|
|
Home » City Government » Planning Commission » Planning Commission Schedule 2005 (Agendas and Minutes) » Planning Commission Agendas 2005 » April 27, 2005
April 27, 2005
The Lindon City Planning Commission held a regularly scheduled meeting on Wednesday, April 27, 2005, at 7:00 p.m., at the Lindon City Center, City Council Chambers, at 100 North State Street, Lindon, Utah.
Conducting: Dustin Sweeten, Chairman
Prayer: Julie Bryner, Commissioner
Pledge of Allegiance: Dustin Sweeten
PRESENT ABSENT
Dustin Sweeten, Chairman Ron Anderson, Commissioner
Julie Bryner, Commissioner Gary Godfrey, Commissioner
Evan Nixon, Commissioner
Jim Peters, Commissioner
Marilyn Simister, Commissioner
The meeting was called to order at 7:08 p.m.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
The minutes of the meeting of April 13, 2005 were reviewed. The following corrections were made:
Page 2, Line 16: add the words “on State Street”.
Page 2, Line 34: replace the words “there is available seating for”, with the words “are represented by available seating”.
Page 3, Line 38: replace the words “building to the west corner”, with the words “east driveway to State Street”.
Page 4, Line 13: replace the words “though he didn’t anticipate any”, with the words “there is no actual conflict, but may be a perceived”.
Page 8, Line 35: add the word “detention” before the word “basin”.
Page 11, Line 40: add the words “for the applicant”, before the words “to decide”.
Page 12, Line 43: add the sentence “Mr. Cowie observed that it would be difficult to ensure compliance with the requirement to use the building for storage only.”
Page 14, Line 1: add the sentence “According to Mr. Hatfield, Kevin Smith had recommended to Mr. Hatfield that he create a detention basin on his property”.
Page 17, Line 17: add the words “because Lindon City has the theme ‘A Little Bit of Country,” but wants to attract large commercial and retail businesses to locate in Lindon.”
Page 17, Line 20: add the words “by the City Council”, after the word “addressed”.
Page 17, Line 24: add the word “particular”, before the word “developer”.
COMMISSIONER PETERS MOVED TO APPROVE THE MINUTES OF THE APRIL 13, 2005 MEETING AS CORRECTED. COMMISSIONER NIXON SECONED THE MOTION. ALL PRESENT VOTED IN FAVOR. THE MOTION CARRIED.
PUBLIC COMMENT
No Comment
CURRENT BUSINESS
1. Design Review – Dunn Investments, 575 North State Street. This is a request for a second design review of a proposed retail strip mall in the Commercial Zone.
Skip Dunn approached the Commission and introduced himself. Mr. Cowie indicated that this item is still in the design review stage. Therefore, no motion is necessary. He indicated that the site is located near 550 North in the General Commercial Zone. Mr. Cowie commented that UDOT Representative he had spoken with had expressed concern regarding the access easements on the property. Mr. Dunn stated that he had since spoken with UDOT representatives to provide them with the information they needed. He stated that they needed information regarding the dimensions from the corner of the site to the north and far north entrance, and were requesting that he share one access with the neighboring lot. Mr. Dunn indicated that UDOT was satisfied with the outcome of the conversation, and that concerns they had expressed had been addressed. Mr. Cowie informed Mr. Dunn that it would be necessary to provide a written statement of approval from UDOT before final approval of the project. Mr. Cowie informed the Commission that Mr. Dunn has more than the required amount of parking. He also stated that in the original site plan, Mr. Dunn had proposed using an area of the retail strip mall as an office area for the adjacent car lot. Mr. Dunn has subsequently changed his application, and is no longer proposing the office space in the development.
Commissioner Nixon inquired as to whether a building had been required on the north lot in conjunction with the non-conforming use permit. Chairman Sweeten indicated that no office or building had been required, but a limit had been placed on the number of cars allowed on the lot. Mr. Dunn indicated that the limit on cars was sixty.
Mr. Dunn initially proposed a change in the property line between the two lots, along with a change in access areas to the lot on the current site plan. Commissioner Simister stated that if there are changes made to the car lot, the non conforming use permit would require a review by the Planning Commission. Commissioner Nixon noted that due to the fact that he car lot is under a non conforming use permit, the Commission would want to review it carefully if any changes were proposed. Chairman Sweeten informed Mr. Dunn that those changes would require a new application for the non conforming use permit for the car lot. Following further discussion, Mr. Dunn made the decision to submit plans for changes to the south lot at a later date.
Commissioner Peters inquired as to the current access easements. Mr. Dunn stated that there are currently four access points from State Street. However, he will be required by UDOT to remove two of those accesses. Commissioner Peters also commented that he would like to see a cross easement onto the adjacent lot, which would provide better access to State Street. Mr. Dunn stated that he had spoken with Wal-Mart representatives regarding a cross easement onto Wal-Mart property, but Wal-Mart representatives had declined. Commissioner Nixon asked if the Commission had any authority to encourage Wal-Mart to provide a cross easement. Chairman Sweeten stated that it is private property owned by Wal-Mart, and a cross easement cannot be required. Commissioner Nixon suggested that Mr. Cowie contact Wal-Mart to discuss the possibility. Mr. Cowie stated that he would be willing to contact Wal-Mart.
Commissioner Nixon asked Mr. Dunn if he had contacted Wal-Mart regarding the use of their detention basin. Mr. Dunn stated that it would simplify the construction process if Wal-Mart would allow use of their detention basin. However, they also declined use of the detention basin. Mr. Dunn is currently proposing use of pumps to drain storm water into the drainage system on State Street.
Commissioner Simister commented on Check City, one of the businesses which will occupy the proposed retail project. She noted that the corporate colors of red and yellow used by Check City would not be allowed on the building, and that they would be required to incorporate the earth tone colors required for other development on State Street. Mr. Dunn inquired if those restrictions would apply to signage. Commissioner Simister stated that according to the current code it would apply to the building only.
Mr. Dunn invited the architect for the project, Curtis Miner, to answer Commission questions regarding the elements of the building. Mr. Miner mentioned several Check City locations in the valley, including American Fork, Provo, and Orem. He stated that the architectural design of this building would be similar to those projects, and that the building would meet City requirements relating to color and design. Mr. Miner also indicated that signage would include corporate colors and specifications. Mr. Miner showed drawings of the elevations of the building, which include green awnings in some areas. He inquired if the green color of the awnings was in compliance with the required earth tone colors. Commissioner Simister informed him that it would depend on the shade of green. She stated that bright green would not be acceptable, but a forest green would be within requirements. Mr. Miner stated that the green color is intended to be a color that will work with the earth tone colors used in the building.
As discussion began regarding signage, Commissioner Peters pointed out that there is currently a moratorium on signage in the city due to review of the current sign ordinance. Mr. Cowie clarified that the moratorium applies to all types of signs, and that no signs can be approved until the sign ordinance is reviewed and the moratorium lifted. Given this information, Mr. Miner will defer questions and recommendations regarding signage until possible changes in the ordinance are in place.
Commissioner Bryner noted that the Commission has required architectural elements, such as pitched roofs, on other projects before approval. Commissioner Bryner noted that the proposed project looks nice, but suggested that additional craftsman elements, such as wagon wheel windows, stone, and timbers, be incorporated into the design. Mr. Miner commented that he had reviewed the specifications given to the Washington Mutual application. Chairman Sweeten stated that the Commission is making an effort to be consistent with requirements for approval of projects. Mr. Miner stated that he would be willing to make modifications to the design, but felt that it doesn’t seem reasonable to require the same design for every project. Commissioner Nixon noted that it is not the intent of the Commission that each project should include all of the suggested design elements, but rather that each project have at least some of the elements in order to achieve a consistent look along State Street. The Commission reviewed elements which would be necessary for approval, such as stacked stone, timbers, earth tone colors, and arched or wagon wheel windows. Suggestions were also made to improve the aesthetics of the rear of the building.
Mr. Miner stated that the awnings on the building are currently proposed as canvas. He inquired of the Commission if this would be acceptable. While opinions among the Commission varied, Commissioner Peters stated that he had installed canvas awnings on his home an apartment building approximately ten years ago, and that they still look good. Chairman Sweeten observed that canvas awnings may not be consistent with other required elements, such as stone and timbers. Chairman Sweeten suggested giving copies of approved projects to the applicants for use in comparison of required elements. Mr. Miner stated that he had done several projects in which the awnings were constructed of metal roofing. Commissioner Simister pointed out that metal roofing is an element the Commission is encouraging she is in favor of using. Mr. Miner stated that using metal roofing for the awnings may be an option.
Discussion regarding elements used in the elevations of the building continued for some time. Elements discussed included the use of stacked stone, timber, wagon wheel windows, and the material used to construct the awning structures, as well as suggestions for adding trees or other landscaping elements to the islands at the end of the parking stalls, and suggestions for more architectural treatments for the rear of the structure. Mr. Miner indicated that he would make modifications to submit for approval.
During discussion regarding the cross easement and access to the north lot, it was determined that an area of curb and gutter would be eliminated on the northeast corner to allow an access. Mr. Dunn stated that he would establish the required cross easement.
Chairman Sweeten thanked Mr. Miner and Mr. Dunn for their time. He encouraged them to make recommended revisions and return for site plan approval at a later date.
2. Minor Subdivision – Midvalley Commerce Center Plat ‘D’. 200 North 1788 West. This is a request for a two lot subdivision on property owned by Big D Construction in the Light Industrial Zone.
Gregg Fix of Big D Construction approached the Commission and introduced himself. Mr. Cowie gave an overview of the item, indicating that Big D Construction owns a parcel of land located on 200 North. They are requesting to divide the large lot into two smaller lots, in order to sell the vacant portion. All required improvements have been installed on the vacant lot, both lots meet the minimum size requirement, and the city engineer had no specific concerns regarding this application. Chairman Sweeten commented that the application seemed to be “pretty straight forward,” and felt that all potential concerns had been addressed.
COMMISSIONER BRYNER MOVED TO APPROVE THE REQUEST BY BIG D CONSTRUCTION FOR A TWO LOT MINOR SUBDIVISION TITLED MIDVALLEY COMMERCE CENTER PLAT ‘D’, AND RECOMMEND APPROVAL TO THE CITY COUNCIL. COMMISSIONER SIMISTER SECONDED THE MOTION. ALL PRESENT VOTED IN FAVOR. THE MOTION CARRIED.
2. Conditional Use Permit – Western Truck Body & Trailer. 105 South 1380 West. This is a request for a CUP to operate a truck body manufacturing business in an existing building in the Light Industrial Zone.
Dan Newdell, owner of Western Truck Body & Trailer, approached the Commission and introduced himself. Mr. Cowie reviewed the application. He stated that the business is currently located in Mapleton, but has been considering relocating to Lindon for several months. Mr. Newdell indicated that his business has grown rapidly, and the facility they currently occupy is no longer sufficient to meet their needs. Mr. Cowie stated that he had contacted Mapleton City regarding the application. Mapleton officials had no concerns with Mr. Newdell, and in fact seemed disappointed that he was moving his business elsewhere.
Mr. Newdell was asked if he intended to conduct any on-site retail business. Mr. Newdell stated that the business does not include retail sales, due to the fact that all of the work they do is custom work. He stated that there is an occasional government contract which requires him to purchase the vehicle prior to doing the custom work, after which the government agency will reimburse him for the purchase.
Commissioner Nixon inquired as to the maximum number of employees Mr. Newdell anticipates at this location. Mr. Newdell stated that he expected the maximum number of employees to be approximately ten. Commissioner Nixon asked about available parking. Mr. Cowie reviewed the site, and stated that there are between fifteen and seventeen parking stalls, including one handicapped stall, and that the parking meets minimum requirements for the square footage of the building.
Commissioner Nixon asked Mr. Newdell if he intended to display any finished products on the site. Mr. Newdell indicated that all projects they complete are custom orders which have already been paid for. Consequently, there would be no excess finished products to display.
Commissioner Nixon inquired as to the paint booth needed to complete the vehicles. Mr. Newdell stated that a paint booth would be installed. He stated that compliance regulations for paint booths are very strict, and include both ventilation and sprinkler systems. Commissioner Peters asked Mr. Newdell if the EPA is the agency who oversees paint booths. Mr. Newdell indicated that the EPA as well as the state would conduct inspections to ensure compliance. Mr. Newdell stated that the paint booth is required to be certified by both inspections before it can be used. Commissioner Peters observed that if the booth meets certification requirements, there should not be any significant negative effect on neighboring businesses.
Commissioner Bryner asked Mr. Newdell for more information regarding the growth of his business and his current location. Mr. Newdell stated that the business currently occupies a 3,000 square foot building, which no longer meets their needs. Commission Nixon inquired as to the size of the building they are requesting. According to Mr. Newdell the proposed building has two separate sections, one 3,000 square feet, and the other 6,000 square feet. Mr. Newdell stated that they will be leasing the building, and the property owner would like him to lease the entire 9,000 square feet, however, he is only interested in the 6,000 foot section. He stated that if an agreement could not be reached with the property owner, he may consider a different location. Mr. Newdell asked if Commission approval would be required to locate in a different building in the same area. Commission Simister informed Mr. Newdell that it would require approval from the Commission. Mr. Cowie suggested that Mr. Newdell keep him informed, and stated that they may be able to apply the fee paid for the current permit to an alternate location. Commissioner Peters stated that another review may not require Mr. Newdell to attend, but that it is necessary for the Commission to review the site.
COMMISSIONER BRYNER MOVED TO APPROVE THE REQUEST BY DAN NUDELL, FOR A CONDITIONALUSE PERMIT FOR WESTERN TRUCK BODY & TRAILER WITH NO CONDITIONS. COMMISSIONER SIMISTER SECONDED THE MOTION. ALL PRESENT VOTED IN FAVOR. THE MOTION CARRIED.
Mr. Cowie cautioned Mr. Newdell that a fire inspection would be required before a business license could be issued. Mr. Cowie noted that the inspection would likely pay particular attention to the paint booth, therefore it would be important to make certain that all safety concerns are addressed prior to the inspection.
REPORTS BY COMMISSIONERS
Commissioner Simister commented on training she had recently attended, and stated that it was very worthwhile training, and she had received valuable information.
Commissioner Simister also commented on the recent application from Timpanogos Academy. She stated that she works with the PTA on the state level, and had done some investigation relating to the laws governing charter schools recently passed by the legislature. During review of the request for the plat adjustment for Timpanogos Academy, the Commission had been given the impression that the city had authority over only a few areas of construction. These areas include safety, traffic, and storm water. Upon investigation, Commissioner Simister was informed that the new laws governing charter schools are not effective until July 1, 2005. According to Commissioner Simister, until that date, the city has authority to review and approve construction and conduct inspections according to city code. Mr. Cowie asked Commissioner Simister to clarify where she had obtained this information. She stated that she had spoken with Ronda Rose, who had lobbied against the new charter school laws at the legislature. Commissioner Nixon asked for further information regarding who is responsible to conduct inspections of the construction if it is not under city jurisdiction. Commissioner Simister stated that charter schools are required to hire an independent inspector, and the Timpanogos Academy has hired the Alpine School District Inspector. Chairman Sweeten noted that if this information is correct, the project should be reviewed by the Planning Commission. Mr. Cowie stated that the City Attorney had indicated that the project should be dealt with according to the new laws, and the City and the Planning Commission were following his recommendations. Mr. Cowie indicated that he would investigate further.
PLANNING DIRECTORS REPORT
Mr. Cowie asked the Commission for recommendations regarding review of the current sign ordinance. The Commissioners discussed elements of the ordinance at length. Elements recommended for review include:
1. The use and placement of temporary banner signs.
2. The use and placement of LED signs.
3. The definition and use of changeable copy and motion signs.
4. The maximum allowable size of signage.
5. Specifications for construction and placement of pole signs.
6. Specifications for construction and placement of monument signs.
7. Allowable colors for signage.
8. Use of reader board signs.
9. The use and placement of temporary balloon type signs.
10. The use of statues in signage.
11. The use of neon light.
12. Regulation of indoor signs which are visible from the outside.
Mr. Cowie stated that he would draft the proposed changes to the ordinance. A public hearing will be scheduled for the Planning Commission meeting on May 11, 2005 before recommendations are made to the City Council.
Mr. Cowie then asked the Commission for recommendations regarding the issuance of Conditional Use Permits to new businesses occupying sites with an existing CUP. He stated that former Planning Director Kevin Smith had allowed several businesses to occupy such buildings without review by the Commission. Chairman Sweeten stated that he felt that any change in use of the building should be reviewed by the Commission. Commissioner Simister stated that in her opinion all new businesses should be reviewed by the Commission, so they are aware of the location of new businesses in the city. Mr. Cowie noted that it may be necessary for the Commission to review more applications than they have previously seen due to the fact that many had not been reviewed by the Commission in the past.
Mr. Cowie discussed moving the business items of the meetings to the end of the agenda. The Commission felt that it was an appropriate change.
The Commission discussed the issue of conflict of interest for members of the Commission on items they may review. Mr. Cowie stated that if a Commissioner declares a conflict of interest, the Commissioner may still participate in discussion of the item, as well as be allowed to vote on any action or motion undertaken by the Commission. If the Commission feels that the conflict may impact the decision of the Commissioner with the declared conflict, they may vote to exclude that Commissioner from the discussion and vote relating to the item. The Commissioner declaring the conflict may also exclude him or her self if he or she feels it would be appropriate to do so. Mr. Cowie stated that while it is permissible for a Commissioner to participate after declaring a conflict, he prefers that a Commissioner abstain from any participation in an item when there is potential for any past or future conflicts of interest. This will avoid the possibility that a conflict may be used against the city at any time in the future.
Mr. Cowie commented on recommendations which had been made regarding the Heritage Youth Services application previously reviewed by the Commission. During review of the application, Commissioner Godfrey had recommended that a bond be posted for the required improvements to the site as well as for liability purposes. The City Attorney has recommended that rather than using the bond for liability claims, the city should require proof of liability insurance by the business owners. The bond can still apply for required site improvements.
The Commission was informed that there is a scheduled meeting with the City Council and property owners on the west side of the city in the area which was recently denied by the City Council for residential development. The City has requested that Mr. Cowie, as well as two members of the Planning Commission attend the meeting. Chairman Sweeten and Commissioner Peters will attend the meeting.
Mr. Cowie informed the Commission that the City Council passed an ordinance forming a tree board in the City Council meeting on April 19, 2005. He commented that Commissioner Simister has been appointed to that board. He stated that the ordinance is the first step in achieving Tree City USA designation. Mr. Cowie stated that the City Council would like to have the tree ordinance in place prior to the annual Lindon Days Celebration in August, in order to begin planting of trees as part of the celebration. Commissioner Simister commented on several large trees which had been located on State Street. UDOT had required removal of the trees due to safety concerns relating to the placement of the intersection east of Wal-Mart on State Street. Commissioner Simister stated that the city may be able to apply for reimbursement of those trees through the state.
Mr. Cowie informed the Commission that there will be a public open house on May 24th from 7:00 – 9:00 p.m. at the City Center with CRS Architects to begin the review process for design requirements for State Street.
ADJOURN
COMMISSIONER BRYNER MOVED TO ADJOURN THE MEETING AT 10:07 P.M. COMMISSIONER SIMISTER SECONDED THE MOTION. ALL PRESENT VOTED IN FAVOR. THE MOTION CARRIED.
APPROVED – May 11, 2005
_________________________________
Dustin Sweeten, Chairman
______________________________
Adam Cowie, Planning Director
|
|
|
