The Lindon City Planning Commission held a regularly scheduled meeting on Wednesday, December 10, 2003 at 7:00 p.m. in the Lindon City Center, Council Chambers, at 100 North State Street, Lindon, Utah.

Conducting: Dustin Sweeten, Vice Chairman
Prayer: Jim Peters

PRESENT

Bruce Carpenter, Chairman (arrived 7:20 p.m.)
Ron Anderson, Commissioner
Evan Nixon, Commissioner (arrived 7:26 p.m.)
Jim Peters, Commissioner
Marilyn Simister, Commissioner
Dustin Sweeten, Commissioner
Kevin Smith, Planning Director
Venla Gubler, Administrative Clerk
James McMurray, Planning Intern

ABSENT

Lorenzo Barcellone, Planning Intern
Lindsey Bayless, Councilmember

The meeting began at 7:06 p.m.

1. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE

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

2. APPROVAL OF MINUTES

The minutes of the meeting of September 10, 2003 were reviewed. The following corrections were made:
Page 2, Line 24: Replace the name of "Haun" with the name "Hauns."
Page 3, Line 2: Replace the word "tenets" with the word "tenants."
Page 3, Line 10: Replace the word "vary" with the word "very."
Page 3, Line 13: Replace the word "goto" with the words "go to."
Page 3, Line 14: Replace the words "in stead" with the word "instead."
Page 3, Line 17,18: Add the sentences "Commissioner Peters also suggested that the cross easement for the parking lot be a one-way easement. This was discussed."
Page 3, Line 22: Replace the word "and" with the word "had."
Page 3, Line 26: Replace the name "Commissioner" with the name "Commission."
Page 3, Line 36: Replace the word "we" with the word "he." Add the word "to" after the word "go."
Page 4, Line 25,26: Replace the word "we" with the word "he."
Page 4, Line 34: Replace the word "two" with the word "too."
Page 4, Line 40: Replace the name "Robbins" with the name "Robinson."
Page 4, Line 42: Replace the word "explained" with the word "expand."
Page 5, Line 4: Add the word "WEST" after the number "2000."
Page 5, Line 6: Replace the word "THERE" with the word "THEIR."
Page 5, Line 41: Add the list item #6 "REMOVE THE REQUIREMENT FOR A NEIGHBORHOOD MEETING."
COMMISSIONER ANDERSON MOVED TO APPROVE THE MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF SEPTEMBER 10, 2003 AS CORRECTED. COMMISSIONER SIMISTER SECONDED THE MOTION. ALL PRESENT VOTED IN FAVOR. THE MOTION CARRIED.

3. PUBLIC COMMENT

Mr. Mark Palmer of America's Choice Auto and RV Sales presented a plan to change the site plan for his auto dealership on Geneva Road. Mr. Smith displayed an overhead of the previously proposed and approved site plan behind One's Auto and explained that One's Auto had gone out of business and that America's Choice wants to move up into this area.

Mr. Palmer informed the Commission that One's Auto is now out of business and when it is cleaned-up, America's Choice would like to move from the back of the lot into this front location. Mr. Smith displayed the amended site plant. He noted that the proposal is to move to the south side of the front parking lot. Commissioner Sweeten asked if there were any staff concerns. Mr. Smith replied no, this will just be a continuation of auto sales on this lot. Commissioner Peters asked if the limitation on cars that had been previously placed on the business would still be valid. He also asked if this amount would still fit into the area being designated as sales lot. Mr. Palmer replied yes and added that he would come back for a larger number when he expands his operations. Commissioner Sweeten asked how much of the property would be dedicated to America's Choice. Mr. Palmer replied that he would have 100 x 130. The north side of the One's Auto lot would be another car dealer. Commissioner Anderson asked if there was room for two car dealers. Mr. Smith replied that the use is not changing just the number of dealers. He added that a dealer can sublease property.

There was a discussion of the RV sales portion of the business. Mr. Palmer commented that the RV's would be displayed on the back and he would have 30-40 cars in front. Commissioner Anderson asked if the business would still have access to the back bay. Mr. Palmer replied yes. He noted that the other back bay would be occupied by Certified Transmission.

(Chairman Carpenter arrived at 7:20 p.m.)

Commissioner Simister asked if the temporary office trailer would be moved to a new location on the lot. Commissioner Anderson asked if the trailer would be connected to utilities. Mr. Palmer replied yes and noted the new location. Mr. Smith observed that the trailer is a temporary conditional use.

COMMISSIONER PETERS MOVED TO APPROVE THE AMENDMENT TO THE SITE PLAN FOR AMERICA'S CHOICE AUTO AND RV SALES WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS:
1. RECREATIONAL VEHICLES ON DISPLAY FOR SALE WILL BE COUNTED AS TWO CARS.
2. THERE IS A LIMIT OF 40 CARS TOTAL ON THE LOT.
3. THE OFFICE TRAILER IS LIMITED TO A TWO YEAR TEMPORARY CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AND MUST COMPLY WITH BUILDING CODES.
COMMISSIONER ANDERSON SECONDED THE MOTION. ALL PRESENT VOTED IN FAVOR. THE MOTION CARRIED.

(Vice Chairman Sweeten turned the meeting over to
Chairman Carpenter at 7:24 p.m.)

Mr. Scott Tollestrup of DST Distributing Inc. in Orem told the Commissioners that his business is located in an area that is being redeveloped on 800 North. He would like to relocate his business to a lot on about 200 West and 1600 South. Mr. Smith showed the proposed location on an aerial photo. Commissioner Anderson observed that the frontage on 200 South needs to be improved and landscaped. He also noted that the fence needs to be sight-obscuring if trucks will be stored there.

(Commissioner Nixon arrived at 7:26 p.m.)

Mr. Tollestrup's storage needs were discussed. Chairman Carpenter observed that, from the aerial, the back of the lot has already been used for storage. Commissioner Nixon asked Mr. Tollestrup his plans for this area. Mr. Tollestrup replied that he would remove the storage and clean up this area. Chairman Carpenter observed that Mr. Tollestrup's plans to buy this lot would make him responsible for the clean up and removal of unsightly materials. Orem's redevelopment plans for 800 North were discussed briefly. Chairman Carpenter asked if there was any other public comment.

Mr. John Dougal of Wavetronics, Inc. approached the front. Mr. Smith explained that Mr. Dougal would like to move his business into the Exodus Building, but that staff had some questions on assembly operations. He explained that this is a tech-oriented business whose operations are contained within the building. Assembly is not the primary business, but a minor part of what the business does. He observed that staff does not have a problem with this secondary use, but wanted to make the Planning Commission aware of the issue and see if there were any concerns. Mr. Dougal explained that the assembly portion of his business would occupy five percent of the office and about twenty percent of the building space. He commented that he does small production runs to put printed circuit boards in his traffic telecommunication devices.

Commissioner Anderson commented that one of the reasons the Research and Business zone was created was that the City anticipated businesses that used their research. Mr. Smith commented that large storage areas and truck traffic were the types of activities not envisioned for this zone. Commissioner Nixon suggested some kind of percentage of activity for secondary uses. Mr. Smith observed that secondary uses are addressed in the code and should comprise no more than 20 percent of either the site or business activity. Chairman Carpenter asked if there were by-products of the assembly process. Mr. Dougal replied that there is just soldering involved in assembling these ten gigahertz radar sensors for commuter link systems. Chairman Carpenter commented that this sounds like the type of project Lindon is looking for in this zone. Mr. Smith clarified that the zone allows no manufacturing, just assembly. Commissioner Nixon added that the concern is the amount of activity outside of the building. Chairman Carpenter welcomed this business to Lindon. He asked if there were any other comments. There were none.

4. NEW BUSINESS (Reports by Commissioners)

Commissioner Nixon reported a possible parking problem at Tucker Lawn Care and Roofers Supply. He commented that the yards of these businesses are being used for storage and that employees are parking on the street. Mr. Smith replied that he would check on the situation.

Commissioner Peters reported that the speeds on 600 North have not improved, although the stop and speed limit signs are installed. Commissioner Nixon noted that the counters are there. Mr. Smith observed that the traffic engineers are completing their studies and checking on the availability of temporary speed humps. Chairman Carpenter asked if the City had considered a photo speed trailer. Mr. Smith replied that there are legal issues associated with "photo tickets." He explained the issues involved. Commissioner Nixon reported that he had attended MAG's Transportation Open House where there had been a listing of average speeds. He commented that 400 East in Lindon is one of the worst. Mr. Smith agreed and noted that the problem exists all over Lindon and everyone needs to slow down. Chairman Carpenter asked if there were other reports. There were none.

5. HIGHLANDS AT BALD MOUNTAIN - 700 NORTH 800 EAST - PRELIMINARY SUBDIVISION REVIEW
This is a request for approval of phase II of the Bald Mountain project. The request is for approval of a 39-lot subdivision.

Mr. Travis Ludlow of Ludlow Engineering and Mr. Dan McKeon were present to answer questions on this project for the Commissioners. Mr. Smith presented an aerial photo of the vicinity and informed the Commission that this had been talked about a month ago. The developer is ready to present a new plan. Engineering has reviewed the new subdivision plat and determined that it fits the required parameters. Commissioner Sweeten asked what had happened on 1200 East Street. Mr. McKeon replied that all the issues surrounding 1200 East were not worked out yet. He added that he is continuing to work with staff and the Mayor to resolve this issue. Mr. Smith noted that this is a recommendation to Council.

Chairman Carpenter asked if 1200 East is part of the subdivision plat approval. Commissioner Nixon replied yes and added that a bond may be needed. Chairman Carpenter commented that it is typical practice for a subdivision of this size to contribute some park or road development to the city. Commissioner Nixon commented that impact fees contribute to park development. Chairman Carpenter asked if this was sufficient. Commissioner Nixon suggested that 1200 East is an important part of Lindon's future transportation plan and is a part of this development. He agreed that this is a unique street with unique issues, but suggested that some portion of its development should be paid by this developer. Chairman Carpenter suggested that a lot could be dedicated to open space. Commissioner Anderson also felt that the park impact fee would suffice for park development.

Commissioner Sweeten asked staff's recommendation for 1200 East. Mr. Smith replied that the city is not requiring the dedication of 1200 East. Commissioner Peters asked if this was because of the forest service negotiation. Mr. McKeon replied that an exchange of property is being negotiated that will bring portions of the 1200 East right-of-way into private holding. The Commission discussed the proposed exchange. Mr. McKeon noted that there would be a loss of lots in the northeast corner if this exchange takes place and the road is built. Commissioner Anderson pointed out that the debris basin is in the northeast corner.

Commissioner Peters observed that there are lots with frontage on both 1200 East and 780 East. Commissioner Sweeten commented that 1200 East sits high enough that these lots cannot access it from below. Commissioner Nixon expressed more concern about double-frontage lots on the 800 North and 780 North area. Mr. Smith replied that a restriction on access can be recorded as part of the plat. Commissioner Peters suggested a uniform fence along the collector frontage. Chairman Carpenter asked what the final grade of 1200 East will be. Mr. Smith replied that the collector has been engineered, so the final grades are known. He also noted that the collector will have split lanes to allow it to conform to the hillside. Mr. Ludlow agreed, but pointed out that the collector will not be at final grade at the connection to Pleasant Grove when it is constructed.

Commissioner Sweeten confirmed that access can be stopped if a note is recorded on the plat. Mr. Smith affirmed this statement. He informed the Commission that this collector will not become a priority for about fifteen years. He pointed out the intended extension route of the collector to the freeway along 800 North/700 North and the various impediments that must be overcome before the right-of-way is complete. He commented that this roadway will not be built in the near future.

Commissioner Nixon asked about using the alternate cross section and including pathways in the design. Mr. Ludlow replied that all the streets but 650 East have been planned for this cross section.

Chairman Carpenter asked if there were other issues. Commissioner Anderson commented that the plat was better than when it was started. Chairman Carpenter agreed that the plat was "simpler and cleaner." Commissioner Nixon agreed that it had come a long way. He again suggested that the developers should donate the land for the collector. He pointed out that the connection to Pleasant Grove needs to be made and he is not suggesting improvement or bonding, just donating the land. He also noted that the City would require the minimum road width to be built in most cases and that then the City would upgrade to the ultimate width. The Commissioners discussed this proposal. Commissioner Peters agreed with Commissioner Nixon. Commissioner Sweeten felt that the proposed trade would take care of the developer's responsibility to the completion of this street.

COMMISSIONER NIXON MOVED TO APPROVE THE REQUEST BY BLACK SCOT DEVELOPMENT FOR APPROVAL OF THE HIGHLANDS AT BALD MOUNTAIN SUBDIVISION AT 700 NORTH 800 EAST AND RECOMMEND APPROVAL TO THE CITY COUNCIL WITH THE FOLLOWING RECOMMENDATIONS:
1. A NOTE ON THE SUBDIVISION PLAT IS REQUIRED THAT INDICATES THERE WILL BE NO ACCESS TO OR FROM 800 NORTH AND 1200 EAST.
2. ALL STREET CROSS SECTIONS OTHER THAN 650 EAST ARE TO BE THE ALTERNATE PATHWAY CROSS SECTION.
3. THE LAND FOR THE 1200 EAST/800 NORTH COLLECTOR BE DEDICATED TO THE CITY.
COMMISSIONER ANDERSON SECONDED THE MOTION. ALL PRESENT VOTED IN FAVOR EXCEPT COMMISSIONER SWEETEN WHO VOTED NAY. THE MOTION CARRIED.

6. OSTLER INDUSTRIAL PARK, PLAT "F" - 1850 WEST 100 NORTH - PRELIMINARY SUBDIVISION REVIEW
This is a request for approval of the Ostler Industrial Park Subdivision, Plat "F," a two-lot subdivision.

THIS ITEM WAS CONTINUED TO THE NEXT MEETING BY CONSENSUS.

7. PETERSON WOODWORK - 923 WEST 500 NORTH - SITE PLAN AMENDMENT
This is a request to amend the site plan and allow for the creation of a second driveway across the existing landscaping.

Mr. Smith showed the Commission the vicinity on an aerial photo. He pointed out the building and a twenty-foot landscaping strip along 500 North. He explained that this landscaping strip was intended to serve as storm water detention. He informed the Commission that this detention area had not been built correctly by the developer and this mis-grading had resulted in flooding of the business Meyer and Leichty in the past. The present owner of the building is the grandfather of the applicants, Steve and John Peterson. John Peterson was present in the audience. There are three or four tenants in the building. The applicants have piped the storm water through the detention area, partially paved the landscaping strip, and cut a garage access into one of the units. They have asserted that they did not know that they needed city approval to change their site plan and building. There are other businesses in the area that feel strongly that the site should be restored to original condition. The Petersons are here to ask the Planning Commission what options they have.

Commissioner Sweeten asked if the paving would have been allowed if Mr. Peterson had requested approval for his plans in advance. Mr. Smith replied that there is more at issue than just modification without approval. He pointed out that there is no on-site detention left for this site. Chairman Carpenter commented that the drainage that was captured in this detention basin was from upstream and did not include the drainage from the site. Mr. Smith confirmed this statement and noted that the problem is more on a city-wide basis. He pointed out that if storm water is not detained here, it flows elsewhere downstream and creates a problem there. Commissioner Peters observed that future buildings are noted on the site plan. He asked if there is a possibility that these buildings and parking areas, when built, would contribute to the problem. Mr. Smith replied no. He added that the problem was not created by the present owner, but was inherited from the builder.

Commissioner Anderson observed that he was part of the Commission when this project had been built. He recounted some of the history of 500 North. He informed the Commission that one of the concerns of that Commission had been the half-street (500 North). They did not want any businesses opening into the street because that would create problems with parking and traffic. Mr. Smith confirmed that assessment. Commissioner Anderson responded to Commissioner Sweeten's question earlier by asserting that the paving would not have been allowed, because of the narrow half-street.

Commissioner Nixon asked how often the driveway access to 500 North was used. Mr. Peterson replied that the driveway was used to park the trailer. The trailer was used about once a week. He explained that the garage door access and driveway were necessary to facilitate the "flow of product." Commissioner Nixon commented that there were treatments to stabilize grass for minimal use. Commissioner Sweeten and Peters pointed out that there is still access being used to 500 North. Commissioner Peters added that the addition does not look bad. Commissioner Nixon suggested that the detention and landscaping were more important than the question of access. He expressed the opinion that use of the door could be continued if the landscaping and detention were restored. He suggested that the grade of the detention be fixed to alleviate the flooding problem also. Chairman Carpenter agreed that he also has a concern that the lack of detention is creating a problem for someone else.

Mr. Smith pointed out that other tenants may also request a driveway to 500 North. Commissioner Anderson noted that the previous Planning Commission had required the curb to be painted red because of the half-street. Commissioner Nixon observed that the curb has been torn out. Chairman Carpenter expressed concern of the precedent issue.

Commissioner Nixon asked if the driveway would have been allowed if 500 North was a full size street. Mr. Smith replied yes. Commissioner Peters suggested that the applicants bond for a section of the street in lieu of restoring the site. Commissioner Nixon replied that this does not solve the storm water problem. Commissioner Peters suggested that an alternate catch basin be constructed. Commissioner Sweeten asked if there was enough area. Mr. Smith suggested that most of the driveway be removed and allow no parking. They could leave one strip to the door and put in detention on the rest.

Commissioner Sweeten expressed concern that a trailer backing into the door would create a safety issue. Mr. Smith replied that there is not a lot of traffic. The Commission discussed whether to restore the site to the original plans or require an alternative storm water solution. Commissioner Peters reminded the Commissioners that something could be required in lieu of the original plans. Commissioner Sweeten felt that the site should be restored. Mr. Smith suggested that the pipe that was installed could be used for detention if it is retrofitted to meet the code. The possibilities of precedent were explored.

Chairman Carpenter asked Mr. Peterson's reactions to the discussion. Mr. Peterson replied that they had invested money and effort in the driveway pad. Their family owns the building and they view their business as contributing positively to the community and providing jobs. Chairman Carpenter pointed out that some of the alternatives suggested may cost more than restoring the site to the original plans. Commissioner Sweeten expressed concern about precedent. Commissioner Anderson asked what was fair. Commissioner Sweeten posed the question again, "Would it have been allowed if they had asked first?" Chairman Carpenter suggested that if the compensation route is taken, it should be severe enough to deter imitation. Commissioner Nixon observed that there are some driveway options that are grass. He suggested that the trailer does not have to be parked there. It could be a driveway and not a parking pad. Commissioner Sweeten felt that this solution may create a safety issue. Commissioner Peters asked if the business with the issue wants to do the same thing. Mr. Smith replied no. Chairman Carpenter asked Mr. Peterson if he wanted to take some of these suggestions back to the landowner. Mr. Peterson replied yes.

COMMISSIONER PETERS MOVED TO CONTINUE THE REQUEST BY STEVE PETERSON FOR AN AMENDMENT TO THE CURRENT SITE PLAN. COMMISSIONER SWEETEN SECONDED THE MOTION. ALL PRESENT VOTED IN FAVOR. THE MOTION CARRIED.

8. GRUBBS - 1530 WEST 200 SOUTH - CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT
This is for approval of a small used car dealership in the Light Industrial Zone.

Mr. Dan Stubbs and Mr. Charles Garner were present. Mr. Smith presented the proposal to develop a condominium lot. They will install landscaping, move in a building, and use it for auto sales. Mr. Stubbs informed the Commission that he sells cars on the internet and wishes to use this site to store and display ten cars. Mr. Smith added that used car sales is a conditional use. He pointed out some of the storage on the back of the lot and mentioned that this would need to be cleaned up or put behind a sight-obscuring fence. Mr. Stubbs is proposing to use the front of the lot. He displayed a picture of the building. Mr. Garner observed that this picture was taken before the building was moved onto the lot.

Mr. Harlow Clark, newspaper representative, asked a question about the current business on the site. Mr. Smith replied that this particular lot was used for storage. Commissioner Nixon asked if Mr. Stubbs would need space to work on vehicles. Mr. Stubbs replied that he only needed office space. The building that had been moved to the site is about fifteen years old and will be remodeled to the current code. Commissioner Nixon asked how mechanical work on the cars would be done. Mr. Garner replied that they only sell functional cars and any repairs are only minor. Chairman Carpenter asked if there would be detailing needed. Mr. Garner replied no, that this would be hired off-site.

Chairman Carpenter asked the intentions for cleaning up the back of the lot. Mr. Garner replied that most of the equipment is useful, but that he will remove the junk. Commissioner Peters asked if the cars would be shipped out. Mr. Stubbs replied that his buyers fly in and pick up the cars. They are seldom shipped. He added that he has also sold some equipment in the past, such as a backhoe. Commissioner Nixon asked what kind of cars were sold. Mr. Stubbs replied that they are higher end cars.

Commissioner Anderson asked if there would be asphalt installed for parking and display of cars. Mr. Stubbs replied that there would be asphalt only in the front and indicated the area. He pointed out the landscaping (used also for detention) and parking areas. Commissioner Sweeten indicated that a sight-obscuring fence is needed for the storage on the back of the lot. Commissioner Anderson agreed. Commissioner Simister asked about the sheds indicated on the site plan. Mr. Stubbs replied that these are existing storage boxes. He also noted that a fence-line agreement would be needed for the north and east sides of the lot. Mr. Smith agreed and informed the Council that a portion of 200 South would also be dedicated.

Commissioner Anderson commented that the issues are the asphalt and the storage. He felt that a fence should be required. Mr. Smith agreed and read a section from the Lindon City Code on fencing. Commissioner Nixon felt that the building would fit the code. Mr. Smith pointed out a visible air conditioning system component. Mr. Stubbs replied that the units would be screened.

Chairman Carpenter asked about a limitation on the number of cars. He suggested the number of ten, which Mr. Stubbs had mentioned earlier. Mr. Stubbs agreed that he would start out at ten, but requested fifteen to allow for growth. Chairman Carpenter asked about off-street parking for customers, since he only showed ten parking stalls. Mr. Stubbs replied that he had room to expand. Commissioner Nixon asked where the detention area will be built. Mr. Stubbs replied that the landscaping would include the detention. He added that his engineer, Mark Greenwood, was finalizing the drawings.

Commissioner Simister asked about splitting the parcel. Mr. Smith explained that the parcel had been divided into two lots by a business condominium agreement. He informed the Commission that a bond has been placed for the improvements on the other condominium lot. Commissioner Nixon asked if the partners planned for a fence between the lots. Mr. Garner replied no. Mr. Stubbs added that there is a fence in the front to provide security, but Mr. Garner would like access to both lots for his construction business. Commissioner Sweeten commented that Mr. Stubbs would likely have construction traffic through his car dealership. Mr. Stubbs replied that the construction transport needed access to both lots to turn around. Mr. Garner noted that this is a small sales lot and not "Larry H. Miller."

Commissioner Nixon asked where the sale cars would be parked. Mr. Stubbs replied that some of the cars waiting for pick up and shipping would be stored in the back.

COMMISSIONER PETERS MOVED TO APPROVE THE REQUEST BY DAN STUBBS FOR A SMALL USED CAR DEALERSHIP IN THE LIGHT INDUSTRIAL ZONE WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS:
1. PRIOR TO SITE PLAN APPROVAL, RESOLVE ALL DESCRIPTION AND FENCE LINE ISSUES.
2. ENCLOSE THE STORAGE AREA ON THE BACK OF THE LOT WITH AN EIGHT-FOOT SIGHT-OBSCURING FENCE.
3. THE NUMBER OF CARS FOR SALE IS LIMITED TO A MAXIMUM OF FIFTEEN CARS.
4. PROVIDE ADEQUATE PARKING FOR EMPLOYEES AND CUSTOMERS IN THE AMOUNT OF THREE TO FIVE SPACES IN ADDITION TO THOSE NEEDED TO DISPLAY CARS.
5. REMODEL AND FINISH THE BUILDING TO IBC STANDARDS AND SPECIFICATIONS.
6. SCREEN THE AIR CONDITIONING UNITS FROM THE STREET.
7. INSTALL ASPHALT AS SHOWN.
8. ALL STORAGE OF ADDITIONAL CARS WILL BE WITHIN THE FENCED AND SCREENED STORAGE AREA.
COMMISSIONER NIXON SECONDED THE MOTION. ALL PRESENT VOTED IN FAVOR. THE MOTION CARRIED.

9. LEE HOMESTEAD - 400 WEST 190 NORTH - DESIGN REVIEW
This is a design review for a 1.4 acre R2 Overlay Project.

Ms. Joy Lee presented the latest edition of her plan to construct triplexes on 400 West. Mr. Smith informed the Commission that this is a design review. He showed the newest site plan and pointed out that the setbacks have been met. He displayed the altered elevations of the buildings. Commissioner Peters asked if the landscaping meets the 40 percent calculations. Mr. Smith replied that the calculations have not been done, but it appears to meet the requirements. Commissioner Nixon asked the plans for the bottom of the "L" shaped lot area. Ms. Lee replied that this area can be used for a playground, storage, or gardens. Commissioner Nixon observed that this area is part of the project, so if any buildings are intended, it must come back to the Commission.

Commissioner Simister asked the length of the frontage on 400 West. Ms. Lee replied 147 feet. Commissioner Simister asked how close the lot line is to the existing house. Ms. Lee replied that she thinks that it is twenty feet, but knows that it is at least ten feet. Commissioner Simister asked the width of the driveway. She was informed that it was twenty-five feet. Commissioner Peters asked if she intended to cover the parking. She replied that this had not been decided yet. Commissioner Sweeten suggested that this determination be made before the final review.

Mr. Smith cautioned that the plans may still require changes. The City Engineer had not reviewed it and no public input has been received. Commissioner Peters commented that the Commission's concerns center on the compatibility with the neighborhood. He observed that the elevations seem to fit the general type of home in the neighborhood. The improved elevations have varied rooflines, balconies, and additional entry doors on the side. Chairman Carpenter agreed that the buildings look more like residences and not typical apartments. There was a short discussion of garbage containers, fenced dumpsters, and lighting. Commissioner Simister suggested flipping the front building so that only one door opens onto 400 West and adding a porch. This was discussed. Commissioner Peters commented that this version was a great improvement over the previous one. Thanks were proffered to the Commission for their time and suggestions and to Ms. Lee for her willingness to work through the concerns.

10. ZONING ORDINANCE AMENDMENT
This is an amendment to Ordinance 17.46.0909(1) for Lindon's R2 Overlay zone.

Mr. Smith informed the Commission that this change to the R2 Overlay ordinance had been talked about and discussed at various times in the past meetings. The concern is that neighborhood meetings are not fulfilling expectations and another method of noticing the neighbors is needed. He asked the Commission to look at this proposal. Commissioner Peters suggested that the provision include a statement to the effect that the mailing needs to be reviewed and approved by staff before it is sent to the neighbors. Mr. Smith pointed out the statement on lines eight and nine of the paragraph. Commissioner Peters suggested that a copy of the mailing be provided to the City. Chairman Carpenter asked how many notices are sent with a typical project. Mr. Smith replied that the notices are sent to property owners, not homes. There is typically twenty to forty notices sent. Chairman Carpenter replied that he wondered how onerous this requirement would be to the developer. He felt that this number was within reason. He asked if there were any other comments or questions. There were none.

COMMISSIONER PETERS MOVED TO APPROVE THE REQUEST BY LINDON CITY STAFF FOR APPROVAL OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE AMENDMENT TO 17.46.090(1) WITH THE ADDITIONAL LANGUAGE REQUIRING A COPY OF THE MAILING DELIVERED TO THE CITY AND RECOMMEND APPROVAL TO THE CITY COUNCIL. COMMISSIONER SWEETEN SECONDED THE MOTION. ALL PRESENT VOTED IN FAVOR. THE MOTION CARRIED.

11. PLANNING DIRECTOR'S REPORT
1. Fuchs grading plan and building elevations
This item was postponed until the Fuchs were in attendance. See Below

2. Assisted Living Center Ordinance Review
Mr. Smith informed the Commission that the City Council had instructed him to bring this issue back to the Planning Commission for input on a few concerns. He distributed copies of information submitted by Mr. Brad Hall. The Council's concerns are on three issues: (1) definitions and maximum sizes of the small, medium and large facilities, (2) how the R2 Overlay might apply to an assisted living center, and (3) whether to combine 17.70 and 17.72 into one ordinance to regulate elderly housing.

Commissioner Sweeten suggested that assisted living centers might affect the R2 Overlay ordinance in the same way that an accessory apartment does. If a district is full, a facility is not precluded, but in a district that is not full, a facility may prevent other R2 projects. Chairman Carpenter commented that the Planning Commission had made a recommendation on the size issue. Mr. Smith replied that the Council would like more detail and suggested an informal discussion. He will present the results of this discussion to the Council on December 16.

Commissioner Simister commented that Alpine and Spanish Fork have ordinances. Mr. Smith replied that portions of these ordinances had been incorporated into this draft. He noted that James McMurray, Planning Intern, had prepared a presentation on size, zoning, and nearby types of land use for the Commission. He would like to present this information. He turned the time over to Mr. McMurray.

Mr. McMurray distributed a summary sheet of the facilities he had surveyed by phone and personal visit. These facilities are in the twenty to thirty bed range, and seem to be most similar to the maximum medium size proposed. He showed pictures of the Bel Aire in Orem and told the Commission that this facility is located on a residential road. It consists of seventeen beds and five parking stalls. He displayed pictures of the neighborhood. Commissioner Anderson asked if the parking lot was full. Mr. McMurray replied no, that there did not appear to be a parking problem. Commissioner Peters asked if the residents have their own cars. Mr. McMurray replied no.

Mr. McMurray next discussed the Camry in Payson. He noted that although it is located on a residential road, the road is exceptionally wide. This makes parking on the street no problem. The building appears to fit into the neighborhood architecturally. The facility is surrounded by homes. The parking is in the back with a driveway on one side. There is also an adjacent facility of mini-condos for independent living.

The Hearthstone is located on a minor collector road similar to Locust Avenue. It is comprised of thirty-two beds and has twenty-one parking stalls. He commented that off-street parking appears adequate, and at the time he was there–only half-full with ten cars. Commissioner Nixon asked why this facility had more cars. It was explained that this facility is a Type II facility, so it has more employees, and it also has a lock-down dementia unit. Mr. McMurray observed that there were newer homes right across the street and a lot of parking.

Stonewood is located on the corner of two collectors at a "t" intersection. It has twenty-eight beds. It has two buildings and is located in a transition area with commercial uses nearby. The parking consists of fourteen stalls. Mr. McMurray concluded that most assisted living centers are located in residential zones, the architecture is consistent with the neighborhoods in which they are located and there are minimal parking problems.

Chairman Carpenter asked about setbacks. Commissioner Nixon commented that neighborhoods are more dense in other cities and wondered if a large facility would "stick out" in Lindon. He asked if the collectors are comparable to Locust Avenue. Mr. McMurray replied that the Stonewood has parking on the interior and shows no activity out to 400 South. He added that the Hearthstone has generous setbacks, but the Camry appears to meet the residential standard.

Commissioner Nixon asked about the size of the buildings. Mr. McMurray acknowledged that the buildings are large. Commissioner Nixon asked if any had separate buildings. Mr. McMurray replied that the Stonewood is two buildings, but all the others are one building. Mr. Farrer observed that the Hearthstone is 15,000 square feet. Mr. Smith observed that the size of the lots at these facilities is not known, but that most lots would be smaller than any in Lindon. Mr. McMurray noted that the Mira Vista and the Greenwood are also of this size, but were not considered in this survey because they are located in a "fringe" area that is more commercial.

Commissioner Sweeten commented that the ordinance recommended to the Council has a maximum size on the medium facility of thirty-two beds. Chairman Carpenter observed that if the ordinances are combined, all references to the elderly group home would be put into Section 17.72. Mr. Smith agreed and noted that the City Attorney would review the ordinance before adoption. Chairman Carpenter commented that the size distinctions are just for zoning purposes and are not intended to photocopy the State regulations. Commissioner Sweeten asked if there were facilities larger than thirty-two beds in residential areas. Mr. Smith replied no. Chairman Carpenter commented that smaller facilities would not usually be located in the commercial areas because they would not be profitable enough. Mr. Smith agreed. Chairman Carpenter suggested a cap on the size of the largest project also.

Commissioner Peters suggested discussing the R2 issue. The Commission discussed Commissioner Sweeten's suggestion from earlier. Commissioner Peters wondered if tying the two issues together may be defeating the purpose of the State mandate for moderate income housing. Mr. Smith agreed that counting assisted living centers as part of an R2 Overlay may not comply with the spirit of the requirement. Commissioner Peters suggested limiting the number of assisted living centers in each R2 District, but not associating the numbers together. Commissioner Nixon pointed out that assisted living centers do contribute to the density of a neighborhood. Commissioner Peters agreed, but noted that the density does not affect the neighborhood the same as a condo or triplex. Traffic is not the same. Commissioner Sweeten suggested checking to see if assisted living centers could comply with the housing mandate. If they can be used to fulfill the mandate, then they should be considered. Commissioner Nixon pointed out that a bed does not equate to a unit, so how do you associate the two concepts, and also, do you want additional R2 units within the radius of a facility? Mr. Randy Jones commented that a facility also has the potential of being sold to another use that is not allowed in a residential district.

The Commissioners discussed size. The question was raised, "What is too big?" and "How large should the building be allowed to get in a residential neighborhood?" Commissioner Nixon felt that the larger building would not fit in a neighborhood. Chairman Carpenter suggested that the larger facilities can offer more amenities to the residents that will enhance the use of the common space. Mr. Farrer informed the Commission that Alpine has just adopted an ordinance that limits assisted living centers to a certain area of the city. They created an overlay near their main road into town and limited the size to one resident per thousand square feet of lot area. They also have twenty to thirty foot setbacks and a height limit of thirty-four feet.

Commissioner Sweeten felt that generous setbacks would keep the facilities as unobtrusive as possible. Chairman Carpenter agreed that a wider setback is a way for a larger facility to fit into a neighborhood. He did not feel that twenty feet was sufficient. He suggested that the size for a medium facility be limited to forty beds and a cap on the building size at 15,000 square feet. The Commission discussed this suggestion. Mr. Farrer suggested that the building size could be up to 20,000 square feet and the beds limited to thirty-two, but that language be added that the Planning Commission can consider up to forty beds with favorable public input. Chairman Carpenter observed that experience will determine the future of the ordinance, but if the Commission and Council are conservative now, the door can be opened to being more generous if the ordinance works as intended. Commissioner Sweeten agreed that the ordinance can always be amended in the future.

Mr. Farrer asked for a narrower setback on one side. He felt that the residents are not mobile and cannot use or appreciate all the landscaping that would be required with a wider setback. Commissioner Peters disagreed and felt that there would be more use of the outside of the building for group activities, like a barbeque, than a residential home. He observed that this is the reason he suggested wider setbacks in the beginning. Mr. Farrer agreed, but pointed out that these activities would be in a courtyard and not on the sides of the building. The Commissioners discussed these ideas and issues.

Chairman Carpenter suggested opening the discussion up to public comment. Mr. Paul Hirschi, an assisted living center architect, suggested that residents will restrict their wandering and gathering to the back where it is sheltered from the street. He did not feel that the sideyards would get the foot traffic that would require protection of the neighbors. He felt that twenty feet is conservative and that thirty feet is excessive. He observed that assisted living centers are quiet neighbors and it is not an issue. He felt that the front and back setbacks are more important. Commissioner Peters asked if he was having a problem fitting the building on the Locust Avenue lot. Mr. Hirschi replied yes. Mr. Farrer showed the Commission the proposal he was working on now. Mrs. Farrer commented that the City may be limiting themselves from the most desirable projects. Commissioner Nixon asked a few questions about the design.

Commissioner Nixon commented that a building could have a smaller footprint if a basement was used. He expressed the opinion that a smaller footprint would allow a building to fit into the neighborhood better. Commissioner Peters suggested adding a required percentage of landscaping to the ordinance that would restrict the size of the building further. Mr. Farrer objected. Commissioner Nixon explained that the Commission is trying to minimize the impact. Mr. Farrer replied that the setback had already been more than doubled.

Mr. Brad Hall referred to his handout that discusses the history of every facility in Utah County. He pointed out that facilities in strictly residential areas were no larger than sixteen beds. The larger facilities had been built in open areas and the homes filled in around them. There have not been many instances where something has been torn out to build a facility. The neighborhood has petitioned to limit the beds to sixteen. They would like to limit the size.

Mr. Farrer objected to going over the same ground again and again. He referred the Commission to the original staff report and pointed out that these items had been addressed repeatedly over the last several months. He asked for a decision so that he could move forward. Commissioner Nixon commented that his biggest concern is the size of the building. Mrs. Farrer commented that Stonewood is two smaller buildings and the residents just sit there and have no activities or amenities. Mr. Farrer added that he had not seen any unbiased research from the proponents of smaller sizes.

A resident commented that the neighborhood did not want a "humongous" building that looks like a "hospital." Commissioner Sweeten observed that the Planning Commission had already sent a proposed ordinance to the Council that has not been approved. Mr. Farrer suggested that if the Planning Commission vacillates on the size, then that sends a message to the Council. Commissioner Peters replied that the Planning Commission has not vacillated on the size–there have always been concerns about the size of the building. Chairman Carpenter observed that the City is dealing with two competing concerns. There is the concern that we want to provide facilities that service the residents, and the concern about the best way to accomplish that goal. He expressed the opinion that the smaller facilities do not service the residents adequately, but he also appreciates the struggle to mitigate the neighborhood issues. He agrees that the discussion has been drawn out trying to compromise these competing points of view.

Mr. Randy Jones commented that the question is not whether one should be built, but rather the size of the facility. He asked why they, as adjacent neighbors who moved to Lindon because of the open space, should be asked to accommodate the largest facility in a residential neighborhood in Utah County and the largest condo project in Lindon. They feel that a facility of 16-25 would be much more compatible in an established neighborhood.

Mr. Bill Cranney, resident of the Green Valley Condos, suggested that there is a misunderstanding in the level of support from the neighborhood. He agreed that there are differing positions, but it appears to be larger than it really is. The residents of the condos feel that a larger facility fits in this neighborhood. It is located on an artery. It is near a high concentration of older residents. It is near commercial property (bus garage). He asserted that the closest people are in favor of the proposed facility.

Mr. Boyd Hooley of 400 West pointed out that he now lives near an industrial park. He observed that Lindon has to grow and it is hard to know where to draw the line. He suggested that this is a good opportunity for Lindon. He asserted that sometimes things change for the better. He would not like to see his family or himself have to go to Spanish Fork for care.

Mr. Roger Gillies of the Green Valley Condos suggested that forty beds is already a compromise. The residents of Lindon need this facility. He asked where a better place for one could be found. All the concerns have been addressed. He expressed the opinion that even this is not large enough. He informed the Commissioners that there are about 24 residents in the condos that will need care in the near future. This way they can remain close to home.

Mr. Hirschi suggested that beds are not the issue, but size. There are numerous ways to mitigate the size so it fits into the neighborhood. It need not look monstrous. Commissioner Nixon agreed, and pointed out that this is one reason not to reduce the setbacks. Wider setbacks keep the profile small and reduce the footprint. He suggested equating the beds to the size of the building. If the size of the building is regulated as a maximum footprint and the building has a ratio to the size of the lot in a percentage, it will fit the neighborhood. Mr. Farrer asked why thirty feet had been chosen. Commissioner Sweeten replied that this provided a uniform size that compared to the front and back setbacks.

Commissioner Nixon suggested that the parking should be moved to the rear where it is not obtrusive. Chairman Carpenter felt that berming and landscaping would accomplish the same effect. Commissioner Nixon suggested a maximum and minimum setback that is flexible. He observed that if the total setback of both sides is 50 feet, with a minimum of 20 on each side, that the building could be shifted 25-25, or 20-30.

Mr. Mike Marchbanks congratulated the Commission on doing a wonderful job. He expressed the opinion that two or three nice facilities, rather than more of the smaller ones, would serve the residents of Lindon better. Mr. Jones expressed the opinion that he would rather see more smaller ones.

Commissioner Peters expressed the opinion that the looks of the building is more important than the number of beds. He suggested that the limits should be tied to a percentage of the property that is devoted to the building and the landscaping. Commissioner Simister commented that Lindon is not Alpine or Spanish Fork. She felt that Lindon's openness and larger lots should be kept in mind and maintained. Commissioner Nixon suggested that the goals of the R2 Overlay and assisted living are not the same. Commissioner Peters agreed. Mr. Smith confirmed that the consensus of the Planning Commission is that more time should be spent on the proportionality of the building to the lot, and whether the building fits the neighborhood architecturally. He also affirmed that the Commissioners were agreed that the 30-foot setback is not set in stone. The Commissioners agreed. Commissioner Sweeten clarified that the setback should be a total of 50-feet, but adjustable within limits.

Chairman Carpenter expressed the opinion that thirty-two beds is the minimum number of beds a medium facility should go for the upper limit. This will provide for a class of service that serves the senior population. He added that if the facility is too small, then the only facilities that will serve our older generations will be in the commercial zone. Commissioner Nixon added that the number of thirty-two beds is less important that the style. Commissioner Peters suggested more regulations on the design of the interior and agreed that a facility should not be smaller than thirty-two beds. Commissioner Anderson agreed and noted that he would consider as high as forty beds if the design was particularly nice. Commissioner Nixon agreed.

Mr. Smith said that he would convey these opinions to the Council on December 16th. Mr. Farrer asked about the square footage of the building as it relates to the lot size. Commissioner Nixon replied that it depends on the building. He felt that the footprint of the building is more important, but that the lot should be based on 2,000 square feet per bed to allow maximum openness.

Chairman Carpenter thanked the audience for their civilized approach to an emotional issue. Former-Commissioner Atchison was thanked for her contributions in absentia. Mr. Farrer also thanked the Commissioners for the time and effort they have given to research and thought about this issue. Chairman Carpenter commented that the Commission and Council are anxious that assisted living facilities prove to be a true benefit to both those who reside within its walls and those who reside as neighbors.

1. Fuchs grading plan and building elevations
Mr. Smith presented the grading plan and building elevations for Lot #7 in Canberra Heights. He noted that this is a fairly flat lot with no steep contours. There are no concerns on the grading plan. He observed that the rear building elevations will be seen from the west and appear to be stark and without variation. He noted that the pitch of the roof had been brought down to meet the height limitations. Commissioner Nixon noted that there were french doors opening on the basement. Mr. Smith pointed out a bay window and a framed window that were added to break the facade. Commissioner Nixon suggested a berm across the back to diminish the height of the basement. He also noted that decks make a difference. He suggested that the deck extend all the way across the home. There was a discussion on varying the roofline across the back. Ms. Fuchs commented that she would like to raise the roof back up, as it was lowered to a 5/12 pitch. Mr. Smith replied that there are two issues–one is the overall height and the other is the stark, flat wall.

COMMISSIONER SWEETEN MOVED TO APPROVE THE GRADING PLAN FOR LOT #7 CANBERRA HEIGHTS, PLAT "A," WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS:
1. A BERM BE ADDED IN THE BACK OF THE LOT TO LOWER THE VISUAL HEIGHT OF THE BASEMENT, AND
2. THAT TREATMENTS, SUCH AS EXTENDING THE DECK, ADDING DORMERS ON THE BACK OF THE ROOF, GARDEN WINDOWS, ETC. BE ADDED TO THE REAR ELEVATION AND APPROVED BY STAFF.
COMMISSIONER NIXON SECONDED THE MOTION. ALL PRESENT VOTED IN FAVOR. THE MOTION CARRIED.

ADJOURN

THE COMMISSION ADJOURNED THE MEETING AT 11:45 P.M. BY CONSENSUS.

APPROVED - January 28, 2004

back to top