|
|
Home » City Government » Planning Commission » Planning Commission Schedule 2004 (Agendas & Minutes) » Planning Commission Minutes 2004 » December 8, 2004 Minutes
December 8, 2004 Minutes
The Lindon City Planning Commission held a regularly scheduled meeting at 7:00 p.m. on Wednesday, December 8, 2004 in the Lindon City Center, Council Chambers, at 100 North State Street, Lindon, Utah.
Conducting: Dustin Sweeten, Chairman
Invocation: Gary Godfrey
Pledge of Allegiance: Dustin Sweeten
PRESENT ABSENT
Dustin Sweeten, Chairman Evan Nixon, Commissioner
Ron Anderson, Commissioner
Julie Bryner, Commissioner
Gary Godfrey, Commissioner
Jim Peters, Commissioner
Marilyn Simister, Commissioner
Kevin Smith, Planning Director
Venla Gubler, Administrative Clerk
Karl Woodard, Planning Intern
The Meeting began at 7:01 p.m.
1. APPROVAL OF MINUTES
The Minutes of the Meeting of November 10, 2004 were reviewed. There were no corrections.
COMMISSIONER SIMISTER MOVED TO APPROVE THE MINUTES OF THE MEETING OF NOVEMBER 10, 2004. COMMISSIONER BRYNER SECONDED THE MOTION. ALL PRESENT VOTED IN FAVOR. THE MOTION CARRIED.
2. PUBLIC COMMENT
There was no public comment.
3. NEW BUSINESS
Commissioner Godfrey mentioned an item heard at the previous meeting concerning an addition to the Meadows at Bald Mountain subdivision plat and the concerns that the Planning Commission had about the right-of-way alignment for 1200 East. He noted that the City Council considered a property purchase for the 1200 East right-of-way recently and wondered if it was in response to the Planning Commission concern. Mr. Smith replied no and explained that the purchase contemplated by the City Council is another parcel along this right-of-way that borders the forest service. Commissioner Godfrey asked if this purchase secures this right-of-way to the City. Mr. Smith replied yes.
Chairman Sweeten asked if there were other reports. There were none.
4. KINGS COURT SUBDIVISION, PLAT “B” – 482 EAST 400 NORTH – PLAT AMENDMENT
This is a request for approval to combine lots 8 and 9 of Kings Court Subdivision, Plat “A.”
Mr. Bryce Nelson introduced himself to the Commission. Mr. Smith displayed the proposed subdivision plat amendment to the audience and Commission and explained that Mr. Nelson would like to combine two lots into one to build a home in the middle. The home will straddle the present property line and the utility easements, so the parcel needs to be re-platted to remove the property line. Commissioner Anderson asked if all the issues with Mr. King had been resolved. Mr. Smith replied yes. Commissioner Peters asked if the lane between the chapel and 400 North street was a public lane. Mr. Smith replied no, that this was a private lane reserved for access to the chapel only. Commissioner Peters confirmed that adjacent homeowners do not have access from this lane. Mr. Smith verified that there was no access, unless the Church gives permission. He pointed out that there is a retaining wall along the lane, which also limits access to neighboring properties. Chairman Sweeten asked if there were any more questions or concerns. There were none.
COMMISSIONER BRYNER MOVED TO APPROVE THE REQUEST BY BRYCE NELSON TO AMEND KINGS COURT SUBDIVISION PLAT “A,” LOTS 8 AND 9 AND CREATE KINGS COURT SUBDIVISON PLAT “B,” A ONE-LOT SUBDIVISION AT 482 EAST 400 NORTH AND RECOMMEND APPROVAL TO THE CITY COUNCIL. COMMISSIONER SIMISTER SECONDED THE MOTION. ALL PRESENT VOTED IN FAVOR. THE MOTION CARRIED.
5. CREEKSIDE MEADOWS – 500 NORTH 1700 WEST – DESIGN REVIEW
This is a request for design review for a proposed housing development.
Commissioner Anderson declared a conflict of interest and observed that he would remain in his Commission seat for the conversation, but would not actively participate. Chairman Sweeten invited the applicants to make their presentation and complimented them on the improvements in the design.
Mr. Mike Stewart of Fieldstone Homes and Mr. Wayne Corbridge of Trophy Homes came to the front. Mr. Stewart informed the Commission that the primary purpose of his presentation is to show how the feedback they have received from both the Commission and Council have been incorporated into the plan. He would like to ask the Commission to consider a recommendation to the Council to allow residential construction in this area.
Mr. Stewart presented the revised concept plans and noted that the cross sections have been enlarged to show streetscapes, and representative architectural styles have been included. He summarized the comments from the Planning Commission and Council garnered from the previous discussions. He suggested that the biggest concerns expressed were on Neighborhood #1. These concerns center on the lack of parking, lack of yards, and minimal setbacks between the homes. There had also been a desire expressed to see a more conventional neighborhood and less density. Other concerns were expressed about the multi-family areas. The desire was to see more mixing of types and less segregation. Favorable details of the plan were found to be the streetscapes, and view corridors on at the intersections.
He pointed out how these viewpoints and suggestions had been incorporated into the plans. He noted that the density has been revised downward, from 7.9 to 5.8, reducing the total number of units from 423 to 330. Neighborhood #1 has been revised to be more conventional, with wider setbacks between the homes. The homes do not face the major accesses, but face onto local streets or park areas. The curvilinear street design is planned for a larger planter area (park strips) to provide landscaping. Trails will connect the homes to the church, parks and a nearby commercial development area. The homes will be about 1200 to 3500 feet finished, but an average of only 40-feet wide.
The multi-family areas have more mixing of housing types and a third type of unit has been added. He pointed out that the major street accesses are now lined with the mansion product and will be what the public sees when entering this neighborhood. These units are triplexes that average about 7,500 square feet and 60 to 70 feet wide. There is ample open space and all the homes will face the internal streets. No driveways or garages will appear on the main streets; the homes will be alley-loaded from private lanes. He presented sample elevations of these homes. The second type of unit is the manor homes. He presented these sample elevations and explained that these will also look like large homes. He told the Commission that these are also triplexes and some have been built at Pheasant Brook in Lehi. The third and new type of unit added is a townhome product. These are more “front loaded,” but will only be built on internal streets. Some are single story and some double story. This will “broaden the array of unit types,” he Mr. Stewart asserted.
Mr. Corbridge agreed that this mix would appeal to a wider market. He explained that the mansion units would appeal to families and professionals and would market for about $200,000. The townhomes also would appeal to empty nesters with the main floor living and a den and guest room upstairs. These will be marketed for about $150,000 - $160,000. The manor homes will appeal to first time buyers and young families in the $130,000 - $140,000 range. He informed the Commission that all common areas will be maintained by a homeowners association, with some private areas and patios. Another feature is the club house with pool. The Commissioners asked why the single family homes cannot be mixed with the multi-family homes. Mr. Corbridge explained that financing does not allow single family homes to share amenities with the condos. Commissioner Simister confirmed that Fieldstone would be building the single family homes and Trophy Homes the multi-family units. This was verified.
Mr. Smith asked if Neighborhood #1 would be similar to Fieldstone’s project in Spanish Fork. Mr. Stewart replied that this is not a bad example, but the homes in Spanish Fields are narrower, with 6,000 – 7,900 square foot lots. Mr. Smith displayed pictures of the Spanish Fields project. Mr. Stewart noted that the homes may be stuccoed in Lindon, but the design of the homes and the elevations are similar.
Mr. Stewart described the marketing strategy of Fieldstone Homes. He told the Commission that Fieldstone markets about 200 different combinations of home plans and currently are selling about 35 homes a month. He described some of Fieldstone’s projects in Lehi, South Jordan, West Bountiful, and Spanish Fork. He pointed to a project whose streetscape is similar to that intended for this project, with a stream down the center and park strip on both sides. Commissioner Bryner confirmed that this streetscape is intended for 1800 West street and the other streets are more conventional. Mr. Stewart verified that 1800 West will be treated as a boulevard and commented that all the streets will have park strips. The internal streets in the multi-family area are private streets. The Commissioners questioned the width of the private streets and asked if these are intended to be rear-access alleys. Mr. Corbridge replied that the streets are wider than an “alley” and will be private streets with guest parking areas.
Commissioner Bryner commented that visitors to the mansion homes may be parking on the main streets. Mr. Stewart agreed, but added that parking will be provided on the interior of the project. Commissioner Peters observed that the plan does not show many guest parking areas. Commissioner Godfrey agreed and suggested that the developer allow two parking spaces per unit, which would total six places per building. Mr. Stewart reported that each unit has its own two car garage and room for two more parking spaces on the driveway. He added that the driveways are a minimum of 18-feet long to accommodate parking.
Commissioner Simister asked the width of the private street. Mr. Corbridge replied that they plan a 22 to 24-foot wide street, which is typical for condos. Commissioner Godfrey asked if widening the streets to 27-feet would allow parking on the sides. Mr. Smith replied that there would be some waiting for cars to pass parked vehicles, but that would slow the traffic through these residential areas and make them safer. Mr. Stewart agreed that the intent is to slow people down, and added that the second reason for narrower streets is less maintenance for the homeowners. Commissioner Peters cited his experience with the Green Valley Condos to observe that people still go too fast on the narrower streets, and that they park on the sidewalks and front lawns if there are no handy alternatives.
Commissioner Godfrey asked Mr. Smith for examples of similar street widths for comparison purposes. Mr. Smith replied that Hidden Meadows is 28-feet wide and the Green Valley Condos are 24-feet wide. Chairman Sweeten asked the width of 40 South street. Mr. Smith replied that 40 South street is 22 to 24-feet wide. Mr. Stewart pointed out that the proposed width is “not unconventional.” Commissioner Godfrey pointed out that this width of street will be servicing about 36 homes at 9-11 trips per day. That totals over 360 cars a day on this street. Commissioner Bryner observed that the “citizen planner training” she had recently attended suggested that streets lined with trees and other vegetation are more effective as a traffic calming measure than narrow streets. She commented that she would rather see trees and wider streets than speed bumps. Commissioner Peters noted that there are curbing options that slow drivers without sacrificing street width and parking.
Commissioner Peters asked about the size of the park. He was informed that the park is about 1.5 acres. He then asked if the park is intended to serve the whole area or just the condos. He commented that the park appears to be inadequate for the size of the project and asked if there was a tradeoff are tradeoffs somewhere that could provide more acreage. Commissioner Bryner agreed and asked the size of Lindon’s Pioneer Park. Mr. Smith replied 4 acres. Mr. Stewart pointed out that Neighborhood #1 included a lot of open space in shared front yards, trails and park strips. He asked if Lindon has a “park standard.” Commissioner Bryner asked if the park shown is being dedicated to the City and who had responsibility for development of the park. Mr. Corbridge replied that the development companies would be responsible for development, and the maintenance of the park may be decided by the City, either to take over or left for the homeowners association.
Mr. Stewart pointed out open play areas between the single family homes. Mr. Corbridge noted that the condos have the clubhouse also. Commissioner Bryner suggested that another park is needed in the south condo area. Chairman Sweeten commented that the premise behind increased density is the exchange of open space. Mr. Stewart commented that there is quite a bit of open space around the main intersection and main streets. He observed that it had been the desire of the City to not have homes on this intersection. The Commissioners discussed the probable traffic on this main street and how that may affect residents’ access to the park and church areas. Commissioner Godfrey suggested switching the locations of the church and park.
Chairman Sweeten observed that it appears the developers have addressed the concerns expressed by the Commission. He told Mr. Stewart and Mr. Corbridge that he liked the layout. Commissioner Simister expressed favor of the trail, church and the collector with the stream in the median. Mr. Smith displayed pictures of a median with a stream. Mr. Stewart noted that this project would be very similar to the one pictured. Mr. Smith commented that the stream is used for linear detention also.
Commissioner Peters wondered if the church would allow the use of the parking lot for guest parking. Mr. Smith suggested that it may be helpful to the Commissioners for them to see a project with similar separation between the single-family homes. Mr. Stewart suggested that they visit either Jordan Willows or the Herriman project. He observed that Herriman would be the better example because it is more developed and there is a “sense of neighborhood.” He noted that Herriman is different because there are some three car garages, larger yards and homes. This development will be consist of somewhat smaller lots. Commissioner Bryner asked if the landscaping for the homes is provided. Mr. Stewart replied no, that landscaping is an extra.
Commissioner Godfrey also complimented the developers on the quality of their presentation. He asked Mr. Smith, however, to explain the City’s logic and interest in smaller lots, and the impetus for the departure from Lindon’s standard lot size. Mr. Smith explained that the City is looking at two things—the moral obligation and the legal obligation to provide for moderate income housing. The City has formed a committee to study the R2 Overlay Ordinance and its continued usefulness. He noted that the Commission is aware that only a few more R2 Overlay projects can be granted under this ordinance and that it may have served its purpose. Therefore the City must find a way to meet the State requirements for moderate income housing either by expanding the influence of the R2 Overlay ordinance or by repealing and replacing it with housing opportunities in the undeveloped west-side of Lindon. One favorable reason to consider such a housing opportunity is that it will help spur commercial development of the 700 North corridor to the new I-15 Interchange. Mr. Stewart commented that the developers are well aware of Pleasant Grove’s efforts to spur development, and that Lindon’s neighbor to the north has approved many high density projects just over the border. He noted, however, that this project is different in that it has a single-family element, and broader appeal to a wider market because of the mix of housing types.
Chairman Sweeten observed that the City is concerned with affordable ownership as opposed to affordable rentals. There have been large tracts of undeveloped land on the west side recently made more favorable to commercial growth. The City Council and Planning Commission are concerned that this growth be beneficial and meet the City’s needs. One of the City’s needs is affordable housing for young families. He observed that the Commission is well aware of the public clamor that accompanies R2 Overlay application hearings. Setting up an area on the west side to build affordable housing would lessen discord because new homeowners would move into this area knowing in advance that this is part of the neighborhoods.
Commissioner Godfrey asked what portion of Lindon is still developable for residential expansion. Mr. Smith replied that there are 50-60 multi-family units currently occupied in Lindon. He commented that there are few large tracts of land available and that most of the future subdivisions will be infill. The Bald Mountain Subdivision is one of the last large subdivisions. He informed the Commission that there is the possibility of only seven or eight more R2 Overlay projects that could be permitted under the current ordinance. Commissioner Godfrey praised the foresight of the City Council to intermix the multi-unit construction in the single-family neighborhoods, rather than concentrating the density to one area. He suggested that the City will regret allowing any such concentration of multi-family units. He felt that the objectives of the City have been met and asked why the City is considering repealing the ordinance and abandoning the concept. Commissioner Anderson replied that the City must still meet the legal requirements of the State and there is no residential zoning on the west side.
Commissioner Simister asked if the City is considering a amendment to the R2 that would allow projects like the one proposed by Fieldstone and Trophy in the established neighborhoods of Lindon. Mr. Smith replied no. Since there is no residential zoning on the west side at the current time, the City will have to either craft a new zone or a new ordinance to allow this project at the site proposed. He told the Commission that the City had been approached to adopt an R1-10 zone in 1998 when the Salisbury Subdivision had been proposed. Salisbury Development had proposed a 20-acre park in exchange for this zoning, but the Council had found reasons not to allow this zone then. He observed that the City appears to be more favorable to such a proposal now, although there are misgivings such as Commissioner Godfrey’s. He suggested that there are ways to limit high-density development expansion, such as requiring a 50-acre minimum zone change size, and/or making the zone an overlay on the mixed commercial zone. Commissioner Simister verified that the Commission can legally prevent high-density projects such as the one proposed in the established neighborhoods. Mr. Smith replied yes.
Commissioner Godfrey confirmed that a zone change or ordinance amendment is needed to proceed, assuming that this project garners the support of the Council and Commission. Mr. Smith agreed that the Commission and Council need to establish the next step and the alternative they would prefer. He noted that it would initially involve just this project because of the potential sewer issue. He observed that the City Engineers feel that the present capacity can handle this project, and they will be monitoring the problem to assess future development potential.
Commissioner Simister asked if there were any staff concerns on this project. Mr. Smith replied that this is a legislative decision and that there are many reasons they may find, both for and against. He expressed the opinion that providing a mix of housing types is good and that density is not the enemy. He added that design makes the difference between a successful project and a failure from the City’s perspective. Chairman Sweeten felt that the City should review each proposed project on its own merits. There was a concern raised about “spot zoning.” Mr. Smith replied that a minimum acreage would prevent this from occurring. Chairman Sweeten commented that the City wishes to promote 700 North street as a commercial corridor and allowing housing would help to ensure the viability of this objective. Mr. Smith observed that there has been a lot of research on how many homes are needed to support commercial development and that this is a large area of future development potential. He noted, however, that commercial developers assess a larger area—one that encompasses about a five-mile circle—so any residential development will help to make commercial growth more attractive. Commissioner Anderson commented that the reasoning for allowing the high-density development is to drive the commercial development. He suggested that there is reasoning and marketing behind the decisions and Lindon should not be so critical of Pleasant Grove.
Chairman Sweeten observed that Lindon’s objective is home ownership and not rentals, so this project promotes that ideal. Commissioner Peters agreed, and noted that there are positive aspects to the project, such as individual ownership and the design of the streets. He expressed concern, however, on items such as guest parking. He suggested that the developers also give some thought to more park space and added that the City should consider a possible trade of impact fees for park land. Commissioner Simister asked about the present zoning of the parcel. Mr. Smith displayed a zoning map and pointed out mixed commercial and light industrial zones. Commissioner Godfrey suggested that the developers consider an equestrian element for the project and mentioned that something similar was done in another city. Mr. Smith noted that the southern portion of the project backs to Light Industrial zoning and that there may be some conflicts that need mitigation.
Commissioner Bryner asked about the next step of the process. Mr. Smith replied that he would like the Commissioners to be very frank to the developers of the project. He explained that he wants the developers to know if they have a chance of making the project work and if they are making progress. He added that he would relay the Commission’s comments to the Council.
Commissioner Bryner replied that she thinks the project has a chance with some “tweaking.” Chairman Sweeten agreed and added that he would like to see it built. He feels that it would be a “good thing” for Lindon. Mr. Smith suggested some field trips to Fieldstone’s projects in Utah and Salt Lake Counties. Mr. Stewart agreed and offered to conduct a personal tour of Hamilton Farms in Herriman, Spanish Fields in Spanish Fork and Jordan Willows in South Jordan. He observed that many young families are fighting the battle of affordability and size. If they buy something they can afford, they soon outgrow it and are forced to move. He commented that the unique feature of Fieldstone Homes is a large home for lower cost and less footprint on the lot. He added that this is an attractive location between Wal-Mart and the freeway.
Commissioner Godfrey observed that this sounds like “double talk” – putting a larger home on a smaller lot. Mr. Stewart explained that Fieldstone uses efficiency of design to utilize the volume of a home. There is no wasted space, and a smaller footprint is the result. An associate of Mr. Stewart’s remarked that the Construction Monitor, a magazine that reports on the values of construction in Utah County, has determined an annual average permit value on Fieldstone’s homes at over $190,000, yet the homes sell for much less than this. He added that most other construction companies sell their homes for higher than the permit value. He noted that the reason Fieldstone can sell for less is the design that uses “stacking” to maximize space and value. Mr. Stewart noted that the focus of this project is a “rural” feel.
Chairman Sweeten expressed the opinion that the design has improved greatly. He asked the Commissioners to voice their major objections. Mr. Corbridge observed that this design has evolved over the last two years and reflects all the comments that have been given to them. He commented that Trophy Homes is one of the builders in Pleasant Grove, and that ninety percent of the projects that have been approved there are the stacked, three-story condos. He pointed out that there is none of that type in this project; it includes more upscale, more residential units that do not look like apartments. He agreed with Chairman Sweeten that it would be a very nice addition to Lindon and would appear very different than Pleasant Grove.
Chairman Sweeten asked if there were any concerns by the Commission that cannot be overcome. Commissioner Simister asked if there were any safety issues on the private streets. Mr. Smith replied that if the Commission and Council feel that the design has possibilities, the City Engineer and the Fire Marshal can review the project for their concerns. Commissioner Peters asked if there would be private yards or if all the land around the units would be common ground. He was told that most owners prefer some private space that would be accommodated with private courtyards. Commissioner Anderson asked if the outside perimeter of the project would be fenced. Mr. Corbridge replied yes. Commissioner Godfrey commented that he has an “overall positive feeling” about this project and his concern is not specific to the design, but more about the direction of the City. He added that the product itself is acceptable with minor improvements.
Mr. Stewart verified that the next step is the Council’s opinions. Mr. Smith agreed. The Commissioners discussed the fact that this project, if approved, will change the “feel” and possibly the demographics of Lindon. Mr. Smith commented that if the Council is favorable, a field trip can be scheduled to visit existing projects. Thanks for the comments and suggestions were given and returned.
6. ORDINANCE AMENDMENT – 17.16. – NONCONFORMING USES
Mr. Smith reviewed the changes suggested by the City Council and the City Attorney. It was noted that there were two instances of the word “reasonable” in 17.16.030(2)(a) and so one was stricken. There was a short discussion of the addition of 17.16.030(4) and it was noted that if a nonconforming use cannot be moved, the ownership is not an issue. There was also a short discussion of limiting expansions to parcels that share a common boundary.
COMMISSIONER ANDERSON MOVED TO APPROVE THE REQUEST TO AMEND AND REVISE CHAPTER 17.16. – NONCONFORMING BUILDINGS AND USES AND RECOMMEND APPROVAL TO THE CITY COUNCIL. COMISSIONER BRYNER SECONDED THE MOTION. ALL PRESENT VOTED IN FAVOR. THE MOTION CARRIED.
7. REVIEW AND APPROVAL OF 2005 MEETING SCHEDULE
The Commissioners discussed the dates listed on the proposed meeting schedule. It was decided to remove December 28 and November 24.
COMMISSIONER PETERS MOVED TO APPROVE THE 2005 MEETING SCHEDULE AS AMENDED. COMMISSIONER SIMISTER SECONDED THE MOTION. ALL PRESENT VOTED IN FAVOR. THE MOTION CARRIED.
8. PLANNING DIRECTOR REPORT
Mr. Smith presented a proposal by Graphik to install a monument sign on the I-15 freeway frontage. He noted that the question arises in the definition of “changeable type” or “motion signs.” The Planning Commission discussed the definitions of these types of signs and decided that if the type did not scroll or flash it may be defined as “changeable type.”
Mr. Smith presented the building plans for Wasatch U-Cart and explained that the City Council had upheld the revocation of the Conditional Use Permit for this business. He observed that Mr. Maynes will not be operating his business until he has an approved site plan. He also noted that the City Council recommended that a temporary site plan not be given and that the trailer be removed. Mr. Maynes will be re-submitting his site plan for approval. He explained that the City Council was divided on whether to issue the building permit and that they felt that there was good cause to deny based on past performance, however, they asked the Planning Commission to review the resubmitted application. Commissioner Anderson commented that Wasatch U-Cart is not a bad business, there are just compliance issues. The Commission discussed the building plans.
Commissioner Bryner commented that a building on about 300 South 1200 West does not appear to have 25% architectural finishing on the side that faces the freeway. Mr. Smith replied that he would investigate this report. There was a short discussion of other businesses in this area and performance bonds. There was also a discussion of the proposed Lindon Retail Center and the Lindon Car Wash.
Commissioner Bryner reported on her attendance at a Citizen Planning Seminar. She commented that one particular suggestion from this meeting that made an impression was that the applicants do not know what to expect in a Planning Commission meeting. She suggested that it may smooth procedures to have some information available. Mr. Smith agreed and noted that he is planning to put this information on the back of the agendas. There was a discussion of holding work sessions, and an update on various projects underway.
ADJOURN
THE COMMISSIONERS REACHED CONSENSUS TO ADJOURN THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING AT 9:43 P.M.
APPROVED – January 12, 2004
______________________________________
Dustin Sweeten, Chairman
_______________________________________
Kevin Smith, Planning Director
|
|
|
