|
|
Home » City Government » Planning Commission » Planning Commission Schedule 2005 (Agendas and Minutes) » Planning Commission Minutes 2005 » December 14, 2005
December 14, 2005
The Lindon City Planning Commission held a regularly scheduled meeting on Wednesday, December 14, 2005, beginning at 7:00 p.m., in the Lindon City Center, City Council Chambers, 100 North State Street, Lindon, Utah.
Conducting: Jim Peters, Chairperson
Pledge of Allegiance: Jim Peters
Invocation: Gary Godfrey, Commissioner
PRESENT ABSENT
Jim Peters, Chairperson Julie Bryner, Commissioner
Ron Anderson, Commissioner Evan Nixon, Commissioner
Matt Bean, Commissioner
Gary Godfrey, Commissioner
Marilyn Simister, Commissioner
Adam Cowie, Planning Director
Debra Cullimore, Deputy Recorder
The meeting was called to order at 7:05 p.m.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES –
The minutes of the regular meeting of November 9, 2005 were reviewed. The following corrections were made:
Page 4, Line 3: insert the words “Low Book Auto Sales” before the word “site”.
Page 7, Line 12: change the word “to” to the word “at”.
Page 12, Line 4: insert the sentence “Following extensive discussion, the majority of Commissioners felt that the General Plan should emphasize and encourage the rural character of Lindon.”
COMMISSIONER GODFREY MOVED TO APPROVE THE MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF NOVEMBER 9, 2005 AS CORRECTED. COMMISSIONER BEAN SECONDED THE MOTION. ALL PRESENT VOTED IN FAVOR. THE MOTION CARRIED.
Note – The final page of the November 9 minutes had not been copied to Commissioners at the beginning of the December 14 meeting. Therefore, approval of the minutes took place later in the meeting following review of the final page.
PUBLIC COMMENT –
A Boy Scout leader present at the meeting posed specific questions regarding UTOPIA. Mr. Cowie referred the citizen to City Administrator, Ott Dameron, to have his questions answered accurately.
CURRENT BUSINESS –
1. Minor Subdivision (Deep Lot) – Lindon Meadows Plat B – Approximately 590 West 150 South. This is a request by William Fairbanks for approval of a 2-lot (Deep Lot) subdivision in the R1-20 zone.
William Fairbanks was present at the meeting as the representative for this application. Mr. Cowie reviewed the application for the Commission. He stated that Mr. Fairbanks is requesting approval of a two lot minor subdivision due to the fact that he acquired additional property following approval of Lindon Meadows Plat A. The proposed subdivision will include a deep lot, and will require a re-plat of the existing subdivision lot. Mr. Cowie noted that the City engineer requested that the Planning Commission discuss possible concerns associated with high ground water in the area of the proposed subdivision. A geo-tech study will be required on the site prior to construction to recommend footing depths for the structure. Mr. Cowie also noted that the owners of the Mecham property, in the area of the proposed subdivision, may request a deep lot at some point in the future. Mr. Cowie pointed out that the Mecham’s have discussed the possibility of development of a deep lot, but have not as yet submitted an application. Mr. Cowie observed that the Deep Lot Ordinance specifies that adjacent deep lots are not allowed, and that deep lots are not allowed to adjoin in any manner. Mr. Cowie noted that the two deep lots being discussed adjoin at one corner.
Jalayne Mecham was present at the meeting. Ms. Mecham expressed concern regarding the value of the parcel she owns if it is not allowed to develop. Ms. Mecham clarified the location of her property in relation to the deep lot proposed by Mr. Fairbanks. She stated that it may be possible to purchase additional land from the property owner to the west in order to accommodate the necessary access to her property. Chairperson Peters inquired as to the size of the parcel owned by the Mecham’s. Ms. Mecham stated that the parcel is approximately 1.17 acres, and has more than adequate size to accommodate two 20,000 square foot lots. Mr. Fairbanks suggested the possibility that the dimensions of lot two of the Lindon Meadows plat B subdivision could be adjusted to create a buffer between the two deep lots and avoid any portion of them connecting, thereby meeting the “letter of the law”. Mr. Cowie noted that it may have been the intent of the ordinance not to allow two deep lots to be served by one access. He commented that if separate accesses are provided, the intent of the ordinance may be met. Chairperson Peters stated that development of the Mecham property could be considered at the time of application. He noted that allowing both properties to develop is a violation of current ordinance, but that ordinance requirements may change prior to development of the Mecham property. Chairperson Peters suggested that Ms. Mecham apply for a variance if development of the land does not meet City ordinance at the time the application is submitted, noting that the large lot size and other factors may allow a variance and development of the lot.
Chairperson Peters inquired as to response received from noticed neighbors regarding this application. Mr. Cowie stated that the City noticed neighboring property owners in a 300 foot radius from the perimeter of the proposed lot. Responses were received from the Mecham’s, as well as from Ken Burton, who was also present at the meeting. Mr. Burton inquired as to when the current Deep Lot ordinance was adopted. Commissioner Simister stated that the ordinance was passed approximately five years ago. She noted that there has been some discussion regarding repealing the ordinance, and allowing no more deep lot development. Mr. Cowie reviewed the current code, and stated that the ordinance was adopted in 2000.
Commissioner Godfrey asked Mr. Fairbanks the lot dimensions of lot 2 excluding the driveway area. Mr. Fairbanks stated that lot 2 is approximately 20,789 square feet. Chairperson Peters asked if a geo-tech study and soil report are standard requirements for development. Mr. Cowie stated that such studies would be required prior to issuance of a building permit. Mr. Cowie noted that the City engineer requested some discussion regarding ground water in the area to ensure that Mr. Fairbanks was aware of potential ground water problems. Mr. Fairbanks stated that he is aware of the ground water in the area, and that the elevation of the proposed dwelling will be similar to other structures in the same area.
Commissioner Simister inquired as to the length of the proposed cul-de-sac. Mr. Fairbanks stated that it is approximately 600 feet long. Mr. Cowie stated that code allows cul-de-sacs up to 650 feet in length from any through street. Commissioner Simister expressed concern regarding emergency vehicle access to the lot given the length of the cul-de-sac and drive area. She inquired as to the possibility of reconfiguring the subdivision lots to eliminate the deep lot. Mr. Fairbanks stated that due to improvements which have already been installed, elimination of the deep lot would not be practical. Mr. Cowie noted that the driveway length is approximately 91 feet from the corner of the property. According to Mr. Fairbanks, fire code allows a driveway length of up to 150 feet. The Commission went on to discuss the location of fire hydrants in the area. Mr. Fairbanks stated that fire code requires a hydrant to be located within 200 feet of the property, and that there is a hydrant approximately 150 feet from the proposed dwelling. Mr. Cowie stated that fire and emergency vehicle requirements will be reviewed by the fire chief prior to final approval.
Commissioner Godfrey observed that the Deep Lot ordinance allows only single story structures. He expressed concern that high ground water may eliminate the possibility of a basement on the site. Mr. Fairbanks stated that some fill may be used on the site in order to allow a basement. Chairperson Peters pointed out that the height of the dwelling cannot exceed 28 feet. Mr. Fairbanks agreed to this condition.
Commissioner Anderson commented on the required easement associated with the ditch on the site. Chairperson Peters clarified that the required easement must be 20 feet on each side of the center line of the canal. Mr. Fairbanks indicated that he understood the easement requirement.
Commissioner Simister noted that the engineering concerns related to this application indicate the possibility of a boundary adjustment between Plat A and Plat B. Mr. Cowie stated that the boundaries of each plat will be clarified prior to final plat approval. Mr. Fairbanks stated that he has no concerns regarding any of the engineering comments related to this application.
Mr. Burton requested clarification of required set backs for deep lots. Chairperson Peters reviewed set back requirement. He stated that the required front set back is 30 feet, and must be oriented towards the public street from which the deep lot is accessed, the required rear set back is 50 feet, and required side setbacks are twenty feet from each dwelling. Mr. Burton asked how deep lot setback requirements compare to standard setback requirements. Mr. Cowie stated that standard setback requirements specify a 30 foot rear setback, and 10 foot side setbacks from each dwelling.
Chairperson Peters called for further discussion. Ms. Mecham again expressed concern regarding future development of her property. Chairperson Peters stated that under current ordinance, a variance would be necessary to allow development of the Mecham property. Ms. Mecham observed that development which has been allowed by the City around her property created the deep lot situation. Commission Simister pointed out that the responsibility of the Planning Commission is to determine if applications are legal according to current City code. She noted that any approval of this application by the Planning Commission is a recommendation to the City Council, who will review the application further to ensure compliance with current code. Chairperson Peters suggested that Ms. Mecham attend the City Council meeting on December 20, 2005 to give comments on this application. Commissioner Godfrey suggested that Ms. Mecham watch public notices regarding any possible code changes regarding deep lots. Mr. Cowie informed Ms. Mecham where such notices are typically posted.
Ms. Mecham inquired as to the location for utility easements for the proposed lot. Mr. Fairbanks outlined proposed utility easements. Mr. Cowie stated that utility line placement will be reviewed by the City engineer prior to construction.
Chairperson Peters called for further discussion. Hearing none, he called for a motion.
COMMISSIONER ANDERSON MOVED TO APPROVE THE REQUEST BY WILLIAM FAIRBANKS FOR LINDON MEADOWS PLAT B SUBDIVISION, AND TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL TO THE CITY COUNCIL WITH THE FOLLOWING RECOMMENDATIONS:
1. THAT A TWENTY FOOT EASEMENT ON EACH SIDE OF THE CENTER LINE OF THE CANAL BE PROVIDED.
2. THAT SOIL STUDIES ADDRESSING GROUND WATER ISSUES BE CONDUCTED AND SUBMITTED WITH THE SUBDIVISION PLANS.
3. THAT THE FIRE MARSHALL APPROVE THE DRIVEWAY LENGTH AND DISTANCE FROM THE STRUCTURE TO THE FIRE HYDRANTS.
4. THAT ANY NECESSARY BOUNDARY ADJUSTMENT WITH LINDON MEADOWS PLAT A BE PROVIDED ON THE FINAL PLAT.
5. THAT THE HEIGHT OF THE FOUNDATION DOES NOT EXTEND MORE THAN SIX FEET ABOVE EXISTING GRADE.
COMMISSIONER BEAN SECONDED THE MOTION. THE VOTE WAS RECORDED AS FOLLOWS:
CHAIRPERSON PETERS AYE
COMMISSIONER ANDERSON AYE
COMMISSIONER BEAN AYE
COMMISSIONER GODFREY AYE
COMMISSIONER SIMISTER NAY
THE MOTION CARRIED (4-1) WITH TWO ABSENT.
2. Site Plan/Elevations Approval – SJSC Mountain Extreme Power Sports – 2995 West 600 North. This is a request by Steve Miner for approval of building elevation materials for a previously approved site plan in the CG zone.
Steve Miner was present as the representative for this application. Mr. Cowie reviewed the specifics of this item. He stated that the Planning Commission previously approved the site plan associated with this application. Mr. Miner is proposing a retail and commercial building, which originally included a request for a steel exterior. The Planning Commission requested that Mr. Miner return to present exterior elevation materials which would be in compliance with standards specified in the code. Mr. Miner clarified that the initial building will be used temporarily for retail purposes, but that a larger permanent building will be constructed at some point in the future. Upon completion of the larger permanent structure, this building will be used as a storage area. Chairperson Peters inquired as to the elevations of the permanent retail building. Mr. Miner stated that he anticipates that the permanent retail facility will consist of concrete block or tilt up elevations. Chairperson Peters informed Mr. Miner that the City is currently working on architectural design guidelines which may be completed at the time the permanent building is constructed. Mr. Miner stated that he is willing to accommodate design elements required by the City.
Commissioner Simister asked for clarification on the type of business which will be conducted at this site. Mr. Miner stated that the business consists of a retail ATV, snow mobile and personal water craft dealership. Commissioner Godfrey recalled that during previous review of this item, Mr. Miner had explained requirements set by the State Power Sport Board for distance separation of dealers. According to Mr. Miner, his current location is in violation of distance separation requirements, and threatens his licensure to operate this business. Commissioner Godfrey inquired as to the status of review by the Utah Power Sport Board. Mr. Miner stated that a termination hearing is scheduled in February 2006, and that it is important that he occupy the proposed site prior to that time in order to comply with distance separation requirements set by the board. He further explained that it will be necessary to vacate his current site by January 31, 2006, as the building has been sold and will no longer be available for lease.
Mr. Miner introduced Ralph Calder of Ridgeline Development, the contractor who will construct the proposed building. Mr. Calder presented samples of various elevation materials which may be used in construction of the building. Mr. Cowie reviewed specifications of the code for this zone, which require elevations to be constructed of 85% brick, stone, earth tone colored decorative block, stucco, glass, or vinyl siding. Mr. Calder explained various elevation materials, including traditional stucco panels, synthetic stucco panels, and interlocking “Hardi Board” panels. Mr. Calder stated that according to his interpretation of code requirements, all of the exterior materials presented meet City standards. He also explained that appropriate trim and details would be included on the elevations. Chairperson Peters asked Mr. Miner if he had a particular preference for any of the elevation materials presented. Mr. Miner stated that a cost analysis will be necessary to determine which of the treatments will fit within the budget and time constraints he is under. Chairperson Peters noted that trim and details are important in the overall look of the building. Mr. Calder stated that as a retail facility, it is important that the structure be visually appealing. He noted that Mr. Miner intends to keep costs for this building at a minimum in order to reserve adequate funds for completion of the permanent retail building. Mr. Calder stated that the style and color scheme of both buildings will be complimentary.
Mr. Miner pointed out that a section of clear panels is proposed along the top portion of the elevations in order to make use of natural light in the building, thereby conserving energy. Chairperson Peters commented that such panels may not be visually appealing unless proper trim is used as a transition.
Commissioner Simister inquired as to proposed colors for the elevations. Mr. Calder stated that Planning Commission recommendations for color can be accommodated. Commissioner Godfrey suggested the use of warm earth tones as opposed to cool tones in anticipation of pending architectural design guidelines for commercial development. Commissioner Godfrey also suggested that emphasis be placed on architectural details of the elevations.
Chairperson Peters noted that it may be beneficial for the Planning Commission to review specific architectural treatments and details of the elevations prior to construction. Commissioner Anderson suggested that architectural details be approved on a staff level in order to accommodate the time constraints Mr. Miner is under for completion of the building. Chairperson Peters felt that the materials could be approved at this time to allow construction to begin, with Mr. Miner returning to a future Planning Commission meeting for review of proposed trim and architectural details. Mr. Miner and Mr. Calder agreed to accommodate this request.
Chairperson Peters called for further comments or discussion. Hearing none, he called for a motion.
COMMISSIONER SIMISTER MOVED TO APPROVE THE REQUEST BY STEVE MINER TO USE THE HARDI BOARD OR STUCCO BOARD BUILDING MATERIALS AS PRESENTED FOR THE EXTERIOR OF THE NEW BUILDING APPROVED WITH THE SITE PLAN ON NOVEMBER 9, 2005 WITH THE FOLLOWING RECOMMENDATION:
1. THAT THE APPLICANT RETURN TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION TO PRESENT DRAWINGS OF ARCHITECTURAL DETAILS, TRIM, AND LIGHT PANELS ON THE BUILDING FOR FINAL APPROVAL.
COMMISSIONER ANDERSON SECONDED THE MOTION. ALL PRESENT VOTED IN FAVOR. THE MOTION CARRIED.
3. Minor Subdivision – Dean Blackhurst – North side of 700 North from ~1000 West to 1700 West. This is a request for approval of a 2-lot subdivision in the CG and MC zones.
Mr. Cowie noted that typically, a subdivision plat would be required with this application. However, state code allows creation of certain subdivision plats as meets and bounds parcels. The parcel addressed in this application is currently 37.19 acres. The applicant is requesting to divide the parcel into a 30 acre lot and a 7.19 acre lot. The 7.19 acre lot will act as a buffer to the existing farm and dairy owned by Mr. Blackhurst. Mr. Cowie noted that no additional easements or dedications are necessary. The City engineer had no specific concerns regarding this application.
Rex Burgner introduced himself to the Commission. Mr. Burgner is a real estate broker working with the Blackhurst family. Mr. Burgner stated that his client submitted this application to assure that the subdivided lots were legal lots which could be sold or developed.
Chairperson Peters called for further comments or discussion. Hearing none, he called for a motion.
COMMISSIONER ANDERSON MOVED TO APPROVE THE REQUEST BY DEAN BLACKHURST FOR A MINOR SUBDIVISION, AND RECOMMEND APPROVAL TO THE CITY COUNCIL. COMMISSIONER GODFREY SECONDED THE MOTION. ALL PRESENT VOTED IN FAVOR. THE MOTION CARRIED.
4. Design Review – Fireplace Place, site plan – 460 North State Street. This is a request for a design review of a possible retail showroom and office building and associated storage area for stone products in the CG zone.
Ray Tuckett was present as the representative for this item. Mr. Cowie reviewed this item for the Commission. He stated that Mr. Tuckett is requesting review and discussion with the Planning Commission and City Council regarding development of a retail office space and showroom for the Fireplace Place business owned by Mr. Tuckett, which is currently located in Orem. Mr. Tuckett is proposing use of the existing structure on the site as retail/office space. The structure was originally a residential dwelling, but has most recently been used as a daycare facility. Mr. Tuckett is currently using the rear portion of the site as a storage area for stone and other products associated with his Orem business. Mr. Cowie explained several potential concerns on the site. He noted that the State Street right-of-way may be behind the existing sidewalk, and that UDOT may require removal of existing mature trees and the existing sidewalk. Mr. Cowie noted that the City can request that UDOT pay the cost of planting trees for replacement of the existing trees in another location on the site. Mr. Cowie suggested the Commission also discuss use of the rear of the site as storage, and possible safety concerns associated with truck traffic generated by the deliveries to the business. Mr. Cowie also noted that Chief Building Official, Phil Brown, indicated that there may be improvements required to the existing structure if used as a retail facility. Mr. Cowie noted that the site is located in CG zone, and would require a six foot site obscuring fence for the storage area.
Mr. Tuckett explained his intentions for the site. He stated that he plans to remove the existing structure in two to three years and construct a new retail showroom facility. Mr. Tuckett noted that significant improvements, such as ADA compliance, were required at the time the structure was approved as a daycare facility. Mr. Tuckett reviewed specifics of the site, including parking and storage areas, as well as proposed delivery areas for trucks to access the site. Mr. Tuckett noted that in addition to the retail/showroom structure, another block structure on the site will be used for storage of products and materials. The Commission reviewed various options for truck deliveries to the site which would minimize safety concerns for State Street traffic.
Commissioner Godfrey inquired as to the time frame for using the existing structure as a retail facility. Mr. Tuckett stated that he hopes to begin conducting business at the site in approximately two weeks, with completion of other improvements during the first quarter of 2006 if possible. Commissioner Simister inquired as to required installation of curb and gutter behind the existing right-of-way. Mr. Cowie stated that Mr. Tuckett will be required to bring the site into compliance with current standards, including curb, gutter, and sidewalk, as well as storm drainage and any other required improvements.
Mr. Tuckett asked the Commission if the proposed use is something that would be approved. Chairperson Peters stated that the retail business is an approved use in the CG zone, but that storage on the site without a retail operation is not permitted. Commissioner Godfrey felt that this would be an appropriate location for the retail business, but noted that storage alone is not allowed. Commissioner Anderson inquired as to the possibility of a temporary permit to allow Mr. Tuckett to operate the business while going through the approval process and any required improvements. Mr. Cowie stated that the DRC can approve a 180 day temporary permit, but that it would be necessary to move the retail operation to the site in order for storage on the site to be allowed. Mr. Cowie reiterated that this change in use from a daycare to a retail facility will require site plan approval. Mr. Tuckett inquired as to the possibility of a conditional use permit to allow continued storage on the site for up to one year. Commissioner Anderson stated that storage is not an allowed use for this zone under the Standard Land Use Table, and could not be granted with a conditional use permit without a retail business at the site. Mr. Tuckett will review requirements with Mr. Brown to determine if it would be feasible to relocate the business to this site. Mr. Tuckett asked if storage may be allowed if relocated to an alternate site on the west side of State Street near Linden Nursery. Commissioner Anderson noted that the west side of State Street is also in the CG zone, and has the same requirements as the proposed site on the east side of State Street.
Mr. Tuckett will discuss site improvements with Mr. Brown and determine his intentions for the business.
Commissioner Simister noted several possible problems reported to her by residents in the area of the Utah Auto Sales site. Mr. Cowie stated that Utah Auto Sales is currently operating under a temporary occupancy permit. He noted that several items still need to be addressed prior to issuance of final occupancy permits.
5. Site Plan Review – Evans Hair Styling College – Approximately 330 West 250 North. This is a request for approval of a beauty college/hair salon on lot #9 of the Old Station Square subdivision in the CG zone.
At the request of the applicant, this item was continued until later in the meeting.
6. Continued Public Hearing: Review of proposed 2006-2010 General Plan updates. This hearing was continued from the November 9, 2005 meeting. The Planning Commission will review and accept public comment on proposed changes to the 2006-2010 Lindon City General Plan.
COMMISSIONER GODFREY MOVED TO OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING TO CONSIDER 2006-2010 LINDON CITY GENERAL PLAN UPDATES. COMMISSIONER SIMISTER SECONDED THE MOTION. ALL PRESENT VOTED IN FAVOR. THE MOTION CARRIED.
Mr. Cowie noted that the City engineer submitted several comments regarding recommendations which the Commission will review during this meeting regarding the public facilities section of the General Plan.
Chairperson Peters inquired as to an instruction sheet included with the agenda for this meeting which outlined proper procedure for addressing the Commission. Commissioners discussed various procedures which may be employed during meetings, and made suggestions for changes in the language of the instruction sheet to clarify procedures. Mr. Cowie will make the requested changes.
The Commission then returned to discussion regarding proposed changes to the General Plan. Discussion began with review of moderate income housing guidelines as required by the State, and provisions for such housing in the General Plan. The Commission specifically discussed implementation of the R2 Overlay and the R3 Overlay, and inclusion of those numbers in the statistics used to identify moderate income housing within the City. Commissioner Godfrey suggested that accessory apartments be included in moderate income housing statistics in order to more accurately reflect the number of moderate income housing units available within the City.
Chairperson Peters noted that Brigham Ashton and Curtis Miner had arrived at the meeting as representatives for the Evans Hairstyling College application. He suggested the Commission address that application at this time and return to discussion regarding general plan updates following review of the Evans Hair Styling College application. Commissioners agreed that it would appropriate to accommodate Mr. Ashton at this time, as there were no residents present at the meeting to address the Commission regarding General Plan amendments.
COMMISSIONER GODFREY MOVED TO CONTINUE THE PUBLIC HEARING TO CONSIDER 2006-2010 LINDON CITY GENERAL PLAN UPDATES. COMMISSIONER SIMISTER SECONDED THE MOTION. ALL PRESENT VOTED IN FAVOR. THE MOTION CARRIED.
Evans Hair Styling College -
Mr. Ashton and Mr. Miner approached the Commission and thanked them for their consideration. Mr. Cowie reviewed the application. He stated that the applicant is requesting approval of a site plan for a new commercial salon and associated beauty college. The building will be located on Lot 9 of the Old Station Square subdivision just south of the current Lakeview Drive location. The building is proposed to have a commercial salon near the entrance, with classroom space associated with the school located in the rear and upstairs of the building. Mr. Cowie noted that the Planning Commission requested a meandering sidewalk as a part of the subdivision approval, which has been provided. However, the meandering sidewalk will require some variation in location of the required white two rail fence and landscaping strips adjacent to the sidewalk. Chairperson Peters commented that fencing “accents” have been allowed on other sites to accommodate sidewalk structures.
Mr. Cowie went on to discuss a possible cross easement between Lot 9 and Lot 10. Mr. Cowie noted that the cross easement may create a direct access to State Street, which may be problematic. Mr. Ashton noted that it is not yet clear what business will be located on Lot 10, and that until the precise location of the building on that lot is determined it is not practical to designate a specific area for a cross easement. He suggested that building placement and landscape barriers could be used to eliminate direct access to State Street.
Commissioner Simister inquired as to landscaping elements depicted on the drawing submitted by the applicant. Mr. Cowie reviewed proposed landscaping elements, which included several islands in the parking area.
The Commission discussed the current location of Lakeview Drive in relation to the proposed business. Mr. Cowie clarified that it would be necessary for the new road to be completed prior to vacation of the portion of Lakeview Drive associated with this development. Commissioner Bean inquired as to proposed access for Lot 8. Chairperson Peters commented that cross easements have been encouraged in the development to avoid entering main roads to access additional business sites.
Commissioner Simister inquired as to the number of students, clients, and staff anticipated at the site, and whether proposed parking is sufficient to accommodate the expected number of cars at the site. Mr. Miner stated that Ms. Evans has indicated that she expects approximately four staff members, fifty students, and five to twenty clients at one time, with the facility being able to accommodate approximately seventy people at any given time. Mr. Ashton noted that it is unlikely that seventy people would be present at one time, as the students will attend classes at different times during the day, and the maximum number of clients will not be at the site on a continual basis. Mr. Cowie observed that proposed parking exceeds requirements by approximately twelve stalls, and is adequate to accommodate the business.
Chairperson Peters inquired as to proposed elevations of the building. Mr. Miner, the architect for the project, showed two versions of elevations. One version illustrated a more “historical” style, with the use of brick and stucco elements, and the other illustrated a “craftsman” style (consistent with other development on State Street) which included stone and timber elements. Mr. Miner stated that Ms. Evans has not indicated a preference for either style, and is willing to accommodate the recommendations of the Planning Commission for design of the building. Mr. Miner also noted that the proposed site places the building near the street with parking in the rear in an effort to create a more pedestrian friendly environment. Mr. Miner noted that both architectural styles would be constructed similarly, with the difference being in the architectural details. Following discussion regarding design elements of the building, the majority of Commissioners felt that the “craftsman” style would be preferable.
The Commission then discussed proposed locations for fence and landscape elements in relation to the meandering sidewalk. Mr. Cowie drew proposed locations on the overhead drawing presented to the Commission. The Commission discussed specific locations for these elements, and agreed on placement as depicted in the drawing.
Ms. Evans had arrived at the meeting at this time. Commissioner Simister asked for clarification on the number of staff members and students expected to occupy the site. Ms. Evans confirmed that approximately four to five staff members and fifty students are expected.
Chairperson Peters commented on proposed access to the lot. He noted the entrance will access two separate lots, and may be too narrow if constructed as proposed. Mr. Miner suggested elimination of one parking space adjacent to entrance, and increasing the entrance to three lanes to accommodate traffic flow from both lots. He noted that increasing the access to four lanes may eliminate more parking stalls than necessary to accommodate traffic flow. Commissioner Bean noted that access configuration is an important element of the site, and the Commission should ensure adequate and sensible access.
Commissioner Simister inquired as to traffic which may be generated by delivery vehicles. Ms. Evans stated that deliveries are provided by vans, and that no semi trucks are rarely expected to deliver to the site. Commissioner Simister observed that the dumpster location seemed appropriate for the site.
Commissioner Godfrey expressed concern regarding location of the building closer to the street, and the possibility that such placement may create a tunnel effect. Chairperson Peters noted that the buildings on the opposite side of the street would likely be offset, which would minimize the tunnel effect.
Chairperson Peters called for further comments or discussion. Hearing none, he called for a motion.
COMMISSIONER SIMISTER MOVED TO APPROVE THE REQUEST BY KELLIE EVANS FOR A BEAUTY COLLEGE AND ASSOCIATED COMMERCIAL SALON WITH THE FOLLOWING RECOMMENDATIONS:
1. THAT THE DRIVEWAY ENTRANCE BE EXTENDED TO THREE LANES.
2. THAT THE LANDSCAPING AND FENCING ELEMENTS BE INSTALLED IN SUBSTANTIAL COMPLIANCE WITH THE DRAWINGS PRESENTED.
3. THAT KELLIE EVANS AGREES TO A CROSS EASEMENT TO LOT 10, THE IMPLIMENTATION OF WHICH WILL BE INCLUDED IN A FUTURE APPLICATION IF TRAFFIC ROUTING PROVES VIABLE TO AVOID DIRECT ACCESS TO STATE STREET AS A RESULT OF THE CROSS EASEMENT.
4. THE COMMISSION EXPRESSED A PREFERENCE FOR THE “CRAFTSMAN” STYLE ELEVATIONS AS PRESENTED.
COMMISSIONER ANDERSON SECONDED THE MOTION. ALL PRESENT VOTED IN FAVOR. THE MOTION CARRIED.
7. Review and Adoption of 2006 meeting schedule. The Planning Commission will review and adopt the 2006 meeting schedule for Planning Commission hearing dates.
The Commission reviewed the proposed 2006 meeting schedule. Following discussion, the Commission felt that it would be appropriate to cancel the meetings scheduled for August 9, 2006, November 22, 2006, and December 27th, 2006. The proposed schedule was approved by consensus, excluding the above dates.
COMMISSIONER SIMISTER MOVED TO REOPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING TO CONSIDER GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENTS. COMMISSIONER GODFREY SECONDED THE MOTION. ALL PRESENT VOTED IN FAVOR. THE MOTION CARRIED.
The Commission returned to discussion regarding proposed General Plan updates. They discussed specific aspects of the R3 Overlay zone. Commissioner Simister asked if the R3 Overlay zone is defined in the General Plan. Mr. Cowie stated that the General Plan does not include a definitions section. Commissioner Simister expressed concern that the R3 Overlay may be implemented in other areas of the City. Mr. Cowie clarified that the R3 Overlay is site specific to the area of current proposed development.
Mr. Cowie suggested the date on page 20 be changed to 2025, as it is the intent of the City to use the General Plan as a twenty year forecast. He also noted a comment from the City engineer regarding references to the Capital Facilities Plan. The City engineer is not aware of any such document. Mr. Cowie will confirm whether or not a Capital Facilities Plan exists, and if one does not, that reference will be removed from the document.
The Commission discussed possible language changes to various elements of the general plan, including refuse disposal, water supply, storm drainage, and sewer services. Commissioner Bean observed that any language changes should more accurately reflect the intent of the document. Commissioner Godfrey inquired as to the possibility of access to Timpanogos Special Service District (TSSD) for sewer services. Mr. Cowie stated that connection to TSSD was not practical due to significant buy in costs associated with sewer service, as well as installation of additional sewer lines. Mr. Cowie discussed various sewer repair and upgrade projects planned for the future, including the agreement for sewer services with Orem City, and the planned expansion of the Orem sewer facility in 2011.
The Commission went on to discuss the possibility of a Community Recreation Center, and possible funding sources. The community survey recently conducted by Dan Jones and Associates showed support for such a facility.
Commissioner Simister commented on references to school facilities in the General Plan. She noted that the language may be irrelevant, as the City has little control over placement of public schools within the City. Commissioner Bean suggested that the General Plan specify that the City will work with charter and private schools.
The Commission will complete review of proposed amendments to the General Plan at the next regular meeting. The public hearing was continued until that time.
COMMISSIONER GODFREY MOVED TO CONTINUE THE PUBLIC HEARING TO CONSIDER GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENTS. COMMISSIONER SIMISTER SECONDED THE MOTION. ALL PRESENT VOTED IN FAVOR. THE MOTION CARRIED.
NEW BUSINESS – Reports by Commissioners
Commissioners gave no individual reports.
PLANNING DIRECTOR’S REPORT –
Mr. Cowie informed the Commission that an appeal has been filed with the City regarding the Ace Disposal application which was approved by the Planning Commission during the November 9, 2005 meeting. Shaeffer Industries has appealed the decision, stating that they feel the approved use is not compatible with surrounding properties. Mr. Cowie noted that State statute and City ordinance allow an appeal to be filed within thirty days following approval of any application, and that the approval is not technically final until the expiration of the appeal period. Mr. Cowie stated that the appeal will be reviewed by the City Council during the regular meeting of December 20, 2005. The City Council has authority to require additional conditions, or to deny the application if the appeal is found to be justified. Mr. Cowie noted that as a result of this appeal, the City will begin mailing notices to applicants and the property owners of approved applications informing them of the appeal period, and instructing them to “proceed at their own risk” prior to expiration of the appeal period.
Commissioner Simister inquired as to the status of the Sunrock Products business which experienced a fire on Thanksgiving Day. Mr. Cowie stated that the business is back in operation, and that the City has been working with the business to issue any necessary permits to allow the business to continue to operate.
Mr. Cowie commented that the City Council is in agreement that some review should be conducted regarding flag pole requirements. The City Council will review the issue and possibly make changes to the sign ordinance which will specify criteria for flag poles.
Mr. Cowie commented on the development agreement which has been negotiated between the City and Fieldstone Homes. The Planning Commission will review the proposed development at the regular meeting of January 11, 2005. Mr. Cowie noted that some elements of the development are subject to engineering review, and may be negotiated. However, the City is bound by the general terms of the development agreement as outlined.
Mr. Cowie informed the Commission that the Geneva Steel property in Vineyard has been purchased by a developer, and will be developed as a mixed use area in the future. He noted that there may be a significant increase in population and traffic generated by the Geneva Steel development and other development in Vineyard, and that those increases should be considered when reviewing roads and infrastructure associated with development on the west side of the Lindon.
ADJOURN –
COMMISSIONER BEAN MOVED TO ADJOURN THE MEETING AT 11:50 P.M. COMMISSIONER ANDERSON SECONDED THE MOTION. ALL PRESENT VOTED IN FAVOR. THE MOTION CARRIED.
APPROVED – January 11, 2006
___________________________________
Jim Peters, Chairperson
________________________________
Adam Cowie, Planning Director
|
|
|
