The Lindon City Planning Commission held a regularly scheduled meeting on Wednesday, August 25, 2004 at 6:00 p.m. in the Lindon City Center, Council Chambers, at 100 North State Street, Lindon, Utah.

Conducting: Dustin Sweeten
Invocation: Jim Peters
Pledge of Allegiance: Dustin Sweeten

Dustin Sweeten, Chairman
Ron Anderson, Commissioner
Julie Bryner, Commissioner
Gary Godfrey, Commissioner
Evan Nixon, Commissioner
Jim Peters, Commissioner
Marilyn Simister, Commissioner
Lindsey Bayless, Councilmember
Kevin Smith, Planning Director
Venla Gubler, Administrative Clerk
James McMurray, Planning Intern

The meeting began at 6:02 p.m.

1. APPROVAL OF MINUTES

The Minutes of the Regular Meeting of June 23, 2004 were reviewed. The following corrections were made:
Page 8, Line 19: Replace the word "this" with the word "his."
Page 13, Line 8,9: Replace the phrase "Commissioner Godfrey commented that he appreciates" with the phrase "The Commissioners expressed appreciation for."
Page 13, Line 10: Replace the word "He" with the words "It was."
COMMISSIONER NIXON MOVED TO APPROVE THE MINUTES OF THE REGULARLY SCHEDULED MEETING OF JUNE 23, 2004 AS CORRECTED. COMMISSIONER GODFREY SECONDED THE MOTION. ALL PRESENT VOTED IN FAVOR. THE MOTION CARRIED.

2. PUBLIC COMMENT

There was no public comment.

3. NEW BUSINESS (Reports by Commissioners)

Commissioner Peters announced that the new Wal-Mart is open. He commented that he had parked at the far end of the parking lot and walked the whole sidewalk to the front doors. He added that few parking lots have that much landscaping and that Lindon had something to be proud of. Chairman Sweeten noted that he had attended the ribbon cutting and that Wal-Mart had donated a large sum of money to various local community organization. He added that the Wal-Mart will be a great addition to the community. Commissioner Godfrey commented that the review of the minutes had reminded him that the Commission needs to address the treatment of raw concrete tilt-up walls. He observed that the Lindon City Code addresses decorative treatment for masonry walls, but not for tilt-up. Mr. Smith replied that the City has advertised to obtain a qualified architect to help the City review the codes to set architectural design standards. Commissioner Godfrey asked if something could be inserted into the existing section in the meantime. Mr. Smith agreed that this issue can be addressed separately if the Commission wishes. Chairman Sweeten asked if there were other reports. There were none.

4. LISTON COMPLEX - 943 WEST 240 NORTH - SITE PLAN APPLICATION

This is a request for approval of a cultured marble manufacturing business in the LI zone.

Mr. Sherrell Liston was invited to the front. Mr. Smith commented that this project is proposed for one of the lots in the Mountain View Industrial subdivision on Geneva Road. He pointed out the particular lot intended for this project and displayed the proposed site plan. Commissioner Peters commented that Wasatch U-Cart is located in the front lot. Mr. Smith agreed and explained that this business is similar to the Whitewater Whirlpool Bath business on Geneva Road. He pointed out the city property which borders the lot on the east and commented that this will be part of the Pheasant Brook Park. He noted that the applicants are planning a wall to separate the business from the park. He pointed out landscaping features on the site plan, the dumpster enclosure, and then displayed the elevations of the proposed metal building.

Commissioner Peters asked if the architectural treatment of block on a metal building meets the requirements of the ordinance. Mr. Smith replied that the building is required to have masonry, stucco or other treatment to 25% of the wall surface on the rear and side elevations and 30% on the front elevation. Commissioner Anderson commented that the treatment appears to be a little "short." Mr. Smith replied that the office appears to have 100% treatment, but that there may be only about 20% on the sides. Mr. Liston was asked about the foundation. Mr. Liston replied that the foundation would be stuccoed. He added that the foundation is four-feet of the total wall height of ten-feet.

Commissioner Bryner asked if the doors on the front of the building would be used for loading and unloading, or if they would provide access through the building. Mr. Liston replied that trucks would drive through the building. He explained that the business uses small pickups with a trailer for deliveries. Commissioner Nixon asked if the trucks would have a hard time making the turn in to and out of the doorways. Mr. Liston replied that the back of the building is about twenty-five feet from the fence and he felt that the trucks could make this turn.

Commissioner Peters asked how parking needs are determined for this type of business. Mr. Smith replied that the square footage of the warehouse and office are used for the calculations, not the number of employees. Commissioner Anderson asked if the business would be manufacturing the cultured marble. Mr. Liston replied yes. Commissioner Anderson expressed concern about the odor, especially with a park and residential area so close. Mr. Smith observed that the ordinances require odor to be contained on the property. Commissioner Nixon explained that citizens will complain if the business generates odor that is detectable outside the building. Commissioner Peters asked if there is a filtered ventilation system. Mr. Liston replied that a filtered system can be used. He explained that his brother runs the day-to-day operations and he had noticed that the filter system was used at their current location.

Commissioner Peters asked what type of fence was planned to protect the park. Mr. Liston replied that this is the City’s decision. He explained that the City will choose the type of fence and his business will pay half of the costs. Mr. Smith explained that this arrangement had been agreed to by city staff in the Development Review Committee process. He commented that a fence similar to the cemetery fence was being planned.

Commissioner Nixon expressed a concern about the location of the trash enclosure. He felt that collection trucks would have to back out. He asked about other trucks accessing the site. Mr. Liston explained that semis would turn around in the cul-de-sac and back into the second door for unloading by a forklift. The Commission discussed the problems with backing a semi into the lot without driving over the landscaping. Commissioner Nixon suggested moving the landscaping. Commissioner Godfrey asked if the office area would have a showroom. Mr. Liston replied yes. Chairman Sweeten asked about the number of customers that visit the showroom. Mr. Liston replied that they did not have a lot of customers. Chairman Sweeten commented that the building size had been maximized at the expense of landscaping. Commissioner Godfrey suggested splitting the landscaping section into two and moving the driveway to allow a more direct access to the building’s doors. He pointed out that this would put some landscaping in front of the office and push the customer parking to the north side. The Commissioners discussed this suggestion. Commissioner Peters requested to see the fence options before they were approved. Commissioner Bryner suggested that the building’s colors be restricted to earth tones.

COMMISSIONER NIXON MOVED TO APPROVE THE REQUEST BY LARRY LISTON FOR SITE PLAN APPROVAL OF THE LISTON COMPLEX LOCATED AT 943 WEST 240 NORTH WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS:
1. THE APPLICANT IS PUT ON NOTICE THAT ODORS LEAVING THE PROPERTY BOUNDARIES WILL BE A PROBLEM AND WILL NEED TO BE CONTROLLED.
2. LANDSCAPING BE ADJUSTED TO A TWO DRIVEWAY CONFIGURATION.
3. THE FOUNDATION BE TREATED WITH STUCCO IN A COLOR THAT MATCHES THE OFFICE.
4. THE PLANNING COMMISSION RESERVES THE OPPORTUNITY TO REVIEW THE FENCING OPTIONS.
5. THE PUBLIC STREET IS NOT TO BE USED FOR LOADING OR UNLOADING OF PRODUCTS.
COMMISSIONER ANDERSON SECONDED THE MOTION. ALL PRESENT VOTED IN FAVOR. THE MOTION CARRIED.

5. WASATCH BUILDING SUPPLY - 1080 WEST 240 NORTH - SITE PLAN APPLICATION

This is a request for approval of a new office/warehouse building in the LI zone.

Mr. Sheldon Wilkerson, Mr. Nick Wilkerson, and Mr. Richard Wilkerson introduced themselves to the Commission. Mr. Smith informed the Commission that this project is proposed for the same subdivision on Lot #2. He commented that this business sells building supplies. He displayed the proposed site plan and pointed out driveways, storage area, and warehouse. He showed the building elevations. Commissioner Nixon asked about the architectural treatment of the building. Mr. Sheldon Wilkerson replied that the building would be wood grain with stucco on the foundation. He commented that the building will showcase some of their available building supplies.

Commissioner Nixon observed that the width of the driveways seems excessive. Mr. Wilkerson replied that they had driven the lot with a semi and marked out the width of the driveway needed to make the turns around the building. Commissioner Godfrey commented that the turn off of 240 North may require a wide driveway. Commissioner Nixon pointed out that the driveways were wider than the street. He felt that the driveways could be narrowed and more landscaping added. Mr. Nick Wilkerson replied that the width of the driveway has been tested and marked and is needed by the business.

Commissioner Godfrey asked about plans for the storage area. Mr. Sheldon Wilkerson replied that they plan gravel for now, but asphalt in the future. He explained that the area will be used for storage of building supplies, such as lumber and shingles. Commissioner Bryner asked if the storage would be exposed or covered. Mr. Wilkerson replied exposed. Commissioner Peters asked about operation of a forklift in the gravel. Mr. Wilkerson replied that they are using the forklifts in a similar situation now. He was asked if the products in this area are on display for sale. He replied that all the products in this area were for sale. Chairman Sweeten asked if the area would be fenced. Mr. Nick Wilkerson replied that they planned chain link with vinyl slats for security.

Commissioner Peters asked if there was a ramp planned near the handicap space for access to the office. The ramp was pointed out on the corner. The location of the handicap space and ramp were discussed as somewhat inconvenient. Commissioner Peters suggested an alternative. Commissioner Bryner asked about detention of storm water. Mr. Smith replied that the engineers had reviewed and approved the detention. Chairman Sweeten asked if there was any public comment. There was none.

Commissioner Nixon suggested that an engineer "put a template" on the driveway and add more landscaping. Commissioner Peters commented that the applicants have done the research necessary. He added that it was better this way than having a driveway that is too narrow. He asked if the neighbors to the east have landscaping that would adjoin the driveway on this side. He suggested that curbing be added to this side to protect the landscaping. Commissioner Anderson suggested adding a planter box in front of the office to add some landscaping to the site. Commissioner Bryner asked about colors on the building. The Wilkersons explained that the stucco would probably be "pearl ash," the siding "woodtones," and the roofing "black" asphalt shingles.

COMMISSIONER PETERS MOVED TO APPROVE THE REQUEST BY SHELDON WILKERSON FOR SITE PLAN APPROVAL OF WASATCH BUILDING SUPPLY LOCATED AT 1080 WEST 240 NORTH WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS:
1. CURB THE LANDSCAPING ON THE NORTHEAST BORDER OF THE PROPERTY.
2. REVIEW THE HANDICAP RAMP AND MAKE PROVISIONS TO MAKE IT MORE ACCESSIBLE.
3. INSTALL SIGHT OBSCURING FENCE AND LIMIT THE STORAGE AREA TO STORAGE OF RESALE PRODUCT ONLY. BROKEN DOWN EQUIPMENT AND TRASH CANNOT BE STORED IN THIS AREA. WEEDS MUST BE CONTAINED.
4. REVIEW BUILDING COLORS WITH STAFF.
COMMISSIONER SIMISTER SECONDED THE MOTION. ALL PRESENT VOTED IN FAVOR. THE MOTION CARRIED.

Mr. Sheldon Wilkerson explained that they are presently renting in Spanish Fork. He wondered if there was a possibility of setting up a temporary office on site while under construction. He was informed that this proposal would require a site amendment application, if it becomes necessary.

6.  MEADOW COURT - 234 NORTH 400 EAST - CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT - R2 OVERLAY PROJECT

This is a request for approval of a six-unit multi-family housing project.

Commissioner Nixon declared a conflict of interest and stepped down from the Commission to become a presenter with Mr. Mark Jones. Mr. Smith commented that most of those present were familiar with the application for six single-family units on a 1.5 acre lot. He displayed the location of the lot on an aerial photo. He explained that the original application had been denied by the Planning Commission and Council and that the developers have resubmitted. He noted that the Council has since placed a stay on all new R2 applications while the ordinance is being re-evaluated and amended. He displayed the two proposed site plans, pointed out a twenty-four-foot driveway, visitor parking, individual unit locations, and a remainder parcel.

Commissioner Peters asked the width of the pavement on the driveway. Mr. Nixon replied that the driveway access is 26.5 feet. Commissioner Simister asked the distance of the driveway from the home on the north. Mr. Smith put the county parcel map overlay on the aerial photo and noted that parcel lines in this area are not parallel with fence lines. He calculated the distance as about nineteen-feet.

Mr. Nixon asked that the Commission allow him to introduce his project to those in the audience that were not familiar with it. He commented that both he and Mr. Jones live in this neighborhood. Their intent is to improve the value of the neighborhood by developing homes, not apartments on this parcel. He introduced himself and Mr. Jones and added that Mr. Jones is the developer of other projects in Lindon, such as the Lindon Oaks subdivision. He asserted that their intention is to bring value to the community and the project is based on sound engineering principles. He presented some elevations of typical homes that could be built on the individual pads of the two proposed site plans. He contended that they plan to construct moderate income housing that will not detract from the values of surrounding homes.

Mr. Nixon addressed the issue of home heights and explained that two story homes are more economical and the height can be mitigated by moving windows from locations that would overlook neighbors’ yards. Rambler-style homes are planned for the larger sites. He observed that previous reviews had raised concerns about the driveway on the south damaging a fence and creating traffic on three sides of the Channel home. This plan, he pointed out, puts the driveway on the north property line. He addressed the size of the proposed homes and commented that these homes will be in the $175k range, which qualifies them for moderate income housing. He explained that the purpose of the various house plans is to provide flexibility, not to fill the allotted footprint.

Mr. Nixon commented that some feel the number of homes on the property is excessive. He contended that this parcel would have the same number of units whether it is done as individual units like proposed site plan Option #A, or as approved apartments (one duplex and one triplex unit) as proposed in site plan Option #B. He pointed out that the home on Option #B can also have an accessory apartment which would add to the density. He mentioned that a traffic estimate for the units has been claimed to be 102 trips per day. He refuted that claim and informed the Commission that the ITE sets the traffic rate for this project at 9.5 trips per unit or 67 trips per day. He added that the traffic rate drops even further if the project is considered a planned unit development to six or seven per unit. He pointed out that previous site plans were not drawn to scale and this one now is, with all distances shown. He suggested that provisions for garbage, snow removal and mail will be similar to other locations in Lindon. He addressed concerns about the narrow common drive not meeting fire code standards. He explained the fire code standards and pointed out that the driveway exceeds this requirement and includes a hammerhead turnaround. He commented that the R2 Overlay ordinance requires three extra parking spaces for visitors. This plan provides two stalls per unit in the garage, more at the ends of the driveways, and parallel parking along the access road.

Mr. Nixon commented that the common drive meets or exceeds fire code and is now 26.5-feet wide. This driveway is now wider than similar driveways in Lindon that have higher uses. He added that he feels he has addressed all the safety concerns that have been raised, including fire, garbage, parking and pedestrian safety. He noted that the street he currently lives on has a hammerhead turnaround. He observed that there is more asphalt width on this street than Center Street. Commissioner Anderson observed that the section of Center Street Mr. Nixon is referring to is a half-street that will eventually be widened to full street width. Mr. Nixon observed that there is more parking here than standard sites on a standard street. He asserted that the project meets or exceeds the code in all respects and is similar to project and improvements provided elsewhere in Lindon.

Chairman Sweeten opened the discussion to public comment. Mr. Mike Anderson of 455 East 200 North commented that he would like to address two issues. One is the denial by the Planning Commission and the City Council. He had researched the City ordinances and consulted his attorney and has found that 17.34.330 requires a new application after a period of six months. He asked why the Planning Commission is hearing this application again after the denial. The second issue he would like to raise is the reason for denial, the compatibility of an R2 project in this location. He referred to City Code Section 17.32.320, Deep Lots, and pointed out that clause (D) does not permit driveways longer than 250-feet long and (E) does not permit R2 projects on deep lots. He suggested that it is not appropriate for the Planning Commission to hear this application and asserted that this parcel is a deep lot.

Mr. Paul Channel, whose mother lives at 218 North 400 East asked if the road can run directly on the property line. Mr. Nixon replied yes. Mr. Channel asked if curb and gutter were planned. Chairman Sweeten replied that this would be required. Mr. Channel asked about facilities for catching melting snow. Chairman Sweeten replied that control drainage is required. Mr. Channel asked about fencing. Commissioner Peters replied that fencing is required. Mr. Channel asked about walkways for pedestrian safety on the driveway. Mr. Nixon replied that sidewalks can be added if it is determined that they are needed. Mr. Channel pointed out that a fence, curb, gutter, sidewalk, and snow removal should be added to the width of the driveway. He asked how wide the driveway is required to be. Mr. Smith replied that there is no specific width requirement, but the Planning Commission and Council review this issue on a case by case basis. Mr. Channel asked if the Planning Commission felt that sidewalk should be added. Chairman Sweeten agreed that pedestrians need some way to access the main street without using the vehicle path. Mr. Channel asked if this makes the homes even smaller and narrower. He noted that this many homes may also have lots of cars if there are teenagers.

Ms. Fran Patton of 223 North 400 East asked who decides on the types of homes that will be built. She asked if this is moderate income housing, is there a dollar limit in the ordinance. She also noted that 400 East is a busy street and she feels that she takes her life in her hands to get to her mailbox. Mr. Bill Patton, at the same address, pointed out that the driveway points right at his home and expressed concern about headlights. He also asked about the disposition of the existing home on this property. Mr. Nixon replied that this home will not be there is this approved. Mr. Patton expressed the opinion that there is no room for a house and garage as the site plan has been submitted. He also commented that 400 East does not have sidewalks and when he envisions garbage pickup, it is not six can across from his home that he sees.

Mr. Russell Rogers of 185 North 550 East told the Commission that he drives a garbage truck and there are some streets that he has to back in for pickups, or he has to pull in and back out. This always raises the concern that he will run over a child or back into a car. He added that it is his experience that residents do not want to roll their garbage cans a long distance to the street. His biggest concern, however, is the safety of kids.

Ms. Ginger Romriell of 14 North 400 East informed the Commission that she is just finishing up a similar planned unit development–the road is private. She was required to construct a 34-foot wide street with curb and gutter and a 50-foot radius cul-de-sac. Her building meet the 30 and 10-foot setbacks required of regular homes. She asked questions about the radius of the turn into the hammerhead. She noted that her development was required to put sidewalk, curb and gutter on both sides of the street so that if the City ever has to take over maintenance, it meets the City requirements. Mr. Smith pointed out Ms. Romriell’s development, Heritage Court, on 400 East just north of Center and noted that this is a nine-unit project that was approved under the old, high-density ordinance. He commented that one of the reasons the R2 Ordinance was adopted was the awkwardness of the old ordinance. Ms. Romriell commented that the buildings of Heritage Court are under the review of an architectural committee formed of her neighbors.

Mr. Alan Smoot of 502 East 270 North expressed concern about a potential conflict with people, barns and horses. He pointed out his horses in property directly to the north of this proposed project. He asked how the City addresses this issue. He also pointed out that there have been fence line agreements signed that do differ from the county data. He suggested that the property is narrower than shown on the county plat maps and therefore may not qualify at all for an R2 project. He expressed the opinion that the property is not adequate for this large of a project, that a full-size street and turnaround are needed. He added that it is a safety issue that needs to be address.

Ms. Eileen Nybo of 515 East 200 North told the Commission that she had talked to the fire chief, Mark Hales, and he had told her that the driveway cannot include parking along the sides. She also felt that sidewalks should be required on both sides of the street so that children walking to the Junior High and Elementary are safe. She observed that the Lindon City R2 Overlay Zoning Ordinance Informational Brochure specifies that homes must be built on 12,000 square foot lots. This suggests to her that this project needs to, at least, be reduced to five units to comply.

Mr. Monte Romriell of 14 North 400 East suggested that the rules for one should apply to all. He observed that to be fair and equal, this project should put in a cul-de-sac and sidewalk on both sides like they were required to do.

Mr. Ray Bean of 250 North 400 East commented that the property lines showing on the country parcel data were not correct and explained the recent surveys and fence line agreements that have been made. Mr. Smith explained that he is aware that the county parcel data is not up-to-date as shown. Mr. Bean contended that low income housing spawns slums and pointed at Orem and Provo as examples. He suggested that allowing this housing in the neighborhood will cause the standards to disintegrate. He felt the City was asking for trouble.

Ms. Marcy Smoot pointed out that a full-sized street and a two story house would push the windows of the second story looking right into the neighbors’ yards. She felt that the driveway was "obviously dangerous." She commented that she would like the question answered about horses as most of the people here moved to Lindon for the country atmosphere.

Mr. Mike Anderson commented that he had also met with the fire chief, Mark Hales. He contended that Chief Hales had not seen the current map and that he had several issues with the current configuration. He commented that Mr. Hales had told him that the site may comply technically with the fire codes, but he would not allow because of extreme fire danger to homeowners in the rear units. He pointed out that if a fire started in one of the back units, the road would be blocked by fire trucks and the other homeowners would be trapped with no way out. He pointed out his property and his pool area and commented that he has activities on the deck and around the pool frequently. He noted that a home ten-feet from the fence would invade his privacy and a two-story home would not allow any privacy whatsoever. He suggested that Lindon look at Provo’s county-specific traffic study that concluded the average home produces 17 trips per day. He observed that these homes are facing a driveway and not a street. He felt that allowing the developer to change the orientation to get a narrower setback is "inexcuseable." He commented that water detention in not shown on the plan and observed that he has spent tens of thousand of dollars making proper presentations. He felt that the public and city should be able to see what is really planned. He referred to Lindon City Code Section 17.20.070 (2)(b)(iii) and stated that this section provides that a conditional use shall not be "injurious" to other property in the vicinity. He suggested that this project will invade his privacy and that Mr. Patton’s estimate of six garbage cans on 400 North is more likely to be twelve cans. He felt that it would be "absurd" to expect a homeowner to haul a garbage can 500-feet for service and the garbage pickup will probably not be willing to drive down a private lane.

Chairman Sweeten suggested that the Commission now take some time to discuss the issues. He asked Mr. Smith to answer the question about why this application is being reheard. Mr. Smith replied that the code section referred to applies to subdivision plats, not to this type of submittal. He informed the Commission that the City Attorney has reviewed the City Code and found no provision that would prevent a re-hearing.

Mr. Nixon observed that, as far as the deep lot reference, this is not a deep lot by ordinance definition, so this reference does not apply either. He commented that he is not subdividing the property, it will remain as one parcel. He noted that he is willing to put in sidewalk and address this safety issue. As far as garbage, the trucks are backing up on regular streets every week. The homeowners will haul their garbage cans if necessary and they want their garbage picked up. He observed that a standard street is 28-feet wide with parking on both sides. This street is 26.5 feet wide with parking on one side. Parking will only be allowed on the south side of the street and the north side can be posted as a fire lane. He commented that streets in Salt Lake have ten-foot lanes, parking, curb, and allow speeds up to 40 miles per hour. He reported that the site plan is based on the fence line agreement referred to by several of the neighboring property owners and the size of the lot will not be reduced. The parcel contains just over 1.5 acres. He suggested that these are moderate income homes that will not be the size of home that require two garbage cans and several vehicles. He felt that the traffic generated would be less than average, not more. He also suggested that the two story homes will not have windows that face the property line. He then observed that a lot of people have talked to the fire chief, Mark Hales. Mr. Smith agreed that there seems to be conflicting information from Chief Hales and suggested that Chief Hales may be asked to speak for himself in the future. Mr. Nixon explained that the fire codes are a maximum standard, not a minimum. If the codes are met, then the safety standards are met. He noted that issues such as storm drain and landscaping will meet the requirements of the City Engineer and will be similar to other areas of Lindon.

Commissioner Simister asked Mr. Smith to address the animal rights issue. Mr. Smith explained that Lindon has one of the most liberal animal control ordinances in the county and that the code is geared to protect existing animal rights. He observed that if a new house is built next to a pasture, it would be difficult to file a complaint because the homeowner was aware of this animal before the home was built. However, the setback for new barns in the midst of housing are more stringent so that a barn cannot be built too close to an existing home. Mr. Smoot verified that if he replaces his shelter with a barn, he may be required to have a setback of 50-feet from these homes. Mr. Smith confirmed this statement.

Chairman Sweeten asked the Commissioner to express their thoughts. Commissioner Anderson commented that the Commissioners share the concerns of the neighbors. He observed that this is a long, narrow road and that parking on the street makes it even more narrow. He expressed the opinion that sidewalks were needed. He commented that a typical R2 Overlay review includes the architecture of the structures, but this is being reviewed more like a subdivision. He asked if the developers would be selling the lots or building the homes. Mr. Nixon replied that they have some home plans, but they want the flexibility to have buyers choose their own home plan. Commissioner Anderson commented that an R2 project is not selling building pads. He noted that, usually, a developer brings in a triplex and the Commissioners decide if it fits into the neighborhood. He commented that this approach has never been considered before and he wondered if it legally fits the R2 Overlay ordinance. He felt that the street needs a cul-de-sac bulb and that architectural plans need to be reviewed. Mr. Nixon replied that they have examples of homes that fit the requirements. He contended that a public street with the pathway cross section has 28-feet of pavement and allows parking on both sides. This street only will allow parking on one side.

Commissioner Bryner observed that the job of the Commission is to interpret the ordinance. She added that it includes an obligation to both existing and future residents. She agreed that this approach is different than in the past, which is not a fault, but it does not allow the Commission to cover the architectural phase. She noted that she understands that the developers want to offer the buyers options. She agreed that if prospective homeowners are allowed to pick certain parts of a house, there is more ownership and they are more prone to take care of the property. She expressed the opinion that she does want the units to blend into the neighborhood and not look out of the ordinary. She commented that there seems to be a lot of hearsay on what the fire marshal says and he is not here representing himself. She observed that she is not sure about the traffic numbers, but noted that Provo is full of students who are running back and forth to classes. She expressed the opinion that the national average and Provo’s average is not necessarily Lindon’s average. She noted that she has one garbage can at her house, and the project could have a dumpster. She commented that she was not in a position to approve either plan because there is not enough information and the neighborhood concerns have not been mitigated adequately. She suggested that she would like to see one layout–one solid plan, and that there were too many options.

Commissioner Simister observed that she agrees with both Commissioners. She also feels that the project needs more guidance on individual homes. Her second issue is with the setbacks. She felt that the developers were playing with the setbacks and orientation to fit the homes. She suggested that the homes face the driveway, not 400 East. She informed the public that she also lives on a dead-end street and garbage trucks back up. She added that her street also does not have a cul-de-sac and that the neighbors tend to park their cars on the end of it. She commented that she was one of those homes with ten cars and that she can understand the possibility of this happening in this project. Commissioner Simister observed that she also is not prepared to approve this project because there are too many unanswered questions.

Chairman Sweeten observed that he has no problem with the type of project and the need to provide affordable homes. He appreciates the fact that the developers have worked so hard to try and mitigate the problems and concerns that have been raised. However, there are lots and location that are conducive to development and some that are not conducive. This is a long, narrow lot and the project might be better in a different location. He expressed concern about the lane end and headlight shining into the neighbors’ homes. He agreed that the homes appear to be facing the lane and that rear and front yard setbacks are thirty-feet. He felt that the turnaround needs a cul-de-sac. He did not feel concerned about the garbage or the traffic, because homeowners will take care of the garbage and a cul-de-sac of homes would probably have more traffic. Chairman Sweeten expressed the opinion that this lot is just too narrow for this project.

Commissioner Godfrey commended the audience for coming to comment and staying on the point and reducing emotion. He added that he had seen "much, more raucous groups." He also commended the presenter for making an honest attempt to solve the neighborhood concerns. He expressed the opinion that he would prefer to have single-family units like these saturate Lindon as opposed to multifamily units, but there are still too many unanswered questions. He felt that a curb should be added to the north side of the street and wondered how this would change the dimensions of the drive. He expressed concern about fire truck access and wondered if the parking stalls along the drive were necessary. He would like to see the parking out of the drive because it still seems narrow. He questioned the positioning of the homes and felt that it was trying to avoid the setbacks. He noted that the purpose of the setbacks is avoid looking into private areas. He agreed that this is "not technically" a deep lot per the ordinances, but that it is a narrow, deep lot. He asked about the length of the drive. Mr. Smith replied that public cul-de-sacs have a maximum length of 650-feet. Commissioner Godfrey agreed with Commissioner Anderson on the architectural review of the homes. He noted that he is not addressing things like the fence because this is required. He observed that one issue not touched on is the issue that the Romriells raised. He commented that he hoped the public understand that the code has changed since this project was approved. He agreed that if the code had not been changed that the fairness issue would apply, but now the guidelines are different. The Commission cannot legislate against old laws. He also agreed that the fire marshal needs to speak for himself.

Commissioner Peters observed that he can only echo the other Commissioners. He agreed that there were safety issues that have not been solved. He commented that the issues center around the access and the width of the lot. He added that he can see the width "eaten up" by the fence, curb, gutter and sidewalk. He asked if the project will be a condominium with private and public spaces. He asked if there would be a homeowners association. He expressed the opinion that the developer is working with a lot that is too narrow for this project.

Mr. Nixon replied that he would like to address the concerns that have been expressed. He would like to show the Commission the layout and orientation of the homes, add sidewalks and maintain the width of the street. Commissioner Peters asked if the home exteriors would belong to the association. Mr. Nixon replied that the homes themselves could be limited common. Commissioner Peters asked how the insurance would be handled–each homeowner have their own? Mr. Nixon replied yes and that the association would only carry general liability. Commissioner Peters asked about snow removal. Mr. Nixon replied that it could be pushed into the landscaping. Commissioner Peters observed that a lot of snow can build up and become a problem. He told the Commission of his experiences with apartments. Mr. Jones asked if the Commission wants them to work up a "snow removal strategy." Commissioner Peters replied that he "honestly thinks and in the interests of time" that the project is "impossible." He added that there are so many concerns with this access. He referred to the motion made to deny at a previous meeting and noted that he still feels the same way–he thinks the issues have not been adequately mitigated. He observed that he can see the homes or the drive getting narrower and narrower, especially now with the addition of curb and fence.

Mr. Nixon pointed to some homes located at 800 West and 200 North and commented that there are home layouts that will work. He added that if the Commission feels that the project needs to have a standard width road, "tell us." Commissioner Godfrey asked if Mr. Nixon feels that the driveway is the road like some of the Commissioners. Mr. Nixon replied that he feels that it is a driveway with "spurs" into the homes. Commissioner Godfrey disagreed and felt that the homes are oriented to the road to the north. Mr. Nixon asked if the doors on the homes indicate the direction the home is facing.

Chairman Sweeten commented that he cannot see how the narrowness of the lot can be mitigated. Mr. Nixon replied that he would like to try. Commissioner Peters expressed the opinion that the Commission can pass the concerns on to the Council. Commissioner Anderson questioned whether seeing the orientation and layouts of the homes would mitigate the concerns, but felt that Mr. Nixon should be allowed to try. Mr. Nixon replied that the problem with sending it on to the Council is that if he tries to mitigate and change to address the concern, they consider it a new plan that the Commission has not reviewed. Mr. Jones agreed that he felt it was premature to go to the Council also.

Chairman Sweeten objected to spending more time on a project that he "frankly" cannot see how it can be mitigated. Mr. Nixon replied that he would like to spend the time and that he is confident that the problems can be mitigated. Commissioner Peters verified that Mr. Nixon is asking for a continuance. Mr. Nixon replied yes. Commissioner Anderson asked what would be changed. Mr. Nixon replied that he would present specific house plans and orientation of the homes. Chairman Sweeten reiterated his opinion that he does not see how the concerns can be mitigated and asked if taking the time is "worthwhile." Mr. Nixon replied that it is "worthwhile to us." Commissioner Simister suggested making a list of the problems. Chairman Sweeten commented that the most insistent problem is that the lot is too narrow, and this cannot be mitigated.

Mr. Nixon observed that he can present the floor plan of the homes. Commissioner Simister asked for the setbacks to be preserved and the safety issues addressed; such as sidewalks, curb, gutter, parking, garbage pickup, and fire access. Commissioner Peters commented that he agrees with the Chairman that a motion to deny would be best. He added that this is out of respect for Mr. Nixon and that he would rather that Mr. Nixon not request a continuance. Mr. Nixon asked if the Commission feels that the homes need to be thirty-feet from the driveway. He asked if homes with wrap-around driveways have this requirement. Commissioner Godfrey asked the distance between units #5 and #6. Mr. Nixon replied that this distance is forty-feet. He acknowledged that if this is front and rear yards, this distance will have to change. He noted that the Commission wants a specific layout.

Chairman Sweeten observed that he still feels that Mr. Nixon is trying to "fit a square peg in a round hole." Commissioner Bryner asked if it was possible for Mr. Nixon to reapply if this is denied. It was explained that the next step is to go to the Council. Commissioner Anderson agreed that the Council may reject the application if changes are made before the Commission reviews them. He observed that it may be only fair to let the developer have a chance to show it to the Commission first. Councilmember Bayless commented that it was respect for the Planning Commission that the Council should not look at something different than they have reviewed. The Council acts on the recommendation of the Planning Commission. Mr. Smith agreed that if it was a totally different plan, a proposal needs to be returned to the Planning Commission. However, every development item is sent to the Council with a list of recommendations or concerns that need mitigation.

Chairman Sweeten asked if the neighbors and Commissioners feel that their concerns can be mitigated. Commissioner Anderson felt that Mr. Nixon should be allowed to try. He added that a time limit can be placed, so the Commission does not start from scratch every time. Chairman Sweeten commented that unless there are "groundbreaking" changes, he cannot see using more than fifteen minutes. Commissioner Godfrey agreed to one more time, but he did not see the need to accept additional public input. Commissioner Anderson suggested that the fire marshal be invited. Commissioner Bryner instructed Mr. Nixon to bring the actual floor plans and elevations. Commissioner Simister added that the site plan should show the setbacks from the road/driveway and the orientation of the homes. Commissioner Godfrey asked for curb on the north side of the road, no two-story houses or a thirty-foot setback if a two-story house is used. Commissioner Peters observed that he cannot comprehend how this project can be built on a lot of this size. He felt that there were too many concerns that were safety-related and that it should be denied. Chairman Sweeten agreed that he does not feel this project fits this parcel. He felt that out of respect for the applicants and the Commissioners, the project should be denied.

COMMISSIONER ANDERSON MOVED TO CONTINUE THE REQUEST BY MARK JONES FOR A SIX-HOME, 1.25 ACRE, R2 OVERLAY PROJECT AT 234 NORTH 400 EAST TO THE NEXT MEETING ON SEPTEMBER 8, 2004 WITH THE STIPULATION THAT THERE IS A TIME LIMIT AND THE DISCUSSION WILL BE RESTRICTED TO THIRTY MINUTES. COMMISSIONER BRYNER SECONDED THE MOTION. ALL PRESENT VOTED IN FAVOR, EXCEPT COMMISSIONERS PETERS AND SWEETEN WHO VOTED NAY. THE MOTION CARRIED (4-2).

Mr. Nixon returned to the Commission.

7. LINDON MEADOWS - 600 WEST 200 SOUTH - PRELIMINARY SUBDIVISION APPLICATION

This is a request for approval for a twelve-lot residential subdivision in the R1-20 zone.

Mr. Bill Fairbanks and Mr. Stan Allman were invited to the front. Mr. Smith pointed out the location of the proposed subdivision on an aerial photo and noted the locations of existing homes that affect the subdivision. He explained that the proposed street is shown on the Lindon City General Plan in this location, and that the Board of Adjustments have approved narrowed lot widths and diminished setbacks to facilitate access to the interior of this block and construction of a street. The Board of Adjustments concluded that access in this location if it is the only feasible way to develop this parcel. Mr. Smith pointed out a twenty-foot wide storm drain and sewer easement attached to Lot #3.

Commissioner Simister commented on the awkward shape of Lot #5. Mr. Smith showed the Commission that the lot contains an adequate buildable area. Mr. Fairbanks explained that the subdivision is formed of property from three owners, the Rockwoods, Hackings, and Jaspers, and the lots have been formed around existing buildings, houses, and trees. He pointed out that Lot #10 contains a shop built by the Jaspers to be converted into a home. He has already talked to Lindon’s Building Official, Phil Brown, about the conversion. He observed that every lot meets or exceeds the minimum lot size. He commented that he plans restrictive covenants to promote the construction of "quiet, country homes" with porches, side entry garages, rock and wood architectural details, and rail fences. He pointed out planter strips along most of the streets. He commented that this property lies on a "bench" above the high water table typical in most of this area so a large percentage of the homes can have walk-out basements.

Commissioner Peters asked if a soils report had been done. Mr. Fairbanks replied that the soils report had found that the soil is clay, but not collapsible soil. Commissioner Anderson asked if the building on Lot #6 would remain. Mr. Fairbanks replied yes. Commissioner Nixon suggested that the building envelope on Lot #5 be shown on the plat. He also suggested that the trail cross section be used for construction of the street. Mr. Fairbanks commented that he is a strong believer in traffic calming and trees in planter strips. The Commission discussed the trail cross section.

Commissioner Nixon commented that if the shop is not improved into a home, then this leaves an odd-shaped lot. He expressed the opinion that the plat be revisited if plans change for this structure. Mr. Fairbanks pointed to an existing home on the next lot that necessitates the lot boundary location. He added that the boundaries need to "remain as is."

Commissioner Bryner asked if the storm and sewer easements extends to 200 South. Mr. Fairbanks explained that this is an existing sewer access for the home on the property. The property is included in Lot #3, and will be reserved to the City for a storm and sewer easement. He noted that the property is fenced on both sides. Commissioner Nixon confirmed that there is a strip of Lot #3 that extends to 200 South. Mr. Smith commented that this "strip" does not provide access from one street to another as a "double-frontage" lot would. Commissioner Bryner asked if this property could be used as a private drive and how weeds would be controlled. Mr. Fairbanks replied that the strip does not lend itself as a convenience to Lot #3 other than as sewer and storm drain access. Commissioner Bryner asked if this strip presents a potential problem that can be circumvented now. Mr. Smith replied that he did not believe so. He explained that the "double-frontage" ordinance is directed more at churches and other large institutions where motorists use their parking lots to access through without using public streets. Commissioner Nixon commented that this appears to be more of a maintenance problem with weeds than an access issue. Mr. Smith agreed.

COMMISSIONER PETERS MOVED TO APPROVE THE REQUEST BY BILL FAIRBANKS FOR APPROVAL OF LINDON MEADOWS, PLAT "A," AN ELEVEN-LOT RESIDENTIAL SUBDIVISION AT 600 WEST 200 SOUTH AND RECOMMEND APPROVAL TO THE CITY COUNCIL WITH THE FOLLOWING RECOMMENDATIONS:
1. THE BUILDING PAD ON LOT #5 BE DESIGNATED, WITH THE SETBACKS, ON THE PLAT.
COMMISSIONER SIMISTER SECONDED THE MOTION. ALL PRESENT VOTED IN FAVOR EXCEPT FOR COMMISSIONER NIXON WHO VOTED NAY. THE MOTION CARRIED.

8. ALPINE POWER SPORTS - 370 NORTH STATE STREET - CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT

This is a request for site plan approval for Alpine Power Sports.

Mr. Craig Johnson was introduced. Mr. Smith observed that this particular request is intertwined with Low Book Sales and the moving of a non-conforming use. This issue was also touched on during the recent amendment to the Standard Land Use Table that added ATV and snowmobile sales and service to the Marine Craft Sales and Accessories category. He explained that Alpine Power Sports has moved into the existing Vantage Auto site and is asking for site plan approval. He observed that he hopes that this will clarify the car lot situation and eliminate automobile sales as an approved non-conforming use on this property. He presented the rough drawing of the site and commented that if the Commission wanted to see a more detailed plan, they can request one. He observed that the footprint of the buildings has not changed.

Commissioner Simister asked how many people are employed by Alpine Power Sports. Mr. Johnson replied five. He explained the site plan and pointed out State Street, existing landscaping and fencing. Commissioner Nixon asked if the fence will be moved. Mr. Johnson replied that he has a lease option on the property and that improvements have been done in the past by the property owner. Commissioner Nixon asked if the landscaping meets the code requirements. Mr. Smith replied that this is an existing non-conforming building and site that has been granted modifications at various times in the past.

Chairman Sweeten asked about the "pie-shaped" segment along State Street between this property and the neighboring business, The Pizza Factory. Mr. Johnson replied that this parcel is owned by the pizza restaurant and has been improved for additional parking for this business. Commissioner Nixon asked about storm drain improvements. Mr. Smith replied that this site has been retrofitted to comply as closely as possible with the requirements. Commissioner Peters asked about some old oil sumps in the floor of the rear building. Mr. Johnson was unaware of any oil sumps. Mr. Smith added that the Chief Building Official may have more information on these old building modifications.

Commissioner Nixon confirmed that the site contains white rail fence on the State Street frontage. Mr. Johnson verified this statement. Commissioner Bryner commented that the site has no trees, just grass. Commissioner Godfrey added that there is not twenty-feet of grass, just about six to eight-feet of grass. He expressed dissatisfaction that the Planning Commission was not consulted on the architectural design of the building reconstruction. Mr. Smith explained that this is a weakness in the code and approval of the Planning Commission is not required for an exterior remodel. Chairman Sweeten observed that this is an amendment to the City Code that needs to be considered before this issue arises again.

Commissioner Nixon commented that the Commission can do something to bring the site plan more into compliance with existing codes. Mr. Smith cautioned that this site and building fall under the non-conforming uses section of the code. Commissioner Nixon asked how the Commission can require more landscaping to bring the site more into compliance. Mr. Smith replied that the existing landscaping plan was approved by a previous Commission because it was needed for display purposes. He added that the Planning Commission can reassess the site plan if the need for displays has changed.

Commissioner Anderson asked if this use is conditional according to the Standard Land Use Table. Mr. Smith replied that this use is permitted, not conditional, and the application is for site plan review. He commented that the point to accomplish with this review is to eliminate used car sales on this site. Commissioner Simister clarified that approval to move the business and occupy this site is permitted already by the City Code. Commissioner Nixon observed that the Planning Commission usually spends some time reviewing the landscaping standards when they review a site plan and give approval to a business to operate at a given location. The Commission discussed the fact that the site has not changed, just the tenant and the exterior of the building. Commissioner Anderson explained to Mr. Johnson that the Commission does not have a problem with his business being at this location and operating, they would just like to see a non-conforming site brought more nearly into compliance.

Mr. Johnson observed that the site was sufficient to meet the code when is was previously approved. He added that he would have problems with having sufficient customer parking if more landscaping was required. He commented that the location of the building cannot change and be moved back, but State Street has been widened and frontage is now occupied by street easements. Commissioner Godfrey asked the distance from the back of the sidewalk to the building. Mr. Smith calculated forty-five feet from the aerial photo. The Commission discussed whether they had the right to require more landscaping. Chairman Sweeten suggested checking with the City Attorney. Commissioner Godfrey suggested that the Lindon City Code be amended to require new compliance if a certain percentage of exterior remodel takes place.

Chairman Sweeten commented that storage cannot be above the level of the fence. Commissioner Anderson added that displays cannot be placed on the landscaping. Commissioner Godfrey asked about the treatment of the unpaved section in the back. Mr. Johnson replied that this area is gravel. Commissioner Godfrey suggested that this review be continued to allow consultation with the City Attorney into the scope of the Planning Commission’s authority. He commented to Mr. Johnson that there is the possibility of additional requirements. Mr. Johnson replied that a time limit on the additional requirements may be needed so that the landowner does not "draw out" the improvements and hold up his approvals. Commissioner Anderson asked if the site meets the parking standards. Mr. Smith replied yes. Commissioner Godfrey asked if the shop performs mechanical work. Mr. Johnson replied yes.

COMMISSIONER NIXON MOVED TO CONTINUE THE REQUEST BY ALPINE POWER SPORTS FOR SITE PLAN APPROVAL FOR 370 NORTH STATE STREET TO ALLOW THE COMMISSION TO EXPLORE THE OPPORTUNITY TO REQUIRE A MORE DETAILED SITE PLAN THAT INCLUDES ADDITIONAL LANDSCAPING. COMMISSIONER PETERS SECONDED THE MOTION. ALL PRESENT VOTED IN FAVOR. THE MOTION CARRIED.

9. ROYAL COURT - 450 WEST GILLMAN LANE - PRELIMINARY SUBDIVISION APPLICATION

This is a request for approval of a five-lot residential subdivision in the R1-20 zone.

Mr. Richard French, contractor, and Mr. Bryan Ferre introduced themselves to the Commission. Mr. Smith brought up an aerial photo to show the location and then displayed the proposed subdivision plat. He pointed out an existing home and sheds. He commented that the sheds will be removed, but the home will remain. He noted that there are some odd-shaped lots, but the lots contain enough area that a sufficient building envelope exists. He noted that the developers will be improving Gillman Lane with curb, gutter and sidewalk. The Commission asked the width of Gillman Lane. Mr. Smith replied that this is a local street with a fifty-foot easement. Councilmember Bayless observed that she would like to comment as a citizen living on this street. She commented that it has been proven on streets with no sidewalks, it may be detrimental to improve streets in "pieces." She suggested that no improvements be placed on Gillman Lane at this time, but that the developer bond for future improvements. Mr. Smith agreed that studies have been done that suggest the accuracy of this statement. He mentioned that the City has required bonding in place of improvements in the past.

Commissioner Peters asked if the curb and gutter were necessary to direct storm water. Commissioner Nixon asked where storm water would be directed if the curb and gutter are installed. Mr. French replied that there is a ditch on the west property line that collects the storm water now and could continue to function for that purpose. Councilmember Bayless confirmed that Gillman Lane is higher than the surrounding properties and that water does not collect on it. Mr. Ferre agreed and confirmed that he has watch when it is storming to see where the water runs.

Commissioner Nixon suggested the trail cross section. The Commissioners discussed the location of the pathway on the General Plan. Councilmember Bayless commented that the pathway is on the north side of Gillman Lane and this property is on the south side. Commissioner Nixon commented that the pathway cross section may still be appropriate for the cul-de-sac. He also suggested moving the alignment of the cul-de-sac to the east to straighten the property lines on oddly-shaped Lot #3. He noted that this move would also allow the retention of the existing trees. Mr. French commented that the lots are pre-sold and under contract. The homes have been designed to fit the lots as is. He added that most of the lots are sold to relatives. Chairman Sweeten asked if the lots comply with the subdivision standards. Mr. Smith replied that the subdivision meets the minimum requirements.

Chairman Sweeten asked if there was any further public comment. Councilmember Bayless suggested that the developers and contractors be aware that it is not acceptable to leave construction debris on neighboring property and, she added, that it is not accepted protocol to use obscene and offensive language on neighboring property either. She asked Mr. Ferre and Mr. French to pass that along to their contractors and subcontractors. The developers asked for details and agreed to bring this subject up with their contractors.

COMMISSIONER GODFREY MOVED TO APPROVE THE REQUEST BY BRYAN FERRE FOR APPROVAL OF ROYAL COURT, PLAT "A," A FIVE-LOT RESIDENTIAL SUBDIVISION AT 450 WEST GILLMAN LANE WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS:
1. THAT THE BUILDABLE ENVELOPES FOR EACH LOT BE SHOWN ON THE PLAT.
2. THAT THE PATHWAY CROSS SECTION BE CONSTRUCTED IN THE CUL-DE-SAC.
3. THAT CURB, GUTTER AND SIDEWALK ON GILLMAN LANE BE BONDED FOR AS DETERMINED BY THE CITY ENGINEER.
COMMISSIONER NIXON SECONDED THE MOTION.

Chairman Sweeten questioned using the pathway cross section because of the short distance to Gillman Lane and the planned pathway for that street. Commissioner Nixon replied that the pathway cross section, for now, is little more than a park strip that can be developed into a pathway in the future. The Commissioners discussed the possibilities of developing pathways in the future and the disagreement on the surfacing material for the pathways.

COMMISSIONER GODFREY MOVED TO AMEND THE PREVIOUS MOTION TO REMOVE THE REQUIREMENT FOR A PATHWAY CROSS SECTION BECAUSE OF THE "CONFLICT BETWEEN GRAVEL AND GRASS." COMMISSIONER BRYNER SECONDED THE MOTION. ALL PRESENT VOTED IN FAVOR, EXCEPT COMMISSIONER NIXON WHO NOTED NAY. THE MOTION CARRIED.

10.  LINDON RETAIL CENTER - 700 NORTH STATE STREET - DESIGN REVIEW

This is a request for a design review of a new retail center next to Wal-Mart.

Mr. Matthew Idema, CDC Associates, introduced himself to the Commissioners. Mr. Smith reported that this is a design review application. He observed that the plan has been reviewed in the Development Review Committee and is currently undergoing the Engineer’s Review. He presented the aerial photo of the area and the site plan. He then displayed the elevations to the Commission. He commented that, at the staff level, the use is approvable, but this is a major gateway and only the rear elevations of these buildings will be visible from both State Street and 700 North. He suggested that the design and layout of the site may be fine, but the design of the building needs Commission review.

Commissioner Peters agreed that the building design does not meet his vision of Lindon. Mr. Idema distributed a colonized version of the site plan. He explained that the City required Wal-Mart to minimize the numbers of accesses to State Street and 700 North, so Wal-Mart has limited the access to this site internally from the parking lot. Therefore, the buildings will face Wal-Mart’s parking lot and the rear elevations will face the streets. There will be a landscaped berm separating the site from the streets. He showed a cross section of the berm and pointed out how the site will be recessed and screened with vegetation. He explained that Wal-Mart will bring the people in and there will be no access to the streets. Commissioner Godfrey asked about signs. Commissioner Peters agreed and commented that it "seemed illogical" that signs are not being asked for now. Mr. Idema replied that the buildings are designed for signage on the upper edge of the building. He added that the potential leasees of the buildings have signed letters of intent and, for all intents and purposes, the buildings are fully leased.

Commissioner Peters commented that the landscaping and berming appear to be "great," however, he explained that this is a critical location for the City and architectural treatment of the buildings is very important. He observed that the Planning Commission had determined some standards that were imposed on Wal-Mart, the car wash, and Low Book Sales. Commissioner Nixon agreed that this is a prominent corner and as such is very important as the "gateway" to the City. Commissioner Peters asked if a "Welcome to Lindon" sign is planned for this corner. Mr. Smith replied yes and pointed out the intended location. Mr. Idema commented that the buildings are in the planning stages, so he does not have color boards. He asked how many architectural iterations may be needed. The Commission pointed out the cupolas, arched windows, and other architectural details used by Wal-mart, the car wash, and the City buildings.

Commissioner Bryner asked the types of establishments that are anticipated. Mr. Idema replied that there will be retail stores and food establishments, as well as the possibility of a bank taking two units. Chairman Sweeten expressed the opinion that if Low Book Sales and the other businesses were required to comply to an architectural standard, that this one should not be exempt. Commissioner Peters commented that he drives 1200 South/University Parkway in Orem frequently and he pointed out that many of these buildings back to this major thoroughfare. He expressed the opinion that many of these buildings can be used as examples of a "nice job" treating the back side of the building as attractively as the front. Commissioner Bryner asked about the doors show on the back side of units in the present elevations. Mr. Idema replied that these are "man doors" for deliveries.

Mr. Idema commented that he would relay the Planning Commission’s suggestions to the architect. He added that the development company would like to split the site plan from the architectural drawing to allow site improvements to proceed. Mr. Smith confirmed that Mr. Idema understood no buildings have been approved. Mr. Idema agreed and commented that if the engineering is approved, they would like to start on the site.

Commissioner Peters asked if there would be landscaping between the site and Wal-Mart’s parking lot. Mr. Smith pointed out sidewalk, landscaping islands, retaining wall, and vegetation–some existing and some new. He asked Mr. Idema how low the site would be below State Street. Mr. Idema replied that the east building is about nine-feet below State Street and the west building is about six-feet below 700 North. He pointed out that the buildings are separated to maintain a view corridor from the corner to Wal-Mart.

Commissioner Nixon wondered if there was a better, more easily accessible location for the trash enclosure. He also wondered if three enclosures were necessary. Mr. Idema agreed and he and Commissioner Nixon discussed alternate locations. Commissioner Anderson asked if the parking requirements have been met. Mr. Idema replied that the parking required for retail space is five per thousand square feet. He informed the Commissioners that this requirement has been met, with a few extra for the food establishment. Commissioner Simister asked if the bank would require a drive-up window. Mr. Idema replied that the building would be moved south, parking stalls removed and a drive-through created if necessary. Commissioner Peters asked the size of the parking stalls. Mr. Idema replied that the stalls are 9 X 18 in front and 9X 20 in back of the buildings. There was a discussion of the berm, fence, landscaping and sidewalk on 700 North. Commissioner Godfrey commented that every building in this area has received heavy input on the look and feel of the city. Commissioner Bryner agreed and suggested that it may be helpful for the architect to look at the buildings that have recently been approved and are under construction. Mr. Idema was encouraged to follow the example of City Hall and the fire station.

11. PLANNING DIRECTOR’S REPORT

1. Grading Plan Amendment - Canberra Height, Lot 27

Mr. Smith presented the proposed grading plan for Lot #27 in Canberra Heights. He commented that this is a fairly flattened lot. He pointed out that the owners wish to add a sports court. Chairman Sweeten asked if the sports court meets the required setbacks. Mr. Smith replied that he would verify the distances and fence heights. He pointed out grading within twenty-feet of the property lines. The Commissioners asked if steep portion was liable for flash flooding. Mr. Smith replied no.

THE COMMISSION REACHED CONSENSUS TO APPROVE A REQUEST FOR GRADING PLAN APPROVAL FOR CANBERRA HEIGHTS, LOT #27.

2. Utah League of Cities and Towns Training

Mr. Smith informed the Commissioners of the upcoming Utah League of Cities and Towns convention scheduled for the week of September 15. He noted that one day of the convention is usually reserved for planning issues. He asked if any of the Commissioners would like to attend. There was a discussion about the dates involved and the location of the convention.

Mr. Smith reported that there has been a heavy work-load in planning for this summer, but that most of the applications have been heard now. He commented that the fall months will be used to get caught up on some code work.

COMMISSIONER SWEETEN MOVED TO ADJOURN THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING AT 11:14 P.M. COMMISSIONER GODFREY SECONDED THE MOTION. ALL PRESENT VOTED IN FAVOR. THE MOTION CARRIED.

APPROVED - September 22, 2004