The Lindon City Planning Commission held a regularly scheduled meeting on Wednesday, June 23, 2004, beginning at 7:00 p.m. in the Lindon City Center, City Council Chambers, at 100 North State Street, Lindon, Utah.

Conducting: Dustin Sweeten, Chairman
Invocation: Jim Peters

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

ABSENT

Julie Bryner, Commissioner
Marilyn Simister, Commissioner

The meeting began at 7:41 p.m.

1. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE

Chairman Sweeten led the Commission, audience and staff in the Pledge of Allegiance.

2. APPROVAL OF MINUTES

The minutes of the regular meeting of June 9, 2004 were reviewed. The following corrections were made:
Page 1, Line 15: Add the name "Lindsey Bayless, Councilmember" to the list of attendees.
Page 2, Line 16: Replace the word "garage" with the word "garbage."
Page 3, Line 26: Replace the word "needs" with the word "need."
Page 4, Line 33,34: Replace the phrase "cannot be ‘exclusive’, but must be impartial" with the phrase "can require conditions that may be more than required by the code, but are needed to make the use compatible with the neighborhood."
Page 7, Line 30: Replace the phrase "this requirement had been satisfied" with the phrase "an agreement had been reached to satisfy this requirement."
Page 8, Line 32: Replace the word "zoned" with the word "zone."
Page 8, Line 34: Replace the name "City Council" with the name "Commission."
Page 8, Line 37: Add the word "unnecessarily" before the word "taking."
Page 9, Line 18: Replace the word "comment" with the word "comments."
Page 9, Line 31: Replace the word "requires" with the word "allows."
Page 9, Line 33: Add the words "waiting area" after the word "school’s."
Page 9, Line 34: Add the words "at this site" after the word "kids."
COMMISSIONER PETERS MOVED TO APPROVE THE MINUTES OF THE MEETING OF JUNE 9, 2004 AS CORRECTED. COMMISSIONER GODFREY SECONDED THE MOTION. ALL PRESENT VOTED IN FAVOR. THE MOTION CARRIED.

3. PUBLIC COMMENT

Mr. Brook Blackhurst, told the Commissioners that he was purchasing some property on 200 South and 500 West, which he would like to subdivide into two lots. The lots front on 200 South and all improvements are completed. Mr. Smith displayed the parcels on an aerial photo and explained that the subdivision ordinance has an exemption to the plat submittal requirements for subdivisions of less than three lots where there is no road dedication. He pointed out that there is adequate frontage, the utilities are stubbed in, and all the improvements are completed. He observed that a plat is not required and the lots will be recorded after the City Engineers have reviewed the legal description. Commissioner Peters asked if there were other parcels that would be landlocked by this subdividing. Mr. Smith pointed out a remaining parcel and its access to 200 South. Commissioner Peters commented that he wanted to ensure that Mr. Blackhurst was aware that self-inflicted hardships do not qualify for a variance if he creates a deep lot. Chairman Sweeten asked if there were any staff concerns. Mr. Smith replied no.

COMMISSIONER NIXON MOVED TO APPROVE THE REQUEST BY BROOK BLACKHURST TO CREATE TWO LOTS OF RECORD ON ABOUT 500 WEST 200 SOUTH WITH THE FINDING THAT THE REQUEST MEETS THE LINDON CITY CODE EXEMPTION FROM PLAT REQUIREMENT AS IN SECTION 17.32.060 AND THAT THE REMAINING PARCEL CONTINUES TO BE ATTACHED TO THE CURRENT HOME. COMMISSIONER PETERS SECONDED THE MOTION. ALL PRESENT VOTED IN FAVOR. THE MOTION CARRIED.

Mr. Greg Fix with Big D Construction presented a rendering of his building as requested by the Planning Commission at their last meeting. This building was conditionally approved for 1788 West 200 North at the meeting of June 6, 2004. Mr. Fix explained that the building is a concrete tilt-up structure with a sandblasted finish and an aluminum store front with blue accents. He observed that the sandblasted finish creates a "cleaner, smoother look" with no lines between the panels. Commissioner Peters asked for pictures of the Salt Lake facility. Mr. Fix only had the rendering and after discussion, it was decided that a misunderstanding had occurred in the request.

Commissioner Nixon observed that the Lindon City Code specifies that some portion of the building be constructed of decorative block. He asked if the sandblasted surface would be the same as plain faced masonry. Mr. Fix replied that the building directly across the street is built of plain-faced block. He was told that the ordinance had been changed since this building had been constructed, and that decorative block is required. Mr. Fix asserted that the concrete tilt-up is "extremely decorative." Commissioner Nixon observed that the panels are plain and he is not sure if the description meets the decorative requirement without a picture. Mr. Fix explained that the panels have chamfer strips that make them decorative. Commissioner Godfrey commented that masonry construction is different than tilt-up and proposed that the ordinance needs to be changed if the Commissioners want something more decorative. After discussion, the building was approved and Mr. Smith was asked to make a note for future reference that the term "decorative" needs further clarification.

Chairman Sweeten asked if there was any further comment. There was none.

4. NEW BUSINESS (Reports by Commissioners)

Chairman Sweeten asked the Commissioners if they had any reports. Commissioner Nixon commented that he had a note to discuss using rock for detention areas that he would defer to later. Commissioner Peters asked the procedure for creating a public utility easement. Mr. Smith explained that utility easements are defined as part of the engineering review phase of a project and are usually discussed in the Development Review Committee. They are then recorded on the deed or subdivision plat.

5. UTAH COUNTY ANIMAL SHELTER - 200 NORTH 2000 WEST - CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT
This is a request by Utah County to construct an animal shelter in Lindon to service the northern end of Utah County.

Mr. Smith informed the Commission that this request for an animal shelter will service the cities in the northern end of Utah County. He noted that previously, the animal shelter in Orem has been used and the cities have paid assessments for its maintenance and expansion. The County has built an animal control shelter in Spanish Fork to take care of the south end of the County. They have proposed to build this facility on the north end of the landfill property. He pointed out the location on an aerial photo. He informed the Commission that the proposal will consist of 1.6 acres and will finish a portion of 200 North west of 2000 West. The facility will be all enclosed and will not house any large animals. He displayed the proposed site plan and pointed out that the County would like to limit the sod and use cobblerock in the landscaping. He read a passage from the Lindon City Code that gives the Planning Commission latitude to grant permission for landscaping plans which enhance the visual environment in the Mixed Commercial zone.

The Commissioners asked questions about the operation and financing of the project. Mr. Smith replied that the maintenance of the shelter is financed by citations, fines, and impound fees. Commissioner Peters commented that the facility will have impact on the City. Commissioner Nixon added that the facility will be tax exempt. Mr. Smith replied that the county owns the property and that no property taxes have been paid anyway. He added that the City has been paying Orem City to have residents’ animals housed.

Ms. Valerie Nagasawa, architect, and Mr. Donald Nahum, Utah County, introduced themselves. Ms. Nagasawa explained that the landscaping plan would include grasses, trees and evergreens. She pointed out the parking area and displayed a picture of the existing shelter in Spanish Fork. She explained that the Lindon shelter would be the same as the shelter in Spanish Fork. Commissioner Peters asked about handicap parking and access for employees. Ms. Nagasawa replied that she could incorporate these features. Commissioner Nixon asked how many employees are expected. Mr. Nahum replied that six to ten employees are anticipated. He explained that the shelter is not open twenty-four hours a day. Commissioner Godfrey asked about the materials on the drawing. Ms. Nagasawa replied that the building would be constructed of split face block with an aluminum storefront. She explained that the storefront would not look like corrugated metal, but would be more of an accent.

Commissioner Peters asked about odors. Ms. Nagasawa replied that she had not noticed any odors at the Spanish Fork facility. Commissioner Anderson asked if the pets can be heard outside the facility. Ms. Nagasawa replied that she had not noted noise penetrating the walls to outside either. Commissioner Godfrey asked about neighbors to the facility. Mr. Smith pointed out the landfill, empty development ground, and industrial businesses.

Commissioner Nixon asked if the trail system goes through this area to Utah Lake. Mr. Smith replied no. Commissioner Nixon suggested that flexibility in the site plan may allow a trail easement to be planned for the future. This was discussed and Mr. Smith replied that he would have staff and the trails committee look at the suggestion.

Mr. Smith observed that this property is located in the Mixed Commercial zone and read a section from the code on landscaping and architectural treatment. Commissioner Nixon commented that this property is located across the street from the light industrial zone. Commissioner Peters observed that one zone is less restrictive than the other zone. Commissioner Anderson added that the mixed commercial zone is Lindon’s newest zone and that it seemed odd to him that it does not require live plant material like the light industrial zone does. Commissioner Nixon observed that having a twenty-foot grass strip does not impact water use extensively and felt that it should be included. Mr. Nahum replied that this area has a high water table and low fertility soils that are not conducive to plant growth. Commissioner Nixon commented that the trail area should not be put in cobblestone, if this is decided upon. Commissioner Godfrey observed that he prefers grass to cobblestone. Mr. Nahum replied that grass is a maintenance issue for the County. Commissioner Anderson suggested that consistency between the zones is needed. He added that this area does not have access to secondary water and that soil amendments would be needed.

COMMISSIONER NIXON MOVED TO APPROVE THE REQUEST BY UTAH COUNTY FOR A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO CONSTRUCT A COUNTY ANIMAL SHELTER AT THE CORNER OF 200 NORTH 2000 WEST AND RECOMMEND APPROVAL TO THE CITY COUNCIL WITH THE FOLLOWING RECOMMENDATIONS:
1. THAT THE TWENTY-FOOT LANDSCAPING STRIP ADJACENT TO THE STREETS BE LANDSCAPED WITH LIVE MATERIALS.
2. THAT THE ALIGNMENT OF 200 NORTH BE REVIEWED BY CITY STAFF FOR A POTENTIAL TRAIL CROSS SECTION.
COMMISSIONER GODFREY SECONDED THE MOTION. ALL PRESENT VOTED IN FAVOR. THE MOTION CARRIED.

Commissioner Peters asked that the Commission revisit the motion and add the handicap spaces as discussed earlier. The Commission discussed the request. Commissioner Nixon asked where the employee entrance is located. Ms. Nagasawa replied that the side entrance is the employee entrance.

COMMISSIONER NIXON AMENDED HIS MOTION TO INCLUDE A RECOMMENDATION THAT HANDICAP PARKING FOR EMPLOYEES BE INCLUDED NEAR THE EMPLOYEE ENTRANCE. COMMISSIONER GODFREY SECONDED THE AMENDED MOTION. ALL PRESENT VOTED IN FAVOR. THE MOTION CARRIED.

6. ANIMAL SHELTER, PLAT A - 200 NORTH 2000 WEST - PRELIMINARY SUBDIVISION REVIEW
This is a request by Utah County for approval of a one-lot subdivision plat of 1.6 acres for construction of the animal shelter.

Mr. Smith presented the subdivision plat of the preceding action and explained that a 1.6 acre lot would be created.

COMMISSIONER NIXON MOVED TO APPROVE THE REQUEST BY UTAH COUNTY FOR THE APPROVAL OF THE NORTH COUNTY ANIMAL SHELTER, PLAT "A," ONE-LOT, AT 200 NORTH 2000 WEST AND RECOMMEND APPROVAL TO THE CITY COUNCIL WITH THE RECOMMENDATION THAT THE ALIGNMENT OF 200 NORTH BE REVIEWED FOR INCLUSION INTO THE LINDON CITY TRAIL SYSTEM. COMMISSIONER PETERS SECONDED THE MOTION. ALL PRESENT VOTED IN FAVOR. THE MOTION CARRIED.

7. JONES R2 OVERLAY - 234 NORTH 400 EAST - CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT R2 OVERLAY
This is a request to construct six single-family homes on a 1.25 acre lot in the R1-20 Zone.

Commissioner Nixon stepped down from the podium and informed the Commission that he was one of the principals applying for this permit. He introduced Mr. Mark Jones. Mr. Smith presented this request for an R2 Overlay project with six single-family homes on 1.25 acres. He displayed the proposed location on an aerial photo. He informed the Commission that two different options had been proposed for this project and were included in the staff report and in the notice to the neighbors. He observed that this project is proposed for R2 District #5, which has a total of 27 out of 38 units approved. He noted that most of these units are accessory apartments.

Mr. Smith informed the Commissioners that the site plans for this project are basic and simple. He noted that fencing and landscaping will need review. Concerns from the staff level are that the driveway is 600-feet long (he noted that the maximum length for a cul-de-sac is 650-feet long), the driveway has no turn-around and needs to be a minimum of 25-feet wide to meet fire code requirements, and that another fire protection hydrant is needed. He commented that the fire marshal has suggested a hammerhead turnaround that is 70-feet long and 20-feet wide.

Chairman Sweeten suggested that the applicants give their presentation next. Mr. Jones observed that they were present looking for discussion on ways to improve the project. Mr. Nixon added that the project is 1.5 acres, not 1.25 acres as previously noted. Commissioner Peters referred to the R2 Overlay ordinance and commented that the intent of the ordinance is for multifamily units such as twin homes, condominiums, apartments, duplexes, triplexes and town homes. He suggested that projects that resemble a subdivision with single family homes are reducing the lot size to less than the requirement. He suggested that this project would be more appropriate as condos or a planned unit development. Mr. Nixon referred to section 17.46.090(4) and asked what flexibility is allowed in designating common area, limited common area, and private area. Mr. Smith commented that the provision was intended to provide private space for owners and renters, and not to create individual separate lots.

Commissioner Peters asked about the minimum width of public streets. Mr. Smith replied that subdivision streets are 34-feet wide, but the Planning Commission and Council can modify the requirements to meet a special condition. He referred to Hidden Meadows, which was allowed a width of 28-feet at a certain point to meet a special circumstance. Commissioner Peters observed that the Green Valley Condos have 24-foot wide streets and one of their continual complaints is about parking. They also have "cut-outs" for parking and still have complaints. Mr. Smith commented that the R2 Overlay ordinance requires two and one-half spaces per unit for parking. Commissioner Peters commented that this requirement is assuming that the units are duplexes and maybe more parking is needed for the more dense projects.

Commissioner Anderson observed that Heritage Court was required to put in a city street. He asked about Section 17.46.090(10)(d) and asked if a city street is needed to connect with other streets on the city’s master plan. He also asked what the "City Standards and Specifications" are for driveways. Mr. Smith replied that the ordinance defines a "driveway" and then give the Planning Commission some flexibility in the width to consider public safety and access issues. He commented that some studies have shown that narrower streets are more safe. The Commissioners discussed driveway versus city-street issues. Commissioner Godfrey brought up sharing driveways into deep lots. Mr. Smith observed that driveways into a deep lot are not shared, but are intended to be used by one home. He added that this project does not meet the definition of a deep lot.

Commissioner Anderson asked how the Smoot pasture will be accessed in the future if Option (1) is approved. Mr. Nixon replied that it will receive access from 270 North which will be extended at some future date. Mr. Alan Smoot of 502 East 270 North commented that he would like to have access from this development to build two homes. Mr. Smith replied that no access from this driveway would be allowed unless it is a public street. Mr. Smoot replied that if he does not have access, he is not interested in a trade and Option #1 is null and void.

Mr. Ray Bean of 250 North 400 East asked if the road will be allowed to encroach on neighboring property. Commissioner Godfrey replied no, but if a public road is required, the developers will need to have wider than 24-feet.

Ms. Debra Williams of 245 North 400 East pointed to her home across from the proposed driveway into the project and expressed concern about width of the driveway affecting such services as snow removal and garbage pickup. She observed that 200 North is a half-street on its western end with horses and children in the area. She suggested that the traffic problems in this area will be compounded and property values would be affected.

Mr. Mike Anderson of 455 East 200 North, told the Commission that a street or driveway put on the north side of his neighbor, Ms. Barbara Channel’s home, would result in a lot bordered on three sides by streets. He expressed the opinion that the effect would be the same if the road was a private driveway to six homes or a street to six homes. He also commented that the R2 ordinance provides for moderate income housing, while these homes will be in the $400,000 range. He suggested that these will be huge homes of about 4,500 square feet with no yards. He noted that the driveway and garages will only allow for two cars, and the private driveway will be used for parking, which will narrow the access even more. He pointed out that if the driveway is posted as a fire lane, visitors will have no parking and may park out on 400 East in front of the neighbor’s homes. He asked where the amenities will be if the project is developed as a PUD or condo project. He expressed the opinion that the driveway would be so narrow that vehicles would be close enough to his fence to damage it. He felt that two-story homes would invade the neighbors’ privacy and would damage the value of their homes. He suggested that the project is not a representation of good planning and design. He questioned the motivation of the developer as purely economic in nature.

Chairman Sweeten observed that the ordinance does not specify that only moderate income housing can be built, but that it must provide a "reasonable opportunity for a variety of housing types, including moderate income housing." Commissioner Peters thanked Mr. Anderson for his presentation. Paul Channel, son of Barbara Channell at 218 North 400 East, expressed concern that putting roads on three sides of his mother’s home would "ruin the value." He pointed out that the driveway does not allow for any space between it and the property line and asked where the snow would be plowed. He asked if she would be fenced from the project. Chairman Sweeten replied that R2 projects are required to be fenced. Mr. Channel pointed out that the project consists of single family homes, not condos or twin homes, and that the developers are maximizing their profit while using the code to get around the half-acre lot requirement. He suggested that there were safety issues with parking and traffic from six homes. He expressed the opinion that this proposal is not fair to his mother.

Mr. Russell Rogers of 185 North 550 East told the Commission that garbage trucks go down his cul-de-sac every week and have to back up. He expressed the opinion that this narrow driveway would be dangerous for children in the vicinity of the garbage trucks. Mr. Nixon observed that the residents could take their garbage cans out to 400 East to be emptied. Chairman Sweeten asked about mailboxes. Mr. Nixon replied that a "gangbox" could also be put on 400 East.

Ms. Fran Patton commented that the reason many of the resident of Lindon bought here is for the half-acre lot. She noted that she pays taxes that have increased over the years. She commented that she takes exception to the attitude concerning resident comment in the Informational Brochure. She quoted that "comment is welcome, but is not used in the decision." Chairman Sweeten explained the term "public clamor" and how the Commission must abide by the ordinances. Ms. Patton asked if the housing located on Center Street is used to calculate the totals for their area. Mr. Smith explained the R2 Districts and the 750-foot radius separation requirement.

Mr. Jim Camberlango, owner of lots in the Kings Court subdivision at about 450 North 400 East, told the Commission that potential homeowners are paying over $100,000 for the one-half acre lots. He commented that he was told that Lot 2 of this subdivision was approved for a triplex. Mr. Smith observed that the developers may be talking about a triplex, but no project has been approved for this lot. Mr. Camberlango replied that he feels that this project is using the R2 ordinance as just a way to get around the one-half acre lot size limit and does not meet the spirit of providing affordable housing.

Ms. Barbara Walker of 35 South 400 East commented that a R2 project similar to this one was denied for a parcel just south of Rocky Mountain Elementary. It would have also put a road on both sides of some houses. She asked the Commission to not create such a dangerous situation and not to allow any project more than two units and with a wider road.

Chairman Sweeten asked if there were other comments. There were none. Chairman Sweeten observed that the Commission might use this time to discuss the issues that have been raised. Commissioner Peters commented that his opinion of this project is that it is a way for the developer to skirt the one-half acre rule. He suggested that this proposal is a "nightmare waiting to happen." He pointed out that there is no parking without blocking the fire lane. He noted that an R2 project should be a substantial benefit to the community. It should develop property in a way that is complementary and should "definitely not be detrimental" to the immediate neighborhood, public utilities and services. Mr. Nixon replied that this wording from the ordinance applies to findings to make exceptions to the four percent rule and do not apply to this project. Commissioner Peters agreed, and added that the main reason this project should be denied is for inadequate access.

Chairman Sweeten observed that he was more comfortable with "Option A" that had been tabled. Commissioner Godfrey asked why some form of "Option A" cannot be resurrected. He suggested that the project be flipped and put the driveway on the north side instead of the south side. Mr. Bean commented that there would still only be two houses between the street and then the road would be close to him. Chairman Sweeten commented that there were things about the project that he did not like and he was uncomfortable with not having one-half acre lots, but some buyers in the market prefer a homeowners association taking responsibility for maintenance. Commissioner Godfrey suggested that another developer could propose triplexes. He asked if the city would rather have single-family homes or triplexes. The triplexes would most probably be renters and not owner-occupied. He observed that the reason for the R2 Overlay ordinance is that the State requires that all income ranges and lifestyles be accommodated.

Mr. Jones observed that both he and Mr. Nixon live in the vicinity and want to preserve the neighborhood also. Mr. Nixon commented that the home pads are 35X65, which is not 4,000 square feet and the elevations shown are suggested and could be ramblers. He explained that it was not their plan to put $400,000 homes in this project.

Mr. Ben Lindow of 535 East 200 North expressed the opinion that he would prefer two triplexes if they had a proper street. He felt that the street proposed was not safe. He suggested that allowing a half-street in the Brown’s Homestead subdivision across the street had been a mistake that should not be repeated.

Ms. Christine Hill, daughter of Barbara Channel, felt that if her mother is surrounded with roads on three sides that the developer should buy her out. Commissioner Anderson asked if the fire marshal was satisfied with a hammerhead turn-around for this driveway. Mr. Smith replied yes, that the hammerhead had been the fire marshal’s suggestion, but that the driveway needs to be kept open. The implementation of a hammerhead turnaround and suggestions for keeping the driveway cleared of parked vehicles was discussed. Visitor parking was discussed.

Commissioner Anderson suggested that the developers might return with a plat that is acceptable to the fire marshal. Mr. Jones asked that the Commission approve the plat with the conditions discussed. Commissioner Peters referred to the proposal to have the residents take their garbage cans to 400 East for service. He expressed a negative reaction to this proposal and felt that this sets up a situation where there will be no service. He observed that a R2 proposal is a conditional use permit and felt that this proposal should be denied because there is no practical means available to mitigate the detrimental effects, such as inadequate access for emergency and service vehicles and inadequate parking. He suggested that the application should be denied. Mr. Nixon commented that he felt that he could configure the plat to allow for a hammerhead turnaround. Commissioner Peters felt that the access is too narrow and that the residents and their visitors will be parking on the street. The unit’s driveway width and configuration were discussed. The proposal was compared to other R2 projects in the city. Commissioner Anderson commented that the residents would be backing into each other’s driveways to turn around and this would leave even less space for visitor parking.

Mr. Bill Patton of 223 North 400 East expressed concern that vehicles coming out of the driveway would shine their lights directly into his home. He also was concerned about having six garbage cans on 400 East on collection day. He commented that he would like to see one nice house at this location. The Channels again expressed concern about the value of their mother’s home. There was a discussion about property values, fire lane safety, and redesigning the driveway to make a hammerhead. Commissioner Anderson suggested that the developers work on the design and bring it back to the Commission again. Mr. Smith observed that the Commission has three options: 1) They can bring the item back for additional review; 2) They can approve the project if they have reasonable assurance that the developers can meet the requirements, or 3) They can deny the application.

COMMISSIONER PETERS MOVED TO DENY THE REQUEST BY MARK JONES FOR A SIX HOME, 1.50 ACRE, R2 OVERLAY PROJECT AT 234 NORTH 400 EAST AND RECOMMENDED DENIAL TO THE CITY COUNCIL WITH THE FOLLOWING FINDINGS:
1. AS OUTLINED IN SECTION 17.20.060 OF THE LINDON CITY CODE, THE COMMISSION FINDS THAT THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE PARTICULAR CASE ARE DETRIMENTAL TO THE HEALTH, SAFETY AND GENERAL WELFARE OF THE PERSONS RESIDING IN THE VICINITY. SUCH DETRIMENTAL EFFECTS ARE DUE TO:

2. THE COMMISSION FINDS ALSO THAT THERE IS NO PRACTICAL MEANS AVAILABLE TO THE APPLICANT TO EFFECTIVELY MITIGATE SUCH DETRIMENTAL EFFECTS.

COMMISSIONER GODFREY SECONDED THE MOTION. ALL PRESENT VOTED IN FAVOR. THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.

Commissioner Nixon returned to his seat on the Planning Commission.

8. WASATCH U-CART - 240 NORTH GENEVA ROAD - CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT REVIEW
The Planning Commission will review Mr. Maynes’ progress and decide whether or not to revoke his Conditional Use Permit.

Mr. Smith observed that the Commission was very familiar with this project and displayed some pictures that had been taken that afternoon. He directed attention to the minutes of the last meetings where Mr. Maynes had been present and a copy of the letter sent to Mr. Maynes, which included in the staff report. He informed the Commission that they have the ability to revoke the conditional use permit for noncompliance and Mr. Maynes has the right to appeal the decision to the Council.

Commissioner Anderson asked Mr. Maynes about his landscaping. Mr. Maynes replied that he thinks that he has made significant progress. He has put in the sprinklers and sod, dug the detention area, and hauled out concrete, scrap and garbage. Chairman Sweeten commented that the Commission wants the project completed and pointed out that the fence has not been moved. Mr. Maynes replied that the reason the fence is not moved is because he has questions on the location of the fence in the landscaping. Mr. Smith referred him to his site plan for the location of the fence and pointed out that there is no curbing around the sod. He read from the code and outlined the requirements.

Mr. Maynes asked about putting gravel in the detention area. He commented that this would not take away from any turf on the frontage. Mr. Smith displayed Mr. Maynes proposed amended site plan and pointed out the changes that Mr. Maynes would like to make. The Commission compared the site plans and delineated the items left to complete. Chairman Sweeten asked Mr. Maynes for his explanation on the delay of completion. Mr. Maynes replied that he thought he could complete the project in the time allotted at the time he made the commitment. He asked if it was necessary to move the trailer. Chairman Sweeten replied that the ordinances require twenty-feet of landscaping along the frontage. Mr. Smith added that Geneva Road is a State Road and that the Commission has given permission in the past on an individual basis to include this portions of this easement within the maintained landscape strip. Commissioner Peters asked if this included all landscaping behind the curb. Mr. Smith replied that credit is not usually given for all the landscaping behind the curb, but the portion shown on the approved site plan. Mr. Maynes commented that he has added four-feet of turf behind his fence.

Commissioner Godfrey asked about the ownership of some barrels and piles of gravel. Mr. Maynes replied that these items belong to his neighbor. Commissioner Nixon asked if Mr. Maynes was willing to bond for the completion of the unfinished site plan items. He suggested that not much more was needed to complete the site plan. The Commissioners discussed two options, either to have Mr. Maynes bond for the completion, or revoke the conditional use permit. Commissioner Godfrey commented that the trailer itself has a time limit on it before it must be removed also. There was also a discussion of the request to revise the detention pond and allow gravel instead of sod. Commissioner Anderson commented that no secondary water is available in this area. Commissioner Nixon replied that the sod does not cover much of an area.

COMMISSIONER NIXON MOVED TO REVOKE THE CONDITIONAL PERMIT FOR WASATCH U-CART AT 240 NORTH GENEVA ROAD WITH THE FINDING THAT THE APPLICANT HAS NOT COMPLIED WITH THE TERMS OF THE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AND COMPLETED THE SITE IMPROVEMENTS IN A TIMELY MANNER, EVEN WITH EXTENSIONS. THE PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDS TO THE CITY COUNCIL THAT THEY CONCUR WITH THE REVOCATION UNLESS THE APPLICANT COMPLETES THESE IMPROVEMENTS BEFORE THE APPEAL IS HEARD, INCLUDING SODDING, DETENTION WORK, AND ALL CURBING EXCEPT FOR THE "FINGER" IMMEDIATELY SOUTH OF THE PARKING. COMMISSIONER ANDERSON SECONDED THE MOTION.

Commissioner Peters observed that he agrees with Commissioner Nixon’s position, but he is undecided about the landscaping of the detention area because there is no secondary water. Commissioner Anderson agreed and suggested that the motion be revised. Commissioner Nixon reminded the Commission that Mr. Maynes had intended to put sod in the detention area in the original site plan. He pointed out that lining the detention area with gravel will draw attention to it. The Commissioners discussed the suggestions. Commissioner Godfrey commented that he would like to abstain. Chairman Sweeten explained that the Planning Commission Rules state that a member should disclose their conflict of interest and declaration of abstention on the record and then should not participate in the matter being discussed.

ALL PRESENT VOTED IN FAVOR. THE MOTION CARRIED.

Mr. Smith explained the appeal process to Mr. Maynes.

9. TUCKER LAWN CARE - 1483 WEST 70 SOUTH - SITE PLAN AMENDMENT
This is a request by Tucker Lawn Care for approval of a landscape materials storage area and composting operation.

Mr. Smith displayed the location of this business on an aerial photo and explained the business’s expansion into a fourth lot. He noted that the expansion consists of a composting operation and storage of materials. He observed that the city has received complaints about odors from the composting operation. Commissioner Godfrey clarified that the business will occupy four lots. Mr. Smith replied that the business has three lots approved and improved, and plan to expand into the fourth lot.

Mr. John Tucker explained that he started on two lots, the third lot has been improved with landscaping, but the fourth needs to be added to the site plan. He observed that he was tired of transporting waste materials. He wants to grind the materials and "turn it into something valuable." He told the Commission that the fourth lot is organized and not cluttered. He has made an effort to plant trees and flowers, grass and other landscaping to beautify the landscape and feels that he has been a good neighbor. He agreed that odor has been a problem in the past. He explained that he had added manure to the compost last year, but was not doing that this year. He asked to continue his composting operation. He plans to landscape Lot 4. He explained that his wood pile is located on Lot 1.

Commissioner Peters asked about the complaints. Commissioner Nixon commented that he had visited the site that day and had concerns about the appearance of the compost pile. He also expressed concern that employees cannot park their vehicles on site. Mr. Tucker noted that this problem exists all along the street. Commissioner Peters asked if a sight-obscuring fence would solve the appearance problem. Commissioner Nixon replied that the pile is too large. Commissioner Peters commented that the neighbors have been complaining about the odor. Commissioner Anderson agreed that the odor is a problem and asked Mr. Tucker how he planned to control this issue. Mr. Tucker replied that he was no longer using manure and that the pile "caps" itself in a couple of days.

Commissioner Nixon asked if the composting use is permitted in the Light Industrial zone. Mr. Smith replied that composting is not listed as a separate use in the Standard Land Use Table. He informed the Commission that there is a listing for "landscaping services, offices and storage." He added that if the Commission does not feel that composting is part of the landscaping function, the compatibility standard would apply. Commissioner Peters expressed the opinion that the finished product is part of this category, but the process is not. The Commissioners discussed noticing of the neighborhood.

Commissioner Nixon observed that his initial reaction is not to allow composting. Commissioner Peters asked if his objection is to the amount of material being composted. Commissioner Nixon replied that he was not concerned so much about the height of the composting material as he is about the height of the raw material pile. He suggested that the odor of the process is a nuisance and covered by the nuisance ordinance. Mr. Tucker commented that he does not think that the odor is offensive and asked who makes that judgement. Mr. Smith explained that the nuisance ordinance defines the standard. An odor that offends three or more persons becomes a public nuisance rather than a private nuisance. He observed that he has heard from three or more of the neighbors in this area. He commented that storage of materials has become a great problem within the industrial zones and this business is one of the better ones. Commissioner Peters commented that the problem may be solved with a sight-obscuring fence and a limit on the materials. Commissioner Nixon suggested that the compatibility standard should be used to decide. Commissioner Peters replied that if the amounts are limited, the materials may be considered as landscaping storage. Chairman Sweeten agreed.

Commissioner Godfrey observed that the Planning Commission’s assignment is to try to build harmonious uses and that the Commission has an ethical obligation to listen to the neighbors. He suggested that the problem is that this business is providing a service to the community. He asked if it is not being operated here, where in Lindon should it be located. Mr. Tucker suggested that if room is the problem, the lot to the north of his existing location is available. Commissioner Anderson commented that adding more product may create more odor. Commissioner Nixon expressed the opinion that it may help to spread it out. Commissioner Godfrey asked how often the raw material is ground. Mr. Tucker replied that he has the grinder come every four to five weeks. Commissioner Godfrey suggested that it may help to grind more often and keep the piles small. The Commissioners expressed appreciation for Mr. Tucker’s willingness to work with the City to meet the neighbors’ concerns. It was suggested that the Commission consider a continuance so that the neighbors can be noticed and be present to air their concerns.

COMMISSIONER PETERS MOVED TO CONTINUE THE REQUEST BY TUCKER LAWN CARE FOR AN AMENDMENT TO HIS SITE PLAN ALLOWING FOR A COMPOSTING OPERATION AND MATERIALS STORAGE YARD AT 1483 WEST 70 SOUTH SO THAT THE NEIGHBORS CAN GIVEN NOTICE OF THE HEARING. COMMISSIONER ANDERSON SECONDED THE MOTION. ALL PRESENT VOTED IN FAVOR. THE MOTION CARRIED.

10. COMMERCIAL ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN DISCUSSION

11. PLANNING DIRECTOR’S REPORT

Mr. Smith informed the Commission that a home has been proposed for a lot located at 294 North 400 East. He brought up an aerial and pointed out a road on the general plan that would border the lot on the south side. He asked the Commission if they would approve a building permit for the lot without the road being constructed at the present time. The Commission discussed the request and noted that the easement for the street falls totally outside of the confines of this lot.

THE COMMISSION REACHED CONSENSUS TO ALLOW THE ISSUANCE OF THE BUILDING PERMIT TO MARK AND LISA HINCKLEY FOR A ONE-HALF ACRE LOT AT 294 NORTH 400 EAST.

Mr. Smith observed that the hour was late and he would defer the next item on his report for another time. The Commission briefly discussed the use of rock and not sod in detention basins.

COMMISSIONER ANDERSON MOVED TO ADJOURN THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING AT 11:37 P.M. COMMISSIONER NIXON SECONDED THE MOTION. ALL PRESENT VOTED IN FAVOR. THE MOTION CARRIED.

APPROVED - August 25, 2004