|
|
Home » City Government » Planning Commission » Minutes Archive; 2000 - 2002 » Planning Commission Minutes 2002 » May 8, 2002
May 8, 2002
The Lindon City Planning Commission held a regularly scheduled meeting on Wednesday, May 8, 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: Loren Morse
PRESENT
Loren Morse, Chairman
Ron Anderson, Commissioner
Lori Atchison, Commissioner
Bruce Carpenter, Commissioner
Marilyn Simister, Commissioner
Lindsey Bayless, Councilmember
Kevin Smith, Planning Director
Venla Gubler, Administrative Clerk
Karen Devine, Planning Intern ABSENT
Evan Nixon, Commissioner
Jim Peters, Commissioner
The Meeting began at 7:05 P.M.
1. MINUTES
Review of the Minutes of April 24, 2002.
The minutes of the regular meeting of April 24, 2002 were reviewed. No corrections were necessary.
COMMISSIONER CARPENTER MOVED TO APPROVE THE MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF APRIL 24, 2002. COMMISSIONER SIMISTER SECONDED THE MOTION. ALL PRESENT VOTED IN FAVOR. THE MOTION CARRIED.
2. PUBLIC COMMENT
Mr. Dan Harding, owner of the business Lindon Collision at 738 North State Street, told the Planning Commission that he has outgrown his current location and would like to move to another State Street location in Lindon. Chairman Morse asked Mr. Harding if he had a location in mind. Mr. Harding replied that he had looked at three locations. He had come before the Commissioners because auto repair businesses are no longer permitted on State Street and he would like to keep his State Street exposure. Commissioner Atchison asked Mr. Harding how large of a space he was contemplating. Mr. Harding replied that he needs more than his current space of 4000 square feet.
Commissioner Carpenter asked Mr. Harding if he felt that his business was dependent on the State Street exposure. Mr. Harding replied yes and explained that the traffic on State Street was more residential commuters compared to Geneva Road’s truck and commercial traffic. Commissioner Anderson asked if he would require an impound yard for towing. Mr. Harding replied that he did not need one now, but may need one in the future. Chairman Morse asked how he stores his cars now. Mr. Harding replied that cars that are getting worked on are stored in the shop and those waiting for repairs were stored in the yard in the back of the property. Chairman Morse asked if the new property would be similar. Mr. Harding replied yes and commented that he preferred the security of a fence on his storage area. The Commissioners and Mr. Harding discussed the parking situation at his current location.
Mr. Smith observed that the Standard Land Use Table had been recently amended to prohibit general auto repair in the Commercial zone. He noted that the number of businesses are not changing, but the business is expanding and moving to a new location. Commissioner Carpenter expressed his opinion that allowing a business to move would be contrary to the intent of the amendment. Chairman Morse asked Mr. Harding if he has looked for a new location west of Geneva Road. Mr. Harding replied yes and commented that he would lose his insurance contracts if he moved from State Street. Commissioner Anderson commented that some locations west of Geneva Road were hard to find and that may be one reason for the lack of successful repair businesses in that area. Chairman Morse agreed with Commissioner Carpenter’s assessment of the intent of the amendment and commented that the City Council should be consulted.
Mr. Smith observed that the City Council had a vision of Lindon’s limited State Street corridor that encourages retail development and phases out other uses. They have provided another high traffic area on Geneva Road for these other uses. Mr. Harding commented that both of Lindon’s collision repair businesses were located on State Street. Commissioner Anderson commented on the aesthetic and parking issues generally experienced by the auto repair businesses. He added that, with Lindon’s relatively short State Street corridor, most retail businesses do not want to locate next to them. Mr. Smith also commented that although Mr. Harding’s business may be cared for and clean, others in this business are not so particular. Commissioner Carpenter agreed, but noted that Lindon residents need to have their cars fixed also. Chairman Morse suggested again that Mr. Harding address the Open Session at the City Council meeting for their input.
3. NEW BUSINESS (Reports by Commissioners)
Commissioner Anderson noted that the sight obstructing sign on Geneva Road had not been removed. Mr. Smith replied that he would check into it. Commissioner Anderson asked about the zoning of the shop building behind a home on Geneva Road. Mr. Smith replied that the zone is Mixed Commercial as Commissioner Anderson had questioned. He noted though that this is a legal nonconforming residential use. He asked if the Commission would consider this building an expansion of a legal nonconforming use or if new structures would be required to meet the architectural and landscaping standards of the current zone. Commissioner Anderson asked if this building could have been built in the residential zone to the east of its current location. Mr. Smith replied yes.
Commissioner Anderson observed that as long as the homeowner uses the building for a non-business use it was permitted as a legal nonconforming use and/or a home occupation. If a business locates its operation in the shop, it must be brought up to the standards of the current mixed commercial zone. Mr. Smith agreed.
Commissioner Carpenter asked the status of the McOmber application. Mr. Smith replied that the McOmbers had withdrawn their application and would not be building in Lindon City. The Commissioners discussed C,C & R’s and how they affect the R2 Overlay and animal ordinances.
4. WASATCH TIMBER - 292 NORTH 2000 WEST - SITE PLAN APPLICATION
This is a request for approval of a wood products manufacturing facility in Mid Valley Commerce Center.
Chairman Morse determined that the applicant was not present yet. It was decided that this item would be continued for later discussion and to allow the applicant to appear.
5. KIDS KAMPUS - 496 NORTH 900 EAST - CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT
This is a request for approval of a preschool/daycare in a residential zone.
Ms. Annette Belnap presented her request for a preschool and dance studio in her home. Mr. Smith displayed an overhead transparency of her area and another of her home. He commented that her request is similar to many home businesses in town. Staff’s concerns center around the home occupation restriction of a business occupying a maximum of 25% of the total floor space or 500 square feet, whichever is less, and the parking and drop off–pick up traffic patterns. He compared this application with a dance studio nearby that had problems with neighborhood traffic complaints.
The Commissioners discussed the floor plan and the dimensions of the rooms. It was estimated that the two main rooms that would be used for the school and dance studio would be a total of 519 square feet, which is close to the maximum of 500 square feet and less than 25% of the total square footage of the home. It was noted that this did not include the hallway or the bathroom which were not used exclusively for the school, but used by the family also.
Commissioner Anderson asked Ms. Belnap to discuss the parking situation. Ms. Belnap explained that preschool would be held on Monday, Wednesday, and Friday with no more than 12 students at any given time. Dance classes will be held on Tuesday and Thursday with only six students per class. She added that the parents of the children have been informed that they will not be allowed to stay and watch, and are requested to car pool. They will be dropping off their children to teachers who will be waiting at the curb to escort them into the classroom. She presented signatures of the neighbors that she had talked with about her plans for a preschool and dance school. Commissioner Atchison commented that the City’s main concern will be parking and traffic problems that cause the neighbors to complain. The neighborhood homes that may be affected were compared to the signatures submitted. Commissioner Anderson noted that some lots and homes were presently unoccupied and there will be conflict as these areas fill.
Commissioner Carpenter observed that the ordinance requires a home occupation to be carried on entirely in the home by the residents and family members. Ms. Belnap reported that the other teachers are her sisters-in-law. Commissioner Anderson asked how many personal vehicles would be at the home. Ms. Belnap replied that her personal vehicle will be in the garage and her sisters-in-law will bring one more car. The start times of classes and the number of children were discussed. Special performances and events were discussed and Ms. Belnap disclosed that these would be held at an alternate location like the junior high school.
Commissioner Carpenter asked if the pick-up policy would be similar to the drop-off policy. Ms. Belnap agreed and commented that the children would be ready on the front porch. Commissioner Carpenter verified that parents would not be parking in the cul-de-sac. Ms. Belnap confirmed this statement. Commissioners Atchison and Simister commented that the parking could work if Ms. Belnap makes sure that parents know the policy. Commissioner Carpenter warned Ms. Belnap that complaints from the neighbors would jeopardize her approval.
Mr. Smith questioned the Commission on Ms. Belnap’s outside employees–her sisters-in-law that did not reside at the home. Chairman Morse observed that the preschool would need more than one adult to deal with the children. Commissioner Carpenter commented that this provision of the ordinance was a mechanism to keep the business small and minimize the impact on the neighborhood. The Commissioners asked Councilmember Bayless if the intent of the provision was family members only or family members that reside in the home. Councilmember Bayless replied that the intent was family members that reside in the home–no outside family. Chairman Morse agreed that, in most cases, limiting the employees to those who reside in the home limits the scope of the business. However, in the case of a preschool, it makes sense to have the help of more adults for the safety and care of the children.
Mr. Smith suggested that the Commission may need to review the ordinance and make a recommendation to the Council. Commissioner Atchison suggested that the ordinance could make specific mention of preschools and the need for adult employees to supervise. Other businesses in Lindon that had outgrown the home occupation requirements were discussed. Commissioner Anderson asked Ms. Belnap’s plans for expansion. Ms. Belnap replied that she had a waiting list and did not plan to take on more students. Her purpose is to have fun with the children and not get so big it becomes a job. Commissioner Carpenter asked what liability the City may have if the Commissioners know a business is employing outside help and then intentionally ignores that part of the statute. Mr. Smith verified that the Commission was in favor of approving this business except for the outside employee issue. Chairman Morse suggested that the Commissioners could approve the application with the stipulation that Ms. Belnap comply with the statutes. Commissioner Simister suggested that the dance studio part of the business could be approved. Commissioner Carpenter agreed with Chairman Morse. Commissioner Anderson commented that if there were complaints the approval could be rescinded.
Councilmember Bayless expressed a concern that if the business was approved without the other teacher employees, it may compound the parking problem because the parents would have to escort their own children into the school. Commissioner Atchison suggested that the ordinance be revisited to allow the extra teachers. The Commissioners discussed the employee requirements. Chairman Morse asked when Ms. Belnap was starting classes. Ms. Belnap replied that she planned to start classes in September. Chairman Morse suggested that this latitude in time would allow the Commission and Council to examine the ordinance and possibly amend it.
COMMISSIONER ATCHISON MOVED TO CONTINUE THE REQUEST BY ANNETTE BELNAP FOR APPROVAL OF KIDS KAMPUS, A DANCE SCHOOL/PRESCHOOL AT 496 NORTH 900 EAST TO ALLOW THE COMMISSION TO REVISIT THE RESIDENT EMPLOYEE PROVISION OF THE HOME OCCUPATION ORDINANCE. COMMISSIONER ANDERSON SECONDED THE MOTION. ALL PRESENT VOTED IN FAVOR. THE MOTION CARRIED.
6. ZONING ORDINANCE AMENDMENT - DISCUSSION ITEMS
a. 17.46. - R2 Overlay Ordinance: The Planning Commission will review and discuss various amendments to the R2 Overlay ordinance. Staff has also prepared new district maps which will be presented at the meeting.
Mr. Smith observed that the Commissioners have talked about amending various provisions of the R2 Overlay ordinance over the last several months and he would like clarification of what needs redefinition and/or reworking in the ordinance. He noted that the most recent question had been raised during the McOmber duplex request. A request had been made for a provision that would make it illegal for C, C&R’s to restrict multi-family housing. He commented that C, C&R’s try to preempt state code and state mandates with agreements between neighbors. He added that adding a provision to the City Code would not keep developers from recording C, C&R’s or trying to restrict multi-family housing, but it would allow for court action. Commissioner Carpenter suggested that the new provision not only prohibit restrictions on multi-family housing but prohibit restrictions which by their implementation will prohibit multi-family housing. The moderate income housing statute was discussed.
Commissioner Simister commented that some C, C&R’s also exclude animal rights. Mr. Smith observed that it may be easier to mandate that C, C&R’s not restrict affordable housing because of the State mandate than the animal rights would. Commissioner Carpenter commented that care needs to be taken to avoid negating all C, C&R’s. Mr. Smith agreed.
Mr. Smith mentioned that the two front door issue was another one questioned. The Commissioners discussed the fact that many homes have what appear to be two front doors. Commissioner Carpenter suggested that the ordinance could be rephrased to say “access to the area containing the secondary kitchen is not at the front of the home.” Commissioner Anderson asked if this amendment was really necessary. Mr. Smith replied that most homes do not look like a duplex, but that is the assumption when there are two front doors.
Mr. Smith asked about reducing the number of units in a project to less than six units per acre. Commissioner Anderson commented that if it was reduced below six, then a triplex could not be built on a half acre lot. Commissioner Carpenter observed that not having a triplex may be the reason for reducing the number. The situation on 200 South was discussed. Mr. Smith commented that he had recently received a pamphlet from the Urban Land Institute that addresses the concern about devaluation of neighboring parcels by the construction of multi-family housing units. He noted the Institute found that appreciation rates of property were not noticeably different from properties near a multi-family project than they were away from that project. Commissioner Anderson suggested that reducing the density may make multi-family projects economically unfeasible. Commissioner Atchison commented that multi-family projects always raise public clamor and then asked if reducing the density would reduce the number of people opposed to these projects. She added she did not feel that reducing the density would have the effect being strived for– it would not accomplish reducing the controversy. The Commissioners agreed.
Commissioner Atchison questioned amending the 4% rule. Mr. Smith discussed the district re-portioning. Councilmember Bayless commented that Mayor Ellertson had a concern about the 4% rule, growth share and build-out of a district. Mr. Smith explained that the Mayor’s concern addressed the 750-foot distance requirement in conjunction with the build-out limit of 4%. Commissioner Carpenter observed that the ordinance places two limits on determining when a district is full. One limit may take effect before the other. Councilmember Bayless commented that the State mandate requires that moderate income housing should be made available. It is an opportunity. Mr. Smith replied that the Mayor had commented that a district will never achieve the 4% proportion because of the 750-foot distance separation. Commissioner Anderson commented on how the growth share is calculated. This was discussed and explained.
Commissioner Carpenter suggested that a pamphlet be produced which will explain the R2 Overlay to residents and prospective residents. He also suggested that the pamphlet be included in all mailings that notice a neighborhood of a potential R2 project and included as a requirement in the City Code. Commissioner Anderson suggested that rather than change the density from six units per acre, to change the total size of a project. Mr. Smith noted that the more affordable units are those that have more units in one location. Chairman Morse observed that most of the objections to multi-family housing occur because of a lack of understanding. He added that the pamphlet will help residents’ understanding of the statutes, the principles of moderate income housing, and the R2 Overlay ordinance. Mr. Smith commented that he would bring this proposed amendment back to the Planning Commission at a later date.
4. WASATCH TIMBER - 292 NORTH 2000 WEST - SITE PLAN APPLICATION
This is a request for approval of a wood products manufacturing facility in Mid Valley Commerce Center.
Mr. Mark Finlayson of Wasatch Timber was now present. Mr. Smith displayed an overhead transparency of the location and the site plan. He noted that an issue on the plat was the shared access across the storm water ditch on 2000 West. He added that there were not many concerns of the staff on this proposal. He pointed out the gravel storage yard. He commented that the building proposed was attractive.
Mr. Finlayson described his business as a timber framing company in the old-time post and beam method. They also produce and sell hardwood doors. Chairman Morse asked if the property is viewable from I-15. Mr. Finlayson replied that it faced away from the freeway and was near an overpass that blocked most of the view. Chairman Morse asked about parking requirements. Mr. Finlayson replied that he would use the back area for employee parking and a storage awning for timber. The number of employees was determined at six presently with a potential of 12 later. Mr. Smith commented that the building was mostly warehouse space with an office on the front. Commissioner Anderson asked if the business had any retail sales. Mr. Finlayson replied that there were some retail sales of doors through the referral of contractors. Commissioner Anderson commented that some customer parking would need to be designated. Mr. Finlayson replied that the parking in front was reserved for customers and the gravel parking in back was reserved for employees.
Commissioner Carpenter questioned the route of delivery trucks into the parcel. Mr. Finlayson explained that the trucks would enter the parcel over the culvert on the storm water ditch and go east to the back of the lot, turn and return over the same culvert. Commissioner Carpenter asked the width of the bridge/culvert. Mr. Smith replied 36 feet. Commissioner Anderson questioned the fence on the south line of the property. Mr. Finlayson replied that they would like to propose that the fence not be constructed for now to make sure there is enough accessibility to the back of the parcel. The landscaping on the storm water ditch was discussed. Storage of timber was disclosed to be within the warehouse, which will hold approximately 30,000 board feet.
COMMISSIONER CARPENTER MOVED TO APPROVE THE REQUEST FOR SITE PLAN APPROVAL FOR WASATCH TIMBER AT 292 NORTH 2000 WEST. COMMISSIONER ATCHISON SECONDED THE MOTION. ALL PRESENT VOTED IN FAVOR. THE MOTION CARRIED.
6b. 17.08.080 - Planning Commission Variance: The Planning Commission will review and discuss the necessity of this code section.
Mr. Smith commented that the first time he looked at this ordinance, his decision had been to repeal it as unnecessary. He added that after thinking about it, he felt that this may allow the Planning Commission to modify the standards of the ordinances without having to resort to the Board of Adjustments. He cited the example of Northwest Fence as a time when this ordinance may have been useful. He observed that this standard for Conditional Use Permits will allow modification of the requirements in certain circumstances.
Chairman Morse commented that it is usually a “major production” to obtain a variance. Mr. Smith observed that this ordinance would allow changes without modifying the code. Commissioner Anderson asked if this pertained to conditional uses only. Mr. Smith replied yes and added that it applied to design and improvement standards of conditional uses only. The ordinance was discussed. Mr. Smith commented that applicants will find it difficult to meet the criteria of this standard. Commissioner Carpenter asked if Mr. Smith had revised his decision to repeal the ordinance. Mr. Smith agreed and expressed the opinion that it may save the Planning Commission and Council some work.
Councilmember Bayless asked what advantage this ordinance would have over referring items to the Board of Adjustment. Mr. Smith replied that the Board of Adjustment is more strict in its application of criteria. He added that this will give the Planning Commission and Council the ability to grant variances in certain circumstances, but questioned whether the Planning Commission and Council want that authority. Chairman Morse commented that if an applicant desires a variance to the design and improvement standards for their conditional use permit, this may be presented at a hearing. He noted that it would not be used often and the applicant must convince both the Planning Commission and the City Council that the changes are needed. Mr. Smith commented that if the Commission and Council are not convinced, the applicant can apply to change the City Code.
Mr. Smith suggested that this provision be amended to add more criteria for consideration of a variance. Chairman Morse agreed and suggested that the criteria be more stringent.
1. 17.49.060 - Landscaping along I-15: The Planning Commission will review and discuss possible changes to the landscaping requirement for businesses locating along I-15.
Mr. Smith observed that he was not sure that the landscaping provision of the Transportation Zone was accomplishing what was intended. He commented that the west side of the freeway could not be planted with trees because of the high pressure gas line. The present ordinance requires 20 feet of landscaping on the street side of the lot and 10 feet on the freeway side of the lot.
Commissioner Anderson expressed the opinion that the landscaping requirement was a good idea, however, there is little land left to develop along the freeway since most is already developed. What is left must meet the requirements of the new mixed commercial zone which has more stringent landscaping standards than the old light industrial zone. Mr. Smith agreed and commented that the trees are an integral component of the landscaping requirement and their placement is an important question. He suggested that a presentation of slides showing various examples of landscaping design along the I-15 corridor may be appropriate.
Chairman Morse observed that the setback of businesses along the freeway is also important. He noted that when businesses are set too close to the freeway, it becomes an “alley.” Commissioner Carpenter suggested that attractive buildings are possibly more important than the landscaping. Chairman Morse commented that having the back side of buildings face the freeway was part of that problem. The Commissioners discussed the Ken Smith buildings that solve both the space and attractive front issues on the I-15 frontage. Mr. Smith suggested that this design standard could be put into the ordinance. Commissioner Anderson expressed the opinion that since there was not that much to develop, trying to change the ordinance now was about 30 years too late. Mr. Smith asked Commissioner Anderson if the landscaping requirement should be repealed. Commissioner Anderson said yes and noted that any amendment would only affect the Jarrett parcel. The other vacant land was zoned mixed commercial and would fall under its restrictions and requirements.
Chairman Morse asked if the freeway frontage should continue to look the way it is. Commissioners Atchison and Simister replied no. Commissioner Anderson asked how to make the businesses already located there change their appearance. He did not feel that the appearance of Lindon’s freeway frontage could be changed.
Various examples of attractive locations on I-15 were discussed. Mr. Smith commented that he would prepare a slide show for further discussion.
5. PLANNING DIRECTOR’S REPORT - Status report on the following:
1. URMMA Training
Mr. Smith reminded the Commissioners that some still needed to complete the URMMA training video. He also informed them of a Design versus Density Seminar on May 17 for those that were available. He noted that work is progressing on the west side residential master plan for presentation in July or August. He reminded the Commissioners of the Non-Violence Training Session scheduled for May 28 at 6:30 p.m. Discussion was held on future meeting dates. It was noted that the July 24 meeting was cancelled for the holiday. The August 14 meeting was moved to August 7. He reported that a review of the Planning Commission bylaws is scheduled for the next meeting to discuss the policy of Alternate Commissioners.
ADJOURN
THE PLANNING COMMISSION ADJOURNED BY CONSENSUS AT 9:42 P.M.
APPROVED - May 22, 2002
_______________________________________
Loren Morse, Chairman
Attest,
_______________________________________
Kevin Smith, Planning Director |
|
|
