The Lindon City Planning Commission held a regularly scheduled meeting on Wednesday, November 12, 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: Jim Peters

PRESENT

Bruce Carpenter, Chairman
Ron Anderson, Commissioner
Jim Peters, Commissioner
Marilyn Simister, Commissioner
Dustin Sweeten, Commissioner
Kevin Smith, Planning Director
Venla Gubler, Administrative Clerk
Lorenzo Barcellone, Planning Intern

ABSENT

Evan Nixon, Commissioner
James McMurray, Planning Intern

The Meeting began at 7:07 p.m.

1. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE

Chairman Carpenter invited the Commissioners, staff and audience to join him in the Pledge of Allegiance.

2. APPROVAL OF MINUTES

There were no minutes ready for review and approval.

3. PUBLIC COMMENT

There was no public comment.

4. NEW BUSINESS (Reports by Commissioners)

Chairman Carpenter asked if the traffic concerns on 600 North were being addressed. Commissioner Peters replied that the neighborhood and city staff were working on it. The proposals were discussed. Commissioner Sweeten observed that Walmart was under construction. Mr. Smith agreed and noted that the Lexus dealership was also under construction. He noted that Discount Tire called and was inquiring about a parcel adjacent to the Lexus dealership. He commented that the Mayor was holding an economic summit with the property owners in that area.

Commissioner Anderson observed that One's Auto had closed. Mr. Smith verified this observation and commented that America's Choice auto will possibly move to the front location now. Commissioner Sweeten commented that Vantage Auto was also closed. This was also confirmed.

Chairman Carpenter asked if there were other reports. There were none.

5. HOME DEPOT TOOL RENTAL CENTER - 535 SOUTH LINDON PARK DRIVE - SITE PLAN AMENDMENT
This is a request for approval for an addition to the north side of the existing building to be used as a tool rental center.

Mr. Smith informed the Commission that there had been a mixup on the date of the meeting and the Home Depot representative had come to the City Center on Tuesday night. Mr. Smith conveyed the Home Depot representative's regrets that he was unable to stay and attend this meeting. Mr. Smith explained that Home Depot is proposing to add tool rental center on the north side of their building. He displayed the proposed site plan. He pointed out that the tool center would have a wash bay to clean the equipment. Lindon City contracts with Orem City for sewer treatment. Orem City has reviewed and approved the plans. He noted that staff has no other concerns.

Commissioner Anderson asked if the fence on the area would be sight-obscuring. Mr. Smith replied no. It would be a storage area like the garden center and have an ornamental iron fence. He observed that the PC-1 zone allows this type of fence if the business is not storing scrap.

Commissioner Peters asked about requiring a vinyl rail fence on the frontage of Lindon Park Drive. Mr. Smith observed that Commissioner Nixon had called and commented on this particular item also. Commissioner Sweeten noted that the Planning Commission could require conforming to the new rule when there is an amendment to the site. Commissioner Anderson asked if the white rail fence was part of the PC-1 ordinance. Mr. Smith replied yes. The Commissioners discussed whether to require the fence.

Commissioner Simister asked if the asphalt on the north side continued right up to the property line. Mr. Smith replied yes. Commissioner Peters asked if the proposed tool center would block the driveway for delivery truck access to the back. Commissioner Sweeten replied that it appeared there was still enough room for a truck to pass. There would still be about 38-feet from the tool center to the property line. Mr. Smith confirmed this assessment. Commissioner Sweeten observed that Home Depot has had portable storage units in this area before. Chairman Carpenter observed that Home Depot has parked trucks in this area in the past and wondered where this parking would go now. Mr. Smith commented that there would still be enough room for parking of trucks elsewhere. He added that most trucks use the south entrance.

Commissioner Anderson asked if the wash bay would be covered to protect it from rain. Mr. Smith replied that the plans had been approved by the Orem Sewer Treatment personnel. Chairman Carpenter commented that the Commission did not know the sentiment of the Council on the requirement of the white vinyl fence. Commissioner Sweeten observed that he felt that the fence could not be required without the addition of the Lexus dealership frontage. This was discussed.

COMMISSIONER ANDERSON MOVED TO APPROVE THE REQUEST BY HOME DEPOT LOCATED AT 535 SOUTH LINDON PARK DRIVE FOR AN EXPANSION OF THEIR EXISTING ACTIVITIES AND MODIFICATION TO THEIR EXISTING SITE PLAN AS PROPOSED WITH THE CONDITION THAT THE WASH PAD BE APPROVED BY THE OREM CITY WATER TREATMENT PLANT AND THE CITY ENGINEER. COMMISSIONER PETERS SECONDED THE MOTION. ALL PRESENT VOTED IN FAVOR. THE MOTION CARRIED.

Commissioner Peters suggested that the right to require white vinyl fence on the frontage should be reserved. This was discussed. Commissioner Anderson wondered if this requirement could be considered capricious. Mr. Smith suggested that the right can be reserved if the fence design theme is carried out at a later date.

COMMISSIONER ANDERSON MOVED TO AMEND THE MOTION TO INCLUDE THE RIGHT TO REQUIRE WHITE VINYL FENCING ADJACENT TO HOME DEPOT'S LINDON PARK DRIVE FRONTAGE IF THE CITY DETERMINES THAT THE PC-1 DESIGN THEME SHOULD BE CARRIED OUT AT ANY TIME IN THE FUTURE. COMMISSIONER PETERS SECONDED THE MOTION. ALL PRESENT VOTED IN FAVOR. THE MOTION CARRIED.

6. MIX RIGHT - 150 SOUTH 1800 WEST - CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT
This is a request for approval for a cement mixer manufacturing facility in the light industrial zone.

Mr. Buck Robinson and Mr. Brian Pettard were present to answer questions from the Commission on this application. Mr. Smith presented the aerial photo of the area and the site plan. Commissioner Sweeten noted that this proposal is on the recently approved lot in Ostler Industrial Park. Mr. Smith confirmed this statement. He commented that the applicant will construct 11,000 square feet of building and storage. The building will be constructed of metal. The yard will be enclosed with chain link. He suggested that the Planning Commission discuss architectural treatments of the building and outside storage.

Mr. Robinson distributed the proposed elevations of the building and informed the Commission that the metal building will be light, stone-colored, stucco-embossed panels with an accent band of another earth-toned color. Commissioner Peters asked about plans for outside storage. Mr. Pettard informed the Commission that the cylinders would be stored inside the building and the yard used for unloading and loading of semis. Chairman Carpenter asked what kind of cylinders. Mr. Pettard explained that the cement mixer cylinders were shipped to this site for assembly. He assured the Commission that there would be no construction activity outside of the building. Chairman Carpenter asked if any byproducts of the construction/assembly process would be stored outside. Mr. Pettard replied no. He added that the completed assemblies would be taken to Orem for painting. He assured the Commission that only completed and painted products would be stored outside. The mixers hold two yards of cement and will be new. Commissioner Peters asked where the mixers are sold. Mr. Pettard replied that the mixers are sold and shipped worldwide.

Chairman Carpenter asked how many employees there were. Mr. Pettard replied that he has four shop and two office employees. Mr. Robinson informed the Commission that he would like to finish sufficient parking for now and then finish the rest of the parking later, if it is needed. Mr. Smith asked him to point out the area that would not be asphalted now. Mr. Robinson indicated the area and told the Commission that it would be graveled and used for display of finished mixers. Chairman Carpenter confirmed that the proposal would asphalt about two-thirds of the parking area. Mr. Robinson agreed and added that if the property is sold in the future, there will be sufficient parking for a new user. Mr. Smith observed that this creates problems because a new user may not finish the paving either. Mr. Robinson asked if pavers could be used in this area. Chairman Carpenter asked if these were less expensive. Mr. Robinson replied that Mr. Pettard had acquired some pavers in a trade. Mr. Pettard observed that he could design his logo in the pavers, but that this area would not be used for parking and he would like to save the expense. Commissioner Anderson explained that the hard surface needs to be completed as required by the ordinance. Commissioner Sweeten agreed and noted that the hard surface could be either asphalt or pavers.

Mr. Robinson asked if the trash containers could be mobile and not have permanent enclosures. Mr. Smith replied that if the trash containers are not visible, they do not have to be enclosed. Commissioner Peters asked if the yard fencing was sight-obscuring. Mr. Robinson replied yes. Chairman Carpenter suggested that as long as the trash containers were not in front that the enclosure could be removed. He asked what surface was planned for the rest of the lot. Mr. Robinson replied gravel. Chairman Carpenter asked about weed control. Mr. Pettard replied that it would be sprayed. Finishing the surface with slag was discussed.

Mr. Smith passed on a comment from Commissioner Nixon about the front elevations. He felt that they were plain and needed some treatment. Mr. Robinson replied that they could add some split face block.

Commissioner Anderson asked why the mixers are being taken to Orem to paint. Mr. Pettard replied that the space in this building was needed for assembly. He observed that a paint room may be added later. Commissioner Anderson asked if he planned a separate building for the painting. Mr. Pettard replied yes.

Commissioner Peters asked about a utility easement on the site plan. Mr. Pettard replied that the easement is for phone service lines. Mr. Smith informed the Commissioners that the sewer line service for this lot is on 1800 West Street and not on 2000 West. The power line location was identified.

Chairman Carpenter commented that the changes proposed for the site plan are the paving of the lot and the enclosure for the dumpster. Commissioner Peters asked the width of the driveway. He was informed thirty feet. The Commission discussed the parking requirements of the ordinance with Mr. Pettard. Chairman Carpenter asked if there were other concerns or discussion. There were none.

COMMISSIONER PETERS MOVED TO APPROVE THE REQUEST BY KBR SYSTEMS, INC. FOR APPROVAL OF A CEMENT MIXER MANUFACTURING FACILITY AT 150 SOUTH 1800 WEST IN THE LIGHT INDUSTRIAL ZONE WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS:
1. THE ELEVATIONS ARE APPROVED AS PRESENTED USING SEAMLESS STUCCO-EMBOSSED PANELS.
2. PAVERS MAY BE USED IN LIEU OF ASPHALT ON THE FRONT PARKING LOT
3. THE DUMPSTER MAY BE MOVABLE WITHIN THE CONFINES OF THE BACK LOT WITH THE UNDERSTANDING THAT THE FENCING IS SIGHT-OBSCURING.
COMMISSIONER SIMISTER SECONDED THE MOTION. ALL PRESENT VOTED IN FAVOR. THE MOTION CARRIED.

4. PUBLIC HEARING - UTAH AUTO SALES - 10 NORTH STATE STREET - SITE PLAN AMENDMENT
This is a request to expand a legal non-conforming use by allowing Utah Auto Sales to expand to the west side of State Street from their existing lot.

Mr. Kevin Gallagher was present. Chairman Carpenter told Mr. Gallagher that the Planning Commission had taken public comment at their last meeting and the neighborhood had raised some issues. Mr. Smith noted that the Planning Commission was familiar with this request to amend a nonconforming use and expand a car lot to the west side of State Street. He presented background information on the application, including an aerial photo of the proposed location. He informed the Commissioners that the Lindon City Code specifies two conditions that must be met by an applicant for the expansion of a nonconforming use. These are: the proposed expansion must be in harmony with the purposes of the zoning ordinance, and the change does not impose any unreasonable burden on lands in the vicinity, nor violate the development policies of the master plan.

Mr. Smith suggested that the Planning Commission should discuss the landscaping requirement, outside storage, and the safety of patrons crossing State Street. He added that issues raised from neighborhood input include how to buffer the neighboring homes, landscaping, fencing, windows on the second floor, the loudspeaker system, and lighting pollution. He noted that staff had not looked at the engineering issues yet and that there may be an issue about installing utilities through the homes to the cul-de-sac in the back. Mr. Gallagher informed that his engineer's preliminary review indicated he may either pump to State Street sewer lines or install a gravity line to the cul-de-sac, 180 West. Mr. Smith also noted that the Planning Commission and Council had recently considered whether this is a new business or an expansion of a nonconforming use.

Commissioner Simister asked if the utilities would have to be installed to flow to the west into the cul-de-sac. Mr. Gallagher replied that he would prefer to raise the buildings and go to State Street. Commissioner Sweeten commented that a higher building would look into the homeowners' back yards even more. He asked about the windows on the back of the building. Mr. Gallagher replied that the building is 200 feet from the back property line, but he was willing to eliminate the second-story windows on the back of the building.

Mr. Gallagher addressed the Commission on the purpose of the zoning ordinance. He observed that the purpose of the change to the Standard Land Use Table was to stem the proliferation of car dealerships on State Street frontage. He pointed out that this parcel only has about 200 feet of frontage on State Street which will allow him about seven or eight cars to be displayed in the front with enough room left for an entrance driveway. He observed that this is normally not desirable frontage for a car dealership, but would work for him. He asserted that this is an expansion of his dealership and not a new dealership. He suggested that if this is a concern of the Commission, he is willing to accede to a condition of approval that will limit any sale of his dealership as one undividable property, in other words, it cannot be split to make a separate dealership. He pointed out that the property he is presently leasing from the City is not likely to remain part of his dealership in the future, so there will be less frontage on State Street. He commented that the major reason for the expansion is the building which will house twelve car-related businesses currently operating as home businesses. All twelve of these businesses are permitted by the zone.

Mr. Gallagher next addressed the goals of commercial development in the master plan. He reacquainted the Commissioners with the eight goals listed in the master plan and asserted that his business meets the intent of the zone.

Mr. Gallagher addressed the safety of patrons crossing State Street. He informed the Commissioners that customers are usually looking for a specific type of vehicle, so to minimize crossing of the street for this purpose, he will limit the new portion of lot to one type. He also noted that the distance between the buildings, going by the cross walk, is about one-quarter mile. He asserted that the distance will discourage patrons from walking also. He commented that another way he intends to discourage crossing is to have the paperwork for the cars located on this lot kept within the building located here. That way patrons will not be crossing to complete paperwork either. He suggested that there are vehicles entering and crossing State Street now and that any business that locates in this property will have the same problems.

Mr. Gallagher observed that noise and lighting pollution issues are easily solved. He will discontinue the PA system and convert to a walkie talkie system. He plans a concrete wall and poplar trees similar to that bordering his parcel on the east side of State Street adjacent to the LDS Chapel. He will direct his lights within his boundaries. He summarized his solutions to the issues raised by stating that his business and its satellites are the best possible use of the property because they are quiet, will affect the neighborhood little, and bring increased tax base to the City. He stated that his options are either to expand or move, and he would prefer not to move.

Commissioner Sweeten commented that his participation in this discussion might be perceived as a conflict of interest because he owns a rival car dealership. He declared that whether or not the businesses are rivals would not affect his decision in any case. He stated that his biggest concern is that deeming this application an expansion rather than a new business seems to skirt the intent of the City Code. He suggested that, if the purpose of the code is to prevent more dealerships, then this application should be denied. Mr. Gallagher disagreed and suggested that the purpose of the code is to limit the frontage dedicated to car dealerships. He felt that the frontage of this particular lot meets this requirement. He also asked the Commissioners to determine the best use of the property by examining the master plan goals. He observed that this property would not only be used for the dealership, but also for the adjunct businesses that are allowed by the Standard Land Use Table.

Chairman Carpenter asked Mr. Gallagher if he planned to appeal to the Council if the Planning Commission does not approve his application. Mr. Gallagher replied yes and explained that he felt his business met the requirements and was the best possible use of a parcel with only 200 feet of frontage. Chairman Carpenter observed that the neighbors may prefer to have an office complex. Mr. Gallagher pointed out that the neighbors will still have to deal with lights and noise. Chairman Carpenter agreed that there are ways to deal with lights, but the issue that stymies him is the safety of pedestrians on State Street. Mr. Gallagher expressed the opinion that patrons will not walk, but drive across State Street if they wish to cross. He also felt that there will always be some who will walk across, even if another commercial enterprise is constructed here. He commented that patrons of a restaurant built there would also cross the street if they feel the need. Chairman Carpenter agreed that the City cannot limit pedestrian crossings to zero, but they also do not want to invite this propensity. He acknowledged that Mr. Gallagher seemed to have met the concerns of the neighbors with his plans for lighting, discontinuing the PA system and eliminating windows on the back of the building.

Mr. Gallagher asserted that crossing State Street will always be a problem and that people are doing it now. He commented that his business would be a benefit to the City by expanding the tax base. Commissioner Sweeten agreed but noted that the City did not want to encourage people to cross State Street. He also commented that bringing dollars into the City budget is not the only issue. Mr. Gallagher agreed, and observed that his building would enhance State Street.

Chairman Carpenter asked Councilmember Bayless to clarify the City Council's position on the issue of expansion of a nonconforming use rather than an additional business. Commissioner Anderson asked if the Standard Land Use Table specifies no more auto dealerships or a limit of five dealerships on State Street. Mr. Smith explained that the SLU Table had been changed to make auto dealerships not-permitted in the General Commercial zone. The idea was that if there is a reduction in the number of dealerships in the future, the Table can be amended to allow more. Commissioner Anderson commented that the intent was obviously to prevent "wall to wall" cars, but auto dealerships are also a good source of income to the City. He recommended that the Standard Land Use Table be changed to allow auto dealerships if the business is not too obtrusive. He felt that a certain number be specified rather than not allow any new ones. Commissioner Sweeten observed that the problem with this approach is legally defending a certain number. Mr. Smith agreed that the City did not wish to be arbitrary, but maybe a certain number could be defined and reviewed by the City Attorney. He suggested, however, that this application be either approved or denied on how well its merits meet the criteria of the City Code.

Commissioner Peters referred the question back to Councilmember Bayless. Councilmember Bayless replied that the Council had expressed the same concerns as the Commission. Mr. Gallagher asked if she had an opinion on the overall feeling of the Council to his application on the night that he had presented his proposal to the Council. Councilmember Bayless replied she could not begin to guess the outcome if a vote had been called that night. Mr. Gallagher commented that his impression had been that the Council was favorable. He reiterated that he did not want to move from his present location in Lindon and that this expansion would allow him to move his auxiliary businesses from being operated in homes to a commercial location.

Commissioner Peters asked the width of the access driveway from State Street. Mr. Gallagher replied forty feet. Commissioner Peters asked about customer parking and commented that this had been a major issue at the present lot. He asked if the maximum number of cars on this lot was being observed. Mr. Smith replied that he had taken a count of the number of cars on the lot today. Mr. Gallagher acknowledged that, on certain days, the lot is more loaded than others. Commissioner Peters commented that he appreciates the business that is generated by Mr. Gallagher, and that the questions and issues he is raising are to prevent problems in the future. Councilmember Bayless agreed that the Council has been concerned that these issues are addressed and are appreciative of Mr. Gallagher's cooperation in the past. She commented that there had been no decisive discussion at Council meeting and she felt it was appropriate for the Planning Commission to discuss the issues and make a recommendation to the Council based on their findings. The customer and employee parking stalls were pointed out on the proposed site plan.

Mr. Gallagher explained his efforts to find a way to expand. He commented that he had approached both the Wok Right In and the LDS Church with no success. Commissioner Simister noted that the neighbors in the back cul-de-sac had been heard from and asked if there was comment from the neighbors in Harcliff Circle to the north. Mr. Gallagher replied that they would like him to purchase the other parcel of commercial property between the proposed parcel and their homes. Chairman Carpenter suggested that the meeting be opened for public comment.

COMMISSIONER ANDERSON MOVED TO OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING. COMMISSIONER PETERS SECONDED THE MOTION. ALL PRESENT VOTED IN FAVOR. THE MOTION CARRIED.

Mr. Robert Dayley pointed out his home directly behind the proposal. He presented a letter from the neighborhood and noted that the concerns raised are not all shared concerns. He thanked Mr. Gallagher for his efforts to meet and alleviate their concerns. He also stated that the neighborhood is very aware that some kind of commercial enterprise would be constructed on this parcel eventually. The kind of fence that Mr. Gallagher proposed was discussed. Mr. Dayley expressed favor to the proposal. He noted that the PA was the neighborhood's number one concern and expressed thanks to Mr. Gallagher for addressing this issue. The utility issue was raised. Mr. Dayley suggested that the surveyors and construction personnel discuss and get permission before entering his yard. There was a short discussion of sewer and storm drain issues that would be addressed in the engineering phase.

Chairman Carpenter thanked Mr. Dayley for his input and asked if he felt the neighborhood would be content with the solutions to their issues that had been offered and discussed. Mr. Dayley expressed the opinion that the measures suggested would suffice to satisfy the neighborhood. He referred to his letter.

Commissioner Sweeten observed that the issues left to discuss, now that the neighbors' concerns were alleviated, are the safety of crossing State Street and whether this proposal skirts the intent of the ordinance. Mr. Gallagher asked what the Planning Commission needs to specify as findings. Mr. Smith read the ordinance. Commissioner Anderson observed that condition two (imposing no unreasonable burden and meeting the master plan policies) is met, and that only condition one (being in harmony with the zoning ordinance) is in question. There was a discussion on whether setting a maximum limit on the number of cars would achieve this goal. Ms. Joy Lee asked if a flashing pedestrian crossing could be installed. She was informed that State Street is administered by UDOT and they make those decisions. There was a discussion of optional recommendations to the Council and the possibility of changing the City Code.

Chairman Carpenter commented that the discussion seems to hinge on the interpretation of the City Code dealing with nonconforming uses. Mr. Smith agreed and pointed out that the Code does not address whether the expanding use has to be contiguous. Commissioner Sweeten asked if there was any opposition from the neighborhood. Mr. Dayley replied no. Chairman Carpenter observed that the neighborhood seems to acknowledge that this property is going to be developed commercially. He suggested that the neighborhood may feel better knowing the business and its particular issues than some unknown entity in the future.

Commissioner Simister commented that the word "expansion" needs definition. She asked if the definition should include "across the street expansion" and "down the street expansion." Commissioner Sweeten agreed. He observed that Mr. Gallagher's business entails more cars than all the other dealerships in Lindon put together. He questioned setting a precedent that other dealerships may want to copy. Commissioner Peters commented that condition one is somewhat ambiguous, but that the ambiguities should be interpreted by the Council. He observed that condition two deals with the neighboring owners, who seem to be satisfied. Commissioner Sweeten asked if the parcel would be fenced on all sides. Mr. Gallagher replied yes. Commissioner Simister commented that she has no problem with the business itself, just with the definition of "expansion." Mr. Smith suggested that the Commission and Council address this code issue in the near future with a clarification amendment.

COMMISSIONER PETERS MOVED TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. COMMISSIONER SIMISTER SECONDED THE MOTION. ALL PRESENT VOTED IN FAVOR. THE MOTION CARRIED.

COMMISSIONER PETERS MOVED TO APPROVE THE REQUEST BY KEVIN GALLAGHER FOR AN EXPANDED LEGAL NONCONFORMING USE BY ALLOWING UTAH AUTO SALES TO EXPAND TO THE WEST SIDE OF STATE STREET FROM THEIR EXISTING LOT AND RECOMMEND APPROVAL TO THE CITY COUNCIL WITH THE FOLLOWING FINDINGS AND CONDITIONS:
1. THAT THE COUNCIL REALIZE THAT THE PLANNING COMMISSION IS RECOMMENDING APPROVAL BASED ON THE FACT THAT FINDING #1 OF THE LINDON CITY CODE DEALING WITH THE ADDITION TO NONCONFORMING USES IS AMBIGUOUS, THAT THE DEFINITION OF EXPANSION IS NOT ADDRESSED, AND THAT IN FEAR OF SETTING A PRECEDENT THE COMMISSION ENCOURAGES A REVIEW OF THE ORDINANCE.
2. THAT MR. GALLAGHER AND THE NEIGHBORS ADJACENT TO THE REAR OF THE PROPOSAL REACH AN AGREEMENT ON THE DESIGN AND MATERIALS OF THE WALL ON THEIR SHARED BOUNDARY AS LONG AS IT MEETS THE MINIMUM REQUIREMENTS OF THE CITY CODE.
3. THAT NO PUBLIC ADDRESS SYSTEM IS ALLOWED IN THE OPERATION OF THIS BUSINESS.
4. THAT THE WINDOWS ON THE BACK SIDE OF THE SECOND FLOOR ARE ELIMINATED FROM THE BUILDING DESIGN.
5. THAT A SAFETY PLAN BE SUBMITTED THAT ADDRESSES MEASURES AND POLICIES TO DISCOURAGE PEDESTRIANS FROM CROSSING STATE STREET.
6. THAT LANDSCAPING BE INSTALLED TO MAXIMIZE THE BUFFERING OF THE RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT.
COMMISSIONER ANDERSON SECONDED THE MOTION. ALL PRESENT VOTED IN FAVOR. THE MOTION CARRIED.

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

Mr. Smith informed the Commission that this is a design review of the proposal submitted last meeting. He presented the changes in the plat as the result of the last discussion. Mr. Dan McKeon and Mr. Chad Clifford were present to answer questions. Commissioner Peters asked what prevents the lots along 1200 East 800 North from being double sided lots. Mr. Smith replied that a note on the plat addressing this issue may be sufficient. He suggested some wording of this note. He listed the concerns that were raised at the last Commission meeting including access to 800 North, connection to Murdock Drive, disposition of a landlocked parcel, power pole relocation, grading easement expansion, standard road cross section and the dedication of 1200 North.

Mr. McKeon informed the Commissioner that he had been working with Mayor Ellertson, Mr. Dameron and Mr. Smith on solutions for the dedication of 1200 North. There is a proposal in the works to exchange land with the forest service to facilitate the completion of the 1200 East corridor. Mr. Smith commented that this may be considered a "nexus" issue concerned with the need for a collector street. The Commissioners discussed the ramifications.

Commissioner Peters commended the developers on the new design. Mr. McKeon commented that this design better addresses storm drain and water line issues. He noted there is less asphalt and less grading. It resolves the hillside issues on the lots and leaves no homes facing 800 North/1200 East. It also resolves the FEMA issues. Mr. Smith observed that there has been no engineering review of this plat yet, but if the Commission feels that this is a better direction, it will come back for approval later.

Chairman Carpenter asked how the number of lots compare with the last proposal. He was told that this design produced two more lots– thirty-nine instead of thirty-seven lots. Chairman Carpenter asked if there were any concerns on the part of the Commission.
Commissioner Peters asked about the power pole. Mr. McKeon replied that it will be moved. He also informed the Commission that he had exhausted all means with his neighbor, Mr. Millet. Commissioner Peters commented that he was happy with this design and that the developers had solved a lot of problems. The Commissioners agreed. The developers were thanked for their willingness to find creative solutions. Mr. McKeon and Mr. Clifford thanked the Commission for their suggestions and time.

6. LEE HOMESTEAD - 400 WEST 190 NORTH - DESIGN REVIEW
This is a design review for a potential R2 Overlay project.

Mr. Smith displayed the new proposed property division. Ms. Joy Lee explained that this proposal will keep the existing house on a one-half acre lot and leave over an acre for two triplexes. Commissioner Sweeten asked if the frontage met the requirements. Mr. Smith replied yes. Commissioner Anderson asked if the parcel was two acres total. Ms. Lee replied that the parcel is 1.94 acres. She pointed out the parking area. Mr. Smith informed the Commission that this is a design review and that no noticing had been completed. He reminded them that Ms. Lee had presented a deep lot proposal at the last meeting that was not received favorably. He reported that this falls within an R2 Overlay District that has units available. The proposal also appears to meet the distance separation requirement. He noted that Ms. Lee is here to receive comments on the design of the lots and units. Ms. Lee displayed the proposed elevations of the units.

Commissioner Nixon commented that there needs to be a rear yard setback of thirty feet on the first unit. Commissioner Peters commented that the units are required to blend with the existing neighborhood and look like a single-family home. He suggested that the doors of the front unit face different directions. Chairman Carpenter suggested that varying rooflines and windows help the appearance. Ms. Lee replied that she would work on those suggestions and asked if the division of the lot was suitable. The Commission expressed a favorable reaction. Commissioner Peters asked if the parking was covered. It was noted that the parking should be limited to the rear of the building.

Ms. Lee told the Commission that she wants to restrict the units to one acre to allow room for a playground or storage in the area in back of the existing home. She pointed out an irrigation ditch on the back. The Commission and Ms. Lee discussed lighting, fencing, curbs, sidewalks and dumpster enclosures. Ms. Lee was instructed to work with Mr. Smith on the details of the project. Mr. Smith invited Ms. Lee to give him a call or come in. Ms. Lee thanked the Commission for their suggestions.

7. PLANNING DIRECTOR REPORT
1. Fuchs grading plan and building elevations
Mr. Smith noted that Mr. Fuchs was not present. He felt that it was necessary for the Fuchs to be present. He pointed out that the elevations were "almost flat." Commissioner Peters expressed the opinion that the elevations are too flat. Mr. Smith pointed out that the four corners all measure thirty-five feet, but the back dips down to more. The pool and sport court within the aqueduct easement were pointed out. He noted that there were no concerns on the grading. Councilmember Bayless asked if the rear elevation faces McKinley Drive. Mr. Smith replied affirmatively. He added that the rear elevation is similar to the Ivory Homes elevation. Commissioner Sweeten expressed the opinion that the rear elevation should have more variation to break up the flat expanse. Commissioner Peters agreed. Commissioner Anderson suggested a berm along the back yard to minimize the height. The Commissioners discussed various ideas for breaking up the rear elevation of the structure.
It was noted that the next meeting will be held on December 10. There was a short discussion of progress on the Walmart project.

ADJOURN

COMMISSIONER PETERS MOVED TO ADJOURN THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING AT 10:18 P.M. COMMISSIONER SWEETEN SECONDED THE MOTION. ALL PRESENT VOTED IN FAVOR. THE MOTION CARRIED.

APPROVED - January 14, 2003

back to top