CITY OF OREM

Planning Commission minutes for February 15, 2017

CITY OF OREM

PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES

February 15, 2017

The following items are discussed in these minutes:

Country River Estates, Plat C Approved

Providence, Plat F Approved

ZOA Section 22-8-15(B) building materials Recommended Approval

ZOA Section 22-14-18(E) temporary site plan change

STUDY SESSION

PLACE Orem City Main Conference Room

At 3:30 p.m. Chair Larsen called the Study Session to order.

Those present:Becky Buxton, Carl Cook, Carlos Iglesias, Karen Jeffreys, Lynnette Larsen, and David Moulton, Planning Commission members; Jason W. Bench, Planning Director; David R. Stroud, City Planner; Christian Kirkham, Long Range Planner; J. Kirby Snideman, Long Range Planner; Cliff Peterson, Private Development Engineer; Paul Goodrich, Transportation Engineer; Steve Earl, Legal Counsel; Brent Sumner, City Council Liaison and Loriann Merritt, Minutes Secretary

Those excused:Michael Walker, Planning Commission members; Bill D. Bell, Development Services Director; Sam Kelly, City Engineer

The Commission and staff briefly reviewed agenda items and minutes from January 18, 2017 meeting and adjourned at 4:25 p.m. to the City Council Chambers for the regular meeting.

REGULAR MEETING

PLACE - Orem City Council Chambers

At 4:30 p.m. Chair Larsen called the Planning Commission meeting to order and offered the invocation.

Those present:Becky Buxton, Carl Cook, Carlos Iglesias, Karen Jeffreys, Lynnette Larsen, and David Moulton, Planning Commission members; Bill D. Bell, Development Services Director; Jason W. Bench, Planning Director; David R. Stroud, City Planner; Christian Kirkham, Long Range Planner; J. Kirby Snideman, Long Range Planner; Paul Goodrich, Transportation Engineer; Steve Earl, Legal Counsel; Brent Sumner, City Council Liaison and Loriann Merritt, Minutes Secretary

Those excused:Michael Walker, Planning Commission members; Sam Kelly, City Engineer

Chair Larsen introduced Agenda Item 3.1 as follows:

Agenda Item 3.1 is a request by David Leavitt to vacate Lots 3-5 of Country River Estates Subdivision, Plat A and approve the final plat of Country River Estate Subdivision, Plat C at 591 South 1100 East in the R20 zone.

Staff Presentation: Mr. Stroud said the applicant has submitted building plans to the City to construct a house in the Country River subdivision which is located adjacent to the Provo River. The house will not fit on either of the two lots the applicant owns. The applicants two lots and a third lot owned by a neighbor must be vacated and replatted to provide the minimum lot width. Three lots will be vacated and two lots will be replatted. Lot 5 contains a home and will remain and will acquire additional square footage. Easement letters approving the vacation of an existing PUE along the common property line of Lot 3 and Lot 4 have been received.

Recommendation: The Development Review Committee determined this request complies with the Orem City Code. The Project Coordinator recommends the Planning Commission vacate Lots 3-5 of Country River Estates Subdivision Plat A and approve the final plat of Country River Estates Subdivision Plat C at 591 South 1100 East in the R20 zone.

Chair Larsen asked if the Planning Commission had any questions for Mr. Stroud.

Chair Larsen invited the applicant to come forward. Tom Crawford introduced himself.

Mr. Crawford indicated he represented Mr. Leavitt who was out of the country. Mr. Crawford said he was also the president of the Home Owners Association (HOA). The HOA is in support of this plat amendment.

Chair Larsen opened the public hearing and invited those from the audience who had come to speak to this item to come forward to the microphone.

When no one came forward, Chair Larsen closed the public hearing and asked if the Planning Commission had any more questions for the applicant or staff. When none did, she called for a motion on this item.

Planning Commission Action: Mr. Moulton said he has found that neither the public nor any person will be materially injured by vacating Lots 3-5 of Country River Estates Subdivision, Plat C and that there is good cause for the vacation. He then moved to:

1. Vacate Lots 3-5 of Country River Estates Subdivision, Plat A; and

2. Approve the final plat of Country River Estates Subdivision, Plat C with two lots at 591 South 1100 East.

Mr. Cook seconded the motion. Those voting aye: Becky Buxton, Carl Cook, Carlos Iglesias, Karen Jeffreys, Lynnette Larsen, and David Moulton. The motion passed unanimously.

Chair Larsen introduced Agenda Item 3.2 as follows:

Agenda Item 3.2 is a request by Reed Beus to vacate Lot 1 of Providence Subdivision, Plat E and approve the final plat of Providence Subdivision, Plat F at 1227 East 1130 North in the R12 zone.

Staff Presentation: Mr. Stroud said the applicant has constructed a retaining wall in a public utility easement (PUE), which is not permitted. The wall was also completed without a building permit. Before a building permit can be approved, the lot must be replatted without the easement at the location of the wall. The owner has received letters from all easement holders approving the request.

Recommendation: The Development Review Committee determined this request complies with the Orem City Code. The Project Coordinator recommends the Planning Commission vacate Lot 1 of Providence Subdivision Plat E and approve the final plat of Providence Subdivision Plat F 1227 East 1130 North in the R12 zone.

Chair Larsen asked if the Planning Commission had any questions for Mr. Stroud.

Chair Larsen asked if the applicant can build over the Citys sewer easement. Mr. Stroud said he cannot build over the easement; however, he can build up to the easement line. Chair Larsen pointed out there was a block wall on the corner. Mr. Stroud said it will need to be modified to not cross the PUE.

Chair Larsen invited the applicant to come forward. Mr. Dudley introduced himself.

Chair Larsen asked if the retaining wall will be built on the north side of the property and taken out of the corner. Mr. Dudley said yes. Chair Larsen asked if the wall retains the ground. Mr. Dudley said it was more for privacy. He indicated the fence will be up to three feet. Mr. Stroud noted that if the fence is four feet or less from the bottom of the footing to the top of the wall, then it can go in a PUE. When the building permit comes in, the City will determine if it is okay. The City just wants to maintain the sewerline and so access needs to be provided.

Chair Larsen opened the public hearing and invited those from the audience who had come to speak to this item to come forward to the microphone.

When no one came forward, Chair Larsen closed the public hearing and asked if the Planning Commission had any more questions for the applicant or staff. When none did, she called for a motion on this item.

Planning Commission Action: Ms. Jeffreys said she has found that neither the public nor any person will be materially injured by vacating Lot 1 of Providence Subdivision, Plat E and that there is good cause for the vacation. She then moved to:

1. Vacate Lot 1 of Providence Subdivision, Plat E; and

2. Approve the final plat of Providence Subdivision, Plat F with one lot at 1227 East 1130 North.

Mr. Igelsias seconded the motion. Those voting aye: Becky Buxton, Carl Cook, Carlos Iglesias, Karen Jeffreys, Lynnette Larsen, and David Moulton. The motion passed unanimously.

Chair Larsen introduced Agenda Item 3.3 as follows:

Agenda Item 3.3 is a request by Kevin Scholz to amend Section 22-8-15(B) of the Orem City Code

Staff Presentation: Mr. Stroud said the applicant, an architect, represents the owner of an office building under construction in the HS zone. The owner of the building would like to utilize metal panels on the exterior of his building. However, metal panels are prohibited in the HS zone.

Although there are zones in the City that allow metal as an exterior finish material, the Highway Services zone does not. The HS zone is located at the gateways into Orem at 1600 North, 800 North, Center Street and University Parkway. The prohibition of metal is to encourage a high quality development with materials suited for the entryways into the City. Although the use of metal on the exterior of a building can be attractive, it can also lead to a building of lesser visual quality. If metal is not permitted on buildings in the HS zone, typical finish materials will likely consist of brick, stone, stucco, EIFS, and glass.

Because the use of metal panels is allowed in other commercial and industrial zones, the applicant feels that metal should also be allowed in the Highway Services zone. The proposed text from the applicant is outlined below:

B. All buildings shall be completed on all sides with acceptable finishing materials. The following materials are acceptable: brick, fluted block, colored textured block, glass, synthetic stucco and wood. Other finishing materials Aluminum composite panel or similar metal cladding systems may be used if approved by the Planning Commission. However, Ssheet metal and corrugated metal shall be prohibited except for may also be used as exterior finish, trim, soffits, facia, mansards and similar architectural features, but when used as a wall finish shall not exceed 30% on any given building elevation, and a maximum of 20% average on the exterior of the entire structure. Metal awnings if used shall be considered roof finish and not wall finish. Metal rooftop mechanical screening structures as well as metal roofing is allowed. In determining whether or not a particular finishing material is acceptable, the Planning Commission shall consider the following factors:

1. The visibility of the site from I-15 and neighboring residential uses.

2. The degree to which the proposed finishing materials are compatible with the appearance of neighboring residential uses.

3. The location of the proposed finishing materials on the building.

4. The degree to which a particular finishing material may be shielded by landscaping or some other feature.

The proposed amendment is the applicants own language and Staff has not attempted to refine it since Staff does not support the proposed amendment.

Advantages

Allowing metal or metal panels would increase the options for property owners. However, allowing metal as an exterior finish material increases the potential for buildings that do not promote the visual quality the City desires in the Highway Services zone.

Disadvantages

Allowing metal or metal panels will detract from the aesthetic quality expected by the City in the HS zone.

The architectural standards for buildings in the gateways of Orem City should be held to a higher standard than other commercial zones.

Staff do not support metal (corrugated or other metals) as a visually attractive building material. Metals should be limited to use as trim or other minor architectural features.

Recommendation: The Development Review Committee has determined this request will negatively affect the City and is not compliant with the standards of the Highway Services zone. The Project Coordinator recommends the Planning Commission forward a negative recommendation to the City Council to amend Section 22-8-15(B) of the Orem City Code pertaining to architectural finishing materials in the HS zone.

Chair Larsen asked if the Planning Commission had any questions for Mr. Stroud.

When no one did, Chair Larsen invited the applicant to come forward. Kevin Scholz introduced himself.

Mr. Scholz said he is the architect for the project. A local real estate company will be occupying the building. He said the ordinance is out of date. As the ordinance is currently written many new, upscale buildings would not be allowed. The metal used in newer buildings is called an ACM panel, which is a composite metal panel. It is a premium finish and much more expensive than the approved finishes. It runs about $60 per foot. This project is the type of materials the City is looking for. This project has stone, brick, concrete block and metal. In the elevation there is 18% metal. They tried to create a look called urban design. The owner wanted to create something that integrated with surrounding buildings. The major purpose behind the ordinance is to provide a positive impression of the project from I-15, and this does that. There are similar metal treatments throughout the City. Mr. Scholz indicated the project was voted as acceptable by the Planning Commission before the technicality of the metal issue was brought to light. He recently went before the Board of Adjustment and they liked the building the way it is designed, however, they could not vote against the ordinance. Mr. Scholz said the purpose of Community Development is to bring well designed projects to the City that improve the look and image of Orem. The current ordinance is unnecessarily limiting opportunities for unique expression. This is done by limiting the materials that can be used. The ordinance was last amended 16 years ago, and many new materials have been developed over the years. He is asking the Planning Commission to entertain a change in the text amendment. They are not trying to build something cheap. If he used allowed materials, that would cheapen the look of the building. His text amendment gives control to the City, but frees the architects up a little bit. If metal is used in other parts of the City, what makes the HS zone so incredibly special that they cannot use metal?

Mr. Iglesias said he has no problem with the building, it looks great. The issue is to manage building materials that will come in the future. Mr. Scholz said there are projects coming into the City that are using metal. He asked what makes the HS zone so unique. The ordinance has parts that use a certain amount of metal. If someone came in wanting to build a tall building using the ACM panels, that should be allowed. It would create a really nice building. The use of metals should be managed and it should use percentages. The door should be open for alternate finishes that the Planning Commission could approve. He knows that managing it is the hardest part.

Mr. Scholz asked Mr. Bell how it has been managed in the past. Mr. Bell said the way the ordinance is written it cannot be managed. In areas that allow metal, a project coming in with 30% metal has to be allowed. Mr. Scholz asked if they still allow it if they are dissatisfied with the project. Mr. Bell said that if the ordinance allows for the metal, then staff will follow the ordinance. There are some projects that are beautiful and some that are not. The attitude of City Council is that they do not like metal.

Chair Larsen asked about the ACM panels. Mr. Scholz said they come in a variety of finishes and types. They can be refinished, but there is a 20-year guarantee on the finish. Everything they will use will be painted. Ms. Buxton asked what ACM stands for. Mr. Scholz said it is Aluminum Composite Metal. They can be galvanized steel or aluminum.

Chair Larsen said there are metal finishes on State Street that she does not like. She does not like corrugated metal, or painted metal. She asked if the 30% includes roof, awnings, and walls. Mr. Scholz said the text amendment addresses just the walls, because the roof can be metal. The awnings are in a no-mans land. In this case they are meant to be metal. Chair Larsen said it is difficult to keep up with the latest in architecture in the code. The look of this building is great, but who is to say that everyones design will be as great. Mr. Scholz said that hardiboard is involved in a ton of lawsuits because it does not last. It ends up that what is left is stone, brick, glass or concrete block. Stucco has to be repainted after a few years. It would be nice if Orem City would give architects more choice.

Chair Larsen asked if the metal awnings are allowed as roofs. Mr. Stroud said it is up to interpretation, but it really is not a roof.

Ms. Jeffreys asked why not come up with the building that meets the current Code. She noted that a beautiful building can be created with the allowed materials. Mr. Scholz said the owner built a similar building in South Jordan and was approved by their Planning Commission without comment. Nothing was brought up by Orems Planning Commission and so he used the similar design.

Chair Larsen asked if there are alternative looks without the metal. Mr. Scholz said no, but he has been doing research and everything is less effective. He could use stucco or hardiboard. Hardiboard would need Planning Commission approval.

Ms. Jeffreys said the elevations were not submitted with the site plan. Mr. Scholz said the elevations were submitted. He noted there were colored elevations that were submitted along with a color board. Mr. Stroud said the color board was not part of the Planning Commission materials. Mr. Scholz said the color drawing was part of the approval. Mr. Bench said the drawing may have been part of the approval, but it was not specifically called out as metal. Staff may have assumed it was stucco.

Mr. Scholz suggested the Code says no steel building can be allowed, instead of no metal. He is willing to work with staff and rework the text amendment to make staff more comfortable.

Chair Larsen said she is not in favor of any face being 30% of any metal. When compared to the buildings currently in the area, this is an upgrade. But she wants to keep the HS zone upgraded in order to keep it a nice to the City.

Ms. Buxton said she agrees with Mr. Scholz. Limiting an architects palate is a big mistake. This is the fashion of building design. It is like the city saying we cannot wear boots, because they do not like the look of boots. It is fashionable to wear boots and so everyone wants to wear boots. This is her neighborhood and she loves the look of this building. She loves the metal and it is very tasteful. She would like to see some kind of compromise on the allowed percent of metal. The modern design of this building says more about Orem than limiting materials. This will have a positive effect on the HS zone and the optical off the freeway.

Chair Larsen asked if she was okay with the 30%. Ms. Buxton said she supported lower. Chair Larsen said she likes the look of the smooth metal panel. Her concern is the corrugated, or the rusty panels and the enforcement of the code.

Ms. Buxton said the Planning Commission should to be careful of becoming the arbitrators of taste. Each member likes what they like, but the Planning Commission cannot represent the Citys taste. Mr. Cook said the staff has to enforce this and what is needed is something that is easy to enforce without having unappealing things being built. This is a fairly broad suggestion and maybe it needs to be refined. Mr. Scholz said he is willing to make it limited. He just wants more options to be allowed.

Mr. Bell encouraged the Planning Commission to keep in mind that the 18% does not include the awnings and the red metal above the piers.

Chair Larsen said the awning and trim are different types of metal and so that will need to be addressed.

Mr. Cook said the Planning Commission needs to be careful not to change an ordinance to meet the needs of one building.

Ms. Buxton said visually there is a big difference between 20% and 30%. She supports somewhere around 20%.

Mr. Scholz agreed an ordinance should not be changed for one project, but this ordinance is artificially restrictive in Orems situation. South Jordan approved it without discussion. It has not been reviewed in 16 years and it is probably due for an update.

Chair Larsen said she supports staff taking time to go over the ordinance and write something that can be applied across the board, not just for this building.

Chair Larsen said she supported having 20% metal. Mr. Moulton said it needs to be more specific. Mr. Earl said the more specific it is the easier it is to enforce. The Planning Commission suggested having the applicant work with staff and have them return with something more specific.

Chair Larsen opened the public hearing and invited those from the audience who had come to speak to this item to come forward to the microphone.

When no one came forward, Chair Larsen closed the public hearing and asked if the Planning Commission had any more questions for the applicant or staff. When none did, she called for a motion on this item.

Planning Commission Action: Chair Larsen moved to continue this item until the March 1, 2017 meeting. Mr. Moulton seconded the motion. Those voting aye: Becky Buxton, Carl Cook, Carlos Iglesias, Karen Jeffreys, Lynnette Larsen, and David Moulton. The motion passed unanimously.

Chair Larsen introduced Agenda Item 3.4 as follows:

Agenda Item 3.4 is a request by amending Section 22-14-18(E) of the Orem City Code pertaining to temporary site plans.

Staff Presentation: Mr. Stroud said the applicant runs a temporary snow cone business every year in Orem. Temporary site plans are approved for a maximum of 120 days a year. The applicant feels this time is too short for a temporary business such as his and would like to remain in operation for a longer period of time. The applicant feels his business can effectively operate from May to September, which is longer than the currently permitted 120 days. Temporary site plan approval is proposed to increase from a maximum of 120 days to a maximum of 180 days. This time frame coincides with the building code which requires permanent structures for uses longer than 180 days.

22-14-18(E)

E. The City Manager shall impose a time limit upon all temporary sites. The time limit shall not exceed one hundred twenty eighty (1280) consecutive days which shall begin from the date of the issuance of the business license. Paragraph (O) provides an exception to this requirement.

Advantages

Provide service/goods to the general public for a longer period of time

Sales tax increase with additional time

Disadvantages

None identified

Recommendation: The Development Review Committee has determined this request will not negatively affect the City. The Project Coordinator recommends the Planning Commission forward a positive recommendation to the City Council to amend Section 22-14-18(E) of the Orem City Code pertaining to the maximum permitted time of a temporary site plan.

Chair Larsen asked if the Planning Commission had any questions for Mr. Stroud.

Chair Larsen asked if the fees would increase. Mr. Stroud said yes.

Chair Larsen then asked if there had been any problems in the past. Mr. Stroud said there is a bond that is kept for cleanup problems.

Chair Larsen invited the applicant to come forward. Trevor King introduced himself.

Mr. King said that other cities have a six month period. When his temporary business closes down his customers go to the surrounding cities, this is a loss of revenue for him.

Chair Larsen opened the public hearing and invited those from the audience who had come to speak to this item to come forward to the microphone.

When no one came forward, Chair Larsen closed the public hearing and asked if the Planning Commission had any more questions for the applicant or staff. When none did, she called for a motion on this item.

Planning Commission Action: Mr. Igelsias said he is satisfied that the Planning Commission has found this request complies with all applicable City codes. He moved to recommend the City Council amend Section 22-14-18(E) of the Orem City Code pertaining to temporary site plans. Ms. Jeffreys seconded the motion. Those voting aye: Becky Buxton, Carl Cook, Carlos Iglesias, Karen Jeffreys, Lynnette Larsen, and David Moulton. The motion passed unanimously.

Minutes: The Planning Commission reviewed the minutes from the previous meeting. Chair Larsen then called for a motion to approve the minutes of February 1, 2017. Ms. Buxton moved to approve the meeting minutes for February 1, 2017. Mr. Igelsias seconded the motion. Those voting aye: Becky Buxton, Carl Cook, Carlos Iglesias, Karen Jeffreys, Lynnette Larsen, and David Moulton. The motion passed unanimously.

Adjourn: Chair Larsen moved to adjourn. Mr. Cook seconded the motion. Those voting aye: Becky Buxton, Carl Cook, Carlos Iglesias, Karen Jeffreys, Lynnette Larsen, and David Moulton. The motion passed unanimously.

Adjourn: 5:25 p.m.

Jason Bench

Planning Commission Secretary

Approved: March 1, 2017

1

5