The Lindon City Planning Commission held a regularly scheduled meeting on Wednesday, January 14, 2004 at 7:00 p.m. in the Lindon City Center, Council Chambers, at 100 North State Street, Lindon, Utah.

Conducting: Dustin Sweeten, Vice Chairman
Prayer: Jim Peters

PRESENT

Dustin Sweeten, Vice Chairman
Ron Anderson, Commissioner (arrived 7:08 p.m.)
Julie Bryner, Commissioner
Gary Godfrey, Commissioner
Evan Nixon, Commissioner (arrived 7:09 p.m.)
Jim Peters, Commissioner
Marilyn Simister, Commissioner
Lindsey Bayless, Councilmember
Kevin Smith, Planning Director
Venla Gubler, Administrative Clerk
Lorenzo Barcellone, Planning Intern

ABSENT

James McMurray, Planning Intern

The meeting began at 7:06 p.m.

1. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE

Vice Chairman Sweeten led the Commissioners and audience in the Pledge of Allegiance.

2. APPROVAL OF MINUTES

The minutes of the regular meeting of October 22, 2003 were reviewed. The following corrections were made:
Page 1, Line 34: Replace the word "handicap" with the word "handicapped."
COMMISSIONER PETERS MOVED TO APPROVE THE MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF OCTOBER 22, 2003 AS CORRECTED. COMMISSIONER SIMISTER SECONDED THE MOTION. ALL PRESENT VOTED IN FAVOR. THE MOTION CARRIED.

The minutes of the regular meeting of November 12, 2003 were reviewed. There were no corrections.
COMMISSIONER ANDERSON MOVED TO APPROVE THE MINUTES OF NOVEMBER 12, 2003. COMMISSIONER PETERS SECONDED THE MOTION. ALL PRESENT VOTED IN FAVOR. THE MOTION CARRIED.

(Commissioner Anderson arrived at 7:08 p.m.)
(Commissioner Nixon arrived at 7:09 p.m.)

3. PUBLIC COMMENT

Vice Chairman Sweeten welcomed the new Commissioners, Gary Godfrey and Julie Bryner. He commented that he hoped they would enjoy their service to the city.
Mr. Smith observed that Mr. Leeman Day was in the audience. He explained that Mr. Day had submitted an application for an accessory apartment in the Pheasant Hollow subdivision at 434 East 710 North. There were no concerns from staff, but a letter had been received from a resident. Mr. Smith noted that this would normally be an agenda item, but the item had mistakenly not been added to this week's agenda. He observed that both the applicant and the neighbor who wrote the letter had been informed that the item may be heard tonight. Mr. Day was in the audience, but the neighbor was not. He asked the Commission if they would like to consider the item.

Commissioner Peters wondered if the Commission should wait because the neighbor was not present. He commented that the neighbor's basis for objection is that their CC&R's prohibit accessory apartments. He added that notice should be given to homeowners that restrictions against accessory apartments cannot be put into CC&R's. Mr. Smith explained that Pheasant Hollow's CC&R's were recorded in 1994. This was before the current R2 Overlay ordinance was adopted. He explained to the audience and new Commissioners that the R2 Overlay ordinance was adopted to meet the State of Utah mandate for affordable housing. He also noted that the City does not create, or enforce, CC&R's.

Commissioner Peters asked about the number of units available in this R2 District. Mr. Smith replied that the District has available units and that this would count as two units. Commissioner Anderson asked if the separation distance requirement was met. Mr. Smith replied that the separation distance applies to duplexes or triplexes and not accessory apartments. Vice Chairman Sweeten explained that as long as an application is in conformance with the City ordinances, it can be approved. The neighborhood association is the only entity that can enforce their CC&R's. They can sue for enforcement, but the City is not involved.

Mr. Smith displayed the site plat and elevations of the application. He commented that there will be a two-bedroom apartment in the basement. It complies with the size requirements. Vice Chairman Sweeten commented that many residents are opposed to an apartment before it is constructed, however, after the home is built, many are not aware of its existence because there is so little impact with an accessory apartment. He asked if there was any comment from the Commission or public. There was none.

THE COMMISSION REACHED CONSENSUS THAT THE APPLICATION BY LEEMAN DAY FOR AN ACCESSORY APARTMENT AT 434 EAST 710 NORTH MEETS THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE R2 OVERLAY ORDINANCE.

Vice Chairman Sweeten asked if there were other items. There were none.

4. NEW BUSINESS

Commissioner Nixon asked about the progress to alleviate a parking problem he had mentioned at the last meeting. He explained that these businesses were using their parking for storage. Mr. Smith replied that these businesses had places for their employees to move their cars inside, but that the employees choose not to. It is not a violation of the code to park a car on the street, as long as it is not left there for an extended period. He agreed that it was not the intent of the City to have parking for employees on the street, and so he would talk to the business owners. Commissioner Nixon explained that the street was blocked enough now by parked cars, and that it is difficult for semi-trucks to negotiate the street safely. He suggested painting the curbs red. There was a short discussion of the issue.

Commissioner Peters mentioned that the new speed humps on 600 North had made a big difference in the speeding problems. Commissioner Nixon asked why the City had paid for this improvement. Mr. Smith explained that a serious accident had occurred here. Commissioner Peters added that although the design of the road was not faulty, it created an "attractive nuisance" in the design that allows for the future development of Main Street.

5. OSTLER INDUSTRIAL PARK, PLAT "D" - 1850 WEST 100 NORTH - PRELIMINARY SUBDIVISION REVIEW
This is a request for approval of a four-lot subdivision in the LI zone.

Mr. Mike Ahlen of Impact Development was present. Mr. Smith informed the Commission of the background of this application. He pointed out the location of the lots in an aerial photo and noted that two of the lots are 2.5 and 2.75 acres each. The other two are lots that will be dedicated to the city for storm drainage. He noted that this is a recommendation to the Council. Commissioner Nixon questioned the making of two lots rather than dedicating an easement. Mr. Ahlen explained that this area contained the Proctor Ditch and that whether he dedicates lots or easements, it "comes out the same."

Mr. Ahlin looked at the map displayed and informed the Commission and Mr. Smith that there is a newer version of the plat that splits the second lot into two, so there are six lots. Commissioner Peters asked if this split would still meet the frontage requirements. Mr. Smith checked the total frontage and replied that there was enough frontage for two lots. Mr. Ahlin informed the Commission that his buyer had requested this split for financing purposes. He is building office/warehouses. Commissioner Nixon asked about requiring public utility easement on lot line. Mr. Smith replied that he would check with the City Engineer.

The Commission discussed the lots which contain the storm drain ditch. It was suggested that access for maintenance of the ditch should be noted on the plat. Mr. Smith pointed out that access is available. Commissioner Simister pointed out that there seems to be a description problem on the east side of the ditch. She asked if that would create a problem for the city. Mr. Smith replied that all fence line issues must be resolved before a plat is recorded at the County.

Mr. Ahlin explained that the first lot will be sold to the neighbor to the north for future expansion of the Mix-right business. Commissioner Peters asked about requiring cross easements on the lots for access over the ditch. Mr. Smith replied that the City Engineers were not concerned about this ditch like they had been about the one on 2000 West. He brought up the aerial and showed how lots facing the ditch on 2000 West had shared accesses to reduce crossings. Alternate access was also provided in cross easements to 1800 West over adjacent lots to the east. Commissioner Peters felt that alternate accesses should be considered for lots adjacent to the Proctor Ditch also. He suggested that the Commission could consider this issue again on the site plan reviews and that the developer should be aware of this possibility.

Commissioner Anderson asked if there would be improvement on the ditch. Mr. Smith replied that only improvements similar to those required of the business to the north would be required here. Commissioner Anderson pointed out that major improvements were required on 2000 West and should possibly be considered here. Commissioner Nixon confirmed that no further maintenance access to the ditch was needed. Mr. Smith verified this statement.

COMMISSIONER NIXON MOVED TO APPROVE THE REQUEST BY MIKE AHLIN FOR APPROVAL FOR A SIX-LOT SUBDIVISION AT 1850 WEST 100 NORTH IN THE LIGHT INDUSTRIAL ZONE AND RECOMMEND APPROVAL TO THE CITY COUNCIL WITH THE FOLLOWING RECOMMENDATIONS:
1. THAT ANY ACCESS EASEMENTS TO THE DITCH REQUIRED BY THE LINDON CITY PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT OR CITY ENGINEER BE PROVIDED.
2. THAT A POSSIBLE PROPERTY LINE DISCREPANCY IN THE AREA OF THE DITCH IS NOTED AND MUST BE RESOLVED BEFORE THE PLAT IS RECORDED.
COMMISSIONER ANDERSON SECONDED THE MOTION. ALL PRESENT VOTED IN FAVOR. THE MOTION CARRIED.

6. OSTLER INDUSTRIAL PARK, PLAT "F" - 1850 WEST 100 NORTH - PRELIMINARY SUBDIVISION REVIEW
This is a request for approval of a two-lot subdivision in the LI zone.

Vice Chairman Sweeten recognized the presence of a Scout Troop in the audience. They identified themselves as Troop 737 from Provo.

Mr. Smith informed the Commission that this subdivision application is just down the street to the south. He noted that the Commission is familiar with the Mix-right application a few weeks ago. This is the next two adjacent lots and will also be purchased by this business. He showed the shared access easement on the north end and observed that this easement will also be incorporated on the site plan. Commissioner Nixon asked if the 30-foot public utility easement is different from the access easement. He was told that the easement was for both access and utilities. Vice Chairman Sweeten asked if the overhead power lines were of any concern. Mr. Smith replied no.

COMMISSION NIXON MOVED TO APPROVE THE REQUEST BY MIKE AHLIN FOR APPROVAL FOR A TWO-LOT SUBDIVISION AT 1850 EAST 110 NORTH IN THE LIGHT INDUSTRIAL ZONE AND RECOMMEND APPROVAL TO THE CITY COUNCIL WITH THE FOLLOWING RECOMMENDATIONS:
1. THAT THE PUBLIC UTILITY EASEMENT ON THE NORTH SIDE OF THE SUBDIVISION BE ALSO LISTED AS A PUBLIC ACCESS EASEMENT.
COMMISSIONER PETERS SECONDED THE MOTION. ALL PRESENT VOTED IN FAVOR. THE MOTION CARRIED.

7. COUNTRY CARS - 565 NORTH STATE STREET - TEMPORARY CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT EXTENSION
This is a request for a six-month extension for a temporary use permit.

This item was put on hold temporarily to consider item eight. See below

8. FRYER HOLLOW - 275 EAST 200 NORTH - DEEP LOT SUBDIVISION REVIEW
This is a request for design review of a deep lot within the R1-20 zone.

Mr. Smith introduced the pending application for Fryer Hollow subdivision consisting of one deep lot. He showed the aerial of the neighborhood and pointed out the closest streets on the master plan. He informed the Commission that there is a slope problem on 200 North that complicates the future development of this street and neighborhood. He showed the proposal to the Commission and pointed out the 25-foot driveway to the proposed lot in the back. He noted that this is a design review.

The Commission discussed the split road on the west end of the street to access the neighbor's home that sits below the crest of the slope into the Hollow. Mr. Smith reported that the City Engineer, Dave Thurgood, had reviewed 200 North when the Lindon City Master Plan had been updated recently. Mr. Thurgood had suggested ending the street in a cul-de-sac where the slope gets steep.

Vice Chairman Sweeten asked the frontage of the lots on 200 North. Mr. Steve Fryer replied 177 feet. Commissioner Godfrey asked if the neighbors had been notified of the intention to subdivide. Mr. Smith replied that the neighbors would be notified when the subdivision application is being considered. This is just a design review. He observed that proposal seems to comply with the acreage and frontage requirements of the ordinance. The issues that exist deal with sewer, water, and the provision in the ordinance on subdividing in the normal way first. Commissioner Nixon asked if the road on the master plan could be shifted to cross this lot. Mr. Smith replied that the road cannot go further west because of the slope of the hollow.

Commissioner Simister asked if Mr. Fryer's parents still owned the home to the west. Mr. Fryer replied no. Commissioner Anderson asked if the City Engineer was concerned about extra traffic on 200 North, which is a half street. Mr. Smith replied no. Vice Chairman Sweeten commented that there is a possibility that this street will never be completed. He expressed concern that access should be addressed. Commissioner Nixon observed that the ordinance restricts deep lots to situations where there is no other way to develop. He felt that there may be a possibility of a road or cul-de-sac. He showed how either a road or cul-de-sac might be used to access the property. Mr. Smith measured the lots and it was determined that a road may not be feasible. Commissioner Peters commented that he could not see the point of putting in a full road for one house. He added that this is not a case where the hardship is self-inflicted. Vice Chairman Sweeten agreed. Commissioner Anderson also expressed the opinion that this proposal seems to meet the conditions in the ordinance.

Vice Chairman Sweeten commented that his only issue is that, in the past, the deep lot was the only way to develop because there was already a home on the front lot. This is not the case here. He pointed out that the lot could be left as a single lot also. Commissioner Godfrey confirmed that the proposal meets the minimum acreage. Mr. Smith replied that both lots meet the requirements. It was verified that the lots meet the acreage without counting the driveway access. Commissioner Nixon suggested that the option of a cul-de-sac off the side of the road should be explored. Vice Chairman Sweeten agreed that an engineer should look at this possibility. Mr. Fryer commented that the terrain would not be conducive to a cul-de-sac. He pointed out that there is almost a six-foot drop on this side of the road. Commissioner Nixon suggested that the possibility be explored. The Commission reach consensus that a deep lot seems to meet the conditions of the ordinance in this case, if there is no other option–and that a cul-de-sac should be looked into as a first choice.

7. COUNTRY CARS - 565 NORTH STATE STREET - TEMPORARY CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT EXTENSION
This is a request for a six-month extension for a temporary use permit.

Vice Chairman Sweeten turned the meeting over to Commissioner Peters, who is the senior member of the Commission, and told the Commission that he was the applicant here, so would abstain from the discussion.

THE COMMISSION REACHED CONSENSUS TO ACCEPT VICE CHAIRMAN SWEETEN'S ABSTENTION AND COMMISSIONER PETERS' LEADERSHIP.

Commissioner Simister asked about the neighboring parcel to the north. Mr. Sweeten replied that his landlord controlled this parcel and it had nothing to do with his car lot, Country Cars.

Mr. Smith informed the Commission that this is a temporary conditional use permit for a used car sales lot. He displayed the aerial photo and the site plan. He noted that the business has complied with the parking, surfacing and storm drain requirements. The issue is the temporary office trailer. The trailer was issued a two-year permit in August 2001.
Mr. Sweeten told the Commission that he had a verbal agreement with the property owner, but now with Walmart building next door, the owner has reconsidered. He was one of the few holdouts when Walmart was buying land. The agreement was that a permanent building would be constructed within the two years that he would lease. He informed the Commission that he was still hopeful that the negotiations would continue and be resolved within the next six months.

Acting Chairman Peters asked Mr. Smith what the Commission is legally allowed to do in a situation like this. Mr. Smith replied by reading the City Code section on temporary uses. He pointed out that the temporary use is specific to the building and the car lot itself has complied. He observed that he cannot find a provision in the code that says whether the Commission can or can't extend a temporary permit. He commented that the Commission does not want to have the trailer there for an extended period.

Mr. Sweeten commented that the land and the trailer are leased separately. Commissioner Nixon asked if the general commercial zone ordinance had a provision for temporary structures. Mr. Smith read the standards to the Commission and it was decided that this issue is also not addressed. Commissioner Nixon commented that the law seems to allow extensions, but that precedence may be set that is undesirable, especially for State Street. Commissioner Simister pointed out that it is the property owner rather than the business owner that is not in compliance. Commissioner Anderson commented that this site has made progress. He suggested that if the trees are added as per the code, that more time could be given on the removal of the trailer. The Commissioners discussed the precedent issue, the vagueness of the ordinance, and possibility of findings that indicate progress.

COMMISSIONER NIXON MOVED TO APPROVE THE REQUEST BY DUSTIN SWEETEN FOR A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT EXTENSION OF COUNTRY CARS' TEMPORARY TRAILER AT 565 NORTH STATE STREET FOR A PERIOD NOT TO EXCEED SIX MONTHS FROM JANUARY 14, 2004. AT THE END OF THIS PERIOD, THE TRAILER IS TO BE REMOVED AND/OR A PERMANENT SITE PLAN APPROVED. THIS APPROVAL IS BASED ON THE FINDING THAT SIGNIFICANT PROGRESS ON THE SITE HAS BEEN ACCOMPLISHED IN THE FORM OF PERMANENT IMPROVEMENTS SUCH AS LANDSCAPING, STORM DRAIN AND PAVING. COMMISSIONER SIMISTER SECONDED THE MOTION. ALL PRESENT VOTED IN FAVOR. THE MOTION CARRIED.

ACTING CHAIRMAN PETERS MOVED TO REINSTATE VICE CHAIRMAN SWEETEN AS ACTING CHAIRMAN. COMMISSIONER ANDERSON SECONDED THE MOTION. ALL PRESENT VOTED IN FAVOR. THE MOTION CARRIED.

9. ORDINANCE AMENDMENT - 17.16 - NONCONFORMING BUILDING AND USES
This is a request to amend and revise this section of the code in its entirety.

Mr. Smith presented the first draft to amend the Lindon City Code section on nonconforming uses and buildings. He pointed out a new "intent" section, and an expanded "definitions" section. He noted that the criteria for approval have not changed. Commissioner Nixon expressed the opinion that the provision that requires the expanding use to be in harmony with the purposes of Lindon's land development code is in conflict with the "intent" section. Mr. Smith observed that this may depend on the definition of harmony. He suggested that "substantial compliance" may be better words. Commissioner Peters suggested that the Commission may be in danger of limiting themselves too much when definitions are too narrow. He suggested that "harmony" allows more latitude. Commissioner Nixon suggested that the words "title and division" be replaced with the words "zone where located." The Commission agreed.

Mr. Smith observed that the term "unreasonable burden" may be considered when neighbors to a project present objections. If these objections are warranted, the project's expansion can be denied. The Commission discussed the provisions for moving a nonconforming use and adding contiguous land to a nonconforming use.

Vice Chairman Sweeten asked if there is a limit on the size of an expansion. After discussion, it was decided that the Commission would have the right to limit an expansion if there is an undue burden on the neighborhood. Commissioner Simister expressed the opinion that she liked the six month limit on the loss of legal nonconforming status. Commissioner Nixon questioned whether the limit on restoration of a damaged use should also be six months. Commissioner Peters replied that there are insurance issues involved here.

Commissioner Peters asked for an explanation of the need for the "determination" clause. Mr. Smith explained that there are businesses that stack junk and have been doing so for years. They claim that this use is "grand fathered." This provision places the burden for proving any use on the shoulders of the owner. Mr. Harlow Clark, newspaper representative, commented that some people are concerned that the provision about restoration of a damaged use is a way to force nonconforming uses off their land. They argue that the only thing that stands between them and eviction is a catastrophe. This was discussed and it was noted that the restoration must just be started within one year and completed within two years.

Commissioner Anderson asked about the restoration of mobile homes. Mr. Smith observed that mobile homes are covered under a separate section of the code and that any replacement must meet the current ordinance. Commissioner Anderson expressed concern that the ordinance may need to be more specific to give it sufficient legal authority. This was discussed among the Commission. It was noted that a public hearing is required for all expansions of a nonconforming use. Mr. Smith noted that the public hearing requirement does not have noticing provisions. Commissioner Nixon suggested that this may be needed to have the neighboring property owners involved. The Commission agreed.

The Commission discussed whether to approve the revised ordinance and send it to the Council, or to make the changes and review it again in two weeks.

THE COMMISSION REACHED CONSENSUS TO CONTINUE THE REVISION AND AMENDMENT OF CHAPTER 17.16 - NONCONFORMING BUILDINGS AND USES OF THE LINDON CITY CODE.

10. PLANNING DIRECTOR'S REPORT

The new Commissioners introduced themselves and gave some background on their family, accomplishments and interests. Councilmember Bayless was asked to give a report on the progress of the Assisted Living ordinance. She responded and the subject was discussed briefly.

ADJOURN

THE COMMISSIONERS REACHED CONSENSUS TO ADJOURN AT 9:30 P.M.

APPROVED - January 28, 2004

back to top