The Lindon City Planning Commission held a regularly scheduled meeting beginning at 7:00 p.m. on Wednesday, September 8, 2004 in the Lindon City Center, City Council Chambers, at 100 North State Street, Lindon, Utah.

Conducting: Dustin Sweeten, Chairman
Invocation: Julie Bryner
Pledge of Allegiance: Dustin Sweeten

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

The meeting began at 7:01 p.m.

1. APPROVAL OF MINUTES

The Minutes of the regularly scheduled meeting of July 14, 2004 were reviewed. The following corrections were made:
Page 3, Line 5: Delete the word "not" after the word "is."
Page 3, Line 20: Add the word "because" after the word "that." Add the phrase "the odor is more apparent" after the word "grass."
Page 3, Line 30: Add the words "TLC employee" after the name "Ben Platt."
Page 3, Line 32: Add the words "felt that" after the word "but."
Page 3, Line 36: Replace the word "were" with the word "had." Replace the word "the" with the words "of a."
Page 4, Line 13: Replace the words "over 80,000 tons" with the words "a large amount." Replace the word "line" with the word "table."
Page 7, Line 5: Replace the word "did not appear to be" with the words "was not."
Page 7, Line 18: Replace the word "he" with the words "the Commission."

The Minutes of the regularly schedule meeting of July 28, 2004 were reviewed. The following corrections were made:
Page 3, Line 43: Delete the words "link gate" after the word "chain."
Page 4, Line 1: Replace the word "landscape" with the word "landscaping."
Page 4, Line 3: Add the words "the business" before the name "Somewhere Inn Time."
Page 4, Line 11: Add the words "safety and" after the word "possible." Replace the phrase "the waterfall and the detention basin" with the phrase "standing water in the pool and suggested a recirculating feature."
Page 5, Line 18: Add the word "major" before the word "auto."
Page 5, Line 28: Replace the word "TO" with the phrase "SLOPING UP TO MATCH THE HEIGHT OF THE BERM ON."
Page 8, Line 14: Replace the word "know" with the word "knowing."
Page 9, Line 13: Replace the word "INSURES" with the word "ENSURES."

COMMISSIONER PETERS MOVED APPROVE THE MINUTES OF JULY 14, 2004 AND JULY 28, 2004 AS CORRECTED. COMMISSIONER SIMISTER SECONDED THE MOTION. ALL PRESENT VOTED IN FAVOR. THE MOTION CARRIED.

2. PUBLIC COMMENT

Mr. Fred Lee brought up an issue with the Commissioners about water shares. It was noted that the Lees Homestead application would be heard later in the agenda and this could be addressed then.

3. NEW BUSINESS (Reports by Commissioners)

Commissioner Peters reported that a neighbor of the new car wash on 600 North has reported that the fence is only three to four-feet high on the residential side. Mr. Smith replied that he would talk to the car wash. Commissioner Peters commented that there is a business on 200 South and Geneva Road that is using the sidewalk for storage. Mr. Smith replied that this business already has an enforcement file on this issue.

Commissioner Nixon reported that a gate has been installed on the church driveway to 400 North. He commented that he can understand not wanting through traffic for the majority of time, but he feels that the gate would serve its purpose better at 550 East. He explained that the access to the 400 North collector was required by the City to provide direct access from a collector road, and now it is blocked so the only access to the site is from a neighborhood street. Commissioner Godfrey explained that the gate had been installed to solve a problem with a neighbor and the gate is open on Sunday. He added that the 400 North access is narrow and goes next to houses with children. Commissioner Nixon still felt that putting the gate on the 550 East access would solve the problems and not block the access to the collector. After discussion, it was decided that letting the emergency response teams know about the blocked access may be sufficient.

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

Commissioner Nixon declared a conflict of interest since he is an applicant for this proposal, and removed himself from his seat with the Commission. Chairman Sweeten reminded everyone of the thirty-minute time limit that was set at the last meeting.

Mr. Smith asked the Planning Intern, Carl Woodard, to pass out copies of the new site plans. Mr. Smith noted that the Development Review Committee, including the fire marshal, had looked at these site plans this morning. Mark Hales, the fire marshal, had given Mr. Smith these comments; no parking will be allowed on the driveway; the driveway must be red-curbed and signed to meet the fire code. Mr. Smith noted that the applicants have submitted two proposals for review. One of the proposals has a 330-foot long driveway, a single family home, a duplex and a triplex. The other has six single family homes–five on a 525-foot driveway and one facing 400 East.

Mr. Mark Jones and Mr. Evan Nixon presented the two site plans and commented that changes to the previous versions were based on the comments made at the last meeting. They identified eight issues raised by the Commissioners and neighbors at the last meeting. Mr. Nixon observed that he was confused about the fire marshal’s comments, because he had a copy of the fire code in hand. He read the applicable passage from the fire code and commented that Lindon’s standard pathway cross section has an asphalt width of 28-feet that allows parking on both sides. This roadway/driveway is 26.5-feet of asphalt width. Commissioner Peters asked the width of the hammerhead at the end of the driveway. Mr. Nixon replied 20-feet with red-curbs. He pointed out the additional sidewalk along the driveway of the new plans, and provisions for snow removal and drainage. He noted the addition of curb on the north side of the drive. The drive will slope to the south. He commented that there is snow storage at the end of the main and individual driveways, where landscaping will be restricted to sod. He observed that this driveway is 26.5-feet wide and showed pictures of other projects with similar width streets. He observed that this driveway is "almost as wide as a public road." The Commission discussed these widths and their locations with Mr. Nixon.

Mr. Nixon presented elevations of the homes proposed for the project. He explained that these homes are designed for small lots and have no windows on the sides. He showed the orientation of the homes and observed that all the homes would face either east or west. Commissioner Peters asked what was on the side facing the drive. Mr. Nixon replied that this is mostly a blank wall, but false windows could be added.

Chairman Sweeten asked about the setbacks of the homes from the drive and property lines. Mr. Nixon pointed out setbacks on the homes. Commissioner Simister asked why the homes are ten-feet from the adjoining neighbor and 27-feet from the drive. Mr. Nixon replied that he would like to put the homes in the middle and average it. There was a discussion of the setback requirements from a public street versus a driveway.

Commissioner Peters asked about ownership of the area around the homes. Mr. Nixon replied that he had not decided whether this area should be limited common or common area. He explained that the reason he has not decided is that he would like to promote pride of ownership. Chairman Sweeten agreed that there is a need for affordable home ownership in Lindon, but his main objection is still that the lot is too narrow. Commissioner Anderson asked if the measurement between the driveway and house is measured from the back of the curb or the edge of the sidewalk. Mr. Nixon replied the measurement is from the back of curb.

Mr. Nixon observed that it is important to remember that these are not lots. This is a way to provide affordable housing. He asserted that the required setbacks for a regular home are all exceeded by this project. He pointed out that there are six units in Lees Homestead on a twenty-foot driveway. This has only five units on a 26.5-foot driveway. He also pointed out the option that minimizes the length of the driveway. He observed that if the proximity of the homes to the driveway is the major concern, this distance is similar to that of other approved projects. Chairman Sweeten commented that most home driveways do not provide access for four or five residences.

Commissioner Peters observed that setbacks are provided for the protection of neighbors, but now the homes are oriented so they are closer to the neighbors and the drive. Mr. Nixon countered that the setbacks are designed to protect a home from a public street and side setbacks are only ten-feet. Commissioner Peters asserted that this project "circumvents the purpose of setbacks." Mr. Nixon replied that these setbacks are no closer than a standard home. All the homes are oriented facing the street or 180 degrees from the street. He agreed that these are the minimums, but they can be made wider by moving the homes closer to the driveway and farther away from the neighbors.

Chairman Sweeten opened the discussion to the public for any new issues. Mr. Mike Anderson of 455 East 200 North commented that the City Council, at their hearing in July, had talked specifically about not allowing two-story buildings in the project. Mr. Paul Channel asked if there are plans for further development if the driveway is shortened. Mr. Jones replied that the remainder parcel in the rear will be used for a park or playground for the residents of the project. A Lindon resident pointed out that the individual driveways are only twenty-feet deep and asked where the homeowners would park their RVs. He also expressed concern that the driveways are oriented back to back which creates a potential for collision. Mr. Nixon replied that there is sixty-feet between garage faces and the homeowners in this affordable housing project are unlikely to have RVs.

Commissioner Godfrey asked how off-street parking will be addressed if there is no parking along the driveway. Mr. Nixon pointed out that his interpretation of the fire code allows for parking on one side. However, the driveway can be made wider to the standard 28-foot width to allow parking. Chairman Sweeten expressed concern about the setback from the driveway. Mr. Nixon replied that if these were standard lots on a corner, then there would be a greater setback, however, this is an R2 project and this is a driveway. He felt that the design complies with engineering standards, fire code, and can meet the parking requirements also. Commissioner Simister commented that if the fire marshal does not allow parking along the driveway, then there is not enough off-street parking. Mr. Nixon replied that the off-street parking required by the Lindon City Code is met without the parking along the drive.

Commissioner Simister observed that she agrees with Commissioner Peters that the setback requirements have been circumvented. She feels that the homes are too close to the neighbors. She commented that this project puts six houses in the space for one house, which is too many in her opinion. This places the burden on the neighborhood. Mr. Jones asked if she would prefer two triplexes instead. Mr. Nixon asked if her concern is the density. Commissioner Anderson replied that Commissioner Simister has a point. He explained that this lot was originally intended for one house, and if there were more houses in the same area or if this was a deep lot, there would be larger setbacks. Mr. Nixon replied that he has met the requirements of the Code and now the Commission is asking for additional requirements.

Commissioner Sweeten expressed the opinion that this lot is too narrow for the project. Mr. Nixon disagreed and expressed the opinion that the project can fit. He asked the Commission to tell him the specific reasons for the denial of the project. Mr. Smith observed that he did not feel that the Commission had to be that specific. He pointed to the code concerning conditional use permits, Section 17.20, and explained that an R2 Overlay project is a conditional use permit. He read from this section that grounds to deny could be detrimental effects that the Commission feels cannot be mitigated. If the Commission feels that more side yard setback is needed to mitigate the injurious effects, they can require that the houses be set back farther. Mr. Nixon asked the Commission to articulate those requirements and then allow him to meet them.

Commissioner Peters read from the original motion to deny and added that he does not see how the Commission can be more specific. He added that he still feels the same way. He expressed the opinion that the driveway is too narrow. He explained that the main complaint at the Green Valley Condominium project is the parking along the driveways, and they have drives of 33-feet. Mr. Nixon replied that Green Valley’s driveways all face the street and there is no off-street parking. Commissioner Peters commented that the problem is the narrowness of the driveway. Chairman Sweeten suggested that the Commission vote on the application. Mr. Nixon asked the Commission to specify a setback and he will fit a home in that setback. Chairman Sweeten replied that he does not see any mitigation that can make the lot wider. He again expressed the opinion that the lot is too narrow for a R2 project and does not meet the spirit of the regulation. Commissioner Simister commented that one problem is whether the fire marshal will allow parking along the driveway. She also felt that there was not enough setback between the homes and the neighbors’ fences. Mr. Nixon asked what would be enough. Commissioner Simister replied that she feels that they should have more than what is required by code standards, which is 30-feet. Mr. Nixon confirmed that she felt the setbacks should be more restrictive. Commissioner Simister replied yes and explained that there were more units in this project than in a deep lot.

Commissioner Peters called time on the hearing.

COMMISSIONER SIMISTER MOVED TO DENY THE REQUEST BY MARK JONES AND EVAN NIXON FOR A SIX-UNIT, 1.25-ACRE R2 OVERLAY PROJECT AT 234 NORTH 400 EAST WITH THE FOLLOWING FINDINGS:

Mr. Nixon interjected with a question to the Commission. He asked if there was any R2 project that would work. He did not feel that he had been given clear indications of what is required to make it work. He added that he would like to try other configurations. Commissioner Simister continued with her motion with the help and advice of the Commission.

1. LAYOUT AND SETBACK PROBLEMS RELATED TO THE SIZE OF THE PARCEL, AND
2. THE APPLICANT HAS BEEN UNABLE TO MITIGATE THE CONCERNS OF THE PREVIOUS FINDINGS DETAILED AT THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING OF JUNE 23, 2004 TO WIT:
A. INADEQUATE ACCESS,
B. INADEQUATE PARKING,
C. INADEQUATE FACILITIES FOR EMERGENCY AND SERVICE VEHICLES.
3. THERE APPEARS TO BE NO PRACTICAL MEANS AVAILABLE TO THE APPLICANT TO EFFECTIVELY MITIGATE THE DETRIMENTAL EFFECTS LISTED ABOVE.
COMMISSIONER BRYNER SECONDED THE MOTION. ALL PRESENT VOTED IN FAVOR. THE MOTION CARRIED.

5. D.R. STONE DESIGN - 208 NORTH 2000 WEST - SITE PLAN APPLICATION

Mr. Darin Ralph introduced himself. Mr. Smith presented the location on an aerial and showed the site plan. He noted that the business is planning a future office on the front of the building. He observed that the parking lot will be paved and there will be gravel in the back for a display area. He commented that the business is planning to take over the maintenance of the storm water ditch along 2000 West and put in an additional fourteen-feet of sod along their frontage. He displayed the building elevations and noted that the metal building will have thirty-percent of stone treatment on the front. Mr. Ralph commented that the building would have thirty-percent all the way around.

Mr. Ralph told the Commission that he works with natural stone, not cultured stone. The building will be used to house a profiling saw to cut the stone to fit particular applications. He showed the Commission a sample of the stone he proposes to use on the building. The Commission asked where he operates now. Mr. Ralph replied that he works out of his home. Commissioner Anderson asked if the fence will be "sight obscuring." Mr. Ralph replied that he planned a chain link fence. Commissioner Anderson asked how the stone will be stored in the storage area. Mr. Ralph replied that the stone is contained on pallets or it comes in slabs. He plans to surface the lot with gravel or recycled asphalt.

Commissioner Godfrey asked about the use of the sediment tanks in the building. Mr. Ralph explained that water is used on the saw and then runs into the tanks. The water is filtered and reused and the tanks are emptied of rock dust every six to eight weeks. Commissioner Nixon asked if the saw is noisy. Mr. Ralph replied that he uses "diamond core saws" that do not require the use of ear protection. He explained that they are quiet and last longer than the regularly used saws. Commissioner Anderson commented that noise can be an issue, especially where this lot is next to the mixed commercial area. Mr. Ralph asked if there is a noise decibel limit. Chairman Sweeten explained that conditional use permits are reviewable upon complaint. Mr. Smith agreed, and noted that noise can also be a public nuisance.

Mr. Smith commented that although the ditch is public property, the city has encouraged property owners along it to assume responsibility for its upkeep by incorporating it into their landscaping. Commissioner Peters asked how weeds will be kept under control in the rock landscaped areas. Mr. Ralph replied that he would lay landscape fabric under the rocks. The Commission discussed using rock and sod in the landscaping and the requirements of the Code. Commissioner Anderson asked if the Commission had leeway to allow rock in the landscaping. Mr. Smith replied that there must be a compelling reason to allow a variance, and suggested that the maintenance of the ditch may be such a reason.

Commissioner Peters asked about the granite stone curbing on the site plan. Mr. Ralph replied that he plans to use a sixteen-inch piece of granite instead of concrete for the curbing. Commissioner Godfrey asked if there would be other storage besides the stone. Mr. Ralph replied no, only the forklift. Commissioner Nixon asked if the stored stone would be finished material. Mr. Ralph replied that he only displays building stone. All cut pieces will be shipped immediately. Commissioner Bryner asked how many employees would be at the site. Mr. Ralph replied three or four. Commissioner Bryner asked about customer parking. He pointed out the customer parking spaces. Mr. Smith asked if the business is expanded, would more storage be needed. Commissioner Godfrey commented that a sight obscuring fence may be needed if the storage of the rock causes complaints from his neighbors. Mr. Ralph discussed his storage plans with the Commission and pointed out that the east end will be for fabricated stone and the south end will be pallets of rock. Commissioner Anderson commented that the neighboring building will block the view of the storage area. He suggested that a review after the operation starts can be part of the motion.

Mr. Smith commented that the requirements for landscaping are somewhat confusing. He read a passage from the code. He explained that the city’s ditch can be maintained by the landowners if it is contained in their landscaping. He noted that the discussion with Wasatch Timber was because the approved site plan had not been followed. Commissioner Godfrey commented that it seems inconsistent to require sod on one site and not another site. Mr. Smith replied that sod is what Wasatch Timber submitted and was approved for on their site plan and the City does not require property owners to landscape and maintain the ditch. Commissioner Anderson commented that the mixed commercial zone has more flexibility in the landscaping standard than the light industrial zone. He added that he would like to see this flexibility added to the light industrial zone codes. The Commission discussed landscaping standards, maintenance of the ditch and consistency.

COMMISSIONER PETERS MOVED TO APPROVE THE REQUEST BY D.R. STONE DESIGN FOR SITE PLAN APPROVAL FOR A STONE MANUFACTURING BUSINESS AT 208 NORTH 2000 WEST WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS:
1. A SIGHT OBSCURING FENCE MAY BE REQUIRED UPON COMPLAINT OF THE NEIGHBORS.
2. A LANDSCAPING AREA SHALL CONSIST OF FOURTEEN-FEET OF SOD AND SIX-FEET OF COBBLEROCK PRIMARILY TO BE LOCATED IN THE STORM WATER DITCH ON 2000 WEST.
3. ALL TREES WILL BE PLACED THIRTY-FOOT ON CENTER.
4. THE DETENTION BASIN IS DESIGNED AS AN INTEGRAL PART OF THE DISPLAY AREA AND WILL CONSIST OF GRADUAL SLOPES.

COMMISSIONER NIXON SECONDED THE MOTION. ALL PRESENT VOTED IN FAVOR. THE MOTION CARRIED.

6. LEES HOMESTEAD CONDOS - 190 NORTH 400 WEST - PRELIMINARY SUBDIVISION APPLICATION

Ms. Joy Lee explained that this project needs to be changed to condos instead of the previously approved R2 project of rental apartments so the bank will finance the project. Mr. Smith presented the plat and pointed out common and private areas. Chairman Sweeten commented that the city generally favors ownership to rentals. Ms. Lee pointed out that the half-acre in back of the home will now be attached to the home lot, instead of the project. Chairman Sweeten confirmed that the fence will now be placed along the lot line. Ms. Lee verified the location of the fence.

Commissioner Peters asked what future is anticipated for this back lot. Ms. Lee replied that it will be attached to the house. They plan to remodel the house and install curb, gutter and sidewalk in front of it.

Councilmember Bayless passed along a comment from Mayor Ellertson that if the units are sold and there are six owners, the driveway may need to be upgraded to city street standards. Ms. Lee replied that the association can take care of the maintenance of the driveway. The Commission discussed the driveway compared to a city street. There was also a discussion of the setback on the back building since the property line had been set for the back lot along this border instead of including the lot with the project. Commissioner Godfrey felt that this building should move away from this new north boundary since the lot line has been added to the plat. Chairman Sweeten suggested that the play area on the south edge should not be minimized. The distance was determined to be about seventeen-feet. Commissioner Anderson suggested that if the Lee’s didn’t own the adjoining parcel and if there was the possibility of another home there, an increased setback may be necessary.

COMMISSIONER BRYNER MOVED TO APPROVE THE REQUEST BY JOY LEE FOR LEES HOMESTEAD CONDOMINIUMS, PLAT "A, A SIX-UNIT CONDOMINIUM PLAT AT 190 NORTH 400 WEST AND RECOMMENDED APPROVAL TO THE CITY COUNCIL. COMMISSIONER SIMISTER SECONDED THE MOTION. ALL PRESENT VOTED IN FAVOR. THE MOTION CARRIED.

The Commission discussed Mr. Fred Lee’s water share question.

7. ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN STANDARDS DISCUSSION

Chairman Sweeten recognized the attendance of Mayor Ellertson, Mr. Dameron, and Mr. Dain in the audience. Mr. Smith informed the Commission that the City had disseminated a Request For Qualifications (RFQ) to try and find an architectural firm to help the City develop a set of design standards for State Street. There was no response to the RFQ. He has invited former Councilmember Jim Dain to offer some insights into why there had been no response.

Mr. Dain observed that architects are not generally considered "ordinance writers." He told the Commission that architects are busy and the amount of time needed to write an ordinance such as Lindon is proposing is not considered as valuable to them as time spent on designing a building. Commissioner Bryner agreed and noted that she had talked to an architect also. He told her that although he considered the effort an act of good will to the community, he does not have the time. Mr. Dain observed that another problem that most architects will point out is that the RFQ was too "nebulous and open-ended." He suggested that if he asks the Commission and those present in the audience their interpretation of "a little bit of country," he will find ten different opinions. He commented that preferences of one design over another is a matter of personal taste, and efforts to regulate personal taste may be considered "arbitrary and capricious."

Commissioner Nixon asked how Park City, Vail and Jackson Hole developed their standards. Mr. Dain replied that they had a specific theme in mind. He observed that if you ask how most developers and architects like the Provo Architectural Control Committee, they will not respond favorably. Mr. Smith agreed that architects, developers and property owners get frustrated with ambiguous requirements. Mr. Dain commented that Provo also has a very specific theme, a historic theme.

Mr. Smith commented that there are requirements, such as repeating design elements, that can be done successfully. Mr. Dain replied that Lindon used a consultant years ago and added the white rail fence, trees, and light poles to the code. He suggested that the design of the building itself should be left to the owner and the architect. Commissioner Peters commented that if the requirements are not specific, the Planning Commission and Council turn into an architectural review committee. He added that the Planning Commission has a direction or theme they want to pursue, they just want it to be more specific. Mr. Dain was asked about Lehi’s Roller Mills theme. He responded that this theme evolved and explained the process that Lehi had taken. Commissioner Nixon asked if Lindon could do the same thing. The Commission, audience and Mr. Dain discussed the architectural design elements that had been required of Wal-Mart, the car wash, and the elements of other buildings in Lindon that reflect this theme, including the City Center and fire station.

The Meadows development in American Fork was also discussed. Mr. Dain pointed out that this site is attractive because of planning features and not because the buildings are required to conform to a certain style. Commissioner Godfrey commented that the City buildings have been the impetus to many of the architectural requirements that the Planning Commission have imposed, and added that the Commissioners are the "closest thing to groupies" Mr. Dain has as the architect of these buildings.

Ms. Linda Nelson of 318 West 625 North asked about the differences between a planner and an architectural designer. She expressed the opinion that there should be a "flow" to how State Street looks and that there should be specific items that let travelers know they have arrived in Lindon. She added that if strict architectural standards are not in place, Lindon will become a "hodgepodge" of styles with no distinction. She asked if the solution is to approach a department at the University of Utah for a student project. She agreed that it may be more time consuming, but it still may be worth the investment. She also suggested possibly paying a qualified architect more. Ms. Nancy Zundel of 352 West 600 North agreed that the city needs to expand and continue what they have already started. She suggested that the fencing and trees are a beginning, but there also needs to be a restriction on parking in front of buildings and other standards set.

Commissioner Peters commented that the Planning Commission and Council have been talking about plans for 700 North that include making the community more "walkable" and pedestrian-friendly, and well as putting parking in the rear. Mr. Smith observed that parking and sidewalks, trees and setbacks, are more site plan issues than architectural design standards. He noted that parking restrictions can be added to the code if desired. He also suggested that he has contacts in the planning industry that can consult on master planning, but they are not architecturally oriented.

Ms. Nelson suggested that the Planning Commission and Council are looking for both site plan and architectural standards. She suggested that an architectural consultant may be needed to help the City find elements of architecture that are "enduring," as compared to "trendy." She observed that many of those present do not have the training and background to discern what is enduring and what is trendy. Mr. Dain replied that it is still a matter of taste. He pointed out that an architect can come to the City and say that stone buildings are timeless and enduring, but he did not think that the City was prepared to enforce such a provision. He suggested allowing architects to be creative. Ms. Nelson commented that standards and regulations can still allow latitude for creativity. Mr. Dain challenged the members present to define some of the elements that they are looking for in an architectural standard and commented that he expects to hear a different opinion from every person.

Commissioner Peters asked what elements make the Meadows development in American Fork so appealing. Mr. Dain replied that it is the site plan elements, such as bridges, roundabouts, and trees. He pointed out that the IHOP building is still an IHOP. The building has not been changed from their standard corporate image. Mr. Smith commented that the elements of the site design that have been mentioned are required by the Meadows developer and not American Fork City. Commissioner Nixon commented that the Meadows development is a large site and will not readily transfer to Lindon’s smaller parcels on State Street. He suggested that the Commission do what they can to require the architectural elements desired in Lindon. Mr. Dain pointed out that these elements are still not defined specifically and that it is hard to get consensus on these elements.

Mr. Smith offered to bring in different consultants that can help the City with site issues. Commissioner Godfrey observed that he does not feel that the Commission should just "throw up our hands" and walk away from the issue. He agreed with the residents present in the audience. He feels that this is an opportunity to shape the look of the City and that the Commissioners should not back away from this task. He agreed that consensus is hard to get on this issue, but there are some elements that have been agreed to by both the Commission and Council. He pointed to the cupolas, arched windows and other items that are elements of the City Buildings. Councilmember Bayless agreed that pleasing architectural designs are a matter of opinion, however, the Planning Commission and City Council still have an obligation to the residents. She expressed the opinion that she would like to focus on the "feeling" rather than the specific elements and pointed to the University Library in Provo. She agreed with Mr. Dain that Lindon does not want to take away creative freedom, but she also does not want Lindon to become a "hodgepodge." She would like to see "cohesiveness." Ms. Nelson clarified that she wants it to be apparent that you have left Orem and entered Lindon.

Commissioner Bryner observed that the Planning Commission has given itself some homework to bring in pictures of elements that fit their concept of country. She commented that she had been out of town recently and passed through a city that has used flower pots to define the City’s image. Mayor Ellertson observed that this particular project was a Vernal Chamber of Commerce project.

Ms. Zundel commented that everyone has agreed that they do not agree. She suggested that it may be helpful to choose a consultant that all can agree is well-qualified. Commissioner Godfrey observed that the City can take two approaches–one is to write specific elements into the code and the other is to take a pictorial approach that gives a general theme or direction. Mr. Smith remarked that the first thing architects say when they come to the City is "do you have" a specific ordinance. Commissioner Godfrey replied that the process seems to work so far. He pointed out that Low Book Sales had started with Roman architecture and generally ended a lot closer to the Planning Commission’s vision. Commissioner Anderson observed that it has taken time for the architects to figure out what is wanted. He felt that a pictorial image helped Wal-Mart’s architect.

Chairman Sweeten commented that the duty falls to the Planning Commission to start taking pictures. Commissioner Simister suggested that the Council also take pictures. Commissioner Godfrey suggested that each member bring five photos and then they can be "boiled down" to those that can be agreed on. Mr. Dain suggested that members not just take pictures of small buildings or large buildings exclusively, but a good cross section of sizes. Ms. Nelson suggested that a consultant is still needed to identify why a particular feature is appealing. The Commission discussed various styles of architecture and how they are identified. Mr. Smith asked if this discussion on architectural and site design should include the other zones. Mr. Dain suggested that the City take the "one bite at a time" approach and concentrate on State Street for now. Chairman Sweeten agreed and pointed out that Lindon’s visitors are generally on State Street and not in the industrial areas.

Commissioner Godfrey commented that the most often heard terms he has encountered in Lindon’s discussion of "a little bit of country" are "turn of the century," "colonial," "craftsman," and "country." Ms. Nelson suggested that this is a pattern, but that a consultant is still needed to define what elements make up these styles. Mayor Ellertson agreed that some guidance to understand what questions need to be asked may be helpful. He agreed that there has been some thought given to the development of a code to help builders and developers, but that it is a work in progress. He asked Mr. Smith to possibly see if he could contact someone to help. Mr. Smith replied that he would place some calls and check with his sources.

Mr. Smith commented that the issue is still to try to understand where seven Planning Commissioners and five City Councilmembers will reach consensus. Mayor Ellertson agreed. He added that everyone’s suggestions on identifying desired design elements and finding a consultant might not happen concurrently. Ms. Zundel observed that it is not hard to pick the styles you like, but it is harder to pick out the specific desired elements that make up the style. Commissioner Simister suggested that an architect may explain the styles and educate the members so that the Commission and Council can explain what style they desire and the elements that are particularly appealing. Mr. Smith suggested scheduling the next discussion for October. Councilmember Bayless suggested a combined meeting. It was decided to call this meeting for October 13^th.

9. PLANNING DIRECTOR’S REPORT

Mr. Smith asked that the Commission consider a site plan amendment request by Wasatch Timber. Mr. Mark Finlayson explained that he would like to amend the site plan for Wasatch Timber. He told the Commission that he was not aware of the code requirement for sod when he replaced sod with rock along his frontage on 2000 West. He explained some of the advantages of using stone as: easier garbage pickup from haulers who do not cover their loads, storm ditch maintenance, and weed abatement. Chairman Sweeten explained that the Commission can amend a site plan to include some rock, but that all of the grass cannot be replaced. Mr. Finlayson pointed out areas where he has removed the rock and plans to install sod.

There was a discussion about one particular area that Mr. Finlayson would like to retain in rock that some of the Commissioners felt should be part of the lawn. Commissioner Simister expressed the opinion that a wider portion of grass on the north can be traded for grass on the south if Mr. Finlayson is willing to assume maintenance of the ditch. Commissioner Anderson expressed concern that the changes in the ditch might not fit the profile recommended by the City Engineers. Mr. Smith explained that Wasatch Timber would like to expand their building, but that the current building cannot be finalized until the site plan issues are completed. Commissioner Peters suggested that the Commissioners visit the site to see the changes made before making a decision. It was decided by consensus to follow this suggestion and table the discussion to the next meeting to allow the Commissioners to visit the site.

8. ORDINANCE AMENDMENT - 17.16. NON-CONFORMING USES

Mr. Smith presented the amended nonconforming uses section of the Lindon City Code as prepared by the City Attorney, Jared Frei. He noted that this is a first review and that the attached code is similar to the State code. Chairman Sweeten observed that the State code assumes that a nonconforming use will go away. He noted that this intent for a nonconforming use is clearly evident is this draft. Mr. Smith observed that the Planning Commission and Council may differ with Mr. Frei’s assumption that the State code has the only right way to handle nonconforming uses. He admitted that the he has some concerns of his own and feels that the old code could have been amended to address the concerns that have been raised. He did not feel that it is realistic for the City to expect a nonconforming use to disappear. He explained that Mr. Frei’s concern is that the old code appears to anticipate that there will be nonconforming uses and that the City is trying to create a way to let them stay.

Chairman Sweeten observed that this approach might have prevented some issues that have arisen, but there are still issues that need clarification. Mr. Smith agreed. He informed the Commission that one Utah city used the procedure as outlined in the State Code to remove a nonconforming sexually oriented business. The business was allowed to operate until their verifiable costs had been returned and then they were closed. Commissioner Godfrey observed that if nonconforming uses are allowed to stay, they should not be called nonconforming uses, but conditional uses. Councilmember Bayless disagreed. She pointed out that there is a difference between one business that has proven to be a good neighbor, and allowing this type of business to proliferate. Mr. Smith agreed. He noted that Patches on State Street would not be allowed if this were a new business. He observed, however, that Patches is a valuable asset to Lindon and it would not be in Lindon’s best interests to prevent this business from expanding or moving.

Chairman Sweeten asked why used car sales are a nonconforming business. He pointed out that these businesses bring good trade into a community and that the situation that occurred in Midvale creating rows of autos along State Street is unlikely to happen again. Commissioner Anderson asked what nonconforming businesses exist in Lindon. He added that there does not seem to be a huge problem that will "snowball." Councilmember Bayless explained that the Council had been concerned about the sudden influx of applications for used car sales businesses at the time the code was changed, and the short stretch of commercially viable State Street frontage that lies in Lindon. The Commission discussed whether making a business nonconforming gives Lindon the appearance of being selective.

Commissioners Peters and Nixon asked why the current ordinance needs amendment when there are not very many businesses that would be affected and only occasional problems. Mr. Smith replied that this present ordinance gives the City the ability to adjust uses that can never be made conforming, and affects more than just business uses. He gave an example of two adjoining nonconforming residential lots that were allowed to adjust the lot lines to meet the homeowner’s uses. He explained that the right or ownership of a conforming use needs to be clarified. The Commission decided to table this item to allow Mr. Smith to explain their concerns to Mr. Frei.

9. PLANNING DIRECTOR’S REPORT

Mr. Smith reported that Goodfellow is making good progress on bringing their site plan into compliance. He presented their original site plan and showed how the business would like to amend it. Commissioner Peters observed that this site plan amendment is providing more green landscaping and trees than was originally required even though it incorporates the use of rock, too. Commissioner Godfrey pointed out that other businesses can point to this and ask to install landscaping that uses rock instead of sod. Commissioner Nixon replied that the Goodfellow’s original site plan was approved under an old ordinance. Mr. Smith agreed and noted that the Commission still needed to revisit the I-15 landscaping requirements as discussed many times. The Commission reached consensus to allow the amended site plan for Goodfellow’s landscaping along I-15 because the total area of sod has not been decreased from the area in the originally approved site plan.

There was a discussion about Alpine Power Sports application for an amendment to their site. Mr. Smith replied that this is being reviewed by the City Attorney. Chairman Sweeten suggested that any changes to a nonconforming use should be reviewed first by the Planning Commission. Commissioner Godfrey agreed. He commented that the City does not want to allow too many changes or the uses will never expire. Commissioner Simister reported a zoning violation.

THE COMMISSION REACHED CONSENSUS TO ADJOURN THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING AT 10:45 P.M.

APPROVED - October 13, 2004