|
|
Home » City Government » Planning Commission » Planning Commission Schedule 2005 (Agendas and Minutes) » Planning Commission Agendas 2005 » August 10, 2005
August 10, 2005
The Lindon City Planning Commission held a regularly scheduled meeting on Wednesday, August 10, 2005, beginning at 7:00 p.m., in the Lindon City Center, City Council Chambers, 100 North State Street, Lindon, Utah.
Conducting: Jim Peters, Commissioner
Pledge of Allegiance: Jim Peters
Invocation: Marilyn Simister, Commissioner
PRESENT ABSENT
Julie Bryner, Commissioner Dustin Sweeten, Chairperson
Gary Godfrey, Commissioner Ron Anderson, Commissioner
Evan Nixon, Commissioner
Jim Peters, Commissioner
Marilyn Simister, Commissioner
Adam Cowie, Planning Director
Debra Cullimore, Deputy Recorder
The meeting was called to order at 7:09 p.m.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES –
The minutes of the regular meeting of July 27, 2005 were reviewed. The following corrections were made:
Page 2, Line 34: strike the words “if no additional access is acquired, a cul-de-sac street would be necessary, and that the length of a cul-de-sac street may not meet city street standard” and add the words “the distance from Main Street may be too long for city street standards for a cul-de-sac.”
Page 3, Line 44: strike the words “it was not necessarily Mr. Hatfield who had not followed the outlined procedures, but that someone had ‘dropped the ball’ in relation to the development” and add the words “the application was proposed and built as a residential project.”
Page 6, Line 33: strike the word “corbel” and add the words “cornice brackets”.
Page 6, Line 43: add the sentence “Additional cross easements are not necessary due to the fact that traffic is not being forced back on to State Street.”
Page 7, Line 13: strike the word “may” and add the word “would.”
Page 10, Line 44: strike the words “he did not feel that Lindon should be responsible to provide a large amount of affordable housing. He noted that” and add the words “just a few hundred yards away.”
Page 12, Line 7: strike the words “and City Council”.
Page 12, Line 44: add the words “as the City Council did not waive the stone element for the 700 North elevation.”
COMMISSIONER GODFREY MOVED TO APPROVE THE MINIUTES OF JULY 27, 2005 MEETING AS CORRECTED. COMMISSIONER SIMISTER SECONDED THE MOTION. ALL PRESENT VOTED IN FAVOR. THE MOTION CARRIED.
PUBLIC COMMENT –
No public comment.
CURRENT BUSINESS –
1. Public Hearing - Minor Subdivision/Non-conforming lot change – Wesvirginia Hollow – 525 West 200 South. This is a request by Royce Swenson for a 2-lot subdivision that entails alteration of a non-conforming lot.
COMMISSIONER GODFREY MOVED TO OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING FOR AGENDA ITEM 1 AND AGENDA ITEM 2. COMMISSIONER SIMISTER SECONDED THE MOTION. ALL PRESENT VOTED IN FAVOR. THE MOTION CARRIED.
Mr. Cowie stated that the subject property is located adjacent to 200 South. County records indicated a deed gap between the subject property and the neighboring lot to the west, identified as the Wasden property, which is not part of the subdivision. Mr. Swenson has worked with the neighboring property owners to adjust the property line in order to create adequate frontage to allow two lots. Mr. Cowie noted that following required public noticing, the City received one written response opposing the lot change, but the response included no contact information for the respondent. The gap has been corrected and the new lot line adjustment actually increased the lot size of the Wasden property to make it more conforming with the 20,000 square foot lot size requirement.
Mr. Cowie noted that current code requires a lot width of 100 feet at the thirty foot setback. Lot #1 meets the 100 foot width at the thirty foot setback, but narrows slightly at the rear of the lot to a width of approximately 97.5 feet. Commissioner Simister observed that many lots in Lindon are not 100 feet wide at the rear of the lot. Mr. Cowie presented several examples of similar lots.
Commissioner Peters asked Mr. Swenson for his comments. Mr. Swenson stated that he has been working with the neighboring property owners since February. Mr. Swenson indicated that he has paid a property settlement to the Wasden family for their time and cooperation in making the adjustment, and he is anxious to move ahead with the project.
Commissioner Peters called for public comment. There was no comment from the audience.
Commissioner Simister asked if the existing residence on lot 2 is within required set backs. Mr. Cowie indicated that the main structure is within setbacks, but a small addition to the residence will be removed to maintain required setbacks. Commissioner Simister asked if the deed has been recorded at this time. Mr. Cowie stated that the deed has been prepared, and will be filed upon approval of the application.
Commissioner Peters called for further discussion. Hearing none, he called for a motion.
COMMISSIONER SIMISTER MOVED TO APPROVE THE REQUEST BY ROYCE SWENSON FOR A 2-LOT MINOR SUBDIVISION TITLED WESVIRGINIA HOLLOW AND RECOMMEND APPROVAL TO THE CITY COUNCIL WITH THE FOLLOWING RECOMMENDATIONS:
1. THAT THE DEED BE FILED CLARIFYING THE LOT ADJUSTMENT WITH THE NEIGHBORING PARCEL.
2. THAT THE ADDITION TO THE RESIDENCE ON LOT 2 IS REMOVED TO MAINTAIN REQUIRED SETBACKS.
COMMISSIONER BRYNER SECONDED THE MOTION. ALL PRESENT VOTED IN FAVOR. THE MOTION CARRIED.
2. Public Hearing – Minor Subdivision/Nonconforming lot change – Dray Savage Estates – ~500 East 85 South. This is a request by Dray Savage for a 2-lot subdivision that entails alteration of a non-conforming lot.
Gary Hoglund and Reed Walker were the representatives for this item. Mr. Hoglund is the contractor for the project, and Mr. Walker is the property owner. Mr. Cowie reviewed the application. He stated that the proposed lot 2 will front onto 500 East across from Rocky Mountain Elementary. Both lots will meet the minimum lot size requirement, but lot 1 does not meet the minimum 100 foot width requirement and is, therefore, a non-conforming lot. Mr. Cowie noted that the non-conforming lot meets the minimum lot size requirement of 20,000 square feet. Without requiring the purchase of neighboring property, staff saw no alternatives which would accommodate development of this property.
Commissioner Peters asked Mr. Hoglund which lot the residence would be constructed on. Mr. Hoglund indicated that construction is planned on lot 2. Commissioner Peters pointed out that due to the size of the lot, there may be a potential for an additional structure on the lot. He informed the applicant that a future flag lot would not be a possibility, as the configuration would be considered a “self created hardship.” Mr. Hoglund stated that the residence which will be constructed on the lot is quite large, and would eliminate the possibility of an additional residence on the lot.
Mr. Cowie noted that the property to the north of the proposed development is identified as “Reed Walker, Future Development” and is not part of the plat. This area will continue to have double frontage and also exceeds the 3 to 1 depth ratio. However, since these characteristics already exist, staff felt that approval of the subdivision would not “create” non-conforming lots on the remnant pieces of property. The owner of the remnant parcel has been advised that when they develop the property, it will be necessary to subdivide the property in a manner that creates conforming lots. Commissioner Nixon inquired as to why the owner would be required to eliminate the double frontage if the property is subdivided. Mr. Cowie stated that creating a subdivision lot with double frontage is not consistent with City ordinance. Commissioner Nixon suggested that rather than requiring removal of double frontage, that single access to the site be listed on the building permit. He observed that the City encourages large lots, and that subdivision of the parcel would create smaller lots. Mr. Cowie stated that staff felt it was an opportunity to create more conforming lots in the future.
Commissioner Peters called for public comment. Hearing none, the public hearing was closed and a motion made.
COMMISSIONER NIXON MOVED TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING FOR AGENDA ITEM 1 AND AGENDA ITEM 2. COMMISSIONER SIMISTER SECONDED THE MOTION. ALL PRESENT VOTED IN FAVOR. THE MOTION CARRIED.
COMMISSIONER GODFREY MOVED TO APPROVE THE REQUEST BY DRAY SAVAGE FOR A 2-LOT MINOR SUBDIVISION AND RECOMMEND APPROVAL TO THE CITY COUNCIL. COMMISSIONER BRYNER SECONDED THE MOTION. ALL PRESENT VOTED IN FAVOR. THE MOTION CARRIED.
3. Commercial Design Guidelines – Presented by CRS Architects. This is a review of the draft Commercial Design Guidelines for State Street and the 700 North corridors.
Mr. Cowie introduced Soren Simonsen and Susie Petheram of CRS Architects. Mr. Cowie clarified that this discussion had not been advertised as a public hearing, and was intended to give the Commission an overview of recommendations made by CRS Architects following a open house, at which Lindon City residents and staff had an opportunity to provide input regarding recommendations made by CRS Architects. Mr. Cowie indicated that approximately 50-60 people had participated in the survey.
Ms. Petheram gave a visual presentation regarding recommended guidelines. Elements included in the guidelines were streetscape, architectural characteristics, parking, and signage. Ms. Petheram reviewed specific recommendations for each of these elements. She stated that following the presentation, the Commission would have the opportunity to respond to a series of questions, which would elicit feedback and assist CRS Architects in refining the guidelines. Ms. Petheram indicated that the goal of the recommendations is to create a “destination” for people, rather than a commercial corridor.
Streetscape elements which were reviewed include layout, amenities, paths or walkways, and lighting. Results of the survey indicated that streetscape preferences included gabled roofs for smaller buildings, or flat roofs with architectural detailing for larger buildings. Buildings which were oriented to the street were preferred. Parking strips shown in the survey received positive feedback, with a three foot minimum and ten foot maximum parking strips being suggested. A ten foot minimum and fifty foot maximum landscape setback, with the minimum landscape setback being twenty feet if located adjacent to a parking area were also recommended elements. Preferences also included trees spaced at thirty feet in the parking strip and landscaped medians, white two rail fence, district markers, ten to fifteen foot pathways or sidewalks, and coordination of street and pedestrian scale lighting.
Architectural elements which were reviewed include building mass, form, and orientation, building height and setback, construction materials, building trim and detailing, and roofing materials. Results of the survey indicated that preferences for architectural elements include small individual developments which are oriented to the main corridor, variation in depth of front set backs, and façade variation. Preferences for construction materials include stone, masonry, wood, stucco and pre-cast concrete panels. Preferences for colors were “earth-tones”. Mr. Simonson suggested the use of a color palette which included a range of acceptable colors. Survey results indicated that simple window shapes with detailing were preferred.
Parking elements which were reviewed include location, landscaping and amenities, and parking area circulation. Results of the survey indicate that parking in front set backs should be minimized, and that shared parking should be encouraged. Parking areas should be enhanced with trees along the perimeter, as well as on the interior islands. Ms. Pethram and Mr. Simonson discussed the use of angled, “on street” parking. Mr. Simonson noted that the maximum recommended speed for a street adjacent to angled parking is 35 miles per hour. Therefore, angled parking would be recommended only for side streets, and not the State Street or 700 North corridors. The results of the survey also indicate a desire of residents to clearly define the circulation system for the parking area, as well as delineate pedestrian routes through parking areas.
Signage elements which were reviewed include commercial signs, sign type and location, and the use of “wayfinding” signs. Results of the survey indicate a preference for sign materials which complement the related structure, and the placement of signage to assure that it is easily viewed. The survey results indicate a preference for simplicity in design , shape, and style of signage. Various types of signage were presented, such as monument, flat wall, blade, and pedestrian scale signage.
Ms. Pethram requested feedback from the Commission in order to determine the priorities which should be addressed in the recommendations. Ms. Pethram also requested that the Commission make a recommendation regarding findings of the survey as “standards”, or as “guidelines”. Further recommendations were requested regarding use of specific standards on the State Street and 700 North corridors, as well as side streets. Ms. Pethram also suggested that it may be necessary to modify specific ordinances to accommodate the recommended standards.
The Commission discussed elements of the survey at length. Some items discussed were possible safety concern related to maintenance of planted medians, location of parking, speed limits, visibility of signage, and placement of trees. Mr. Simonson gave examples of other cities in the area where similar elements which had been recommended can be seen for comparison. Commissioners will review the proposed standards and make specific recommendations to CRS Architects for further revision prior to review by the City Council.
4. Site Plan – Arby’s restaurant – 593 North State Street (next to Jiffy Lube). This is a request for approval of site plan and building elevations of a future Arby’s restaurant in the CG zone.
Andy Spencer was the representative for this item. Mr. Spencer agreed to defer this item until later in the meeting, due to the fact that a large number of residents were present to address the Orchard Park Subdivision agenda item.
5. Major Subdivision – Orchard Park Subdivision – Approximately 600-800 North Main Street. This is a request by Wentworth Development for approval of a 34 lot subdivision in the R1-20 zone.
Ian Dunn of Wentworth Development was the representative for this item. Mr. Cowie reviewed the application. He stated that the applicant is requesting approval of a 34 lot subdivision located east of Main Street and north of 600 North. Mr. Cowie noted that the development will include Main Street being installed to the full width. The proposed roadways included in the development are consistent with the Lindon City Master Plan, and the developer has agreed to provide roadway dedication to the City. Mr. Cowie indicated that the Pleasant Grove street, 1000 South, is located on the boundary between Lindon City and Pleasant Grove City, and will require a boundary line adjustment between the two cities. It will be necessary to finalize the boundary line adjustment prior to final approval of the subdivision. Pleasant Grove City has required the developer to provide the funding for completion of curb, gutter, and sidewalk on 1000 South at this time. However, the west section of 1000 South will not be completed by Pleasant Grove City at this time.
Mr. Cowie went on to explain that there is sufficient road right of way to complete Main Street to the full width in all areas of the proposed development, with the exception of the area adjacent to the Byron property and the Olson property. The Byron family and the Olson family have agreed to provide road dedication to the City in exchange for the installation of fence along the frontage of their property. Mr. Cowie noted that a four acre City park will be located adjacent to the proposed development. The developer has requested the use of a corner of the park as a detention basin for the development.
Mr. Cowie observed that the North Union Canal bisects the northwest corner of the development. City code specifies that piping of any canal which is located within 100 feet of any residential development should be considered.
Commissioner Peters called for public comment. Pamela Castillo stated that she owns property which is located north of proposed development. Ms. Castillo stated that an orchard fence is located near the boundary of her property, but that her property extends four feet past the fence line. She inquired as to the status of her property when 1000 South is developed. Mr. Cowie indicated that 1000 South will not be completed at this time, and the proposed development should not impact the property owned by Ms. Castillo. He clarified that the completion of 1000 South will be a joint project between Pleasant Grove City and Lindon City.
Commissioner Peters commented on the access to the proposed City park, and suggested that an additional access area be provided. Mr. Dunn indicated that the developer would be open to providing an additional park access, but would prefer an easement, rather than a dedication for the access area. Mr. Dunn observed that providing a dedication for the access may make it difficult to provide adequate frontage for the lots adjacent to the access area. Mr. Cowie clarified that City code requires 100 feet of frontage at the 30 foot setback. He suggested that part of a motion for approval should include a determination of any park access area as a dedication or an easement. Commissioner Peters observed that the area could be neglected if a responsible party is not specified. Mr. Dunn indicated that the access would consist of a paved pathway with fencing along both sides. He stated that the developer is open to suggestions, and will accommodate any recommendation made by the City.
Commissioner Peters asked Mr. Dunn if the Fryer family, who own property on the northwest corner of the proposed development, had been contacted regarding possible piping of the North Union irrigation ditch. Mr. Dunn stated that the Fryer’s had been contacted regarding possible sale of the corner of their property which extends into the area of the proposed development. Mr. Fryer indicated to the developer that he was not interested in selling the small parcel of property. Commissioner Peters suggested that the Fryer’s be contacted regarding the possibility of sharing the costs associated with piping of the ditch. Commissioner Nixon suggested that the developer contact the Fryer’s regarding a possible “land swap,” which would allow straightening of the boundary line of the development, and would locate the entire ditch area in the proposed development, which would allow adequate safety measures to be taken in regard to the entire ditch. Commissioner Nixon also suggested that the developer has been “more than generous” in the completion of required improvements, and some compensation should be considered by the City in relation the expense associated with piping the ditch. Mr. Cowie suggested that any motion for approval should include a condition that North Union be contacted regarding piping of the ditch adjacent to the proposed development.
Commissioner Simister inquired as to the homes proposed for lots 16 and 17. She asked Mr. Cowie to review City policy regarding back yards which front onto main roads. She noted that one lot in the proposed subdivision has adjacent roads on three sides. Mr. Cowie stated that access would be allowed onto only one road, and that the access could be defined on the associated plats.
Commissioner Bryner asked Mr. Dunn if proposed improvements on Main Street between 600 North and 100 South include installation of lateral utility lines to the Byron and Olson properties. Mr. Dunn indicated that the developer would consider providing utility laterals to the Byron and Olson properties. Mr. Byron has indicated that he is willing to pay the cost of the laterals if the developer is willing to install them. The Olsen property has lateral service from 725 North, and will not require additional lines. Commissioner Nixon observed that the development provides an appropriate time for the property owners to take advantage of installation of the utility lines, and commented that cutting of new asphalt may not be allowed for a period of time following development if the property owner elected not to install laterals at this time. Mr. Cowie asked Mr. Byron to clarify that it was his understanding that utilities would be installed and the road dedication would take place at the time the subdivision is developed. Mr. Byron stated that this was his understanding, given that the proposal is written in accordance with agreements made between the property owners, the City and the developer.
Commissioner Peters called for further public comment. Grant Atkinson asked for clarification of the completion of 1000 South into Pleasant Grove City. Commissioner Peters clarified that the cost of street improvements for 1000 South are being paid by the developer at this time, but the road will not be completed at this time. Mr. Cowie pointed out that the road is shown on the Master Plan of both cities as a corridor which will connect to the freeway on the west and 1200 East in Lindon, but that federal funding will be required for completion of the road.
Matt Bean expressed concern regarding completion of 800 North to Main Street, as it may direct a large amount of Pleasant Grove traffic onto Lindon Streets. Mr. Cowie stated that completion of 800 North to Main Street is proposed on long range plans. He commented that driveway access will be limited on 1000 South in order to maintain it as a thoroughfare and minimize traffic impact on 800 North.
Commissioner Nixon suggested that improvements for the area of Main Street between 725 North and 1000 South in Pleasant Grove should be bonded for, but not installed at this time. Commissioner Nixon Godfrey noted that the cost of street construction is likely to increase if the street is not completed at this time, and may leave the City with a shortage of revenue for completion of the street in the future. Commissioner Nixon felt that while there may be some expense for the City, the potential impact of the completed street on the adjacent neighborhood would justify the possible cost to the City. Commissioner Peters expressed concern over maintenance of the area if a responsible party is not designated. Wes Carter is the owner of the property adjacent to the area of Main Street. Mr. Carter stated that there are currently several apple trees and tomato plants growing on the property. Commissioner Godfrey suggested that Mr. Carter continue to grow apples on the property and mow the pasture area. Commissioner Bryner asked for a consensus from area residents as to whether the road should be completed. Residents who were present at the meeting felt the section of street should be left unimproved at this time.
Commissioner Peters suggested a possible reimbursement agreement between the Byron’s and the developer for street improvements and associated fencing which will be installed as part of the development. Mr. Cowie indicated that the City would have no opposition to such an agreement, but that it would not be initiated by the City.
Commissioner Simister asked if the developer is willing to provide any compensation to the City for the detention basin area, which will be located on City property. Mr. Cowie indicated that expenses associated with the development have been reviewed extensively by the developer and City staff. Mr. Cowie stated that there is a great deal of cost sharing between the developer and the City for various expenses.
The Commission went on to discuss a possible second access area to the City park. Following discussion, it was the consensus feeling of the majority of the Commission that an additional park access would not be warranted
Commissioner Peters called for further public comment. Pamela Castillo inquired as to access restriction for property adjacent to 1000 South. Mr. Cowie indicated that the purpose in limiting access onto 1000 South is to maintain it as a corridor with minimal backing and street parking which could impact the flow of traffic.
Don Harris expressed concern that the proposed development may increase traffic flow on 725 North. He inquired as to the possibility of the installation of traffic calming devices on 725 North. Mr. Cowie suggested that Mr. Harris obtain a “Citizen Initiated Traffic Study” packet from the Planning Department. Mr. Cowie clarified that the study should be done following completion of the development.
Brad Atkinson inquired as to the estimated time frame for construction to begin. Mr. Dunn indicated that once the approval process is complete, construction will begin and continue through the fall and winter, with asphalt being installed in the spring. Commissioner Bryner asked if any of the apple trees currently on the property will be maintained as part of the development. Mr. Dunn informed her that all apple trees will be removed to protect other apple orchards in the area.
Commissioner Peters asked Mr. Dunn if any consideration had been given to routing of construction traffic and equipment. Mr. Dunn indicated that much of the equipment used in construction would remain on site during construction. He commented that the developer would be willing to address routing issues if the City felt it was necessary.
COMMISSIONER NIXON MOVED TO APPROVE THE REQUEST BY IAN DUNN OF WENTWORTH DEVELOPMENT FOR A 34-LOT SUBDIVISION AND RECOMMEND APPROVAL TO THE CITY COUNCIL WITH THE FOLLOWING RECOMMENDATIONS:
1. THAT THE NORTH UNION CANAL AND ANY LATERALS EXTENDING FROM THE MAIN CANAL ARE PIPED, AND THAT THE CITY CONSIDER PARTICIPATING IN THE COST OF PIPING THE CANAL.
2. THAT A LAND SWAP WITH THE FRYERS BE INVESTIGATED TO FACILITATE STRAIGHTENING OF THE PROPERTY LINE.
3. THAT ACCESS RESTRICTIONS TO LOTS ON 600 NORTH, MAIN STREET, AND 1000 SOUTH WITH DOUBLE FRONTAGE ARE LISTED ON EACH PLAT.
4. THAT THE DEVELOPER BOND FOR IMPROVEMENTS TO MAIN STREET NORTH OF 725 NORTH, WITH MAIN STREET IMPROVEMENTS TO BE COMPLETED AT A FUTURE DATE.
5. THAT THE SUBDIVISION PLAT NOT BE RECORDED UNTIL THE BOUNDARY LINE ADJUSTMENT BETWEEN LINDON CITY AND PLEASANT GROVE CITY IS FINALIZED FOR AT LEAST THE SECTION OF PROPERTY INVOLVED WITH THIS DEVELOPMENT.
6. THAT THE DEVELOPER CONTINUE TO WORK WITH THE CITY ADMINISTRATOR AND DRC STAFF TO FINALIZE DETAILS OF PAYMENTS FOR SUBDIVISION IMPROVEMENTS, ADDRESS NEIGHBORING CONCERNS REGARDING PAYMENT OF FENCING, AND FINALIZE UTILIZATION OF THE CITY PARK FOR THE DETENTION BASIN.
7. THAT ANY OUTSTANDING ENGINEERING ISSUES AND CONCERNS BE ADDRESSED TO THE SATISFACTION OF THE CITY ENGINEER.
8. THAT UTILITY LATERALS BE INSTALLED TO THE BYRON PROPERTY AT THE EXPENSE OF THE BYRON’S.
9. THAT IT IS DETERMINED IF THE IRRIGATION DITCH LATERAL ON THE NORTH BOUNDARY WILL REQUIRE PIPING, OR IF THE DITCH CAN BE ABANDONED.
COMMISSIONER SIMISTER SECONDED THE MOTION. THE VOTE WAS RECORDED AS FOLLOWS:
COMMISSIONER BRYNER AYE
COMMISSIONER GODFREY AYE
COMMISSIONER NIXON AYE
COMMISSIONER PETERS NAY
COMMISSIONER SIMISTER AYE
THE MOTION CARRIED (4-1) WITH 2 ABSENT.
Commissioner Peters noted that he was not opposed to approval of the application, but felt that an additional park access should be provided.
Commissioner Nixon was excused from the meeting at this time.
ARBY’S RESTAURANT –
Andy Spencer was the representative for this item. Mr. Cowie reviewed the application. He stated that the Planning Commission had given Mr. Spencer several recommendations during a design review at the previous Planning Commission meeting. Most of the recommendations made by the Planning Commission during the review have been included in the site plan, including the addition of trees to the large grass area and parking islands, the addition of vertical stone elements, and the addition of signage and architectural details to the rear elevation of the building. Timber cornice brackets and timber framing on the gable were also added. Mr. Cowie clarified to the applicant that all elements on the approved site plan would be required upon final inspection of the site.
Commissioner Simister commented that Commissioner Nixon had asked that she convey his concern regarding the distance from State Street the north entrance. Commissioner Peters suggested that the entrance should be moved 14 feet to the north. Mr. Spencer stated that he would review the suggestion with Arby’s representatives, but felt that it would not be significant issue if the placement of the driveway provided direct access to the drive-through area.
Commissioner Peters commented on proposed parking spaces. He noted that the majority of business would be conducted at the drive-through, and felt that proposed parking was excessive. Mr. Spencer stated that he had discussed this concern with Arby’s representatives, and was informed that the parking is consistent with corporate philosophy, and is intended to accommodate parking at peak hours. Mr. Spencer noted that landscaping requirements on the site are met without eliminating any proposed parking spaces.
Mr. Spencer reviewed specific elements of proposed landscaping, as well as the garbage enclosure, which is proposed as a block masonry structure. Commissioner Godfrey asked about the tree which is specified for removal on the site plan. Mr. Spencer indicated that the tree which will be removed is dead, and will be replaced.
Commissioner Simister inquired as to the access in north corner from the existing Jiffy Lube business. Mr. Spencer stated that there is no cross easement, and that landscaping will be installed in the area on the Arby’s side of the previous access. Commissioner Peters reminded Commissioner Simister that a cross easement had been discussed at the previous meeting, and the Commission had determined that due to the fact that each site has separate State Street access, a cross easement would not be necessary.
Commissioner Peters called for further discussion. Hearing none, he called for a motion.
COMMISSIONER SIMISTER MOVED TO APPROVE THE SITE PLAN FOR ARBY’S AND RECOMMEND APPROVAL TO THE CITY COUNCIL WITH THE FOLLOWING RECOMMENDATION:
1. THAT THE APPLICANT CONSIDER RELOCATING THE SOUTHERN DRIVEWAY TEN FEET TO THE NORTH TO ALIGN THE ENTRANCE TRAFFIC WITH THE DRIVETHROUGH WINDOW LANE.
COMMISSION BRYNER SECONDED THE MOTION. ALL PRESENT VOTED IN FAVOR. THE MOTION CARRIED.
6. Site Plan Review – Kids Universe – 308 South 1250 West. This is a request by Matt Kriser of Kids Universe for the Planning Commission to waive some portions of landscaping requirements that were shown on a previously approved site plan. Approval of a final inspection on the site can not occur until the items are corrected or waived by the Planning Commission.
Mr. Cowie stated that Mr. Kriser is requesting review and possible waiver of several items that were included on the approved site plan for Kids Universe. The items which would require waiver by the Planning Commission include:
1. The installation of grass in the area of the detention basin. Mr. Kriser has installed rock instead of the approved grass.
2. The trash enclosure is currently constructed of chain link fence with site obscuring slats. Code requires a seven foot masonry block wall, or a vegetative screen if chain link is used. Mr. Kriser has relocated the trash enclosure to the south end of the building.
3. None of the trees on the site meet the minimum 2 inch caliper required by code.
4. Trees and shrubs are missing in the landscape strip along the south side of the site.
Mr. Cowie pointed out that the Planning Commission may make alteration to any site plan, but that until there is a change in ordinance, the City will require all elements of the approved site plan to be consistent with the final inspection, and that any inconsistencies will require a waiver from the Planning Commission. The Commission discussed each of the items which would require a waiver with Mr. Kriser as follows:
1. Commissioner Peters noted that he had visited the site. He observed that the area around the detention basin is very steep, and maintenance of grass would be difficult. He suggested that the rocks which were installed may be preferable. Commissioner Simister stated that the rocks are acceptable, as long as a weed barrier is provided.
2. Mr. Kriser requested that the Commission waive the vegetative screen requirement for the trash enclosure. He noted that the location of the trash enclosure is not visible from the street. He stated that he does not have the financial resources available to install the vegetative screen at this time. Commissioner Godfrey expressed concern that the Planning Commission may set a precedent if Mr. Kriser is not required to comply with City code. Commissioner Godfrey noted that there are other businesses in the area with similar lot configurations which were required to install the block wall or vegetative screen around the trash enclosure.
3. Mr. Kriser again expressed that he does not have the financial resources to replace the trees on the site. According to Mr. Kriser, he visited several recently completed projects in Lindon and measured the trees which were installed on those sites. Mr. Kriser reported that most trees on other sites had a 1.5 to 2 inch caliper. Commissioner Peters stated that the Commissioner makes every effort to be fair. He invited Mr. Kriser to submit a written complaint regarding other trees which do not meet the requirement. Commissioner Simister asked Mr. Kriser what type of trees he has planted. Mr. Kriser stated that the trees are flower pear trees. Commissioner Simister noted that flowering pear trees tend to grow quickly, and that smaller trees may grow more quickly than larger trees. She felt that in a short period of time the trees would meet the minimum requirement. Commissioner Bryner suggested that the Commission come to a compromise with Mr. Kriser that he not be required to replace the existing trees, but be required to install five additional trees to compensate for the small size of the existing trees. It was the consensus of the Commission that this would be a fair compromise. Mr. Kriser requested that he be allowed to locate the additional trees next to the building.
4. Mr. Kriser reported that the property on the south will be developed to the lot line, and any shrubs which he installs will be removed when the property is developed. Commissioner Simister pointed out that neighboring property owners will be required to replace any shrubs or other landscaping which is removed during construction. Mr. Kriser again commented that he does not have revenue to install the required landscaping. Mr. Cowie noted that the City has bond money available to complete the improvements if necessary.
Feeling that all issues had been addressed, Commissioner Peters called for a motion.
COMMISSIONER BRYNER MOVED TO APPROVE THE SITE PLAN AMENDMENT REQUEST MADE BY MATT KRISER WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS:
1. THAT THE GARBAGE DUMPSTER IS ALLOWED TO BE LOCATED AT THE BACK OF THE BUILDING IN CURRENT CONDITION.
2. THAT TEN SHRUBS, MULCH, AND SPRINKLERS ARE INSTALLED ON THE SOUTH BOUNDARY OF THE PROPERTY.
3. THAT FIVE ADDITIONAL 1.5 INCH CALIPER TREES ARE PLANTED ON THE SITE, WITH THE APPLICANT HAVING DISCRETION ON THE PLACEMENT OF THE TREES.
4. THAT THE BOULDER ROCKS AROUND THE STORM DRAIN ARE ACCEPTABLE, PROVIDED THAT THEY ARE MAINTAINED.
COMMISSIONER SIMISTER SECONDED THE MOTION. THE VOTE WAS RECORDED AS FOLLOWS:
COMMISSIONER BRYNER AYE
COMMISSIONER GODFREY NAY
COMMISSIONER PETERS AYE
COMMISSIONER SIMISTER AYE
THE MOTION FAILED DUE TO LACK OF A MAJORITY VOTE.
Commissioner Godfrey expressed concern regarding the precedent set if the Commission did not require the dumpster to meet the standards specified in the code. Commissioner Godfrey felt that the Commission should support City staff in enforcement of the City Code. The Commission reviewed the code relating to trash enclosures. Following further discussion, the following amendment to the motion was made:
COMMISSIONR GODFREY MOVED TO AMEND THE MOTION TO INCLUDE THE CONDITION THAT A VEGETATIVE SCREEN AND SPRINKLERS ARE INSTALLED AROUND THE TRASH ENCLOSURE AS SPECIFIED IN THE LINDON CITY CODE. COMMISSIONER SIMISTER SECONDED THE MOTION. ALL PRESENT VOTED IN FAVOR. THE MOTION CARRIED.
7. Grading Plan Review – Canberra Heights Plat A Lot 5. This is a review of a grading plan for the Theurer residence for conformance with the Hillside Overlay requirements.
Mr. Cowie noted that he had informed the applicant of the meeting, but the applicant was not present. Mr. Cowie reviewed the item. He stated that there is a discrepancy in the grading plan and the site plan for this project. One shows a swimming pool and a sport court, and one shows only the sport court. Mr. Cowie will clarify the specifics with the applicant. Mr. Cowie stated that there are no staff concerns other than the location of the proposed swimming pool and sport court. Commissioner Bryner noted that the structures would back to the McKinley trail and the area near the aqueduct easement adjacent to the property. Commissioner Simister asked Mr. Cowie if the structures are consistent with the McKinley Trail plan. Mr. Cowie suggested that the sport court and pool placement be reviewed by the City engineer to determine what impact they will have on the trail. Placement of the structures in relation to the aqueduct will require permission of the Bureau of Reclamation, who hold the easement to the aqueduct.
COMMISSIONER BRYNER MOVED TO APPROVE THE GRADING PLAN FOR LOT 5 OF CANBERRA HEIGHTS PLAT A WITH THE FOLLOWING RECOMMENDATION:
1. THAT THE SPORT COURT AREA BE REVIEWED BY THE CITY ENGINEER TO DETERMINE THE IMPACT ON THE TRAIL IT ABUTS.
COMMISSIONER SIMISTER SECONDED THE MOTION. ALL PRESENT VOTED IN FAVOR. THE MOTION CARRIED.
NEW BUSINESS – Reports by Commissioners
The Commission inquired as to the outcome of the Tree Ordinance and The R3-Overlay Ordinance in City Council meeting. Mr. Cowie reported that both items had been approved by the City Council with several recommended changes.
Commissioner Peters suggested that agenda items be arranged according to the estimated number of people who will attend the meeting regarding that item, and that informational presentations be scheduled at the end of the agenda. Mr. Cowie noted that it is not always possible to determine the number of people who will attend a meeting for a particular item. He stated that typically, he adds items to the agenda as they are requested. Mr. Cowie stated that he will take Commissioner Peter’s suggestion into consideration.
PLANNING DIRECTORS REPORT –
Mr. Cowie reviewed a tax breakdown which was requested at a previous meeting by Chairperson Sweeten which outlines the tax revenue generated by various businesses in Lindon.
Commissioner Godfrey suggested scheduling a work session to discuss the design guidelines presented by CRS Architects, and determine which elements the City would like to include. Following further discussion, a work session was scheduled for Tuesday, August 23rd, at 9:30 a.m. Mr. Cowie noted that if the he is required to post the work session as a public meeting if four or more Commissioner plan to attend.
ADJOURN –
COMMISSIONER BRYNER MOVED TO ADJOURN THE MEETING AT 11:50 P.M. COMMISSIONER SIMISTER SECONDED THE MOTION. ALL PRESENT VOTED IN FAVOR. THE MOTION CARRIED.
APPROVED – August 24, 2005
_____________________________________
Dustin Sweeten, Chairperson
__________________________________
Adam Cowie, Planning Director
|
|
|
