|
|
Home » City Government » Planning Commission » Planning Commission Schedule 2005 (Agendas and Minutes) » Planning Commission Agendas 2005 » May 11, 2005
May 11, 2005
The Lindon City Planning Commission held a regularly scheduled meeting on Wednesday, May 11, 2005, beginning at 7:00 p.m., at the Lindon City Center, City Council Chambers, 100 North State Street, Lindon, Utah.
Conducting: Dustin Sweeten, Chairman
Pledged of Allegiance: Dustin Sweeten
Invocation: Gary Godfrey, Commissioner
PRESENT ABSENT
Dustin Sweeten, Chairman Evan Nixon, Commissioner
Ron Anderson, Commissioner Marilyn Simister, Commissioner
Julie Bryner, Commissioner
Gary Godfrey, Commissioner
Jim Peters, Commissioner
Adam Cowie, Planning Director
John Martineau, Planning Intern
Debra Cullimore, Deputy Recorder
The meeting was called to order at: 7:02 p.m.
MINUTES
The minutes of the regular meeting of April 27, 2005 were reviewed. The following corrections were made:
Page 4, Line 5: replace the words “his home” with the words “an apartment building”.
Page 4, Line 11: replace the words “the Commission is encouraging” with the words “she is in favor of”.
COMMISSIONER PETERS MOVED TO APPROVE THE MINUTES OF MEETING OF APRIL 27, 2005 AS CORRECTED. COMMISSIONER BRYNER SECONDED THE MOTION. ALL PRESENT VOTED IN FAVOR. THE MOTION CARRIED.
PUBLIC COMMENT
Chairman Sweeten invited any members of the audience who were present to address an item which was not on the agenda to come forward.
Jim Byron, a Lindon resident residing at 650 North 50 West, approached the Commission. Mr. Byron was accompanied by his wife. Mr. and Mrs. Byron expressed concern regarding a development which is proposed for the property located adjacent to the property which they reside on. According to Mr. Byron, upon completion of the development, the property line at the rear of his lot will become frontage for Main Street. Mr. and Mrs. Byron expressed the desire to maintain the backyard area of the lot as a private yard area. In order to accomplish this, they are requesting approval to install a six foot vinyl privacy fence along the rear of their property. Commissioner Peters clarified that the area being referred to for the street will be a continuation of Main Street, and is located on property previously owned by Alpine School District and Jim Byron. Commissioner Peters also noted that Mr. and Mrs. Byron have a full acre of property, and are requesting the fence be installed along the full length of the property. Commissioner Peters commented that under normal circumstances, only a three foot fence is allowed along frontage. However, the yard is already established as a back yard and is currently fully landscaped.
Mr. Cowie stated that when the Orchard Park development is constructed, the east half of main street will be installed. Following review at DRC, the general feeling was that a six foot fence should not be allowed, due to the fact that the property will be frontage, and a potential for safety concerns would result from a six foot fence in the area. Commissioner Anderson noted that in order for the other half of Main Street to be completed, it would be necessary for Mr. Byron to install it. Mr. Byron commented that if the west half of the road is completed in the future, the six foot fence would be removed.
Commissioner Bryner noted that a six foot fence would require a thirty foot set back from the property line. Mrs. Byron stated that a concrete shed structure is located at the rear of the property. If a thirty foot set back is required, the shed structure would be on the opposite side of the fence from the residence.
Mr. Cowie noted that the application for the subdivision is currently in the preliminary stages, and it is difficult to know the exact placement of the road. Mr. Byron stated that he would wait until the east section of the road is complete before the fence is installed. Commissioner Peters expressed the opinion that the fence should be installed with enough set back to allow for installation of curb, gutter, and sidewalk structures in the area.
Chairman Sweeten commented that it didn’t seem reasonable to penalize Mr. and Mrs. Byron as a result of the road, due to the fact that they are being affected by development which they did not initiate.
Chairman Sweeten confirmed with Mr. Byron that the fence would be removed if both sides of the road are completed in the future. Mr. Byron agreed to this condition. Mr. Cowie stressed that the fence should not be installed until the road is surveyed and the location is established. Chairman Sweeten called for a motion.
COMMISSIONER ANDERSON MOVED TO ALLOW THE REQUEST BY JIM BYRON TO INSTALL A SIX FOOT SIGHT OBSCURING VINYL FENCE ON THE EAST BOUNDARY OF HIS PROPERTY LOCATED AT 650 NORTH 50 WEST WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITION.
1. THAT THE FENCE WILL BE REMOVED UPON COMPLETION OF BOTH SIDES OF MAIN STREET.DEVELOPMENT OF THE BYRON PROPERTY.
COMMISSIONER PETERS SECONDED THE MOTION. ALL PRESENT VOTED IN FAVOR. THE MOTION CARRIED.
NEW BUSINESS
1. Design Review – Noah’s Center, automated recreation facility/four lot subdivision – 2000 West 700 North. This is a request for a design review of a commercial recreation facility and subdivision in CG Zone.
Bill Bowser and Kurt Thomas were the representatives for this application. Mr. Cowie gave an overview of the item, stating that the Commission has previously reviewed preliminary design plans for this proposal. The property is located at the end of the 700 North Street Corridor. He stated that with the current configuration, there are three lots included on the property. The applicants are proposing The creation of a four lot subdivision on the site. All four lots meet minimum size requirements, and are in compliance with most other requirements. The proposal includes a twenty-four hour automated recreation facility. Mr. Cowie then invited Mr. Bowser to address the Commission.
Mr. Bowser presented two design drawings of different options for the structure located on the property, and identified one as “design one”, and the other as “design two”. Mr. Bowser noted that they are seeking approval to use either of the designs. They are currently conducting a study to determine preferences among consumers as to which design seems more appealing to the public. Mr. Bowser noted that the preference of the applicants would be to use “design one” as presented to the Commission during this review. He stated that the square footage of the building will be approximately 20,000 square feet. Mr. Bowser informed the Commission that the facility will house a recreation center, offering activities such as racquetball and basketball. He stated that several private schools have expressed interest in using the facility for P.E. activities rather than constructing their own gymnasium. The facility will also have an area which will be available for activities such as weddings and family reunions
Commissioner Anderson recalled that in the previous review of this project, one of the concerns addressed by the Commission was the height of the building. Mr. Bowser stated that in the initial application, the building had been proposed at a height of sixty feet. The proposed height of the building has been reduced to forty-seven feet ten inches.
Commissioner Bryner inquired of Mr. Bowser as to why the applicants have a preference for design one. Mr. Bowser stated that their intent is to duplicate the facility in many other locations and that they would like the design to be unique and recognizable. He stated that following the initial review, the designer chose a more traditional look. Mr. Bowser invited the designer, Alex Shiel, to speak to the heritage associated with the design of the building. Mr. Shiel stated that the building is recognized as a Flemish style, and the design is intended to have a timeless quality, not typical of any particular time period in its architectural style. He stated that the building will have the look of an old, whitewashed barn.
Commissioner Peters asked if the exterior of the building would be pre-stamped concrete. Mr. Shiel stated that while the building would have the appearance of wood, it would actually be constructed of concrete panels. Commissioner Peters inquired as to the finish of the concrete, and whether it would be painted. Mr. Shiel stated that the color can be mixed with the concrete, or it can be painted virtually any color, but their intent is to paint the exterior to have the look of a whitewash finish. Commissioner Bryner asked Mr. Shiel to clarify if the intent was to give the building the appearance of an old barn. Mr. Shiel indicated that it would be similar to an old barn, but would have a tidy, not a run down look. Commissioner Peters inquired as to the proposed color for roofing. Mr. Shiel stated that metal roofing is proposed, and would be in a darker color to contrast with the whitewashed look of the building, possibly a charcoal gray color.
Mr. Bowser again mentioned the desire of the applicants to have approval for either design to be used. The final decision on which design will be used will be determined by the results of the study that is currently underway. He stated that option two would have more of an “old world” look, with a finish which would be similar to stucco rather than the wood look of option one. Both designs include ivy landscaping elements which will grow up the exterior of the building. He also mentioned the advantages of using concrete panels, stating that it simplifies both the construction and maintenance of the building.
The applicants displayed a three dimensional model of design one, and a color rendering of design two. Commissioner Peters asked if color variations would be included in the finish on the exterior of the building in design two. Mr. Shiel stated that in design two, the stone elements would be a warm gray tone. He also clarified that the stone depicted in the drawing would only be included on the first level, and that the design would also include timbers in entrance area. Mr. Shiel stated that the proposed designs are both recognizable and timeless in their design. Commissioner Anderson stated that there are elements included in both designs that are appealing, and suggested the possibility that elements of both design could be combined architecturally into one design. Commissioner Godfrey noted that design includes many of the architectural elements that the Commission is encouraging in the design of the State Street and 700 North corridors. Mr. Bowser commented that they would appreciate more specific guidelines as they revise the design. Commissioner Peters noted the open house scheduled for May 24, which will assist the city in determining specific design elements which will be required. Commissioner Anderson commented that the applicants have presented a nice design, and have been very cooperative in the review process.
Commissioner Peters inquired as to the distance from the corner of the driveway entrance to the corner of 700 North. Mr. Bowser stated that the city engineer had given him a minimum distance of 240 feet, and that they have exceeded that minimum, with the distance being between 268 and 270 feet. Commissioner Peters suggested the possibility of adding a second entrance, due to the fact that a single entrance could create a bottleneck and cause traffic to back up in the parking lot. Mr. Bowser noted that it would be preferable to have traffic back into the lot rather than onto the street. Commissioner Bryner suggested the possibility of one entrance and one exit. Mr. Bowser explained that the landscaping plan is extensive, and includes one tree for every three parking stalls. His intention is to create a feeling of being in the woods, and each entrance which is added reduces the ambiance they are attempting to create. Mr. Bowser also mentioned that traffic studies indicate that placing an entrance and an exit area to close together can create potential traffic problems. Mr. Thomas noted that the parking area has been carefully designed to direct traffic to the appropriate area quickly and efficiently, and should eliminate most traffic concerns. Commissioner Bryner observed that if only one entrance is available, the dimensions currently proposed may be too small. She asked the width of the drive. Mr. Bowser indicated that it is proposed to be 24 feet wide. Chairman Sweeten commented that a twenty four foot drive may not be adequate. Mr. Bowser stated that they could extend the drive to thirty feet if necessary.
Commissioner Peters addressed the location of the disabled parking stalls, and suggested that the applicants consider changing where those stalls are located. Mr. Bowser stated that they had chosen the proposed location based on the installation of associated ramps. He also noted the need for access to the rear door in the area for catering purposes.
Mr. Cowie commented that due to the fact that Commissioner Nixon was unable to attend the meeting, he had asked that Mr. Cowie inform the Commission that his preference is for design two, but suggested that it might be moved closer to 700 North Street.
Commissioner Peters asked the applicants about the vacant parcel of land. Mr. Bowser stated that they would like to include an associated business at some time in the future, but they have no specific plan for use of the parcel at this time. Parking and landscaping elements are currently planned for the parcel. Mr. Thomas noted that there is an artesian well located on the property, which will be relocated to the other side of 700 North Street. Mr. Bowser commented that they plan to feed a small rock stream on the site with the water from the well. Commissioner Anderson asked for clarification of ownership of the well. Mr. Thomas informed the Commission that they have full rights to the well. The well will also be used in irrigation of the landscaping elements of the site. Mr. Cowie stated that there may be regulations relating to capping or moving the well. Mr. Bowser stated that they have hired an engineer to deal specifically with water issues associated with the project, and the well would be dealt with as necessary.
Commissioner Peters commented that a cross easement to the adjacent lot would likely be a requirement prior to final approval of the site plan. Mr. Bowser stated that a cross easement would be granted in association with sale of the parcel.
Chairman Sweeten stated that he felt either of the two proposed designs may work, but that he has concerns relating to the use of concrete panels in the construction of the building. Mr. Thomas showed a sample of the panels which demonstrated both a smooth stucco look and a wood grain look. He stated that the panels are constructed using a concrete surface, a foam core, and a steel frame. Mr. Bowser commented that from a technological standpoint, this may be the most sophisticated building in Utah, and is built to be very energy efficient. Commissioner Bryner inquired as to the earthquake specifications. Mr. Bowser stated that the building is constructed to meet California earthquake specifications, which are generally more restrictive than similar standards in Utah.
Commissioner Godfrey commented that he is appreciative of the efforts of the applicants. He stated that while the Commission is excited about the concept, this project is a gateway project and should be reviewed carefully. Mr. Bowser stated that they are very willing to incorporate elements in the design which are required for approval. He stated that those requirements have not as yet been made clear to them. Mr. Bowser felt that the lack of specific recommendations may create a financial burden, and felt that some specific direction would be helpful in preparing revisions.
Chairman Sweeten asked Mr. Bowser if the project could begin prior to the construction of 700 North Street. Mr. Bowser stated that they had planned construction without the completion of 700 North Street. Chairman Sweeten observed that access to the site is from 2000 West. Mr. Bowser stated that they had planned for access from 2000 West, and that while the addition of 700 North Street improves the location, it is not essential to the business.
Members of the Commission each made specific recommendations to the applicants for revisions. Commissioner Peters recommended eliminating the step look on the gables of the face of the building, stated that he prefers the look of design two over design one, noting that, in his opinion, design one has it gives the structure a more industrial look. He also recommended review of the location of disabled parking stalls, and the addition of a cross easement into the vacant parcel. Chairman Sweeten recommended review of the width of the drive, and suggested that the number of steps on the roofline could be reduced rather than eliminated. Commissioner Anderson agreed that the drive width should be increased. He commented on the addition of a cross easement to the east and south parcel as well. Mr. Thomas reviewed suggestions by Commissioners, which included, placement of disabled parking stalls, the width of the entry, the location of the detention basin, location of the cross easement, addition of more timber and stone elements, the addition of a cupola, and the addition of divided windows. He stated that they would incorporate the recommendations of the Commission and the results of the study which they are conducting into revisions and return for final approval. Mr. Bowser mentioned that the roof area of the building will be a grotto during the summer, and during the winter will be flooded and frozen for use an ice skating rink.
Mr. Thomas inquired as to the time frame prior to the beginning of construction following approval of the site plan. Mr. Cowie stated that it would take approximately two weeks for approval if changes to the site plan require review by the city engineer.
Chairman Sweeten thanked the applicants for their time in preparing this item for review.
2. Minor Subdivision – Country Cove Estates - 270 North 460 East. This is a request for a three lot subdivision on property owned by Mike Anderson in R1-20 Zone.
Mr. Cowie stated that the Commission had previously seen this item for a design review. Since the initial review, Mr. Anderson has altered the placement of utility easements, including the location of manholes and storm drains. Mr. Anderson is proposing that the full bulb of the cul-de-sac will be paved, but only half of the cul-de-sac area will include curb, gutter, and sidewalk. Mr. Cowie stated that during review of the site, it had come to light that due to the proposed layout of the proposed lots, the alignment of adjacent roads would be affected. Mr. Anderson would be responsible to facilitate the application for adjustment of the adjacent plats, which requires a four week notice in the newspaper and a public hearing. It would be necessary for this requirement to be part of any motion for approval made by the Commission on this item. Mr. Cowie also noted that after discussion relating to the master plan which called for a through street on this site, the Planning Commission felt that the through street was not necessary.
Commissioner Peters inquired as to the location of the storm drains and sewer lines on the site. Mr. Anderson stated that the lines proceed south to the property line, then east to the street. Mr. Anderson stated that in the previous review of the site, the Commission had recommended that he meet with Public Works Director Don Peterson, as well as the City Engineer, to ensure compliance with sewer and storm water requirements. Mr. Anderson has met with both, and is in compliance with utility placement and easements, providing for a twenty foot utility easement.
Commissioner Peters recalled that during previous review of this item, there had been some question as to what is allowed over utility easements. Mr. Anderson stated that he had discussed this with Mr. Peterson, who had indicated that no structures are allowed, but that concrete or landscaping elements would be replaced if access to the easement became necessary. Mr. Cowie commented that while this may be the approach of Lindon City, it is not the general practice of easement holders to replace these elements. He used Utah Power as an example, stating that they will not replace elements removed during easement access. Mr. Anderson stated that this is not a written policy in the City, but rather the standards which the City has followed to date.
Mr. Anderson stated that the two neighbors to the east of the proposed development were in attendance at this meeting, and that both of these neighbors are in agreement with the proposed development. He also stated that he had met with every home owner in the associated neighborhood, and that most felt the proposed project was an appropriate use of the site. Alan Smoot, the property owner of the lot south of the proposed subdivision then addressed the Commission. He stated that he will be losing a small section of property, but will maintain a thirty foot easement from the street. Mr. Smoot noted that the property adjacent to the proposed project is currently used for grazing of horses. He stated that they may be interested in selling the property as two lots in the future, but have no plan to do so at the present time. Mr. Anderson and Mr. Smoot have agreed to move the west boundary line between the properties eight feet to the west, in order for Mr. Smoot to have sufficient size to subdivide the parcel into two lots in the future if he makes the decision to do so. Mr. Smoot indicated that he is not currently in a financial position to participate in installation of curb and gutter on the site.
Mr. Anderson stated that during the previous review of this item, the Commission had indicated that they were comfortable with the proposal of the full bulb of the cul-de-sac being paved, but with curb, gutter, and sidewalk being installed only on the portion of the street in front of the homes on the property. Chairman Sweeten stated that he felt it would be important to complete the curb and gutter structures on the entire bulb, due to drainage which could potentially flow from the paved portion of the road onto the pasture area of the property. Mr. Anderson clarified that drainage from the road would be directed into the drainage system using the slope of the road. Mrs. Smoot, who was also in attendance, commented that there is currently no drainage system in the area, and that the proposed drainage system could potentially improve the drainage in the area. Mr. Smoot confirmed that they are not concerned with drainage problems which may be associated with installation of the street without associated curb and gutter being required. Commission Bryner asked Mr. Anderson his feelings on providing the improvements himself. Mr. Anderson stated that he has already agreed to move the property line eight feet, in order to give Mr. Smoot adequate size to subdivide in the future. He stated that he would like to “keep things as simple as possible,” and would not feel comfortable with providing the improvements himself.
Chairman Sweeten asked Mr. Cowie if the Commission has the authority at this review to approve a new plat. Mr. Cowie indicated that they have authority to do so if it is a condition of approval of the application.
Mr. Anderson noted that the process has taken a lot of cooperation among the parties involved. Commissioner Anderson inquired as to the size of the lot owned by the Smoot’s lot after considering the reconfiguration of the road which will be necessary. Mr. Anderson indicated that the lots would still meet minimum size requirements. Commissioner Peters asked if there is an easement on the property line. Mr. Anderson indicated that there would be an eighteen foot utility easement on the east side of the property line. Commissioner Godfrey inquired as to who owns the property where the easement is located. Mr. Anderson stated that he is the owner of the property.
Mr. Smoot commented that when the development with the Rhoades had been approved, a bond had been posted for completion of the curb, gutter and sidewalk in the front of his home. He stated that it has not been completed, and that the money is available, and he would like to see it completed. Mr. Cowie noted that a bond was posted for the subdivision, and that he is in the process of confirming the intended use of the funds.
Discussion continued regarding concerns relating to drainage if the curb and gutter structures are not completed on the entire bulb of the cul-de-sac. Mr. Anderson confirmed that the road would slope to the North and direct the drainage into the drop boxes. Commissioner Anderson voiced concern over the area of the street where the asphalt meets the dirt, and the possibility of breakage due to no reinforcing structure at the edge of the asphalt. Mr. Cowie suggested the possibility of a reimbursement agreement between the developer and the landowner, whereby Mr. Anderson would initially install the improvements and be reimbursed by Mr. Smoot upon development of the land. Commissioner Bryner asked Mr. Anderson if he has an estimate of the cost of completing the curb and gutter. Mr. Anderson stated the outcome of the previous review of this item indicated that the Commission would approve the proposal if it included the completion of the asphalt portion of the street. Chairman Sweeten invited Mr. Anderson to review the minutes of that meeting, which indicate that some members of the Commission were opposed to installation of the pavement without the curb and gutter. Mr. Smoot requested information relating a possible increase in property taxes on his lot if the improvements were installed. Chairman Sweeten stated that until the property is developed, there should be no effect on Mr. Smoot’s property taxes. Commissioner Anderson noted that when the subdivision of the property is reported, there would be an increase at that time. Commissioner Godfrey observed that there is currently no drainage system in the area of the proposed development, and that the majority of storm water which currently flows into the pasture area will be captured in drainage drop boxes, and that no storm water from the street would be directed onto the property. Chairman Sweeten stated that in his opinion, the goal of the Commission should be to require necessary improvements at the time of application. He observed that Mr. Smoot may never develop his portion of the property, and the improvements may never be installed. Commissioner Bryner expressed concern over the maintenance of the edge of the asphalt where it may deteriorate from the lack of support structure. Commissioner Godfrey agreed that there may be cause for concern, but noted that there would be minimal traffic on the street due to the fact the street serves only three families. Mr. Anderson suggested the use of a 2x4 or 2x6 wooden structure, or a berm type structure, to reinforce the edge of the asphalt. According to Mr. Anderson, there are several other areas in the City where this option has been used to reinforce the edge of asphalt streets. Mr. Anderson stated that he would expect to be treated the same as others with similar issues have been treated, and pointed out that the drainage concerns associated with the road had been addressed. Chairman Sweeten stated that in some situations, it may be in the best interest of all parties involved to give concessions on the road, but concessions have already been made in this instance, due to the fact that construction of the cul-de-sac precludes the through street designated on the master plan. Mr. Anderson stated that the construction of the Hinckley home had effectively eliminated the construction of the through street. Therefore the concession was not being made on his behalf. Commissioner Peters observed that there may be a case for not finishing the street, due to the fact that it has not been required in other areas of the city. He stated that the edge of the asphalt should be reinforced in some way, but felt that concerns regarding drainage from the street area had been addressed. Commissioner Anderson suggested the possibility of installing only curb and gutter on the vacant half of the cul-de-sac, and not requiring sidewalk to be installed at this time. Commissioner Bryner stated that she felt that the Smoot’s had been given the extra eight feet of ground to allow for a future subdivision, therefore they should be required to install the improvements. Commissioner Godfrey inquired as to the cost of installation of the curb and gutter structures. Following discussion, it was determined that the cost would be approximately $1,000. Commissioner Anderson noted that the road in the area in which he lives is deteriorating due to the fact that there is no reinforcement of any kind at the edge of the asphalt. He stated that he would hate to see Mr. Anderson go to the expense of installing the street, only to have it deteriorate in a similar manner. Commissioner Godfrey suggested a compromise, wherein curb and gutter structures would be installed only on the bulb portion of the street, and not continue along the street in front of the Smoot property. He asked Mr. Anderson if the $1000 it would require to install those structures would prevent him from proceeding with the project. Mr. Anderson stated that the ground for the project cost him $35,000 more than the appraised value, and he has put considerable effort into meeting the needs of all parties involved, and that he does not want to install the curb and gutter structures on the Smoot property. Mr. Anderson stated that the edge of the asphalt would be installed and reinforced sufficiently to wear well.
Chairman Sweeten inquired as to the total cost of installation of utility improvements. Mr. Anderson stated that the total cost for installation of utilities and the street in the development would be approximately $70,000
Chairman Sweeten suggested discussion regarding the reimbursement agreement between Mr. Anderson and Mr. Smoot. He stated that he felt “very uncomfortable” with the idea of not requiring completion of the curb and gutter structures. Commissioner Godfrey commented on the half street area of Center Street. Chairman Sweeten stated that Center Street will likely be completed as development in the area continues, whereas the cul-de-sac street proposed by Mr. Anderson may not be completed, due to the fact that there may never be further development of the adjacent property. Chairman Sweeten asserted that it would be less expensive to install the improvements now than it would be to go back and do it later on.
Commissioner Peters asked Mr. Cowie for direction on this issue. Mr. Cowie stated that half streets are not allowed by code, unless the Planning Commission grants exceptions to allow the half street.
Mr. Anderson again stated that Mr. and Mrs. Smoot are not in a financial position at this time to participate in the installation of the curb and gutter. Mrs. Smoot confirmed that they are not able to take on further financial burden. Chairman Sweeten pointed out that the money would be a good financial investment, due to the fact that installation of the improvements would greatly increase the property value of the lot. Following further discussion of related issues, a motion was made.
COMMISSIONER ANDERSON MOVED TO APPROVE THE REQUEST BY MIKE ANDERSON FOR A 3-LOT MINOR SUBDIVISION TITLED “COUNTRY COVE ESTATES”, AND RECOMMENDED APPROVAL TO THE CITY COUNCIL WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDTIONS:
1. A SEPARATE PLAT OF “RHOADES PLAT, LOT 1 & LOT 8” SHALL BE APPROVED TO CORRECT THE ALIGNMENT OF 270 NORTH AND RECORDED WITH THE COUNTY PRIOR TO, OR AT THE SAME TIME AS “COUNTRY COVE ESTATES”. PLAT SIGNATURES FOR ‘COUNTRY COVE ESTATES’ WILL NOT BE GIVEN BY THE CITY UNTIL PROPER HEARINGS AND/OR ROAD VACATION PROCEEDINGS HAVE OCCURRED FOR THE PROPOSED RHOADES PLAT CHANGES.
2. THAT A THIRTY FOOT SET BACK BE MAINTAINED ON THE EXISTING SMOOT HOME.
3. THAT THE WEST PROPERTY LINE BETWEEN THE SMOOT PROPERTY AND THE ANDERSON PROPERTY BE MOVED EIGHT FEET TO THE WEST.
4. THAT THE SIDEWALK STRUCTURE IN FRONT OF THE SMOOT HOME BE EXTENDED PAST THE END OF THE HOME, PROVIDED THAT BOND FUNDS ARE DESIGNATED FOR THAT PURPOSE.
5. THAT THE CURB AND GUTTER STRUCTURES BE COMPLETED ON THE FULL BULB OF THE CUL-DE-SAC.
COMMISSIONER ANDERSON SECONDED THE MOTION. THE VOTE WAS RECORDED AS FOLLOWS:
CHAIRMAN SWEETEN NAY
COMMISSIONER ANDERSON AYE
COMMISSIONER BRYNER NAY
COMMISSIONER GODFREY AYE
COMMISSIONER PETERS AYE
THE VOTE WAS 3-2 WITH TWO ABSENT, AND WILL BE FORWARDED TO THE CITY COUNCIL FOR REVIEW.
Chairman Sweeten stated that he had voted against the motion for approval only because of his concern over the need for completion of the curb and gutter structure on the entire street. He stated that he felt that he had an obligation to vote in accordance with his feelings. Commissioner Bryner stated that she felt it was a disservice to Lindon City residents to allow installation of roads which are not completed. She went on to say that there have been circumstances in the past in which partial roads have been allowed. However, she felt that those circumstances had been a mistake, and that the time has come to correct the problem, and felt that it is “time to make things better”. Commissioner Godfrey observed that there will continue to be situations in which neighboring property owners are not ready to develop property at the same time. He observed that it then becomes a “waiting game” to see which property owner will install the required improvements. Commissioner Godfrey noted that a large percentage of Lindon does not currently have curb and gutter structures, and he felt it was not an issue that should disallow the development of the property.
3. Site Plan – Washington Mutual Bank – 579 North State Street. This is a request for a new bank to be located in front of the Wal-Mart in the CG Zone.
Carry Dunn of Nova Source Development was the representative for this item. Mr. Cowie stated that most of the concerns expressed by the Commission during previous design reviews have been addressed, and that the city engineer and staff have no major concerns relating to the application. Mr. Cowie informed the Commission that the City Council has requested to review this application prior to final approval, due to its’ State Street location. Mr. Cowie then invited Mr. Dunn to present revisions made to the application since the last review.
Mr. Dunn stated that the drive through area had been moved an additional five feet from State Street. He also reviewed changes to elevations of the building, such as the detail in the drive through area and trellises over the windows and the entry area. He also mentioned the use of a block retaining wall on the east side of the lot. He stated that the view from State Street is of the exposed timber truss used in the drive through area.
Mr. Cowie inquired as to the signage of the business. Mr. Dunn indicated that the signage is intended to be a monument sign, and will be placed in alignment to State Street. Chairman Sweeten reminded Mr. Dunn that signage will require a separate application. He also informed Mr. Dunn that the City currently has a moratorium in place for signage, due to review of the current sign ordinance. He assured Mr. Dunn that the moratorium will be lifted as quickly as possible.
Commissioner Bryner requested information regarding the proposed roofing elements. Mr. Dunn stated that the roof will be completed using an architectural grade asphalt shingle, which will add texture to the roof area. Commissioner Peters noted that the shingles will be similar to those used on Scrubbs Carwash, and are intended to resemble wooden shingles.
Commissioner Bryner noted small squares located over the windows on the drawing of the building. Mr. Dunn stated that they are architectural elements which repeat the Washington Mutual blue color located in the entrance area, and are a decorative treatment only.
Commissioner Godfrey stated that he continues to have concern regarding the blue color used in the entrance area of the building, but understands that the color is part of the Washington Mutual corporate image. He expressed appreciation for the improvements which have been made subsequent to previous review by the Commission. Commissioner Peters expressed agreement with the statements made by Commissioner Godfrey. Chairman Sweeten noted that he would like to see more pitched roof areas. Mr. Dunn discussed the height of the three tower structures of the building, which range in height from 20 feet 4 inches to 24 feet 9 inches. Mr. Dunn stated that the maximum allowable height for the building is 25 feet. Chairman Sweeten inquired as to the width of the building. Mr. Dunn stated that the width of 53 feet includes the tower areas. Having addressed present concerns, a motion was made.
COMMISSIONER PETERS MOVED TO APPROVE THE REQUEST BY NOVA SOURCE DEVELOPMENT FOR A SITE PLAN APPROVAL OF A WASHINGTON MUTUAL BANK AND RECOMMEND APPROVAL TO THE CITY COUNCIL WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITION:
1. THAT THE SITE PLAN APPROVAL DOES NOT INCLUDE THE MONUMENT SIGN DEPICTED ON THE SITE PLAN.
COMMISSIONER BRYNER SECONDED THE MOTION. ALL PRESENT VOTED IN FAVOR. THE MOTION CARRIED.
4. Site Plan – Valdizan Commercial Strip Mall/Restaurant – 550 North State Street. This is a request for a strip mall and restaurant project to be located in CG Zone south east of Wal-Mart.
5.
Jorge Valdizan and Ron Shalvis were the representatives for this item. Mr. Cowie reviewed the location of the site, indicating that it is located in the Commercial Zone, and borders the Residential Zone. Mr. Cowie stated that the Commission had requested staff investigate the possibility of red striping the curb on 550 North Street to disallow parking in that area. During discussion with the City Engineer, he had expressed concern that if parking on 550 North Street was eliminated, parking could potentially overflow into the residential area located near the site. He suggested that if red striping were included in requirements, that it be required only to the first driveway, which would address potential traffic concerns related to State Street. Mr. Cowie stated that the City Council has also reviewed this application and recommended revisions to Mr. Valdizan. Mr. Valdizan stated that following previous review by the Planning Commission and City Council, the elevation drawing had been revised to extend the rock element on the towers of the building. Commissioner Bryner asked Mr. Valdizan if the face of the building is flat, or if it has a staggered look. Mr. Valdizan indicated that the front of the building is staggered.
Commissioner Peters asked Mr. Valdizan if he shared the concern of the City Council and Planning Commission regarding parking on the site. Mr. Valdizan stated that it is a concern for them as well, but pointed out that parking meets the minimum requirement set by the City. Mr. Cowie commented that restaurant seating has been calculated in accordance with available parking, and will include a maximum of 33 seats in the restaurant. Mr. Valdizan pointed out that two additional parking stalls have been added since previous review by the Commission. Mr. Cowie verified that parking meets the minimum requirements for the restaurant.
Commissioner Godfrey observed that the size of the building seems excessive for the number of available seats. Mr. Cowie clarified that only half of the building will house the restaurant, and the other half will consist of a retail store. Commissioner Anderson asked Mr. Valdizan to clarify the available seating for the restaurant. Mr. Valdizan stated that the restaurant would have seating for 30 – 40 customers. Mr. Cowie stated that since two additional parking stalls have been included, parking could be recalculated at higher number than the 33 previously stated.
Commissioner Godfrey recalled that the Commission had expressed concern about the five foot set back at the rear of the lot, and potential problems and possible safety concerns which may occur due to the “tunnel” which will be created between the building and the seven foot wall at the rear of the site. Mr. Valdizan stated that the entrance in the area would be used as an additional exit to the building. He commented that he intends to install lighting in the area for security purposes. Mr. Cowie commented that during review by the City Council, Captain Cody Cullimore of the Police Department had felt that if there is adequate lighting in the area, there should not be any significant concerns.
Commissioner Bryner referred to the drawing of the building, and inquired as to how far the stucco element extended below the roof line before the stone element on the towers. Mr. Valdizan stated that it was approximately two feet. Commissioner Bryner asked why the stone was not carried up to the roof. Mr. Valdizan stated that it is a design element, and combines the look of the stucco and stone for a more interesting appearance. Chairman Sweeten reminded Mr. Valdizan that a recommendation had been made by the Commission that he include timber elements over the entrance areas of the building. Mr. Valdizan stated that his architect is currently working on those revisions. He had anticipated having the new drawings for review at this meeting, but they were not yet completed. Chairman Sweeten commented that the current drawing looks nice, but more elements need to be added in order to make it more interesting. Commissioner Bryner addressed Mr. Shalvia, who is the general contractor for the project. She asked if he understood the recommendations the Commission was making. Mr. Shalvia stated that he has completed several projects in Park City, and has a good idea of the look the Commission is aiming for. The Commission reviewed recommendations for the building, which include the addition of some timber elements, as well as some variation in the roof line. Suggestions were made for a pitched or raised area in the center of the roof.
Commissioner Godfrey observed that the red striping of the curb on 550 North may aggravate the parking concerns expressed by the Commission. He felt that 550 North is a natural place to park, and that space should be available. Commissioner Peters stated that parking issues should be addressed by limiting seating in the restaurant. Commissioner Anderson observed that the combination of customers eating in the restaurant along with customers who were there to pick up take out orders could create a significant parking problem
COMMISSIONER BRYNER MOVED TO APPROVE THE REQUEST BY JORGE VALDIZAN FOR A SITE PLAN APPROVAL OF A COMMERCIAL STRIP MALL AND RESTAURANT PROJECT WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS:
1. THAT THE CURB ON 550 NORTH BE MARKED RED TO THE FIRST DRIVE.
2. THAT THE PLAN BE APPROVED WITH THE EXCEPTION OF THE NEW ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN ELEMENTS OF THE FACADE.
COMMISSIONER ANDERSON SECONDED THE MOTION. THE VOTE WAS RECORDED AS FOLLOWS:
CHAIRMAN SWEETEN NAY
COMMISSIONR ANDERSON AYE
COMMISSIONER BRYNER AYE
COMMISSIONER GODFREY NAY
COMMISSIONR PETERS AYE
THE VOTE WAS 3-2.
Members of the Commission discussed elements of the previous motion, including the requirement of red curbing on 550 North. Commissioner Godfrey again expressed the opinion that the street is a logical place to provide additional parking. Commissioner Anderson noted that there is an established distance from the corner where parking is prohibited. This no parking area is intended to address potential traffic safety concerns. Therefore, additional parking restrictions on the street are unnecessary to address safety concerns. Subsequent to the discussion, a new motion was made.
CHAIRMAN SWEETEN MOVED TO APPROVE THE REQUEST BY JORGE VALDIZAN FOR A SITE PLAN APPROVAL OF A COMMERCIAL STRIP MALL AND RESTAURANT PROJECT WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITION:
1. THAT THE BUILDING ELEVATIONS ARE REVIEWED UPON COMPLETION OF REVISIONS PRIOR TO BEGINNING CONSTRUCTION.
COMMISSIONER GODFREY SECONDED THE MOTION. ALL PRESENT VOTED IN FAVOR. THE MOTION CARRIED
6. Public Hearing – Title 18, Sign Ordinance Revisions. Review of proposed changes to the Lindon City Sign Ordinance.
COMMISSIONER PETERS MOVED TO OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING ON TITLE 18 OF THE LINDON CITY CODE. COMMISSIONER ANDRESON SECONDED THE MOTION. ALL PRESENT VOTED IN FAVOR. THE MOTION CARRIED.
Mr. Cowie reviewed this item, stating that the Planning Commission, as well as the City Council, had requested review of the current sign ordinance following the application by Utah Auto Sales for a sign which included an LED or motion portion. Mr. Cowie went on to explain that sign ordinances are typically strongly influenced by court decisions. He stated that there are strict regulations defining protected elements of signage. These regulations prohibit requiring alteration of a registered trade mark. Mr. Cowie also discussed LED type signs within the city, which are currently allowed in the area along the I–15 Freeway Corridor. He stated that his research indicates that if LED signs are disallowed in one area of the City, they should probably be disallowed in the entire city. This is due to the fact that the City must clearly state an intent which the city is providing for in restrictions of signage, and it may be difficult to state a clear intent if the code is not uniform throughout the city.
Planning Intern John Martineau then gave a visual Power Point presentation depicting a variety of signage types and color schemes throughout Utah Valley, and included areas in American Fork, Orem, and Lindon. The Commission undertook extensive discussion regarding specific elements of signage. The elements discussed included maximum allowable size for monument and pole signs, allowable colors for signage structures, and maximum allowable percentage for wall signs. Also included in the discussion was the use of awning structures in signage. Mr. Cowie suggested that the ordinance include a maximum height of ten inches for lettering on any awning, or that lettering be restricted to the fringe portion of the awning. In addressing the allowable colors for signage, Mr. Cowie stated that the ordinance in Park City which requires the use of earth tone colors in signage appears to be technically illegal, and the City should not restrict the use of colors in signage.
Mr. Cowie mentioned the definition of “changeable” signs, and indicated that the new ordinance will differentiate between signs that are changed by manual as opposed to electronic means. Chairman Sweeten noted that when the definition is left open to interpretation it can lead to potential problems, and stated that he is in favor of a more clear definition.
Mr. Cowie stated that at the request of the Commission and Council, he had addressed neon lighting in the draft he was presenting at this meeting. The proposed amendment does not prohibit the use of neon signage, but rather limits the number of feet allowable on any business to twenty five feet. Members of the Commission expressed various opinions and preferences relating to neon signage, but the general consensus was that some regulation is necessary.
Members of the Commission discussed at great length signage in the T Zone, which is within 600 feet of I–15. Mr. Cowie again commented that standards should be consistent throughout the City. Commissioner Anderson expressed concern that if the sign ordinance became too restrictive, businesses would simply relocate to neighboring communities with less restrictive sign ordinances. Commissioner Bryner felt that the businesses in the T Zone could be treated differently. Commissioner Godfrey expressed agreement with Commissioner Bryner. He also stated that it is necessary for businesses along the freeway to have adequate signage so as to be visible to passing traffic. Commissioner Peters agreed that some allowances could be made in the T Zone, but felt that there is a need to regulate the size and frequency of electronic signage in the T Zone. Commissioner Anderson stated that he felt that a high standard should be set for signage in the T Zone, but that it may not necessarily be the same standard as State Street.
Chairman Sweeten noted that there were several citizens in the audience who would like the opportunity to participate in the public hearing. He thanked them for their patience, and invited them to address the Commission.
Business owner Steve Bown was the first to address the Commission. Mr. Bown stated that the reason he had chosen Lindon to locate his business was in part due to the close proximity to the freeway, and the potential for advertisement, as well as for ease of access for his clients. Mr. Bown stated that some clients have had difficulty locating his business once they exit the freeway. This is due in part to the fact that a portion of the route is a dirt road which is located near the lumber yard. Mr. Bown felt that the addition of a pole sign with an electronic video projection portion would be an effective landmark for clients to use in locating the business. Mr. Bown has worked with YESCO on the design of the sign, and stated that he is willing to keep the sign within existing code. Mr. Bown stated that initially, the size of the reader board portion was larger, but has subsequently been scaled back to a size of six feet by seven feet. Mr. Bown asked the Commission to consider the needs of the businesses in making their final decision.
Kirk Brimley of YESCO then addressed the Commission. Mr. Brimley stated that he is also a member of the Utah Sign Association. Mr. Brimley informed the Commission that the Small Business Administration has a current publication that the City may benefit from using during review of the sign ordinance. The book outlines elements of signage which are protected under federal laws, such as the use of registered trade marks. Mr. Brimley stated that he would be happy to supply the City with a copy of the book. Mr. Brimley stated that “a business with no sign is a sign of no business.” According to Mr. Brimley, up to 30% of the business is generated by the visibility of the sign. For example, a McDonalds with no sign visible from the street will see 30% less business than a McDonalds with a visible sign. Mr. Brimley pointed out that businesses provide the main support of the City. He stated that YESCO is a Utah company, and that they have been in business for eighty five years. Mr. Brimley stated that they have determined in that time what does and does not work for businesses. He offered to answer any questions that the Council or Commission may have.
Jenny Oman then addressed the Commission in behalf of a group of doctors who have recently purchased the building formerly occupied by the Total Health Institute, which is located east of State Street. Ms. Oman stated that the owners of the business had asked her to convey concern over the proposed reduction in the size of allowable signage. She stated that their business can be difficult to find, as it is not located directly on State Street, but is behind the Low Book Sales building. Ms. Oman pointed out that the purpose defined in the current sign ordinance is to allow businesses to clearly identify themselves, as well as to protect public and private interests. Ms. Oman stated that they hope to see those purposes upheld as changes to the ordinance are made.
Members of the Commission discussed the traffic control light which is scheduled for installation at the intersection to the west of the building, and suggested that the light would likely help clients locate the business. Commissioner Bryner asked if there is a street sign on the corner of the intersection. Ms. Oman stated that there is a street sign, but it does not provide adequate identification of the location.
Ms. Oman stated that the owners intent is for the business to have an upscale look, and that they are willing to make signage compatible with neighboring businesses. Commissioner Bryner assured Ms. Oman that the ordinance review and revision process would be completed as quickly as possible.
Chairman Sweeten thanked those who had attended the public hearing and given input for their time.
COMMISSIONER GODFREY MOVED TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING ON TITLE 18 OF THE LINDON CITY CODE. COMMISSIONER ANDERSON SECONDED THE MOTION. ALL PRESENT VOTED IN FAVOR. THE MOTION CARRIED.
Discussion among the Commission continued regarding recommendations for specific changes to the current sign ordinance. Chairman Sweeten stated that the ordinance needs to more clearly define what the city is trying to accomplish. Mr. Cowie stated that he would draft proposed changes to present to the City Council as well as the Planning Commission.
NEW BUSINESS – Reports by Commissioners
Commissioner Godfrey voiced concern over safety issues related to the backing of diesel trucks across State Street when delivering supplies to the Fire Place Place. He stated that they do not have approval to unload, and that the business needs to be contacted regarding approval of an unloading plan which will not cause such safety concerns. Commissioner Godfrey also noted numerous produce stands which have been located along the side of State Street, and inquired as to whether a business license would be required for them. Mr. Cowie stated that a business license would be required.
PLANNING DIRECTORS REPORT
Mr. Cowie reminded those Commissioners involved in the meeting with the land owners on the west side of the City, that the meeting would be held the following evening at 6:00 p.m. He also mentioned the open house scheduled for May 24th to take public input in establishing design standards for State Street. He encouraged members of the Commission to attend. Mr. Cowie informed the Commission that the booklet included in their packet from the YMCA was for their information, and that the YMCA is seeking potential support for a possible location in the valley. Mr. Cowie presented a project tracking list to the Commission, and informed them that the dates on the list are approximate. Mr. Cowie stated that Commissioner Simister had requested that he check into the laws governing the construction of charter schools, Timpanogos Academy in particular. Mr. Cowie stated that he had discussed the charter school with the City Attorney, who had indicated that the school had been allowed to proceed as if the laws recently passed by the legislature were already in place.
ADJOURN
CHAIRMAN SWEETEN MOVED TO ADJOURN THE MEETING AT 12:12 P.M. COMMISSIONER GODFREY SECONDED THE MOTION. ALL PRESENT VOTED IN FAVOR. THE MOTION CARRIED.
APPROVED – May 25, 2005
_____________________________
Dustin Sweeten, Chairman
___________________________
Adam Cowie, Planning Director
|
|
|
