The Lindon City Planning Commission held a regularly scheduled meeting on Wednesday, April 23, 2003 at 7:00 p.m. in the Lindon City Center Council Chambers at 100 North State Street, Lindon, Utah.

Conducting: Bruce Carpenter, Chairman
Prayer: Marilyn Simister

PRESENT

Bruce Carpenter, Chairman
Lori Atchison, Commissioner
Jim Peters, Commissioner
Marilyn Simister, Commissioner
Dustin Sweeten, Commissioner
Kevin Smith, Planning Director
Venla Gubler, Administrative Clerk
Dustin Huler, Planning Intern
H. Toby Bath, Councilmember
Lindsey Bayless, Councilmember
Larry A. Ellertson, Mayor

ABSENT

Ron Anderson, Commissioner
Lucky Morse, Commissioner
Evan Nixon, Alternate Commissioner

The meeting began at 7:06 p.m.

1. APPROVAL OF MINUTES

The Minutes of the regularly scheduled meeting of April 9, 2003 were reviewed. The following corrections were made:
Page 2, Line 4: Replace the word "always" with the word "usually." Move the phrase "parked on State Street" from the end of the sentence to after the word "parked."
Page 2, Line 9: Replace the word "LaCross" with the word "lacrosse."
Page 6, Line 37: Add the word "is" after the word "this."
Page 8, Line 10: Replace the word "include" with the word "including."
Page 8, Line 11: Add the word "a" after the word "as."
Page 15, Line 27: Add the phrase "EXCEPT FOR COMMISSIONER PETERS" after the word "FAVOR."
Page 15, Line 33: Replace the number "25" with the number "23."
COMMISSIONER ATCHISON MOVED TO APPROVE THE MINUTES OF THE MEETING OF APRIL 9, 2003 AS CORRECTED. COMMISSIONER SWEETEN SECONDED THE MOTION. ALL PRESENT VOTED IN FAVOR. THE MOTION CARRIED.

2. PUBLIC COMMENT

There was no public comment at this time. It was noted that this item may be revisited at a later time.

3. NEW BUSINESS (Reports by Commissioners)

Commissioner Peters reported that the Green Valley Condos had been promised street lights by April 15 on the corners of 80 West and 40 West on 480 North. Mr. Smith asked if Lindon City had promised or if Utah Power and Light had promised. Commissioner Peters replied that Lindon City had promised. Mr. Smith observed that he would check with the Chief Building Official on the status, but noted that the street lights are installed by Utah Power and Light and not the City. Commissioner Peters reported that a landscaping company had parked two trailers across the street from each other on 600 North. The trailers were blocking traffic. Mr. Smith replied that this landscaping business had been informed that trailers could not be parked on the street and that he would issue a strong reminder to them.

It was noted that one of the representatives for the Mountain View Corridor Study was not present yet. This item was postponed to later in the meeting.

5. MAPLE MANOR - 514 NORTH LOCUST AVE. - DESIGN REVIEW
This is a request for Planning Commission review of a new assisted living center.

Scott Farrer, Michelle Farrer and Richard Gardner were present to discuss this item with the Commission. Mr. Smith informed the Commission that this is a design review application for an assisted living center on Locust Avenue. He displayed the area on an aerial and pointed out the parcel. He showed the proposed site plan and elevations. He noted that the applicants are planning a center with 32 bedrooms, and group areas. He observed that the compatibility standard applies to this application. Commissioner Atchison asked if the center would be two separate buildings or one building with two large wings. Mr. Gardner replied that it would be one building.

Commissioner Peters asked if the operation would be the same as the Mira Vista in American Fork. Mr. Farrer replied that it would be similar. Commissioner Peters commented that he was familiar with the Mira Vista. This operation was about three years old and located just off State Street between American Fork and Pleasant Grove by the hospital turnoff. He noted that they advertise that they are on 23 acres. Mr. Smith observed that there is another on 800 East in Orem that is similar to this application. It is similar in size and its location on a collector street.

Ms. Farrer commented that they had talked to some of the neighbors–particularly the condominiums and across the street. She observed that there were representatives from the condos here and the neighbor across the street was neutral. Commissioner Peters asked about the neighbor to the north. Mr. Farrer replied that they had contacted this neighbor before the elevations were drawn and this neighbor was unsure at that point. Commissioner Peters suggested that this neighbor's opinion would be critical to the Commission because of their proximity to this project.

Commissioner Peters noted that the Mira Vista in American Fork does not generate a lot of traffic. Ms. Farrer observed that this facility is remodeling and so there are more cars there now than in the past. Commissioner Atchison asked if the facility would house just the elderly, or if the handicapped would be housed there also. Mr. Farrer replied that this facility is not intended to be a nursing home. There will be a Certified Nursing Assistant on staff to fix meals and help with personal needs. He commented that he has researched various sizes of facilities and has found that the larger facilities can offer more amenities and activities to the residents. He observed that this size and number of rooms will make a better facility.

Commissioner Atchison asked if Mr. Farrer planned to retain ownership and manage the facility himself. Mr. Farrer replied that he planned to own the facility, but did not have the expertise to manage it. He informed the Commission that his sister, who is a Registered Nurse, would be the manager.

Commissioner Peters asked if the parking would meet the code requirements. He also noted that the setback on the south side did not appear to be 10 feet or greater. Mr. Gardner replied that the building does not encroach into the setback. What appears to be building is only a covered patio. Mr. Smith observed that the code requires one parking space for each two beds. Mr. Farrer commented that the State of Utah does not regulate the ratio of residents to care givers. He noted that he planned six employees at most, with two or three for the night shift. He observed that a "Level 2" care facility would need more, but this is only a "Level 1" care facility. Commissioner Sweeten asked if he planned to have one person per room. Mr. Gardner informed the Commission that this site plan maximizes the use of the parcel and allows for 62 beds with approximately two in each bedroom. The State has several types of permits, but the requirements to go larger than a 50-person capacity are prohibitive to the owners.

Commissioner Peters referred to the compatibility standard and discussed what items will apply. Mr. Smith added that if a condition in the compatibility standard does not apply to this application, then the use will fit into the neighborhood– otherwise the use will become a nuisance to the neighborhood. Commissioner Atchison commented that the application appears to be similar in character and of low impact to the neighborhood. She asked if the neighbors mind having this facility near their homes. Mr. Farrer asked the Green Valley Condominium Association presidents, Earl and Jennett Shepherd, for their comments. Mr. Shepherd replied that the Association is generally favorable to the proposal. He noted that these units are not noisy, so the idea is not unpopular, however, there is concern that this may encourage Locust Avenue to become zoned commercial. Mrs. Shepherd added that intrusive lighting is the other concern.

Mr. Farrer commented that every facility that he had visited in Utah Valley was in a residential setting. He noted that a facility in Orem is near condos similar to this one, and a facility in Spanish Fork is near an elementary school and a new home subdivision. He expressed the opinion that this one would be an asset to the community and that it was a needed service. Chairman Carpenter addressed the Shepherds and told them that approving this facility would not open the area to commercial development. He noted that this application is of a residential nature also, so other types of commercial would still not be suitable. He asked what the density of the condos were. Mr. Smith replied that the condos are about four and one-half to five and one-half per acre. Chairman Carpenter asked the acreage of this parcel. Mr. Smith replied that this facility is not considered units because there is not a kitchen. It is not like housing, he asserted. Commissioner Peters confirmed that this use would not fall under the R2 Overlay ordinance. Mr. Smith verified this statement.

Commissioner Peters asked if the facility would have 32 beds or 32 rooms. Mr. Gardner replied that they planned 32 rooms. Commissioner Peters asked how many beds there would be. Ms. Farrer replied that they could get a license for 50 residents at the maximum. This would allow them to build large rooms. Commissioner Simister asked how large the rooms would be. Mr. Gardner replied that the dimensions of the rooms are 15 feet by 25 feet with a private bathroom added. He commented that they would like to keep the design flexible so that rooms could be combined for those residents that wish larger quarters for more personal space. He added that this design is an attempt to find out what would fit on the property and it needs "fine-tuning" now. Commissioner Simister observed that she was familiar with the Gros Pointe facility and had been impressed with it. She noted that it was nice that care could be provided for the elderly and allow them to retain their freedom. She expressed favor to the idea. Mr. Farrer commented that the facility would not generate much traffic because most of the residents don't drive. They will provide some activities to get residents out, but most will be in the building's common area.

Chairman Carpenter suggested that Mr. Farrer give notice to all the neighbors when this item comes before the Commission for consideration. He noted that his biggest concern is the size of the facility. He asked why the applicant had not tried to minimize the size and impact. Mr. Gardner replied that they had not looked at minimizing the facility because they would not be able to provide the services that make these facilities more attractive. If the facility is too small, all they would be able to offer the residents is a room. Chairman Carpenter suggested that the applicants consider how much they can mitigate the size and still provide the services. Mr. Gardner observed that they had tried to retain the appearance of a residence. He noted that although the facility is the size of an LDS Chapel, there is much less traffic. Ms. Farrer added that it will look like condos.

Commissioner Sweeten agreed with Chairman Carpenter that the applicants should talk to the neighbors and invite them to Commission meeting. Mr. Farrer observed that he had talked with the residents of the condos, which is the bulk of the residences in the neighborhood. He pointed out that the Alpine School District Bus Garage is across the street and is a large part of the neighborhood. Commissioner Sweeten suggested that the Commission needs feedback from the residents. He added that Mr. Farrer should consider his investment carefully before the Commission gets input from the neighborhood. Chairman Carpenter agreed that although the idea is a good one, he is not sure this is the place to put it without more neighborhood involvement. Mr. Farrer observed that the need for this facility is well established, but if the Commission can suggest a better place to do it, he is willing to listen.

Chairman Carpenter suggested that Mr. Farrer consider more buffer between the facility and the surrounding homes. Mr. Farrer commented that there is 24,000 square feet of landscaped area. He added that the back of the facility is 50 feet from the property line. Chairman Carpenter agreed that the east setback is fine. Commissioner Peters commented that his opinion is that the condos will not be as affected as the homes in the neighborhood. He agreed with Chairman Carpenter that the facility's large size is a concern. He told Mr. Farrer that he would like to reserve his opinion of the project until he has talked with the residents to the north, the Storstad family. He added that he thinks that it will fit into the neighborhood if the number of bedrooms is reduced. He suggested that Mr. Farrer mail a notice to all the residents within a 700-foot radius of the project. Mr. Farrer replied that he intends to do that.

Chairman Carpenter observed that this type of facility is usually a "good neighbor," but noted that this is a new idea for Lindon. Commissioner Simister asked if this was a conditional use permit. Mr. Smith replied yes, and added that it is a recommendation to the Council. He commented that the noticing requirements as discussed can be part of the conditions.

Mr. Farrer asked what would happen if there is resistance from the neighbors. Commissioner Peters replied that the facility needs to fit into the neighborhood, both in size and architecture. He added that if the number of bedrooms is higher, it is harder to look like a home. Chairman Carpenter suggested that the Farrer's consider scaling the facility back to the state license limit of 50 beds. Commissioner Peters suggested that the impact can be softened with appropriate architecture and landscaping. Commissioner Sweeten commented that the property could be divided and two homes built. Mr. Farrer replied that there could be three homes built on the parcel if the old home is removed. There was a short discussion of the location, surrounding properties, and the need for such a facility.

Mr. Farrer observed that the Commission seems to be favorable to the proposal, if the neighbors are favorable. Mr. Smith commented that it may be compatible. Commissioner Peters suggested that Mr. Farrer consider holding a neighborhood meeting. He added that minutes can be kept at the meeting and copies submitted to the Commission.

Chairman Carpenter asked if there was any public comment. Mr. Ben Hutchins, a resident of 600 North near Locust Avenue, told the Commission that he was not in favor of the proposal. He felt that the facility was too large for the lot, that there was not enough landscaping, and that it belongs in a high traffic area. He would like to see homes and new neighbors on that lot. He commented that he recognizes there is a need for this type of facility in Lindon, but it should be smaller. Ms. Farrer observed that they could build two homes like the Beehive homes, but then you have ten people without amenities. There is not the population there to do anything for the residents. Chairman Carpenter observed that the Commission is considering the quality of life for the existing residents as well as the quality of life in the facility.

Another member of the audience told the Commissioners that she lives three blocks from Stonewood Manor. She expressed the opinion that she feels blessed to have her elderly family members close by, but she is not thrilled by the building or grounds. The facility is not appealing and small. She added that there is no problem with traffic. Another woman commented that every neighborhood should have a care center because it is such an asset. She noted that she would buy a condo in the Green Valley Condos if this facility is built, so she can have her parents close by. Mr. Farrer reiterated that the need for this facility is well established, but if the Commission can suggest a better place to do it, he is willing to listen. Chairman Carpenter thanked the audience for their input. Mr. Farrer thanked the Commission for their suggestions and time. It was decided to return to Item #4.

4. MOUNTAIN VIEW CORRIDOR STUDY
There will be a combined Planning Commission/City Council meeting to discuss the proposed Mountain View Corridor Study. This study will concentrate on transportation issues for the west side of the Salt Lake Valley down into the north west side of Utah County.

Mr. Geoff Dupaix of the Utah Department of Transportation thanked the Commission for postponing his presentation until his associate could arrive. He introduced himself as the public involvement officer for Region #3. He also introduced Mr. Bob Terragno from Envision Utah. Mr. Dupaix told the Commissioners, Mayor and Councilmembers present in the audience that the Mountain View Corridor Study is an environmental impact study focusing on transportation solutions for the west side of Salt Lake and Utah Counties. He directed attention to a map of the study area that includes all the land west of I-15 from I-80 on the north border and the Lindon exit on I-15 on the south border. He informed the Commission that the previous study that the City had participated in was a planning level study to research connector locations between I-15 and a possible corridor on the west side of the valleys. He explained that this study is being participated in by the Utah Department of Transportation, the Utah Transit Authority, the Wasatch Front Regional Council, Mountainland Association of Governments and Envision Utah, as well as the various cities within the study area.

Mr. Dupaix informed the members present that the population projections for the next 30 years double the current populations in both Salt Lake County (107%) and Utah County (145%). He explained that this study allows the various government agencies to look ahead and be proactive to try and meet the transportation needs of the communities. He pointed out that all the local roads tie into the highways and if that system is congested, the local roads will see more congestion also. He noted that the study is considering the land use issues also to help find a solution that works for the long term. He noted that the study coalition will be holding neighborhood meetings, school meetings, and individual stakeholder meetings to get input from the public this first year. They are hoping to develop alternatives from the snapshot given from these public meetings. The refinement process will then start and alignments will be decided. They will look at all the options, including mass transit. He observed that a transportation solution plan will be developed within the next two years and then the funding issue will be addressed. He informed the members and public present that the Environmental Impact Study will be flexible and will address all environments, both human and natural.

Mr. Terragno apologized for being late and explained the purpose and scope of Envision Utah. He informed the audience that Envision Utah is a nonprofit organization that assists a ten-county area along the Wasatch Front. He noted that the Wasatch Front contains about 80% of Utah's population and is Utah's fastest growing area. He observed that he has been assigned to work with all 19 jurisdictions within the Western Transportation Corridor to assess the land uses, both current and future, relative to this corridor. He noted that this is the basis of consideration for transportation options. Each kind of transportation issue and each kind of land use will be considered. He asserted that this is an "opportunity to have the horse pulling the cart and not the other way around."

Mr. Tarragno reported that there is a movement to renew transportation funding in the Utah Legislature. He assured the Commission and Council that there is nothing in this process or in the sponsoring partners that threatens the local jurisdictions. He asserted that the reason they were here tonight is to involve the local jurisdictions and find out the local land use and transportation plans so that they can integrate it within this study. This is the most effective and efficient option. They have learned that there needs to be grassroots participation is this process, and a broad range of stakeholder views and opinions. He invited the public, city officials, and interested parties to a workshop to be held on June 5 at the Pleasant Grove Junior High. He observed that the output of this workshop will be shared with the local jurisdictions. He asked the City to help compile stakeholder lists and invite them to this workshop. He asked if there were questions for him.

Commissioner Peters observed that the populations and developments on the west side of the lake are exploding. He commented that there is a serious bottleneck on the south end of Salt Lake's I-15 corridor. He asked why the boundaries of the study were only limited to the west side of both counties, rather than the whole I-15 corridor. Mr. Dupaix replied that the outlying areas such as Eagle Mountain are being considered also. He assured the Commission that the last study had been done to consider the whole picture. This study and others to come are dividing the I-15 corridor into three segments, of which this is one, for a more detailed study. He noted that interim projects are underway to help solve congestion from 10600 Street South and from the Alpine Exit north to the county line. He added that this study concentrates on a north and south corridor on the west side, and connections east and west between this corridor and the I-15 corridor. Mayor Ellertson explained that a concept plan for the entire area has been proposed, and this study is to be more specific. He observed that Lindon is considered a logical terminus for the west corridor to rejoin the I-15 freeway and that more information will be forthcoming on the I-15 study.

Chairman Carpenter verified that what Mr. Dupaix and Mr. Terragno are requesting is that the cities generate the list of names to be invited to the workshops. Mr. Dupaix confirmed this and added that they were requesting the cities to help generate local interest and to send the invitation letters on City letterhead. Mr. Dupaix and Mr. Terragno thanked the City for their time and left business cards for contact information.

2. PUBLIC COMMENT

Mr. Leonard Lee presented a proposal for a possible expansion of the Timpanogos Academy. Mr. Smith displayed an aerial of the proposed site. He pointed out a building on the rear portion of the Datapad lot that is proposed for a junior high school. He noted that the field will be asphalted for a playground and a driveway will be put in from the end of the cul-de-sac. Commissioner Peters asked if there would be access made where the crash gate is now. He asked what would happen to the fire lane. Mr. Lee showed how the crash gate would be moved to a location on the driveway behind Datapad and access opened up to the building. Mr. Smith reported that fire access is not a concern to city staff, but of more concern is the traffic generated by drop-off and pick-up of students. Mr. Eric Smith, director of the Academy, commented that there would be 100 more students, but not 100 more cars since many of the students had siblings attending the school, or were carpooled.

Commissioner Sweeten asked if access was being requested through the commercial zone. There was a discussion of the concerns that had originally been aired about turning the Datapad parking lot into a thoroughfare. Mr. Lee explained that the rear building had a cross easement on the Datapad parking lot. Chairman Carpenter asked if the shop owners in the shopping mall to the south had concerns. Mr. Lee informed the Commissioners that the shop owners were in favor of more traffic. Commissioner Simister asked if the plan was to extend the street. Mr. Lee replied no, that the access from the end of the cul-de-sac would be a private lane. Commissioner Simister asked the length of this private lane. Mr. Smith replied about 300 feet. Commissioner Peters asked if there were safety concerns about extending the cul-de-sac. Mr. Smith replied that the fire marshal had expressed no concerns.

Commissioner Peters asked if any problems had been encountered with traffic at the Academy. Mr. Smith replied that, initially, there had been problems with the pick-up and drop-off process. Mr. Eric Smith noted that these problems had been resolved and now the process was very orderly and quick. Mr. Smith confirmed this assessment.

Commissioner Sweeten reminded the Commission that the original concern about allowing access through the Datapad site would encourage commercial traffic to take this route through the residential district. Commissioner Simister asked if there were further plans to expand the student population. Mr. Eric Smith assured the Commissioners that they did not want to expand the student number in the elementary school beyond the present 350 students. They just wanted to add a junior high to keep up the academic standards for their students into high school. He added that it will just be a seventh and eighth grade and not a ninth grade because of accreditation requirements. Commissioner Atchison asked if the plan was to open the junior high in the fall. Mr. Eric Smith replied that the plan was to move the sixth grade class up and begin the junior high on a gradual basis.

Commissioner Simister asked what plans had been made for inside the building. Mr. Eric Smith replied that the warehouse would be divided into classrooms and an auditorium. There would be no kitchen. He noted that the same schedule of school hours would be adhered to, and the student body would consist of mostly siblings to current students. It would just be an addition to the current school. Chairman Carpenter asked his plans for the field between the buildings. Mr. Eric Smith replied that it would be reserved for a soccer field and basketball courts. Commissioner Simister asked if he intended to purchase the building or lease it from Mr. Lee. Mr. Lee replied that it would be leased for now. Mr. Eric Smith added that they had a lease option.

There were questions about fencing, location of drop-off and pick-up, access guarantees, and plans for the remaining property in the cul-de-sac. It was reported that the property would be fenced on the property line, the drop-off zone would remain the same as currently used, there would be a recorded access in perpetuity through the Datapad site, and that Mr. Lee currently had no plans for the remaining property in the cul-de-sac. Mr. Lee asked what the next step is to proceed forward. Mr. Smith replied that he needs to file an amended site plan and notice the neighbors.

The Commission discussed making the private road a one way access through the commercial zone and having a drop-off zone for students at the junior high school. Mr. Eric Smith assured the Commission that the gates would only be open at drop-off and pick-up times. Chairman Carpenter expressed concern of vandalism in this remote location. Mr. Eric Smith commented that the principal of the school owns the home on the corner of Center at the entrance to the school grounds. Mr. Lee was instructed to notice the neighbors on Center and 200 East by U.S. Mail. Mr. Lee noted that he had already retained Horrocks Engineers to perform a traffic study. Chairman Carpenter cautioned Mr. Lee that any future development plans he has for his remaining property will be restricted if the neighbors feel that traffic is at a maximum level. Mr. Lee acknowledged his awareness of this issue. He thanked the Commission for their time.

6. ORDINANCE AMENDMENT - 17.04.450 - SPORTS COURTS - DISCUSSION ITEM
The Planning Commission will discuss various possible option for address issues related to sports courts in residential neighborhoods.

Mr. Smith presented some pictures of various sport courts that have been built in Lindon and Orem. He informed the Commission that the Lindon City Code does not define standards for sport courts. He presented a sport court on which he had received a complaint. He observed that the code allows for a maximum fence of seven feet on rear property lines. Sport courts have fences of twelve to fifteen feet on the property line. He added that most neighbors have not complained and have tolerated their presence. Commissioner Sweeten confirmed that the fence is the issue. Mr. Smith replied that the height of the fence is the issue. Commissioner Peters asked the size of the lot displayed in the picture. Mr. Smith replied that this lot is 12,000 square feet. This particular sport court has a tall fence in the front yard. Mr. Smith suggested that a potential ordinance could inform residents of the fencing requirements. He noted that a possible solution might be to let the setback determine the height of the fence. He also felt that the tall, sport court fence should not be right on the property line.

Commissioner Peters felt that the sport court in the front yard setback was "horrible." Commissioner Simister commented on the site obscuring tarps on sport court fences. Chairman Carpenter agreed that the sport court adjoining the front sidewalk is a problem. Commissioner Peters asked if sport courts should be prohibited on smaller lots, or possibly limited to the rear yard. This was discussed. Mr. Smith commented that he had some ideas now to draft an ordinance. He asked if the Commissioners would consider an agreement between two property owners as a waiver of the fence requirement. Chairman Carpenter suggested that some property owners would rather hide behind the law rather than confront their neighbor. This was discussed. Mr. Smith commented that he would research this and other issues in sport court ordinances out of Utah Valley, as no city in Utah County has such an ordinance.

7. STATE STREET ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN CRITERIA - DISCUSSION ITEM
The Planning Commission will discuss the current State Street architectural design requirements found in the Lindon City Code and make some recommendations for possible changes to the Code.

Mr. Smith observed that the Walmart application has brought the issue of architectural design standards for State Street into consideration again. He suggested that it would be "good" to delineate these criteria in the code, but an agreement among all the deciding parties needs to be achieved. He suggested that an artist's rendering like that proposed for the west side might be a way to achieve a consensus. Commissioner Sweeten suggested a look at St. George's architectural standards. Mr. Smith agreed that Park City and St. George might give some ideas, but he felt that Lindon's standard did not need to be that extensive.

Councilmember Bayless commented that an architectural standard had been developed by the Planning Commission 10 years ago, but at that time there had been concern in the Council about being too demanding and shutting business out of Lindon's State Street corridor. She noted that Steve Brown had been the chairman of the subcommittee that had developed the standard and Chief Building Official Phil Brown had been involved too. She suggested that the Walmart proposal will be the catalyst for more development and that now is the time to implement this into the Lindon City Code. Commissioner Peters agreed. Commissioner Sweeten cautioned that the standards should not be too cost prohibitive for business to comply.

Commissioner Atchison expressed concern that the current code did not promote a similar theme on State Street now. She suggested that developments in consideration across the street from Walmart can put in "anything." Commissioner Peters noted that paragraph three of the current code specifies that, "Building styles and colors shall be compatible with existing buildings in the area." Chairman Carpenter asked if the standards developed 10 years ago might be around somewhere, possibly Steve Brown might have them? Mr. Smith replied that he had not seen anything. Chairman Carpenter suggested that the architectural features required for Walmart, such as the gable roofs, cupolas, and palladium windows could be added to the code. Commissioner Atchison commented that it should not just say "country-looking."

Commissioner Sweeten suggested that the Commissioners take pictures of architectural elements that demonstrate the "country-look" Lindon is trying to achieve. He observed that Linden Nursery is a good example, but he noted that paragraph three of the current design standard does not include wood structures such as this. Chairman Carpenter suggested an exemption worded so that the design and construction materials should clearly match the function of the building. Commissioner Peters brought up the example of Joe's Crab Shack in Orem and how it "matches function." Commissioner Sweeten suggested that the pictures that are taken could be compiled into a "styling" cue book for developers. Chairman Carpenter asked Councilmember Bayless if the Council was of a mind to consider something more restrictive for State Street now than they were 10 years ago. Councilmember Bayless replied that if she were to hazard a guess, she would say yes, that the feeling is different now. Commissioner Peters commented that there is no theme on State Street now other than the white rail fence. After discussion it was decided that each of the Commissioners would gather pictures of country-theme architectural details and bring them back for consideration.

8. PLANNING DIRECTOR'S REPORT

Mr. Smith discussed the summer meeting schedule with the Commission. It was decided to cancel the meeting of July 23. The meeting of August 13 was also tentatively canceled. There was a short discussion of pending items and projects in progress around the City.

ADJOURN

COMMISSIONER PETERS MOVED TO ADJOURN THE MEETING AT 9:57 P.M. COMMISSIONER SWEETEN SECONDED THE MOTION. ALL PRESENT VOTED IN FAVOR. THE MOTION CARRIED.

APPROVED - May 14, 2003

back to top