|
|
Home » City Government » Planning Commission » Minutes Archive; 2000 - 2002 » Planning Commission Minutes 2001 » May 23, 2001
May 23, 2001
The Lindon City Planning Commission held a regularly scheduled meeting on Wednesday, May 23, 2001 at 7:00 P.M. in the Lindon City Council Chambers at 100 North State Street, Lindon, Utah.
Conducting: Loren Morse
Invocation: Lori Atchison
PRESENT
Loren Morse, Chairman
Ron Anderson, Commissioner
Lori Atchison, Commissioner
Bill Johanson, Commissioner
Evan Nixon, Commissioner
Jim Peters, Commissioner
Lindsay Bayless, Councilmember
Kevin Smith, Planning Director
Venla Gubler, Administrative Clerk
Dan Wolfley, Planning Intern ABSENT
Jeff Southard, Commissioner
The Meeting began at 7:06 P.M.
BUSINESS
1. Approval of Minutes
The minutes of the regular meeting of May 9, 2001 were reviewed. The following corrections were made:
Page 1, Line 12: Add the name “Jim Peters, Commissioner” to the Absent Column.
Page 3, Line 7: Add the word “legal” before the phrase “non-conforming.”
Page 3, Line 13: Add the phrase “on the north side of 600 North” after the word “improvements.”
Page 4, Line 43: Replace the title “Councilmembers” with the title “Commissioners.”
Page 6, Line 5: Replace the word “suggested” after the name “Johanson” with the word “noted.”
Page 7, Line 37: Add the words “SOUTH AND” before the word “WEST.”
Page 11, Line 1: Replace the title “Mr.” with the title “Ms.”
Page 11, Line 2: Replace the word “he” before the word “was” with the word “she.” Replace the word “He” before the word “would” with the word “She.”
Page 12, Line 10: Replace the name “Councilmember Bayless” with the name “Mr. Smith.” Replace the word “she” with the word “he.”
Page 13, Line 17: Replace the title “Mt.” with the title “Mr.”
THE MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF MAY 9, 2001 WERE APPROVED AS CORRECTED BY CONSENSUS OF THE PLANNING COMMISSIONERS.
2. Public Comment
There was no public comment.
3. New Business (Reports by Commissioners)
Commissioner Nixon commented on the flyer that was sent out with the utility bill concerning parking on the streets. The Commissioners talked about the complaints received and enforcement issues. Commissioner Johanson mentioned a tarp-sided semi trailer parked in the street near Whitewater.
4. Ostler Industrial Park, Plat “B” - 100 South 2000 West - Preliminary Subdivision Request
This is a request by the applicant for approval of a 1-lot subdivision in the Light Industrial Zone.
Chairman Morse inquired if Mr. Ahlin was present. Since he was not in attendance, the Commissioners discussed proceeding without his presence. Mr. Smith observed that it was not required that Mr. Ahlin be present.
Commissioner Anderson questioned the narrow parcel shown north of the lot. Mr. Smith explained that there would be an “L-shaped” lot of record left which contained the property owned by Mr. Ahlin that was not included in this plat. He further explained that the narrow piece shown is an easement for access from 2000 West. The lot contained in this proposed subdivision would front on 2000 West.
Commissioner Nixon asked if the access from 2000 West was problematic. Mr. Smith commented that the access would be crossing the drainage ditch that runs along 2000 West. The City Engineer is requiring that the ditch not be disturbed in such a way that would decrease the capacity and that the number of crossings be minimized. Commissioner Nixon asked if access should be limited to 1800 West instead. Mr. Smith observed that 2000 West would be a main access road to the new I-15 Interchange and access to these businesses would be needed along the street. Chairman Morse asked if the easement shown allowed for access to the lot or just for the interior portion or both. Mr. Smith explained that the access shown would be a culvert crossing the ditch for both the subdivision lot and the lot of record.
Commissioner Nixon asked what improvements were required for this plat. Mr. Smith commented that curb and gutter along 2000 West Street would be installed, also the ditch would be improved and the slopes would be widened. The Commissioners discussed the width of 2000 West and the street profile. Commissioner Nixon observed that some shoulder may be needed on the road next to the ditch. Chairman Morse commented that, at times, the soccer arena proposed for this lot would generate some heavy traffic. Commissioner Anderson observed that a 20-foot easement may not be wide enough to accommodate truck traffic turning off of 2000 West. Commissioner Nixon suggested that a cross easement on the lot itself may help widen the access. Mr. Smith pointed out that the remainder lot would have alternate access to 1800 West for trucks.
Commissioner Johanson observed that the culvert would need to be built one foot above the flood level. Commissioner Nixon commented that the City Engineer would take that into consideration. Commissioner Johanson questioned Mr. Smith on the status of the golf course proposed for across the street. There was discussion of plans for the west side of the street. Commissioner Nixon asked about the fence and slope of the landfill on the west side of the street. He wondered if the street could be widened for future traffic needs to the I-15 Interchange. He also expressed concern that the travel lane would be right next to the ditch. Commissioner Johanson replied that there was about 10-feet from the edge of the present road to the fence line of the landfill and the slope was right behind the fence. The Commissioners discussed the advisability of requiring the ditch be moved east of the road easement to allow for future expansion of 2000 West and a shoulder on the road.
COMMISSIONER NIXON MOVED TO APPROVE THE REQUEST BY MIKE AHLIN FOR PRELIMINARY APPROVAL OF OSTLER INDUSTRIAL PARK, PLAT “B,” A 1-L0T SUBDIVISION, AND RECOMMEND APPROVAL TO THE CITY COUNCIL WITH THE FOLLOWING RECOMMENDATIONS:
1) THAT SHARED ACCESS AT THE NORTH END OF THE SUBDIVISION BE A MINIMUM OF 30 FEET TOTAL.
2) THAT THE COUNCIL CONSIDER REQUIRING A DRAINAGE EASEMENT EAST OF THE RIGHT-OF-WAY TO MOVE AND RECONSTRUCT THE DITCH AWAY FROM THE CURB LINE.
COMMISSIONER ANDERSON SECONDED THE MOTION. ALL PRESENT VOTED IN FAVOR. THE MOTION CARRIED.
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.
It was determined that Mr. Phil Hadaway was not present. Since some of the neighbors were in attendance to air their objections to this application, it was decided to hear their comments while waiting for Mr. Hadaway to appear.
Mr. Smith explained that this application is in response to a zoning violation notice to the owner. There has been no permit issued for the accessory apartment that is currently occupied. It is a basement apartment. Mr. Hadaway has submitted floor plans only and is missing a site plan. He sent notice letters to the neighbors and copies of the responses have been included in the staff report. The Commissioners briefly discussed the size of the apartment and the location of the access to the apartment.
Mr. Lynn Barnes of 328 East 680 North explained that he was not here to protest the apartment itself, but the fact that the home was not owner-occupied. He observed that the home had become an “eyesore” with an unfinished storage shed, an old car, weeds and no lawn, and other open storage behind the fence. Mr. Hadaway is not in compliance with the neighborhood architectural restrictions.
Ms. Marilyn Mansfield of 368 East 680 North commented that the police had been called to the home three times lately and she was concerned with Mr. Hadaway’s non-presence at the home. The Commissioners discussed the owner-occupancy restriction included in the accessory apartment ordinance.
Ms. Tammy Northrup of 315 East 680 North explained Mr. Hadaway’s circumstances. She said that he and his wife had previously lived in the home. After a divorce, Mr. Hadaway had moved to Eagle Mountain and put the home up for sale. He had rented the home in November of 2000. He then rented the unfinished basement to another tenant at which time the police had become involved because of friction between the renters. She pointed out that the inoperable vehicle could only be removed from the backyard through the North Union Canal access road.
Mr. Dee Freeman of 310 East 680 North commented further on the use of the North Union Canal access road by the renters. Ms. Northrup told the Commissioners that the basement apartment was presently empty.
Commissioner Nixon commented that he was not comfortable with issuing a conditional use permit for an accessory apartment if the unit was not presently owner-occupied. He wanted to know Mr. Hadaway’s intentions. Commissioner Peters asked if the City Building Inspector had issued a building permit for the accessory apartment finish. Mr. Smith replied that a basement finish permit had been issued. Commissioner Peters commented that the conditional use permit should not be approved on Mr. Hadaway’s intention to move into the unit. Chairman Morse agreed and asked if there was a way to confirm that he would continue to live there. Mr. Smith replied that the neighbors are the best resource so far. He talked briefly about violations of the code being a “Class C” misdemeanor and Provo’s search warrant policy to verify tenancy.
Mr. Barnes asked what could be done about the car. Commissioner Nixon commented that one car that is currently in repair is allowed for a limited time. Mr. Smith agreed and added that reasonable progress should be shown. Mr. Barnes pointed out that there was no access to get the car out without going on the Canal Road. He wondered about access to the apartment’s back entrance and mentioned that there was no concrete path to the door of the apartment.
The Commissioners discussed denying or continuing the application. Chairman Morse asked that the neighbors be renotified if another meeting was scheduled to hear this matter. Commissioner Johanson asked if the neighborhood was going to pursue the covenant violations. Mr. Barnes read phrases of the covenants to the Commissioners. It was discussed and decided that the weeds and the car were zoning violations and would be pursued through the zoning department of the City.
COMMISSIONER NIXON MOVED TO CONTINUE THE REQUEST BY PHIL HADAWAY FOR AN ACCESSORY APARTMENT TO BE LOCATED AT 322 EAST 680 NORTH TO THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION ON JUNE 13, 2001. HE ALSO MOVED TO NOTIFY MR. HADAWAY THAT THE APPLICATION WOULD BE APPROVED OR DENIED WITH OR WITHOUT HIS PRESENCE, TO RENOTIFY THE NEIGHBORS WITHIN 48 HOURS OF THE MEETING, AND TO TENDER ALL REQUIRED SUBMITTALS TO THE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW COMMITTEE IN A TIMELY MANNER SO THAT THEY MAY BE REVIEWED BEFORE THIS DEADLINE. COMMISSIONER PETERS SECONDED THE MOTION. ALL PRESENT VOTED IN FAVOR. THE MOTION CARRIED.
6. Weekly Studies - 150 North 2000 West - Conditional Use Permit
This is a request for approval of an office/warehouse building in MidValley Commerce Center.
Mr. Smith pinpointed the proposed location of the business on a map and displayed a proposed site plan of the lot. He described the building as a warehouse and office with room for future expansion on the west side of the building. Mr. Ed Rickers was present to discuss the application with the Commissioners.
Mr. Rickers explained that the business was started by his father-in-law, Paul Thompson, who was a teacher for 30 years. About 16 years ago, he started producing a weekly Utah Studies newspaper for his classes. Four years ago they started producing the weekly for Texas schools and it has expanded to include other states and six different family members. They would now like to combine their operations under one roof. He passed around a sample of the newsletter and told the Commissioners that it was aimed at the 5th grade. He presented the Commissioners with elevations of the building and commented that it would be similar to his neighbor’s building, Mark Eisele.
The type of block on the sides of the building was discussed. Mr. Rickers explained that the front and the side of the building facing the street would have split face block of natural gray with ash grey siding and a blue trim. It was disclosed that the other two sides would have cinder block. Commissioner Nixon asked if this would meet the requirements of the ordinance. Commissioner Peters read the ordinance and commented that his interpretation was that all the block be decorative. The only thing changing from side to side was the percentage of block required on the faces. Mr. Rickers pointed out that Mr. Eisele had just completed his building with this same design. Commissioner Nixon observed that the building elevations that the Planning Commission reviewed did not differentiate between the types of block. Mr. Smith asked if cinder block could be defined as a decorative block. Mr. Rickers commented that the building inspector had approved Mr. Eisele’s building.
Commissioner Nixon asserted that cinder block did not meet the intention of the ordinance. Commissioner Peters suggested a review of this ordinance to clarify this issue. Commissioner Nixon observed that if cinder block was considered a decorative block, then it would be allowed on the front of the building, which was not the case. Mr. Rickers commented that this was an industrial building. Commissioner Nixon expressed his opinion that decorative block should be used on the entire building, rather than just the front.
Commissioner Peters asked for an estimate of the difference in cost between the cinder block and the decorative block. He was told about $.50 per square foot or a total of about $600.
Commissioner Peters questioned the length and width of the approach to the loading dock. He asked if it was possible to back into it. Mr. Rickers showed the Commissioners how a truck could pull into the parking lot and then turn to back into the loading dock. He commented that a family member who was a truck driver had designed the loading dock.
Commissioner Peters reviewed the landscaping plans with the applicant. Mr. Smith commented that the ditch along 2000 West was also landscaped. Commissioner Peters verified the location of the trash enclosure. Commissioner Nixon commented that the trees planned in the detention area may need to be moved higher on the bank. Commissioner Anderson asked about the applicant’s expansion plans. Mr. Rickers pointed out the open area next to the west side of the building. Commissioner Anderson asked if the parking would still be adequate with the added building area. Mr. Rickers observed that they had 28 spaces which was ample for the expanded building.
Commissioner Peters asked if the applicant planned to have any outside storage. Mr. Rickers indicated that they had no need for outside storage since their materials were weather sensitive. Chairman Morse asked if they planned for fencing. There was no plans for fencing. Chairman Morse questioned their plans for outside lighting. Mr. Smith commented that it was not required, but if it was installed there were standards. Mr. Rickers replied that they had plans for some lighting.
Commissioner Nixon asked whether the area slated for expansion would be in gravel or planted in grass. Mr. Rickers had planned to leave it in its natural state. He was concerned that a sprinkler system would be wasted when the expansion was completed. Commissioner Nixon expressed a concern about having no outside storage. He told Mr. Rickers that if their plans change concerning this, he should come back in and ask to amend the site plan. He also expressed a concern about the long, narrow detention areas that may keep the trees in the water.
The Commissioners discussed the type of block again. Commissioner Nixon asserted that based on the ordinance, the same kind of block should be used on the entire building. He posed the question, “Is regular cinder block decorative?” He answered by observing that if it was considered decorative, it would be used on the front of the building. He claimed that the ordinance did not make the distinction of decorative block on the face and another type of block on the sides, so he did not feet feel the distinction should be made here. He asserted that the same kind of block should be used all the way around. Commissioner Johanson considered the issue a matter of interpretation. Councilmember Bayless asked if the Commissioners felt that the same treatment of all 4 walls should be required. There was a short discussion. Chairman Morse commented that cinder block is not normally considered decorative. Commissioner Nixon suggested that a mistake has been made in the past, it would be best to acknowledge it and change the ordinance to define decorative block. Mr. Rickers commented that visual appeal is “trendy.” He acknowledged that decorative block is popular now. He felt the Commission should go with what looks nice.
COMMISSIONER PETERS MOVED TO APPROVE THE REQUEST BY WEEKLY STUDIES FOR A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR THEIR OFFICE/WAREHOUSE IN MIDVALLEY COMMERCE CENTER WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS:
1) THE 25% RULE FOR EXTERIOR WALLS BE A DECORATIVE BLOCK DEFINED AS A SPLIT FACE BLOCK AND NOT A CINDER BLOCK.
2) THERE BE NO OUTSIDE STORAGE WITHOUT A PRIOR REVIEW BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION.
3) THE DETENTION AREAS BE RECONFIGURED TO ACCOMMODATE TREES.
COMMISSIONER NIXON SECONDED THE MOTION. ALL PRESENT VOTED IN FAVOR. THE MOTION CARRIED.
7. Glacier Mountain Estates, Plat “A” - 600 North 300 East - Preliminary Subdivision Request
This is a request by the applicant for approval of a 13-lot subdivision in the R1-20 Zone (Residential).
Mr. Smith showed the Commissioners the location and proposed plat map of this application. He commented on the deep lot shown as Lot #10 being contiguous to the deep lot owned by the Spencers. He passed along a recommendation from the Development Review Committee that consideration be given to piping the North Union Canal.
Councilmember Bayless observed that although 600 North curved, it was named 600 North along the whole length. It was discussed and decided that changing the name would make the addresses confusing.
Mr. Smith explained that the Spencers claimed to have received a promise by the original property owner to grant access through this property when it is subdivided. The Spencers have a long, abnormally narrow access, but no documentation of this promise has been found in City records. The developers are showing Lot #10 as a deep lot, which, he explained, would be allowed by ordinance only if there was no other way to develop the lot since it was contiguous to another deep lot.
Commissioner Peters commented that seeing this application opening access on 600 North even further to the east deepens his concerns about the narrow area near Locust Avenue.
Mr. Brad Kenison of Hubble Engineering was present on behalf of Scotty Halls, the applicant and owner. Mr. Kenison questioned the recommendation to pipe the North Union Canal. He explained that the North Union Canal was not within the boundaries of this property, but that of Pheasant Hollow. He asked if the concern of the DRC was safety, or whether the piping is just preferred. He offered to provide a fence between the subdivision and the canal. Mr. Smith commented that the Canal Company owns the property. The Commissioners discussed determining who would benefit from the extra property if the canal were piped. It was decided that further research is needed to fairly distribute costs by the benefit derived. Ms. Mansfield commented that the owner of the orchard has not had to irrigate the trees because of leaks in the canal. Commissioner Peters asked her if she would like to see the ditch covered. She replied that she would like to see it piped, but she was not willing to pay for it. Mr. Kenison agreed and added that they were not willing to pay for it to be piped either, especially since it was not on their property. Mr. Smith commented that the North Union Canal probably could not afford to pay to pipe the canal.
Mr. Kenison returned the discussion to flag lot #10. He claimed that the Spencers would have access from future roads shown on the General Plan. Those roads were identified and discussed. Chairman Morse verified the width of the access to Lot #10 as 25-feet. Councilmember Bayless observed that the frontage on Lot #11 could be narrowed to allow adequate frontage for Lot #10. Mr. Kenison agreed that could be a solution, but both lots would be narrower. He claimed that flag lots always sold first because of the seclusion from the street. Mr. Smith pointed out problems with utility connections on deep lots. Councilmember Bayless observed that the deep lot was still not allowed because of its neighboring deep lot. Commissioner Nixon commented that deep lot configurations were not a preferred way to fill in lots on a property. He declared that this plan would not be acceptable with contiguous deep lots.
Mr. Kenison pointed out that the Spencers would eventually have access from a future street and so were not a “permanent” deep lot. Mr. Smith commented that deep lots could not be planned into a subdivision if it was just a way to get another lot. Councilmember Bayless added to Mr. Smith’s statement by saying that it was also not allowed if it was just a way to get a more valuable lot. Mr. Smith stated that the ordinance allowed deep lots only if there was no other way to develop the property. Councilmember Bayless commented that the developers would not lose a lot, they would just be, possibly, less desirable.
Ms. Mansfield asked if the pioneer house would stay on Lot #13. Mr. Kenison replied that the developer would prefer to tear it down. Mr. Smith observed that the home was historic and the City would prefer to preserve it. He allowed that the City would prefer that it not stay in the same condition as presently exists. Councilmember Bayless questioned the ownership of the pioneer home. Mr. Smith replied that the Millets owned the home. Councilmember Bayless asked about a possible restoration. Mr. Smith asked Mr. Kenison for six months for the City to explore the feasible options available for restoration of the pioneer home.
Mr. Kenison commented that the developers had tried to meet the General Plan and also to meet the needs of the other landowners. Mr. Kenison and the Commissioners discussed the wording of the ordinance dealing with deep lots. Councilmember Bayless commented that revising the subdivision plat without the deep lot was not impractical or impossible. Commissioner Nixon pointed out that deep lots must not adjoin in any manner. He suggested some wording for a motion to approve with no deep lot and a recommendation to the Council that options for cost sharing between the property owners, the Canal Company and the City be explored for piping the North Union Canal. Commissioner Peters agreed and commented that the options be explored before any fences are torn down near the Canal. Mr. Kenison and the Commissioners discussed pipe sizes and the concerns of the City Engineer in the piping of the Canal.
Chairman Morse asked if the Commissioners preferred to see the final design before approval. Commissioner Nixon suggested that Council review the final design and consider the recommendations of the Planning Commission. The Commissioners agreed.
COMMISSIONER NIXON MOVED TO APPROVE THE REQUEST BY SCOTTY HALLS FOR PRELIMINARY APPROVAL FOR GLACIER MOUNTAIN ESTATES, A 13-LOT SUBDIVISION, AND RECOMMEND APPROVAL TO THE CITY COUNCIL WITH THE FOLLOWING RECOMMENDATIONS:
1) THE DEEP LOT CONFIGURATION BE ELIMINATED FROM THE PLAT BECAUSE IT DOES NOT MEET THE CRITERIA OF THE ORDINANCE I.E. IT IS PRACTICAL AND IT BORDERS AN ADJACENT DEEP LOT.
2) THE COUNCIL CONSIDER A FORM OF COST SHARING TO PIPE THE NORTH UNION CANAL ON THE NORTH SIDES OF LOTS 1, 2, 3, AND 4.
COMMISSIONER ATCHISON SECONDED THE MOTION. ALL PRESENT VOTED IN FAVOR. THE MOTION CARRIED.
8. Lindon Mobile Home Park - 785 West 600 North - Expansion of a Non-conforming Use Hearing
This is a request by the owner of the park for approval to remove single-side wide mobile homes and set up double-wide manufactured homes.
Mr. Smith pinpointed the location of this application and explained that he had met with the City Attorney subsequent to the previous discussion of this application to get his opinion on a possible expansion of a non-conforming use. He declared that replacing the older mobile homes with new double-wide manufactured homes would be a definite improvement, however, parking and access were existing problems in the park which may be exacerbated by larger homes.
COMMISSIONER JOHANSON MOVED TO OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING. COMMISSIONER NIXON SECONDED THE MOTION. ALL PRESENT VOTED IN FAVOR. THE MOTION CARRIED.
Councilmember Bayless commented that there was no representation from the neighbors to the west of the mobile home park. She felt that the Commissioners would need their input because of the crime and traffic brought to their neighborhood by the park residents. She was concerned that any changes be made without their input.
Mr. John Hanson, owner of the Lindon Mobile Home Park, presented a site plan for a proposed installation of a double-wide home on the west side of the street. He explained that the home would be setback 50-feet from the edge of the street to allow for parking in front. He further commented that the park rules would be changed to allow only two vehicles per lot that had to be parked off the street. He was asked how the east side of the street would be affected by putting in double-wide homes, since the lots were not as deep. He commented that the east side of the street had three double-wide homes installed on lots already. There was little room for parking off-street. He told the Commissioners that the semi-truck driver had been put on notice for parking his truck in front of his home.
Mr. Hanson observed that a double-wide home attracts a different clientele than a single-wide home. Double-wide homes are commonly inhabited by young families starting out or older people cutting expenses. Single-wide homeowners are more transient. He wants to clean the park up and is gradually getting rid of the “bad apples.” He claimed to be in the process of eviction at the present time.
Chairman Morse verified with Mr. Hanson that the footings were different for setup of a double-wide home. Commissioner Anderson asked if the axles were removed. This was also verified by Mr. Hanson. The method of tying down the double-wide home was discussed.
Commissioner Nixon asked if the road could possibly be moved to the west to widen the traffic lanes and allow for parking on the east side. Mr. Hanson replied that as homes on the west side were moved, eventually the road could be widened and/or moved. He estimated 2 years. Commissioner Anderson asked if the sewer would still drain if the homes were moved west as proposed. He was assured that the sewer service would not be affected.
Commissioner Peters suggested that a portion of the road be widened for every three homes moved. Mr. Hanson objected to widening only portions of the road. He cited possible problems with other residents parking in the widened portions and blocking access, and deterioration of the asphalt due to the many edges.
Councilmember Bayless confirmed that Mr. Hanson did not intend to change the number of lots. Mr. Hanson told her that he was only proposing to change the size of the home, the setback of the homes on the west side and the quality of the homes in the park. Councilmember Bayless expressed concern about putting bigger homes on the same number of lots. She described the lots as cramped with single-wide homes and asked the estimated distance between homes. Mr. Hanson replied that the homes would be 8-10 feet apart. Commissioner Nixon commented that the narrowing of the distance between the homes would be offset by the widening of the road.
Commissioner Anderson asked Mr. Hanson about putting a turnaround or cul-de-sac at the end of the street to facilitate garbage pickup. Mr. Hanson told him that when the end trailer on the street was moved, he could allow space for a turnaround, but there was not enough room for a cul-de-sac.
Chairman Morse commented that a double-wide home could accommodate a larger family and expressed concern at the potentially larger numbers of people. Commissioner Peters agreed and suggested that a lot be eliminated. Mr. Hanson told the Commissioners that he could not eliminate a lot and make the park financially sound. He commented that the space rent was only $275 a month, out of which the utilities were paid to the City of about $65. He requested to just improve the spaces available.
Commissioner Anderson commented that he felt the trailers should be moved back from the street and the asphalt widened. Chairman Morse asked Mr. Hanson what the turnover rate of renters averaged. Mr. Hanson disclosed that the rate was slow because of the low availability of mobile home spaces in the area. Commissioner Peters asked if Mr. Hanson required standard treatment of the homes, like a certain type of fencing. Mr. Hanson replied that chain link was required. Commissioner Anderson asked if there was a possibility of homeowners fencing the parking area in front and the road not being widened. Commissioner Johanson agreed and asked that the area in front of the last three spaces now almost empty be paved. Commissioner Nixon also agreed and asked that Mr. Hanson pave that section of the road now. Mr. Hanson objected and stated that it did not make sense to pave the road piecemeal. Commissioner Nixon disagreed and claimed that every bit of widening would help the situation. Commissioner Anderson suggested that Mr. Hanson bond for the widening of the road. Mr. Hanson felt that widening the road would encourage more parking on the street. Chairman Morse expressed the opinion that any widening of the street would be a good thing. Commissioner Nixon again brought up the bond if Mr. Hanson was unwilling to install piecemeal. Chairman Morse asked if there was a way to ensure that residents did not park in the street. Commissioner Johanson suggested that the off-street parking be a condition of the rental contract. Mr. Hanson declared that it would be a tough thing to enforce.
Commissioner Nixon suggested that a performance bond be tendered for every 4 or 5 contiguous units. Mr. Hanson refused to bond. Commissioner Nixon explained the reasoning for possibly requiring a bond. He told Mr. Hanson that although he has said that he will widen and pave the street, no one knows what will happen in the future. The improvements to the street are important to the future of the neighborhood. If a bond is in place, the improvements will take place whether Mr. Hanson is able to do them or not. Mr. Hanson told the Commissioners that rather than bond, he would leave the single-wide trailers in place and not improve the trailer park at all.
Commissioner Peters suggested to Mr. Hanson that double-wide homes on the east side of the street have parking for one vehicle on each side of the home. On the west side, the homes will be moved back, the road widened, and the parking will be in front of each home. Mr. Hanson offered to pave 10-15 feet of new width on the street on the west side of the street. Commissioner Peters confirmed that the total width of the road would be 30-35 feet. Chairman Morse commented that this trailer park would never be a perfect situation, but this would improve the park considerably. Commissioner Peters suggested that the Commission give permission for the replacement of 3 units and then review the situation before giving permission for the replacement of any more units.
COMMISSIONER JOHANSON MOVED TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. COMMISSIONER ATCHISON SECONDED THE MOTION. ALL PRESENT VOTED IN FAVOR. THE MOTION CARRIED.
COMMISSIONER JOHANSON MOVED TO APPROVE THE REQUEST BY JOHN HANSON FOR APPROVAL TO EXPAND A LEGAL NON-CONFORMING USE BY REMOVING SINGLE-WIDE MOBILE HOMES AND REPLACING THEM WITH DOUBLE- WIDE MANUFACTURED HOMES IN THE LINDON MOBILE HOME PARK AT 785 WEST 600 NORTH. THE MOTION DIED FOR LACK OF A SECOND.
COMMISSIONER PETERS MOVED TO APPROVE THE REQUEST BY JOHN HANSON FOR APPROVAL TO EXPAND A LEGAL NON-CONFORMING USE BY REMOVING SINGLE-WIDE MOBILE HOMES AND REPLACING THEM WITH DOUBLE- WIDE MANUFACTURED HOMES IN THE LINDON MOBILE HOME PARK AT 785 WEST 600 NORTH WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS:
1) REMOVE THE ONE REMAINING SINGLE-WIDE MOBILE HOME TO MAKE THREE EMPTY LOTS AND PERMANENTLY INSTALL THREE DOUBLE-WIDE MANUFACTURED HOMES ON THE SOUTHWEST END OF THE STREET WITH A MINIMUM SETBACK OF 50 FEET TO THE EDGE OF THE STREET.
2) INSTALL A MINIMUM OF 12 FEET OF ADDITIONAL ASPHALT TO THE EXISTING ROAD IN FRONT OF THE THREE DOUBLE-WIDE HOMES, STRIPE THE STREET FOR NO PARKING AND CREATE A PAVED TURNAROUND TO BFI ‘S SPECIFICATIONS AT THE END OF THE STREET.
COMMISSIONER JOHANSON SECONDED THE MOTION. ALL PRESENT VOTED IN FAVOR. THE MOTION CARRIED.
9. Zoning Ordinance Map Amendments - Commercial Zone
This is a request by city staff to amend the Lindon City Zoning Map along State Street and 600 South and approximately 600 West to make in it consistent with the new General Plan.
COMMISSIONER JOHANSON MOVED TO OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING. COMMISSIONER ANDERSON SECONDED THE MOTION. ALL PRESENT VOTED IN FAVOR. THE MOTION CARRIED.
Mr. Smith explained that the present line between the Commercial and Residential zones lies 550 feet from the centerline of State Street. This line arbitrarily divides some properties between the zones. This is an attempt to square the line up with some property lines to solve potential problems with commercial enterprises locating next to or within residential subdivisions. He pointed out locations where the line is proposed to move to property lines.
Commissioner Peters inquired about a parcel on 600 North near Cambridge Farms. Mr. Smith explained that a development proposal would be coming before the Planning Commissioners soon that would put two offices on the rear of this parcel. The Commissioners discussed areas of change along State Street, 600 South, Geneva Road, and 800 West to the Commercial zone.
Mr. Lamar Barrington of 420 West 620 North told the Commissioners that he was a resident of one of the homes proposed to move from commercial to residential. He was also across the street from the development proposal mentioned earlier. He observed that the proposed business would request access to 600 North. He commented that the proposals discussed this evening would open 600 North all the way from 400 East to State Street which would likely increase the traffic use on 600 North. He objected to rezoning his home to residential in a neighborhood which may become unliveable. He would like to have his home remain in the commercial zone to facilitate a sale if this happens. He asked if the business could be restricted to access on State Street instead of the residential street.
Commissioner Nixon agreed with Mr. Barrington that the same or compatible uses should be on both sides of a street. He suggested that the line follow the back property lines and the three homes along the street remain in the commercial zone. Mr. Barrington asked about restricting access of commercial businesses onto State Street rather than allowing them access to 600 North. The Commissioners discussed the legalities and precedence of this issue.
Commissioner Nixon suggested moving the line either north to allow commercial on both sides of the street or south to keep the street residential. Mr. Smith explained that the line could not legally move south because the property owners had sold the parcel as a commercial parcel as presently zoned. The City could not arbitrarily downgrade the zoning to residential. Councilmember Bayless suggested leaving the zoning line where it is. Mr. Barrington told the Commissioners that the back of the parcel may be all right to access 600 North with only the two offices. However, the front of the parcel should be restricted to State Street. There was more discussion of the proposed offices and their purpose.
Chairman Morse asked if there were any further questions or comments.
COMMISSIONER JOHANSON MOVED TO CONTINUE THE REQUEST TO AMEND THE LINDON CITY ZONING MAP AS SHOWN IN EXHIBIT “A.” COMMISSIONER ATCHISON SECONDED THE MOTION. ALL PRESENT VOTED IN FAVOR. THE MOTION CARRIED.
10. Flyers Cheer Gym - 285 South 1250 West - Zoning Ordinance Amendment
The applicant is requesting to amend the zoning ordinance to allow special training school other than those related to industrial land uses in the Manufacturing Distribution Zone.
Mr. Smith presented the Commissioners with the proposed changes to Zoning Ordinance 17.49.040. Commissioner Nixon asked if a change to the Standard Land Use Table would be sufficient. Mr. Smith explained that the wording was necessary to restrict the use. He felt that a change to the Standard Land Use Table was too open. Chairman Morse asked for any comments.
Commissioner Nixon suggested a change in the wording about the time of operation. It was decided to leave the wording as is. The word “consistent” was changed to “compatible.” Mr. David Siddoway was asked about parking. He told the Commissioners that he had talked with the neighboring business owners and reported that they were agreeable to his business being in the same complex.
COMMISSIONER NIXON MOVED TO APPROVE THE REQUEST BY DAVID SIDDOWAY FOR A ZONING ORDINANCE AMENDMENT AS PRESENTED ALLOWING CHEER LEADING, GYMNASTICS, AND TUMBLING SCHOOLS IN THE MD ZONE WITH THE CORRECTION OF THE WORD “CONSISTENT” TO “COMPATIBLE.” COMMISSIONER JOHANSON SECONDED THE MOTION. ALL PRESENT VOTED IN FAVOR. THE MOTION CARRIED.
11. 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.
Planning Intern Adam Cowie presented the last three pages of the proposed Standard Land Use Table to the Commissioners for their review. Commissioner Nixon suggested that 6615 Building Construction - General Contractor, Office and Storage not be permitted in the residential zones.
Commissioner Nixon also felt that 7111 Libraries, 7112 Museums, 7113 Art Galleries and 7121 Planetaria, Aquariums, Botanical Gardens & Arboretums should not be allowed in the residential or mixed use zones. He suggested that all these uses be conditional in the R & B zone and the 7113 Art Galleries be permitted in the Mixed Commercial zone.
There were changes proposed and discussed for the 7213 Drive-In Movies, 7215 Public Dancing, 7221 Stadiums, 7222 Arenas/Field Houses, 7223 Race Tracks, and 7231 Auditoriums and Exhibit Halls. Changes were also made in the 7311 Fairgrounds, 7312 Amusement Parks, 7391 Arcades and Miniature Golf, and 7394 Go-Cart Tracks. Discussions were held on 7416 Riding Stables. Changes were proposed for 7411 Golf Courses &/or Country Clubs, 7413 Tennis Courts-Private, 7421 Playgrounds, Play Lots, & Tot Lots-Private, 7423 Play Fields & Athletic Fields (cml), 7424, Recreation Centers - General, 7425 Gymnasiums & Athletic Clubs, 7426 Health Spas, 7432 Swimming Pools - Commercial, 7433 Water Slides, and 7515 Hunting and Fishing Clubs.
The 8000 Series sparked a lot of discussion on the definition of a farm or ranch and Lindon’s motto “A Little Bit of Country.” It was decided to table this discussion until the next meeting.
12. Planning Directors Report
The Planning Director had no report.
ADJOURN
THE COMMISSIONERS ADJOURNED BY CONSENSUS AT 11:33 P.M.
Certified as Correct, June 27, 2001
Loren Morse, Chairman
Attest,
Kevin Smith, Planning Director |
|
|
