The Lindon City Planning Commission held a regularly scheduled meeting on Wednesday, January 12, 2005 at 7:00 p.m. in the Lindon City Center, Council Chambers, at 100 North State Street, Lindon, Utah.

Conducting: Dustin Sweeten, Chairman

Invocation: Ron Anderson

Pledge of Allegiance: Dustin Sweeten

PRESENT                                                                ABSENT

Dustin Sweeten, Chairman                                 Evan Nixon, Commissioner

Ron Anderson, Commissioner

Julie Bryner, Commissioner

Gary Godfrey, Commissioner

Jim Peters, Commissioner

Marilyn Simister, Commissioner

Lindsey Bayless, Councilmember

Kevin Smith, Planning Director

Venla Gubler, Deputy Recorder

Steve Trythall, Planning Intern

The Meeting began at 7:02 p.m.

1. APPROVAL OF MINUTES

The Minutes of the regularly scheduled meeting of December 8, 2004 were reviewed. The following corrections were made:

     Page 3, Line 7: Replace the word “on” with the word “at.”

     Page 3, Line 27: Replace the word “he” with the name “Mr. Stewart.”

     Page 4, Line 39: Replace the words “was a tradeoff” with the words “are tradeoffs.” Add the word   “acreage” after the word “more.”

     Page 5, Line 15: Delete the sentence “Commissioner Peters wondered if the church would allow the use of the parking lot for guest parking.”

     Page 5, Line 21: Replace the word “be” with the words “consist of.”

     Page 7, Line 5: Delete the phrase “and Lindon should not be so critical of Pleasant Grove.” COMMISSIONER PETERS MOVED TO APPROVE THE MINUTES OF DECEMBER 8, 2004 AS CORRECTED. COMMISSIONER ANDERSON SECONDED THE MOTION. ALL PRESENT VOTED IN FAVOR. THE MOTION CARRIED. 2. PUBLIC COMMENT Planning Director Kevin Smith introduced Mr. Carlos Lopez and Mr. Jose Cuello to the Planning Commission. He explained that these two young men have proposed a business for the Southtowne Mall similar to the former Suite 13 business. Mr. Bill Fairbanks, owner of the mall, noted that the business is intending to occupy Suite 1 of the building at 139 South State street. Mr. Smith explained that the business is proposing to sponsor cultural and social events that cater to the Latino population of this area. Mr. Lopez informed the Commission that there will be music, dancing, theater, contests, food, and classes. Mr. Smith noted that the use is allowed under a conditional use permit and that concerns that applied to the Suite 13 business, such as parking, loud music, and security, may also apply to this application. Commissioner Peters asked the intended hours of operation. Mr. Lopez replied that they would like to be open on Fridays until 1:00 a.m., Saturdays until 11:30 p.m. and other days from 10:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m. Chairman Sweeten asked what concerns staff has about this proposal. Mr. Smith replied that noise and parking are the issues that he suggests should be addressed. Chairman Sweeten explained to the applicant that any complaints received from neighboring businesses or homes can cause a review of the conditional use permit. Mr. Smith commented that he had not received any complaints on the Suite 13 business, but this business will not have bands with elaborate equipment like Suite 13 had, either. Mr. Fairbanks commented that, unlike Suite 13, these guys will have more control of the music and the unit is not as big. He observed that the 7th grade classes being held for the Timpanogos Academy are in the unit behind this one, which will allow expansion if needed since the classes will be ending this spring. He commented that parking in the strip mall is his problem and he will have to deal with it if it becomes a problem for the other business owners. He told the Commissioner that he was comfortable with this project and pointed out that it would be more cultural than the Suite 13 business had been. Commissioner Simister asked the number of people they expect on a typical night. Mr. Lopez replied that he wants to know what is allowed. Mr. Smith replied that the Chief Building Official is calculating the occupancy rating for the unit. Commissioner Simister asked if the proposal would have any events that need security. Mr. Lopez replied no and added that the parties are private and include mostly church members that are known personally by them. Commissioner Anderson explained that the biggest concern of the Commission is noise. He pointed out that although Mr. Smith may not have heard from the neighbors of Suite 13, he had received complaints about the music penetrating from the unit into the neighborhood. He pointed out that the location is near a residential neighborhood. Mr. Fairbanks observed that this unit is unique in that it does not go through to the back near the residential neighborhood. There is another unit behind it. Commissioner Bryner asked if there would be any interaction between the students of the 7th grade class and this business. Mr. Fairbanks replied that they would be sharing a restroom and a corridor. Chairman Sweeten pointed out that the students would be leaving in June. Mr. Smith agreed and commented that the school had started construction. He explained about the school’s building process. Chairman Sweeten suggested that some of the neighbors may object during the application process, so the proposers should consider talking to the neighbors and explaining their business. He noted that Mr. Smith could help the business owners with this project. He observed that if the objections of the neighbors are dealt with before the Planning Commission meetings, it would go a long way toward a swift approval. The applicants thanked the Commission and were directed to contact Mr. Smith. Chairman Sweeten asked if there was other public comment. There was none. 3. NEW BUSINESS (Reports by Commissioners) Commissioner Anderson referred to an article in the newspaper about the proposal to realign Lakeview Drive. He asked if the Council would be deciding this at their next meeting. Mr. Smith replied that Mr. Dameron and the developer, Mr. Brigham Ashton will be meeting with UDOT to discuss the options for Lakeview Drive’s intersection with State Street. The Commissioners discussed the possibilities for Lakeview Drive. Commissioner Peters commented that customers of Wal-Mart are ignoring the traffic island at one of the entrances and turning left. He suggested a sign that indicates “No Left Turn.” Mr. Smith replied that he would talk to the store manager, Mr. Garth Lovell. Chairman Sweeten asked about the development that was approved for the corner outlot. Mr. Smith replied that this would be underway soon. He also noted that a bank has inquired about the lot next to Jiffy Lube. Commissioner Bryner asked about the car sales operation at the former Country Cars lot. Mr. Smith explained that this site was issued a conditional use permit for a “park your ride” consignment sales lot before the opening of Country Cars. This site will remain as used car sales. The current Country Cars site at 159 South State and Alpine Powersports’ site at 370 North State Street will be closed to used car sales with the opening of Low Book Sales at 600 North State Street. He commented that there is a good possibility that the consignment lot will also close because he had inquiries from developers about other types of businesses at this location. Chairman Sweeten reported that the State Department of Motor Vehicle Enforcement had contacted him about Lindon City possibly enacting a “curbing” law. He explained that most cities have laws prohibiting the sale of used cars on real property that is not owned by the seller of the automobiles. He noted that if the car is registered to you and you own the property, the transaction is not regulated. Mr. Smith acknowledged that the present ordinances only prohibit long term parking of vehicles within the street right-of-way. Commissioner Bryner reported that she had received a complaint from neighbors of Mr. Mel Olsen about the rock retaining wall he has placed on his property. They are concerned that the wall is not stable because one citizen had a rock roll into their yard. Mr. Smith replied that he would pass this report onto Chief Building Official Phil Brown. Commissioner Bryner asked about scheduling a field trip to look at Fieldstone’s projects. The Commissioners indicated an interest in such a field trip. Mr. Smith commented that the field trip might include a trip to Ivory Homes’ project, Club Ivory. He reported that Ivory Homes has expressed an interest in a project for Lindon’s west side also. Mr. Smith reported that his last day with Lindon City is Friday, January 14. He is starting with Cottonwood Heights as of Tuesday, January 18. He noted that he would continue working on contract with Lindon City through February, until a new Planning Director is hired. Commissioner Simister asked how Lindon can earn the designation “Tree City.” Mr. Smith replied that he thought that Lindon was close to earning the designation. He reported that Lindon has received tree grants and has a tree plan. Commissioner Simister observed that she has some interested citizens that may volunteer to be part of the committee, if needed. There was a short discussion on the Club Ivory concept, including lot size, location in Salt Lake County, home size, price range and models. Chairman Sweeten asked if there were any more reports or questions. There were none. 4. BRENT ADAIR – 1238 EAST CANBERRA DRIVE – DESIGN VARIANCE Mr. Adair is petitioning the Planning Commission and City Council for a setback and design and improvements standards variance to construct a sun porch which encroaches on the required rear setback of his residence. Mr. Smith observed that the Planning Commission is very familiar with this application as the proposal has been discussed in several Planning Commission and Council meetings as a code amendment. He informed the Commission that the application is now for a design variance under Section 17.20.080 of the Lindon City Code. He read the applicable code section and noted that this is a recommendation to the Council. He explained that the Commission must find that literal enforcement of the design and improvement standards contained in the Lindon City Code would result in an unreasonable utilization of land and water, or an undue hardship due to unique circumstances of a peculiar physical condition that does not apply to other lands in the general area. Chairman Sweeten asked Mr. Adair for his statement. Mr. Adair commented that his desire to add a sun porch to his home has a long history. He observed that when he had appeared before the Council many months ago for a design review, the Council had told Mr. Smith to “find some mechanism” to make it work. Mr. Smith then proposed a code change that was rejected by both the Planning Commission and Council. Mr. Adair commented that he agrees with the Council and Planning Commission that his request does not require a code change and that a variance would be better. Chairman Sweeten observed that the fact that the home’s sun porch projects into the rear yard setback is not the fault of the City, but the choice of the builder of the home. He suggested that this “hardship” is a self-inflicted one, and if the City allows Mr. Adair to enclose his porch, the decision may affect many other lots in the city. Mr. Adair denied that his situation is self-inflicted. He asserted that his site plan depicted the home at a thirty-foot setback, not forty-feet. Commissioner Peters asked if Mr. Adair was aware of the mistake when it was made. Mr. Adair replied that he was not aware of it until it was too late to move the house without considerable expense. Chairman Sweeten explained that if the City had widened the road and created a setback problem, it would justify a variance. He felt that this situation is not something created by the City, or even out of the control of the owner, so a variance is not justified. Mr. Adair pointed at the aerial photo and described the distances between his home and the homes of the neighbors. He claimed that the distances are sufficient to satisfy the City’s concerns for privacy. One home lies 75-feet away and the other is 100-feet away. Commissioner Peters asked if Mr. Adair had talked to the neighbors to elicit their opinions on his proposal. Mr. Adair replied that all of his neighbors have signed letters verifying their lack of opposition. Commissioner Godfrey noted that the letters had been submitted to the Commission. Mr. Adair submitted pictures from his deck into his neighbors’ yards and pictures of his deck. Chairman Sweeten suggested that there is danger in using the neighbors’ sanction as a basis for approval of a variance. Commissioner Bryner agreed and observed that the variance should be based on findings that it meets the requirements for a variance. Commissioner Peters suggested that the proposed addition would not materially hurt the neighborhood. Commissioner Godfrey commented that the Commission should also consider if the findings are points that are likely to occur in another situation, or if this is a unique circumstance. The photos were passed among the Commissioners and examined. Commissioner Peters commented that he has some sympathy for Mr. Adair. He observed that he had enclosed the deck on his home to make it more usable. Commissioner Anderson asked Commissioner Peters if he had enclosed his porch with windows, and if he had turned the porch into living space with air conditioning and heating. Commissioner Peters replied that it had windows and an alternate source of heating and air conditioning. Mr. Adair commented that he planned openable skylights in the roof, with low-e glass on the sides. Commissioner Anderson suggested that it the deck was just roofed for shade it would not be an issue, however, if the deck is made part of the house it may just be considered a cantilevered room. He asked Commissioner Peters if his deck is another room. Commissioner Peters acknowledged that it is another room, but “not a bedroom.” Mr. Adair pointed out that the distance between his deck and his neighbors’ homes is 100-feet from one and 75-feet from the other. He added that this is not close and the e-panel glass is a good insulator for sound if there is a party. Commissioner Simister questioned whether the Planning Commission is allowed to approve a variance. Mr. Smith distributed copies of the ordinance, and replied that the Planning Commission may grant a variance based on three findings. He read the ordinance and pointed out the requirements. Chairman Sweeten pointed out that the variance requirements are applicable to design and improvement standards. He expressed the opinion that a setback is neither a design nor improvement standard. The Commissioners and Mr. Smith discussed this point. Mr. Smith replied that a setback is normally considered a design standard. Commissioner Simister asked why this variance does not fall under the jurisdiction of the Board of Adjustment. Mr. Smith replied that Mr. Adair did not apply to the Board of Adjustment, but to the Planning Commission. He noted that the findings and requirements that the Board of Adjustment must consider are much more difficult and stringent. Chairman Sweeten commented that the he was not opposed to Mr. Adair’s request, but he was worried that if the Planning Commission oversteps the bounds of their authority, they may create an unfavorable precedence. Mr. Smith observed that the Planning Commission should decide if enclosing a deck is an addition of a room to the house, or if the enclosure is just making the deck more usable. Mr. Adair asserted that his enclosure would not be part of the living quarters. Commissioner Bryner suggested that the Commission go through Mr. Adair’s letter and discuss the points listed, one by one. Chairman Sweeten read the first finding, “What peculiar physical conditions exist, applicable to the property or building in question, which do not pertain to other lands in the general area.” He commented that the city is only responsible to check that the building meets the minimum setback requirements of the city code, not to make sure that the setback conforms to the site plan. He noted that the owner is responsible for any changes to the site plans that do not meet their requirements. Commissioner Bryner asked Mr. Adair if he had talked to the builder when he discovered the error. Mr. Adair replied yes and related that the builder claimed that he was not sure what had happened to move the house from its designated location on the site plan, but at the time it was discovered, he told Mr. Adair that it would be costly and prohibitive to tear up the foundation and move the house. Mr. Adair claimed that his only recourse was litigation that would delay the construction of his home even further. Commissioner Peters commented that, in this respect, Mr. Adair’s home was different from others in the area. Chairman Sweeten disagreed and pointed out that others could set back their houses more than the minimum intentionally, but whether it was intentional or a mistake, allowing this variance may allow other homeowners to add a room to their homes that encroaches into the setback. Commissioner Bryner pointed out that Mr. Adair did not intend to have his home at this setback and that there is no way to pick up and move a home a few feet. Commissioner Peters observed that Mr. Adair’s home is not the first building in this area—the neighbors’ homes already exist, and the addition does not encroach on the other homes’ private space. He asserted that the addition is not going to affect them substantially, as evidenced by the letters and pictures submitted. He suggested that Mr. Adair’s situation is unique. The Commissioners examined the aerial photo and measured the distances from the neighbors’ homes. Chairman Sweeten described a scenario where a home’s kitchen faces a side setback and the owner would like to put a sun room on the kitchen. The sun room will encroach on the side setback, but the neighbor’s home is a larger than normal distance away. Commissioner Godfrey replied that he was against the code change as proposed last year because he was concerned that there was no line drawn between a covered deck and a full-season, climate-controlled space. He commented that he still feels that if there is no need for a door between the home and the addition, there is cause for concern that an addition to the home is encroaching on the setback. He suggested, however, that there may be some way to describe criteria for an exception if it is not a room addition. He suggested that in this case, the deck faces the cul-de-sac between the houses. He pointed out that the lots behind Mr. Adair’s are “pie-shaped,” and that the distance between Mr. Adair’s house and these neighbors to the rear exceeds 75-feet. He also noted that there is an elevation difference that extends the distance. He asked how many other lots and homes in Lindon may fit these same criteria. Commissioner Simister pointed out that there are situations where the code allows other projections on the home to protrude on the setback. She noted that a cantilevered room is allowed two feet into a side yard. Chairman Sweeten observed that most homes do not have windows facing the side yard that overlook the neighbor’s yards. He suggested that this is the reason for a shorter distance on the side yard than the rear yard. He questioned again whether the Planning Commission had the right to give a setback variance as part of a “design and improvements variance” application. Commissioner Bryner suggested that the Commission discuss the next point in Mr. Adair’s letter. Commissioner Peters read, “Explain any hardships or special circumstances which accrue to the detriment of the property owner if the requested variance is not granted.” He suggested that Mr. Adair has a deck that he cannot use because of climate and sun exposure. He commented that the deck will be nicer if it is enclosed and he does not see a problem. He expressed the opinion that Mr. Adair’s request fills the requirements and that enclosing the deck will solve the problems experienced by Mr. Adair. He suggested that the Commission go on to the next point. Commissioner Simister read, “Explain why the granting of this application is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of substantial property rights.” She suggested that enclosure would allow the use of the deck in the summer and enhance the owner’s enjoyment of the home. She added that the builder’s error can be improved upon by allowing this variance. Chairman Sweeten pointed out that the builder was hired by Mr. Adair and not the city. He added that many homes in Lindon have decks that face west and asked if they should all be allowed to enclose theirs for the same reasons. Mr. Adair pointed out that a peculiar circumstance to his deck is the distance that lies between his home and those of his neighbors. He suggested that this large distance is unique enough that the Commission will avoid creating thousands of enclosed decks in Lindon. Chairman Sweeten agreed that the city would not be overwhelmed with applications. Commissioner Bryner observed to Mr. Adair that Chairman Sweeten was being the “devil’s advocate” and making sure that the Commission was “doing our job.” Commissioner Bryner read point number four, “Explain how the granting of this application will not materially affect the neighborhood conditions or be detrimental to the property or improvements in the neighborhood.” She observed that the improvement to the deck would be increasing and/or maintaining the value of the homes in the neighborhood. Mr. Adair agreed that the deck would be an improvement and described how he intended to build brick columns under the deck for support of the enclosure. Chairman Sweeten suggested that any redwood deck can be improved with brick columns, but that did not justify a variance. Mr. Adair replied that this improvement would not allow him the use of the deck in the summer. Chairman Sweeten replied that improving the aesthetics still does not convince him that the variance is justified. Commissioner Peters observed that the improvements do not put the deck any closer to the neighbors. Commissioner Godfrey commented that a rear setback is normally 30-feet for each home, so the total minimum distance is 60-feet. This deck enclosure has a distance of 75-feet, which is still more than the minimum. Commissioner Anderson read point number five, “Explain how granting this application will not adversely affect the Lindon City Master Plan.” He observed that the deck already exists and the enclosure is an improvement. He admitted that his struggle with this application is the question of whether the enclosure is still a deck or the addition of a room to the house. Chairman Sweeten observed that the present code allows deck encroachments if the sides are kept open. He suggested that this enclosure is creating a room on the home. Commissioner Godfrey asked if the points in Mr. Adair’s letter address the required findings in the Lindon City Code. Mr. Smith replied that Mr. Adair not only addressed the Lindon City Code, but provided more information and justification than required. He noted that some of the points cover language from the Board of Adjustment section of the State Code. He informed the Planning Commission that the Council is required to hold a public hearing to discuss the recommendation of the Planning Commission concerning this application. Commissioner Anderson questioned why Mr. Adair had not made application to the Board of Adjustments. Mr. Smith replied that the Planning Commission is given more flexibility. He observed that the Board of Adjustment would not be allowed by the State Code to consider a mistake made by a contractor as justification for a hardship. They would be required to consider the contractor’s mistake as self-imposed and the fact that it would allow more use of the deck could not be used as justification for granting a variance. Chairman Sweeten pointed out that these are the reasons for his objections to the application. Mr. Smith replied that the Planning Commission’s variance review allows more flexibility than the Board of Adjustment’s variance review. He pointed to the first paragraph of the ordinance and noted that this is the key to the authority given. He quoted, “where in the opinion of the governing body…” Chairman Sweeten confirmed that the Planning Commission was making a recommendation to the Council. Mr. Smith verified that the Council would be holding a public hearing. Mr. Adair commented that the Council had instructed Mr. Smith to “find a way to allow them to approve” the enclosure. He expressed the opinion that the request is reasonable. Commissioner Godfrey commented that it is the point of city government to control the orderly and commonsense development of the city. He suggested that based on the unique physical characteristics of this application, he felt that it was justifiable to grant the request, based on documentation of the criteria that can be used to prevent this approval from becoming a precedent for anyone that wants an enclosed porch. COMMISSIONER GODFREY MOVED TO APPROVE THE REQUEST BY BRENT ADAIR FOR A DESIGN AND IMPROVEMENTS STANDARDS VARIANCE TO ALLOW ENCROACHMENT INTO THE REAR YARD SETBACK TO CONSTRUCT A SUN PORCH ON HIS HOME LOCATED AT 1283 EAST CANBERRA DRIVE AND RECOMMEND APPROVAL TO THE CITY COUNCIL BASED ON THE FOLLOWING FINDINGS AND CRITERIA: 1. THERE IS NO HOME DIRECTLY BEHIND THE DECK, IN FACT, IT FACES BETWEEN THE HOMES. 2. THERE IS A DISTANCE THAT EXCEEDS TWO TIMES THE MINIMUM SETBACK BETWEEN THE DECK AND THE NEAREST HOME WHICH PROTECTS THE PRIVACY OF THE NEIGHBORS, IN THIS CASE, 75-FEET TO ONE HOME AND 100-FEET TO THE OTHER HOME BEHIND THE APPLICANT’S HOME. THERE IS ALSO AN ELEVATION DIFFERENCE THAT MAGNIFIES THE DISTANCE BETWEEN THE HOMES. 3. THERE ARE SIGNED REQUESTS SUPPORTING THE APPLICATION FROM EVERY NEIGHBOR, BOTH HUSBAND AND WIFE. 4. THIS IS A DECK THAT HAS EXISTED AS IS FOR AT LEAST TEN YEARS. IT IS NOT A NEW DECK THAT IS BEING BUILT AND USED AS A CONTRIVANCE TO ADD A ROOM TO A HOME WITHIN THE REQUIRED SETBACK. 5. THAT THE ENCLOSED DECK DOES NOT HAVE OR INCLUDE AN EXTENSION OF THE HOME’S CENTRALLY CONTROLLED CLIMATE AND A DOORWAY IS MAINTAINED BETWEEN THE ENCLOSED DECK AND THE HOME. 6. ALL THE SURROUNDING LOTS ARE FULLY DEVELOPED. THIS ENCROACHMENT DOES NOT AFFECT ANY UNDEVELOPED LAND OR VACANT LOTS. Chairman Sweeten suggested that the elevation difference can make the deck overlook the neighbor’s yard and should not be used as a reason to grant a variance. He also suggested that the length of time the deck has existed should not make a difference either. He commented that if the deck meets certain criteria, the length of time it has existed does not matter. Commissioner Godfrey replied that the length of time the deck has existed precludes the possibility of malice or forethought on the part of the applicant. Chairman Sweeten expressed the opinion that if the enclosure is not centrally heated or cooled, it may not matter how long the deck has existed. Commissioner Anderson agreed that if the climate-control issue is defined more clearly, he would feel more comfortable about recommending approval. He suggested that the most important reasons to him are the fact that the neighborhood is fully developed, the setback that exceeds the minimum required by the ordinance, and no connection to the home’s central heating and cooling system. Commissioner Peters asked Mr. Adair if he had plans to extend the home’s ductwork into the enclosure. Mr. Adair assured the Commissioners that this was not his intent. Chairman Sweeten expressed the opinion that the Planning Commission’s job is to enforce the code where it is clear, and to interpret the provisions when it is unclear. He suggested that he felt that the code should be changed to allow anyone who meets the requirements set out there to encroach on the setback, rather than allowing a variance to the code for a “set of good reasons.” Commissioner Godfrey replied that this is essentially what he is proposing—a detailed subsection to the code. He observed that he agrees with Chairman Sweeten on his objection to the elevation difference, so he will remove that condition from his motion. He added that he was relying on Mr. Smith’s opinion that the Commission has the authority to make this recommendation to the Council. The Commissioners asked for a restatement of the final motion. COMMISSIONER GODFREY MOVED TO APPROVE THE REQUEST BY BRENT ADAIR FOR A DESIGN AND IMPROVEMENTS STANDARDS VARIANCE TO ALLOW ENCROACHMENT INTO THE REAR YARD SETBACK TO ENCLOSE AN EXISTING DECK INTO A SUN PORCH ON HIS HOME LOCATED AT 1283 EAST CANBERRA DRIVE AND RECOMMEND APPROVAL TO THE CITY COUNCIL BASED ON THE FOLLOWING CRITERIA AND FINDINGS: 1. THERE IS NO HOME DIRECTLY BEHIND THE DECK, IN FACT, IT FACES BETWEEN THE HOMES. 2. THERE IS A DISTANCE THAT EXCEEDS TWO TIMES THE MINIMUM SETBACK BETWEEN THE ENCLOSED DECK AND THE NEAREST HOME, IN THIS CASE, 75-FEET TO ONE HOME AND 100-FEET TO THE OTHER HOME BEHIND THE APPLICANT’S HOME. 3. THERE ARE SIGNED REQUESTS SUPPORTING THE APPLICATION FROM EVERY NEIGHBOR, BOTH HUSBAND AND WIFE. 4. THIS IS A DECK THAT HAS EXISTED AS IS FOR AT LEAST TEN YEARS. THE REQUEST IS NOT FOR A NEW DECK THAT IS BEING BUILT AND USED AS A CONTRIVANCE TO ADD A ROOM TO A HOME WITHIN THE REQUIRED SETBACK. 5. THERE IS NO EXTENSION OF THE HOME’S DUCTWORK INTO THE ENCLOSED DECK (NO CONNECTION TO THE CENTRALLY CONTROLLED CLIMATE SYSTEM). A DOORWAY IS MAINTAINED BETWEEN THE ENCLOSED DECK AND THE HOME. 6. ALL SURROUNDING LOTS ARE FULLY DEVELOPED. THIS ENCROACHMENT DOES NOT AFFECT ANY UNDEVELOPED LAND OR VACANT LOTS. COMMISSIONER PETERS SECONDED THE MOTION. THE VOTE IS RECORDED AS FOLLOWS: COMMISSIONER ANDERSON AYE COMMISSIONER BRYNER AYE COMMISSIONER GODFREY AYE COMMISSIONER NIXON ABSENT COMMISSIONER PETERS AYE COMMISSIONER SIMISTER AYE COMMISSIONER SWEETEN NAY THE MOTION CARRIED (5-1) WITH ONE ABSENT. Mr. Smith commented that the ordinance has a requirement for noticing and posting of a public hearing for the City Council, so this recommendation would not be heard by the City Council until February. He told Mr. Adair that he would receive a call with the date of the meeting when it is determined. 5. MOUNTAIN VIEW MARKETING – 214 NORTH 1800 WEST – SITE PLAN APPLICATION This is a request for approval for a 28,875 square foot addition to their existing building in the Light Industrial zone. Mr. Brandon Levine of Diversified Design Services introduced himself to the Commission. Mr. Smith displayed an aerial photo of the site and explained that the applicants are proposing an addition to their previous addition. He presented the elevations and site plan and explained that this is the last addition to this building. He pointed out additional parking that will be added to complete the site. He questioned whether this additional parking would be adequate, and observed that it would be close to the minimum amount of parking required. He noted that one discussion to hold with the owner is that the required parking cannot be used for storage of merchandise. He pointed out that the building meets the requirements for decorative block and stucco and will be similar to the rest of the building. The Commission asked the nature of the business. Mr. Levine replied that the business distributes impulse items to convenience stores. Commissioner Peters asked the number of employees. Mr. Levine replied that he represents the design firm and does not know the answer to this question. Commissioner Anderson asked about the progression of the additions. Mr. Smith pointed out the original building, two other additions, and the location of this final addition. Commissioner Anderson observed that the Commission had allowed an exception to the architectural treatment on the north side of the last addition because of the plans for this addition. Mr. Smith agreed, and noted that the north side of this addition, as the final one, will meet the design standards. Commissioner Godfrey asked if this side had frontage on the freeway so must meet the additional requirements of the “t” zone. Mr. Smith replied that this lot does not have any significant frontage on the freeway, although it may be argued that it is visible from the freeway. The requirements of the code were read and discussed. Chairman Sweeten asked if it would be a hardship to continue the architectural treatment of the front of the building around on the side facing the freeway. Commissioner Anderson asked if the difference between 25% and 30% is a significant amount of treatment. The Commissioners discussed the issue. Commissioner Anderson questioned whether the Commission could ask more than what is required by the ordinances. The percentage was calculated and it was found that the building already exceeded the requirement. Chairman Sweeten asked if there was any more discussion. There was none. COMMISSIONER PETERS MOVED TO APPROVE THE REQUEST BY MOUNTAIN VIEW MARKETING FOR A 28,875 SQUARE FOOT ADDITION TO THEIR EXISTING BUILDING LOCATED AT 214 NORTH 1800 WEST WITH THE STIPULATION THAT THE THIRTY PERCENT ARCHITECTURAL TREATMENT OF THE FRONT OF THE BUILDING BE CONTINUED TO THE NORTH END OF THE BUILDNG. COMMISSIONER ANDERSON SECONDED THE MOTION. ALL PRESNET VOTED IN FAVOR. THE MOTION CARRIED. 6. WASATCH POINTE BUSINESS PARK – 1350 WEST 200 SOUTH – MINOR SUBDIVISION APPLICATION This is a request for approval of a two-lot subdivision request in the Light Industrial zone. It was noted that Mr. Jeff Damron was not present. THE COMMISSION REACHED CONSENSUS TO CONTINUE THE ITEM UNTIL THE APPLICANT COULD BE PRESENT. Mr. Stephen Bown of Skyline Exhibits asked if he could make a comment. He was invited to express his concerns. He replied that he would like to see 1380 West paved. Mr. Smith observed that the City would like to have this road paved also. He brought up an aerial photo and pointed out that the City does not own the right-of-way. He suggested that Mr. Bown help work with the property owners to secure the right-of-way. He informed the Commission and Mr. Bown that the City has set aside some funding to pave this street and that some of the property owners have indicated their desire to participate. He explained that the present applicant has indicated his desire to improve this street and will be constructing a new building near the back of their parcel. 7. HALLING SUBDIVISION – 680 NORTH STATE STREET – MINOR SUBDIVISION This is a request for approval of a two-lot subdivision in the General Commercial zone. Mr. Joey Halling and Ms. Joyce Halling introduced themselves to the Commission. Ms. Halling explained that she had retained a parcel on State Street when she had sold the Lindon Care Center to the present owners and would now like to develop the parcel. Mr. Smith displayed the parcel on an aerial photo and pointed out the neighboring businesses, the Care Center, Car Wash, Pawn Shop and Repair Garage. He informed the Commission that the ordinance allows her to subdivide a half acre lot, but that he has two concerns. One concern is whether UDOT will allow drive access to State Street for an additional business and the second concern is adequate parking for the care center, since they seem to be using the lot for parking. Mr. Halling responded that the care center is using the parking for convenience sake and not because they don’t have enough parking on their own parcel. He pointed out ten parking stalls along the front of the care center building, another nine on the south near the trees, and seven by the trailer for a total of 26 parking spots. Commissioner Simister asked questions about the parking spots and noted that she was familiar with the site from her volunteer position at the business. She asked how many employees were working at the care center. Ms. Halling replied that they had counted the vehicles parked at the site and had found that the time of operation with the most employees is the evening. She reported that there had been 22 cars parked around the care center in the evening. Ms. Halling noted that the regional director of the care center had told her that the trailer is a temporary structure and will be removed to allow additional parking there. Their only concern had been an appropriate buffer between any new business and the care center. Chairman Sweeten asked if they had plans for the lot. Ms. Halling replied that they had been negotiating with the pawn shop and possibly with the auto shop. She noted that the care center had not expressed any interest in buying the lot for expansion. Commissioner Simister asked what would happen if there is found to be a need for more parking at the care center. Mr. Smith replied that the care center would be required to reconfigure their site to allow more parking. Commissioner Godfrey questioned the shape of the lot that the care center was located on and asked why the property line for this lot had not been extended clear back to the rear property line. The applicants replied that size of the lot met the requirements of the city ordinances at the time of its creation. Mr. Smith explained that the code had at this time included a provision that no lot could be deeper than three times its width. This is the reason that a portion had been left attached to the care center lot. This provision has now been removed from the code. The Commission discussed the location of the irrigation canal along the back of the care center lot, the piping of the ditch for the car wash, and neighboring parcels. Chairman Sweeten asked if there were any other issues to discuss. There were none. Mr. Smith commented that this application falls under the minor subdivision provisions and a plat is not required. The lot can be created by a metes and bounds description. He explained that a subdivision with less than three lots that has no road dedication does not require a plat. COMMISSIONER ANDERSON MOVED TO APPROVE THE REQUEST BY JOEY HALLING FOR HALLING SUBDIVISON, PLAT “A.” A PRELIMINARY SUBDIVISION APPLICATION FOR A TWO-LOT COMMERCIAL SUBDIVISION AT 680 NORTH STATE STREET AND RECOMMEND APPROVAL TO THE CITY COUNCIL. COMMISSIONER BRYNER SECONDED THE MOTION. ALL PRESENT VOTED IN FAVOR. THE MOTION CARRIED. 8. DE ST JEOR ESTATES – 755 NORTH 200 EAST – DEEP LOT SUBDIVISION REQUEST This is a request for approval of a two-lot subdivision, one of which will be a deep lot. Mr. Smith commented that the Commission may remember this proposed subdivision from a design review done last year. He displayed an aerial photo to familiarize the Commission with the location and neighborhood. He also displayed the plat. Chairman Sweeten asked if the sale of the school district property to the west and south would change the application of the deep lot ordinance. He pointed out that the Commission must take into account neighboring development plans when considering the approval of a deep lot. Mr. Smith replied that he has not received any application or inquiry for a development on the school district property, and pointed out that the canal may create a problem with incorporating this parcel into a project on the other side. He expressed the opinion that if there was no canal, the possibility of development on the neighboring parcel should be considered as part of this application. However, he does not anticipate incorporation of this parcel into the neighboring parcel without covering the canal. Mr. Smith pointed out that the plat provides road dedication for 200 East, and curb, gutter and sidewalk. He also noted that the recent storm has necessitated some storm drain improvements in this area. It was noted that a power pole is also intended for relocation. Commissioner Peters asked about safety on the ditch and whether Mr. De St Jeor planned a fence. Mr. De St Jeor replied that he has an eight-foot fence already. COMMISSIONER PETERS MOVED TO APPROVE THE REQUEST BY DON DE ST JEOR FOR DE ST JEOR ESTATES, PLAT “A,” A PRELIMINARY SUBDIVISION APPLICATION FOR A TWO-LOT RESIDENTIAL SUBDIVISION AT 755 NORTH 200 EAST AND RECOMMEND APPROVAL TO THE CITY COUNCIL. COMMISSIONER SIMISTER SECONDED THE MOTION. ALL PRESENT VOTED IN FAVOR. THE MOTION CARRIED. 9. PLANNING DIRECTOR’S REPORT a. Status on CSRA Contract (State Street Design Review Guidelines) The Commissioners discussed Mr. Smith’s imminent departure to Cottonwood Heights. Mr. Smith reported that he had met with Mr. Soren Simonson to sign a contract for the State Street Design Review Guidelines. He noted that this process will start with the new planner. ADJOURN THE COMMISSION REACHED CONSENSUS TO ADJOURN THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING AT 9:35 P.M. APPROVED – January 26, 2005 ______________________________________ Dustin Sweeten, Chairman _______________________________________ Kevin Smith, Planning Director