The Lindon City Planning Commission held a regularly scheduled meeting on Wednesday, August 27, 2003 in the Lindon City Center, Council Chambers at 100 North State Street, Lindon, Utah.

Conducting: Bruce Carpenter
Prayer: Lori Atchison

PRESENT

Bruce Carpenter, Chairman
Ron Anderson, Commissioner
Lori Atchison, Commissioner
Lucky Morse, Commissioner
Evan Nixon, Alternate Commissioner
Jim Peters, Commissioner
Marilyn Simister, Commissioner
Dustin Sweeten, Commissioner
Lindsey Bayless, Councilmember
Kevin Smith, Planning Director
Venla Gubler, Administrative Clerk

ABSENT


The Meeting began at 7:09 p.m.

1. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE

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

2. APPROVAL OF MINUTES

The Minutes of the regular meeting of August 13, 2003 were reviewed. The following corrections were made:
Page 3, Line 13: Replace the word "required" with the word "require."
Page 6, Line 4: Add the word "a" after the word "be."
Page 7, Line 7: Replace the phrase "had offered for" with the phrase "made an offer on."
Page 8, Line 7: Replace the word "consider" with the word "considered."
COMMISSIONER PETERS MOVED TO APPROVE THE MINUTES OF AUGUST 13, 2003 AS CORRECTED. COMMISSIONER MORSE SECONDED THE MOTION. ALL PRESENT VOTED IN FAVOR. THE MOTION CARRIED.

3. PUBLIC COMMENT

Mr. Dan Mckeon and Mr. Jack Gifford told the Commissioners that they had met with the Development Review Committee (DRC) this morning to discuss the unification of development in Plat B and C of Meadows of Bald Mountain. There had been a question raised on the uniformity and continuity of trails and pathways in this development. Mr. Smith explained that the Commission and Council had approved Plat B about a year and a half ago and Bald Mountain Development had been required to add a pathway along 800 East. They have sold out to the present petitioners. Mr. McKeon and Mr. Gifford are trying to finish the development. He displayed an aerial of the parcel and surrounding area. He pointed out the location of the pathway in Plat B and observed that the question arises in how the pathway will tie into Plat A and then continue on to connect with other city-wide and regional trails. He noted the location of the Bonneville Shoreline Trail.

Commissioner Peters asked if the street profile was a 50-foot right of way. This was confirmed. Commissioner Nixon asked if the developers had a problem with putting in the pathway. Mr. McKeon replied that they would prefer not to put the pathway in and pointed out that there is no continuity with either Plat A or the existing trail system. He added that the costs are less to construct the pathway/street profile. Mr. Smith commented that the DRC had no opinion on whether the pathway was put in or not. This decision was up to the Council and Commission, however, he personally felt that a pathway that goes nowhere does not make much sense.

Chairman Carpenter asked where the closest pathway is located. Mr. Smith pointed out a potential trail along the Murdoch Canal and the existing Bonneville Shoreline Trail. Commissioner Peters observed that this did seem to be a short section of pathway that does not connect with any system. Commissioner Nixon asked if the objection to pathways is the maintenance issue. He also asked if the general plan has determined that a pathway is required in this location. Mr. Smith replied that the general plan has not designated this street as a required location for a pathway, but as an optional location. Commissioner Nixon commented that he would like to see pathways and trails constructed where it is feasible now or the City may be trying to retrofit the profile in the future. Commissioners Morse and Atchison expressed concern and voiced the opinion that it does not make sense to put a pathway in if it does not make a continuous system. The Commissioners discussed these viewpoints.

Commissioner Sweeten explained that part of the objection to pathways is that so far the City had not found a surface that is suitable. He asked Councilmember Bayless if the Council had made any progress on this maintenance issue. Councilmember Bayless replied that the reason this pathway had been required on the plat was to connect this neighborhood with the trails in the foothills. It would eventually tie into the system. She also commented that there had been no definite decision made on surface material and the maintenance issue, but that the Council is leaning toward reserving the potential to have a trail and put the area in grass for now. That way, if the profile is retrofitted for a pathway in the future, the area has been reserved and is available for use.

Commissioner Peters asked about the dimensions of the park strip, pathway and sidewalk. Mr. Smith described this and then explained that residents are not envisioning what the Council is trying to accomplish with the pathway system. This might explain why homeowners are objecting to the concept at present. He expressed the opinion that the pathway may be constructed by the developer and maintained by the City at first, and then turned over to the homeowners as the neighborhoods fill in. Until then the surface may be grass instead of gravel. Councilmember Bayless agreed.

Commissioner Sweeten commented that the pathway itself is a good idea if it provides continuity to somewhere else. The plat was examined and ideas for connection of the pathway into the Lindon City Pathways and Trails System and the Regional Trail System were discussed. Commissioner Peters asked the developers if they had any problems with putting in the pathway, or possibly just allowing the space for it to be constructed in the future. Mr. Mckeon replied no, that they just needed a definite plan. The Commissioners discussed ways to solve tying the pathway into the existing streets in Plat A. Mr. Smith commented that this issue is not going to be resolved tonight and suggested that further discussion be deferred to a future agenda. Commissioner Anderson suggested approaching the Council during a similar open session. Chairman Carpenter observed that he was sorry that the Commission could not give more concrete direction. He asked if there were other comments. There were none.

4. NEW BUSINESS (Reports by Commissioners)

Commissioner Sweeten proposed that staff should be directed to draft a change in the ordinance limiting dealerships. He suggested that there should be a provision to allow the Council and Commission to move an existing dealership if there is found that the move would be a benefit to the City. Commissioner Peters agreed and also suggested that additions to existing businesses could be considered. Mr. Smith commented that the section of code on nonconforming uses could be amended. Commissioner Peters suggested that expansion of nonconforming uses should be limited.

Commissioner Sweeten observed that an example of a business that would have benefitted from an ordinance amendment is Lindon Collision. This business has moved and Gray's Auto has expanded into the vacated space, but is not as attractive on State Street. Chairman Carpenter commented that a reason for making a nonconforming use is that if the use changes, they will be required to upgrade. He suggested that the City should not make it too easy to shift a nonconforming business from one location to another. Commissioner Sweeten asked if the intent of the previous limit was to limit the auto dealerships to five or to remove them all from State Street. The Commission discussed the intent of the ordinance. It was decided to investigate this proposal further. Chairman Carpenter asked if there was other business. There was none.

5. OSTERGAARD ESTATES CONDOS - 287 WEST 500 NORTH - PRELIMINARY SUBDIVISION
This is a request to convert an existing duplex into condominiums.

Mr. Arlan Ostergaard was in the audience to present this application. Mr. Smith displayed the aerial and plat map of the existing duplex to be converted into condominiums. Commissioner Peters asked questions about the future alignment of 500 North to the west. Mr. Ostergaard noted that the proposed street alignment follows the sewer line out to State Street. Commissioner Peters asked if the duplex had been built to commercial grade so that it would meet the building code requirements for condominiums. Mr. Ostergaard replied yes. Mr. Smith agreed and added that Staff has no concerns.

Commissioner Sweeten observed that this project would provide Lindon residents with affordable homes. There were questions about what areas of the parcel would provide common area and limited common area. Mr. Ostergaard replied that the back yard would be common area and the driveways would be designated at limited common area. Commissioner Nixon suggested that Mr. Ostergaard should consider splitting the backyard and giving each condominium limited common area. Commissioner Morse asked if the parking was adequate. Mr. Smith replied yes. Commissioner Nixon asked if the fence meets the requirements of the R2 Overlay ordinance. Mr. Smith replied that he would check this item before the plat is recorded.

COMMISSIONER PETERS MOVED TO APPROVE THE REQUEST BY ARLAN OSTERGAARD FOR PRELIMINARY SUBDIVISION APPROVAL FOR OSTERGAARD ESTATES CONDOS, ALLOWING THE CONVERSION OF TWO RENTAL UNITS INTO CONDOMINIUMS, AT 285 AND 287 WEST 500 NORTH AND RECOMMEND APPROVAL TO THE CITY COUNCIL. COMMISSIONER SWEETEN SECONDED THE MOTION. ALL PRESENT VOTED IN FAVOR. THE MOTION CARRIED.

6. PETERS SUBDIVISION - 15 WEST 600 NORTH - PRELIMINARY SUBDIVISION
This is a request for a two-lot residential subdivision in the R1-20 zone.

Commissioner Peters declared a conflict of interest and offered to answer any questions about the proposal. Mr. Smith displayed the proposed plat and an aerial of the neighborhood. He told the Commission that DRC had recommended that the improvements for Main Street should be installed rather than bonding for them. Commissioner Nixon asked why the DRC felt this way. Mr. Smith explained that sometimes if the improvements are not finished, homeowners encroach on city rights-of-way with their landscaping. Commissioner Peters asked how much of the street improvements would be required. Mr. Smith replied that a half street, curb, gutter and sidewalk is recommended. Chairman Carpenter commented that the other half of the street is owned by the LDS Church. Commissioner Simister asked what improvements are completed on 600 North. Mr. Peters replied that there is curb and gutter, sidewalk and the street is paved. Commissioner Nixon asked if this street is designated for a pathway. Mr. Smith replied that the pathway is designated for the opposite side of the street. Commissioner Morse asked if the drainage problems previously described by Commissioner Peters had been solved by the development of the property to the ease. Mr. Peters replied yes, that storm drain had been installed on 600 North and there had been no problems since. Commissioner Morse asked if there were any other staff issues. Mr. Smith replied no.

COMMISSIONER NIXON MOVED TO APPROVE THE REQUEST BY CARL AND LAURIE NIELSON FOR PETERS SUBDIVISION PLAT "B," A TWO-LOT SUBDIVISION AT 600 NORTH MAIN STREET AND RECOMMEND APPROVAL TO THE CITY COUNCIL WITH THE RECOMMENDATION THAT THE MAIN STREET FRONTAGE BE FULLY IMPROVED TO HALF STREET STATUS WITHOUT THE USE OF BONDING. COMMISSIONER MORSE SECONDED THE MOTION. ALL PRESENT VOTED IN FAVOR. THE MOTION CARRIED.

7. CANBERRA HEIGHTS, PLAT "G" - 64 SOUTH DRY CANYON DRIVE - SUBDIVISION AMENDMENT
This is a request to expand an existing lot in Canberra Heights Plat "C."

Mr. Keith Leavitt came forward to present this application. Mr. Smith pointed out the lot on an aerial and explained that the applicant has purchased some extra acreage from the developer and would like to add this acreage to the back of his lot. He noted that all remaining acreage owned by the developer has been sold to the Forest Service so there will be no more development in this area. He observed that combining the additional acreage with the existing lot will increase the size of the building envelope. Chairman Carpenter commented that this would allow a residence to conform to the hillside and reduce the chances of a home being more "vertical." Mr. Smith noted that the Planning Commission would probably see one more similar request from the neighboring lot owner because he also has purchased the remainder parcel to the boundary of the forest service parcel.

COMMISSIONER SWEETEN MOVED TO APPROVE THE REQUEST BY KEITH LEAVITT FOR APPROVAL OF CANBERRA HEIGHTS, PLAT "G," LOT 33 AND RECOMMEND APPROVAL TO THE CITY COUNCIL. COMMISSIONER ATCHISON SECONDED THE MOTION. ALL PRESENT VOTED IN FAVOR. THE MOTION CARRIED.

8. CANBERRA HILLS, PLAT "W" - 1296 EAST TETON DRIVE - SUBDIVISION AMENDMENT
This is a request to combine Canberra Hills Plat "G," Lot 63 with Canberra Hills, Plat "J," Lot 146.

Mr. David Rossiter was present. Mr. Smith displayed an aerial of the neighborhood and the plat map. He explained that Mr. Rossiter has requested to combine the two adjoining lots that he owns into one lot. He commented that Staff has no concerns other than the provision in the code about double frontage lots. Commissioner Sweeten confirmed that the home meets the setbacks of the current lot. Mr. Smith pointed out that the pool is built over the boundary line between the lots. Mr. Rossiter is underway on constructing a RV garage on the back lot which will be accessed from the upper street.

Commissioner Morse asked if access could be obtained through the lots from one street to the other. Commissioner Anderson explained to the Commission that the intent of this provision in the City Code is to eliminate illegal roads that access between streets. Mr. Smith pointed out that the topography of the parcels would not allow access between the streets on the lots. The Commission discussed the topography of the lots and the reason for the request.

COMMISSIONER PETERS MOVED TO APPROVE THE REQUEST BY DAVID ROSSITER FOR APPROVAL OF CANBERRA HILLS, PLAT "W," AN AMENDMENT TO CANBERRA HILLS, PLAT "G" LOT 63 AND CANBERRA HILLS, PLAT "J" LOT 146 AND RECOMMEND APPROVAL TO THE CITY COUNCIL WITH THE FINDING THAT "FOR REASONS OF TOPOGRAPHY" THERE IS NO THROUGH ACCESS BETWEEN TETON DRIVE AND 50 NORTH STREETS. COMMISSIONER MORSE SECONDED THE MOTION. ALL PRESENT VOTED IN FAVOR. THE MOTION CARRIED.

9. ZONING ORDINANCE AMENDMENT - 17.72. - ASSISTED LIVING CENTERS
This is the first review of a proposed ordinance which will regulate the placement of Assisted Living Centers in Lindon.

Mr. Brad Hall distributed information to the Commissioner. Chairman Carpenter asked where Mr. Smith had obtained the parking information that was included in the staff report. Mr. Smith replied that the American Planning Association had compiled the data. Chairman Carpenter asked how the facility that was considered last month compared to these figures. Mr. Smith replied that Lindon City requires more than the cities listed in this report.

Mr. Smith turned attention to the draft ordinance and told the Commission that this first draft is for discussion only. Commissioner Sweeten asked how the one proposal that the City had considered conforms to this draft ordinance. Mr. Smith replied that he had not compared that proposal to this ordinance. Commissioner Nixon asked how the number of fifty residents was chosen as the limit of a medium-sized facility. Mr. Smith replied that most of this ordinance was culled from existing ordinances in other cities.

Commissioner Nixon suggested that if the parcel that had been considered earlier was considered as an R2 Overlay, it would have a maximum of six units. He estimated families of five living in each unit and came up with a total of 30 residents on the parcel. He noted that one way of limiting congestion is limiting the number of residents. Mr. Smith observed that the R2 Overlay ordinance had been brought up before in discussions of this type of facility. He explained that a suggestion had been made to space or separate these facilities a distance from R2 housing to limit density in a neighborhood. However, he noted that the Lindon City Standard Land Use Table presently considers these two types of housing as separate and distinct.

Commissioner Nixon expressed the opinion that allowing a facility that houses fifty residents is too large. He considered thirty residents as a more appropriate limit. Mr. Smith commented that Spanish Fork City has a similar idea. Their ordinance allows more people with more acreage in the development. Commissioner Nixon asked if a developer has twenty acres and an adequate buffer, would a facility of 50 or larger be allowed? He acknowledged that there is probably not a parcel of that acreage available in Lindon. Mr. Smith observed that the purpose of this ordinance is to determine how to fit a facility into the right location.

Commissioner Peters noted that the draft ordinance increases the setbacks of a facility to thirty feet. He asked if any studies had been done on how large a facility needs to be to make it viable. Mr. Smith replied that much of this depends on the operational management. Mr. Peters asked if the ability of a facility to provide amenities affects its success. Commissioner Sweeten observed that it was logical that a larger facility would be able to provide more amenities. Commissioner Nixon suggested that allowing this "business" in a residential area will bring in more employees and consequently more traffic. He compared this to a home occupational use which is limited to one non-related employee for this reason. Chairman Carpenter observed that this is part of the challenge to the City. He pointed out that our elderly residents want to remain close to home and yet need the services that such facilities provide. Commissioner Nixon suggested that if the size is limited the number of employees will be limited. He expressed the opinion that smaller is better.

Commissioner Peters pointed out that the draft ordinance does limit the size based on the acreage of the parcel proposed for its location. He noted that the previous proposal on Locust Avenue would be limited to twenty-five beds. Commissioner Anderson pointed out an inconsistency in the acreage requirement. He noted that the draft one bed per one thousand square feet of lot size up to twenty beds, but if the facility goes more than twenty beds, it requires one acre plus one thousand square feet of space for every bed over the initial twenty. The Commission discussed this requirement. It was decided that this provision is ambiguous and needs clarification.

Commissioner Peters noted that "large" facilities are limited to commercial districts and that "medium and small" are allowed in residential areas in this draft ordinance. Commissioner Nixon asked if there is a need for the classification of "medium." He expressed the opinion that more than seventeen residents may be considered "large." Mr. Smith noted that this is a divisive subject. He observed that even the neighborhood previously discussed had been split on the appropriateness of the size in a residential neighborhood. The Commission asked Councilmember Bayless what the opinions of the Council were on this subject. Councilmember Bayless replied that the reason for the denial of the previous application is that questions of size and appropriateness were better dealt with in an ordinance, rather than setting precedence by allowing something that may be regretted later. She noted that allowing the use in a residential neighborhood was not the issue, but the appropriate size.

Mr. Smith asked if the concept of "more space for more bed" meets the approval of the Commissioners. Commissioner Morse asked if the linear ratio works or if there should be a minimum space requirement for parking and other uses. This was discussed. Mr. Smith noted that there is a forty percent open space requirement also. Commissioner Peters asked why facilities less than twelve beds were not covered in this ordinance. Mr. Smith explained that the Lindon City Code addresses these small facilities in the group home ordinance. Commissioner Peters expressed the opinion that he approves of the increased setback requirements and the height requirements in the draft ordinance. He asked if the requirements in provision #9 can be determined. This was discussed and Mr. Smith noted that he would confer with the City Attorney.

Commissioner Peters questioned the provisions for the neighborhood meeting. Mr. Smith agreed and noted that this requirement has been questioned in the R2 Overlay Ordinance also. He observed that this seems to encourage disruptive behavior. Commissioner Peters asked the purpose of the neighborhood meeting. Mr. Smith replied that this was part of the neighborhood notice section. Commissioner Morse observed that he agreed with Commissioner Peters that the neighborhood meeting requirement is not a good idea, but at the same time there is a need for a more complete noticing procedure for the neighborhood. Commissioner Anderson explained that the neighborhood meeting was started as a way to get developers into discussions with the neighborhood and negotiate mitigations to make a development fit within a neighborhood. Commissioner Nixon suggested that a complete information packet that is reviewed and approved by the City, should be mailed with the notices to the residents. Commissioner Peters suggested compiling a check list of items to include in this information packet. Chairman Carpenter agreed with these suggestions. The Commission discussed it and a consensus was reached. Mr. Smith was asked to reword this section. Commissioner Nixon suggested that a similar amendment be made to the R2 Overlay Ordinance.

Commissioner Atchison pointed out an ambiguity in provision #12. Commissioner Anderson suggested that the Commission take a hypothetical facility and apply this ordinance to it to see if it meets their expectations. Commissioner Nixon asked if the size of the facility affects the room sizes. The State minimum requirement for room size was disclosed as ten-feet by ten-feet. Mr. Scott Farrer observed that he could have put sixty beds in his proposal of 21,000 square feet, but he had limited it to fifty to make the space more comfortable.

Commissioner Peters suggested that the Commission consider a maximum facility size in a residential zone. Mr. Smith observed that defining a maximum facility size might affect the group home ordinance. He explained that federal housing regulations and the definition of a family affect how these facilities are defined and governed. Chairman Carpenter suggested that referencing or defining these limits might be helpful in this ordinance.
The Commission discussed setting a maximum size and what that size might be. Commissioner Peters suggested using the R2 Overlay as a guide. He also pointed out that the R2 District on Locust Avenue is already overbuilt. He suggested that facilities add more burdens to neighborhoods. Commissioner Anderson suggested that these facilities count towards the total number of units allowed in each district but are not precluded from being considered if the district is full. This is similar to how accessory apartments are regulated. This particular overfull District was discussed. Commissioner Peters commented that most of the residents of the Green Valley Condos were in favor of the facility. Commissioner Anderson commented that the larger setbacks mitigate the impact of larger densities to a point. Commissioner Nixon contended that limiting the size of a facility is only part of the mitigation. He pointed out that the zone on Locust Avenue is R1-20, so even if the neighbors have large families on a half acre, this ordinance has the potential to allow fifty people on one acre parcel next door.

Commissioner Sweeten referred to Commissioner Anderson's comment about inconsistency earlier and suggested that this provision require two thousand square feet per bed with a minimum lot size that matches the zone in which the property is located. He noted that there still needs to be a maximum size limit set. Various opinions were aired. Some felt that the cap should be fifty and others thought that fifty are too many. Mr. Smith pointed out that if the amount of required space is changed to two thousand square feet per bed, there would only be a fifty-bed facility on two-and-a-half acres. Commissioner Nixon asked how many employees would be needed to serve fifty residents. Commissioner Peters asked Mr. Farrer to comment on this question. Mr. Farrer replied that the Orem facility has forty beds and employs one CNA during the night and up to seven CNA's and cooks during the day.

Commissioner Anderson observed that the parcel on Locust Avenue could be up to thirty-two residents based on its acreage. Commissioner Morse commented that the traffic would be greater at a facility with fifty beds. Mr. Smith pointed out that an average home is calculated at ten trips per day by traffic engineers. He observed that a two-and-a-half acre parcel could contain five homes which would total fifty trips per day. He pointed out that few residents of a facility drive and employees will arrive and leave only once each. He suggested that the facility should be restricted to a collector street.

Commissioner Morse expressed the opinion that a facility's impact is relatively mitigated with parking requirements, low traffic counts and setbacks. He asked what other issues should be considered. Commissioner Sweeten suggested that a facility burdens a neighborhood both culturally and environmentally. He suggested that there is an expectation of a cultural burden in an LDS community. Chairman Carpenter agreed that a facility does change the culture of a neighborhood. Commissioner Anderson suggested that this is a religious impact rather than a city issue.

Chairman Carpenter asked if the Commission feels that two-and-a-half acres of Lindon should be tied up with a facility even if there is a parcel that large available. Commissioner Peters verified that the proposed ordinance regulates the number of beds and not the number of rooms. Mr. Smith confirmed this and added that if the City regulates the number of rooms, it should address the size of the rooms. The Commissioners discussed the regulations set by the State of Utah on the size of rooms and whether they felt the City should enact additional regulations. It was decided that it was not necessary.

Commissioner Sweeten suggested a poll among the Commissioners for maximum size. Chairman Carpenter observed that the proposal allows up to fifty beds and a suggestion has been made to reduce that number to correspond to something that the R2 Overlay might allow. He commented that he did not have the answer to this question. Commissioner Peters commented that he had no problem with a limit of fifty because this size would require two-and-one-half acres. Commissioner Atchison asked if this is too much acreage to be devoted to a facility. Commissioner Sweeten asked her if she felt that the facility should be less than fifty beds. She confirmed that she feels that fifty is too large. Commissioner Simister agreed, and added that she felt this way for most of Lindon, but that the west side is more open and maybe a larger facility could be allowed there. Commissioner Sweeten agreed that there is little development on the west side and if residents do move there, they will know ahead of time that a larger facility could be built next to them. Commissioner Peters pointed out that the medium-sized facility could be limited to collector streets. Commissioner Nixon suggested that these facilities generally have lots of open space and may be nice to have next to you, but that the open space tends to isolate the residents from the community.

Chairman Carpenter suggested that the discussion be opened to public comment. He asked Mr. Brad Hall if he had anything new to add to the discussion. Mr. Hall referred to his research that had been passed out earlier. As far as size, he observed that most facilities in residential neighborhoods are small with sixteen or fewer beds. Larger facilities are usually contained in two buildings and are located in transition zones between commercial and residential. Commissioner Sweeten asked Mr. Hall what his interest is in assisted living centers. Mr. Hall replied that he wants to see something built on Locust Avenue that will work in the neighborhood. Commissioner Sweeten asked if the neighborhood would support a proposal of thirty beds. Mr. Hall replied that there is a petition circulating the neighborhood now asking the City to limit any proposal on this acreage to sixteen beds. Chairman Carpenter asked why the neighborhood had decided on this number. Mr. Hall replied that this is the most common number of beds in a facility located within a residential neighborhood.

Mr. Smith disagrees with Mr. Hall's interpretation of the location of facilities. He suggested that existing facilities are most likely located on a collector street surrounded by residential. He suggested that the Commission consider a separation limitation between facilities and other higher density housing. Mr. Hall suggested that a crucial point he wished to bring up to the Commission is that the group home is different from assisted living because they have a different license at the State of Utah. Chairman Carpenter asked if he feels that the reference to small center does not apply then? Mr. Smith observed that the City does not care which agency of the State of Utah issues the license, but is more concerned with the use of the property. The City concern is only that a valid license is obtained.

Chairman Carpenter asked if there were other comments or questions from the audience. Mr. Roger Gillis, president of the Green Valley Condos, suggested most of the residents of this development would like to see a larger facility. He suggested that the square footage requirement of the lot be a compromise between the original one thousand and the suggested two thousand per bed at fifteen hundred per bed. This was discussed and various numbers of beds in a facility were tried out to determine the final acreage of a lot. Mr. Gillis observed that residents not only want to have a facility close but to have amenities. Chairman Carpenter agreed that there are economies of scale to consider in this respect. He agreed that a facility of sixteen beds would have little or no amenities.

Mr. Randy Jones expressed a concern for Lindon's open spaces. He also felt that allowing fifty beds is too large and that a proposal like this should be put in a commercial area. He asked the Commission to preserve the residential areas. Commissioner Sweeten observed that a facility of thirty beds would have a similar impact of five homes. He suggested that a facility be limited to one story so that it blends more with the neighborhoods. Mr. Jones pointed out that there were no buildings this large (21,000 square feet of building) located in residential neighborhoods. Chairman Carpenter commented that many large homes are being built. Mr. Jones observed that the reason many residents have moved to Lindon is the open spaces, including himself. He pointed out that many of the smaller facilities are also successful.

Chairman Carpenter agreed that these are valid concerns, but that the Commission must also weigh the needs of the aging population. Mr. Jones suggested that facilities would be more appropriate in areas that are not already overbuilt.

Commissioner Nixon suggested that provisions addressing the architectural treatment are needed. Chairman Carpenter thanked the Commission and audience for their input. He asked Mr. Smith to incorporate the ideas that had been agreed on. He asked the Commission to consider the size issue until the next meeting.

10. ORDINANCE AMENDMENT - 17.44. - R1-SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL
This is a staff request to amend in its entirety the single family residential section of the zoning ordinance.

Mr. Smith presented this amendment to Section 17.44 and pointed out the changes, page by page. The Commission discussed sport court fencing, private recreational grounds, and maximum lot depth restrictions. They also conversed about requirements on the depth of projections on a home and distances between outbuildings and the main dwelling. Mr. Smith commented that he would incorporate the suggestions as discussed and bring the item back for review at a future date.

11. WEST SIDE RESIDENTIAL MASTER PLAN - DISCUSSION ITEM
The Planning Commission will review the results of the Photo Survey conducted in July.

It was decided by consensus to move this item to the next agenda because of the lateness of the hour and the fact that some of the Commissioners had not participated in the survey. He scheduled a time for these Commissioners to view and rate the photos he had presented as ideas for a west side residential development.

12. PLANNING DIRECTOR'S REPORT

Mr. Smith discussed term expiration dates with the Commissioners and updated them on development of property across the street from Home Depot.

ADJOURN

COMMISSIONER ATCHISON MOVED TO ADJOURN AT 10:45 P.M. COMMISSIONER SIMISTER SECONDED THE MOTION. ALL PRESENT VOTED IN FAVOR. THE MOTION CARRIED.

APPROVED - September 10, 2003

back to top