|
|
Home » City Government » Planning Commission » Planning Commission Schedule 2005 (Agendas and Minutes) » Planning Commission Agendas 2005 » May 25, 2005
May 25, 2005
The Lindon City Planning Commission held a regularly scheduled meeting on Wednesday, May 25, 2005, beginning at 7:00 p.m., in the Lindon City Center, City Council Chambers, at 100 North State Street, Lindon, Utah.
Conducting: Dustin Sweeten, Chairman
Pledge of Allegiance: Dustin Sweeten
Invocation: Jim Peters, Commissioner
PRESENT ABSENT
Dustin Sweeten, Chairperson Julie Bryner, Commissioner
Ron Anderson, Commissioner
Gary Godfrey, Commissioner
Evan Nixon, Commissioner – arrived at 7:20
Jim Peters, Commissioner
Marilyn Simister, Commissioner
Adam Cowie, Planning Director
John Martineau, Planning Intern
Debra Cullimore, Deputy Recorder
The meeting was called to order at 7:04
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
The minutes of the meeting of May 11, 2005 were reviewed. The following corrections were made:
Page 2, Line 1: add the word “previously” before the word “owned”.
Page 2, Line 2: add the words “and Jim Byron” after the word “District”.
Page 2, Line 36: replace the words “completion of both sides of Main Street” with the words “development of the Byron property”.
Page 5, Line 36: replace the words “recommended eliminating the step look on the gables of the face of the building” with the words “stated that he prefers the look of design two over design one”.
Page 5, Line 42: add the words “to the east and south parcel” after the word “easement”.
COMMISIONER PETERS MOVED TO APPROVE MINUTES OF THE MAY 11, 2005 MEETING AS CORRECTED. COMMISSIONER GODFREY SECONDED THE MOTION. ALL PRESENT VOTED IN FAVOR. THE MOTION CARRIED.
PUBLIC COMMENT
Jorge Valdizan requested a brief review of his site plan for recommendations prior to his application for final approval at the June 8, 2005 Planning Commission meeting. Mr. Valdizan stated that he had delivered revisions to Mr. Cowie. The Commission agreed to give Mr. Valdizan a brief review. Chairperson Sweeten suggested moving on with agenda items while the revisions were brought to the Council Chambers for review.
CURRENT BUSINESS
1. Fence Setback Waiver – Jim & Julie Byron. 50 West 650 North (fence will be located on Main Street). This is a request for a waiver of the front yard fence setback and height requirements in the R1-20 zone.
Chairperson Sweeten noted that this item had been reviewed in the previous Planning Commission meeting. However, following further review, it was determined that a motion can not be allowed on an item presented during the public comments portion of the meeting, and that it would be necessary to place this item on the agenda for review and approval. Mr. Cowie stated that there are no additional staff concerns. Commissioner Godfrey inquired as to the safety concerns expressed during DRC review of this item. Mr. Cowie stated that the concerns relate to the driveway which is located next to the proposed six foot fence, and the visibility problems associated with the height of the fence. Commissioner Peters clarified that the Byron’s proposal includes eliminating the driveway access from Main Street. Mr. Byron confirmed that a gate for foot traffic will be maintained for access, but that vehicle access will not be necessary.
The Commission discussed the exact placement of the fence in relation to the sidewalk and associated easement with Mr. Byron. Mr. Cowie recommended that the fence not be installed until the survey of the area is complete and the exact placement of the road and sidewalk are determined. Mr. Byron stated that he intends to install the fence following the completion of the survey. Mr. Byron was informed that the fence is to be placed at the back of the sidewalk.
Commissioner Peters inquired as to the intentions of Mr. Byron regarding dedication of the property that will be necessary in order to complete Main Street. Mr. Byron stated that discussion with the City is underway regarding the property, which he intends to dedicate to the city.
The Commission viewed photographs of the area of the proposed fence, and neighboring lots. There was discussion regarding a six foot fence which already exists on the lot adjacent to the Byron property. Commissioner Godfrey expressed concern over safety and visibility issues related to both fences, and clarified with Mr. Byron that no driveway access from Main Street would be allowed.
COMMISSIONER NIXON MOVED TO APPROVE THE REQUEST BY JIM AND JULIE BYRON FOR A WAIVER OF THE FENCE SETBACK AND HEIGHT REQUIREMENTS AND FIND THE APPLICATION MEETS SECTION 17.04.310(6) OF THE LINDON CITY CODE. THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS APPLY TO THE APPLICATION:
1. THERE IS NO VEHICLE ACCESS GATE LOCATED OFF OF MAIN STREET
2. SURVEY OF THE ROAD IS TO BE COMPLETED PRIOR TO INSTALLATION OF THE FENCE.
3. THAT THE PLACEMENT OF THE FENCE IS BACK OF SIDEWALK.
4. THE FENCE IS TO BE REMOVED AT THE TIME THAT A RESIDENCE IS BUILT ON THE BYRON PROPERTY.
COMMISSIONER GODFREY SECONDED THE MOTION. ALL PRESENT VOTED IN FAVOR. THE MOTION CARRIED.
2. Site Plan – Dunn Investments. 575 North State Street. This is a request for a multiple unit commercial strip mall project in the CG zone.
Curtis Miner and Todd Dudley were the representatives for this item. They were accompanied by Skip Dunn. Mr. Cowie stated that this is an application for site plan approval, but noted that a problem had been identified in the plat of the property. Upon review of the site plan, it was determined that the property line of one of the parcels runs through the area of the proposed building. Mr. Dunn asked for clarification of the location of the property line. Mr. Cowie showed a visual of the area and the property lines. Mr. Dunn had been under the impression that the line had already been relocated, but stated that moving it would not be a problem. Chairperson Sweeten asked Mr. Cowie if the re-plat requires a public hearing. Mr. Cowie stated that no public hearing would be necessary due to the fact that the re-plat does not change the use cited in the permit. Mr. Dudley stated that a subdivision plan has already been submitted. The applicants were informed that the re-plat would be necessary prior to issuing a building permit for the project.
At this time, Chairperson Sweeten declared that he had previously leased the property where the proposed project is located, but has no financial interest in it at this time. Therefore he does not feel that any conflict of interest is represented, but invited members of the Commission to state if they felt there was a potential conflict. Commissioners felt that no conflict existed.
Commissioner Peters commented on the cross easement on to the adjacent property which is currently owned by Wal-Mart. Mr. Cowie stated that he had spoken with Wal-Mart representatives, and that Wal-Mart is hesitant to participate in any cross easement agreement at this time. Wal-Mart representatives felt that without knowing what business will occupy the adjacent parcel, they could not commit to a cross-easement. Chairperson Sweeten suggested the possibility of stating as a condition that the cross easement would be required of Mr. Dunn only if both parties will provide one. Commissioner Nixon noted that if the Commission states a cross easement as a condition, the business on the vacant parcel will be required to comply.
Mr. Miner gave an overview of revisions to the building since the last design review. He stated that he had evaluated the suggestion made by the Commission during design reviews, and had chosen the elements most appropriate to the building and the desires of the Commission. Mr. Miner stated that the proposed awnings will have a timber frame and will be suspended by cables. He also mentioned the addition of architectural elements to the roof line. In addressing concerns expressed by the Commission regarding the rear elevation of the building, Mr. Miner stated that a “pop-out” area and stone elements had been added around each set of double doors. He has also incorporated the use of decorative “traditional” looking light fixtures on the building. Commissioner Nixon inquired as to the detailing on the south elevation. Mr. Miner stated that the south elevation includes the same timber elements as the front of the building.
Commissioner Simister asked if the colors in the drawings were representative of the final colors of the building. Mr. Miner stated that the colors may not be exact, but that the final colors would be similar to the colors depicted in the drawing. Commissioner Simister inquired as to the proposed roofing material. Mr. Miner stated that it will be a standing seam metal roof, and is proposed as a light green color, but the color could be changed to a medium bronze color if the Commission felt it would be more appropriate. When asked for a consensus on roof color by Mr. Cowie, the Commission concluded that they would leave the choice for the roof color up to Mr. Miner, and felt that either color would be appropriate. Mr. Miner indicated that the frame structures of the doors and windows are proposed as a silver colored aluminum. Commissioner Peters suggested the use of an anodized aluminum material. Mr. Miner stated that the anodized aluminum may reinforce the look of the timbers.
Commissioner Nixon inquired as to whether there had been any discussion Wal-Mart regarding drainage. Mr. Cowie stated that he had discussed drainage with Wal-Mart representatives who had indicated that drainage into the Wal-Mart basin had been calculated for their site only, and that they would not allow use by neighboring businesses. Mr. Dunn stated that drainage from his lot will be pumped into the drainage system on State Street.
Commissioner Anderson noted an area in the corner of the site plan drawing which was cross hatched, and asked what would be located on that area. He was informed that it is the location of the detention basin, which will consist of an underground holding tank. The water will be pumped to the drainage system on State Street from that point. Parking can be located over the holding tank.
Commissioner Godfrey inquired as to the proposed landscaping plan. Mr. Miner indicated that the islands in the parking area will contain landscaping elements. Commissioner Godfrey also requested clarification on access from State Street as allowed by UDOT. Mr. Dunn stated that he has eliminated two access points, but that UDOT is allowing two accesses from State Street.
COMMISSIONER NIXON MOVED TO APPROVE THE REQUEST BY SKIP DUNN FOR A MULTIPLE UNIT STRIP MALL PROJECT AT 575 NORTH STATE STREET, AND RECOMMEND APPROVAL TO THE CITY COUNCIL WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS:
1. TREES ARE PLANTED IN THE ISLAND AREAS AT THE CORNERS OF THE BUILDING
2. THE ALUMINUM ON THE ELEVATIONS OF THE BUILDING IS A BRONZE OR LIGHT BRONZE COLOR.
3. A CROSS EASEMENT TO NEIGHBORING PARCELS IS PROVIDED.
4. NO BUILDING PERMIT WILL BE ISSUED UNTIL THE SUBDIVISION RE-PLAT IS COMPLETE.
COMMISSIONER SIMISTER SECONDED THE MOTION. ALL PRESENT VOTED IN FAVOR. THE MOTION CARRIED.
Mr. Dunn requested information on the direction he should take to complete the re-plat and begin construction. Mr. Cowie informed him that he can begin preparation of the site now, but that it would be necessary to submit a subdivision application for approval prior to the issue of the building permit. Commissioner Nixon asked if relocation of a lot line required approval from the City Council. Mr. Cowie clarified that this is a subdivision application, which requires approval from the City Council.
Valdizan
At this time, Chairperson Sweeten invited Mr. Valdizan and his representative, Curtis Miner, to address the Commission. Chairperson Sweeten noted that they would give only a brief review at this meeting, and that no motions could be made, due to the fact that the item is not included on the agenda for tonight. Mr. Miner reviewed changes which have been made to the design following review and suggestions of the Commission. He discussed the stone element on the towers of the building and explained that the stone had been carried higher up on the face of the towers. The center of the roof line has also been raised two feet, and decorative light fixtures have been added to the face of the building near the doors. Commissioners made suggestions for carrying the stone element on the center of the building up to the top of the windows, additional lighting, and the possible addition of awnings in key areas of the building. Mr. Cowie noted that this item will be on the agenda for the next Planning Commission meeting. Mr. Valdizan thanked the Commission for their time.
3. Conditional Use Permit – Check City (located in Dunn Investments building). 575
North State Street. This is a request for conditional use approval for a check cashing business in the CG zone.
Curtis Miner was also the representative for this item. Mr. Cowie pointed out that this is the proposed business which will occupy the north unit in the Dunn Investments strip mall. Mr. Cowie also pointed out that a drive through window is proposed as part of the project. Commissioner Anderson asked if there is a need for a drive through window, and stated that it seemed that the services provided by the business would require customers to go into the building to conduct business. Mr. Miner commented that many of the services provided by Check City are similar to services at a bank, and can be conducted by means of a drive through window. He also noted that the drive through is a new concept for Check City, and observed that Check City is making an effort to upgrade their image within the community. Commissioner Nixon asked Mr. Miner to describe the structure over the drive through area. Mr. Miner stated that it is proposed as a timber frame covered by standing seam metal roofing.
Commissioners discussed elements of signage, and made comparisons of different photos of Check City signs which were provided in their packets. Chairperson Sweeten noted that signage will be addressed on a separate application, and will be reviewed for approval following the lifting of the sign moratorium which is currently in place.
Commissioner Godfrey expressed concern regarding the type of business Check City conducts, as well as the type clientele it may attract. He asked what the proposed hours of operation were. Commissioner Simister stated that the hours of operation are listed as 9:00 a.m. until 9:00 p.m. Monday through Saturday. Chairperson Sweeten inquired of Mr. Cowie as to required conditions for denying a conditional use permit. Mr. Cowie stated that in order to deny a CUP, there must be a threat to the health, safety, or welfare of the community. Commissioner Godfrey stated that he felt there was a potential for those circumstances to exist. Mr. Cowie stated that it would be necessary to substantiate those claims with facts, which may be very difficult to do. Commissioner Anderson noted that the business will be in close proximity to the residential area. Commissioner Godfrey asked Mr. Cowie if there are any regulations in the standard land use table which restrict the number of any certain type of business on State Street. Mr. Cowie indicated that there are no such restrictions. Commissioner Godfrey noted that while Check City may be a more reputable business, there may be other similar businesses which are less reputable who locate in Lindon. Commissioner Godfrey clarified that he was not advocating denial of this business, but felt the Commission should be aware of potential concerns associated with this type of business, and should take appropriate action to mitigate those concerns.
Commissioner Anderson expressed concern over the lack of access to the parking area due to the location of the drive through. He asked Mr. Cowie if this item would be reviewed by the City Council. Mr. Cowie confirmed that this item will be reviewed by the City Council.
COMMISSIONER NIXON MOVED TO APPROVE THE REQUEST BY CURTIS MINER FOR A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR A CHECK CITY AND RECOMMEND APPROVAL TO THE CITY COUNCIL WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITION;
1. THAT THE HOURS OF OPERATION REMAIN AT 9:00A.M – 9:00 P.M. MONDAY THROUGH SATURDAY. COMMISSIONER SIMISTER SECONDED THE MOTION. THE VOTE WAS RECORDED AS FOLLOWS:
CHAIRPERSON SWEETEN AYE
COMMISSIONER ANDERSON AYE
COMMISSION GODFREY NAY
COMMISSIONER NIXON AYE
COMMISSIONER PETERS AYE
COMMISSIONER SIMISTER AYE
THE MOTION CARRIED (5-1) WITH ONE ABSENT.
Commissioner Godfrey clarified that he was not opposed to this specific business, but felt that it should be continued and reviewed further in order to mitigate some of the concerns he had discussed. He felt the Commission did not have enough information to make a decision at this time.
4. Public Hearing – Alteration of Non-conforming Use, Grays Auto 730 North State Street. This is a request for a storage area addition to an existing auto-body and auto glass repair shop.
COMMISSIONER NIXON MOVED TO OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING FOR THE ALTERATION OF THE NON-CONFORMING USE PERMIT FOR GRAYS AUTO. COMMISSIONER SIMISTER SECONDED THE MOTION. ALL PRESENT VOTED IN FAVOR. THE MOTION CARRIED.
John Steiner and Dennis Gray were the representatives for this item. Mr. Cowie gave an overview of the request. He stated that Mr. Steiner is leasing a portion of the building owned by Mr. Gray. Mr. Steiner conducts a glass repair business on the site, and Mr. Gray owns an auto repair business on the site. They are requesting approval for construction of a 40x20 steel framed car port structure in the rear of the existing building. Construction of the structure has already begun without a building permit. At the time the City became aware of the construction, Mr. Gray was instructed to discontinue construction until the structure could be reviewed by the Planning Commission and City Council and receive appropriate approval. Mr. Cowie pointed out that Phil Brown has stated that due to the location of the north wall of the structure it will be required to be enclosed. Mr. Gray stated that they intend to enclose the wall.
Mr. Cowie also addressed required parking for the business, stating that based on the square footage of the business, 47 parking stalls are required. Mr. Gray stated that there is a parking area located at the rear of the building. Chairperson Sweeten observed that the parking in the rear of the building is not accessible to the public. Commissioner Anderson noted that 47 parking spaces would be excessive, due to the nature of the business conducted on the site. Mr. Gray stated that there is no street parking, and that they park cars in lot at the rear of the building when they are kept on site for a period of time to complete repairs.
Commissioner Peters commented on landscaping elements which have recently been added to the site. Mr. Gray and Mr. Steiner described the landscape elements which have been added, which include a grass area, annual and perennial flowers, and a sprinkling system.
Chairperson Sweeten noted that the usual landscaping requirement for State Street is a twenty foot strip.
Mr. Steiner informed the Commission that the purpose of the proposed storage building is to allow more space to store the glass products which are necessary to his business. He stated that the storage building will allow a significant decrease in the amount of traffic into the business, due to the fact that he will require far fewer deliveries. Currently, there are delivery trucks at the business on a daily basis.
Chairperson Sweeten expressed concern over allowing expansion of a business that is operating under a non-conforming use permit. Commissioner Anderson commented that the proposed building provides storage only, and will not create any increase in business or traffic to the site.
Commissioner Peters commented about the razor back wire located along the top of the fence. Mr. Gray stated that the wire was installed for security purposes, and that upon completion of the storage building the wire could be removed. Chairperson Sweeten asked the height of the block wall fence located on the site. Mr. Gray stated that the wall fence is six feet high. Commissioner Nixon asked if the block would extend the length of the building. Mr. Gray stated that the wall will extend the length of the building and will extend above the roof line of the building.
Chairperson Sweeten again expressed concern regarding allowing a business operating under a non-conforming use permit to expand. He noted that the greater the amount of money Mr. Gray puts in to the business, the less likely it will be to be replaced by a new business in the future. Mr. Gray noted that he had purchased the ground and opened for business in that location forty years ago, and that the business was in compliance with codes at that time. Commissioner Nixon commented that Mr. Gray should not feel that he is being singled out. He explained that the Commission has had this discussion regarding other non conforming businesses on State Street as well.
Chairperson Sweeten asked Mr. Cowie if under normal circumstances, the Commission would have reviewed plans for the building prior to the beginning of construction. Mr. Cowie stated that normal procedure would be to review and approve plans prior to construction. Chairperson Sweeten felt that this procedure should be followed, and that plans should be approved on this item prior to allowing the completion of the structure. Commissioner Nixon pointed out that the addition of the parapet wall at the side of the structure will be a visual improvement to the site. Commissioner Anderson agreed that the addition of the wall would be an improvement.
COMMISSIONER SIMISTER MOVED TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING FOR THE ALTERATION OF THE NON-CONFORMING USE PERMIT FOR GRAYS AUTO. COMMISSIONER NIXON SECONDED THE MOTION. ALL PRESENT VOTED IN FAVOR. THE MOTION CARRIED.
COMMISSIONER PETERS MOVED TO APPROVE THE REQUEST BY DENNIS GRAY FOR AN ALTERATION OF NON-CONFORMING USE FOR ADDITION OF THE PROPOSED STORAGE AREA, AND RECOMMEND APPROVAL TO THE CITY COUNCIL WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS:
1. THAT THE BLOCK WALL CONTINUE THE LENGTH OF THE BUILDING.
2. THAT THE PARAPET WALL EXTEND ABOVE THE ROOF LINE.
3. THAT THE RAZOR WIRE ON THE FENCE BE REMOVED.
4. THAT A BUILDING PERMIT BE OBTAINED FROM THE CITY PRIOR TO CONTINUING CONSTRUCTION OF THE STORAGE BUILDING.
COMMISSIONER ANDERSON SECONDED THE MOTION. THE VOTE WAS RECORDED AS FOLLOWS:
CHAIRPERSON SWEETEN NAY
COMMISSIONER ANDERSON AYE
COMMISSIONER GODFREY NAY
COMMISSIONER NIXON AYE
COMMISSIONER PETERS AYE
COMMISSIONR SIMISTER AYE
THE MOTION CARRIED (4-2) WITH ONE ABSENT.
Chairperson Sweeten noted that Utah state code assumes that businesses operating under a non-conforming use permit will eventually be replaced by new business. Code further suggests that non-conforming businesses not be allowed to expand. Commissioner Godfrey agreed with Chairperson Sweeten’s comments, and went on to say that he felt some type of representation of the structure should be reviewed prior to approval. Mr. Cowie informed Mr. Gray and Mr. Steiner that this item will be reviewed by the City Council on June 7, 2005.
5. Conditional Use Permit – Paradise Pools. 35 North 1400 West. This is a request for conditional use approval for outdoor display in the LI/T zones along the freeway.
There was no representative present for this item. Mr. Cowie stated that a representative is required to be present in order for the Commission to address this item.
COMMISSIONER GODFREY MOVED TO CONTINUE THIS ITEM TO THE MEETING ON JUNE 8, 2005. COMMISSIONER NIXON SECONDED THE MOTION. ALL PRESENT VOTED IN FAVOR. THE MOTION CARRIED.
6. Public Hearing – Title 18, Sign Ordinance revisions. The Planning Commission will review proposed changes to the Lindon City Sign Ordinance.
COMMISSIONER NIXON MOVED TO OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING ON PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO THE SIGN ORDINANCE. COMMISSIONER SIMISTER SECONDED THE MOTION. ALL PRESENT VOTED IN FAVOR. THE MOTION CARRIED.
Mr. Cowie discussed elements of the sign ordinance which have previously been reviewed by the Council and the Commission. Elements of signage which are being considered for amendment include; the use of LED, mechanical or electrical signs on State Street, as well as on the freeway corridor, the allowable size of signage, and the use of awnings as part of signage. Mr. Cowie informed the Commission that Planning Intern John Martineau had prepared a presentation which illustrates different sizes signage, with examples of wall signs, LED type signs, and awning signs. Mr. Cowie invited Mr. Martineau to present the examples.
During the presentation, members of the Commission viewed and discussed examples of wall signs varying in size from 5% of wall size to 20% of wall size. Mr. Cowie pointed out that wall signs need to be adequate to identify the business, and that set back from the street is a determining factor in the necessary size of the sign, noting that if the set back is greater, the sign would need to be a larger percentage of wall space in order to be readable from the street. The Commission made the recommendation that size of wall signs should be determined based on a percentage of wall space and should include a maximum allowable size.
The Commission also viewed examples of LED type signs located at various businesses in the valley. Commissioner Anderson noted that a clear definition of different types of electrical signs would be beneficial in creating guidelines for their use. He commented on problems which have been created in the past due to interpretation of the definition of signage. Commissioner Nixon felt that LED signs would be best defined as a subset of electrical signs, and that if guidelines refer to electrical signs in general LED signs would be included in those guidelines.
Mr. Martineau also presented examples of awnings which have been used in the signage elements of various businesses. The Commission discussed allowable size and percent of lettering on awnings, as well whether “back lit” awnings should be allowed. Commissioner Nixon felt that if an awning is used on a structure, it should include the same architectural elements as the building. Commissioner Peters commented that some of the examples of awnings appeared to be primary signs, while others appeared to be secondary information. The Commission discussed the use of back-lit awnings as additional signage. The consensus of the Commission was that back-lit awnings should be disallowed, due to the fact that they do not fit in with the architectural standards which the city is making an effort to implement. Following further discussion regarding use of lettering on awnings, the Commission was split, with three Commissioners feeling lettering should be allowed and three feeling it should be disallowed.
The Commission then discussed specific requirements regarding use and placement of electronic and LED type signage. Use of LED type signs, on State Street as well as the freeway corridor, was discussed. Specific questions asked by Mr. Cowie were should LED signs be allowed on State Street, and if so, with what restriction to size and placement. He also asked if the same restrictions regarding LED type signs should apply to the freeway corridor as to State Street, or if the T – zone should be treated differently in regard to signage. Following discussion, a vote was taken regarding these specific questions. Regarding the use of LED signs of State Street, three members of the Commission felt that LED signs on State Street should be disallowed, and three Commissioners felt that the LED signs should be allowed on State Street, provided that the size of signage is regulated and frontage requirements are met. Among the Commissioners who felt LED signs should be allowed, it was also felt that a minimum distance between allowed signs should be maintained. Three Commissioners felt that the same standards regarding size and distance requirements should apply to the freeway corridor as apply to State Street. Mr. Cowie pointed out that the current guidelines for the freeway corridor allow for LED signs which are 1x8 and allows for an LED type sign every 600 feet.
Steve Bown, a business owner in the freeway corridor area, requested to address the Commission. Mr. Bown suggested that use of LED signs should be regulated based on distance between signs rather than size of signs. Mr. Bown has proposed an LED type sign for his business which measures 6 feet 10 inches by 13 feet 10 inches, but feels that the LED portion of the sign is proportionate in size to the rest of the sign.
Following the discussion with Mr. Bown, the Commissioners were each asked their opinion on allowable size of LED type signs in the freeway corridor. Commissioners Anderson Godfrey, Sweeten, and Peters each stated that 3 feet by 12 feet would be a reasonable size. Chairperson Sweeten again noted that he felt that if the number of LED type signs is limited due to required distance between each sign, that in fairness all LED signs should be disallowed. Mr. Cowie commented that under current distance restrictions there are twenty four to twenty seven allowable spaces for additional LED type signs. Commissioner Nixon felt that 4 feet by 16 feet would be a more reasonable size. Commissioner Simister felt that LED signs should not be allowed in the City. Commissioner Peters commented on freeway areas in California he has traveled which are free of signage, and the relaxing atmosphere which is created by the absence of signage along the freeway corridor. Following further discussion, Commissioner Nixon stated that upon further consideration, he felt that no LED signs should be allowed in the City.
The Commission then discussed use of neon lighting on signage as well as the use of neon lighting as an accent on buildings. No consensus was reached on this issue at this meeting.
Banner signs were then discussed. Mr. Cowie reviewed requirements which state that banner signs can be placed only on the wall of a business, and can use a maximum of 10% of wall space. Banner signs may also be placed on a fence, but can be a maximum of 32 square feet. Banner signs are allowed for only thirty days per calendar year.
Mr. Cowie also addressed the use of political signs. He stated that no time frame can be imposed in relation to the removal of political signs, as required removal would be a prohibition of free speech. He suggested regulation of political signs through size restrictions, suggesting that political signs be limited to six square feet in residential areas. Councilmember Bayless was present at the meeting and commented on a possible requirement to be added to the code which would include permission to be acquired from the property owner before placing political signs. Councilmember Bayless noted that if a political sign is located on a particular property, it implies support of the property owner. Mr. Cowie stated that he would add the language to the code requiring permission to place political signs on private property.
COMMISSIONER GODFREY MOVED TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING ON PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO THE SIGN ORDINANCE. COMMISSIONER NIXON SECONDED THE MOTION. ALL PRESENT VOTED IN FAVOR. THE MOTION CARRIED.
COMMISSIONER NIXON MOVED TO RECOMMEND THAT THE CITY COUNCIL REVIEW PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO THE SIGN ORDINANCE. COMMISSIONER SIMISTER SECONDED THE MOTION. ALL PRESENT VOTED FAVOR. THE MOTION CARRIED.
NEW BUSINESS – Reports by Commissioners
Commissioner Simister inquired as to the status of Wasatch U-Cart. Mr. Cowie informed her that the matter had been turned over to the City attorney.
Commissioner Simister also inquired as to the plans for the Shaeffer Industries Building. She observed that improvements had begun on the building, but that nothing further had been done in some time. Commissioner Anderson commented that he has seen the crane at the business operating, and felt that at some point the outside of the building will be completed.
Chairperson Sweeten inquired as to street parking near the Whitewater business located on Geneva Road, and expressed concern over possible safety issues relating to the vehicles parked on the street. It was stated that adequate off street parking is provided. Commissioner Anderson commented that if the curb in the area is not red striped, street parking can not be prohibited.
Chairperson Sweeten informed the Commission that the City Council has requested a joint field trip to tour the Fieldstone development in Herriman. Councilmember Bayless was present at the meeting, and informed the Commission that the development contains many elements that the Commission and Council may want to consider for development on the west side of Lindon. She stated that touring the Herriman development may be helpful in establishing guidelines for similar development in Lindon. The field trip was scheduled for June 15th at 6:00 p.m.
PLANNING DIRECTORS REPORT
Mr. Cowie directed the attention of the Commission to pictures contained in their packets of recent flooding on the west side of the city in the Industrial Zone. Flooding occurred during recent heavy rains. Mr. Cowie stated that there are drainage problems in the area, due to the fact that several drainage ditches converge in that area. Commissioner Nixon commented on previous problems experienced in the area due to inadequate drainage from the pipes near the transfer station. Mr. Cowie stated that in order to address drainage issues in the area, a culvert under the driveway of Wasatch Timber is proposed. Mr. Cowie stated that there are some staff concerns associated with installation of the culvert. One potential concerns is the removal of a grass area on the site which was required by the Planning Commission. Commissioner Nixon suggested that the grass be replaced following installation of the culvert. Commissioner Anderson stated that it may be possible to replace the grass, but that it would create an additional expense for the City. Mr. Cowie clarified that installation of the culvert is a recommendation of the city engineer, as well as the public works director.
Mr. Cowie presented the current project tracking list to the Commission. He explained that the dates noted on the list are approximate.
Mr. Cowie also commented on the open house held the previous evening by CRS Architects to receive input for State Street design guidelines. He stated that the only Commissioner to attend was Commissioner Anderson, and that the City Council had been represented only by the Mayor. Mr. Cowie stated that an additional open house will be scheduled and requested that as many members of the Commission as possible attend. Mr. Cowie also stated that 100 letters will be sent to homes in Lindon with a personal invitation to attend the open house. The residents chosen to receive the letters will be randomly selected.
Mr. Cowie then addressed the section of the code which specifies the number of animals allowed on half acre parcels of land. According to the code, up to four horses could be allowed on half acre parcels. The code specifies different types and combinations of animals which are allowed. Mr. Cowie asked for input from the Commission regarding the number of animals allowed. Commissioner Godfrey noted that the purpose of the code is likely to address the problems with flies and odor associated with large animals, rather than the specific number of animals allowed on a parcel, and felt that complaints regarding animals would be associated with the flies and odor rather than the animals themselves. Councilmember Bayless stated that it was not the intention of the code to allow four horses, but rather a combination of two large animals and two small animals. She also stated that the current ordinance was originally intended to be used temporarily on a trial basis, but that a more effective ordinance had not yet been written. Commissioner Nixon suggested that usable square footage be considered when determining the number of animals allowed on a parcel. Mr. Cowie will we review the ordinance further.
ADJOURN
COMMISSIONER ANDERSON MOVED TO ADJOURN THE MEETING AT 10:43 P.M. COMMISSIONER SIMISTER SECONDED THE MOTION. ALL PRESENT VOTED IN FAVOR. THE MOTION CARRIED
APPROVED – June 8, 2005
___________________________________
Dustin Sweeten, Chairperson
________________________________
Adam Cowie, Planning Director
|
|
|
