The Lindon City Planning Commission held a regularly scheduled meeting on Wednesday, September 22, 2004 at 7:00 p.m. in the Lindon City Center, City Council Chambers, at 100 North State Street, Lindon, Utah.

Conducting: Dustin Sweeten, Chairman
Invocation: Gary Godfrey
Pledge of Allegiance: Dustin Sweeten

PRESENT

Dustin Sweeten, Chairman
Ron Anderson, Commissioner
Julie Bryner, Commissioner
Gary Godfrey, Commissioner
Evan Nixon, Commissioner
Kevin Smith, Planning Director
Venla Gubler, Administrative Clerk
Carl Woodard, Planning Intern

Jim Peters, Commissioner
Marilyn Simister, Commissioner

The meeting began at 7:03 p.m.

1. APPROVAL OF MINUTES

The Minutes of the Regular Meeting of August 25, 2004 were reviewed. The following corrections were made:
Page 4, Line 26: Replace the words "the wider" with the words "a wide."
Page 13, Line 16,17: Delete the phrase "replied that he does not know what he might be not seeing and Commissioner Godfrey ‘does not know what I might know.’ He."
Page 14, Line 6: Add the words "it is" after the word "location."

COMMISSIONER BRYNER MOVED TO APPROVE THE MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF AUGUST 25, 2004 AS CORRECTED. COMMISSIONER ANDERSON SECONDED THE MOTION. ALL PRESENT VOTED IN FAVOR. THE MOTION CARRIED.

2. PUBLIC COMMENT

There was no public comment.

3. NEW BUSINESS (Reports by Commissioners)

Commissioner Godfrey reported a resident on 400 North and 200 East who has turned a second driveway access into a rock yard. Mr. Smith replied that he would investigate the report. Commissioner Bryner reported that weeds at the tire store on 600 South are not being cleared. Mr. Smith agreed and noted that he would check into their plans for correcting the problem. Commissioner Bryner asked if the City Council had awarded the McKinley Trail contract. She was informed that the Council had awarded the contract recently. It was disclosed that the necessity of having the Bureau of Reclamation sign off on the plans may delay completion of the project. Chairman Sweeten reported that some businesses on State Street were stacking merchandise to a level that appears over the top of their screening fence. Ms. Smith took note of the report for follow-up. Chairman Sweeten asked if there were other reports. There were none.

4. LINDON RETAIL CENTER - 700 NORTH STATE STREET - SITE PLAN APPLICATION
This is a request for approval of a two building commercial strip mall project.

Matthew Idema with CLC Associates introduced himself. Mr. Smith observed that the Planning Commission is familiar with the application as a design review on a previous agenda. He presented the site design and commented that the previous orientation and site design had raised no concerns at the staff level, but the elevations have given cause for review. He pointed out the contour change between the streets and the site and noted the areas of the building that would be visible from the streets. He suggested that the elevation visible from 700 North may be enhanced by repeating the pillars from the front elevation and extending the gable all the way across the roof.

Commissioner Anderson asked if the two buildings were identical. Mr. Idema replied that the only difference is that one building is wider than the other. Mr. Smith informed the Commission that this is a recommendation to the Council. He pointed out that the Council would like to be involved in the determination of development in this critical gateway area. Commissioner Anderson commented that when the Wal-Mart subdivision was approved with the outlots facing into the parking lot, the Planning Commission had discussed the need for architectural treatment to the street side of the buildings to improve image on this critical entrance to Lindon.

Mr. Idema presented the site plan and observed that what the Commission is seeing is a gentle grade put in by Wal-Mart. He presented the elevations for the buildings showing one typical section of the building and a representation of a motorist’s view of the building from the street. He assured the Commission that vehicle operators will not see any of the mechanical appurtenances of the buildings. These will be placed on the ground. He disclosed that he had also been given the authority to increase landscaping on the berm to screen the site. He pointed out the location for identification signs on the back soffit of the roof. He commented that the gable suggestion can be forwarded to the architect, but that he did not consider it a "deal breaker." He noted that adding rock to the pillars on the west elevation may also be considered. Mr. Smith suggested that areas visible from the street are the only part of the elevations that need to be treated, not the whole back of the building.

Commissioner Nixon verified that there would be no mechanical on the roof. Mr. Idema replied that the mechanical had been put on the ground on purpose. Chairman Sweeten asked about the level of the building and why the owners of the building would place it so that it is not readily visible. Mr. Idema replied that the level of the building was set by Wal-Mart and not the developers. He noted that the view corridor of the Wal-Mart building has been reserved through the corner by contract, and this is the reason for the split design of the buildings on the site. Commissioner Nixon asked how deep the buildings are. Mr. Idema replied 75-feet. Commissioner Nixon asked the front distance to the center of the gable. Mr. Idema replied that the distance is two bays or about 40-feet.

Chairman Sweeten asked what material would be used to face the sign area. Mr. Idema replied that this is the soffit area of the roof, is not pitched, and would be faced with sahara tan metal. Commissioner Godfrey asked the surface material on the back of the building. Mr. Idema replied that this is exterior insulated finish system (EIFS) stucco. Mr. Idema commented that after the last meeting he had taken pictures of buildings in the area and sent them to the architect for reference. Commissioner Nixon asked what would prevent the use of a pitched roof instead of a slanted shed roof behind a parapet. Mr. Idema replied that some of the buildings that have been approved recently are the parapet style of roof. Commissioner Nixon asked if the pitched roof was more expensive to construct. Mr. Idema replied that it would require redoing the designs to allow for collection of storm water run-off. This design is prepared to submit "as is."

Mr. Idema informed the Commission that he had asked the Lindon City Development Review Committee what design elements would be accepted and was told rock facing, a cupola, pitched roof, arched windows, and a "timber" or "craftsman" feel. He noted that he had asked if all five elements mentioned needed to be incorporated and was told that as many as possible, but not necessarily all. He commented that, in defense of the architect, the design bears the architect’s name and he has tried to incorporate as many of the items mentioned as possible to comply with an ordinance that is not on the books.

Commissioner Bryner asked the material on the window frames. Mr. Idema replied that the building is designed with dark metal, prairie-style windows. Commissioner Nixon asked if there was any wood used on the face of the building. Mr. Idema replied that the rafters are wood. Commissioner Bryner asked the facing on the gable. Mr. Idema replied that this surface is shingled similar to the Pizza Factory. Commissioner Bryner suggested adding a cupola. Commissioner Godfrey suggested adding an arched window in the gable. There was a discussion of changing the material to EIFS on the gable to facilitate the arched window design. Commissioner Bryner commented that she particularly liked the wood rafters and rock pillars, but would also like to see dark grid added to the windows. Ms. Linda Nelson of 318 West 625 North expressed the opinion that adding a cupola would not enhance this particular "craftsman" design, but she also liked the timbers and felt that adding a pitched roof would help. Chairman Sweeten suggested that extending the gable from the front to the back may be an acceptable alternative.

The Commission, audience and Mr. Idema discussed the amount of the building that would be visible from the street level. Mr. Idema assured the Commission that the bottom of the building will not be visible and that the majority of the trees in the corner are existing, large trees that will also shield the site. Commissioner Bryner observed that the only building she can use for comparison is the McDonald’s in Pleasant Grove. She pointed out that McDonald’s is also lower than the street and has a berm, but no trees. She has been trying to envision the Lindon Retail Center and feels that more of the building will be visible than Mr. Idema realizes. Mr. Smith replied that the McDonald’s is about fifty to sixty-feet behind the berm and this project will be closer than that, so less of the building will be visible.

Mr. Idema observed that he felt that the architect would be willing to work with changes that the Commission requests as long as they are superficial. The Commission discussed maintaining similar views of the building from other directions. Ms. Nelson pointed out that the gable on the front is a false structure. Chairman Sweeten observed that the motorists on 700 North may be able to see that the gable is false on both the front and back. He asked each Commissioner to express their opinions individually.

Commissioner Nixon observed that he would prefer to see the gable carried across the whole roof, but would be willing to accept the false gable feature on the front and back. He felt that the treatment of the roof line should be the same both front and back, including the rafters. He suggested that the top five to six feet of the building should be the same all the way around, since this is the visible area. He did not feel that carrying the rock pillars to the back is as important as the treatment of the roof line. He also expressed the opinion that a cupola would tie the building to Lindon’s theme. He observed that he prefers the shingles on the face of the gable and that, in his opinion, an arched window would not be necessary.

Commissioner Godfrey observed that the rock wainscoting is not a huge investment and, although it may or may not be seen from State Street, should be added to the side facing 700 North at the very least. He added that while the trees and landscaping on the street sides are young, he would prefer to see it on all sides of the building. He commented that he "does not disagree" with the request for treating the top five or six feet of the building consistently and running the gable clear through the top of the building. He does feel, however, that the cupola should be added and that this element is necessary to continue Lindon’s theme. He commented that he feels stronger about the cupola than any other element. He added that the "wagon wheel window" could be used as an alternative, but one of these two must be included. He observed that he appreciates that the developers and architect have worked to change the appearance of the building and that progress is evident. He asked about possibly changing the shingles on the gable to rock to match the wainscoting. Mr. Idema and other Commissioners felt that this may make the building appear "top-heavy."

Commissioner Anderson expressed the opinion that the "wagon wheel window" and the cupola are both needed. He suggested that the gable be faced with the stucco system rather than the shingles.

Chairman Sweeten commented that he feels strongest about continuing the gable all the way across and that this is the element that all of the Commissioners seem to agree on. He noted that he disagrees with the window and prefers the shingles. He observed that he likes the front of the building, but not the sides and back and feels that the front treatment should be carried all the way around the building. He noted that he has no opinion on the cupola but suggested that maybe it can be incorporated if the gable is carried through, but not otherwise. He expressed the opinion that the "wagon wheel window" does not complement the overall design.

Commissioner Bryner observed that she would like a cupola added. She would like to see the gable roof carry all the way across, or if a false gable is used on both sides, a cupola on both ends. She would also like to see the timber corbels repeated on the back and sides also. Commissioner Nixon commented that it was important to hide the portion of shed roof that is visible on the back of the building. The Commissioners agreed. Commissioner Bryner asked about the terra cotta color in the artist’s conception. Mr. Idema replied that the color is not a true terra cotta, but more earth tone. He pointed out the material color on the color board. Commissioner Bryner indicated satisfaction with the color pointed out.

Chairman Sweeten summarized the discussion by stating that one element all the Commissioners seem to agree on is the continuation of the gable from the south-facing front to the north-facing back side of the building, continuity of the treatment of the top five to six feet of the building all the way around to match the front, and the cupola. He noted that the Commissioners do not agree on the shingle treatment of the gable. Commissioner Bryner felt that the wagon wheel window did not fit on this building. Commissioner Anderson agreed that the window does not fit if the shingle treatment is kept. He suggested adding the window to the cupola. Mr. Idema commented that he was authorized to concede to minor changes on the building, such as the gable, the rock, pilaster and corbels all the way around, because these are extensions of existing features. However, he cannot concede to the cupola because this is an additional feature.

COMMISSIONER BRYNER MOVED TO APPROVE THE REQUEST BY CLC ASSOCIATES FOR APPROVAL OF THE LINDON RETAIL CENTER AT THE CORNER OF 700 NORTH AND STATE STREET, A TWO-BUILDING PROJECT, WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS:
1. THAT THE GABLE EXTEND CONTINUOUSLY FROM THE FRONT TO THE BACK.
2. THAT THE TREATMENT OF THE ROOF ELEVATIONS, INCLUDING TIMBER CORBELS AND OTHER FINISHES ON THE FRONT OF THE BUILDING, BE DUPLICATED ON THE ENTIRE BUILDING.
3. THAT THE WAINSCOTING BE CONTINUED ON ALL SIDES, AND
4. THAT A CUPOLA BE INCORPORATED ON BOTH ENDS OF THE GABLE.
COMMISSIONER NIXON SECONDED THE MOTION. ALL PRESENT VOTED IN FAVOR. THE MOTION CARRIED.

5. WASATCH TIMBER - 292 NORTH 2000 WEST - SITE PLAN AMENDMENT
This is a request for approval of an addition to the existing Wasatch Timber Building.

Mr. Mark Finlayson of Wasatch Timber Post and Beam Company introduced himself to the Commission. Mr. Smith informed the Commission that there are two decisions needed tonight on this application. One is to review the landscaping and incorporation of the ditch as discussed at the last meeting and the second is to consider an addition to the building. He noted that staff concerns for this proposal are that the gravel area be used for parking and not storage and that the building surfaces incorporate a percentage of decorative block as required by the ordinance.

Mr. Finlayson told the Commission that the business will asphalt both sides of the parking lot. He noted that the treatment of the building will match the existing building. He explained the need for the business to expand. He also commented that he had cleared some of the landscaping area of rock and invited the Commissioners to go by and see if they would like more rock removed.

Mr. Smith presented the site plan and pointed out the area of landscaping that is under consideration for remaining in gravel. Chairman Sweeten expressed the opinion that the grass should be extended to the south driveway and to the west at least as far as the trees. Commissioner Nixon agreed and pointed out the trees in the rock. He asked Mr. Finlayson if he planned rock or grass in this area. Mr. Finlayson commented that he would like to "swap" maintenance of the ditch for leniency on the grass in this area. Commissioner Bryner confirmed that his request is that he will keep the ditch weeded and maintained in exchange for not requiring grass in this particular area. Mr. Finlayson agreed. He added that if he has to take out more rock and put in more sprinklers for grass, he will let the City take care of the ditch. Chairman Sweeten observed that it may be in his best interest to maintain the ditch to improve his business image.

Commissioner Anderson commented that he had driven by this week to look at the site and observed that the rock was covered in weeds already. Mr. Finlayson replied that he had weed control fabric under the rocks. Chairman Sweeten asked if he was aware that this underlayment was only effective for a few years. Mr. Finlayson replied that he would use Roundup. Commissioner Anderson expressed the opinion that if Mr. Finlayson is willing to maintain the ditch, then he is willing to consider allowing the area to remain in rock.

Commissioner Bryner cautioned Mr. Finlayson that the Commissioners would expect to see no weeds if this ditch maintenance proposal is accepted. Mr. Finlayson asked what the City’s plan for this ditch entails. Mr. Smith replied that the City is aware that this ditch needs attention, and that plans are underway to award a contract for clean-up and grading. He noted that there are plans for future maintenance as well. Commissioner Anderson asked if Wasatch Timber’s site plan meets the City Engineer’s approval. He explained that this ditch is an important feature of the regional storm water system and is used for linear detention. Mr. Smith replied that the plans had been reviewed by the City Engineer and that the Public Works Inspector had accepted the improvements done on the ditch to date.

Mr. Finlayson informed the Commission that his main concern is the addition to his building. He assured the Commission that Wasatch Timber is going to keep up the site and they do not want the ditch to deter from the appearance of the site. He told the Commission that whatever the Commissioners decide, Wasatch Timber will do, because the building is more important than twenty feet of grass. Commissioner Nixon observed that he would prefer the strip of grass to rock, but he is willing to concede less grass on the south side for an equal amount of replacement grass on the north side, and maintenance of the ditch. Commissioner Godfrey commented that the Commission had approved a site plan for Mr. Finlayson’s new neighbor to the south at a recent meeting. He observed that with these two businesses being next to each other, it may improve the aspect of 2000 West and these two site plans can be pointed to as "model citizens." He agreed that a concession may be made to allow less grass on the south end for more grass on the north end.

Chairman Sweeten suggested that the Commission seems willing to concede to Mr. Finlayson’s request if the square footage of the replacement equals the total square footage of the required twenty-feet, and an agreement to maintain the ditch. The Commission discussed the possibility that the amount of grass already installed on the north end may equal the total square footage of landscaping required. Commissioner Godfrey suggested that Mr. Finlayson continue the theme of his new neighbor. Mr. Smith observed that he would ask the City Administrator about the budget for ditch maintenance along the balance of its length. Chairman Sweeten observed that the City’s best route for maintenance is to ask the business owners to assume the responsibility, as they have a vested interest in improving the image of their frontage. He asked if there were other issues.

Commissioner Godfrey asked if Mr. Finlayson was planning to include split-face block in the construction of the addition. Mr. Finlayson replied that he planned three rows of chip face block. Chairman Sweeten asked if this would match the construction of the existing building. Mr. Finlayson replied yes. Commissioner Nixon observed that the ordinance requires 30-percent of the building face toward a street to have "decorative treatment," and all other faces must have 25-percent treatment. He cautioned Mr. Finlayson that walls of plain cinder block are not allowed.

COMMISSIONER BRYNER MOVED TO APPROVE THE REQUEST BY MARK FINLAYSON OF WASATCH TIMBER FOR A SITE PLAN AMENDMENT ALLOWING AN 8,000 SQUARE FOOT WAREHOUSE EXPANSION AT 292 NORTH 2000 WEST WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS:
1. THAT 25 PERCENT OF THE BUILDING WALLS FACING AWAY FROM THE STREETS BE BUILT OF SPLIT-FACE BLOCK OR MEET THE ORDINANCE FOR DECORATIVE TREATMENT.
2. THAT THE LANDSCAPING BE BROUGHT UP TO DATE AS ORIGINALLY APPROVED.
THE MOTION DIED FOR LACK OF A SECOND.

COMMISSIONER NIXON MOVED TO APPROVE THE REQUEST BY MARK FINLAYSON OF WASATCH TIMBER FOR A SITE PLAN AMENDMENT ALLOWING AN 8,000 SQUARE FOOT WAREHOUSE EXPANSION AT 292 NORTH 2000 WEST WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS:
1. AS PREVIOUSLY MOVED EXCEPT THAT THE LANDSCAPING BE EXPANDED TO MEET THE REQUIRED SQUARE FOOTAGE PER THE ORDINANCE, OR AT THE OWNER’S OPTION, IF THE OWNER WILL AGREE TO MAINTAIN THE CITY-OWNED STORM WATER DITCH ALONG THE FRONTAGE, THE COMMISSION WILL ALLOW A RECONFIGURATION OF THE GRASS.
COMMISSIONER ANDERSON SECONDED THE MOTION. ALL PRESENT VOTED IN FAVOR, EXCEPT COMMISSIONER BRYNER WHO VOTED NAY. THE MOTION CARRIED.

6. PUBLIC WORKS PLAT "B" - 946 WEST CENTER STREET - PRELIMINARY SUBDIVISION APPLICATION
This is a request for approval of an amendment to the current Lindon City Public Works Subdivision Plat.

Chairman Sweeten suggested that this item be moved to the end of the agenda. The Commission agreed.

7. KEETCH-SCHWARTZ PROPERTY DESIGN REVIEW - LAKEVIEW DRIVE AND STATE STREET
The applicants would like Planning Commission input regarding proposed development plan.

Mr. Ryan Schill introduced himself. Mr. Smith displayed an aerial photo of the neighborhood. He commented that the Planning Commission heard a previous proposal during a design review earlier this summer. He brought up the zoning overlay on the aerial photo and noted that the area is zoned general commercial. He informed the Commission that Lakeview Drive is a fifty-foot local street and not a collector. He then displayed the proposed plat and pointed out that the developers would like to adjust the alignment of Lakeview Drive to tie into 200 North Street by the Lindon City Center Park entrance. He commented that there are some advantages and disadvantages to this proposal. He noted that there are some homes on Lakeview that may lose their direct access to State Street by way of Lakeview Drive because the existing end of Lakeview would need to be closed. He observed that staff recommends a traffic expert examine the proposed intersections to decide which alignment of Lakeview Drive would have less problems. There would also need to be a public meeting to allow residents’ opinions to be heard. He commented that the proposed alignment does allow better development of lots. He pointed out how Lakeview Drive would tie into 200 North at State Street and the lots that could become a commercial development.

Commissioner Nixon asked if 200 North on the east side of State Street would line up. Mr. Smith replied that this section of 200 North would need realignment to intersect with State Street at a ninety degree angle. He noted that this intersection may warrant a signal light in the future, which is an unlikely occurrence for Lakeview Drive. Mr. Brigham Ashton joined his partner at the front of the Council Chamber and commented that UDOT does not see the need for a light now, but estimates that it will be likely in the future. Commissioner Anderson asked if the residents on Lakeview have been shown the proposal. Mr. Ashton replied no. Councilmember Bayless commented that she had talked to the Drapers and shown them the proposal and they seemed generally supportive. The Commission discussed what was known of plans by the neighborhood to develop commercially. Mr. Smith pointed out that the realignment cuts off two homes on Lakeview Drive, the Drapers and Johnsons. He suggested that the concept needs further exploration, but that a traffic expert is needed to decide the advantages and disadvantages.

Mr. Ashton reported that a traffic expert has done a study. He introduced Mr. Alan Mecham and distributed a letter outlining Mr. Mecham’s findings. Mr. Mecham prefaced his remarks by telling the Commission that he had retired from UDOT and now works for Atlas Engineering. He informed the Commission that most of the ramifications of moving Lakeview Drive to connect with 200 North are positive for traffic. He pointed out that one of the disadvantages of the current alignment of Lakeview Drive is the angle of intersection with State Street. A realignment would correct the angle and give additional sight distance. He noted that even with the understanding that the proposed 200 North intersection will not have a signal in the foreseeable future, the sight distance is still adequate. He pointed out that the location of the intersection in relation to the signal on 400 North will create traffic breaks to allow entrance and exit here. He observed that this intersection could warrant a signal and that the spacing is correct from existing signals on 400 North and 200 South. He commented that he found that the grade from State Street to the proposed location of 200 North is good. He explained that there was concerns that the sight distance would be impaired because of grade. He informed the Commission that the addition of a little fill would connect 200 North to State Street at the same crown and maintain the required sight distances.

Mr. Smith acknowledged that the staff concerns centered around the slope of State Street down the Lindon hill, and the speeds of traffic on this hill. The Commission discussed how this intersection may compare to other intersections in the middle of a hill such as State Street at the Provo/Orem hill and University Parkway at the UVSC hill. Commissioner Nixon observed that the sight distances are better at the proposed 200 North than Lakeview Drive, because Lakeview intersects State Street at the wrong angle. Chairman Sweeten agreed and added that Lakeview Drive would probably never get a semaphore for two reasons: the closeness to 400 North, and the lack of a continuation of Lakeview to the east of State Street.

Mr. Mecham expressed his opinion that if this alignment of 200 North to State Street is approved, Lakeview Drive should be closed to State Street and indicated that UDOT has indicated that they will not support two intersections that close together. Commissioner Nixon commented that if this alignment is approved, he feels that the developers should assume responsibility for realigning 200 North on the east side of State Street, too. Commissioner Godfrey suggested that opening 200 North across State Street will increase traffic and cause impact on the residents that reside on the east side. Commissioner Nixon observed that it will be hard to cross State Street without a signal. Commissioner Godfrey asked if the City would support the realignment of 200 North on the east side of State Street. Mr. Smith replied yes.

Mr. Smith asked the Planning Commissioners to articulate their thoughts. Commissioner Nixon suggested a second look at the street master plan. Mr. Smith observed that the current plan intends to connect the collectors 400 West and 400 North to complete the collector pattern for the west side of State Street. Commissioner Nixon felt that the intersection at 200 North may be a viable collector alternative and the width of the street should be adjusted accordingly. Chairman Sweeten asked if the developers had considered tying 200 North to 400 West directly. Mr. Ashton replied that they had investigated this possibility, but felt that 400 West is basically a residential area and they would prefer to keep the commercial area separated and closer to State Street.

Commissioner Anderson commented that the property owners on the north side of Lakeview near State Street will be the most affected by this modification to the street. He pointed out that these homes have been bought as potential commercial development and this would take away their direct access to State Street. He suggested that it may affect the value of the property. Mr. Smith observed that the value may depend on how the parcels are developed, individually or as a group of property owners. Chairman Sweeten commented that if the property owners on Lakeview Drive are in favor of the proposal, it may have a chance of City approval. Otherwise, he did not think the Commission would consider realigning Lakeview Drive. He suggested that discussion with the neighbors is the next step.

Councilmember Bayless agreed and noted that the back of the commercial buildings would face these homes if Lakeview is rerouted to 200 North. She asked the developers how they intend to separate the commercial areas from the residential areas both on the west side of the parcel and along the current alignment of Lakeview Drive. There was a discussion of the wall required by code and its location. Mr. Schill asked how the Commissioners would feel about the proposal if the neighbors accept this design. Chairman Sweeten replied that he would feel okay about it if the traffic engineer and the neighbors agree. Commissioner Nixon agreed and added that he "strongly suggests" that the developers consider a collector-width road. Commissioner Bryner asked if there were businesses interested in the parcels. Mr. Ashton replied that a beauty college is interested in Lot #3. Lot #4 may become a retail strip mall. An assisted living center is looking at Lot #5 and Lots #8 and #9 may become restaurant pads. Mr. Smith was asked to relay the Planning Commission’s comments to the Council and suggested that the developers invite the neighbors to the Council meeting, or bring letters from the neighbors if they cannot attend.

8. RAY TUCKETT PROPERTY DESIGN REVIEW - 460 NORTH STATE STREET
The applicant would like Planning Commission input regarding a proposed development plan.

Mr. Ray Tuckett was introduced. Mr. Smith commented that Mr. Tuckett was here to explore possible options and does not have any plans to present. He displayed an aerial photo of the property and pointed out the boundaries and neighbors. Mr. Tuckett explained that he has been an Orem businessman for thirty years and now has outgrown his location. He purchased this parcel nine years ago and has been using it for storage. One of the buildings on the property, an old home, is being occupied by a day care center. He is considering bringing his stone sales division to this Lindon property. This parcel contains one-and-one-third acres. He explained his cultured stone business as one that sells to contractors and builders. He asked what needs to be done to bring this operation to Lindon on this parcel. He commented that he may make this parcel a commercial shopping center in the future, but in the meantime, he would like to use it for his business.

Chairman Sweeten commented that the buildings may need to be modified to meet the current code standards. Commissioner Nixon asked what part of his operations he would like to put here. Mr. Tuckett replied that he needs an office, showroom and storage/display area for his stone. He assured the Commission that he would be doing no manufacturing. Commissioner Bryner asked if he was planning a sample display wall or to show potential customers the actual material on a pallet. Mr. Tuckett replied that he would like to do both. He added that he would like to move the operation to Lindon quickly. Commissioner Nixon asked if he was asking for a temporary office trailer. Mr. Tuckett replied that this is a possibility he has been considering, or he may convert the warehouse into a showroom for now and build in the future.

Chairman Sweeten asked what the code allows Mr. Tuckett to do. Mr. Smith replied that this is a permitted use according to Lindon’s Standard Land Use Table as sales of building materials. The site will need to be brought into compliance with the codes and the buildings remodeled to building code standards before use. Mr. Tuckett was asked about restrooms. He replied that the warehouse currently does not have any restrooms. Mr. Smith replied that the code allows a temporary trailer with a maximum of two-years, but that the permanent use and structures must be constructed and occupied at the end of that time. Commissioner Anderson commented that the Commission usually does not give a full two years for a temporary use, but gives one year to determine if the business is going to stay and then may extend it if needed. Chairman Sweeten commented that this lot "is a mess" and observed that the scrap will need removal.

Commissioner Bryner asked how a large truck will unload. Mr. Tuckett pointed out his intended travel pattern for large vehicles. There was a discussion of this traffic endangering the children in the preschool. Commissioner Bryner pointed out that there must be no storage higher than the fence. The Commissioners discussed the need for a sight-obscuring fence and separation of the businesses to protect the children. Mr. Tuckett confirmed that, if he can meet the requirements, he can possibly use a temporary trailer. Commissioner Anderson agreed, but cautioned that this is just a temporary situation. He will need a building as soon as possible. Chairman Sweeten added that the existing buildings needs to be brought up to code or replaced. Mr. Tuckett asked what would be needed to make the buildings meet the current ordinances. The Commission referred him to the Chief Building Official, Phil Brown. Commissioner Bryner commented that she would rather see him use the existing preschool for an office than a trailer or the warehouse.

9. FIELDSTONE-TROPHY HOMES DESIGN REVIEW - 600 NORTH 1800 WEST
The applicants would like Planning Commission input regarding a proposed development plan.

Commissioner Anderson declared a conflict of interest because his family owns the property on which this project is proposed. He noted that he would sit in on the conversation, but would not participate. Mr. Smith observed that the Commission is familiar with the area and added that this concept is one of the most complete that has been submitted. He commented that residential uses are not currently permitted by the code in this area and an amendment to the general plan and zoning map will be needed before the project can be built.

Mr. Mike Stewart, Mr. Griff Johnson and Mr. Wayne Corbridge were introduced. Mr. Stewart told the Commission that the developers present are from Fieldstone Homes and Trophy Homes and are interested in getting feedback on the possibilities of incorporating a residential area in the development plans for this area. He noted that the last proposal was presented two years ago by Trophy Homes, and they have modified the plans to include concept plans for the overall area and then added concept plans for each neighborhood. He noted that Trophy Homes had proposed twelve units per acre at the original presentation, which was then reduced to nine units per acre because the Commission and Council were uncomfortable with the initial amount. The original plan incorporated all attached units and this plan includes detached units, which is also a desire expressed by the City Council.

Mr. Stewart pointed out elements of the original plan to which the Council and Commission had indicated a favorable response– a community center area, pedestrian-oriented streets, trails, and access to the commercial area. Additional feedback from staff indicated a country theme and character should be incorporated and an emphasis on affordable ownership rather than rentals. There was also a concern expressed that the development incorporated architectural standards to make this an enduring, high-quality community.

Mr. Stewart introduced his concept plan and informed the Commission that they have reduced the density to 7.9 units per acre with both attached and detached types of housing. He suggested that this will appeal to a broader spectrum of buyers and create a mixed neighborhood. He pointed out the emphasis on open space, open corridors and a design that de-emphasizes the garage. He noted that the streetscapes and neighborhoods are pedestrian friendly and include trails. He observed that the focal point of the development remains on the four corners which promotes a rural streetscape. The total project is 53 ½ acres and they have tried to create a palette of styles, including craftsman, prairie, and country, for the 423 units. The project also includes a church site and two parks.

Mr. Stewart observed that the project is divided into three neighborhoods. There is an alley-loaded detached product with 160 units. This area has a common green surrounded by public streets. He suggested that young families will be the target consumers and the homes range from 1,200 to 2,400 square feet. All private access to the units is from alleys and there are no garages that face the public street. He noted that sometimes this type of unit is referred to as "cottages." There is guest parking provided and the church and park are the focal points of this project.

The second neighborhood is the "mansion" product. This area is also alley-loaded with no garages on the public street. Mr. Stewart noted that a city water line on the boundary has been accommodated in the design. The traffic patterns are based on the "modified grid" and include trails or modified sidewalks and private alleys. He observed that the project allows for a variety of setbacks that do not create a static line of housing along the public streets. He informed the Commission that this second neighborhood is a Trophy Homes initiative with multi-family units that appear to be mansions. Each unit is a triplex. The neighborhood will have a homeowners association that provides a fully maintained neighborhood. The intent is for the units to hold their value. He noted that the units will have about 1,500 to 1700 square feet of finished living space. He suggested that the market appeal will be to older buyers looking to "downgrade." The Commission had questions about the mansion product. Mr. Corbridge explained that the elevations can be changed to an architectural style that would blend with Lindon’s image, but the intent is to offer an upscale building with details not usually included in this type of housing.

The third neighborhood will include 210 triplex "Manor" units similar to a project in Lehi. Mr. Stewart explained that this property is surrounded by commercial zoning and the project is designed to create a buffer. There is open space provided and access to a common green. The internal alleys are private and fully maintained by the homeowners association. These manor units are about 1,300 to1,600 square feet finished and will appeal to first time and single buyers.

Mr. Stewart presented some house plans and elevations of the detached units that have been built in Indianapolis. He noted that the elevations are more colonial that what they propose for Lindon, but they show the typical streetscape with porches and a mix of sidings. He presented a picture of an actual alley in the Mideast project. He commented that there is landscaping included in the alleys and the aspect is not "all asphalt."

Commissioner Nixon commented that there is no parking spaces provided in the alleys. Mr. Stewart agreed and noted that the guest parking is provided on the public streets. The double garages in the alleys are intended for owner parking. He noted that the front doors of the mansion homes are facing different directions so the appearance is of one large home. He informed the Commission that this particular product is close to approval in Highland. Mr. Corbridge observed that the building appears to be a $500,000 to $600,000 home, but will contain about three units. The product is intended to appeal to "empty nesters." Commissioner Nixon asked the width of the building. Mr. Corbridge replied 100-feet with the six two-car garages that are alley-loaded. Commission Bryner asked about the entrances to the units. Mr. Corbridge pointed out one entrance on the front and the locations of the entrances on the sides. Mr. Stewart commented that the buildings have architectural details that provide a lot of movement and shadows. Mayor Ellertson, present in the audience, asked where these units are being built in Highland. Mr. Corbridge replied near the city center. Mr. Stewart observed that the only product close to resembling this is located in Park City.

Mr. Stewart told the Commission that they hope to provide a product mix that appeals to a variety of markets. Their project intends to give ample space in the common areas and to break the mass of the buildings by creating a variety of looks. He noted that common views are avoided. The project is pedestrian-friendly and provides access and buffer to the commercial areas. He suggested that there are a few actions that could be taken by the Commission to facilitate this project. One is to amend the mixed commercial zone to allow housing. The Commission could create an overlay zone or create a new residential zone as alternatives. He observed that if the Commission is interested, one of these avenues can be pursued. He asked if there were any questions.

Commissioner Nixon asked about parking for visitors. Mr. Stewart pointed out pockets of parking on the public streets and observed that there would also be street-side parking. He acknowledged that this is one issue that needs further investigation and thought. He suggested that the setback is wider in the mansion area and parking pockets can be included there. He noted that some of the parking for the manor project is remote, but that the driveways to garage entrances in the alleys can be used, or the width of the alleys adjusted. Commissioner Nixon asked about access to the front doors, particularly for those units that front on the church parking lot. Mr. Stewart replied that the owners will access through their garage and alley, and guest access is a short walk from a public street. Commissioner Bryner asked the width of the streets. Mr. Stewart replied that the alleys are 25-feet and the public streets will meet city standards. He noted that the project would also meet the State’s fire access guidelines. He pointed out that there are generally multiple points in and out, but the key issue is parking.

Commissioner Bryner asked a question about the location in relation to the freeway. Mr. Stewart pointed out the location of the I-15 freeway to the southwest. There was a discussion of visitor parking for those homes that face the church parking lot and fencing issues on church property. Commissioner Bryner asked if the homeowners association would be responsible for maintenance of the parks. Mr. Stewart replied that the developers have not decided, but suggested that parks could become public property.

Commissioner Nixon commented that the bulk of the units in the detached product are not facing the park area. He observed that the premise of allowing more density is to create more open spaces. Mr. Stewart replied that the front yards have a shared green space of twenty-five to thirty-feet with no driveways. He commented that experience tells developers that a park is usable open space. He noted that there is short access to the park area for recreation purposes, and the areas between the homes are for smaller play–a place of safety, no cars, and "lots of eyes." Commissioner Bryner asked if the landscaping is provided by the homeowners association. Mr. Stewart replied that some units have a private patio, but there are no "back yards." This product is intended to provide an affordable detached home. Commissioner Bryner commented that her experience is with a relative’s similar unit in another state. She pointed out that garbage pickup is a potential problem and her other concern is with lighting of the alleys. She suggested that the association be responsible for lighting, green space, and roads.

Mr. Smith suggested that it may be a good idea to give the applicants an opinion about acceptable density. Chairman Sweeten expressed the opinion that he can be convinced at this level if the project is done correctly and provides affordable ownership. Commissioner Godfrey agreed that this area of Lindon is probably the right place to implement some type of higher density housing, however, he suggested that the Commission not be too quick to "retreat" to this level of density. He acknowledged that affordable housing is a selling point to the City and is an ongoing issue. There is, however, a lot of multi-family housing being built in Pleasant Grove--thousands of units are available there. He suggested the Pleasant Grove may live to regret this situation and that the units "need to be owner-occupied." He observed that the Planning Staff had given the Commission a recent presentation where a sample project was alley loaded and provided a density of no more than three units per acre. He agreed that a park is consideration for more density, but he does not feel this project provides enough open space to offset the density. He acknowledged that he was intrigued by the concepts presented, in particular the large multi-family unit that appears to be a large single-family home. The Lindon City Council has given careful thought to density in the past and a maximum has been discussed at six units per acre. He commented that he is not sure that he is ready to retreat from large lot sizes and large homes.

Commissioner Bryner agreed that the City can probably treat each area as individual with three different goals, prices ranges, and markets. She expressed concerns about the density of the third area. Commissioner Nixon observed that he thinks clustering is a great idea, but does not think that this project typifies clustering at its ideal. He feels that there should be more open space and the densities should be reduced. Commissioner Bryner commented that her frame of reference is her relatives, but she sees too many houses with a shared front yard in the detached housing product. Mr. Stewart replied that the concept of this product is basically a detached condo, with the yard maintained by the association. Commissioner Bryner commented that this is the difference in view–she sees this product as an individual home and Mr. Stewart sees it as a type of condo. Mr. Stewart replied that the yards are not individually maintained. He suggested that the size of the front yards may be compared to the Avenues area of Salt Lake City, although the homeowners association owns and maintains the yards in this product. He noted that the Avenues is a very attractive area, but dense, small lots.

Mr. Stewart commented that this project contains a mix of densities, with the total at about eight units per acre. He observed that there is one neighborhood at thirteen units per acre density and one at six units per acre density. He asked if eight units per acre is a reasonable mix. Chairman Sweeten suggested that the detached units "feel tight." Commissioner Godfrey suggested greater setbacks on the intersections in the detached product. Chairman Sweeten asked the density in each product. The Commission was informed that the detached Cottage units are 6.5 units per acre, the Mansion product is 6.6 units per acre and the Manor product is thirteen units per acre. This acreage estimate includes the parks and roads, but not the church.

Mr. Corbridge explained that the developers have gone to great lengths to identify their buyer, especially in a product with more density. He suggested that the typical buyer does not want a large yard to maintain, just a small garden, barbeque spot and a dog. He felt that requiring more space around the homes is a "disservice" to the buyers. He suggested that more common space added to the price and creates costs that the buyers do not want. It also adds to the homeowners association fees. Mr. Stewart commented that this type of product is more compatible with commercial development. It provides a "transitional" use.

Commissioner Godfrey observed that one "trade-off" against allowing multi-family units is that commercial property is revenue generating. Commissioner Nixon commented that multi-family units create higher property values. Mr. Corbridge observed that the City has a lot of expense for maintenance of roads along the frontage of large lots–this project would result in less cost to the City. Chairman Sweeten asked Councilmember Bayless if she could tell the Commission what the Council desires on the density issue. Councilmember Bayless observed that there is some flexibility for moving away from the half-acre lot, however, she felt that consensus had been reached at one point to have a maximum of six units per acre. Chairman Sweeten suggested that if the developer brings a "very good product" to the Council it may be approved. He commented that it was interesting that the most problems the Commission have raised are with the product with the lowest density. Mr. Stewart replied that he understands the challenge of placing detached housing on this small of footprint. Commissioner Anderson asked if there were any similar projects around that the Commissioners could visit. Mr. Stewart replied that most of these projects are located in Portland, Seattle, and California, not in Utah. He felt that the project near Kennecott, Daybreak, may be the closest, but it will only give an idea about the alley loaded units and a setback with no garages.

Commissioner Nixon asked about the size of units and density at Daybreak. Mr. Stewart replied that this project has an average density of six units per acre, a total of over 13,000 homes on 4,000 acres. He suggested that they have a very large territory. The multi-family projects in Pleasant Grove were discussed. Mr. Stewart agreed that one of the issues Pleasant Grove may face is that all of their units appeal to the same kind of market, and they are too dense and all the same. They face overbuilding the market. He commented that there is no competition for the alley-loaded detached unit in Utah. The Commission thanked the developers for their presentation.

10. ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN STANDARDS DISCUSSION
The Planning Commission will discuss architectural design standards for State Street and the future 700 North.

Mr. Smith reminded the Commission of their homework assignment to bring pictures to the October 13 meeting. He commented that the recent Utah League of Cities and Towns semi-annual convention had presented a session on how rural communities may deal with big box retail. The Planning Director from Lakewood, Colorado, had a Wal-Mart apply for development review, similar to Lindon’s experience. The community leaders were not pleased with the architectural design and proposed to hire an architect and design the store for them. This was accepted and agreed to by Wal-Mart. He explained that this is the first time something like this had been attempted and accepted.

Mr. Smith explained that, like Lindon, one of the concerns was a large building that may be left empty. The proposed site in Lakewood had been currently occupied by a large "Big K" and apartments. The agreement between Wal-Mart and the City of Lakewood attached a one-and-one-half-percent sales tax on the store itself to replace the site improvements. He said that the Planning Director had told the conference attendees that the cities do not have to be afraid of what may happen if a large business goes bankrupt and leaves a building empty. He explained that it took four hours to raze and remove the "Big K" structure, and that these businesses amortize and have their value returned to the corporation within one year. Mr. Smith explained that Lakewood’s master plan now has the site forecasted to be an intermodal hub.

Mr. Smith explained that the sales tax is being accumulated in a fund for the Lakewood Reinvestment Authority. Businesses can apply and participate in using these funds to improve their buildings and sites, and bring them into conformance with current code standards. He suggested that Lindon can use this concept to fund similar improvements on State Street. He noted that an additional sales tax amount would not be assessed, but a portion of the increase from the new businesses that are being built on State Street may be invested. An architect can be retained by the City, like Lakewood did for the Wal-Mart, and help the current businesses update the exterior to meet common design guidelines and create consistency for the City. The Commission discussed the concept. Commissioner Godfrey commented that if businesses are made more attractive, it will attract more and stronger businesses, and accelerate the local economy for all of Lindon. The Commission reached consensus to explore the options and pursue implementation of this concept.

11. PLANNING DIRECTOR’S REPORT

Mr. Smith observed that he had nothing more to report for tonight. It was decided to return to item #6 on the agenda.

6. PUBLIC WORKS PLAT "B" - 946 WEST CENTER STREET - PRELIMINARY SUBDIVISION APPLICATION
This is a request for approval of an amendment to the current Lindon City Public Works Subdivision Plat.

Mr. Smith commented that the City is purchasing this property and plan to expand the Public Works yard to include it. He pointed out the location of the current building on an aerial photo and explained that the proposal amends the plat to allow more storage. There was a discussion of the current condition of the parcel and plans for improvements.

COMMISSIONER NIXON MOVED TO APPROVE THE REQUEST BY LINDON CITY PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT FOR APPROVAL OF LINDON PUBLIC WORKS, PLAT "B," A 3.78 ACRE LOT AT 946 WEST CENTER STREET AND RECOMMEND APPROVAL TO THE CITY COUNCIL. COMMISSIONER GODFREY SECONDED THE MOTION. ALL PRESENT VOTED IN FAVOR. THE MOTION CARRIED.

ADJOURN

COMMISSIONER GODFREY MOVED TO ADJOURN THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING AT 10:51 P.M. COMMISSIONER NIXON SECONDED THE MOTION. ALL PRESENT VOTED IN FAVOR. THE MOTION CARRIED.

APPROVED - October 13, 2004