|
|
Home » City Government » Planning Commission » Planning Commission Schedule 2005 (Agendas and Minutes) » Planning Commission Minutes 2005 » March 9, 2005
March 9, 2005
The Lindon City Planning Commission held a regularly scheduled meeting on Wednesday, March 9, 2005 at the Lindon City Center, City Council Chamber, at 100 North State Street, Lindon, Utah.
Conducting: Dustin Sweeten, Chairman
Prayer: Jim Peters, Commissioner
Pledge of Allegiance: Dustin Sweeten, Chairman
PRESENT ABSENT
Julie Bryner, Commissioner Evan Nixon, Commissioner
Dustin Sweeten, Chairman
Marilyn Simister, Vice Chairman
Ron Anderson, Commissioner
Gary Godfrey, Commissioner
Jim Peters, Commissioner
Lindsey Bayless, Councilmember
Adam Cowie, Planning Director
Debra Cullimore, Deputy Recorder
Steve Trythall, Planning Intern
Karl Woodard, Planning Intern
The meeting began at 7:00 p.m.
1. APPROVAL OF MINUTES
The minutes of the meeting of February 9, 2005 were reviewed. The following corrections were made:
Page 3, Line 3: Add the words, “which is the far side from the street.”
Page 3, Line 21: Add the words, “The elevation above the street grade was noted.”
Page 4, Line 21: Add the words, “before construction begins on the second building.”
Page 4, Line 23: Add the words, “Bond must be posted before construction.”
COMMISSIONER ANDERSON MOVED TO APPROVE THE MINUTES OF THE FEBRUARY 9 2005 MEETING. COMMISSIONER BRYNER SECONDED THE MOTION. ALL PRESENT VOTED IN FAVOR. THE MOTION CARRIED.
2. PUBLIC COMMENT
Lindon Resident Scott Unice read a letter from his son Cole. The letter referred to Cole’s desire to have a place to shoot guns and practice archery with his dad. The letter asked if the Planning Commission and Lindon City would consider having an area in the city open to shooting. Mr. Unice provided pictures of the areas along the East bench of the city which may be possible locations, along with suggestions for the proposed project. Mr. Unice considered both environmental impact and safety issues when recommending these sites. Mr. Unice showed a topographical map of the area, which is located near the water tank and horse staging area. He reported that there is currently no zoning in the area and that the city already owns the property. The surrounding property is owned by the Forest Service. Mr. Unice reported that there is a Forest Service trail above the proposed area which the Forest Service is considering relocating. Mr. Unice reported that the cost for converting the area to a shooting range would be minimal. He proposed locating the archery range near the top of the water tank, while the shooting range would be located around the hill. The shooting range would be for shooting firearms such as low velocity 22 rifles, air guns, etc. No high powered rifles would be allowed in the area. Chairman Sweeten asked Mr. Unice if he knew how much interest there was in the community. Mr. Unice stated that he would be willing to have a petition signed by interested citizens. Mr. Unice stated that the proposed location would be safe and would also minimize the sound to the surrounding area. Chairman Sweeten pointed out that there is a city ordinance against discharging a firearm in the city limits. It would need to be determined whether the proposed area was within the city limits. Mr. Unice asserted that the community and those who use the area would be responsible to maintain it. Commissioner Bryner asked Mr. Unice how proper use of the area would be enforced. He stated that it is possible to determine what type of gun is being fired from the sound of the ammunition. Those using high powered firearms could be informed of the regulations if they are in violation. Mr. Unice also mentioned the possibility of offering use of the area to the Pleasant Grove/Lindon Police Department for firearms training and qualification in exchange for enforcement in the area. Chairman Sweeten suggested that Mr. Unice meet with Chief Tom Paul of the police department to discuss the possibility. Chairman Sweeten mentioned the indoor shooting range located in Lindon. Mr. Unice said he was aware of it, but that it was not a friendly environment for youth. Mr. Unice stated that the area he was proposing is an area that no one is currently using. Chairman Sweeten then referred to a letter which he had received from Hi-Line & Hobbles, a local horseback riding group, opposing the shooting range. Mr. Unice stated that there are no horse trails in the area he is referring to. Chairman Sweeten clarified that horses do use the trail in the area to access higher trails. He also stated that the shooting range is a possibility, but that further research is needed. Commissioner Anderson suggested that Mr. Unice meet with Hi-Line & Hobbles and see if they can reach an agreement. Commissioner Simister also suggested meeting with the Forest Service regarding the surrounding area. Chairman Sweeten stated that if there is enough interest and they are able to work out the details, they would consider it.
Jose Lopez and Carlos Lopez then addressed the Commission regarding the design review for their proposed cultural arts center in The South Towne Mall. Chairman Sweeten as well as Commissioner Anderson told them they had not yet received an application, so no decision could be made. Mr. Lopez asked the Commission if they submitted their application and paid the $200 fee if they would then be issued a conditional use permit. Chairman Sweeten informed them that the fee must be paid before a decision could be made. Mr. Lopez stated that he is concerned about losing the money he is required to pay for the fee. Commissioner Godfrey explained that the fee is to cover costs incurred by the city in determining if a permit should be issued, the money is not used for profit. Chairman Sweeten instructed the men to submit an application and the Commission will do another review. Planning Director Adam Cowie stated that it would take approximately 3-4 weeks to issue the permit after the application is received. Director Cowie told the men to come and meet with him so he can further explain the process.
Chairman Sweeten welcomed the Boy Scouts in the audience to the meeting.
3. NEW BUSINESS (Reports by Commissioners)
Chairman Sweeten mentioned Utah Auto Sales. He asked if they had given the business a condition of having no windows facing the surrounding homes. He stated that he had observed that there were windows from the business looking down into the back yard of at least one home in the area. Commissioner Anderson stated that the area is zoned commercial and that the sides of the building facing the commercial zone could have windows.
Commissioner Bryner asked Director Cowie what the long range plan for Main Street is. Mr. Dameron informed her that the plan is for the street to go all the way through. Commissioner Bryner said that she was asking because there is a hand painted address sign reading 575 South Main hanging on a gate across the street. She was informed that Commissioner Peters put the sign there. He is building a new home on the lot and was required to have an address sign. He reported that he is the only one who uses the gate. Commissioner Peters stated that he had put in thirty three feet of asphalt on the road. He also stated that the LDS church had dedicated the other portion of Main Street to Lindon City.
It was noted that Kevin Smith had shown plans to remodel the Hatfield dwelling on Main Street.
4. WASHINGTON MUTUAL BANK-579 NORTH STATE STREET-DESIGN REVIEW
This is a design review request for a new bank located next to Wal-Mart on State Street.
The representatives for the Washington Mutual project were Mr. Cary Dunn of Nova Source and Mr. Jeff Byers of Carpenter Stringham Architects. Chairman Sweeten apologized to the representatives for having to wait an extra meeting. Director Cowie informed the Commission that the previous review of this project had been on February 9th and that he had included a color draft from that review for comparison with the changes that had been made. Chairman Sweeten informed the Washington Mutual representatives that the biggest issue to the Commission is how they feel about the design of the project. The Washington Mutual representatives informed the Commission that they had settled on more exact details, and that the building is a corporate prototype, but that it is conducive to the guidelines set by the Commission. The project was described as having more exposed timber and an “arts and crafts” feel. The drive through is located on the elevation which faces State Street. The designers have added a wooden trellis above the windows, as well as detail in the stucco wall. They have also replaced the brick with cultured stone and added more detail on the top of the roof where it seemed a little unfinished. There has also been more attention to detail on the windows, giving a divided look, similar to the window in the Council Chambers. There were also windows added to the Southeast elevation as well as glass added to the Northeast elevation which was not there before.
The representatives were asked about what roofing would be used. They stated that they were planning to use asphalt shingles as opposed to metal roofing, because they were trying to get away from the Park City look. Commissioner Peters commented on the metal roofing used by several other businesses in the area. Commissioner Godfrey stated that he did not feel that the roofing was the make it or break it issue for the project.
Chairman Sweeten said that the project was “headed in the right direction.” He also commented that he liked the pitch on roof over the drive through, but there was too much flat area on the rest of the building. The presenters said that the problem with the roof is the height restriction placed on them by Wal-Mart. They will only allow the height of the roof to be twenty five feet. They observed that it easier to pitch the roof of the drive through because it starts lower than the rest of the building. Commissioner Peters stated that he is concerned about the drive through in proximity to State Street. He was told that there is no other way to situate the building on the lot. Chairman Sweeten stated that he is more comfortable with the drive through than he was previously. Commissioner Peters asked about the treatment on the gable end of the building. He was told it was a kind of shingle. The representatives showed a photograph of a similar project in Colorado. The photo showed a more open look, with exposed timbers. Chairman Sweeten pointed out a possible problem of running the drive through tubes through the open area. The presenters agreed it may be a problem and that there would need to be some combination of closed areas and exposed timbers. The problem of birds getting into the area was also discussed. The representatives hadn’t considered this problem but said they would look into it. Commissioner Anderson stated that he feels that the side facing Wal-Mart is important. The representatives pointed out that they were under obligation to comply with the CC&R imposed by Wal-Mart. Chairman Sweeten informed them that the Commission can’t make allowances for those restrictions, nor can they enforce them. He stated that flat roofs tend to be boring, but that the changes to the design had made it more interesting. Chairman Sweeten feels that the design just needs a few more “tweeks.” Commissioner Bryner commented that the area between the drive through and the entrance area is a little boring. The representatives stated that the building is designed to draw attention and focus to the entries and public areas of the building.
Commissioner Peters asked about the specific details in the stucco which do not show up in the drawing. He was told that the squares in the stucco will consist of slate tiles. Commissioner Godfrey commented that the City Council had relieved certain obligations from other projects, and that what they would be looking for is the majority of the criteria to be met. The representatives were asked about the colors of the project. They stated that most of building would be in earth tones, with a subdued blue color to accentuate the entry. They stated the blue is the signature color of Washington Mutual and needed be included in the design. They clarified that it would not be a bright blue.
Commissioner Simister asked about the white boxes on the top of the building in the drawings. After inspection, it was determined that the boxes were left on the drawings from the original prototype design and would not be included in the final project. Chairman Sweeten stated that he felt the southeast elevation needed more treatment, that it was a little boring. Commissioner Anderson agreed that something should be added to “wake it up.” Commissioner Godfrey suggested that the exposed timbers could be carried around to the southeast elevation to break up the box look. The representatives pointed out that the drawings do not reflect the shadow lines of the actual building which will create a lot of depth and dimension. Chairman Sweeten asked Councilmember Bayless if she had any comments on the project. She stated that it would not be appropriate for her to make specific comments at this point, but that she did feel that it was a big improvement.
Commissioner Bryner inquired if Commissioner Peters felt metal roofing should be used on the entire roof or just on the pitch over the drive through. Commissioner Peters stated that he feels that metal roofing is more attractive. Chairman Sweeten asked the representatives what their preference for roofing was. They stated that it was not a cost issue but that they preferred a textured rather than an industrial look. Chairman Sweeten stated that metal roofing hadn’t been required on other projects in the area, so he wasn’t comfortable requiring it now. The representatives pointed out that metal roofing comes only in a limited number of colors, and that there is a much wider range of colors available in asphalt shingles. They stated that heavy asphalt shingles would be used to add texture to the design. Chairman Sweeten said the roofing decision would be left up to the designers.
Commissioner Bryner asked about signage for the property. A drawing of the area was shown with the monument sign in the Northeast corner of the property oriented towards State Street.
Commissioner Simister commented that the exit to the drive through is awkward because it enters the parking lot. Several options were discussed to solve the problem. One option would be flipping the building on the lot like a mirror image. If this change were made the driver window would be on the opposite side of the vehicle than the drive through window. Another option discussed was to move the handicapped parking space to a different area of the parking lot. Another problem discussed by changing the placement of the drive through area is the backing up of cars in the drive through lanes which could block other traffic. A final option discussed was the possibility of another access from State Street. The representatives stated that UDOT will not grant that access.
The designers will make more revisions and appear before the Commission again.
4. DUNN INVESTMENTS-575 NORTH STATE STREET-DESIGN REVIEW
This is a design review request for a strip mall southeast of Wal-Mart and immediately south of the proposed Washington Mutual Bank site.
Skip Dunn appeared before the Commission. Chairman Sweeten explained that Mr. Dunn has an existing car lot with a non-conforming use permit. Director Cowie expressed concern that part of the building was being proposed as an office and that condition does not comply with the non-conforming use permit. Chairman Sweeten explained that he previously had a financial interest in the property being discussed, but he no longer did so there is no conflict of interest on his part. He also explained that the conditions of the non-conforming use permit were “grandfathered in” and were therefore allowed. Mr. Dunn was informed that the non-conforming use permit is intended to be temporary and that the city doesn’t want to extend non-conforming use permits when it isn’t necessary. Mr. Dunn stated that it is his intent to build the north building and have it fully occupied before building on the other corner. Mr. Dunn stated that he already has the units in the retail building rented. Mr. Dunn was asked about his property and the fact that it extends to the center of the driveway. Chairman Sweeten stated that it is a legal non-conforming use, but that changes to the permit may be considered. The storm drain on the lot was discussed. Mr. Dunn told the Commission that he was currently working on an agreement with Wal-Mart to use their existing detention pond for surface water. He stated that it may be necessary to build up the northwest corner of the property to accommodate the drainage. Chairman Sweeten informed Mr. Dunn that the retail center is allowable, but the commission will be very particular about the design of the project to achieve continuity on State Street. Mr. Dunn stated that he was aware of this, and that Curtis Miner, who is doing the design work for the proposed project, is also aware of it. Mr. Dunn informed the Commission that one of the retail spaces would be occupied by Check City and would have the Check City look. The design of the proposed check city would use stone on the elevations and would be similar to the buildings in Orem and American Fork.
Commissioner Anderson stated that he is concerned that the proposed auto lot makes the decision more difficult. He suggested that Mr. Dunn separate the auto lot and retail space into two separate projects and have one approved individually. Commissioner Peters asked Mr. Dunn to describe the access to the retail area. Mr. Dunn explained that there are three available accesses from State Street, but that he only intends to use two of them. Mr. Dunn described one access as being in the north corner of the property, and the other as splitting the property in two. The issue of the asphalt going up to the property line was discussed. Mr. Dunn stated that the architect didn’t think that the asphalt area could extend to the property line. Commissioner Simister asked about the rounded corner of the lot. It was explained that the lot currently goes into the road. Commissioner Godfrey asked Mr. Dunn if he had heard the input from the Commission regarding the Washington Mutual recommendations. Mr. Dunn indicated that he had heard them. Commissioner Godfrey explained that the same restriction would apply to this project. He expressed concern that the Check City colors would receive opposition, and that the Commission would like to see the use of earth tones and timbers, as well as pitched rather than flat roofs. Commissioner Bryner also suggested the use of moldings to create interest. Mr. Dunn stated that he intended to incorporate those elements into the design. Commissioner Godfrey informed Mr. Dunn that the Commission needs more details regarding the proposed project. Chairman Sweeten reviewed the suggested changes to the Washington Mutual project. Commissioner Simister suggested that Mr. Dunn look at other businesses in the area to get ideas for the design. Mr. Dunn inquired as to the requirements of vinyl fencing. Chairman Sweeten informed him that vinyl fencing is a requirement on State Street from property line to property line except in driveways. Commissioner Peters mentioned that they would require customer parking areas to be included in the design of the car lot. He also stated that they would only allow a certain number of cars to be located on the property at a time to avoid it spilling onto State Street. Mr. Dunn explained that he intended to carry only select specialty cars, and also plans to have a large winter showroom area. Commissioner Anderson expressed concern that the driveways cross the easements, and encouraged him to place the buildings carefully to avoid the easements. Chairman Sweeten suggested that Mr. Dunn come back with more specific design plans and colors. Director Cowie then informed the Commission and Mr. Dunn that code requires a twenty foot landscaped strip on all dedicated streets.
5. WASATCH U-CART-240 NORTH GENEVA ROAD-DISCUSSION ITEM
This is a request by the applicant to discuss requirements for a re-submittal of a site plan.
The applicant was Mr. Eric Maynes. Director Cowie stated that Mr. Maynes had his conditional use permit revoked. He stated that the City Council had authorized the waiver of fees for Mr. Maynes, but that the trailer must be removed from the property. Mr. Maynes was informed that if he submitted his application this week he could be on the agenda for the next Commission meeting. Mr. Maynes presented drawings of the proposed project. Several members of the Commission commented that they had seen the drawings, but that the site plan had never been completed, and that is the reason his permit had been revoked. Mr. Maynes stated that it was his understanding that the City Council had revoked his permit because they wanted to uphold the decision of the Planning Commission. Councilmember Bayless clarified that it was not the intent of the City Council to simply uphold the Commission’s decision, but that Mr. Maynes had not met the requirements for the permit. Chairman Sweeten explained to Mr. Maynes that they had given him every opportunity to complete the site plan, but he had never done so. Chairman Sweeten commented that he thought it looked like Mr. Maynes was still open. Mr. Maynes stated that he had not been open for business since the first week of December. Mr. Maynes asked Chairman Sweeten what would be required to resubmit his application. He stated that he wants his business open and also wants a building permit to begin construction of the permanent building. Mr. Maynes was under the impression that his design was approved but no building permit was ever issued. Chairman Sweeten informed Mr. Maynes that the Commission needed a complete site plan. Mr. Maynes stated again that it was his understanding that the City Council felt he had made significant improvements, but they felt they needed to enforce the decision of the Planning Commission. Commission Bryner reviewed the minutes from the City Council meeting when the motion had been made by Councilmember Bath. It was pointed out that most of the improvements made to the site by Mr. Maynes had occurred after the decision had been made to revoke his permit.
Commissioner Peters stated that his biggest concern is the temporary trailer still located on the site. Commissioner Bryner informed the applicant that it would be necessary for the trailer to be moved before the permit could be issued. Mr. Maynes expressed concern over this requirement, as he had planned to continue the use of the trailer during the construction of the permanent building. Chairman Sweeten informed Mr. Maynes that the trailer was already six months past the allowable time period for a temporary building. He stated that code for a temporary dwelling is two years and he had already been granted a six month extension.
Mr. Maynes was then asked about the status of the detention pond on the site. Mr. Maynes stated that the pond had been moved farther north on the site. Commissioner Anderson asked about the status of the sod for the pond. Mr. Maynes stated that he had seeded the area but that the drain had become plugged during a storm and the seed had been washed away.
Chairman Sweeten asked Mr. Maynes if his plan was to resubmit the old plan or to submit a new plan, and pointed out that it doesn’t matter to the Commission which he does. Commissioner Peters again pointed out that it would be necessary for the trailer to be removed from the site before the permit could be issued. Commissioner Godfrey stated that he felt the discussion was based on semantics. He felt that most of the required improvements had been made, and that the process should be expedited for Mr. Maynes. It was also suggested that Mr. Maynes resubmit his application in two weeks at the next Planning Commission meeting. Chairman Sweeten told Mr. Maynes to be sure to submit the site plan that he intends to build. Mr. Maynes inquired what criteria the Commission uses in deciding what projects to approve. Commissioner Simister stated that they simply decide if they like the way the plan looks. It was stated that the Commission has leeway on some decisions and that some decisions are based on code.
Commissioner Peters commented on the concrete bins located on the site. He stated that those bins need to be made more attractive. Mr. Maynes asked if an obscuring fence, such as chain link with slats, would be advisable. The Commission felt that the fence is not an issue.
Commissioner Peters asked Mr. Maynes when he planned to open for business. Chairman Sweeten informed Mr. Maynes that he would not be allowed to operate until construction of the permanent building, as well as completion of the rest of the site plan. Director Cowie stated he needed to check on the specification for the detention basin on the site. Chairman Sweeten stated again that the use of the temporary office in trailer has expired, and that if the Commission approves the new site plan, it would be necessary for that plan to be completed before Mr. Maynes could open for business. Mr. Maynes then stated that he would probably not be able to open for business this year if he is required to meet these conditions. Chairman Sweeten pointed out that the Commission had tried to work with Mr. Maynes, and that the building should have been completed during the two year period that the trailer was allowed. Chairman Sweeten pointed out that there was no leeway in the code to allow the temporary trailer to be used any longer. Mr. Maynes stated that not being able to use the trailer during construction is an issue for him. Chairman Sweeten informed Mr. Maynes that they would have to change the code to allow him to do that. Chairman Sweeten stated that the purpose of the code is to keep temporary buildings from being used indefinitely. Commissioner Godfrey stated that the City Council had expected that Mr. Maynes would be back in front of the Planning Commission two weeks after revocation of his permit so that he would be able to begin construction, enabling him to open for business in the spring. Mr. Maynes stated that he was unaware that he would be unable to have use of the temporary trailer during construction. Chairman Sweeten informed Mr. Maynes that it was a failure on his part, not the part of the Commission. Chairman Sweeten stated that they had tried to work with Mr. Maynes every way possible, and that they have an obligation to uphold the code. Chairman Sweeten stated that the Planning Commission makes every effort to be business friendly, but they cannot do it at the expense of the code. Mr. Maynes was informed that he would need to turn in an application before the approval process could move forward.
Mr. Maynes stated that some of elements used in the permanent building would be Mahogany split faced block, architectural grade shingles, timbers, and that all of the block would be chocolate colored. When constructed, the south elevation will be grey in color and will be an interior wall when the building is expanded. Everything above the roof line will be a chocolate color. Commissioner Anderson stated that the building looks good. Commissioner Godfrey told Mr. Maynes that there is no big problem with the site plan, he just needs to get it turned in.
Mr. Maynes inquired if it would be possible to build a smaller building initially, and add on to that building in the future. Chairman Sweeten told Mr. Maynes that he could do that under the condition that the smaller building met code. Chairman Sweeten suggested that Mr. Maynes submit plans with the smaller building for approval, and acquire approval for the larger building in the future.
Commissioner Anderson stated that he would like to help Mr. Maynes get in business as soon as possible. Commissioner Anderson told the applicant to get his building permit application submitted. Mr. Maynes stated that he had already submitted his application and that it was somewhere in city hall. Chairman Sweeten informed Mr. Maynes that there was no problem with the old site plan. Director Cowie told Mr. Maynes that if he is moving the detention basin he would be required to clear that with the city engineer. Mr. Maynes was informed that after the site plan is approved by the Planning Commission, it would then go before the City Council. Mr. Maynes stated that he would need to review the minutes from that City Council meeting, as it was his impression that the plan would not have to go before the City Council again.
Mr. Maynes was instructed to contact Director Cowie to schedule the Design Review Committee. Commissioner Peters suggested that Mr. Maynes meet personally with Director Cowie so that he can further explain the approval process.
7. DEMOGRAPHIC PRESENTATION
This is a demographic presentation prepared by Karl Woodard, Planning Intern.
A copy of the presentation is attached.
8. PLANNING DIRECTOR REPORT
1. Director Cowie told the member of the Commission about the upcoming Citizen Planner Seminar. Commissioner Bryner has attended the training and stated that it was valuable. There is budget money available to send three members of the Commission if they are interested in attending. Commissioner Simister would be available to attend the April training.
2. Director Cowie introduced himself and gave his professional background. He was previously an Associate Planner in Lincoln County, Oregon. His principle job there was environmental planning. He stated that Oregon and Utah are “night and day” concerning planning regulation. Oregon has a statewide planning program which cities are required to comply with. The program has been in place since the 1970’s, however there has been recent backlash. He stated that he plans to be here for a long time.
3. Director Cowie informed some of the Commissioners that their terms had expired. It was explained that terms are for three years. Several of the Commissioners took over commissions from others, and so would complete that three year term rather than starting their own three year term. Commissioner Bryner filled the occupancy created when Bruce Carpenter became a Councilmember and that commission has expired. Commissioner Simister‘s commission has also expired. Director Cowie will need notification if they would like to remain on the Commission. Director Cowie clarified that Commissioner Nixon is an alternate and can sit on the Commission but does not have a vote when all other Commissioners are present. The Commission informed Director Cowie that they would like the vacant spot filled. Director Cowie explained that there is a staggered rotation for Commissioners to prevent the entire Commission from changing at any given time to provide continuity to projects.
4. Director Cowie handed out disclosure statements to members of the Commission and informed them that these need to be filled out annually.
ADJOURN
COMMISSIONER BRYNER MOVED TO ADJOURN THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING AT 9:55 P.M. COMMISSIONER SIMISTER SECONDED THE MOTION. ALL PRESENT VOTED IN FAVOR. THE MOTION CARRIED.
Approved March 23, 2005
_____________________________
Dustin Sweeten, Chairman
___________________________
Adam Cowie, Planning Director
|
|
|
