The Lindon City Planning Commission held a regularly scheduled meeting on Wednesday, April 13, 2005, at 7:00 p.m., in the Lindon City Center, City Council Chambers, at 100 North State Street, Lindon, Utah.

 Conducting: Dustin Sweeten, Chairman

Pledge of Allegiance: Dustin Sweeten I

nvocation: Jim Peters

PRESENT                                         ABSENT

Dustin Sweeten, Chairman         Marilyn Simister, Commissioner 

Ron Anderson, Commissioner

Julie Bryner, Commissioner

Gary Godfrey, Commissioner

Evan Nixon, Commissioner - arrived at 7:35

Jim Peters, Commissioner

Adam Cowie, Planning Director

Debra Cullimore, Deputy Recorder

Steve Trythall, Planning Intern T

he meeting was called to order at 7:06 p.m.

APPROVAL OF MINUTES The minutes of the regularly scheduled meeting of March 23, 2005 were reviewed. The following corrections were made.

 Page 4, Line 10: replace the word “observed” with the word “worried”.

Page 4, Line 27: replace the words “a Lindon resident residing at” with the words “Mr. Pittard owns property located at”.

Page 5, Line 11: replace the word “instructed” with the word “suggested”.

Page 7, Line 6: replace the word “be” with the word “feel”.

 Page 8, Line 29: replace the words “may be a good option to help regulate the home” with the words “is required by the existing ordinance”.

Page 8, Line 32: move the word “full” to after the words “leaving the facility”.

Page 13, Line 14: replace the word “the” with the word “that”.

Page 16, Line 30: strike the sentence “He also informed Mr. Loftie that he did not want to provide service opportunities for the residents”.

Page 18, Line 23: replace the words “near the Public Works Building” with the words “on 200 West”.

Page 19, Line 3: add the words “but that some are not necessarily a bad thing”.

COMMISSIONER BRYNER MOVED TO APPROVE THE MINUTES OF MARCH 23, 2005 AS CORRECTED. COMMISSIONER PETERS SECONDED THE MOTION. ALL PRESENT VOTED IN FAVOR. THE MOTION CARRIED.

PUBLIC COMMENT

No comments

CURRENT BUSINESS

1. Design Review – Valdizan Retail Project, corner of State Street and 550 North. This is a request for a design review of a proposed retail strip mall and restaurant project southeast of Wal-Mart and across 550 North.

The applicants were Mr. Jorge Valdizan and his wife, Mrs. Ursula Valdizan. Mr. Cowie informed the Commission that this item is a design review for a commercial development. Mr. Cowie showed drawings of both the site plan and the elevations of the buildings. Commissioner Peters asked the length of the property. Mr. Valdizan responded that the length is 350 feet with 95 feet of frontage on State Street. He went on to explain the layout of the development as well as parking availability. He explained that parking is calculated according to the square footage of the business, and that each 200 square feet requires one parking space. Mr. Valdizan stated that the development would consist of a restaurant, a medical or dental office, and several small retail businesses. Mr. Valdizan expressed confidence in meeting the parking requirement. Commissioner Peters inquired as to the distance to the corner, and expressed concern that the layout of the parking area and entrances may create a traffic hazard with cars entering and leaving State Street. Chairman Sweeten asked Mr. Cowie if the site plan had been reviewed by the city engineer. Mr. Cowie stated that it had been reviewed, and that the engineer had not expressed any specific concerns. Commissioner Peters asked Mr. Valdizan the size of the parking stalls. Mr. Valdizan informed him that they were 9 foot parking stalls. Commissioner Peters then inquired as to the hours of operation for the restaurant. Mr. Valdizan stated that the restaurant will be open for lunch and dinner. Commissioner Peters asked if the restaurant would be “sit down” or “take out”. Mr. Valdizan stated that it is intended to be a “sit down” restaurant, but that they will also have take out orders. Commissioner Anderson observed that the combination of customers may be cause for concern with the available parking, due to the fact that at times more customers would be in the restaurant than there is available seating for are represented by available seating. Chairman Sweeten asked about the rear set back on the west side of the building. Mr. Valdizan stated that there is a 5 foot set back, and a sidewalk is planned in that area. Commissioner Godfrey commented on the required 7 foot wall behind the building, and the possibility that with only a five foot set back, it may create a tunnel area that may collect trash and cause other problems. Chairman Sweeten observed that the block wall would actually take up some of the available 5 feet, making the set back less than five feet. Commissioner Godfrey made the suggestion that Mr. Valdizan consider relocating the building to create either a ten foot set back or no set back. Mrs. Valdizan inquired as to the requirement for set backs and the block wall. Chairman Sweeten clarified the requirements, but stated that the requirement for the block wall applies to anything inside of a 10 foot set back, and commented that with the available space, it may be to their advantage to have no set back. Commissioner Anderson commented on the drainage off the building, stating that drainage is required to follow the roof line to the front of the building, rather than draining off of the rear or sides of the building. Commissioner Peters commented on the parking area on the west side of the property facing the residential area, and observed that the parking stalls in that area may be bothersome to the residents, due to the headlights from the cars shining into their homes. He suggested the possibility of relocating the parking to a different area of the property. Commissioner Bryner commented that the office located in the development would likely be closed after 6 p.m., which would increase available parking for the restaurant in the evenings. Commissioner Godfrey observed that there are only 12 parking stalls located near the restaurant, and that realigning the parking areas may alleviate some staff concerns. Commissioner Peters asked Mr. Valdizan what the elements of the elevations of the building would consist of. Mr. Valdizan showed colored drawings of the proposed buildings, indicating that earth tone colors, stone, stucco, and architectural shingles are planned for the exterior. Commissioner Godfrey suggested moving the rock level higher on the building. Chairman Sweeten offered to show drawings of other State Street projects which have been approved but not yet completed to Mr. and Mrs. Valdizan, to give them a better idea of the final requirements for the proposed project. Commissioner Nixon returned to the concerns regarding parking, and observed that the greatest parking problems were likely to occur during lunch, due to the fact that the retail businesses and office would also be open at that time. He commented on the parking problem at Los Hermanos, with cars being parked along State Street during busy times. Mr. Cowie clarified that the available parking in the proposed site plan complies with the ordinance, and that parking in retail areas is based on square footage, while restaurant parking is based on available seating. Mr. Valdizan informed the Commission that the drawings they were looking at were not the most current, and that the architect had added several more parking spaces. Commissioner Nixon suggested that the ordinance may need to be reviewed to see if the requirements are adequate. Chairman Sweeten commented that if a restaurant is successful there is a possibility that parking could become an issue. Commissioner Anderson commented that originally Los Hermanos had planned to have use of the parking lot owned by the adjacent church, but there had been a subsequent problem between the restaurant and the church which prevented the use of that parking area by the restaurant, and that situation had created the parking problems. Commissioner Anderson agreed that review of the parking ordinance would be advisable to avoid similar problems in the future. Commissioner Godfrey inquired as to the availability of curb side parking along 550 North. Mr. Cowie indicated that it would be legal to park cars in that area. Chairman Sweeten again raised concerns regarding the distance from th east driveway to State Street. Commissioner Peters agreed that being located so close to the corner could create potential safety concerns. Mr. Valdizan recalled that the architect had explained that the placement of the building was determined by the requirement of a 40 foot buffer zone between residential and commercial zones, so the set back could not be moved to zero. Chairman Sweeten stated that he didn’t recall the distance being that great. Mr. Cowie reviewed the ordinance and confirmed that the buffer zone is a required 40 feet. Councilmember Anderson observed that the design of the building looks nice, but that it doesn’t contain any of the recurring elements for the overall look the Commission hopes to create on State Street, such as wagon wheel windows. Chairman Sweeten informed Mr. and Mrs. Valdizan that the look has been described as “craftsman”. Commissioner Bryner observed that the proposed building already contains many of the elements that the Commission is looking for. Mr. Cowie informed Mr. and Mrs. Valdizan that they are scheduled to meet with the City Council on April 19 at 7:00 p.m. Chairman Sweeten suggested that they meet with the City Council and get input from them before spending more money redesigning the project.

2. Design Review – Country Cove Estates, Mike Anderson, 270 North 460 East. This is a request for a design review of a proposed 3-lot subdivision.

Commissioner Nixon stated that he is currently under contract with Mr. Anderson for the sale of the property for the proposed subdivision. He stated that there is no actual conflict, but there may be a potential perceived conflict of interest for him on this item. Mr. Cowie gave a visual presentation of the area, indicating that Mr. Anderson was proposing a cul-de-sac coming off of 270 North. The cul-de-sac raises concerns due the fact that the master plan for the city indicates that there would be a through street across the area. He stated that construction of the through street would cause a problem because of homes in the area, but that creating a cul-de-sac would land-lock a section of property on the north end of the subdivision. Commissioner Nixon informed the Commission that the picture they were looking at was not a current picture, and that another home had been built in the path of the proposed through street. He stated that building a through street would require tearing down one of two homes in the path of the street. Commissioner Nixon also clarified that the owners of the property that would become land-locked by the construction of the cul-de-sac and adjacent homes was were aware that they would be cutting off their own access when they built their home on the property. Mr. Cowie indicated that there were further concerns raised due to the fact that Mr. Anderson was proposing to develop only half of the street area of the cul-de-sac. He indicated that the owner of the adjacent property was not interested in participating in the required improvements, consequently Mr. Anderson is planning to develop only the road in front of the homes located on his property. Mike Anderson then addressed the Commission to give an explanation of the proposed project. He stated that he had purchased the property to create three separate building lots. He stated that the dwellings on those lots would be occupied by his children, who had approached him about purchasing the ground. Mr. Anderson stated that he had attended a family meeting earlier in the evening with the Shumway family, who own property adjacent to the proposed project. He had contacted Mrs. Shumway regarding a utility easement for the sewer from the property. Mrs. Shumway is elderly, and was very concerned about the placement of the easement on her property. Her concern is that if the easement were ever accessed, it may create damage to her property that she would be responsible to repair. Mrs. Shumway had a specific concern that the concrete on her driveway may have to be removed at some point, and she would not be financially able to replace it. Because of these concerns, she would not agree to the placement of the easement on her property. The Commission discussed what the policy would be regarding property damage which is caused by easement access. There were differing opinions from Commissioners. Mr. Cowie encouraged Mr. Anderson to discuss the issue with the Public Works Director in order to clarify what the city will repair and what the property owner is responsible for. Mr. Anderson indicated that Mrs. Shumway owns one of the homes that would be adjacent to the through street proposed in the master plan. He stated that he is certain that Mrs. Shumway would never allow the road to encroach on her property. Mr. Anderson expressed the opinion that when the city allowed construction of the Hinkley home, it essentially eliminated the possibility of the through street being constructed. Mr. Anderson also indicated that all the storm drainage from the existing subdivision to the east of his property is channeled onto his property. He stated that the LDS church has a storm drainage system and easement in the area, and that there may be a possibility of using that easement to create a more effective drainage system in the area. Mr. Anderson commented that he had discussed the possibility of development of the cul-de-sac with Mr. Smoot, the owner of the adjoining property. Mr. Smoot had informed Mr. Anderson that he is not interested in developing the area of the street that would connect to his property. Mr. Anderson stated that the requirement for an emergency turn around on a street is 20 feet by 20 feet. According to Mr. Anderson, the turn around area on the improved portion of the road will be 30 feet by 60 feet. Mr. Anderson stated that his biggest areas of concern in development of the property are the placement and installation of the sewer line, as well as the drainage system. There were several specific recommendations made by the city engineer, which have been discussed with the Public Works Director. The Commission discussed several different options for the sewer and storm drain system, as well as the specific recommendations of the engineer. The discussion addressed placement of the underground lines and manholes, along with the option of using sewer pumps. Chairman Sweeten felt that it would be necessary to address the issue of the unfinished portion of the street before the sewer would be a consideration. He stated that he is concerned that the street would never be completed, and he is very uncomfortable with that idea. Mr. Anderson reiterated that Mr. Smoot is not willing to participate in the improvements on his portion of the street. Mr. Smoot is concerned that the improvements may increase his property taxes. Chairman Sweeten observed that Mr. Smoot’s taxes should not increase significantly, and it may be an advantage to him to have the road completed if he made the decision to develop in the future. Mr. Anderson and the Commission then discussed improvements on and around the property, including placement of existing sidewalk and curb and gutter structures. Commissioner Nixon pointed out that partial roads have been allowed in other areas of the city, and that the Commission shouldn’t require more of Mr. Anderson than they have required of other builders. Chairman Sweeten stated that to his knowledge, it had never been allowed for more than one home in the same location. He suggested that other projects which have been allowed should be reviewed to determine what had been allowed previously. Mr. Anderson suggested the possibility of completing the asphalt portion of the street, but not the curb and gutter portion. Chairman Sweeten pointed out that if there were no curb and gutter, storm water from the street would all drain directly onto Mr. Smoot’s property, creating potential flooding problems. Mr. Anderson indicated that the road could be sloped so as to direct storm drainage away from the Smoot property, and into the storm drainage system. Another possible solution which was discussed was to reconfigure the location of the street area to be completely within Mr. Anderson’s property. Mr. Anderson suggested the possibility of 10 foot utility easement, and felt the there was a possibility that Mrs. Shumway may agree to that. Chairman Sweeten stated that if Public Works was comfortable with a 10 foot easement, the Planning Commission he would be comfortable with it. Mr. Anderson also stated that he would be happy to facilitate a discussion with the LDS church to determine if the storm drainage easement the Church owns could be used to develop a more efficient drainage system for the neighboring development. After further discussion regarding storm drainage, sewer installation, and the completion or realignment of the street, Mr. Anderson agreed to attempt to work out the street and easement issues and return the Planning Commission at a later date.

3. Public Hearing – Larsen/Bracken, 16 West 400 North and 18 West 400 North. This is a request to adjust the property lines between a legal non-conforming lot and a neighboring parcel in the R1-20 residential zone. No new parcels will be created.

COMMISSIONER ANDERSON MOVED TO OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING OF THE LARSEN/BRACKEN APPLICATION. COMMISSIONER PETERS SECONDED THE MOTION. ALL PRESENT VOTED IN FAVOR. THE MOTION CARRIED.

Clair and Patricia Larsen approached the Commission and introduced themselves. Mr. Cowie gave and overview of the proposal. He presented an overhead view of the property, showing an existing garage. The placement of the garage creates an irregularity in the property line, as it extends out and around the garage. The current configuration of the property line places the residence and the garage on separate parcels. The proposed change to the property line would place the residence and the garage on the same parcel. Mr. Cowie stated that by making the requested change, both lots would be more conforming. Mr. Cowie noted that the current ordinance requires 95 feet of frontage. After the reconfiguration, the lot would still have less than 95 feet, but would have more than it presently has. Mr. Cowie stated that there are no major staff concerns, and that the proposed change brings both lots more into conformance. Commissioner Godfrey inquired as to the size of both lots. Mr. Cowie gave Commissioner Godfrey the figures, stating that one lot is .567 acres, and the other is .638 acres. Chairman Sweeten confirmed that the Larsen’s currently own both pieces of property. He asked the Larsen’s if they are considering selling the property. Mr. Larsen stated that there is a possibility of selling in the future. Chairman Sweeten asked if there were any citizens in the audience who would like to comment. There was no response.

COMMISSIONER PETERS MOVED TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING ON THE LARSEN/BRACKEN APPLICATION. COMMISSIONER GODFREY SECONDED THE MOTION. ALL PRESENT VOTED IN FAVOR. THE MOTION CARRIED.

COMMISSIONER PETERS MOVED TO APPROVE THE REQUEST BY CLAIR AND PATRICIA LARSEN, FOR A PROPERTY LINE ADJUSTMENT OF A MINOR SUBDIVISION (BRACKEN SUBDIVISION PLAT “A”) WITH THE 3 FOOT SETBACK TO THE EXISTING GARAGE AS PROPOSED, AND RECOMMEND APPROVAL TO THE CITY COUNCIL. COMMISSIONER GODFREY SECONDED THE MOTION. ALL PRESENT VOTED IN FAVOR. THE MOTION CARRIED.

4. Conditional Use Permit Approval – Sam White, Wall Panel Manufacturing 1287 West 300 South Business. This is a request for approval of a wood, wall-pane assembly business in the light Industrial Zone, within the Lindon Harbor Industrial Park, Plat A, Lot 4. Sam White, the agent for the application introduced himself. Mr. White was accompanied by Scott Worthington. Mr. Cowie gave an overview of the request. He stated that the staff concerns with the proposed project relate to the wetlands in the area of the business. Staff is recommending silt fences to protect the wetlands during construction, as well as requiring that no additional fill be brought into the area of the wetlands. Mr. Cowie pointed out that there are two buildings included in the application, and that they intend to construct the building in the rear at some time in the future, but it is being shown for informational purposes. Also included in the information is additional parking for the second building, which will be installed when the second building is constructed. Mr. Cowie stated that the engineer does have some concerns with the current location of the parking. Chairman Sweeten pointed out to the applicants that landscaping would be required along the length of the parking area. Mr. White stated that the landscaping plan includes seven trees. Chairman Sweeten clarified that the landscape requirement would apply to the length of the lot, whether or not the drive and parking area is completed. Mr. White stated that the landscaping plan could include an additional tree, along with a turf area if necessary. Mr. Worthington informed the Commission that they had attended the DRC meeting to address the parking concerns raised by the engineer. Mr. Cowie clarified that the main concern was the location of the handicapped parking stall, and the possibility that it may cause backing of traffic into the adjacent street. Mr. Worthington stated that there is sufficient space for vehicles exiting that stall to reverse to the west, and proceed into the street. Commissioner Peters observed that there is a possibility that drivers will reverse into the street whether they have to or not. Chairman Sweeten commented that the width of the drive area seemed excessive, and that it would be difficult to meet the landscaping requirement with that width of drive area. Mr. Worthington stated that the drive could be narrowed as necessary to meet the landscaping requirement. He commented that it is necessary to keep the drive at a certain width, as they have large truck that will be entering to unload. A certain width is necessary to give the trucks access to the unloading area and room to turn around. Mr. Worthington, Mr. White, and the Commission discussed several options for reconfiguring the parking area, and placement of the handicapped parking stall. Commissioner Anderson asked Mr. Worthington if all materials for the business would be kept inside the building. Mr. Worthington stated that there would be some small components, such as lumber, located outside. Chairman Sweeten inquired as to what type of fence would be installed. Mr. White stated that the current plan calls for chain link fence. Mr. Cowie reviewed the ordinance on obscuring fences, and determined that storage of lumber does not require an obscuring fence. Chairman Sweeten informed the applicants that if the city receives complaints from neighbors, they may be required to install an obscuring fence. He suggested that they consider slats in chain link fence to avoid future problems. Commissioner Peters asked the applicants about their proposal as it relates to the wetlands. Mr. Worthington stated that they would not import any additional fill, and that the wetlands areas would be left undisturbed. Commissioner Nixon asked if there is a buffer zone required between wetlands areas and any development. Mr. Cowie stated that according to code there is no requirement for a buffer zone. Commissioner Godfrey asked the applicants what the detention basin would be constructed of. Mr. White responded that it would be constructed of dirt and natural grass. Commissioner Nixon asked about the inside slope of the basin. Mr. White stated that it was planned to be earth on the inside. Commissioner Godfrey informed Mr. White that the requirement typically calls for either rock or sod on the inside of the basin. Mr. White asked if gravel would meet that requirement. Commissioner Nixon stated that it would need to be a larger cobble type stone. Mr. Worthington commented on the clean up they had done on the site. He stated that they have pulled large amounts of concrete out of the wetlands area, and that it has been a very extensive clean up effort. Commissioner Nixon asked Mr. Cowie if this site is located in a flood plain area. Mr. Cowie stated that it is not included on the FEMA flood plain map, that there are areas to the west of this location that are designated flood plains, but this area is not included. Commissioner Godfrey asked the applicants to comment on the elevations of the building, noting that the drawings show the exterior will be done in mostly stucco. Mr. White informed the Commission that they had revised the exterior, and it would now be done in block. Chairman Sweeten reminded the applicants that 25% of the exterior is required to be done in decorative block. Mr. Cowie read the requirements for decorative block to the Commission. After discussion, it was determined that 30% of the front of the building is required to be decorative, while the sides and rear are required to be 25%. It was also noted that the front office area of the building would be wood frame covered with stucco. After further discussion, the Commission made decisions as to the conditions required for approval of the application.

COMMISSIONER NIXON MOVE TO APPROVE THE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR THE WOOD PANEL ASSEMBLY BUILDING LOCATED AT LINDON HARBOR INDUSTRIAL PARK, PLAT “A”, LOT 4, WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS:

1. THAT VEGETATION IS PLANTED INSIDE AND OUTSIDE OF THE DETENTION BASIN.

2. THAT THE HANDICAPPED PARKING IS MOVED TO ANOTHER LOCATION.

3. THAT REQUIRED LANDSCAPING IS INSTALLED ALONG THE ENTIRE FRONTAGE.

4. THAT CHAINLINK FENCE IS INSTALLED AROUND THE STORAGE AREA.

5. THAT ALL MATERIALS ARE STORED IN THE FENCED AREA.

6. THAT THE PARKING STALLS ON THE EAST END OF THE PARKING AREA ARE ORIENTED EAST TO WEST.

7. THAT THE ENTRANCE WIDTH ON THE EAST END IS NARROWED .

CHAIRMAN SWEETEN SECONDED THE MOTION. THE VOTE WAS RECORDED AS FOLLOWS:

CHAIRMAN SWEETEN AYE

COMMISSIONER ANDERSON AYE

COMMISSIONER BRYNER NAY

COMMISSIONER GODFREY NAY

 COMMISSIONER NIXON AYE

COMMISSIONER PETERS AYE

THE MOTION CARRIED (4-2).

5. Conditional Use Permit – Utah Auto Sales Monument Sign, 15 North State Street. This is a request to construct a monument style sign for the new Utah Auto Sales complex. A red, electronic motion sign is proposed as part of the design and will require Planning Commission approval. The agents on this application introduced themselves as Shaun Corbridge and Dana Graham. Mr. Cowie gave an overview of this item. He indicated that the proposed sign includes a portion that is a red LED motion sign. Mr. Cowie indicated that Title 18 of the Lindon City code defines two types of signs relating to the LED sign requested by Utah Auto Sales. One type is a Changeable Copy Sign, which is defined as “a sign that can be changed by manual, mechanical, or electronic means.” The other type of sign addressed in Title 18 is a Motion Sign, which is defined as “any outdoor advertising structure and projection facility which displays changing copy by means of motion, slide or similar picture projection equipment.” Mr. Cowie stated that former Planning Director Kevin Smith had interpreted LED signs as a Changeable Copy Sign, but after review of the code, he felt that the proposed sign was a Motion Sign. The code for Motion Signs indicates that the maximum size of the sign is one foot by eight feet. The size of the requested sign is two feet by four feet. There is also not sufficient frontage on the property to meet the requirement for a Motion Sign. Chairman Sweeten commented that when the LED signs along I-15 were installed, they were interpreted to be Changeable Copy Signs. Commissioner Nixon observed that the sign on Scrubbs Carwash on State Street was also interpreted as a Changeable Copy Sign. Chairman Sweeten commented on the fourteen foot overall size of the sign. Director Cowie informed him that the sign size is in compliance with the current code, and requires a 10.5 foot overhead easement. Commissioner Godfrey noted that the requested size of two feet by four feet would be the same surface area as the required one foot by eight foot sign. Mr. Cowie clarified that the code specifically states that the signs be one foot by eight foot, and does not refer to the surface area of the sign. There was a lengthy discussion among members of the Commission as to whether the proposed sign would be defined as a Changeable Copy Sign or a Motion Sign. The elements included in the discussion were specific to how the lettering on the sign is changed and interpretation of the wording in the code. The Commission also discussed with the applicants the concern of the distraction of the sign to passing drivers. Ms. Graham explained that the speed and motion of the sign would be programmed so that distraction would be minimized. Following discussion, opinions among the Commission varied as to the definition of the LED sign. Chairman Sweeten observed that if they determined the sign to be a Motion Sign, it would have to be disallowed, due to the size of the sign, and inadequate frontage. Commissioner Nixon suggested the possibility of reviewing the code. Commissioner Anderson mentioned that the Commission is aware that the current sign at Scrubbs Carwash does not meet the requirements of the code they are discussing, but stated that the Commission did not approve the sign before it was installed. Chairman Sweeten commented to the applicants that the Commission is aware that Lindon has an extraordinarily strict sign ordinance. Commissioner Peters agreed that review of the code may be advisable. Commissioner Peters stated that in may be in the best interest of the applicants for the Commission to deny the application until a review of the ordinance could take place. Mr. Cowie informed the Commission that review of the code would require a moratorium period of up to six months. During that period there could be no approval of signs in the City. He suggested the possibility of approving the sign without the LED portion. Mr. Corbridge stated that it would be very difficult to install the LED portion of the sign after the main portion had been constructed. He also stated that leaving out the LED portion would leave a large gap in the center of the sign. Commissioner Peters asked the applicants if they would prefer to have the application denied until a review of the code takes place, or if they would prefer to have the sign approved without the LED portion. The applicants responded that they would like to have the sign approved with the LED, but understood that was not an option. The Commission discussed the density of LED motion signs. Chairman Sweeten commented that if all applications wouldn’t be approved, that possibly no applications should be approved. Commissioner Godfrey stated that they could allow a certain number of signs, and when that number has been reached, other applications would be denied, and the applicant informed that the quotas for motion signs have been met. Commissioner Anderson suggested that the applicants should meet with the City Council and receive input from them. Ms. Graham stated that the business owner will have questions he would like addressed regarding the sign at the Scrubbs Carwash. Mr. Cowie informed Ms. Graham that the sign was installed because of the interpretation of the former Planning Director. Commissioner Godfrey stated that if a review of the sign ordinance is undertaken as it relates to LED signs, other elements of the ordinance should be reviewed as well. Initially, Commissioner Nixon moved to approve the application for Utah Auto Sales Sign, and the motion was seconded by Commissioner Anderson. Immediately following the motion, Commissioner Peters stated that the motion needed to specify that the Commission would like to review the sign ordinance. Commissioner Peters moved to review the previous motion. Commissioner Nixon seconded the motion. The Commission then discussed the higher quality of changing technology, as well as density of LED Motion Signs. They also discussed the need for clarification in the definition of Motion Signs and Changeable Copy Signs. Following further discussion, the Commission reached a consensus on the elements necessary for a motion.

COMMISSION NIXON MOVE TO APPROVE THE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR THE UTAH AUTO SALES SIGN LOCATED AT THE NEW UTAH AUTO SALES COMPLEX LOCATED AT APPROXIMATELY15 NORTH STATE WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITION:

1. THAT THE LED PORTION OF THE SIGN IS NOT INCLUDED.

2. THE COMMISSION RECOMMENDED REVIEW OF THE EXISTING SIGN ORDNIANCE BY THE CITY COUNCIL. COMMISSIONER ANDERSON SECONDED THE MOTION. ALL PRESENT VOTED IN FAVOR. THE MOTION CARRIED. Commissioner Peters informed the applicants that the request would now be addressed to the City Council. Mr. Corbridge asked if there was a possibility the City Council would approve the request. Chairman Sweeten stated that approval of the request would depend on interpretation of the code by the City Council.

6. Conditional Use Permit – Lindon’s Tree Amigos, 1380 West 90 South. This is a request for approval of a wholesale yard and storage for landscaping supplies (primarily trees and shrubs) in the Light Industrial Zone, within the Westlind Industrial Park A, Lot 12.

The applicants for this item introduced themselves as Brad Bently, Bryan Pratt, and Alex Hunt. Mr. Cowie reviewed the item, explaining that the business would be a wholesale landscape storage yard. He stated that the site had previously been used as a storage facility by a vinyl fencing company, and that there is already vinyl fence and landscaping installed, as well as concrete storage boxes, and that more engineering on the site would not be required. Mr. Cowie described a small building that the applicants were proposing as a temporary office. He stated that due to the size of the building, it is exempt from building permit requirements and inspections, and that the building would have power but not water. Another issue that would need to be addressed by the Commission is a portable toilet the applicants were proposing to bring onto the site. Mr. Cowie expressed additional concerns regarding the road area, which is lightly graveled. He stated that during storms the roadway could become very muddy, and cause traffic concerns. Mr. Hunt indicated that they had recently graveled the road to a depth of ten inches. Mr. Hunt also stated that they had installed gravel walkways in the storage area for foot traffic. Commissioner Anderson observed that the site had previously been used as a storage area only, and that no business was conducted there. He asked the applicants if they plan to use the site for storage only, or if it is intended to be used as a sales area. Mr. Hunt indicated that the business has another storage lot located in Orem. He also indicated that they have a business office which is located in his home in Lindon, and was approved by Lindon City. He stated that the main purpose of the site is for storage, and that the majority of their business is bulk sales to contractors. Mr. Hunt commented that several people have seen their business from I-15 and stopped to purchase products. He emphasized that they are not advertising or installing any type of signage to promote private sales, but also don’t want to turn business away. Commissioner Anderson informed the applicants that if the business changes from a storage area only, to conducting business on site, a permanent building would be required, along with a permanent restroom facility. He stated that the Commission has the option of issuing a Conditional Use Permit for a period of one to two years, to allow time for the applicant to decide if the business is successful, before requiring a permanent building. He indicated that the small shed proposed as an office space and a portable toilet would not meet the criteria for permanent structures. Chairman Sweeten asked Mr. Cowie what the code requires regarding a permanent restroom facility for a temporary Conditional Use Permit. Mr. Cowie indicated that it was not addressed in the code, and that it would fall under the authority of Phil Brown. Mr. Bently asked for clarification of what constitutes an office, stating that the majority of their business and record keeping are conducted at the office located in Mr. Hunt’s home. Chairman Sweeten responded that if they are conducting business of any type in the building, it becomes an office. Commissioner Nixon observed that the Commission had not previously approved any Conditional Use Permits without permanent restroom facilities, but that they were able to do so if they felt all concerns had been addressed. Mr. Cowie informed the Commission that they have broad discretion regarding the conditions placed on a CUP. Mr. Hunt indicated that the desire of the applicants is to have the first season to determine the stability of the business. He stated that they have a lease option on the property for one year. At the end of that period they will address any issues regarding requirements for a permanent building with the Commission, but are requesting approval under these conditions for the first year. Commissioner Anderson stated that the Commission could not approve the use of the portable toilet facility for that period of time. Chairman Sweeten suggested that if the business could operate without the use of the office, then they would meet the requirements of the existing CUP. Mr. Hunt stated that they don’t intend to do a lot of business there, and could likely manage without the use of an office. Commissioner Bryner commented that there is a likelihood that the walk in business would continue, and business would continue to be conducted on site. Chairman Sweeten stated that it is allowable to do business on the site. However, if an office is included on the site a permanent restroom facility would also be required. Commissioner Godfrey stated that he would not feel comfortable approving a CUP without a permanent restroom facility in view of the fact that no other applications submitted to the Commission have been approved without permanent restroom facilities. Mr. Hunt stated that Phil Brown had informed them that the requirement for the site would be an ADA approved portable restroom facility. Mr. Cowie clarified that the portable restroom would meet building code, but the issue of a temporary facility is a condition of the CUP and is determined by the Planning Commission. Commissioner Nixon suggested the possibility of approval for a temporary restroom for an 18 month period. At the end of that period, it would be necessary to remove the temporary facility and construct a permanent restroom. Commissioner Godfrey suggested a period of 180 days for temporary use, considering the nature of the business is seasonal and the site would not be used during the winter months. The Commission discussed other businesses which had been approved for Conditional Use Permits without restrooms, such as the Park and Sell car lot, as well as the Snow Shack type businesses, which are approved for seasonal summer use with no restroom facilities. After further consideration, Commissioner Godfrey questioned why those businesses could be approved and not the application they were currently considering. Commissioner Peters stated that the application is for a landscaping storage and wholesale yard, and a permanent restroom facility should be required, considering that restrooms have been a requirement on previous applications for approval for other businesses. Commissioner Anderson compared the requirements for this application to the requirements placed on Wasatch U-Cart. He stated that Wasatch had not been allowed to open for business until a permanent restroom facility had been constructed, consequently the business had not been able to open. Mr. Cowie observed that it would be difficult to ensure compliance with the requirement to use the building for storage only. Commissioner Bryner stated that she felt the building should be removed to eliminate the possibility that it would be used as an office without the required restroom facilities. Chairman Sweeten clarified that the code does not prohibit sheds from the property After extensive discussion regarding use of the building as a shed rather than an office, and the requirements for a restroom, the applicants agreed that the building would be used a shed only, that no business would be conducted in the building, and that they would not have a portable restroom facility on site. Following further discussion, Chairman Sweeten called for a motion.

COMMISSIONER NIXON MOVED TO APPROVE THE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR LINDON’S TREE AMIGOS TO ESTABLISH A LANDSCAPE STORAGE AND WHOLESALE YARD AT WESTLIND INDUSTRIAL PARK A – LOT 12, WITH THE FOLLOWING RECOMMENDATIONS:

1. THAT THE STRUCTURE BE ALLOWED AS A STORAGE SHED ONLY AND NOT FOR HUMAN OCCUPANCY.

2. THAT AT THE END OF 180 DAYS THE TEMPORARY BUILDING IS REMOVED AND PLANS SUBMITTED FOR A PERMANENT BUILDING WHICH INCLUDES RESTROOM FACILITIES.

COMMISSIONER GODFREY SECONDED THE MOTION. THE VOTE WAS RECORDED AS FOLLOWS: CHAIRMAN SWEETEN AYE COMMISSIONER ANDERSON AYE COMMISSIONER BRYNER NAY COMMISSIONER GODFREY AYE COMMISSIONER NIXON AYE COMMISSIONER PETERS NAY THE MOTION CARRIED (4-2).

7. Design Review – Ron Hatfield Development, 126 South Main Street. This is a review with Mr. Hatfield regarding the current development activities associated with his property on Main Street, within the General Commercial Zone.

 Mr. Hatfield, his wife Maurine and his son Morgan, came before the Commission. Mr. Cowie reviewed the item, stating that Mr. Hatfield is currently constructing two separate structures on his property. One structure is a castle, and is for recreational use in association with the dwellings on the site. Mr. Cowie stated that Mr. Hatfield had been asked to share his intent and long term plans for the site. The site is located in an existing commercial zone. Mr. Cowie stated that the building permit for the castle structure is pending, and that the Commission has discretion to require site plan approval if it is intended to be used as commercial property. Chairman Sweeten commented that the structure that is being constructed as a dwelling was originally approved as a remodel project. He stated that the original structure had since been torn down and a new structure started. Mr. Hatfield addressed the Commission regarding his property. He stated that he currently owns fourteen acres of property, and commented on the extensive clean up that had been done on the property since he purchased it ten years ago. Mr. Hatfield stated that all the storm water from Main Street drains onto his property. According to Mr. Hatfield, Kevin Smith had made the recommendation that Mr. Hatfield create a detention basin on his property. The storm water drainage is now channeled to the area where the castle structure is located. Mr. Hatfield stated that to make use of the area, he and his wife had the idea to construct a castle, and use the water retention area as a mote. Mr. Hatfield informed the Commission that they have a large family, including 8 children and 32 grandchildren, with two more on the way. Mr. Hatfield also owns homes adjacent to the area. These homes are generally occupied by family members. His children had originally approached him to build a pavilion on the property to hold family gatherings. The next year they decided that a trampoline would be a fun addition, and later a playground area. Mr. Hatfield related a story of a son who was having personal difficulties. During the period the son was having problems, Mr. Hatfield asked him to help with the construction of the cabin structure located on the property. During the construction of the cabin, they were able to talk and resolve many of the issues in his son’s life. Mr. Hatfield commented that the facility had been used by many organizations in the community, such as fathers and sons outings, and LDS Ward gatherings. Mr. Hatfield stated that a fee is never charged for use of the facilities, and the intention is for it to be a place for his family and other families to gather. Mr. Hatfield commented on the residential dwelling currently under construction. He stated that it is a 14,000 square foot facility, including a 5,000 square foot family room, a 5,000 square foot art gallery, and a 2,200 square foot residence. The structure is ADA compliant. Mr. Hatfield also intends to install an additional parking area near the dwelling which is not intended for public use, but for family and friends. They intend to offer use of the facility for events such as piano recitals or local theater productions, but emphasized that no fee would be charged for use of the facilities for these events. Mr. Hatfield commented that the property and structures will continue to change as his family changes. He observed that he is limited commercially by the land ownership around him. Mr. Hatfield stated that he is not interested in becoming involved in any large projects, but will continue with small projects that he is able to complete and enjoy with his family. He stated that all of the structures on the property are located within a three acre area, and that future projects are expected remain within that three acres. Mr. Hatfield specified that use of the area would be limited to friends, family, and community events. Chairman Sweeten asked for clarification on some questions he had regarding the construction of the dwelling on the property. He first asked about the original project which was approved as remodel. Morgan Hatfield stated that the original plan was to use part of the existing dwelling in the construction of the current dwelling. However, the original dwelling was constructed in the 1930’s, and after construction began it became apparent that the original dwelling was not usable for a remodeling project. Chairman Sweeten referred to the set backs, commenting that in some places there is only a two foot set back. He inquired as to why the project was approved with such a small setback. Mr. Cowie informed him that the dwelling is built to commercial standards and is located in a commercial zone, stating that the required set back is zero with an approved wall. Mr. Hatfield confirmed that the dwelling is within the approved set backs. Following the discussion with Mr. Hatfield, the Planning Commission felt that no site plan review was required. The Commission requested that Mr. Hatfield keep them informed of future projects on the site. Mr. Hatfield invited members of the Commission to tour the property, and stated that they will hold an open house when the dwelling is completed. Mr. Hatfield also mentioned the possibility of using the area as part of the annual Lindon Days Celebration. The Commission thanked Mr. Hatfield for his time.

8. Public Hearing – R2 Overlay Ordinance Amendments. This is a continued public hearing in which the Commission may receive public comment on and possibly approve amendments to the R2 Overlay ordinance. This item may be continued if the Planning Commission desires further revision and review (previously reviewed on March 23, 2005).

 Mr. Cowie presented a map defining the areas of each district in the R2 Overlay Ordinance. He stated that each district is allotted a certain number of units, and each of those units is required to have a 750 foot buffer zone from the nearest neighboring project. Mr. Cowie gave statistics relating to the number of projects built and projects still available in several of the districts. He stated that if the proposed changes in the ordinance are put into effect, that many districts are nearing capacity. Commissioner Godfrey observed that the changes to the ordinance do not change the required quotas for affordable housing, and that those quotas could still be met with accessory apartments. Commissioner Nixon inquired as to why the proposed changes were being considered. Chairman Sweeten stated that he felt it was to make the ordinance more restrictive. Commissioner Anderson asked who was on the committee to draft the proposed changes. He was informed that the committee consisted of Ott Dameron, Mayor Jeff Acerson, former Planning Director Kevin Smith, Chairman Sweeten, and Commissioner Peters. Commissioner Nixon asked for clarification on the requirement of no detached single family dwellings. Chairman Sweeten stated that it was the consensus of the committee that detached single family dwellings did not meet the specifications for moderate income housing. Chairman Sweeten noted that there were two citizens in the audience who had been waiting for a long time to address this item, and invited them to speak to the Commission. The first citizen to address the Commission was Ben Nolte. Mr. Nolte currently owns a home with an accessory apartment at 415 North 800 East. Mr. Nolte asked for clarification on the buffer zone area as it crosses district boundaries, and if a unit could be closer than 750 feet to a unit in another district. Commissioner Nixon informed Mr. Nolte that the measurement is from the outside wall of one project to the outside wall of another project with no allowance for different district boundaries. Mr. Nolte asked if that needed to be clarified in the ordinance. Mr. Cowie informed him that those specifications are already stated in the current code. Mr. Nolte asked if there was a duplex built in one buffer zone if another duplex could be built in the same buffer zone. Chairman Sweeten informed him that the ordinance allows only one project per buffer zone regardless of the number of units in the project. Mr. Nolte asked the Commission if there was a possibility that the Commission and the City Council would be interested in finding a way to make his project work. Chairman Sweeten told Mr. Nolte that the City Council generally interprets the ordinance more strictly than the Commission, and that there is not usually much leeway. Chairman Sweeten observed that the Commission and the Council are leaning toward the ordinance being more restrictive, and that it would not become less restrictive. Mr. Nolte inquired as to parking requirements for mother-in-law apartments. Chairman Sweeten informed him that no off street parking is required if a family member occupies the apartment. Commissioner Anderson asked for clarification on the definition of a mother in law apartment as opposed to an accessory apartment. He was informed that the difference is in who occupies the apartment. If a family member of the home owner occupies the apartment it is considered a mother in law apartment and does not require off street parking. If it is rented to someone who is not a family member, it is considered an accessory apartment and requires off street parking. Michael Travis was present in the audience, and asked the Commission to clarify what they are trying to achieve with the R2 Overlay Ordinance. In Mr. Travis’ opinion, the only housing available in Lindon which meets moderate income levels is accessory apartments. He observed that the intent of the R2 Overlay Ordinance is to provide home ownership which meets the moderate income requirement. Chairman Sweeten agreed, and stated that the Commission would like to promote affordable ownership opportunities. Mr. Travis stated that contractors could build units in the range to meet affordable housing needs, but they would not be high quality, and would not retain a quality look ten years after construction. He stated that a viable option in meeting the need for affordable housing is common walls associated with multiple family units. Mr. Travis expressed concern that if the buffer zone is increased to 1000 feet, it would further limit the options for builders and those looking to purchase affordable housing. Commissioner Anderson stated that a decision needs to be made about what the City would like to see. He stated that affordable housing can not look like $400,000 homes. Commissioner Anderson also observed that land costs are not the only issue, but that high impact fees are also prohibitive to affordable housing projects. During discussion regarding the definition of moderate housing, it was determined that moderate housing is defined as housing with a market price between $150,000 and $200,000. Chairman Sweeten commented that the ordinance specifies a variety of housing including moderate housing, and that it is not intended to meet strictly moderate housing needs. Commissioner Nixon observed that the proposed restrictions may make it difficult to meet the objective of providing affordable moderate income housing. Commissioner Godfrey stated that there are issues, such as driveway restrictions, which need to be addressed. Commissioner Peters suggested that the Commission review each of the proposed changes and strike the items they didn’t feel should be approved. The Commission proceeded with a review of each item as follows:

1. Increase buffer zone to 1,000 feet NO

2. Reduce units per acre to 4 NO

3. City street standards on drives over 150 feet NO

4. Comply with street standards on streets YES

5. Minimum lot size of one acre NO

6. 2 to 1 ratio of depth to frontage YES

7. No hammer head turnarounds allowed NO

8. Three parking stalls per unit YES

9. Driveway not more than 150 feet NO

10. Match set backs of neighbors YES

11. Include moderate income housing YES

12. Parking structures in rear YES

13. No detached single family dwellings NO, But single family dwellings must meet definition for moderate housing.

It was noted that these thirteen items were a recommendation of a committee formed for the purpose of the reviewing the existing the R2 Overlay Ordinance. The Planning Commission will recommend approval to the City Council only of items with a YES vote after review by the Commission.

COMMISSIONER NIXON MOVED TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING OF THE R2 OVERLAY ORDINANCE AMMENDMENTS. COMMISSIONER ANDERSON SECONDED THE MOTION. ALL PRESENT VOTED IN FAVOR. THE MOTION CARRIED. COMMISSIONER NIXON MOVED TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF THE PROPOSED R2 OVERLAY AMMENDMENTS TO THE CITY COUNCIL. COMMISSIONER BRYNER SECONDED THE MOTION. ALL PRESENT VOTED IN FAVOR. THE MOTION CARRIED.

NEW BUSINESS – Reports by Commissioners

Due to the late hour, no individual reports were given by Commissioners.

Commissioner Bryner requested that the letter submitted to the Commission by Mr. Nolte be forwarded to the City Council. She stated that she feels that Lindon is suffering from an identity crisis, because Lindon City has the theme “A Little Bit of Country,” but wants to attract large commercial and retail businesses to locate in Lindon, and the issue of affordable housing needs to be more clearly addressed by the City Council. Commissioner Bryner suggested that in order to attract commercial and retail businesses which will produce revenue, it may be necessary to allow for higher density housing in some areas. Commissioner Nixon agreed that there is a need in Lindon for moderate income housing, and that higher density is the best means to achieve it. Commissioner Peters commented on the money spent by a particular developer in putting together a proposal for the city, and stated that the developers for the project that had not been approved by the City Council had spent about $70,000 in the process of submitting the proposal, and were ultimately turned down.

PLANNING DIRECTOR REPORT

Due to the late hour, the Planning Director gave no report

ADJOURN

COMMISSIONER BRYNER MOVED TO ADJOURN THE MEETING AT 12:32 P.M. CHAIRMAN SWEETEN SECONDED THE MOTION. ALL PRESENT VOTED IN FAVOR. THE MOTION CARRIED. Approved April 27, 2005 _______________________________ ______________________________ Adam Cowie, Planning Director Dustin Sweeten, Chairman