|
|
Home » City Government » Planning Commission » Minutes Archive; 2000 - 2002 » Planning Commission Minutes 2001 » September 26, 2001
September 26, 2001
The Lindon City Planning Commission held a regularly scheduled meeting Wednesday, September 26, 2001, in the Lindon City Center Council Chambers at 100 North State Street, Lindon, Utah.
Conducting: Loren Morse, Chairman
Invocation: James Peters
PRESENT
Loren Morse, Chairman
Ron Anderson, Commissioner
Lori Atchison, Commissioner
Bill Johanson, Commissioner
Evan Nixon, Commissioner
James Peters, Commissioner
Lindsey Bayless, Councilmember
Kevin Smith, Planning Director
Venla Gubler, Administrative Clerk
Matt Perkins, Planning Intern
ABSENT
Evan Nixon, Commissioner
The Meeting began at 7:03 P.M.
MINUTES
Review of the Minutes of September 12, 2001.
The minutes of the regularly scheduled meeting of September 12, 2001 were reviewed. The following corrections were made:
Page 2, Line 37,38: Replace the phrase “just a wall separating” with the phrase “using the wall as a building to separate.”
Page 2, Line 43: Delete the sentence “This did not seem, however, to be as much of a concern to the other commissioners.”
Page 3, Line 2,3: Add the sentence “There was some concern expressed by the Commissioners about the jog shown in the building/fence on the southeast corner of the property.”
Page 6, Line 32,33: Replace the phrase “he considered himself in” with the phrase “that in order to avoid the appearance of a,”
Page 6, Line 33: Replace the phrase “and asked to” with the phrase “he would.”
COMMISSIONER ATCHISON MOVED TO APPROVE THE MINUTES OF THE REGULARLY SCHEDULED MEETING OF SEPTEMBER 12, 2001 AS CORRECTED. COMMISSIONER PETERS SECONDED THE MOTION. ALL PRESENT VOTED IN FAVOR. THE MOTION CARRIED.
PUBLIC COMMENT
Ms. Susan Earl, 873 West Center, expressed concern about the business proposed by Mr. Larsen at the last meeting during the public comment section. She claimed that the businesses in this area were creating noise and dust to the detriment of the residents. She considered Mr. Larsen’s parcel as a buffer to the rest of the businesses, so if he develops the parcel, the problems will now be right within the homes. She mentioned that Anderson Components works all night and Hansen Insulation starts up at 3 a.m. She commented that Mr. Larsen has told her that his business will be coming in at 5:30 am. Chairman Morse thanked Ms. Earl for coming and giving the Planning Commission her comments. He asked Mr. Smith to notify her when Mr. Larsen’s application comes before the Planning Commission so that she can attend. Ms. Earl observed that Mr. Larsen’s business will border her home on two sides. She was asked what kind of wall she would prefer on her borders. She expressed the opinion that she would prefer a masonry wall.
Harlow Clark, newspaper representative, asked if Bookmobile stops could be marked by signs. He was asked to talk to Mr. Smith.
NEW BUSINESS
Commissioner Peters mentioned that the Verl Christensen had sold his home on Locust Avenue. The new owner was using the parcel for a gravel storage yard. Mr. Smith noted that a zoning violation has been filed on this owner.
Chairman Morse commented that his son had been hit by a deer in his car. Chairman Morse commented that his son’s car had been hit by a car. He wondered if there was something that could be done about the urban wildlife issue from a planning standpoint.
CURRENT BUSINESS
1. Steve Francom Motors - 130 South State Street - Conditional Use Permit
This is a request for approval for a used car sales lot.
Mr. Smith commented that this is a request for a car lot next to Walkers on State Street. He noted that this will be the last car lot allowed since this application was received before the Standard Land Use Table review. This will make a total of 5 dealers on State Street. Commissioner Anderson observed that car dealers can still go in the other zones, just not on State Street.
Mr. Smith displayed the proposed site plan and commented that the Planning Commission and City Council need to review the future status of Main Street. It has been proposed that Main Street connect to State Street in a “T” and this business will be responsible to put in the improvements on his side of the street. The City will possibly have to improve the other side. Commissioner Peters commented that there had been a discussion of closing this entrance to Main Street off State Street. Mr. Smith agreed and observed that the City Council will need to discuss this issue. Commissioner Peters asked Councilmember Bayless if the Council had talked recently of closing Main Street. She replied that they had not talked of it recently. Councilmember Bayless observed that if Main Street was closed, the home on the southeast corner may have access problems. Also there is a potential road between the two homes on the southeast end of Main Street that will access the property in the rear of the homes, that may have difficulty accessing Main Street if it is closed. Chairman Morse asked Mr. Francom if access from Main Street was important to his business. Mr. Francom replied that most of his business would be from State Street.
Mr. Smith showed the proposed site plan and elevations of the business. Commissioner Nixon asked Mr. Smith relayed Commissioner Nixon’s concerns to Mr. Francom about the entrances off State Street. Mr. Francom commented that UDOT would allow him two entrances. Commissioner Nixon expressed the Mr. Smith expressed Commissioner Nixon’s opinion that there should be only one entrance off State Street for safety. Chairman Morse questioned Mr. Francom about off-street parking. Mr. Smith noted that there were enough off-street parking spaces on the site plan to accommodate both customers and employees. Mr. Smith suggested that the Commissioners verify the purpose of the storage area.
Mr. Francom requested to be allowed to only put the vinyl fence on the State Street frontage. He suggested that he put asphalt to the property edge along Main Street. Commissioner Atchison commented that she felt the Main Street frontage should be landscaped. Commissioner Peters suggested a fence along the Walkers property line. He mentioned the loitering problem at Walkers and the safety of the business. Mr. Francom replied that he was aware of the problem at Walkers and had planned a fence on the property line. He was just not sure yet what kind of fence he wanted to install.
Mr. Francom observed that the service bays in the building would be used to wash and detail the cars for sale on the lot. Commissioner Atchison asked if Mr. Francom had a particular reason for needing two driveways off State Street. Mr. Francom replied that one entrance would be sufficient since the Walkers had given him permission to use their entrance in front of the car wash. Commissioner Peters verified that Mr. Francom intended to retain the entrance closest to Main Street. He asked Mr. Smith if there was any requirement to have more than one restroom in a public building. Mr. Smith replied that the UBC requires one unisex restroom.
Chairman Morse asked Mr. Francom the maximum amount of cars he anticipated on the lot. Mr. Francom replied that the average would be about 50. There was a discussion on the maximum density of cars to allow on the lot. Mr. Smith noted that the site plan showed 39. Mr. Francom showed the Commissioners how the site plan did not show all the spaces that cars could be parked easily. Commissioner Peters commented that if too many cars are allowed, the customer parking is used for sales and then customers will park on State Street.
Commissioner Anderson asked the purpose of the storage area. Mr. Francom replied that this is a secure area for cars waiting to be cleaned up and displayed. Commissioner Peters asked Mr. Francom’s plans for a sign. Mr. Francom stated that the sign would be a low profile sign on one side or other of the driveway. Commissioner Atchison verified that the surface of the car lot would be asphalt.
Commissioner Peters asked what the staff recommendation is for Main Street. Mr. Smith replied that the site should be finished according to the ordinance. The Commissioners discussed the fence installed by the previous owner on State Street and Main Street. The corner adjustment for Main Street was delivered from the engineer’s office and displayed. Chairman Morse commented that the corner change would take out some landscaping. Mr. Francom observed that he had planned to use that area to showcase a particular car. Commissioner Anderson asked if this corner change where Main Street connects to State Street is something that need to be done now. Mr. Smith observed that the City Engineer felt it is necessary for safety. Mr. Francom wondered about closing Main Street as talked about Commissioner Anderson observed that people on that street would resist a closing. He commented that the property along that street is zoned commercial and the street would probably end up staying open to State Street.
Mr. Ken Anderson, an associate of Mr. Francom, suggested that the business put up a bond for the corner to be used when the decision is made. Mr. Smith noted that the City Council will make the decision with a Planning Commission recommendation. Commissioner Anderson questioned whether the City would buy the property to make the corner change, or whether it would be considered part of the development of the project and the developer required to dedicate the property for the street. Mr. Smith indicated that dedication will be required.
Mr. Francom expressed the opinion that changing the corner seems to be a greater hazard than leaving it the way it is. He pointed out that motorists don’t slow down to make the corner now. He also noted that there is no place to pull over out of traffic to slow and make the turn. There was a discussion of the lane that merges to the left near there. Commissioner Peters recommended that Center Street be closed and commented that he thinks the neighbors will welcome the closure.
The Commissioners discussed the Main Street approach to State Street. They discussed the possibilities of a bond from the developer. Commissioner Johanson suggested that the work on the Francom side be done now rather than bond, and then do the other side later. He felt that the change would be safer for right turns. There was discussion of the amount of property involved in the change. Mr. Smith pointed out that closing the street would require a cul-de-sac with a radius of 100-feet that would take more property then the change to a “T” intersection.
Mr. Anderson pointed out that they would prefer to not install a sidewalk on Center Street. He asserted that “people don’t walk there.” The Commissioners observed that there is a school and church nearby that people walk to.
Mr. Smith noted that the Planning Commissioners could hold this application until a decision is made on the corner approach by the City Council. Commissioner Peters suggested that all of the site could be developed except the corner. Chairman Morse suggested that Main Street could stay as is for now, but he felt the landscaping should be completed there. Commissioner Johanson expressed the opinion that Main Street should be walkable. Mr. Smith noted that the ordinance requires sidewalk and landscaping. Mr. Francom pointed out that there is no sidewalk on the Walker property on Main Street. Mr. Smith replied that the Walker property was developed under an earlier ordinance.
Chairman Morse commented that the Planning Commissioners and Council needed to make a decision on Main Street before delay is detrimental to the property owners. He asked how soon Mr. Francom planned to start on the project. Mr. Francom replied that he wanted to install the asphalt before cold weather. Commissioner Peters suggested that a request be made to the City Engineer to take another look at the plan for a changed corner. Mr. Smith suggested that the site plan be approved without the corner. Commissioner Peters questioned if a bond should be required or if they should just leave corner on hold until a decision is made. Mr. Smith suggested a bond.
Commissioner Peters returned to the subject of the fence between Walkers and this application. Mr. Francom said that the plan was for chain link fence. Commissioner Peters commented that the fence did not show on the site plan. Mr. Anderson clarified that the fence would only enclose the outside storage area.
Commissioner Atchison suggested that the sidewalk on Main Street be specified as either a meandering or straight sidewalk. This was discussed and decided to have a straight sidewalk.
Chairman Morse suggested that the Planning Commission specify a maximum number of cars for sale on the lot. Mr. Francom requested a maximum of 75 and showed how this number could be accommodated without the customers parking on State Street. This lot was compared to others along the street.
Chairman Morse requested Mr. Smith to expedite a decision on the corner. The number of cars were discussed and a decision was made to limit them to 60.
COMMISSION PETERS MOVED TO APPROVE THE REQUEST BY STEVE FRANCOM FOR A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR STEVE FRANCOM MOTORS, AN AUTO SALES LOT, AT 130 SOUTH STATE STREET WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS:
1. THAT THE APPLICANT PROVIDE A SIDEWALK ON MAIN STREET ACCORDING TO CITY ORDINANCE.
2. THAT THE APPLICANT BOND FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE CORNER UNTIL THE CITY DETERMINES HOW THE INTERSECTION WILL BE.
3. SUGGEST THAT THE APPLICANT PUT IN TWO RESTROOMS.
4. THAT THE MAXIMUM LIMIT OF CARS ON THE LOT AT ONE TIME BE 60 SO THAT CUSTOMER PARKING IS ADEQUATELY PROVIDED FOR.
5. THAT THE ENTRANCES ON STATE STREET BE LIMITED TO ONE AND THE ENTRANCE SHOWN NEAREST TO WALKERS BE ELIMINATED.
6. THAT LANDSCAPING, FENCE AND SIDEWALK ON THE SITE BE INSTALLED PER CITY CODE.
COMMISSIONER ANDERSON SECONDED THE MOTION. ALL PRESENT VOTED IN FAVOR. THE MOTION CARRIED.
2. Goodfellow Corp. - 390 North 2000 West - Conditional Use Permit Amendment
This is a request for approval to expand the current Goodfellow Corporation storage yard into the old I-15 rest stop property.
It was noted that a representative for Goodfellow was not present. The Commissioners briefly discussed problems with this site such as dead trees that have not been replaced and a substandard “shed.” Mr. Smith commented that Goodfellow had a new manager named Rich Hanson. He told the Commissioners that Mr. Hanson had been provided with a copy of the minutes of meetings pertaining to this business. The Commissioners requested that previously imposed conditions be complied with or action will be taken to revoke the conditional use permit. Chairman Morse asked Mr. Smith to invite Mr. Hanson for a review.
COMMISSIONER JOHANSON MOVED TO CONTINUE THE REQUEST BY RICH HANSON FOR AN AMENDMENT TO THE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR GOODFELLOW CORP. AT 390 NORTH 2000 WEST UNTIL OCTOBER 26TH. COMMISSIONER ATCHISON SECONDED THE MOTION. ALL PRESENT VOTED IN FAVOR. THE MOTION CARRIED.
3. Timpanogos Special Service District - Discussion Item
Garland Mayne from the waste water treatment plant would like to discuss the concept of an odor easement with the Planning Commission.
Mr. Smith introduced Mr. Garland Mayne from the Timpanogos Special Service District and observed that he was present to discuss some development issues. Mr. Garland Mayne introduced himself as the manager of the facility and then introduced Mr. Larry Bowen, engineer and Mr. Craig Carlisle, attorney. Mr. Mayne observed that with the growth of the surrounding cities getting closer and closer to the facility, they were investigating innovative ways to protect the facility. One way is to have an odor easement for a one mile radius around the facility. He presented Mr. Carlisle to explain the odor easement.
Mr. Carlisle distributed the proposed odor easement ordinance and explained that this may help to address problems that may occur in future with development. He commented that in his research into other communities’ solution to this problem, and specifically in Clark County, Nevada, zoning seems to be the best approach. He proposed that the odor easement apply to the surrounding area in a one mile radius as an overlay zone. Each developer and homeowner within this area will be required to sign an easement before a building permit is issued. If they are granted the right to develop after this signature, they will not be able to challenge the operation of the Special Service District. Mr. Carlisle claimed that this solution will protect the District’s ability to provide service.
Commissioner Peters observed that the proposal does not specify what the District will do to reduce or eliminate odors from being created. He commented that this easement is essentially a license to create odor. Mr. Mayne replied that the District is required to comply with standards and is regularly inspected by the County, State and EPA. He claimed that the aerobic process as it exists does not create any odor and that any odor discernable comes from the compost process for green waste. Commissioner Anderson asked if the District has plans to expand at this location and/or expand into alternate locations. Mr. Mayne answered that this location has room for 2-3 more expansions. Commissioner Anderson noted that although this plant is on Lindon’s border, it does not service Lindon, but services the other North County communities, Draper from Salt Lake County and Eagle Mountain. He asked if alternate locations for expansion were planned. Mr. Bowen clarified that other plants have been considered, in particular, one along the Jordan River, but the Jordan Valley Water Users have plans to treat Utah Lake water for residential culinary consumption and are not amenable to a discharge near their inlets.
Commissioner Anderson asked if the District had studies that supported their request for an easement the radius of a mile. Mr. Bowen said that this was negotiable, however, the Clark County easement is for two miles. Mr. Bowen observed that there is a potential for periodic odors and rather than spend millions for odor control, he felt this easement proposal is a more supportable alternative. Commissioner Anderson commented that he agreed that this easement would give the District a “blank check.” He observed that Lindon residents, who receive no benefit from the District, would have no recourse for the application of the easement to their property. Mr. Carlisle agreed that this is a legitimate question on the part of Lindon City. He claimed that the District is not asking for a blank check.
Chairman Morse asked if the potential for odor was worse than what is generated by Geneva Steel. Commissioner Johanson asked if there were complaints from the homeowners currently residing in the area. Mr. Carlisle replied that the odors are not much different than those that emanate from local farms or the lake. He commented that this request is in some part a response to comments from developers who have called to say that they expect the District to do something. He suggested that the District and the City look at servicing Lindon.
Commissioner Anderson commented that Lindon residents may be more amenable if they are receiving a benefit for the imposition of an easement on their land. He observed the that presently property owners pay impact fees to develop and the service comes from Orem, not the District. Commissioner Peters suggested that a notice be sent to the property owners affected to get their comments.
Chairman Morse asked if there was some way to measure noxious odors. Mr. Bowen commented that every person’s sense of smell is different. Some are more sensitive to odor than others. Commissioner Peters mentioned that the proposed ordinance has no mention of the chemicals that are not produced. He suggested that methane and other gases that create the most familiar noxious odors be mentioned as exclusions. Mr. Carlisle commented that although the plant does not produce these gases, they are present in the collection system.
Commissioner Anderson clarified that this proposed ordinance would create an overlay zone that the City would enforce. As property owners within this overlay zone applied for building permits, they would be required to sign the odor easement on their property. This was confirmed by Mr. Carlisle. Commissioner Peters asked the District representatives why Lindon should sign this and why Lindon should care? Mr. Carlisle cited governmental cooperation. Mr. Smith pointed out that Pleasant Grove City and American Fork City have a vested interest because of their participation in the District. He also noted that Lindon’s City Attorney is reviewing the proposed ordinance.
Chairman Morse commented that odor-producing industrial companies may also benefit from the odor easement. Mr. Carlisle replied that this is a sewer overlay zone, not an odor overlay zone. He observed that the District plant has been in operation for 21 years and the development is coming to nearer to them, not the plant expanding into a developed area. Mr. Mayne noted that this last expansion is a 20-year expansion for the service area.
Commissioner Atchison suggested a clause that would allow the City to take action on the District if noxious odors exceed a certain limit. Commissioner Peters suggested that there be a limit on the number of days per year that odors are emitted. Commissioner Anderson commented that this easement would give citizens no right to complain about odor. Mr. Mayne replied that this did not restrict their right to complain, it just notified them of a potential odor problem. Commissioner Johanson briefly compared the District to the landfill issues in Fairfield.
Chairman Morse clarified with Mr. Bowen that there is no way to calculate or measure the odor level against an industry standard. He asked if there were monitoring devices for air quality. Mr. Mayne replied that there are OSHA requirements, but that those requirements do not address the human nose. Their requirements address levels that might give a person a headache, but are not lethal.
Chairman Morse commented that he would like to see more justification for the one mile radius. He pointed out that this acreage is prime commercial property. Commissioner Johanson commented that he would like to see the service issue addressed because it does not make sense to pump to Orem when the District could service the area right there. There was a brief comment on that last time Lindon requested service. Commissioner Anderson pointed out that Lindon has gone to the expense of building pump stations to Orem now. Mr. Smith noted that the Council needs to talk about this with the recommendations of the City Attorney in mind. He suggested that the Commissioners had given the District some good comments and suggestions for improvement, so when the City has completed the legal review, the Council can address the issue again later. Chairman Morse agreed and asked the District representatives to stay in touch with Mr. Smith and plan to address the City Council.
They thanked the Commissioners for their time. Mr. Carlisle mentioned that the District was anxious to solve this problem since the developer contact.
4. Lindon City Public Works - 946 West Center Street - Design Review
Public Works would like the Planning Commission to review the design of a new building to be constructed at the Public Works yard on Center Street. The building is a steel-framed structure with a canvas type cover.
(Commissioner Peters was excused at 9:00 p.m.)
Mr. Smith presented the proposal to construct a canvas-covered steel structure within the confines of the Public Works yard. He commented that the structure would be used to store materials currently stored outside and it would be fairly permanent. The Commissioners observed that there are homes nearby. Chairman Morse observed that this building did not meet the standards of the zone. He expressed concerns that if the structure is allowed, other businesses and homeowners in the area would request the same type of building. The Commissioners discussed the precedence issue this would create. Chairman Morse and Commissioner Atchison commented that this would create problems. Commissioner Johanson observed that this structure may be better than outside storage. Mr. Smith agreed that although this structure would be constructed in the back corner of the site, someone else may see it and then it may detract from the purpose of the area. He commented that the ordinance requires architectural treatment of buildings in the zone. The Commissioners discussed whether it would be attractive, or whether it would detract from the area. Mr. Smith suggested that the Commission pass the proposal to the Council with some recommendations. Councilmember Anderson commented that he was aware of a similar structure in Duschesne County that looks good. He suggested that the Council may see some advantages that the Commission is missing. Commissioner Johanson expressed concern about precedent. Chairman Morse agreed that this proposal should be addressed by the Council. He asked Mr. Smith to relate the Commissioners’ concerns that it does not comply with the zone, and that the potential degradation of the zone may be more than the potential savings in constructing a more permanent building. The Commissioners agreed to this suggestion by consensus.
5. Planning Director’s Report
Mr. Smith advised the Commission that the Council has been considering the Standard Land Use Table. He commented that this next week he would like to present some changes in the format of the table and add a Compatibility Standard. He explained that since the Planning Commission had reviewed the Table, he had asked the American Planning Association for information on Standard Land Use Tables and possibly eliminating the NEC category. The APA suggested a compatibility standard. He passed this standard to the Commissioners for their perusal. He added that he would like to add this to Appendix A after their review and possible recommendation to the Council. He and the Commissioners discussed the standard and the ten criteria to see if a non-standard business will be harmonious with a zone.
Chairman Morse asked how many non-standard businesses apply a year. Mr. Smith replied that it was rarely over a couple times a year. Chairman Morse asked if this compatibility standard would be reviewed by the Council also. Mr. Smith replied yes. Chairman Morse observed that this standard worked like a Board of Adjustment in that the applying business must meet all of the conditions. He commented that the Planning Commission would need to be careful to list why a business is either harmonious or unharmonious so that the City Attorney can defend the Planning Commission’s decisions. Mr. Smith noted that any approval is specific to that one application, and cannot apply to a geographic area.
The Planning Commission approved the format changes and the addition of the Compatibility Standard as presented by consensus.
Mr. Smith discussed the previously approved Dirker Farms preliminary plat. He noted that the plat has reverted back to a similar version to the one the Planning Commission approved. He commented that when the plat had gone to the Council, some of the property owners had pulled their property from the plat. Now Mr. Johnson has reconsidered and will be participating in the plat. Mr. Smith asked the Commissioners to decide if there were enough differences in the plat to require another Planning Commission review, or if the plat was essentially enough the same to send it to the Council. The Commissioners discussed the changes and requested Mr. Smith to bring the plat back for review by the Commission again. There was comment that the Austins and Eggetts need to comment on the new plat and the changes made and that the Council may want to have the Planning Commission feedback. Commissioner Anderson asked about the trail also. This was also discussed briefly. Mr. Smith was asked to notify the neighbors of the Planning Commission’s reconsideration of this plat.
THE PLANNING COMMISSIONER ADJOURNED AT 9:36 P.M. BY CONSENSUS.
APPROVED - October 10, 2001
_______________________________________
Loren Morse, Chairman
Attest,
_______________________________________
Kevin Smith, Planning Director |
|
|
