The Lindon City Planning Commission held a regularly scheduled meeting at 7:00 p.m. on Wednesday, October 27.2004 in the Lindon City Council Chambers at 100 North State Street, Lindon, Utah.

Conducting: Dustin Sweeten, Chairman
Invocation: Ron Anderson
Pledge of Allegiance: Dustin Sweeten

PRESENT

Dustin Sweeten, Chairman
Ron Anderson, Commissioner
Julie Bryner, Commissioner
Evan Nixon, Commissioner (arrived at 7:27 p.m.)
Marilyn Simister, Commissioner
Lindsey Bayless, Councilmember
Kevin Smith, Planning Director
Venla Gubler, Administrative Clerk
Karl Woodard, Planning Intern

ABSENT

Gary Godfrey, Commissioner
Jim Peters, Commissioner

The Meeting began at 7:11 p.m.

1. APPROVAL OF MINUTES

The Minutes of the Meeting of October 13, 2004 will be reviewed at the meeting of November 10, 2004.

2. PUBLIC COMMENT

Ms. Wendy Shaffer of 108 West 40 South asked about lighting of the car lot being built on State Street across from the intersection of Center Street. Chairman Sweeten replied that the lighting of this lot should be directed into the lot itself according to the Lindon City Code. Planning Director Kevin Smith agreed and explained that the Code addresses light pollution. He suggested that if a problem does occur in the future, to contact either himself or Mr. Kevin Gallagher of Utah Auto Sales. Chairman Sweeten asked if there was any further public comment. There was none.

3. NEW BUSINESS (Reports by Commissioners)

Commissioner Anderson reported that a new business had moved into the Consolidated Freightways building. He noted that this building had been vacant for a long time and this new occupant is the result of a bankruptcy sale. He suggested that contact be made of this new business to make them aware of the requirements for landscaping their frontage. Mr. Smith replied that he would investigate this report.

Chairman Sweeten noted that a park and ride business had opened on the property owned by Mr. Skip Dunn. Mr. Smith reported that contact has been made with the owner and the applicable applications had been sent to the business owner.

Commissioner Anderson reported that the recent heavy rains had hampered efforts to finish the Wal-Mart detention basin and that debris had entered the irrigation ditches in the area. Mr. Smith agreed and replied that the site work was being completed today during the lull in the weather. He added that he would report the debris to the Public Works Department. Chairman Sweeten asked if there were other reports. There were none.

4. WASATCH POINTE – 1350 WEST 200 SOUTH – AMENDED SITE PLAN
This is a request for approval to amend the existing site plan for the old BMC West Truss plant. They are proposing to remodel the existing building, add new structures, pave the parking lot, and install additional landscaping.

Mr. Jeff Damron of Summit Development was introduced to the Commission. Mr. Smith presented an aerial photo showing the area and the proposed amendment to the site plan. He explained that the developers are proposing to remodel the site and the existing buildings. He pointed out the large, existing building, and noted that it would be retrofitted and remodeled for the use of Flyerz Cheer Gym, who expects to move from their existing building across 200 South to this one when finished. Flyerz has begun the process of noticing the neighbors as required by the Lindon City Code. He noted that staff had some questions about the landscaping on 200 South, but that the plans show the completion of the required landscaping along I-15. He commented that the building exteriors will be sheathed and stuccoed. He noted that the City Engineer has been looking over the plans and does not have any major changes.

Mr. Smith pointed out that the site plan will be amended to meet the needs of various business tenants, including Flyerz. He commented that the planned improvements are definitely an upgrade, but that the landscaping on 200 South is an issue that needs discussion.

Commissioner Simister asked about the jog in the right-of-way along 200 South Street. Mr. Smith explained that the Utah Department of Transportation (UDOT) owns a wider portion of right-of-way than the City does for 200 South because of the bridge across I-15. This creates the “jog” in the right-of-way line for this parcel.

Commissioner Anderson asked about long term plans for 1380 West, which lies adjacent to this parcel on the west side. He asked if bonding had been received from the property owners for future improvements. Mr. Smith replied that this street appears on the General Plan, and is currently an unimproved road, but no dedication to the City has been made for this right-of-way. He suggested that improving this street now does not benefit the owners and may be required at a future date when development occurs that will use the frontage. Commissioner Anderson suggested that development is occurring now, and a better time may not come later. Mr. Smith commented that City Administrator Ott Dameron had suggested that the City may participate with the property owners in improving 1380 West Street. Mr. Damron added that the property owners are interested in improving this street when they develop the building pads along its length. He pointed out possible building locations between the current building and the 1380 West street frontage and a large area on the northwest corner of the parcel. He noted that the property owner across the street has also indicated their willingness to participate in improving this frontage.

Commissioner Bryner asked if there was any benefit to the developers considering improvements to this street now. Mr. Damron replied that diverting attention to street improvements now may delay their remodeling plans and possibly jeopardize their tenant leases. He proceeded to point out the plans for landscaping along the I-15 frontage, re-cladding the buildings, and improving the landscaping in the existing berm area on 200 South. He noted the location of a new building and storage yard. The storage yard is sized to meet the tenant’s requirements for a truck turnaround, and will include the existing barn that fronts on I-15. He asked the Commission to consider requiring more landscaping on the I-15 side, or in the back that is visible from I-15, rather than along 200 South.

(Commissioner Nixon arrived at 7:27 p.m.)

Chairman Sweeten confirmed that Mr. Damron was requesting to increase the landscaping along or in view of I-15 in lieu of expanding the landscaping along 200 South to meet the code requirements. Mr. Damron verified the intent of his request.

Commissioner Simister asked about a notation on the site plan for a sign. Mr. Damron replied that this location has been noted for a pole sign. Chairman Sweeten noted that a pole sign requires a separate permit and request. Commissioner Nixon asked if the location meets the requirements. Mr. Smith replied that the code requires a 200-foot separation between pole signs on I-15, which the location shown will meet.

Commissioner Simister asked about the tenant of the proposed new building. Mr. Damron replied that the proposed tenant is a sheetrock distribution company that will occupy the new building, the barn on the freeway, and a fenced yard between these buildings. Commissioner Anderson asked about plans for finishing the other existing building for Flyerz Gym. Mr. Damron clarified that Flyerz Gym would only occupy the back one-third of the building and the front two-thirds is being negotiated with another tenant, a printing company.

Commissioner Anderson commented that Flyerz Gym may need some additional parking. Mr. Damron pointed out parking around a landscaped island in the northeast corner on the I-15 frontage. Commissioner Bryner expressed concerns for the safety of Flyerz patrons since Flyerz is located in the most northerly end of the project, and there is commercial activity in both the sheetrock and printing businesses nearby and between Flyerz and 200 North Street. Mr. Damron replied that trucks entering the sheetrock business will use their fenced yard to turn around and exit the same direction—directly onto 200 South. He noted that there would be no conflict from this particular business with traffic entering and leaving Flyerz. Commissioner Nixon asked about the trucks and the size of the storage yard. The dimensions of the turnaround were discussed and found adequate.

Commissioner Nixon asked if 1380 West had been discussed. Mr. Damron explained his request to postpone improvements to this street for now. Commissioner Bryner asked the time frame for improvements to the building intended for Flyerz use. Mr. Damron replied that Flyerz would like to occupy the building in February 2005.

Commissioner Nixon asked about plans for the 200 South Street frontage. Mr. Damron pointed out existing entrances and curbing. Commissioner Simister verified that the corner of 1380 West and 200 South is not planned for development now. Mr. Damron confirmed this intent. Commissioner Anderson pointed out that the entire site comprises one lot. Commissioner Nixon agreed and observed that if this were a vacant lot and a brand-new site plan, the Commission would require all the improvements to be completed. He suggested that the Commission could maybe allow a postponement of improvements to 1380 West, but that 200 South improvements should definitely be required now.

Chairman Sweeten asked about future plans by the City for 200 South Street. Mr. Smith replied that 200 South is a collector street with 66-feet of width. He noted that the current two lanes are adequate for the present and immediate future. Mr. Damron observed that plans for the western portion of the lot are not complete, and curb cuts and entrances finished now may need to be rebuilt when development occurs. Commissioner Nixon suggested that the curbing may be bonded for future installation, but he expressed the opinion that it should be completed at least to the end of the curve return on 1380 West. He commented that the eastern portion of the 200 South Street frontage is controlled by UDOT. Chairman Sweeten suggested that Mr. Damron contact UDOT and request to use and improve this frontage. He commented that businesses along State Street have been allowed to use the UDOT frontage to meet landscaping requirements. The Commission discussed differences between State Street and 200 South Street.

Mr. Damron commented that he was “more than happy” to improve the frontage as it would improve the image of the site, and noted that the adjacent site to the east only has gravel. Commissioner Nixon asked if any right-of-way is needed for 200 South Street. Mr. Smith replied that the City already has the 66-feet needed. Mr. Damron asked who was responsible for maintaining landscaping put in a UDOT right-of-way. Commissioner Bryner replied that the property owner becomes responsible if UDOT allows it to be used. Chairman Sweeten pointed out that UDOT has been favorable to such requests in the past and felt that they would be favorable now. Mr. Damron verified with the Commission that he needs to increase the landscaping to 20-feet all along the 200 South Street frontage. Commissioner Bryner confirmed this requirement of the Lindon City Code. She observed that the Commission was very happy to see improvements planned for this site and welcomed Mr. Damron’s willingness to turn this “weedy” lot into an attractive commercial location.

Chairman Sweeten suggested that the whole frontage on 200 South Street should be improved. Commissioner Nixon agreed and noted that the landscaping can be either put on UDOT right-of-way as discussed, or adjacent to the UDOT right-of-way on the lot. He suggested that the slope of the driveway be reviewed by the City Engineer. Mr. Damron asked if parking can also be added to the frontage as long as the 20-feet of landscaping remains. The Commission replied that if UDOT approves parking also, they would encourage this addition.

Commissioner Simister asked the significance of the dotted line shown on the site plan along the I-15 frontage. Mr. Smith replied that this line shows the location of a high pressure gas line. He explained that this pipeline excludes the possibility of trees, but that grass and shrubs may be planted over it.

Commissioner Bryner asked about the exterior of the buildings. Mr. Damron replied that the outside of the buildings would be improved with sheathing and stucco in earth-tone colors. He presented elevations of the structures.

Chairman Sweeten observed that the only question remaining in his mind is whether to have Mr. Damron come back to the Commission after his discussion with UDOT, or to approve the site plan with the 20-feet of landscaping on the frontage either on private or UDOT property. He suggested that the site plan be approved with the 20-feet on private property and if the discussions with UDOT are favorable, Mr. Damron can come back with an amended site plan.

Commissioner Simister observed that she felt that requiring a new owner to make up for the deficiencies of a previous owner is not fair. She explained that the lack of landscaping is not Mr. Damron’s fault and was not required of the previous owner by the City. Chairman Sweeten replied that the Commission needed to be careful of exempting nonconforming sites from the landscaping requirement, and that the ordinances had been changed to include this requirement for a compelling reason. Commissioner Nixon agreed. He pointed out the benefits of attractive sites to both the City and the property owner. He suggested that the Commission may require more landscaping in other areas of the site in lieu of landscaping along the frontage, as long as the total square footage is equivalent. Chairman Sweeten verified that Commissioner Nixon was suggesting the possibility of exchanging a wider area of landscaping along I-15 for a reduction to the landscaping on 200 South. Commissioner Nixon agreed and added that trees usually required along I-15 can also be moved to other locations on the site rather than reducing the total number. Chairman Sweeten expressed favor to this idea.

Mr. Smith expressed a concern that UDOT may not be favorable to allowing use of the right-of-way because of future needs to widen the bridge. He suggested that the existing right-of-way may be needed for slope easements to allow improvements to this bridge. He pointed out that the Lindon City Code allows the Planning Commission to both modify and reduce landscaping requirements to fit specific needs, in particular, in amending existing sites with buildings, and read the appropriate passage to the Commission.

Mr. Damron observed that he is new to the area and asked about possible time frames for dealing with UDOT. Chairman Sweeten replied that time frames are variable and suggested a contact name at UDOT. Mr. Smith also volunteered to help Mr. Damron contact the appropriate department person.

COMMISSIONER NIXON MOVED TO APPROVE THE REQUEST BY MR. JEFF DAMRON FOR APPROVAL OF WASATCH POINTE BUISNESS PARK AT 1350 WEST 200 SOUTH WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS:
1. THAT 20-FEET OF LANDSCAPING, CURB AND GUTTER BE INSTALLED ADJACENT TO THE FULL WIDTH OF FRONTAGE ON 200 SOUTH STREET WITH THE PROVISION THAT IT MAY BE REDUCED AND CREDIT MAY BE GIVEN FOR LANDSCAPING PLACED IN THE UDOT RIGHT-OF-WAY, OR LANDSCAPING PLACED ELSEWHERE ON THE LOT IN A LOCATION VISIBLE FROM I-15 AT A MINIMUM WIDTH TO MATCH THE TOTAL SQUARE FOOTAGE OF THE ORIGINAL REQUIREMENT.
2. THAT THE NUMBER OF TREES NORMALLY REQUIRED TO BE PLACED ON THE I-15 FRONTAGE ALSO BE PLACED ELSEWHERE ON THE LOT, OR WITHIN A CITY PARK IF IT IS NOT REASONABLE TO PLACE THEM ON SITE.
COMMISSIONER SIMISTER SECONDED THE MOTION. ALL PRESENT VOTED IN FAVOR. THE MOTION CARRIED.

5. CARTER SUBDIVISION, PLAT “A” – 111 SOUTH 500 EAST – PRELIMINARY SUBDIVISION
This is a request for approval for a two lot residential subdivision in the R1-20 Zone.

Mr. Leo Carter introduced himself to the Commission. Mr. Smith presented an aerial photo of the area and the proposed subdivision plat with two lots. He noted that this is a simple subdivision with one ½-acre lot and one 1-acre lot. He pointed out that 500 East Street was improved and installed, complete with curb and gutter (no sidewalk), by the Alpine School District for Rocky Mountain Elementary, but the reimbursement agreement has expired. He commented that there is a dedication of property along 400 East as part of the plat.

Commissioner Bryner asked if there was any open ditch along 500 East. Mr. Carter replied no. Commissioner Nixon asked about sewer service to 500 East and commented that the street was higher than the property. Mr. Carter replied that the sewer stub-outs were already installed. Commissioner Nixon observed that the homeowner may want to fill the lot to be able to put in a fully-serviced basement.

COMMISSIONER NIXON MOVED TO APPROVE THE REQUEST BY MR. LEO CARTER FOR CARTER SUBDIVISION, PLAT “A,” A TWO-LOT SUBDIVISION LOCATED AT 111 SOUTH 500 EAST AND RECOMMENDED APPROVAL TO THE CITY COUNCIL WITH THE FOLLOWING RECOMMENDATIONS:
1. THAT THE IMPROVEMENTS FOR 400 EAST EITHER BE INSTALLED OR A BOND FOR IMPROVEMENTS SUBMITTED TO THE CITY.
2. THAT THE SIDEWALK ON 500 EAST ALSO BE EITHER BONDED FOR OR INSTALLED.
COMMISSIONER ANDERSON SECONDED THE MOTION. ALL PRESENT VOTED IN FAVOR. THE MOTION CARRIED.

Mr. Carter asked a question about the required soil report.

6. WASATCH PORTABLE STORAGE – 135 SOUTH 1060 WEST – TEMPORARY SITE PLAN
This is a request for approval for a temporary site plan for a portable storage sales and leasing business.

Mr. Chris Kitchen introduced himself to the Commission. Mr. Smith displayed an aerial photo of the site. He explained that the applicant is requesting a temporary permit for the business and noted that the Lindon City Code allows a temporary site to be operated for a maximum of two years. He observed that the business has been operating since about February of 2004 and he had been working with a representative who is no longer employed by the company to bring the operation into compliance. He explained that Mr. Kitchen is the new manager and has been good to come to the City and resolve the issue. Mr. Kitchen would like to be allowed to continue to operate for the remainder of the two years and has a portable office on site. The owner of the property, Mr. Boyd Jacobsen, has improved the landscaping to meet the code requirements.

Chairman Sweeten asked Mr. Kitchen why this business had been operating without approvals. Mr. Kitchen replied that the parent company is out of San Francisco and they had sent him to clean up the mistakes of the previous manager. He requested that the Commission allow him to operate for the balance of a two year temporary permit. Chairman Sweeten commented that the purpose of a temporary permit is to allow a business to operate and find out if their operation is feasible before investing in a permanent structure. Commissioner Anderson asked if the portable office was connected to the City sewer system. Mr. Kitchen replied that the office had a self-contained holding tank.

Chairman Sweeten observed that the site is not attractive. Commissioner Nixon agreed and expressed the opinion that stacking the containers in columns of three is too high. Chairman Sweeten commented that storage should be no higher than the fence. Commissioner Nixon observed that the ordinance applies to the storage of “junk” and the containers are “product,” but the stacking is still too high. Mr. Kitchen requested to be allowed to continue stacking three high, however, a large number of the containers are rented at this time. He asked if the Commission was asking him to bring the stacking down to only two high. Chairman Sweeten commented that the Commission cannot authorize stacking even two high because it is a violation of the Code. Mr. Kitchen asked if it is an aesthetics issue. Commissioner Nixon explained that there are safety concerns about stacking so high, especially close to the property line, but that the biggest issue is aesthetics. Commissioner Anderson agreed and added that there is usually a setback from the property line.

Commissioner Bryner asked if the business is successful and if the containers are being moved around every day. Mr. Kitchen replied that they rent containers throughout the year, but the period from August to February is the largest because of the rentals for Christmas inventory. Commissioner Nixon asked how many containers are on site at present. Mr. Kitchen replied that there are about 400 containers.

Mr. Smith addressed Chairman Sweeten’s concern by reading from the code about stacking and storage. He noted that there is a difference between the commercial zone requirements and the light industrial zone requirements. He added that the commercial zone requirements are stricter and do not allow any stacking above the fence. However, the light industrial zone only restricts the stacking of junk in an enclosed area no higher than eight feet. He observed that many businesses in the light industrial zone have stacked product, but not at the fence line. Commissioner Anderson suggested that stacking be limited to two high. Chairman Sweeten asked if there had been complaints from the neighbors. Mr. Smith replied no.

Mr. Kitchen observed that he had spent some time and effort on organizing the site and grouping containers by colors to be more attractive. Mr. Smith quoted the Lindon City Code about the purpose of the Light Industrial zone, “to provide areas in appropriate locations where light industrial manufacturing, industrial process and warehousing not producing objectionable effects may be established, maintained, and protected.” He observed that the Development Review Committee had felt that the use is appropriate for the zone and clarified that the DRC did not advocate stacking the containers three high.

Commissioner Nixon asked what impact reducing the height of the stacks would have on the business. Mr. Kitchen replied that it would be “painful.” He commented that the stacks are not as high as surrounding buildings. Commissioner Nixon asked the size of the containers and the size of the lot. Mr. Kitchen replied that he had two sizes of containers, 8 X 20 and 8 X 40. He noted that the lot is 85,000 square feet.

Chairman Sweeten observed that he felt “torn.” He commented that he wants to try and be business-friendly, but that he felt the City had been taken advantage of and ignored. Commissioner Anderson agreed and added that the property owner is also at fault here. He observed that the business was now trying to amend the situation. Commissioner Nixon observed that forgiveness can be given once, and warned Mr. Kitchen that the Commission would be watching the operation closely. Chairman Sweeten suggested that the temporary permit be back dated to the opening of operations and that the container stacks be limited to one high.

Mr. Kitchen observed that the site has worked well for the business, but maybe not for the City. He suggested the Commission consider allowing him to stack three high in the middle if he moves the containers to allow a setback on the perimeter.

Chairman Sweeten asked if sales tax is charged on the rental of containers. He pointed out that the business’s lack of a business license had shorted the City of sales taxes due over the last several months of operations. Commissioner Nixon reported that he had made some calculations with the size and number of containers and the size of the lot and found that the containers will cover the entire lot if they are only one high. The containers will cover half the lot if they are two high. He suggested that large equipment is needed to move the containers and two high would allow this movement. He felt that two high is enough for the industrial zone and less of an imposition on the neighbors. Mr. Kitchen pointed out a corner in the back that is not readily visible from the two frontages, and asked if he could stack three high in this area.

Commissioner Bryner observed that she would prefer to see those containers next to the fence only one high. Mr. Kitchen commented that he will be moving the containers to allow a space between the first row and the fence. Commissioner Bryner added that she would like to see the first row one high and then possibly the next row can be two high maximum all the way to the rear. Mr. Kitchen was asked how wide of a space he would be making by the fence. He replied ten feet. Commissioner Anderson observed that this would be a big improvement. Commissioner Simister agreed.

Chairman Sweeten questioned whether the Commission was encouraging businesses to set up and establish themselves without permits. He felt that a penalty was in order here and suggested that Mr. Kitchen be required to remove everything from the lot and get the required permits before re-establishing the business. Commissioner Simister disagreed. Mr. Smith observed that whether or not the business had the required approvals, general warehousing is a permitted use in the light industrial zone. The only questions were the aesthetics, fence, landscaping and the temporary office. He added that there were no complaints from the neighborhood, so this business was not on the “ten most wanted list” of zoning violations. He agreed that it was unfortunate that the business did not get the required approvals in advance, but the fact remains that the use is permitted. The conflicts about the height of the stacks can be resolved by deciding when it becomes distracting to the purpose of the light industrial zone.

Commissioner Simister asked about the maximum height for buildings and structures in the light industrial zone. Mr. Smith replied that the code allows structures to be 48-feet high. Chairman Sweeten added that the structures must also have some architectural treatment. Mr. Smith agreed. He noted that the highest fence allowed so far is nine-feet.

Commissioner Anderson suggested that the sign draws attention and that it would be more “tasteful” to remove it. He felt that this would make the stacks less conspicuous. Mr. Kitchen agreed to remove the sign. He commented that most of his business comes from other sources and the sign is unnecessary. Commissioner Simister suggested that she would prefer the stacks to remain low in front and have a space next to the fence, but she sees no problem with stacking three high in the back area. The Commission discussed this suggestion. Commissioner Anderson observed that the portable office needs to be ADA accessible and to have functional bathrooms.

COMMISSIONER BRYNER MOVED TO APPROVE THE REQUEST BY MR. CHRIS KITCHEN FOR A TEMPORARY SITE PLAN FOR WASATCH PORTABLE STORAGE LOCATED AT 135 SOUTH 1060 WEST WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS:
1. THAT THE APPLICANT SUBMIT A LINDON CITY BUSINESS LICENSE APPLICATION FOR A TEMPORARY BUSINESS AND FULFILL THE QUALIFICATIONS.
2. THAT THE CONTAINERS BE MOVED BACK FROM THE FENCE A MINIMUM DISTANCE OF 10-FEET.
3. THAT THE CONTAINERS BE STACKED NO MORE THAN TWO HIGH.
4. AND, THAT THE TEMPORARY SITE PLAN PERMIT EXPIRES FEBRUARY 2006.

Commissioner Anderson observed that the business has to be dismantled and removed, or be ready to occupy their permanent building by that date. The Commissioners discussed backing up the expiration date of the permit to allow the petitioner to apprise the City of their plans for a permanent business structure.

COMMISSIONER BRYNER MOVED TO MODIFY THE EXPIRATION DATE IN CONDITION FOUR TO OCTOBER 2005, BASED ON INPUT FROM THE COMMISSIONERS. COMMISSIONER ANDERSON SECONDED THE MOTION AS AMENDED. ALL PRESENT VOTED IN FAVOR EXCEPT CHAIRMAN SWEETEN WHO VOTED NAY. THE MOTION CARRIED. (4-1)

7. ORDINANCE AMENDMENT – 17.16. NONCONFORMING USES
This is a request to amend and revise the current nonconforming uses ordinance.

Mr. Smith presented the proposed amendment to Section 17.16, Nonconforming Uses, to the Commission by reminding them of their earlier review of a proposal by City Attorney Jared Frei. He reported that Mr. Frei had taken their comments and reverted to the original version and added language that establishes the ownership rights of a nonconforming use. Mr. Frei has also suggested that the Commission determine a more specific term or phrase than “harmony” on page 2 to avoid appearing arbitrary and capricious. He pointed out the changes proposed on Sections 17.16.120, 17.16.130, and 17.16.140.

Chairman Sweeten observed that he can still see a lot of the same potential problems in the current version. He commented that the ordinance does not specify that a nonconforming use permit cannot be moved. The current version has only removed the word “moved” from the list of actions that can be done. He also noted that if a nonconforming use permit cannot be moved, it may not matter who owns it because it stays with the property. He felt that establishing ownership may allow a seller to retain a nonconforming use permit in his ownership even though it cannot be moved. He suggested that the issue is still “cloudy.”

Chairman Sweeten observed that the state statutes that deal with this issue do not allow a nonconforming use to either enlarge or expand. He commented that the intent appears to be that nonconforming uses will eventually expire and be removed. Mr. Smith agreed. Chairman Sweeten commented that a nonconforming use will not expire and be removed if they are allowed to move, change or expand.

Mr. Smith agreed that the general purpose of the nonconforming uses section is to eventually remove these uses from a zone; however, there are some uses that are not in Lindon’s best interest to remove. He cited the example of the old Cullimore Store on State Street. He pointed out that this building is a historic structure. It does not meet current building or zoning codes, but it would not be in Lindon’s best interests to make the owner remove it. The building will need to be expanded to meet the needs of a restaurant or other commercial venture that may occupy it. He pointed out that Lindon also has nonconforming lots that were created prior to the adoption of the development code. Due to imperfect surveying methods of the past, changes are needed on occasion to redefine these lots to accommodate the owners’ needs. These lots will never become conforming, and in some cases, would require razing the homes if changes were not allowed. He agreed that the nonconforming uses section of the Lindon City Code is “not perfect,” but it can be made better and more defensible.

Chairman Sweeten suggested that the code section could allow alterations with specific criteria. Commissioner Nixon suggested that the section should specifically prohibit moving of a nonconforming use. Chairman Sweeten agreed. Commissioner Anderson asked Chairman Sweeten if his main concern is the moving issue. Chairman Sweeten replied that the language dealing with moving needs to be made a lot stronger. He suggested that expansion should also not be allowed without more specific criteria.

Commissioner Anderson asked about changing the word “harmony.” The Commission spent some time discussing the intent of the word “harmony” in this section. Commissioner Simister asked if this section would allow the Commission to have input on remodeling that changes the outside appearance of a structure. Mr. Harlow Clark, newspaper representative, asked how this section of code addresses situations where the lot line runs through a home. Chairman Sweeten pointed out that the code allows a nonconforming lot to change its lot lines and indicated the specific passage that would apply. He suggested that there is a difference between a nonconforming lot or building, and a nonconforming use. Commissioner Anderson asked the Commission to consider a scenario where the Alpine School District Bus Garage is sold. The Commission discussed possible outcomes and uses that may occupy the site. There was also a short discussion of Schaeffer Industries.

Commissioner Nixon directed attention back to the ownership of a nonconforming use question. Chairman Sweeten suggested that ownership is only an issue if a nonconforming use can be moved. He expressed the opinion that if a use cannot be moved, it avoids the complication of who owns the use. Mr. Smith asked for suggestions on how to improve the amendment. Chairman Sweeten suggested adding a list of specific findings under which a nonconforming use can be modified, rather than leaving it open to interpretation of the word “harmony” or “reasonable.” He asked, “What is unreasonable?” Commissioner Anderson agreed and noted that a nonconforming use can never be in “harmony.” The nature and definition of a nonconforming use is that the use is inappropriate in the zone.

Commissioner Nixon asked if a nonconforming use can also be considered a conditional use. Mr. Smith replied no. He explained that the premise behind a conditional use is that the use is appropriate to a zone, and it just needs some restrictions to make it compatible. A nonconforming use is not appropriate to a zone. Councilmember Bayless commented that the City Council has also struggled with the use of the word “harmony.” She suggested that the phrase be modified to “greater harmony.” She expressed the opinion that any change to a nonconforming use should bring it closer to the current requirements and regulations. Commissioner Nixon agreed that any change should be an improvement.

Mr. Smith observed that he would take the Commission’s comments back to Mr. Frei for another revision. He added that he would ask if it was necessary to define and specify findings for uses that would be considered “harmonious.” Chairman Sweeten suggested that the ordinance may be made clearer by splitting the rules for commercial nonconforming uses and residential nonconforming uses into different sections.

8. TRAINING SESSION – BETTER PUBLIC MEETINGS

The Planning Commission will review information on how to improve public meetings. Mr. Smith presented some information presented at the last American Planning Association Fall Conference that he felt would be helpful to the Commissioners. He distributed a handout entitled “Twenty Tips in Ten Minutes” and briefly discussed each item. He commented that land use decisions have been overturned in court because of improper noticing. He urged the Commissioners to use the Lindon City Code as their guide. The Commissioners discussed the 750-foot rule for public noticing in many of Lindon’s requirements. Mr. Smith reported that some cities have instituted the practice of holding a work session before the regular meeting that is used for field trips to sites, and other background research. He also offered to contact the qualified professionals employed by the City, such as the City Attorney, Fire Marshal, and City Engineer, for presentations and to answer specific questions for the Commission. He urged the Commissioners to read and research their staff reports before the meetings to familiarize themselves with the issues.

Mr. Smith pointed out that debating issues with the public during a meeting does not accomplish the orderly purposes of the City. He urged the Commissioners to follow the policies, procedures and guidelines set up for meetings to promote the orderly exchange of ideas. He agreed that living in a small community allows for more personal interaction, but one of the most important items to remember is that the Commission is in the public eye. Any private conversation is viewed unfavorably, and decisions can and have been challenged in court under such circumstances.

Mr. Smith informed the Commission that meetings can and do get out of control on occasion. He suggested that the Commission familiarize themselves with the provisions of State Code 76-9-103. He also commented that he would like to put the meeting guidelines for the public on the back of the agenda. That way, if there are any questions, the public can be referred to the written rules.

Mr. Smith also suggested that the Commissioners familiarize themselves on the appropriateness of talking to applicants, and with questions of “due process.” He noted that there are times when it is not advisable to talk to applicants and times when talking is encouraged. He noted that the important issue to remember here is that all decisions must be made at the meeting. He asked if there had been any issues covered where the Commission felt they needed more training. He also noted that an agenda item coming up is the update of the General Plan, which is done every five years.

9. PLANNING DIRECTOR’S REPORT

Mr. Smith presented a proposal to remodel and expand the Hatfield home on West Center Street into a family recreation area. He noted that the building will be built to commercial standards and will eventually become a commercial building, however, it will be used strictly for family for now and no licenses will be issued. Commissioner Nixon asked how extensively the remodel will affect the home. Mr. Smith replied that they are planning to add about six to eight thousand square feet to the home, but it will continue to appear like a home. The Commission discussed the proposal and expressed consensus in favor of the project.

Mr. Smith presented an amended grading plan for the Duros home on Dry Canyon Drive. The family would like to add a pool to their home that will require grading within ten feet of the property line. He pointed out a retaining wall built in two steps of about three feet each. The wall will be built of landscaping rocks. The Commissioners approved the amended grading plan by consensus.

Mr. Smith presented a proposal to build a home on 200 East behind Southtowne Mall. He pointed out the lot on an aerial photo and told the Commission that the applicants assert that this is a legal nonconforming lot. After some discussion, Mr. Smith was asked to check the date that the lot was created and have the City Attorney review the title report.

Mr. Smith presented a home occupation request and remodel for a home near the new Wal-Mart. The applicants want to convert the garage into a nail salon. He presented the site plan and building permit request. He noted that his concern is that the remodel is not in character with the residential nature of the home. Councilmember Bayless asked if the applicant is aware that a home business is only allowed one employee. Mr. Smith replied yes and noted that the nail technician is the applicant’s wife. He informed the Commission that the applicant says that the remodel of the front exterior of the home is an important modification and will determine the outcome of a real estate sale of this residential property. He observed that the exterior remodel shows evidence of the existence of the business. Commissioner Anderson observed that the maintaining the residential appearance is an important component of the home occupation ordinance. The Commissioners discussed the request and noted that the commercial zone lies adjacent to this parcel. Commissioner Nixon suggested that the proposal appears to be a reasonable transition between the residential and commercial districts. Commissioner Simister agreed that the nature of the business is transitional, but not the remodel to the appearance of the home. Chairman Sweeten suggested that the applicant submit a rezoning request. Commissioner Anderson observed that he would be reluctant to rezone this parcel because it would appear that the commercial zone is moving farther into the neighborhood. Commissioner Nixon suggested an addition on the west side of the home—nearer the commercial zone. Mr. Smith commented that he would be surprised if the neighborhood would be in favor of letting the commercial zone encroach any farther into their subdivision.

ADJOURN

THE COMMISSION REACHED CONSENSUS TO ADJOURN THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING AT 10:10 P.M.

APPROVED – November 10, 2004