecessary. Acting Commissioner Peters noted that the ordinance did not prevent landscaping, only changing the grades near property lines. Mr. Smith agreed.
COMMISSIONER CARPENTER MOVED TO APPROVE THE REQUEST FOR A GRADING PLAN AS REQUIRED IN THE HILLSIDE PROTECTION DISTRICT FOR 86 SOUTH KINGS DRIVE, CANBERRA HEIGHTS, PLAT “A” LOT 27 WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS:
1. THAT THE NORTH WALL ADJACENT TO THE DRIVEWAY BE FACED WITH ROCK OR SIMILAR PRODUCT.
2. THAT THE RETAINING WALL CLOSEST TO KINGS PEAK ROAD ON THE SOUTH BE THIRTY FEET SHORTER TO ALLOW MORE NATURAL GRADE.
3. THAT ENGINEERING CONCERNS BE ADDRESSED BEFORE A BUILDING PERMIT IS ISSUED, AND
4. THAT SAFETY MEASURES BE ADDED TO THE DRIVEWAY, LIKE CURBING, TO PREVENT ACCIDENTAL DRIVING OVER THE EDGE ON THE NORTH SIDE.
COMMISSIONER ANDERSON SECONDED THE MOTION. ALL PRESENT VOTED IN FAVOR. THE MOTION CARRIED.
2. CARRIAGE HOUSE DOORS - 1463 WEST 70 SOUTH - SITE PLAN APPROVAL REQUEST
This is a request for approval of a site plan for a new building in Westlind Industrial Park for a garage door company.
Mr. Smith introduced this application for site plan approval on Lot 4 of Westlind Industrial Park. He displayed overhead transparencies of the area and the site plan. He explained that this is a light industrial use in a light industrial zone. The building will be constructed of block with customer parking in front and employee parking in back. He commented that staff has no concerns on this site plan. He observed that a nice building was planned. Mr. Smith noted the location of a storm drainage ditch on the property line. He suggested that the Commissioners clarify the applicants plans for outside storage. Mr. David Powell and Mr. Glen Arnell were introduced to explain their plans.
Commissioner Atchison asked Mr. David Powell about his plans for outside storage. Mr. Powell replied that they would have one storage container outside the building. Mr. Arnell explained that this building would be very similar to one in American Fork. Mr. Powell noted that the business would be moving from American Fork into this site. The elevations of the building were discussed. Acting Chairman Peters asked the construction materials of the building. Mr. Arnell replied that the building would be block with a rock face. There would be timbers on the dormers and copper trim.
Commissioner Anderson asked if there would be a showroom area in the building or whether it just included warehouse space. Mr. Powell confirmed that the building would include both types of spaces. Acting Chairman Peters asked if there would be overhead doors on the back of the building for access to the warehouse space. Mr. Powell replied yes. Commissioner Carpenter asked about access to the back for deliveries and employee parking. This was described as all on one side of the building. Acting Chairman Peters asked about fencing. Mr. Smith explained that fencing was only required for the dumpster enclosure.
Acting Chairman Peters asked about the drainage ditch. Mr. Smith replied that there the detention area bordering the drainage ditch was typical of other businesses that also bordered the same drainage. Commissioner Carpenter asked what surface materials were planned. Mr. Arnell replied that the parking areas would be asphalt with a four foot perimeter of green area around the building.
Commissioner Anderson asked if the business produced residential doors. Mr. Arnell replied that the new fire station doors had been made by them. They manufacture custom doors. Commissioner Carpenter asked if all the materials are kept inside the building. Mr. Powell replied yes. Acting Chairman Peters asked if there was storage of any hazardous materials. Mr. Powell replied that the doors are not finished on site, just manufactured. Commissioner Anderson asked if parking would be sufficient for customers and employees. Mr. Powell replied that he ran a “low volume business.” He estimated a total of a couple of customers a day and explained that most selling was done in the field. Commissioner Atchison asked about outdoor lighting. Mr. Powell showed the location of the building mounted lights.
COMMISSIONER ANDERSON MOVED TO APPROVE THE REQUEST BY MITCH MCCUISTION FOR SITE PLAN APPROVE APPROVAL FOR CARRIAGE HOUSE DOORS AT 1463 WEST 70 SOUTH. COMMISSIONER ATCHISON SECONDED THE MOTION. ALL PRESENT VOTED IN FAVOR. THE MOTION CARRIED.
3. 17.06. - INOPERABLE MOTOR VEHICLES - ZONING ORDINANCE AMENDMENT
The Planning Commission will review, discuss and possibly make a recommendation to the City Council to amend and revise this code section.
Mr. Smith informed the Commission that he had prepared a slide presentation that illustrates the issues with inoperable vehicles in Lindon. He noted that first he’d like to go over the changes made in the ordinance. Mr. Smith observed that the purpose of the amendment is to clarify the definition of an inoperable vehicle. He informed the Commission that the section has been totally rewritten and pointed out which paragraphs are from the current code and which are proposed to be added. The definitions were discussed.
Commissioner Atchison clarified that Section 17.06.020 listed several ways to identify an inoperable vehicle and any one of those definitions can be applied. Commissioner Anderson questioned the limitation of twenty four hours in Section 17.06.040. Mr. Smith replied that the limitation is not new and is in the current code. Commissioner Anderson expressed the opinion that the twenty four hours limitation is not enforceable. Mr. Smith agreed.
The slide show was presented and specific situations discussed. Commissioner Anderson suggested that any vehicle over twenty five years old be exempted. Acting Chairman Peters agreed that these were special interest vehicles. Councilmember Bayless pointed out that some were just sitting there rusting. Acting Chairman Peters agreed and suggested that if the owner desires to keep the vehicle for future restoration, it should be stored in a building. Commissioner Carpenter suggested that if a vehicle is kept in the open there should be a reasonable cap on the time to restore it. Acting Chairman Peters expressed the opinion that the vehicle should be out of sight in a shed. Commissioner Carpenter suggested that a limit be defined and if the vehicle is kept beyond that point, it should be out of sight in a shed. Mr. Smith asked for a definition of reasonable progress and a suggestion for a time limit. Acting Chairman Peters observed that some vehicles stored in the open are a safety concern because they are on blocks.
The Commission and Mr. Smith discussed the business pictured in the last slide and the restrictions on the conditional use permit. Commissioner Anderson brought up a property with a collection of inoperable vehicles near his home. The possibility of the grandfather clause applying was examined. Unlicensed and unregistered Recreational Vehicles were discussed. Acting Chairman Peters suggested a time limit on how long a property owner can keep an RV that is unlicensed. Types of recreational vehicles and the individual problems that may arise were examined. Mr. Smith suggested the addition of a sentence that any unregistered recreational vehicle in plain view for more than 48 months would be deemed inoperable. Acting Chairman Peters pointed out that some vehicles that “may be transported or drawn upon a roadway” are not required to be licensed, like camper shells and farm implements. Mr. Smith indicated that his intent is to capture all vehicles within the definitions of the ordinance that then differentiate how each is regulated.
Commissioner Carpenter recommended that vehicle storage in non-residential areas be changed from twenty-four hours to forty-eight or seventy-two hours. Commissioner Atchison agreed with seventy-two hours. The Commissioners discussed the number limitation of ten inoperable vehicles in non-residential zones. Commissioner Carpenter observed that the limit is a total of ten vehicles for seventy-two hours. Acting Chairman Peters expressed the opinion that the interpretation is ten “unlicensed” vehicles. Commissioner Carpenter disagreed. Mr. Smith suggested that if there are more than ten, they should be behind a sight obscuring fence. Commissioner Carpenter asked if there was an on-going problem with parking registered vehicles that are being repaired in the open for long periods of time. Various repair establishments were discussed. Mr. Smith replied that parking is usually addressed with the conditional use permit and that most live within their requirements.
Commissioner Carpenter suggested a change of wording to paragraph two of Section 17.06.040. He added “that are inoperable” after “such vehicles.” The Commission agreed. The penalties were discussed. Commissioner Carpenter suggested that each day “after the initial compliance period” is a separate violation. The Commissioners agreed. Commissioner Anderson observed that the ordinance was more restrictive for property owners in the non-residential zones than those in the residential zones. This was discussed. Mr. Smith was asked to equalize the requirements. There was also discussion of an agricultural protection clause. Mr. Smith commented that the Commissioners could take action on the amendment or continue it to another agenda to review the changes. Commissioner Anderson suggested that the other Commissioners who are absent tonight might appreciate the opportunity to review the ordinance. The Commissioners agreed.
COMMISSIONER ANDERSON MOVED TO CONTINUE THE REVIEW OF THE AMENDMENT TO CHAPTER 17.06 INOPERABLE MOTOR VEHICLES TO THE NEXT REGULARLY SCHEDULED MEETING OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION. COMMISSIONER CARPENTER SECONDED THE MOTION. ALL PRESENT VOTED IN FAVOR. THE MOTION CARRIED.
4. 17.46. - R2 OVERLAY - ZONING ORDINANCE AMENDMENT
The Planning Commission will review, discuss and possibly make a recommendation to the City Council to amend and revise this code section.
Mr. Smith outlined the changes that had been requested at the previous discussion of this item and noted the correction made to the proposed amendment. Commissioner Carpenter asked if an R2 project was reviewable upon complaint if it is considered a conditional use permit. Mr. Smith replied yes. Commissioner Anderson asked if the City could require one to be torn down if there were complaints. Mr. Smith replied that the offending condition would be fixed.
Mr. Smith commented that paragraph two of Section 17.46-010 addresses the affordable housing requirement in regards to the C, C&R’s of a subdivision. He informed the Commissioners that he had discussed this section with the City Attorney. It is the City Attorney’s opinion that the State of Utah has identified the need for adequate housing as essential for the public good, therefore the City can also take that stance.
Commissioner Carpenter suggested that the exact number of planning districts be removed so that the map can be changed without amending the ordinance. The new map was examined and discussed. Mr. Smith noted a change in the ordinance that would not require a DRC application for an accessory apartment. He noted also that a detailed design is adequate and not a “complete” application like those required for other projects. The Lindon City Multifamily Housing Informational Brochure was discussed. Mr. Smith informed the Commission that this was being prepared for their approval. The parking requirements for duplexes were amended. Mr. Smith explained that the extra parking spaces were needed for the larger projects.
Acting Chairman Peters asked for an explanation of the calculation of growth share. Mr. Smith replied that even if a district has no building permits issued the year before, the City still has to allow some multifamily housing if the district is not full. That is why the minimum of 5% is set within Section 17.46.030.
Mr. Smith noted the addition of the word “not” to paragraph “g” of Section 17.46.100. He addressed the Second Kitchen requirements in Section 17.46.110. There was a discussion of doors with or without locks limiting access to a second kitchen. Commissioner Atchison and Acting Chairman Peters expressed the opinion that a door may be needed for safety. Mr. Smith explained that sometimes a homeowner says he is constructing a second kitchen when in fact it is an accessory apartment. This may lower their building permit price and waive the noticing requirement. Commissioner Carpenter observed that those who sign the second kitchen waiver and then rent the space are in violation of city ordinances. Mr. Smith replied that it is not an issue of enforcement, but how to determine a second kitchen from an accessory apartment on a building plan. It has been policy in the past that any manner of limiting access is what determines an accessory apartment. He verified that a door with a lock is more what the Planning Commission perceives a limited access. This was confirmed. Acting Chairman Peters asked about an amnesty program to bring non-compliant accessory apartments into complaince.
COMMISSIONER ATCHISON MOVED TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL TO THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE REQUEST TO AMEND AND REVISE SECTION 17.46. - R2 OVERLAY, AS ATTACHED WITH THE FOLLOWING RECOMMENDATIONS:
1. REMOVE THE NUMBER OF DISTRICTS FROM SECTION 17.46.020 - MAP.
2. REMOVE DOORS WITHOUT LOCKS FROM THE RESTRICTED ACCESS PROVISION OF 17.46.110(1)(C), AND
3. APPROVE THE AMENDED DISTRICT BOUNDARIES OF THE R2 DISTRICT MAP.
COMMISSIONER CARPENTER SECONDED THE MOTION. ALL PRESENT VOTED IN FAVOR. THE MOTION CARRIED.
2. PLANNING DIRECTOR’S REPORT
Mr. Smith asked about the Citizen Planner Training that some of the Commissioners had attended. He reminded the Commissioners of cancelled and rescheduled meetings for the summer months. He also reminded the Commissioners of the non-violence training session on May 28, 2002.
ADJOURN
COMMISSIONER PETERS MOVED TO ADJOURN AT 10:22 P.M. COMMISSIONER ATCHISON SECONDED THE MOTION. ALL PRESENT VOTED IN FAVOR. THE MOTION CARRIED.
APPROVED - June 12, 2002
_______________________________________
Loren Morse, Chairman
Attest,
_______________________________________
Kevin Smith, Planning Director |
|
|
