|
|
Home » City Government » Planning Commission » Planning Commission Schedule 2005 (Agendas and Minutes) » Planning Commission Agendas 2005 » March 23, 2005
March 23, 2005
The Lindon City Planning Commission held a regularly scheduled meeting on Wednesday, March 23, 2005 at 7:00 p.m. in the Lindon City Center, City Council Chambers, 100 North State Street, Lindon, Utah.
Conducting: Dustin Sweeten, Chairman
Pledge of Allegiance: Dustin Sweeten
Invocation: Julie Bryner, Commissioner
PRESENT ABSENT
Dustin Sweeten, Chairman Jim Peters, Commissioner
Marilyn Simister, Commissioner Evan Nixon, Commissioner
Julie Bryner, Commissioner
Ron Anderson, Commissioner
Gary Godfrey, Commissioner
Adam Cowie, Planning Director
Debra Cullimore, Deputy Recorder
The meeting began at: 7:04 p.m.
MINUTES
The minutes of the meeting of March 9, 2005 were reviewed. The following corrections were made:
Page 2, Line 3: Delete the words “There is currently no zoning in the area.”
Page 2, Line 5: Add the words “Mr. Unice reported that”
Page 2, Line 40: Reverse the order of sentences relating to the payment of $200 fee.
Page 3 Add the sentence “It was noted that Kevin Smith had shown plans to remodel the Hatfield dwelling on Main Street.”
Page 3, Line 6 Add the words “and that the sides facing the commercial zone could have windows.”
Page 3, Line 44 Add another “o” to the word “to”
Page 4, Line 17 Add the words “area between the entrance”
Page 8, Line 22 Add the word “big” before the word “problems”
COMMISSIONER GODFREY MOVED TO APPROVE THE MINUTES OF MARCH 9, 2005 AS CORRECTED. COMMISSIONER SIMISTER SECONDED THE MOTION. ALL PRESENT VOTED IN FAVOR. THE MOTION CARRIED.
PUBLIC COMMENT
There was no public comment.
NEW BUSINESS
1. Public Hearing: Zone amendments-R2 Overlay Zone-Chapter 17.46 of the Lindon City Code
This is a public hearing in which the Commission may receive public comment on and possibly approve amendments to the R2 Overlay Ordinance.
Chairman Sweeten explained that there would be a period of input during the public hearing portion of the meeting, but that at some point the Commission would end the Public Hearing and discuss possible amendments.
COMMISSIONER ANDERSON MOVED TO OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING ON THE R2 OVERLAY ZONE AMMENDMENTS. COMMISSIONER SIMISTER SECONDED THE MOTION. ALL PRESENT VOTED IN FAVOR. THE MOTION CARRIED.
Director Cowie gave a presentation regarding the current ordinance. He stated that there had been a six month moratorium on R2 projects, and that no applications have been issued during that period, but that one application had been turned in. Chairman Sweeten explained further that according to Utah state statute, cities are required to provide for 4% of the housing in their areas as low to moderate income housing. Commissioner Simister inquired as to why amendments were necessary. Chairman Sweeten explained that amendments were not a requirement, but that if amendments were made they needed to occur during the period of the moratorium. Changes being considered are as follows:
1. Increase distance from 750 to 1,000 feet.
2. Reduce the number of units per acre to four.
3. Require city street standards when drive exceeds 150 feet.
4. If there is a street, it must comply with city street standards.
5. Require a minimum lot size of 1 acre.
6. Require the lot to be no more than 2 to 1 ration of depth to frontage.
7. No hammer head turn arounds will be allowed.
8. Off street parking must allow for three parking stalls per unit.
9. Drive way cannot be more than 150 feet.
10. Match the rear and side yard set back of neighbor, if borders two neighbors match larger set back.
11. Purpose: to include medium income housing and thereby achieve a reasonable opportunity for a variety of housing types.
12. All unenclosed and freestanding parking structures must be in the rear.
13. Clearly state that no detached single dwellings are allowed.
Michael Travis, a Lindon resident, commented from the audience that the west side of Lindon is ideally suited for high density housing. He observed that the water table in that area of the city is very high and doesn’t allow for basements in single family homes. Mr. Travis also noted that property values are increasing, and that low to moderate income housing is not available in Lindon. He also commented on the amount of high density housing available in Pleasant Grove. Chairman Sweeten commented on the open house held to receive public input from citizens on the recently proposed high density housing development on the west side of Lindon. Chairman Sweeten explained that the City Council had more opposition to the proposed project than the Planning Commission. He stated that he was unsure of the specific objections of the Council. Chairman Sweeten explained that the intent of the Commission is not to provide only rental housing, but affordable home ownership. Commissioner Bryner noted that she had been at the City Council meeting when the decision was made on the proposed project, and that the Council was the not comfortable with the size and density of the project.
Commissioner Anderson commented on the statements of some of the members of the Council that the development didn’t “look like Lindon.” He stated that the average cost of a home in Lindon is currently about $425,000 and that it is not possible to make something that looks like those homes and also make it affordable. Mr. Travis observed that the area along the freeway lends itself to high density housing, and that with quality architecture the country look and feel could be better maintained with housing than with strictly industrial development.
Commissioner Simister commented on the problems the police department is faced with in high density housing developments, and that Lindon doesn’t want to get involved in those problems. She stated that this is the reason that Lindon had chosen to place small areas of high density housing within neighborhoods. She observed that the units tend to be better cared for in those conditions. Mr. Travis suggested that many of those problems could be solved through requirements such as requiring 80% of the units being owner occupied and having guidelines established by homeowners associations. He suggested that these provisions could be placed on the developer and would avoid many of the problems commonly associated with high density housing developments.
Chairman Sweeten commented that there were several other proposals on the table, and that Ivory Homes had looked at the area. He clarified that these were proposals only and that no action had been taken on them. He also informed Mr. Travis that all those in attendance at the City Council meeting to address the issue of high density housing had been opposed to the development, and that citizens who are in favor of similar projects need to make sure and attend the meetings to make themselves heard.
Director Cowie commented that he had only been on the job a little over two weeks, so was somewhat of an observer. He stated that the amendments that had been discussed seem to him to make R2 projects restrictive to the point that they may not be possible, and he felt those amendments may not be warranted. Chairman Sweeten stated that there had been some discussion about doing away with the R2 Overlay, but that the Commission preferred to make it more restrictive. He commented that most of the conflicts that the Commission deals with relate to R2 projects. The Commission felt that by making it more restrictive most of those conflicts could be eliminated. Commissioner Godfrey commented that he felt that former Planning Director Kevin Smith had been in favor of the amendments because the 4% requirement was nearly met, and that current projects were already at high capacity. He felt that by making amendments to the R2 code conflicts could be reduced while still achieving state mandated percentages. Chairman Sweeten clarified that the 4% figure is not a state mandate, but comes as a result of lawsuit. Commissioner Anderson confirmed that the 4% figure came from a court case, but that Lindon cannot fit enough R2 projects into the current areas to meet that percent. Commissioner Anderson felt that if many of the proposed amendments are adopted, single family housing intended for ownership would be eliminated and the R2 Overlay would provide for only rental housing. Commissioner Anderson observed that the language in the code should reflect what the Commission and Council would approve so that developers have a clear idea of what is required before they present proposals.
COMMSSIONER ANDERSON MOVED TO CONTINUE THE PUBLIC HEARING CONSIDERING R2 OVERLAY AMMENDMENTS. COMMISSIONER GODFREY SECONDED THE MOTION. ALL PRESENT VOTED IN FAVOR. THE MOTION CARRIED.
Director Cowie again commented that if the ordinance is made so restrictive that it can’t be used, the Commission should consider getting rid of it. Commissioner Godfrey observed worried that the language can be refined to the point that no project would meet it, and Director Cowie pointed out that such an ordinance is not effective. Chairman Sweeten commented that the City Council may consider other projects in the future.
Commissioner Bryner mentioned a concern brought to her attention by one of her neighbors. She stated that there is a problem with speed of vehicles where the road from Dry Canyon enters Denali Drive. The neighbors in that area are requesting a speed bump. Chairman Sweeten informed her to have them submit an application. Director Cowie encouraged her to have the neighbors make an appointment to attend the Design Review Committee Meeting held on Thursday afternoons from 1 p.m.-3 p.m. He stated that they could request a traffic study in the area to determine if a speed bump is warranted.
2. Ostler Industrial Park Plat “E”-120 South 1800 West-Minor Subdivision
This is a request for reconfiguration of property lines and to amend the existing plat.
The applicant identified himself as Brian Pittard. Mr. Pittard owns property located at a Lindon resident residing at 124 South 1800 West. Mr. Pittard was accompanied by Tom Kirk. Director Cowie explained that Mr. Pittard had attended the Design Review Committee meeting, and that in January of 2004 the City Council had approved Plat F, which is located below Plat E on the property owned by Mr. Pittard. Director Cowie showed a visual of the area to the Commission. He stated that Plat F had been approved, but had never been recorded. Mr. Pittard is requesting that he be allowed to reconfigure the property lines of his existing property and include Plat F with Plat E. Mr. Pittard stated that he originally purchased the property with the intent to use it as storage and possibly build on it at some point. He has now received an offer from Utah Power to purchase the property for a substation site.
Chairman Sweeten stated that there is a right of way located on the property that he is concerned about. Director Cowie informed him that there is a thirty foot utility easement, as well as an access for 2000 West. He stated that he needs to discuss the street access with the city engineer to determine why it is there. Mr. Pittard stated that the access was originally intended to supply access to the soccer field behind his property, but that they already have another access off of 2000 West. Commissioner Anderson commented that the Plat had required a shared access with the soccer field because they had been there before Mr. Pittard, and that there is an easement from 1800 West into their property. Mr. Pittard stated that he feels that he is being doubly penalized because of the easement, and stated that he had set his buildings back to accommodate their sewer and water. Commissioner Anderson observed that even if the easement is not necessary, the Commission doesn’t have the authority to just take it away. Director Cowie clarified that there is an easement requirement on Plat F, and that the city engineer had informed him that it would still be required. Chairman Sweeten asked for clarification as to whether Plot F had been recorded. Director Cowie responded that the Plot had not been recorded. Chairman Sweeten asked Mr. Pittard to clarify why the easement had been required. Mr. Pittard again stated that it provided a double access to 2000 West for the soccer field. Chairman Sweeten asked the Commission why they would require it if had never been recorded. Mr. Pittard confirmed that to his knowledge it was not a recorded easement. Commissioner Godfrey suggested that Mr. Pittard look at his title insurance, and informed Mr. Pittard that any easement would be listed on his title insurance. Commissioner Godfrey instructed suggested that Mr. Pittard to bring in a copy of his title insurance if the easement isn’t listed. Chairman Sweeten informed Mr. Pittard that if the easement is recorded, the Commission has no authority to remove it, but if it isn’t recorded they may be able to. Mr. Kirk stated that the property had recently been surveyed, and that no easement existed. Chairman Sweeten explained that he had also purchased property in the past when a survey had not shown an easement and that there actually was one. Mr. Pittard stated that the owners of the soccer field had installed a 4x6 culvert to create a driveway access onto their property, and the easement from his property was no longer necessary for access. Commissioner Godfrey commented that if the access is no longer needed by the property owner, they may be willing to vacate the easement. Chairman Sweeten commented that if the easement had never been recorded then it doesn’t exist and therefore would not need to be vacated. The Commission recommended reviewing the minutes from the City Council meeting regarding this item.
Commissioner Anderson asked Mr. Pittard about a deviation in the property line at the rear of the lot. Mr. Pittard stated that he had included the piece of property to make the lot two full acres in order to meet the requirements for subdividing in the future. Commissioner Godfrey stated that the Commissioner may not take small pieces of land into consideration when looking at a project, and that this addressed the letter of law rather than the spirit of the law. Mr. Pittard stated that he wanted to make sure he had sufficient room to build on to his existing building if he determined he needed to do that.
Mr. Pittard commented on the improvements he had made in order to make the area attractive, and the Commission agreed that he had done an excellent job of keeping the area presentable.
COMMISSIONER SIMISTER MOVED TO APPROVE THE REQUEST BY BRIAN PITTARD FOR A MINOR SUBDIVISION AND AMENDMENT TO OSTLER INDUSTRIAL PARK PLAT “E” AND RECOMMEND APPROVAL TO THE CITY COUNCIL WITH THE FOLLOWING RECOMMENDATIONS: THAT THE CITY ENGINEER REVIEW THE EASEMENT TO DETERMINE IF IT IS PRE-EXISTING AND SHOULD OR SHOULD NOT BE REQUIRED. COMMISSIONER ANDERSON SECONDED THE MOTION. ALL PRESENT VOTED IN FAVOR. THE MOTION CARRIED.
Chairman Sweeten informed Mr. Pittard that from this point it would be necessary to work with the city engineer to address any further questions regarding the easement.
3. Timpanogos Academy Middle School Plat “B”-75 South 100 East-Minor Subdivision
This is a request for reconfiguration of property lines and to amend the existing plat.
The representative for Timpanogos Academy is Leonard Lee, a Lindon resident residing at 119 South Main Street. Mr. Lee was accompanied by Steven Whitehouse, a Kaysville resident residing at 414 South Main Street. Director Cowie presented information on the request to the Commission, stating that the request is for a reconfiguration of the existing three lot subdivision to relocate the property lines between the original lots 2 and 3. The new plat, Timpanogos Academy Plat B identifies the parcels as lots 1 and 2. He showed a visual of the area. Director Cowie stated that construction had begun, and informed the Commission that the rules regarding charter schools are the same as those governing construction of other public schools. He stated that while the city has limited input into school projects, it is necessary for storm water, sewer, traffic impact, and safety issues to be reviewed by the city engineer. Director Cowie informed Mr. Lee that prior to final approval all fees would need to be paid, as well as having the storm drainage system approved by the city engineer and having all building inspection reports turned in to the city as they are completed. Mr. Lee informed Director Cowie and the Commission that according to state code he was not required to turn building inspection reports into the city. He stated that the requirement is to turn those reports into the State Board of Education. Commissioner Simister inquired who was doing the inspections. Mr. Lee responded that the building inspector for Alpine School District had been hired, and clarified that according to state law the city cannot require them to turn in the building inspection reports. Chairman Sweeten commented that this was a new issue for the city and they had not dealt with it before. Mr. Lee reminded the Commission about the bus garage project completed in the city by Alpine School District. Chairman Sweeten stated that the Commission had no input on that project.
Mr. Lee stated that they were willing to work out concerns with the city, and were willing to do things such as landscape barriers even if they weren’t required, but that if something is not required by law then the city should not require it. Chairman Sweeten informed Mr. Lee that they would look into it and if it isn’t required then they won’t require it. Mr. Lee stated that Phil Brown can conduct inspections if he would like, and that they are willing to give copies of the reports to the city, but that if the law the doesn’t require it then the city can’t require it. Mr. Lee informed the Commission that the State Fire Marshall has jurisdiction over the project, and that restrictions are imposed by both the Board of Education and the Fire Marshall. Commissioner Simister suggested that if providing the reports would mitigate any contention between the school and the city, then it might be the wise thing to do. Mr. Lee again stated that they don’t mind giving copies of the reports to the city, but it should not be a requirement. Chairman Sweeten commented that the Commission wants to be able to work together with the school.
Mr. Lee stated that the only thing that has been changed is the location of the building on the site. Commissioner Godfrey inquired if the new placement of the building would encourage foot traffic across the street, creating a possible safety hazard. Mr. Whitehouse stated that foot traffic would not increase because there would be no instance of children having classes on both sides of the street. Commissioner Godfrey asked about the possibility of brothers and sisters crossing the street to find each other during drop off and pick up times. Mr. Whitehouse stated that drop off and pick up times would be at the same time and place each day. He commented on the organization of drop off and pick up procedures, stating that students would be located on the sidewalk alphabetically and would be with siblings, and that the students would be very well supervised during those times. Mr. Lee confirmed that it may be necessary for some students to cross the street during drop off and pick up times, but assured the Commission that they would be very well supervised during those times. Commissioner Godfrey observed that if a child were injured or killed the Commission would be feel responsible for that, and he wants to make sure all safety issues are addressed.
Director Cowie pointed out that the only request before the Commission at this meeting is for a re-plat of the site.
Commissioner Simister commented on a small building currently located on the property and inquired if there was a plan for use of that building. Mr. Lee stated that they had discussed the possibility of a preschool in future, but stated that no firm plans had been made. Mr. Lee was asked if the traffic would run north to south near the school. He stated that it may run either way. The Commission expressed concern over traffic traveling on the street in front of the school during school hours. Mr. Lee and Mr. Whitehouse informed them that the gate at the entrance to the school property would be kept closed during school hours and only be opened during drop off and pick times when the students would be closely supervised. Mr. Lee also observed that this would create an open traffic pattern that does not exist now.
Commissioner Simister inquired whether the traffic entering Center Street would make right turns only. Mr. Whitehouse stated that some vehicles would turn left and some would turn right. Commissioner Simister reminded Mr. Lee and Mr. Whitehouse that one of the conditions for approval was to have vehicles make right turns only onto Center Street. Mr. Whitehouse stated that a possible solution would be to put up a sign indicating right turns only.
Chairman Sweeten commented that the decision before the Commission was if the re-plat had any effect on safety or traffic issues. Mr. Whitehouse stated that they would be happy to discuss any concerns with the Commission, but that a decision should be made on the re-plat and other concerns could be addressed in future meetings. Mr. Lee stated that he had reviewed the new plans with both the Pleasant Grove City Fire Marshall and the State Fire Marshall, and they had given approval. Chairman Sweeten recommended that the applicants discuss the traffic issues with the city engineer. Commissioner Simister commented that it looked like the proposed site plan included a road. Mr. Lee clarified that it would be a private, not a public road, and again stated that the gate would be closed during school hours and there would be no traffic.
Chairman Sweeten noted that many of the questions they were asking were for informational purposes only and could not affect the decision they make regarding the request for a re-plat.
COMMISSIONER BRYNER MOVED TO APPROVE THE REQUEST BY LEONARD LEE-AGENT FOR TIMPANOGOS ACADEMY, FOR A MINOR SUBDIVISION TITLED “TIMPANOGOS ACADEMY PLAT B”, AND TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL TO THE CITY COUNCIL WITH THE FOLLOWING RECOMMENDATIONS: THAT THE OUTSTANDING FEES FOR CITY ENGINEERING AND/OR PUBLIC WORKS IMPROVEMENTS BE PAID IN FULL, THAT THE CITY ENGINEERS APPROVE THE STORM DRAIN OR OTHER PLANS AS REQUIRED BY THE CITY ENGINEER, THAT BUILDING INSPECTION REPORTS ARE FILED WITH THE STATE AS REQUIRED, AND THAT BUILDING INSPECTION REPORTS BE COPIED TO THE CITY. COMMISSIONER SIMISTER SECONDED THE MOTION. ALL PRESENT VOTED IN FAVOR. THE MOTION CARRIED.
4. Rocky Mountain Youth -200 North Anderson Lane-Review Conditional Use Permit
As a condition of approval, any new manager at the group home is to review the CUP with the Planning Commission
The applicants identified themselves as Corbin Linde, and Lynn Loftin. Director Cowie reviewed the Conditional Use Permit issued on this property. He stated that the permit had been issued to Rocky Mountain Youth Services, but that they were no longer in business. Mr. Linde and Mr. Loftin are owners of Heritage Youth Services and have made an offer to purchase the property. The Conditional Use Permit requires a review by the Commission every six months or upon any change of management at the facility. Commissioner Godfrey observed that the required 6 month reviews had not taken place. Chairman Sweeten stated that since the conditions of the permit had not been met, it could be void. Director Cowie informed the Commission that there were several other projects in the city with the same condition, and they need to put a mechanism in place to assure that those reviews are completed in a timely manner. Director Cowie also stated that the six month requirement may be excessive and should possibly be annually.
Commissioner Anderson commented that there had been problems with previous owners of the property, stating that when they appeared before the Commission everything seemed great, but the Commission would never see them again. He stated that many of the problems that occur happen because the people who appear before the Commission and agree to the conditions of the permit are not the people in charge of the day to day operation of the facility. As a result the people running the home are not aware of the conditions of the Conditional Use Permit. He also stated that every time there was a management change everything would change. Commissioner Anderson agreed that the city needs to schedule them to come in for required reviews. He also suggested that a committee made up of city staff and neighbors may be a good option to helping regulate the home noted that a committee made up of city staff and neighbors to assist in regulation of the school is required by the existing ordinance. He commented that one of the requirements of the Conditional Use Permit was that there be no more than twelve residents at any time. He had observed the fifteen passenger van owned by Rocky Mountain Youth Services full leaving the facility full on several occasions. Another condition of the permit is that no sex offenders be housed there. At the end of the time the facility was being run by Rocky Mountain Youth Services, there were level 4 sex offenders at the facility. Commissioner Anderson stated that after a period of time, if the new owners proved themselves, there would be a possibility of making the reviews annual, but noted that those reviews would need to take place with the person running the home, not someone in an office at another location. Commissioner Bryner agreed that at the present time, the review period should remain at six months.
Commissioner Godfrey inquired if either of the men present would be on site running the home. Mr. Loftie responded that they would be the administrators and owners of the home, but that someone else would be responsible for the day to day operations at the facility. He stated that they would, however have daily contact with the program director, and commented that they have several other homes in the county.
Commissioner Simister inquired what kind of youth would be housed at the facility. Mr. Loftie passed out a written presentation regarding Heritage Youth Services to give an overview of their company and their intent for this facility. He stated that they have been in business for thirty years. He informed the Commission that as well as part time employees, they have a large staff of credentialed professionals who work on site with the youth. The profile for youth residents at this facility includes boys between the ages of thirteen and seventeen. He stated that although Heritage Youth Services routinely works with the Juvenile Justice System and Division of Child and Family Services, those are not the intended clients for this facility. Mr. Loftie commented that he receives three to four calls a weeks from parents who have children who are beginning to have problems at home and school. Many of these parents would like to intervene before the child begins to have legal problems. Many of these youth have already been in therapy, and their parents feel they would benefit from the focus of structure of the programs that Heritage Youth Services offers. Mr. Loftie clarified that this would not be the type of facility where staff simply watch over the youth, but that it a residential treatments facility with the focus of the program being on treatment. He stated that the youth housed at this facility do not need incarceration and that in fact many of them have no criminal record. He assured the Commission that the facility would not house youth who may be a threat to themselves or others, nor would they allow sex offenders into this program. He stated that they have programs available for youth who fit these categories in other locations.
Commissioner Bryner inquired as to whether addiction to pornography would classify someone as a sex offender. Mr. Loftie stated that while pornography can be pre-cursor to other problems it does not classify someone as a sex offender. He commented on the widespread nature of pornography in our society and that pornography is a problem in every community. He stated that each youth Heritage deals with is carefully evaluated to assure that they receive the level of care necessary to that individual.
Commissioner Simister asked Mr. Loftie who has custody of the individuals while they are in the program. Mr. Loftie stated that the parents retain custody of the child, and that parents “call all the shots” in the treatment. He stated that parents expect more out of the program, and that they are in constant contact with the family. He stated that the goal of the program is put kids and families back together. Mr. Loftie commented that when youth come to them there is generally no communication between the child and the parents, that everyone has stopped talking. The program is designed to help the child respond appropriately, as well as educate the family as to how to deal with the problems they are faced with. Mr. Loftie stated that there may be occasions where youth would be referred to the program by DCFS, but they wouldn’t work with youth in the Juvenile Justice System. Commissioner Simister commented that it would not be advantageous to bring those youth in JJS into the mix. Mr. Loftie agreed that it would tend to bring another element into the program that they did not want for this particular facility. Mr. Loftie went on to explain that the estimated treatment time in the facility is approximately six to nine months, and again stated that the goal of the program is to place the youth back into their homes and communities. . He stated that this is a tentative schedule and would be adjusted to meet individual needs of the youth.
Mr. Loftie stated that the program is very structured, but that there are breaks and rewards built into the program, and that as teenagers, the youth in the program need time to unwind. The group therapy sessions lead by professional therapists address issues such as personal and social responsibility, communication, and how to deal with frustration.
Commissioner Bryner noted that school would only be held daily until noon. Commissioner Simister inquired where school would be held. Mr. Loftie informed them that Heritage Youth Services offers private education which is held at their private facility. He stated that often when students attend public schools, they bring additional problems back to the program with them. He also informed the Commission that the youth are involved in several other programs during their treatment which are not typical of other group homes. He told the Commission about the Mountain Land Athletic League, which is a recreational, not a competitive league, where residents are involved in sports such as football, volleyball, and softball. They also offer field trips to places such as Goblin Valley, Zion National Park, Yellowstone, and ski programs. He stated that they offer a wide range of activities to help the youth learn to function better in society, as well as exposing them to a variety of activities they may choose to remain involved in after treatment, to help the youth avoid boredom which can be a major element in staying out of trouble. He also stated that the families are involved in some of these activities to encourage healthy relationships. He commented on a river rafting trip with the families that had been successful, and had a great impact on youth and parents.
Commissioner Bryner asked to return to the school question. She inquired if school was not allowed on site at this facility where it would be held. Mr. Loftie stated that the home needs considerable work. Commissioner Anderson noted that work had begun on the roof of the home that day. He commented that it had been a bad day due to the wet weather. Mr. Loftie agreed, and pointed out that there is water damage in the basement of the home, as well as other repairs that need to be completed. Director Cowie pointed out that the area is zoned industrial, and that specialized schools are allowed in the area, such as karate and dance schools. Chairman Sweeten stated that a public hearing would have to be held in order to allow a school to be held on site. Mr. Loftie stated that youth in the program at the site previously had gone to the Summit Program provided by Alpine School District, but that the youth in this program are a different type of youth and would not be likely to benefit from that schooling program. Commissioner Anderson, who lives in the area of the facility, commented that one of the advantages of having schooling located off site was that the youth were gone for several hours a day, and that during school hours they could relax because there was no damage or vandalism. Commissioner Godfrey asked what problems in particular had occurred with previous programs. Commissioner Anderson stated that they had a grainery burn down, a motorcycle had been stolen, a truck had been stripped, and that the police had been able to track someone back to the facility following one vandalism incident, but had not been allowed to enter. He stated that the police had made the recommendation to get rid of the facility. Commissioner Anderson again commented that many of the problems occur because the supervisors at the facility are somewhat transient, and that the Commission doesn’t see the same people who agreed to conditions of Conditional Use Permit again. Commission Godfrey inquired if the police department had actually suggested getting rid of the facility, Commissioner Anderson confirmed that they had, and noted that the restrictions placed on the facility are there for a reason. He stated that traffic in the area is a big concern, and that a posted fifteen mile an hour speed limit was a condition of the Conditional User Permit, but signs were never posted. He observed that it had been nice to have the facility vacant for the past two months. Commissioner Anderson stated that it would be nice to have a family in the home but he realizes that the property is more valuable as a group home. Mr. Loftie stated that it would be unfair to compare the statistics of past programs with the proposed population of this project. He also informed the Commission that it had been years since Heritage Youth Services has had a runaway from any of their programs. Commissioner Anderson commented that the advantage to having sex offenders in the facility is that they tend not to run away or steal things. He commented that the previous program had locked up the shoes of the residents at night, but that was not a deterrent, and that they had simply run around in their socks. Commissioner Anderson told of more incidents of vandalism, such as having a horse turned loose, and finding out that one of the residents had lived in his barn for three days. He stated that he felt the current applicants would do a better job than previous owners had done.
Chairman Sweeten inquired if the property had already been purchased. Mr. Loftie replied that it is currently under contract for purchase. Chairman Sweeten asked Director Cowie if they were required to approve the Conditional Use Permit. Director Cowie clarified that the applicants were there because one of the conditions of the CUP was to have a review with the Commission every six months or upon change of management. He pointed out that Mr. Loftie and Mr. Linde had contacted the city to arrange the review in compliance with the CUP. Chairman Sweeten commented that the current location of the facility may not be the best location, and suggested that the Commission could consider revoking the existing CUP. Commissioner Anderson suggested that the existing conditions to the CUP should be reviewed and if the new owners were willing to meet those conditions they should be given the chance to do so. Mr. Loftie observed that the property had been rental property since the 1990’s. He stated that they will be an owner occupied facility, that they are making an investment and can’t just pick up and leave as other businesses in the facility have done.
Commissioner Simister observed that it would be beneficial to the youth to be privately taught. Mr. Linde stated that they would be privately taught whether it was on site or at another facility owned by Heritage Youth Services. He stated that there would simply be fewer logistical issues if school could be conducted on site. He showed a visual of the staffing structure, indicating that there would be two teachers to accommodate the ages of the youth involved in school. The proposed staffing structure also provides a 1-4 supervision ratio during the hours of 6a.m.- 11p.m. and reduced that ration to 6-1 during the hours of 11p.m.-6a.m. Commissioner Anderson noted that previous management of the facility had agreed to a 4-1 ratio twenty four hours a day. Mr. Loftie commented that they may have agreed to it but it was likely they were being deceptive. He stated that the 6-1 ratio during sleeping hours meets standards established by the state for supervision. Commissioner Anderson commented that the Commission appreciates his honesty. Mr. Loftie clarified that supervision in the morning hours is staggered to allow sufficient coverage. He commented that not all of the youth wake up happy, and they have sufficient coverage to compensate for those types of problems as they arise. He also noted that with the structure of the program the schedule is predictable and the youth know what to expect.
Chairman Sweeten stated that it sounds like the program is a good program, but that he is still unsure that this is the best location. After reviewing the code, Director Cowie informed the Commission that the CUP can only be revoked after a public hearing and that they are required to give the applicants a five day written notice of the public hearing. Director Cowie also observed that the long term plan for the area where the site is located is for light or heavy industrial, and that there may not be any homes located in the area, making it an ideal location for the facility. Chairman Sweeten commented that while the majority of the impact is on only one family, that it impacts them heavily. Mr. Loftie requested that the Commission make those decisions based on the business practices of Heritage Youth Services, not based on previous management of the facility. Chairman Sweeten agreed, but stated that if the business were not going to be allowed he wanted that to happen before a large investment of money had taken place. Mr. Loftie stated that they would like an opportunity to meet the conditions.
Chairman Sweeten stated that he feels the burden to make sure the community is treated fairly. He feels that a lot of people have had negative experiences. He questioned how he would feel if it were near his home, and stated that he would probably do everything he could to stop it from being there.
Commissioner Godfrey commented that the longevity of the company may give an indication of how things may proceed. He asked Mr. Loftie about the total number of youth Heritage currently serves. Mr. Loftie responded that they currently serve approximately forty youth in four group homes as well as other foster homes and proctor homes. Commissioner Godfrey inquired if they are a public or private company, to which Mr. Loftie responded private. When asked if they are profitable, Mr. Loftie responded yes. Commissioner Godfrey inquired about their funding sources. Mr. Loftie identified funding sources as a combination coming from sources such as parents, schools, insurance, charity, and the state. Commissioner Godfrey stated that it appears that they have the financial stability to maintain the home and should have chance to prove themselves. Chairman Sweeten again stated that he feels that a public hearing would be appropriate before making a decision. He observed that there may be other people in Commissioner Anderson’s family who may have input.
Commissioner Anderson asked how much more traffic would be created if school were allowed to be held on site. Mr. Loftie stated that there would be two teachers for the school and two cars. Commissioner Anderson also noted that the proposed schedule looks like it creates a lot of traffic issues due to the family therapy sessions. Mr. Loftie indicated that many of those sessions would be held at their administrative facility in Spanish Fork in a large meeting room that is available at that location. Commissioner Anderson observed that there would be parents of all twelve residents visiting the facility. Mr. Loftie indicated that parents are allowed and encouraged to visit, since the focus of the program is to reunite youth with their families, but that meetings involving all of the parents would be held at the Spanish Fork location. Commissioner Anderson commented that traffic is one of the biggest problems he sees, and that parents and staff need to drive slowly and try to co-exist with area residents.
Commissioner Godfrey asked Commissioner Anderson if he had received any reparations for damage to his property caused by residents of the facility. Commissioner Anderson stated that he had received about fifty dollars. Commissioner Godfrey inquired if it would be possible to require a bond to be posted to cover any damages. Director Cowie observed that bonds are required for other items such as landscaping. Commissioner Godfrey commented that it may be a good management tool for the city. Commissioner Anderson stated that they should also have to show proof of insurance. Mr. Loftie noted that it is a state requirement to show proof of insurance to operate a human service facility, and that the state performs audits to assure those requirements are met. Commissioner Godfrey inquired if they are administrative audits or on-site audits. Mr. Loftie responded that they perform both types, and that the state can drop in anytime they choose. Commissioner Simister asked who specifically performs the audits. She was informed that the Department of Human Services Department of Licensing oversees group facilities.
Chairman Sweeten asked if there were any residents other than the Anderson family affected by the placement of the facility in that location. He again suggested a temporary suspension of the Conditional Use Permit and a public hearing to review the placement. Director Cowie stated that after further review of the code, it is only necessary to have a Planning Commission hearing, as it is a public meeting. Mr. Loftie asked if there was an option to come before the Commission again and show that they are willing to do what they say they will do. Chairman Sweeten stated that he would like to suspend the current the Conditional Use Permit and have a public hearing to consider issuing a new Conditional Use Permit, and that there was a possibility it would not be issued. Commissioner Simister asked why a new permit would have to be issued. Commissioner Godfrey informed her that it was because they were making changes to the original CUP. Commissioner Simister commented that she was aware the that Commissioner Anderson had had some problems in the past, but that the proposed program may be good for youth. She noted that the kids involved in the program need somewhere to go, that the company appears to have a good track record, and that they should have a chance to prove themselves. Chairman Sweeten clarified that he was not questioning if it is a good program, but rather if it is the appropriate location for the facility. He suggested that it may be better to locate the facility in a residential area to provide increased community policing of activities and problems as they arise.
Mr. Loftie asked Commissioner Anderson if they could have the opportunity to sit down and discuss problems with him personally. Commissioner Anderson stated that many of the problems that had occurred previously were a result of never seeing the original applicants again. Chairman Sweeten commented that Chairman Anderson has been very understanding of the problems that have occurred. Mr. Linde assured the Commission that although he and Mr. Loftie were not on the schedule as staff they would have daily contact with the program manager on site. Commissioner Godfrey inquired how long they had owned the company. Mr. Loftie stated that he and Mr. Linde had purchased the company in March of 2002, but that he had worked for the company since 1989, indicating that the previous owner had been his father. Commissioner Godfrey asked where the other homes owned by Heritage were located. Mr. Loftie informed him that they run homes in Spanish Fork, Payson, and Pleasant Grove.
Commissioner Bryner agreed that there needs to be an opportunity for intervention with the youth. She feels that the desire to stop the project comes from looking at it from a personal perspective, rather than deciding what is best for the community as a whole, and how it will impact most of the community. Chairman Sweeten clarified that he is not saying that the CUP should not remain in place, he would just like an opportunity to review it further in a public hearing, and that if he were Commissioner Anderson he would be doing everything he could to stop the facility from opening. He stated that in other situations neighbors are brought in to see how they feel about proposed projects. He feels that just because the neighbor happens to be on the Planning Commission that other members of his family still have the right to be heard. Commissioner Godfrey stated that from a practical perspective, if Commissioner Anderson is the only one who would speak at a public hearing, the process could be expedited by making the decision in this meeting. Commissioner Anderson stated that there are issues, and observed that the CUP had not been reviewed since 2001. He stated that there needs to be a mechanism in place to make sure the required reviews happen on schedule. He also observed that Heritage would not be willing to make the financial investment if there is possibility of relocating in six months. Chairman Sweeten observed that it is more difficult to get rid of businesses after they are established, and that if action needs to be taken, it should be taken now. Commissioner Anderson stated that he didn’t feel it was necessary to drag it out, that it hadn’t been easy, but that he is willing to work with the applicants, but that the speed of traffic is his main concern. He asked Mr. Loftie how they plan to address the traffic issue. Mr. Loftie stated that they would include it in their training of employees and in the orientation of parents when their child enters the program. He stated that signs would be posted and that employees would be disciplined for violations. He encouraged Commissioner Anderson to report violations so they could be dealt with. Commissioner Simister suggested that repeated violations by parents may be cause for the child being removed from the program. Mr. Loftie commented that there is a different level of commitment from full time employees, that they will be familiar with Commissioner Anderson and will want a good relationship with him. Commissioner Anderson commented that it is a safety issue for the residents as well as the youth at the facility. Because of the blind corner you can’t see if another vehicle is coming. He stated that he doesn’t want to see anyone hurt or killed. He also observed that it is a private lane, not a dedicated city road.
Chairman Sweeten asked the Commission why they were hesitant to hold a public hearing. Commissioner Godfrey stated that he would defer to Commissioner Anderson, because it affects his home and property. Commissioner Anderson stated that he didn’t feel a public hearing was necessary, and the outcome would be the same, but again stated that his biggest concern is traffic. Chairman Sweeten asked how long it had been a group home. Commissioner Anderson indicated that it had been about eight years. Chairman Sweeten suggested that it might be time to spread out the impact. He stated that Commissioner Anderson’s family had been affected for eight years and it may be time to move the facility. Commissioner Anderson expressed appreciation for Chairman Sweetens concern, but stated that he felt they could work with the applicants if they address traffic issues and if the required reviews are completed on schedule. Commissioner Anderson asked Mr. Loftie what specific conditions to the permit he would like to change. Mr. Loftie stated that ideally they would like to hold school on-site, but that they can transport to school if necessary. Commissioner Anderson inquired if school would take place only during the school year. Mr. Loftie replied that they hold school classes year round. Director Cowie again stated that a public hearing would be necessary before the school could be allowed. He suggested that the Commission perform a review in three months and the school be applied for at that time.
Commissioner Godfrey addressed the issue of supervision ratios. He stated that the current conditions of the CUP require a 1-4 ratio twenty four hours a day, and asked if the applicants were requesting to amend that to 1-6 ratio during nighttime hours. He noted that the previous owners had agreed to that condition. Mr. Loftie suggested that they may have agreed to it but were probably not complying with that requirement, and stated that he wanted to be honest about what he intended to do. He again stated that the Department of Human Services requires a ratio of 1-6 during nighttime hours. Commissioner Anderson suggested that Mr. Loftie and Mr. Linde apply for the change to the supervision ratio at the three month review, after they have things up and running. Mr. Loftie indicated that it would create a financial hardship on their business if they were required to provide additional staff during sleeping hours.
Commissioner Anderson stated that one of the conditions of the CUP is that no residents over the age of eighteen be allowed. He stated that he is aware of youth up to nineteen years of age in the previous program. The applicants stated that there would be no residents over the age of eighteen.
Commissioner Sweeten asked Director Cowie if it would be possible to schedule a public hearing to review the Conditional Use Permit and consider revoking it. Director Cowie informed him that the requirements were met at this meeting, and that a decision could be made tonight. Commissioner Godfrey suggested that if the applicants are committed to meeting the conditions of the permit, the motion could be to approve allowing them to begin operations and review their performance at a three month review. Commissioner Simister inquired when they plan to begin operations. Mr. Loftie stated that it would be at least a couple of months until renovations could be completed. Commissioner Bryner asked who was doing the renovations. Mr. Loftie stated that Rocky Mountain Youth Services had never purchased the home, and as one of the conditions of purchase the owner of the property is taking care of the majority of the needed improvements. Commissioner Bryner asked if they were still in negotiation for the property. Mr. Loftie stated that they are currently under contract, and that it will be around the first June before the facility is ready to open.
Commissioner Anderson inquired if they could work with the CUP as it is and apply for changes in the future. Mr. Loftie stated that the supervision ratio is a concern due to the increased expense of providing another staff member. Commission Anderson stated that the majority of problems occur at night and that is when supervision is needed. Mr. Loftie explained that the nighttime staff is required to perform checks at specific locations of the facility at specific times during the night. The checks are tracked through the staff clocking into those areas for documentation. He assured the Commission that they don’t simply watch the residents sleep. He commented that several members of the night time staff are in fact professionals who are working a second job. He also indicated that an alarm system would be installed to further monitor the residents at night. Commissioner Anderson stated that Rocky Mountain had agreed to install alarms. Mr. Loftie stated that there was no indication of alarms, but that they are less intrusive than staff, and residents know if a door or window opens that staff will respond. Mr. Loftie also stated that they would like to have an open house before they begin operations so that the Commission and neighbors can come in and see that the required improvements have been made.
Commissioner Godfrey stated they are in a tough spot, and asked Director Cowie if they need to have a hearing to make amendments. Director Cowie stated that any amendments could be addressed at this meeting. Chairman Sweeten again stated that he would like to see this item continued. He would like a chance to talk to the police department and the Anderson family.
Commissioner Anderson stated that on-site schooling would be an issue for at least one neighbor. The residents in the area felt it was good to have the youth away at school for part of the day, but stated that they were not completely closed to the idea. He asked if Mr. Linde could agree to taking them offsite and petition for on-site school in future. Mr. Linde indicated that he could agree to that, and stated that he wants to be honest with the Commission, and that if they can’t operate within the parameters set by the Commission that they shouldn’t open.
Commissioner Simister noted that the review requirement for review should read, “every six months or upon change of management.” Commissioner Anderson again stated that many of the problems in the past have occurred because those in charge of day to day operations were not aware of the conditions of the permit. Commissioner Godfrey observed that the wording of the condition should read, “every six months AND upon change in program director.” Director Cowie stated that renewal could be required every six months.
Mr. Loftie inquired if it would be possible to differentiate supervision ratios during waking and sleeping hours. He stated that with up to eight residents it would not be a problem, but by adding an additional resident it would create a financial burden. Commissioner Simister asked if the residents always sleep during the night. Mr. Loftie responded that they don’t always sleep, but that their schedule is very regimented and they are usually tired at night. He stated that residents are allowed to sleep in on weekends, due to the fact that they are teenagers and physically require extra sleep for normal development. He encouraged the Commission to consult with the Department of Human Services on the matter and referred them to Mr. McDougal who is in charge of licensing. He assured the Commission that the 1-6 supervision ratio he is requesting is consistent with state standards. Commission Anderson clarified that they are requesting a ratio of 1-4 during waking hours and 1-6 during sleeping hours. Mr. Loftie responded affirmatively.
Commissioner Godfrey inquired if the residents would include any Juvenile Justice System youth. Mr. Loftie and Mr. Linde indicated that they are currently serving two JJS clients in their foster care services. They stated that there may be occasions when a youth from JJS or DCFS would benefit from this program, but that those would be exceptions. They don’t want to totally exclude those clients, but would evaluate and thoroughly screen each individual case. Commissioner Bryner asked if there were other programs available for those populations. Mr. Loftie indicated that there are, but the programs differ greatly from this program.
Commissioner Godfrey asked Commissioner Anderson what he would like to do since he is the one most affected by the decision. Commissioner Anderson stated that he doesn’t want to hold up progress of the project. He stated that if they can meet the conditions of the permit and apply for changes later he feels they should move forward. Commissioner Anderson feels that with the different population of residents in the facility it would be appropriate to try the reduced nighttime supervision ratio. He also informed Mr. Loftie that he did not want to provide service opportunities for the residents. Mr. Loftie informed him that they do require community service hours for residents, but that they provide off site opportunities to work those hours. Mr. Loftie stated that there is a building next door to the current site which they are considering purchasing to use as a woodworking area or to teach other hobbies and skills, and provide opportunities to give back to the community. He told the Commission about a project Heritage residents participated in last Christmas in providing wooden ponies they had made to underprivileged children in the community.
Commission Anderson suggested that the Commission reduce the nighttime supervision ratio and review it if problems arise. Mr. Loftie stated that they want the Commission to address concerns as they arise and not be afraid of offending them. He stated that they want to participate in the process of building a relationship. Mr. Loftie realized that there will be unforeseen problems, and would like to be able to come up with solutions as those problems arise.
COMMISSIONER GODFREY MOVED TO AMMEND THE REQUEST FOR A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO HERITAGE YOUTH SERVICES IN THE FOLLOWING WAYS: THE APPLICANTS AGREED TO THE EXISTING CONDITIONS OF THE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT WHICH ARE AS FOLLOWS:
1. OCCUPANCY IS LIMITED TO TWELVE YOUTH.
2. NO SEX OFFENDERS ARE TO RESIDE AT THE HOME
3. NO YOUTH OVER THE AGE OF EIGHTEEN
4. INSTALL ADEQUATE ALARM SYSTEM INCLUDING ALARMS ON WINDOWS AND DOORS
5. NO SCHOOLING ON SITE.
6. POSTED SPEED LIMIT ON ANDERSON LANE WILL BE 15 MPH.
7. A SIGN DIRECTING TRAFFIC TO THE GROUP HOME WILL BE POSTED.
8. SUPERVISION RATIO NO LESS THAN ONE SUPERVISOR TO FOUR YOUTH
9. THE SITE IS OPEN TO VISITATION BY POLICE AND CITY OFFICIALS WITHOUT NOTICE.
10. TRAINING WILL BE PROVIDED FOR EMPLOYEES AND RESIDENTS REGARDING THE SPEED LIMIT REQUIREMENTS AND ILLEGAL TRESPASSING ON THE NEIGHBORING PRIVATE PROPERTY.
11. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT WILL BE REVIEWED EVERY SIX MONTHS BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION AT REGULARLY SCHEDULED MEETINGS.
12. ALL OTHER REQUIREMENTS AND LIMITS AS PER CITY ORDINANCE BE ADHERED TO.
IT WILL BE AMMENDED TO READ: ON SITE SUPERVISION WILL BE A RATIO OF 1-4 BETWEEN THE HOURS OF 6 AM AND 11 PM AND BE REDUCED TO A RATIO OF 1-6 BETWEEN THE HOURS OF 11 PM AND 6 AM. HERITAGE YOUTH SERVICES WILL APPEAR BEFORE THE COMMISSION EVERY SIX MONTHS AND UPON CHANGE OF PROGRAM DIRECTORS OR MANAGEMENT. THE CITY WILL PERFORM AN INSPECTION PRIOR TO THE HOME BEING OCCUPIED TO INSURE NEEDED IMPROVEMENTS HAVE BEEN MADE. ADD ITEM THIRTEEN WHICH WILL READ: A BOND WILL BE POSTED TO COVER REQUIRED HOME IMPROVEMENTS (I.E ALARM SYSTEM) AND REPARATIONS TO NEIGHBORS OF UP TO $10,000. COMMISSIONER SIMISTER SECONDED THE MOTION. THE VOTE WAS RECORDED AS FOLLOWS:
COMMISSIONER ANDERSON AYE
COMMISSIONER SIMISTER AYE
COMMISSIONER BRYNER AYE
COMMISSIONER GODFREY AYE
CHAIRMAN SWEETEN NAY
THE MOTION CARRIED (4-1)
Chairman Sweeten noted that he was not necessarily opposed to the project, but felt it needed further discussion and review. Mr. Loftie and Mr. Linde were informed that they need to appear before the Commission on September 14 for their first review.
5. Mike Mount residence-Canberra Hills Plat “P” Lot 158-Grading Plan Review
This property is within the Hillside Protection District that requires Planning Commission approval of the grading plan.
This item was placed on the agenda by error. It has already addressed in a previous meeting.
PLANNING DIRECTOR REPORT
1. Director Cowie reminded the Commission that they had discussed Commission terms at the previous meeting. He informed Commission members that the Mayor had reappointed all of them for an additional three years. He passed out letters noting that it was for the information of the Commissioners and identified the dates of their terms.
2. The Commission discussed the freeway landscaping at all American Gym. It was noted that trees are required on public streets, but it was unclear if the freeway was included in that requirement. Chairman Sweeten stated that if trees had not been required on the site plan when it was approved then they shouldn’t be required now. Commissioner Godfrey stated that they may have waved the requirement for trees because of the existing gas line. Commissioner Anderson suggested that Director Cowie review the minutes from the meeting where the site plan had been approved to determine if trees had been a requirement. Commissioner Godfrey commented that he thought he remembered an area with picnic tables being approved as an alternate site for the trees. Chairman Sweeten instructed Director Cowie to look back at the minutes of the meeting to see if they had made a modification to the tree requirements.
3. Lindon resident Mike Morgan is a land owner with property located near the Public Works Building on 200 West His property is zoned residential, but he is surrounded on three sides by property which is zoned industrial. He is requesting his zoning be changed to industrial. Director Cowie noted that the lot does not meet the minimum size requirements for industrial zoning, but is not sure if existing lots need to meet the minimum size requirements. After discussion, the decision was made to review the item after more information is obtained.
4. Director Cowie informed the Commission that Ott Dameron and the City Council wanted the opinion of the Commission concerning the area of the city which is zoned mixed commercial, and the construction of more storage units in that area. Chairman Sweeten stated that he didn’t have any real issues with storage units being built. Commissioner Godfrey stated that he would rather see storage units than light industrial businesses, and suggested that they could limit the number they would allow. Chairman Sweeten stated that they can’t just arbitrarily restrict the number of projects they will allow. Commissioner Anderson stated that if they don’t want to allow more storage units to be built they should be moved to light industrial areas instead of making it more restrictive in mixed commercial zones. Director Cowie showed a visual of the area, indicating where new proposed storage unit projects were being considered. He indicated that it was Phase II of an existing project, and that the developer had stated that he wouldn’t build Phase II until Phase I was full. Director Cowie stated that the Commission needs to decide if they want to limit the construction of storage units to other areas. Chairman Sweeten stated that it had been approved before, and so couldn’t be denied now. Commissioner Anderson commented that there is a lot of land still available and he is hopeful that some of it will be commercial, but not all of it will be. Chairman Sweeten inquired what is allowed in mixed commercial that isn’t allowed in general commercial. Director Cowie stated that the main thing is storage units. Chairman Sweeten again stated that he didn’t have any real concerns. Commissioner Simister suggested the possibility of moving the storage units to light industrial areas. Commissioner Anderson stated that they don’t want to fill the whole city up with storage units, but that some are not necessarily a bad thing. Chairman Sweeten stated that they can end construction of storage units in the mixed commercial zone if it becomes a problem. Director Cowie clarified the zone boundaries on the visual map. Commissioner Anderson noted that there are about 150 acres of commercial area available. He also noted that a residential component is necessary, because commercial developers want to see large residential areas to support the commercial development. The general feeling of the Commission was to not restrict construction of storage units at this time.
5. Wasatch U-Cart is submitting a new site plan. It was noted that some days it looks like they are under construction, and other days it looks like they are open for business. Commissioner Godfrey suggested that they may simply be using the property for storage of equipment that is not in use. Director Cowie asked the applicant to include every aspect of business he is using the property for in his site plan.
6. Director Cowie informed the Commission that Mr. Unice who had proposed the shooting range in the previous Planning Commission Meeting had met with the police department and had found out that there were probably too many restrictions to allow for the shooting range to be located in the proposed area.
7. Director Cowie addressed issues regarding the Halling Subdivision located next to Lindon Care on State Street. He informed the Commission that the subdivision is located on a flood plain. City code states that the city can’t approve a site plan less than one acre if it includes a flood plain. The flood plain was established in 1986. Chairman Sweeten stated that he doesn’t feel they can go back after the project has been approved. He stated that it may be an unwarranted ordinance. Director Cowie stated that FEMA flood plane standards are in place to prevent damage to property owners. He stated that there are several approaches including using taller foundations to move the buildings 2-5 feet above the flood plane, but that those restrictions are unreasonable to require and simply displace water to another location..
ADJOURN
COMMISSIONER BRYNER MOVED TO ADJOURN THE MEETING AT 11:18 P.M. COMMISSIONER GODFREY SECONDED THE MOTION. ALL PRESENT VOTED IN FAVOR. THE MOTION CARRIED.
Approved April 13, 2005
____________________________
Dustin Sweeten, Chairman
____________________________
Adam Cowie, Planning Director
|
|
|
