The Lindon City Planning Commission held a regularly scheduled meeting on Wednesday, May 26, 2004 at 7:00 p.m. in Lindon City Center, Council Chambers, at 100 North State Street, Lindon, Utah.

Conducting: Dustin Sweeten, Chairman
Invocation: Gary Godfrey

PRESENT

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

ABSENT

The meeting began at 7:19 p.m.

1. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE

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

2. APPROVAL OF MINUTES

The Minutes of the meeting of May 12, 2004 were reviewed. The following corrections were made:
Page 3, Line 26: Delete the word "still" after the word "that." Replace the words "spend more to" with the word "ever."
Page 4, Line 7: Replace the pronoun "He" with the name "Mr. Smith."
Page 4, Line 16: Delete the phrase "a wall on a backyard" after the word "homes." Add the phrase "or a wall between zones" after the word "street."
Page 5, Line 7: Replace the words "here tonight" with the words "in attendance."
Page 6, Line 34: Replace the title "Mr." with the title "Mrs."
COMMISSIONER NIXON MOVED TO APPROVE THE MINUTES OF MAY 12, 2004 AS CORRECTED. COMMISSIONER PETERS SECONDED THE MOTION. ALL PRESENT VOTED IN FAVOR. THE MOTION CARRIED.

3. PUBLIC COMMENT

Chairman Sweeten informed the audience that an error was made in an advertisement for an R2 project and that this item will not be heard tonight. He asked if there was any other public comment. There was none.

4. NEW BUSINESS (Reports by Commissioners)

Commissioner Simister reported that she had several residents ask about mosquito abatement. Commissioner Peters added that he also had residents asking him about this program. Mr. Smith replied that he would ask where this is reported at the County.

Chairman Sweeten asked about the new storage container business at approximately 200 South 1000 West. Mr. Smith replied that he had sent a letter to the lot owner letting them know they need a business license and site plan approval. Chairman Sweeten was concerned about the containers.

Commissioner Nixon commented that he had rethought his position on increasing the architectural standards for State Street. He commented that he would like to see more than a white fence and grass as a theme. Mr. Smith observed that he has this item pending, but that time has become an issue in pushing it forward sooner. He suggested that there are so many opinions on this issue, that he needs some direction from the Commission. Commissioner Nixon suggested adding cupolas and arched windows to start. Chairman Sweeten expressed concern about what the City can require. Mr. Smith replied that there had been concern at the Council level on being too restrictive and not "business-friendly." He added that the City does not want to become an architectural design committee. Chairman Sweeten suggested that a simple brochure would be helpful to the business community. Mr. Smith observed that illustrated code is becoming more common. Commissioner Nixon suggested that the Commissioners take pictures of elements that they would like to see in the code and asked Mr. Smith to schedule an agenda item for June 23. Mr. Smith and the other Commissioners agreed to this plan. There was a short discussion of the addition of a window in the Walmart cupola. Chairman Sweeten asked if there were any other reports. There were none.

5. H5 DEVELOPMENT - 650 EAST 800 NORTH - CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT - R2 OVERLAY

Mr. Dan Parkinson introduced himself. Mr. Smith displayed an aerial of the proposed site and pointed out 650 East, 800 North, and the Pleasant Grove/Lindon boundary. He explained that the petitioner would like to construct four single family units on one acre. He pointed out a private driveway for access to the rear of the units. He observed that these units are for sale, not rentals. He also noted that notice has been given to the neighbors and many are present in the audience. Chairman Sweeten asked for a showing of hands in the audience. Many raised their hands. Chairman Sweeten explained that they would have time to express their concerns later.

Mr. Smith displayed the proposed site plan on the overhead. He noted that Mr. Parkinson had been working with Black Scot Development on improvements for the corner of 650 East and 800 North. He observed that staff has concerns with the parking on the street, but that the application seems to meet the other requirements of the ordinance. Commissioner Bryner asked why staff has concerns on the parking shown. Mr. Smith replied that the design as shown interrupts the flow on 650 East.

Commissioner Simister verified with Mr. Smith that five units have been used in this R2 District. Mr. Smith confirmed that five accessory apartments have been approved. Chairman Sweeten questioned whether these proposed units would meet the median income housing standard. Mr. Smith read the purpose section from the Lindon City Code. After discussion, it was decided that the Code's purpose is to "provide for a variety of housing types, including moderate income housing." It does not limit the R2 housing to moderate income housing only. Commissioner Bryner asked Mr. Parkinson to explain his target market. Mr. Parkinson replied that the project units will sell for about $400,000 to $600,000 and will appeal to "empty-nesters" that do not want yards. Commissioner Peters compared this project to the Green Valley Condo project and commented that the fifty units in this project are "city-friendly." He noted that the type of people that buy here contribute much to the community and yet impact the neighborhoods minimally. He informed the Commission that the Green Valley units sell for about $300,000.

Mr. Smith observed that a unique feature of this particular R2 proposal is that the density of the units is the same as if the homes were built on individual 12,000 square foot lots. Commissioner Anderson asked why the project is not separate lots. Mr. Smith replied that the selling product is the association that guarantees no yard work. Mr. Parkinson agreed that the market he is trying to reach is one that wants a nice residence, but not the responsibility for large grounds.

Commissioner Nixon observed that the site plan does not distinguish between common, limited common and public areas. Mr. Parkinson replied that the units and driveways are private. Mr. Smith observed that the usual procedure is that private areas outside of the unit are designated as limited common. He suggested driveways could be limited common and all
other areas may be common area.

Commissioner Bryner asked the size of the area in front of the buildings. Mr. Parkinson replied that the units had a 30-foot setback. Commissioner Bryner wondered where the families of the residents could go for a barbeque or other recreational activity. Mr. Parkinson replied that each unit had a side yard that could be used for family gatherings. Commissioner Peters commented that most buyers in this category prefer one level living. He noted that Mr. Parkinson had a two-story elevation in addition to the one-story elevation. Mr. Parkinson replied that the buyers choose whether they prefer the one or two-story options. Chairman Sweeten suggested that the Commissioners hear the public comment at this time. The Commissioners agreed.

Mr. Brent Bezzant told the Commission that he owns the parcel directly to the west of the proposed project. He asked how the private road will affect access and development of his parcel. Chairman Sweeten replied that the drive is private and will be fenced from his property. Commissioner Peters asked about fencing on the perimeter of the project. Mr. Smith observed that a fence is required on the property line. Commissioner Nixon asked if the fence was necessary in this instance. Chairman Sweeten expressed the opinion that the fence would protect the neighbor's property from light and noise on the private road. Commissioner Anderson felt that the fence would protect the private areas of the project homes also. Mr. Bezzant asked about the height of the fence. Commissioner Nixon replied that the ordinance requires a six-foot fence. Commissioner Anderson commented that if Mr. Bezzant wants a different fence then he needs to work something out with Mr. Parkinson.

Mr. Ken Millet commented that he understands that Lindon City had a meeting to decide on the 800 North/1200 East collector. He added that he also understands that the collector has been moved 53-feet onto his property. Chairman Sweeten explained how 650 East will connect to 1000 South in Pleasant Grove and that no street development will take place on the collector's proposed easement for now. He suggested that Mr. Millet check with Pleasant Grove City as they will also be discussing the future of this street. Ms. Adelaide Donnell asked how the developers planned to keep 1000 South from deteriorating even further. Commissioner Nixon commented that the developers will address the stability of the existing 1000 South and meet the development standards set by the City Engineers. The Commission and Pleasant Grove residents discussed the planned shift in the alignment of 1000 South/800 North. The corner of 1000 South and 650 East was explained and how the street would turn and miss the southwest corner of Mr. Millet's property, and then shift to the north to join with the existing street in Pleasant Grove.

Ms. Donnell asked the elevation of the connection and if there would be a steep slope from one road to the other. The Commission explained that there would be an elevation difference at the turn but by the time the two roads connected there would be no difference. Ms. Donnell asked if the lot would be leveled. Mr. Parkinson replied that he planned to push the high area into the low area, but that the elevation of the lot is not determined until a full survey is completed. Ms. Donnell commented that there are a lot of children is this area and that motorists have been going through fast. Chairman Sweeten replied that the merge will probably have a stop sign before motorists turn left onto 1000 South. Mr. David Howard asked if there were one or two canals under this proposed project. He was told that the Murdock Canal passes to the west without crossing this parcel.

Ms. Donnell commented that the proposed homes look massive. Mr. Parkinson replied that the single-story home is only 40-feet wide and the two-story home is 35-feet wide. Chairman Sweeten commented that the appeal of this project to him is that it does not increase the density, but reduces the number of R2 units available. Commissioner Peters asked if the flood plain crosses this parcel. Mr. Smith brought up the map and showed the Commissioners that it missed the parcel. Commissioner Nixon asked where these particular homes have been built. Mr. Parkinson replied that the homes have been built in the Stone Gate project in the Provo River bottoms.

Commissioner Bryner expressed concern about parking for extended family and friends. Mr. Parkinson presented some other options for off-street parking. After discussion, it was decided that the parking spaces could be added to the lane in the back. Commissioner Nixon pointed out that if the parking is in the back, a walkway is needed to direct foot traffic to the front door. Mr. Smith noted that only two extra parking spaces are called for by the R2 Overlay ordinance. Mr. Parkinson was asked about the back entrances. He replied that the back doors are kitchen entrances that open onto rear terraces.

Commissioner Peters asked about garbage pickup. Mr. Parkinson replied that he planned individual cans. Commissioner Peters asked if the cans would be picked up along the private road. Commissioner Nixon asked if the radius of the turn on the south end of the private road would allow garbage truck access. It was decided that the turn would be adequate and that the cans could be wheeled onto 650 East.

Commissioner Nixon suggested that Mr. Parkinson come back with the amended site plan in two weeks. The Commissioners agreed. Chairman Sweeten summarized the suggestions for the amended site plan. He observed that the parking should be moved from the front and that two spaces be placed somewhere along the private driveway. He also commented that the driveways on the back of the units should be at least 18-feet long to allow for parking on the pads. Mr. Smith commented that a subdivision application is required. Commissioner Nixon suggested that the limited common and common areas be delineated. He added that he would like to see a walkway from the back to the front door. Mr. Parkinson noted that the walkways will be conceptual only and that the actual walkways will probably differ when the units are constructed. He also suggested that Mr. Parkinson talk to the Bureau of Reclamation before moving any dirt around the aqueduct. Commissioner Anderson suggested that the fence be negotiated with the neighbors. Commissioner Godfrey asked the location of the nearest utilities. Mr. Smith replied that utilities are located in 650 East. Commissioner Godfrey asked if Mr. Parkinson planned any security lighting. Mr. Parkinson replied that the units are residences and will not have extra security lights on the grounds.

COMMISSIONER NIXON MOVED TO CONTINUE THE REQUEST BY DAN PARKINSON FOR A FOUR UNIT/1.35 ACRE R2 OVERLAY PROJECT AT 800 NORTH 650 EAST. COMMISSIONER SIMISTER SECONDED THE MOTION. ALL PRESENT VOTED IN FAVOR. THE MOTION CARRIED. More Later

6. CANOPY PROPERTIES - 333 SOUTH 560 WEST - SITE PLAN

Mr. Boyd Worthington introduced himself. Mr. Smith presented this proposal for an office/warehouse. He pointed out the access through the Lineo parking lot. He noted also that there would be future access to the site from the cul-de-sac to the west and if a cross easement does not exist to the south, the applicant will be required to provide their own access to the cul-de-sac. He pointed out the location of a future building. He informed the Commission that the proposed building is a concrete tilt-up structure. Commissioner Peters suggested checking cross easements for access to the building. Commissioner Nixon expressed concern about the location of the trash enclosure near the residential district. Mr. Worthington replied that he also had the same concern and pointed out the alternate location of the trash enclosure.

Chairman Sweeten asked if staff had any concerns. Mr. Smith replied that the building is more industrial looking than the other buildings in the Canopy complex, but that it is located in a corner and would be blocked by the other buildings. He informed the Commission that this particular building would be used for some assembly. Mr. Worthington added that the building is similar in appearance to the Key Labs building. There was a discussion of the garage doors facing east that would not be visible because of the elevation drop.

COMMISSIONER NIXON MOVED TO APPROVE THE REQUEST BY BOYD WORTHINGTON FOR A WAREHOUSE BUILDING AT 333 SOUTH 560 WEST WITH THE CONDITION THAT THE TRASH ENCLOSURE BE MOVED TO THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF THE BUSINESS. COMMISSIONER PETERS SECONDED THE MOTION. ALL PRESENT VOTED IN FAVOR. THE MOTION CARRIED.

7. ALL AMERICAN GYMNASTICS - 23 SOUTH 1400 WEST - CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT

Mr. Ken Coleman of M-13 Construction introduced himself. Mr. Smith displayed the location of this proposed project next to the Graphik site on I-15 freeway. He noted a staff concern about the elevations–the building needs 30 percent decorative block on the sides that face streets and the freeway. Mr. Coleman replied that he had changed the plans to make the building all decorative block. Mr. Smith displayed the site plan. He pointed out the parking and landscaping, which is similar to the Hemingway building. He noted that this is a special school in the industrial zone. He informed the Commission that there are three requirements for special schools within the Lindon City ordinances. One of these is to notice the neighbors. He noted that the parking of this site meets the requirements for gymnastics, which is more than that required for industrial sites. The Commission discussed the calculations for parking.

Chairman Sweeten asked if there was any comment. Mr. Coleman commented that the gymnastics classes would not draw as many cars as the gymnastic meets. The parking lot will hold 80 cars. Chairman Sweeten suggested that the owners may want to make arrangements with the neighbors for additional parking on occasion. Mr. Paul Magleby of Magleby Construction observed that he was here for another item, but that he had not received his notice. The requirement to notice was discussed. Mr. Smith commented that the noticing needs to be verified. Mr. Magleby commented that he had no problem with the application, but noted that this area sees a lot of truck traffic on Saturdays. He observed that he could instruct the trucks to use the north entrance and not the west entrance by this application.

Commissioner Nixon pointed out that trees are not shown on the landscaping. The tree requirement for industrial zones was discussed. The type of block on the building was disclosed to be a gray "single-course" block. Chairman Sweeten commented that the block should comply with the percentage requirements.

COMMISSIONER NIXON MOVED TO APPROVE THE REQUEST BY ALL-AMERICAN GYMNASTICS FOR A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO BUILD A GYMNASTICS SCHOOL AT 23 SOUTH 1400 WEST WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS:
1. THAT PROOF OF NOTICE TO THE NEIGHBORS BE SUBMITTED TO PLANNING STAFF
2. AND THAT ALL PROPERTY OWNERS RETURN WRITTEN ACKNOWLEDGMENT OF THIS NOTICE AND ANY OBJECTIONS TO THIS PROPOSAL.
3. THAT TREES BE INSTALLED 30-FEET ON CENTER ALONG THE I-15 FRONTAGE.
COMMISSIONER SIMISTER SECONDED THE MOTION. ALL PRESENT VOTED IN FAVOR. THE MOTION CARRIED.

8. COUNTRY CARS/LOW BOOK SALES - 600 NORTH STATE STREET - DESIGN REVIEW

Chairman Sweeten suggested that the Commission skip over item 8 for now and go to item 9. See below.

9. GARY JOHNSON RV SALES - 250 SOTH 1250 WEST - TEMPORARY CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT

Mr. Gary Johnson introduced himself as the owner of Johnson and Sons RV Sales and Storage. He noted that the building next door to this parcel is owned by his business. This building is under construction. Mr. Smith commented that this is a temporary conditional use permit for the sales and storage of RV's. He pointed out landscaping along the freeway and on 1250 West. He noted that the site would be graveled. The intent is that no temporary buildings will be placed on the site and that the sales will be conducted from an on-site RV.

Chairman Sweeten asked if staff had any concerns. Mr. Smith replied that he would like to see the landscaping installed as indicated on the site plan and that the applicant make it very clear what he intends to sell. He observed that one of the problems with temporary sites is that they do not get completed and that the owner adds items to the site that do not meet the zoning ordinances. He asked the Commission to be specific with the applicant.

Commissioner Anderson asked if customers would have access to the restrooms next door. Commissioner Peters noted that this parcel lies in the T-zone and asked if Mr. Johnson planned any signs. Mr. Johnson replied no. Commissioner Anderson commented that a two year permit is a long time for no office space. Chairman Sweeten asked if Mr. Johnson planned this space for display of RV's only and if he planned to work out of his building that is under construction now. Mr. Johnson replied that he had made no permanent decisions because he was not sure what lines he would carry. He asked if he could use a trailer for an office.

Commissioner Nixon commented that there may be issues with the storage of RV's. Chairman Sweeten verified that the space to the west is for storage of RV's that are not for sale. Mr. Johnson replied yes. Fencing of this parcel was briefly discussed.

Commissioner Anderson suggested a one-year temporary conditional use permit, rather than a two-year permit. He observed that the one-year permit can be extended for the additional year if the Commission feels comfortable with the operation of the business. Chairman Sweeten asked if the Commission was comfortable with allowing an office RV. Commissioner Peters observed that the trailer was not specifically defined. Mr. Johnson suggested a fifth wheel. Commissioner Godfrey expressed concern about setting precedence by allowing use of an RV for an office. The Commissioners discussed this concern.

Commissioner Nixon suggested that the Planning Commission could approve the use, but withhold the conditional use permit until a site plan is submitted for approval. Commissioner Bryner asked more questions about the applicants plans for storage of RV's. Commissioner Nixon confirmed that Mr. Johnson was planning a gravel surface. The section of the Lindon City code dealing with storage in industrial zones was examined. Chairman Sweeten observed that all conditional use permits are reviewable upon complaint.

Commissioner Anderson asked about limiting the permit to one year. Commissioner Nixon replied that both Mr. Johnson and the City will know more about the business in one year. The Commission and Mr. Johnson agreed to the one-year permit. Commissioner Anderson informed Mr. Johnson that a permanent conditional use permit and a building will be needed before the end of the maximum two-year limit.

COMMISSIONER ANDERSON MOVED TO APPROVE THE REQUEST BY JOHNSON AND SONS RV FOR A ONE-YEAR TEMPORARY CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AT 250 SOUTH 1250 WEST FOR A RECREATIONAL VEHICLE SALES AND STORAGE BUSINESS WITH THE FOLLOWING RECOMMENDATIONS:
1. THAT A SITE PLAN MUST BE APPROVED BY THE COMMISSION IF ANY OFFICE STRUCTURE OR TRAILER IS PLACED ON THE PARCEL.
2. AND THAT ALL LANDSCAPING REQUIRED BY SECTION 17.49 OF THE LINDON CITY CODE BE INSTALLED WITHIN 60 DAYS AFTER OCCUPATION BY THE APPLICANT.
COMMISSIONER SIMISTER SECONDED THE MOTION. ALL PRESENT VOTED IN FAVOR. THE MOTION CARRIED.

10. PLANNING DIRECTOR'S REPORT
1. Oscar Lyco - Ordinance Interpretation
Mr. Smith observed that he received a building permit application that had an interpretation issue. He commented that this home is proposed for the approved flag lot in Dirker Farms subdivision. He noted that the Lindon City Code restricts homes on deep lots to the rambler style. The plans submitted for this lot have a second floor in the attic "bonus space" with bedrooms and windows. Chairman Sweeten commented that the intent of the code restriction is that windows from a second floor not look into the neighbors backyards. Mr. and Mrs. Lyco pointed out that the location of their windows will not look over the neighbors yards. Commissioner Nixon pointed out that the ordinance specifies "one-story," not rambler. Ms. Lyco commented that the home was designed with "bonus trusses." She informed the Commission that they approached the City Development Department with the idea of a "bonus room." Mr. Smith agreed that the "bonus room" idea had been asked, but that he was thinking of a recreation room, not living space.

Commissioner Bryner asked about the direction of the windows. The Lycos replied that the north/south direction is the trusses and the windows face east and west. The east side faces the neighbor's garage and the west faces the walls of a two-story home. They presented signed permission from the neighborhood for their home. Mr. Magleby noted that the irony is that the neighbor's house is higher and looks down into the Lyco's yard. The Commissioners discussed the intent of the ordinance. They also explored changing the ordinance to allow more height to a home when the neighbors don't object. There was a discussion of whether a bonus room makes a two-story home and if the word "rambler" specifically identifies a one-story home or a style of home. The identity of the neighbors was checked.

Commissioner Peters expressed concern about setting precedence, but noted that the home is under 28-feet. Mr. Magleby commented that the question rests on the interpretation of the word "rambler." He suggested that it is a matter of semantics and noted that the dormers could be false, but, in this case, are being used for bedrooms. Mr. Smith observed that the reason he had brought this item to the Planning Commission is because in his mind "bonus space" is not living space. The Commission asked Councilmember Bayless for an opinion of the Council's feelings on this subject. Councilmember Bayless replied that she did not feel she could speak for the Council on this subject, because she has a strong opinion herself. She commented that there were some definite reasons for the limitation to one level homes. She pointed out that traditional homes are placed next to each other, but a flag lot tucks a home in behind the others. Chairman Sweeten commented that it would take about six weeks to implement a clarification to the code. He asked about the time constraints of the applicants. They indicated that they would prefer not to wait if possible.

After discussion, COMMISSIONER PETERS MOVED TO APPROVE THE REQUEST OF OSCAR LYCO FOR A BUILDING PERMIT ON THIS FLAG LOT NOTING THAT THIS IS AN INTERPRETATION OF THE ORDINANCE AND IS BASED ON THE APPROVAL FROM ALL NEIGHBORS, THE CONFIGURATION OF THE LOT AND SURROUNDING PROPERTIES AND IS SUBJECT TO THE CONDITION THAT WRITTEN APPROVAL MUST BE OBTAINED FROM THE ONE NEIGHBOR MISSING FROM THOSE PREVIOUSLY SUBMITTED. COMMISSIONER SIMISTER SECONDED THE MOTION. ALL PRESENT VOTED IN FAVOR, EXCEPT COMMISSIONERS GODFREY AND ANDERSON WHO VOTED NAY, AND COMMISSIONER NIXON WHO ABSTAINED. THE MOTION CARRIED.

Chairman Sweeten introduced item 8. He informed the Commission that he was the applicant of this issue and was, therefore, stepping down from the Commission temporarily. Commissioner Simister would be acting as Chairperson in the interim.

8. COUNTRY CARS/LOW BOOK SALES - 600 NORTH STATE STREET - DESIGN REVIEW

Mr. Smith informed the Commission that this is a design review to help identify issues. He noted that there are two parcels in question in this proposal. He explained that Mr. Sweeten is proposing to move his existing used auto dealership from its present location to a larger location across State Street on the corner of 600 North. Used Auto Dealerships are a nonconforming use, which falls under the regulation of Lindon City Code 17.16. He observed that the criteria for moving and expanding a nonconforming use is located in Section 17.16.030. He noted that the Planning Commission will review this item in two weeks in a public hearing and make a recommendation to the Council. He also commented that this is the first time that this ordinance has been applied since its adoption. He read the criteria from the ordinance and explained that this section is specific to nonconforming uses.

Mr. Sweeten explained that when the ordinance was being considered for adoption he met with the City Council and asked for an interpretation of this ordinance. At that time, the Council told him that he could move his dealership. Commissioner Peters commented that allowing a nonconforming use to move seems to be in conflict with the intent to phase out these uses. He asked Mr. Smith to define the intent of allowing a move. Mr. Smith replied that the Council did not feel that all nonconforming businesses should be terminated. This ordinance will not accommodate all uses to move or expand, but this will allow a move to happen if they meet certain conditions. Mr. Sweeten commented that the intention of making used auto dealerships "not permitted" under Lindon's Standard Land Use Table was to prevent Lindon from looking like Murray's "Auto Row." He asserted that the Council was comfortable with the current number, but did not want to allow any more.

Commissioner Peters asked Mr. Smith to interpret 17.16.030(3). He noted that this section requires an adjoining parcel. Mr. Smith replied that this requirement is applicable to expansions only and noted the language. Commissioner Peters asked why the Council did not set a fixed number, rather than making all used dealerships not permitted. Mr. Smith explained that setting a fixed number would make this use a "right" that could be bought and sold. It would also create problems with determining who owns the rights. There was a discussion on the definition of a nonconforming use, "grandfather" uses, and time limits on discontinued uses. Mr. Sweeten noted that he had asked the Council if the amendments to a nonconforming use are specific to the use or the owner. The Commission discussed how a nonconforming use changes from one owner to the next.

Mr. Sweeten commented that Low Book Sales met with Mayor Ellertson after their presentation to the Planning Commission at a recent meeting. After this meeting they approached him about buying his business. He noted that he had some concerns with the proposal also. After researching the business and discussions with the owners, he has come to an agreement with them. He disclosed that his intention is to change the name to Low Book Sales, move and expand the dealership. He noted that this amended business will become a similar size to Utah Auto Sales, but much better laid out and all on one parcel.

Commissioner Peters commented that he can see a couple of problems. He pointed out that the Commission has promised the neighborhood on 600 North that no other accesses will access this street. Mr. Sweeten asked if the Commission would consider access if the neighborhood agreed to a plan. He noted that a previous plan had considered access near 400 West. Commissioner Peters observed that one advantage to this proposal is that it would place less burden on the neighborhood than a gas station and restaurant. The ordinance was examined again and a question was asked about the development policies of the General Plan. Mr. Smith obtained a copy of the Lindon City General Plan and read the goals of the commercial zones. Commissioner Peters asked Councilmember Bayless to identify the feelings of the Council on this subject. Councilmember Bayless replied that she is in her third term on the Council and only one other Councilmember has been on the Council longer. She told the Commission that she personally has a strong opinion that it is unfortunate that the ordinance is not more clearly defined, but it will need to be interpreted to the best of their ability.

Mr. Sweeten commented that the majority of the Council feels that the intent of the ordinance is just to keep the "used dealership" use under control, not to eliminate it. He observed that the Council would not have allowed for the moving of a use if they did not mean to make it possible. Commissioner Nixon commented that provision (3) says that a use must comply with the policies of the general plan and one of those policies is to improve the image and appearance of commercial area. He added that one of the stated reasons for making used auto dealerships "not permitted" is the appearance. He suggested that if the appearance and image is a valid reason for disallowing the use, then allowing one to move and expand is in conflict with the policies of the commercial area. Mr. Sweeten replied that most used auto dealerships have a bad reputation, but a good design overcomes this conflict. He noted that Walmart across the street will have more cars than this dealership. He suggested that the Commission help find ways to improve the design to alleviate the concerns.

Commissioner Godfrey commented that he does not feel that allowing a use to be sold and moved is what was intended when this section was written, but the code must be interpreted for now and amended later for clarification. He suggested that the Commission needs to address two separate concerns, enlargement and moving. He commented that this is a significant enlargement to expand across the street. Mr. Sweeten explained that the intention is not to split the dealership across the street, but to move it entirely. Commissioner Nixon suggested that this should be considered a two step process, first move and then enlarge. He commented that this may not be a joint application.

Commissioner Godfrey expressed a concern about the word "harmony" in section (2)(a). He suggested that a nonconforming use is, of its nature, out of harmony with the zone in which it is located. Mr. Sweeten suggested that "harmony" gives a use the ability to fit in with the zone as best it can. Commissioner Godfrey asked how the Commission is to interpret whether a use is in "harmony" and when it does not. Commissioner Sweeten replied that if a use is not in harmony, why would the Council consider allowing them to move. Commissioner Godfrey suggested that the reason for making this use nonconforming is to phase them out. Mr. Sweeten disagreed and commented that the Council intends to create a mix of uses, not to eliminate nonconforming uses. Commissioner Anderson replied that the ordinance says "move" so that Mr. Sweeten could move his Country Cars business, not to create Low Book Sales.

The Commission discussed how this precedent might apply to other businesses, previous comment from the 600 North neighborhood, and how this business might impact this neighborhood. Commissioner Anderson commented that this business might not be the worst, but it is not the best either. He noted that it currently displays only about sixty cars, there is no auto repair, no large building, it closes at 7:00 p.m. and has no outside lighting. Low Book Sales is larger, more cars, more lights and loudspeakers, and includes auto repair.

Mr. Sweeten explained that this proposal is important to him for a lot of reasons. He observed that it did not mean a large amount of money, but more of an opportunity to him. He asserted that, until the Mayor mentioned it to them, Low Book Sales had not thought of contacting him at Country Cars, but were trying to find the owners of Vantage Auto. Commissioner Peters commented that he did not want Mr. Sweeten to feel that the Commission was opposed or attacking him personally, but their intent is to address all the issues that might be raised by the public.

Commissioner Peters asked Mr. Smith about the Community Vision statement. Mr. Smith read the Community Vision statement from the General Plan. Commissioner Anderson agreed with Commissioner Peters that this was a good setting to air and discuss all the issues. Mr. Sweeten apologized for becoming defensive and explained that he felt the Commission was stretching to find a way to approve the Lyco application, but that this application was not stretching the code at all. Commissioner Nixon replied that part of the difference is that the neighbors were in agreement with the Lyco proposal, but the 600 North neighbors are not in agreement with development of this parcel as a used car lot. The Commission is just trying to discover an answer to their concerns.

Mr. Sweeten commented that he is aware of some of the issues that might be raised by the neighborhood. Commissioner Peters suggested that some drastic changes are need in the design and architecture of the building. Commissioner Godfrey agreed that the building and site design are critical. Mr. Sweeten suggested that the question of the business's move and expansion be decided first. Commissioner Godfrey commented that allowing a nonconforming use to expand and move seems to be in direct conflict with the "harmony" of the zone.

Mr. Sweeten asked Mr. Smith to explain this issue by describing his conference with the City Attorney, Gordon Duval, on this subject. Mr. Smith informed the Commission that he did meet with Mr. Gordon Duval to ask this question. He explained that Mr. Duval's opinion is that the ordinance is very specific–it allows a use to move if it can meet the requirements listed. He also explained that "harmony" is a parallel course, not exactly the same course. Commissioner Godfrey inquired about the nonconforming use must be brought into compliance, "where possible," and that it must be in harmony with the development standards. Mr. Smith agreed and noted that the use will not be exactly like the others in the zone, but as much like the zone requires, "as possible." Commissioner Nixon pointed out that there is a difference between nonconforming uses. The Commissioners agreed that some nonconforming uses have other issues besides their nonconformity. Commissioner Godfrey asked if a nonconforming use is allowed under the commercial zoning, so the only question is to make it harmonize with the existing requirements as much as possible.

Mr. Sweeten observed that applying this section of code is a new thing. He noted that, hopefully, the move will make a nicer situation for both the City and the neighborhood. He suggested that this business would be a source of sales tax revenue for the City and the building could be another demonstration of Lindon's theme. Acting Chairperson Simister commented that the Commission needs to decide on whether the move can take place before the design of the site and building can be addressed, because the second part is not necessary if the first part is not approved. Commissioner Nixon suggested that the design of the site may be part of the decision on whether to allow the move. Commissioner Anderson suggested that the expansion is a more important issue than the move. Commissioner Peters disagreed that the issues can be separated.

Mr. Sweeten suggested that the Commissioners might question Low Book Sales on the site and building. He presented some pictures of their current site in South Salt Lake City. He introduced Low Book Sales' owner, Mr. David Nelson. Mr. Nelson introduced his associates, Mr. John Wilhite, Architect, and Mr. Peter Benee, Real Estate Broker. They presented their proposed site plan. Commissioner Anderson commented that this site would have better success if there was no access to 600 North. Mr. Wilhite suggested that 600 North will have a signal light in the near future that would facilitate left turns to State Street better than an unregulated entrance from the car lot.

Mr. Nelson observed that anything on the site plan is open to suggestion. He pointed out fountains, white rail fence, picnic tables, and a solid fence on the south side. Mr. Wilhite asked the Commission for suggestions on the building. He explained that he had recently designed a building for Heber City, trying for a "country" look. He finally ended up with something that he refers to as "turn of the century." He presented a look similar to the existing building in Salt Lake, but to "make it more country," he suggested a cupola on top of the showroom, with turn-of-the-century windows. The pull-in, glassed entry was described. The service bays in the back were noted. Mr. Nelson informed the Commission that his service department is more of a liability than an asset, but is totally for the convenience of his customers. He also noted that his business only carries 2001 autos or newer.

Mr. Wilhite described the site as 3.3 acres. The parking was disclosed to be about 50 employee spaces, 16 to 20 customer spaces, and 186 spaces for display of cars. He pointed out a secure area for the preparation of vehicles for sale. Commissioner Bryner commented that Country Cars has about 60 cars and three employees. Acting Chairperson Simister asked about the composition of the employee force. Mr. Nelson described his sales, accounting, finance, funding and inspection departments. Commissioner Peters asked how many customer visits he has in a typical day. Mr. Nelson estimated that his average customer visits in one day was 27. He disclosed that his maximum customers in one day was 45 with another 20 for oil changes. The number of sales compared to customer visits was disclosed to be an average of 20-25 percent.

Mr. Nelson informed the Commission that his site in South Salt Lake lies contiguous to homes. He has done quite a few things to mitigate the effects of his business on these homes that he intends to implement here in Lindon. He uses computerized lighting that shuts down at night and is directed into the lot. He also uses a text messaging system, not a loudspeaker. Commissioner Anderson asked his hours of operation. Mr. Nelson replied that his business hours are nine to nine, Monday through Saturday. They are also closed for the Thanksgiving and Christmas Day holidays.

Mr. Benee observed that he has addressed the issue of the cross easement with the current owner of the site. He disclosed that the owner and the tenants of the rear building have agreed to cancel the cross easement. Commissioner Nixon explained that the reason for the cross easement was to minimize traffic on 600 North by directing traffic directly from the rear building to State Street. Commissioner Peters commented that he did not have a problem with closing the access to State Street, but suggested that the easement should be retained. Mr. Nelson expressed concern that a cross easement would create security problems for his business. He noted that the patrons of the rear buildings already use 600 North for access.

Commissioner Peters asked about the width of the entrance on State Street. Mr. Wilhite replied 36-feet and added that the entrance is about 100-feet from the corner. Commissioner Godfrey wondered if the zoning codes prohibit garage doors from facing State Street. Commissioner Nixon suggested that the owners consider carriage house doors to promote the "country" design. He also suggested that the fountain be moved to the corner. The Commission discussed ways to adjust the building to promote Lindon's architectural theme. Mr. Nelson commented that he would like to retain some of his structure as part of his "branding." Commissioner Peters pointed out that Walmart has retained their image and added the Lindon elements also.

Commissioner Anderson noted that a berm along 600 North had been required of the other businesses. The Commissioners discussed the possibility of the north side of 600 North being rezoned to commercial and the necessity of protecting the existing homes. The list of changes to the site were discussed. Mr. Nelson was asked to remove the picnic tables and add stone benches, move the water feature to the corner, and orient the overhead doors away from State Street. There was a discussion of the entrance to 600 North and left turns. Mr. Sweeten noted that he would contact the neighbors on 600 North and try to reach an agreement. The applicants thanked the Commission for their time.

Mr. Parkinson of H5 Development asked for additional time to clear a question.

5. H5 DEVELOPMENT - 650 EAST 800 NORTH - CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT - R2 OVERLAY

Mr. Parkinson asked if he could add a gate to the private road. The Commission suggested that if he want to gate the driveway, it should be set back far enough to allow a vehicle to pull off the street to open the gate. He was also instructed to place the visitor parking outside of the gate on one end and that the visitor parking cannot be in the front yard setback.

ADJOURN

THE PLANNING COMMISSION REACHED CONSENSUS TO ADJOURN AT 11:41 P.M.

APPROVED - June 9, 2004

back to top