The Lindon City Council held a regularly scheduled meeting beginning with a Work Session at 6:00 p.m. on Tuesday, November 18, 2003 in the Lindon City Center, City Council Chambers, at 100 North State Street, Lindon, Utah.

Conducting: Larry A. Ellertson, Mayor

PRESENT

Larry A. Ellertson, Mayor
Jeff Acerson, Councilmember
H. Toby Bath, Councilmember
Lindsey Bayless, Councilmember
James A. Dain, Councilmember (arrived at 6:07 p.m.)
Jerald I. Hatch, Councilmember
Ott H. Dameron, City Administrator
Kevin Smith, Planning Director
Venla Gubler, Administrative Clerk

ABSENT

WORK SESSION - 6:00 p.m.

The Mayor and City Council will meet in the City Center for a work session relating to the proposed ordinance for Assisted Living Centers.

The Work Session began at 6:04 p.m. Mayor Ellertson introduced the subject of the work session as an opportunity to discuss the proposed ordinance for assisted living centers. He noted that there was information in the packet, including a draft ordinance. He observed that this meeting is a work session for discussion only and that no action would be taken.
Mr. Smith pointed out the changes made from suggestions at the last meeting. He noted a change on page one, line 23 that addresses a common kitchen facility. This would prevent condos being built under the guise of an assisted living facility.

(Councilmember Dain arrived at 6:07 p.m.)

Mayor Ellertson referred to Mr. Brad Hall's notes and suggestions which were included in the staff report. He commented on Mr. Hall's question about the definition and sizing of the facilities by the number of beds tying in to the existing State requirements. He verified with Mr. Smith that the City can set its own code separate from the State. Mr. Smith replied that these definitions and sizing limits are based on zoning and have nothing to do with the requirements for State licensing. He noted that these definitions are the same as many of the other cities in Utah County.

Councilmember Hatch commented that the code for small group homes was written by the City Attorney. This proposed ordinance refers to the existing group home ordinance and sets a maximum limit of twelve beds for small group homes. He observed that the first group home in Lindon was restricted to eight boys and not twelve. Mayor Ellertson commented that he had briefly looked through the existing group home ordinance and did not see a number listed. Mr. Dameron replied that the application Councilmember Hatch is referring to came back to the Council several times for hearings. He noted that although the City limited the number on this particular application to eight, the State allows twelve. Mr. Smith commented that the limits are determined on a per case basis based on need and the neighborhood, with a maximum of twelve.

Mr. Smith informed the Council that he had attended a panel discussion at the last American Planning Association (APA) conference. The panel of three experts could not come to a consensus on the size of a small group home and the definition of a disability. He suggested that the City should follow the advice of their legal counsel on this controversial subject. Mayor Ellertson commented that the licensing entity of the state may be different for each different type or group of citizens. Mr. Smith agreed. He felt that the City Code should just require an applicant to apply for and be granted the necessary State license for their particular facility.

Councilmember Hatch suggested that all the different types of facilities could be lumped together in the group home ordinance and a separate ordinance was unnecessary. Mr. Smith commented that the existing group home ordinance seems to work for small group homes as written. Councilmember Acerson noted that the group home ordinance deals with four or five different groups or classes of citizens that have different protections.

Mayor Ellertson suggested that the project design regulations proposed for the new ordinance should be added to the small group home ordinance. He noted that the new ordinance specifically mentions medium size. This proposal limits medium sized facilities from thirteen to thirty-two beds. He noted that Mr. Hall suggests a limit of sixteen beds in residential areas. Mr. Smith expressed the opinion that if a developer has a large parcel, up to thirty-two beds may be compatible. He also commented that the Planning Commission had recommended the larger number of beds for residential areas.

Councilmember Dain observed that the proposal has a requirement of 2,000 square feet per bed and a minimum 26,000 square foot lot. He asked if the Planning Commission intended to preclude one-half acre (20,000 sq. ft.) lots from being developed into assisted living centers. Mr. Smith replied that this issue had not been specifically discussed. Councilmember Dain suggested that the one-half acre lot not be excluded.

Mayor Ellertson asked how this ordinance will pertain to the R2 Overlay Ordinance. Councilmember Dain commented that he also had this question. He wondered what would happen if an assisted living center was built and then an R2 project was put in next door. He suggested that there should be a separation requirement. The Council agreed. Mr. Scott Farrer, of 623 West 20 South, observed that assisted living centers have less traffic and congestion than an R2 Project. Councilmember Dain commented that the current R2 ordinance does not allow as many units as the Green Valley project contains. The Green Valley Condominium project was discussed along with its proximity to the proposed assisted living center.

Councilmember Bayless observed that another issue is clarification on the largest size that can be built. Mr. Smith noted that the Planning Commission had discussed this issue and could not agreed on what is "too big." They felt that anything larger than thirty-two beds should be in the commercial zone and that larger facilities could be located in residential areas that border commercial zones. Councilmember Dain disagreed and expressed the opinion that this would have the effect of making the commercial zone larger. He suggested that the larger facilities should be limited to the existing commercial zone, and a maximum number of beds should be considered. Mayor Ellertson asked if the State had a restriction on how large facilities can become. Mr. Farrer replied no. There was a discussion about the relative sizes of other existing facilities in Utah County.

Mr. Dameron suggested a maximum limit of fifty beds. Councilmember Dain expressed the opinion that there should be a wider spread between thirty-two and fifty. Mayor Ellertson asked him which number he felt was wrong–the thirty-two or the fifty. Councilmember Dain replied that he was not sure. He just feels that the numbers are too close together. Mr. Smith asked what the Council would think if a proposal came in for 220 beds on a ten acre parcel in the commercial zone. Mayor Ellertson suggested a maximum limit on the acreage of a project. Councilmember Dain asked if the intent is to require 2,000 square feet per bed in the commercial zone also. Mr. Smith replied that the proposed ordinance is written this way. Mr. Dameron asked if the Council wants Lindon's commercial zone on State Street used for this or saved to expand the tax base. Councilmember Dain commented that the commercially zoned property on the west side of Lindon is a good candidate for these types of projects.

Councilmember Hatch observed that the largest facility in Orem is about fifty beds. He suggested that the Council compare the sizes of the cities and then asked if Lindon was attempting to take care of it's own or make money on other cities' overflow. Councilmember Dain asked if the Council was comfortable with the limit of thirty-two on the medium sized facility. Mayor Ellertson noted that the question is whether this number maintains the residential character of the neighborhood.

Councilmember Dain wondered if a facility would appear more residential if the parking was moved to the back of the parcel. Mr. Smith informed the Council that the Planning Commission suggests that landscaping be used to obscure the parking lot. They felt that expanding the setbacks to thirty feet all around a facility would help in this respect. The Council discussed this issue. Councilmember Dain commented that this was another area that seemed to preclude the one-half acre lot. He pointed out that two side setbacks equal sixty feet and that many one-half acre lots have minimal frontage. He noted that a lot with one hundred feet of frontage less the sixty for setbacks would leave a building that is only forty feet wide. Councilmember Bayless observed that a small facility like a Beehive Home could be built on a half-acre lot.

The Council discussed the group home ordinance and how it is affected by this ordinance. Mr. Brad Hall, of 612 North 75 West, commented that a facility is a business and should be treated as such, rather than as a type of residence. Councilmember Bath suggested that if it is treated as a residence or an R2 project, then it cannot be built within a certain radius of other projects. Councilmember Hatch felt that all group homes should be handled within one ordinance so that there is consistency. Councilmember Dain commented that the R2 ordinance has a maximum project size of six units on one acre or larger. He asked if that was what the Council envisioned for assisted living facilities. Councilmember Bayless responded that the purpose for creating an ordinance is to make a facility fit within the community, and to respond to a social need. Mayor Ellertson asked if thirty-two is the right number.

Mayor Ellertson commented that parking, height, and notification are noted as additional issues. Councilmember Dain commented that the height of a building is proposed to be limited to one story with a maximum of twenty-four feet. Mayor Ellertson asked why the Planning Commission was opposed to two-story buildings. Mr. Smith explained that the Planning Commission felt that a building with such a large footprint would not fit into the residential character of a neighborhood if it was also two-story. Councilmember Dain confirmed that the idea was to reduce the height to compensate for the footprint size. Mr. Dameron commented that the Planning Commission has the ability to address the height to see if it will fit into the neighborhood. Councilmember Dain asked if the Planning Commission can approve a height over thirty-five feet. He suggested that language be added to limit the height to no higher than the zone allows.

Councilmember Acerson observed that parking is usually never a problem unless it is a holiday or special program night. He wondered if the parking requirement was high. Mayor Ellertson commented that it was nice to have the parking available. He suggested that facilities in commercial zones may need more parking than those located in residential zones. Councilmember Bayless suggested that the parking be on a ratio to the number of beds rather than the number of residents. Mayor Ellertson noted that if a facility is sold and changes use, the parking requirement may not be sufficient. Mr. Farrer commented that the residents of a facility may like to be protected from the parking also. He noted that putting parking behind a structure puts the parking nearer to the bedrooms of the facility as well as the neighbors. He added that putting a facility next to the road may make it appear larger than if it were behind the parking. He expressed the opinion that the parking could be obscured with landscaping. Councilmember Hatch agreed.

There was further discussion on buffering residential housing from facilities in an adjacent commercial zone and putting parking in front of the facilities. Mayor Ellertson commented that there is a fine balance between architecture and need. He noted that there is a discrepancy on the noticing distance, and pointed out that the group home is 1,000 feet while this ordinance proposes 750 feet. He summarized the issues briefly and suggested that the Council close the work session and move into the regular agenda.

The Work Session was closed at 7:08 p.m.

PRESENTATION - Councilmember Bayless will present a recently completed quilt to the city. This quilt was made by the "Basting Buddies" group of which Mrs. Bayless is a member.

Councilmember Bayless explained that the "Basting Buddies" is a quilting organization that uses the Veterans Hall as a meeting place. They have stitched this display quilt in appreciation for allowing them to use the building. They would appreciate it if the quilt was hung in the building. She pointed out that the quilt is all hand pieced and quilted. There was applause from the audience and pictures were taken for the newspaper.

REGULAR SESSION - 7:00 p.m.

Conducting: Larry A. Ellertson, Mayor
Pledge of Allegiance: Larry A. Ellertson
Invocation: Jerald Hatch

PRESENT

Larry A. Ellertson, Mayor
Jeff Acerson, Councilmember
H. Toby Bath, Councilmember
Lindsey Bayless, Councilmember
James A. Dain, Councilmember
Jerald I. Hatch, Councilmember
Ott H. Dameron, City Administrator
Kevin Smith, Planning Director
Venla Gubler, Administrative Clerk

ABSENT

The meeting began at 7:19 p.m.

MINUTES - The minutes will be ready for review on December 2, 2003.

OPEN SESSION

There was no public comment. It was reopened later. See below.

MAYOR'S COMMENTS/REPORT

Mayor Ellertson reported on some things happening in our community. He informed the audience that there is an attempt in progress to upgrade telecommunication services by creating a fiber system into our homes and businesses. He commented that Lindon is one of the participants in this project called UTOPIA. The Council will have to come to some decisions soon and would appreciate any comments from the public concerning this proposal.

Mayor Ellertson noted that another imminent question is the extension of commuter rail to Utah County. There were questions from the audience on the differences between commuter rail and light rail. Mayor Ellertson commented that the commuter rail will be a high speed rail system on the rail line near Utah Lake. Mr. Dameron asked if both commuter and light rail were coming to Utah County. Mayor Ellertson replied that UTA has the option of extending both systems, but it is not certain yet. He informed the Council and audience that UTA is applying for federal funding to implement the commuter rail system and is proposing an interlocal agreement with 40 communities along the Wasatch Front. He asked if there were any further questions. There were none.

CONSENT AGENDA

1. Zoning Ordinance Amendment - Single Family Residential. The City Council held a public meeting on October 21, 2003 to consider this ordinance amendment. The Council then asked that this item, with a few suggested changes, be placed on the Consent Agenda for approval during this meeting.

COUNCILMEMBER BATH MOVED TO APPROVE ORDINANCE #2003-15, AMENDING AND REVISING CHAPTER 17.44.- R1-SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL, OF THE LINDON CITY CODE. COUNCILMEMBER DAIN SECONDED THE MOTION. THE VOTE IS RECORDED AS FOLLOWS:
COUNCILMEMBER ACERSON AYE
COUNCILMEMBER BATH AYE
COUNCILMEMBER BAYLESS AYE
COUNCILMEMBER DAIN AYE
COUNCILMEMBER HATCH AYE
THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY (5-0).

CURRENT BUSINESS

1. Continued Public Hearing - Zoning Ordinance Amendment - Assisted Living Centers. The City Council will hear public comment and possibly act to approve a proposed ordinance amendment adding Chapter 17.72 - Assisted Living Centers to the Lindon City Code.

COUNCILMEMBER DAIN MOVED TO OPEN THE CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING. COUNCILMEMBER ACERSON SECONDED THE MOTION. ALL PRESENT VOTED IN FAVOR. THE MOTION CARRIED.

Mayor Ellertson commented that the Council had spent the last hour in a work session on this subject. He asked if there was any public input.

Mr. Scott Farrer commented that most of the problems Lindon faces are growth related, such as traffic. He noted the population is getting older and Lindon needs to look to the future. He acknowledged that assisted living centers could be put in commercial areas or on the west side, however, there is a segment of Lindon that is favorable to putting them nearer our homes in our residential neighborhoods. He acknowledged that there are impacts that need to be adjusted to, but bigger facilities have more amenities and things to do. He observed that he thinks the ordinance which has been proposed is good. He approves of the restrictions on architecture, spacing, and collector location. He feels that these regulations are conservative and good for Lindon.

Mr. Brad Hall observed that one issue that has never been addressed is the possibility of multiple buildings and semi- trucks making deliveries to medium and large facilities. He felt that this traffic needs to be addressed. He also expressed the opinion that Lindon was proposing to penalize those who want to build a small assisted living center under the State code with more regulations. He suggested that these units may have more parking than residents. He felt that Lindon's regulations should align with the State of Utah's requirement. He also felt that there should be a cap on the largest facility that can be built in Lindon. He noted some inconsistencies between Lindon City Code 17.70 and 17.72 that should be changed. He considers the biggest loophole between the two is that a developer can build a small assisted living center next to a medium sized one.

Mayor Ellertson asked if there were other comments from the public. He noted that the Council had identified a number of issues in their work session. Councilmember Bayless suggested that Section 17.72 should be made independent of Section 17.70. Councilmember Hatch suggested that the two ordinances should be combined into one. They discussed their views on the two ordinances. Councilmember Dain expressed the opinion that there should at least be consistency between the group home ordinance (17.70), the assisted living ordinance (17.72) and the R2 Overly or high density ordinance (17.46). Councilmember Bayless felt that the ordinances should not be combined, but be clearly defined and made common references. Councilmember Hatch expressed the opinion that assisted living centers and group homes affect the density of a neighborhood and should fit somehow under the R2 Overlay. The Council agreed with this assessment.

Councilmember Hatch observed that from the information submitted, one could assume that the average size of a facility in Utah County is twenty-four beds. He suggested that this should be the cap on size in a residential area. Mr. Randy Jones, of 517 North Locust Avenue, commented that the other facilities in Utah County were not placed within existing homes, but in undeveloped, open areas, and other homes then filled in around them. He also commented that the R2 project, Green Valley Condominiums, was too close. This neighborhood is already denser than it should be. He agrees with the statements of need and of being in residential areas, but not this neighborhood. He objected to having the largest facility built in a residential neighborhood added to his neighborhood. Ms. Amy Jones, same address, observed that the neighbors are willing to accept twenty-five beds, but not much larger. Mr. Hall added that the largest built in an established neighborhood is only twenty-one beds.

Mr. Farrer asked the residents and Council to explain their objections. He asked if it is the traffic or the appearance. Ms. Jones asked if the opinions of the neighborhood count. She expressed the opinion that residents of smaller facilities will get better care. Councilmember Hatch responded that the issue is not traffic, but the balance with the neighborhood. Mr. Farrer confirmed that the objections center on the size of the building. Councilmember Hatch felt that it was the number of beds. Mr. Jones objected to the size of the building itself. Mr. Farrer observed that if the issue is not traffic, then the additional setback, lower height, and collector street location are the ways that have been used to mitigate the size. He suggested that Lindon needs to look to the future and respond to a need. He expressed the opinion that the proposed ordinance is reasonable and conservative. Mr. Mike Marchbanks, of 140 South 400 West, echoed similar sentiments.

Councilmember Hatch expressed a preference for two twenty-five bed facilities rather than one fifty bed facility. He felt that this alternative keeps a balanced neighborhood. Ms. Elaine Farrer responded that smaller facilities had a harder time providing their residents with activities. The reason for the larger facilities is to provide more amenities to the residents. Ms. Jones observed that a facility is required to provide activities for the residents whether they are large or not. Mr. Hall asserted that having a larger facility does not guarantee more amenities. He pointed out that Lehi's Greenwood Manor is smaller, but has a full-time activities director. They also have a waiting list and a full facility. Their director attributes their success to the activities director and low staff turnover.

Mr. Farrer asked the members of the audience if they support the proposed ordinance. Mr. Jones replied that he had concerns. Mr. Farrer asked him if he did not support the proposed ordinance. Mr. Jones replied that he did not feel that facilities should be put in established residential areas. Mayor Ellertson asked the audience members to direct their comments to the Council. He asked Mr. Smith what was needed to present a new draft based on these comments. Mr. Smith replied that he needed to do some research and needed time to work on the new draft. Mayor Ellertson noted that the next meetings were December 2, 16, and January 6th. He suggested that another work session be planned for December 16.

Mr. Farrer asked what is going to change in the next month. Mayor Ellertson explained that the issues discussed during this meeting and the work session preceding it would be distilled into the ordinance. Mr. Farrer commented that the same things are being talked about that he thought had been settled months ago. He added that it was frustrating. Mayor Ellertson observed that progress was being made, but in the spirit of openness, it was important to have community involvement.

Mr. Dameron summarized the issues. Councilmember Bayless explained that this ordinance not only affects Mr. Farrer's project, but how best to assimilate these facilities throughout the community. Mr. Farrer commented that the Planning Commission had done all the research and made a list of recommendations to the Council. Mayor Ellertson replied that the Planning Commission had left some questions up to the Council, such as; mingling facilities with the R2 Overlay, addressing an upper limit on the size of the facility, and consistency between the ordinances. Councilmember Dain suggested that the Planning Commission knew they had the luxury of sending this ordinance to the Council for final amendments. He felt that if they knew they had the last look, they may have taken more time. The Council discussed the list of issues. Councilmember Dain mentioned the maximum size, distance between projects, and R2 integration. Councilmember Bayless felt that the maximum size should also include those in commercial districts. Mr. Smith commented that he would involve the City Attorney in combining the group home ordinance and the assisted living ordinance. He also would work on definitions for the various types of homes for the elderly, such as assisted living, rest homes, and retirement homes. He will address the issues of parking , landscaping, light pollution, noticing, separation between projects, and location on collector. Councilmember Dain asked if the Council would like some input from the Planning Commission on these issues. It was decided to take these issues to the next Planning Commission meeting for opinions and recommendations.

COUNCILMEMBER BAYLESS MOVED TO CONTINUE AND READVERTISE A PUBLIC HEARING FOR JANUARY 6, 2004 TO CONSIDER A ZONING ORDINANCE REGULATING ASSISTED LIVING FACILITIES. STAFF IS INSTRUCTED TO RESEARCH THE LIST OF ISSUES IDENTIFIED IN THE PRECEDING DISCUSSION, SOLICIT THE PLANNING COMMISSION'S RECOMMENDATIONS AND BRING AN AMENDED DRAFT TO A WORK SESSION ON DECEMBER 16, 2003. COUNCILMEMBER HATCH SECONDED THE MOTION. ALL PRESENT VOTED IN FAVOR. THE MOTION CARRIED.
COUNCILMEMBER HATCH MOVED TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. COUNCILMEMBER BAYLESS SECONDED THE MOTION. ALL PRESENT VOTED IN FAVOR. THE MOTION CARRIED.

2. Review and Action - 600 North Main Street - Problem Mitigation. The City Council will discuss and decide on possible mitigation efforts to help control vehicle speeds at the intersection of 600 North and the future Main Street due to a recent automobile accident in the vicinity where the driver of a vehicle was attempting to jump a noticeable rise in the street.

Mayor Ellertson commented that this item is in response to suggestions made at a community meeting. Mr. Dameron listed the staff recommendations to help mitigate and control vehicle speeds on 600 North. He noted that the City Engineer, Mark Christensen, was present to answer questions from the Council and public. He noted that a traffic and speed study are underway. Street lights have been ordered from UP&L. A stop sign has also been ordered for the intersection of 600 North and 75 West. Speed limit signs have been ordered and will be installed upon arrival. More traffic enforcement has been requested, and inquiries are being made into the purchase and installation of rubber speed humps. Mr. Jim Peters, Planning Commissioner and resident of 600 North, asked about striping to narrow the road. Councilmember Acerson mentioned that 200 South had been recently restriped and that it does help to slow motorists down. Councilmember Bath agreed.

Councilmember Acerson asked about the rubber speed humps. Mr. Dameron replied that they are a temporary measure to test their effectiveness. The advantage is that they can be moved to other areas and reused. Mayor Ellertson wondered about the long term impact of humps. He noted that motorists get used to their locations and the speed "creeps back up." He asked for the neighborhood's impression of speeds since the accident. Mr. Peters mentioned a young man that had made an impression with his speed. There was a mention of snow removal and ice compounding the danger of speeds. Mr. Dameron assured the residents that the City Public Works Department would focus on snow removal in this area.

Mr. Peters recommended another speed hump between Main Street and Locust Avenue. He noted that most of the speeding is in this area. Ms. Miriel Burton of 619 North 75 West placed a vote against the stop sign. She requested a yield sign. Captain Cody Cullimore commented that the stop sign is a great reminder to look first. This was discussed. Mr. Hall asked where the street lights would be placed. The approximate location was pinpointed. Mr. Gary Otterstrom, of 649 North 75 West, asked about putting in a "mini-roundabout." Mr. Christensen replied that the size of this intersection makes a roundabout unfeasible. Mayor Ellertson added that the cost is also prohibitive.

The grade of 600 North and the intersection with Main Street was discussed. Mr. Otterstrom mentioned that development of Main Street is something for the distant future and asked why a hump was created in 600 North now. Mr. Christensen replied that the design for Main Street was determined when the water lines were put in. The level of the intersection is dependent on Main Street's elevation. The issue was discussed. Mr. Christensen noted that he would look at the intersection with this in mind.

Mr. Peters asked again for one more speed bump. He also noted that homeowners pulling out of their driveways cannot see west bound traffic in the dip of Main Street and 600 North. Mr. Dameron asked for the Council's decision on striping. There was consensus to go ahead and narrow the street with striping according to the MUTCD. Mr. Otterstrom recommended a roundabout. Mr. Carl Nielson commented that a roundabout would compound the visibility problem. He also noted that motorists had driven over the one on 400 North and 400 East. Mr. Christensen commented that the roundabout would not be effective because there is no cross street. Councilmember Bath also noted that roundabouts are not pedestrian friendly. It was discussed. There was also a discussion of speed bump heights.

COUNCILMEMBER DAIN MOVED TO APPROVE THE TRAFFIC MITIGATION MEASURES AS RECOMMENDED BY STAFF AND ADD STRIPING ACCORDING TO THE MUTCD. COUNCILMEMBER HATCH SECONDED THE MOTION. ALL PRESENT VOTED IN FAVOR. THE MOTION CARRIED.

3. Review and Action - Utah Auto Sales - Site Plan Amendment. This is a request by Kevin Gallagher, of Utah Auto Sales, to expand a legal non-conforming use to an area on the west side of State Street. The Planning Commission recommended approval with conditions.

Mr. Smith informed the Council that Mr. Gallagher had called and requested a continuance.

COUNCILMEMBER BATH MOVED TO CONTINUE THE REQUEST BY KEVIN GALLAGHER, OF UTAH AUTO SALES, TO APPROVE THE EXPANSION OF A LEGAL NON-CONFORMING USE TO AN AREA ON THE WEST SIDE OF STATE STREET. COUNCILMEMBER HATCH SECONDED THE MOTION. ALL PRESENT VOTED IN FAVOR. THE MOTION CARRIED.

4. Preliminary Plat - Ostler Industrial Park, Plat "E." This is a request by Mike Ahlin, of Ostler Industrial Park, for preliminary subdivision approval of Ostler Industrial Park, Plat "E", one-lot, at 150 South 1800 West. The Planning Commission recommended approval.

Mr. Smith displayed an aerial photo of the area and the proposed subdivision plat. He informed the Council that the applicant proposes to add one more lot to Ostler Industrial Park and extend the road. He added that staff had no concerns and the Planning Commission had recommended approval to the Council. The utility easements were discussed.

COUNCILMEMBER DAIN MOVED TO APPROVE THE REQUEST BY MIKE AHLEN FOR OSTLER INDUSTRIAL PARK, PLAT "E," A ONE-LOT SUBDIVISION AT 150 SOUTH 1800 WEST. COUNCILMEMBER HATCH SECONDED THE MOTION. ALL PRESENT VOTED IN FAVOR. THE MOTION CARRIED.

5. Discussion - Proposed UTA Interlocal Agreement and JPAC. Mayor Ellertson will update the City Council concerning a proposed Interlocal Agreement between UTA and all cities along the proposed alignment of the commuter rail line. In addition, he will discuss the Joint Policy Advisory Committee.

Mayor Ellertson directed attention to a copy of the proposed agreement in the staff report. He noted that this agreement has changed somewhat concerning a number of issues. He observed that the main conceptual issues will remain as is. He commented that this agreement is proposed in lieu of legislation at the State level. He explained some of the items of note in the agreement. One is that it will allow for participation between the cities and the UTA in the environmental process. Another is the obligation of UTA to mitigate degradation. He commented that the cities can choose upgrades beyond the existing standard of the rail corridor, but they will be responsible for the upgrade costs. This will allow UTA to apply for a grant and not have to allow for extra costs. Mayor Ellertson informed the Council that the timetable for a decision on this agreement is possibly January 2004. Councilmember Hatch asked about a crossing for 700 North. Mayor Ellertson replied that this crossing is already approved. He added that the agreement expedites crossing agreements. Councilmember Bath asked if the agreement covers light or commuter rail. Mayor Ellertson replied both. Councilmember Hatch asked if there was a provision for weed abatement. Mayor Ellertson replied that weed abatement measures are implied to be the same as TRAX. This was discussed.

6. Review and Action - Quit Claim Deed. This is a request by staff to quit claim a small portion of the multi-use trail at approximately 950 East to Reid and Linda Turley, neighbors to the trail. This action would allow the Turley's to square up their fence and eliminate an unnecessary corner in the trail.

Mayor Ellertson explained the purpose and intent of the quit claim deed is to remove a small, unnecessary corner in the trail.

COUNCILMEMBER HATCH MOVED TO APPROVE A QUIT CLAIM DEED TO REID AND LINDA TURLEY FOR A SMALL PORTION OF A MULTI-USE TRAIL AT APPROXIMATELY 950 EAST, AND AUTHORIZE THE MAYOR TO SIGN ON BEHALF OF LINDON CITY. COUNCILMEMBER BATH SECONDED THE MOTION. ALL PRESENT VOTED IN FAVOR. THE MOTION CARRIED.

COUNCIL REPORTS:

WATER, GENERAL PLAN, BUILDING INSPECTION, ENGINEERING

Councilmember Dain asked when the ribbon cutting for 700 North would be held. Mr. Dameron replied that it was planned for the first week of December. Councilmember Dain asked about progress on UTOPIA. This was discussed.

SEWER, SOLID WASTE, PUBLIC BUILDINGS AND PROPERTIES

Councilmember Hatch reported that he had received a citizen complaint about the new culvert at the Super Bowl. He relayed the concern that the pipe is two-feet below what will flow. Mr. Dameron explained that the project had been started with no idea of the elevation of the present structure. The plan is to adjust and set the pipe to facilitate the flows. Councilmember Hatch reported that heavy flows in this pipe have backed up in the past to flood this resident's basement. Mayor Ellertson commented that the purpose of this project is not to create a problem. Mr. Dameron suggested having the engineer, Dave Thurgood, talk to Councilmember Hatch about this potential problem. He invited Councilmember Hatch to the next engineering coordination meeting on Thursday, November 20. Councilmember Hatch checked his schedule and then offered to just call Mr. Thurgood. Mr. Dameron replied that he would have Mr. Thurgood call Councilmember Hatch. Councilmembers Acerson and Bayless volunteered to attend the engineering coordination meeting.

TRAILS, PLANNING, ZONING, BOARD OF ADJUSTMENTS, ADMINISTRATION

Councilmember Bayless informed the Council that if they wanted COSTCO cards to get with Kathy Bird, Accounts Payable. She asked some questions of Captain Cullimore, present in the audience, about the incident reports. She also commented on the support for the Utah Lake Parkway.

STREET, SIDEWALKS, PUBLIC SAFETY AND COURT

Councilmember Bath asked Captain Cullimore if he had anything to report. Captain Cody Cullimore asked about getting keys to the new gates at Dry Canyon and the Staging Area. Mr. Dameron replied that he would obtain the keys for Captain Cullimore.

PARKS, RECREATION, EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT, LINDON FAIR, NEWSLETTER

Councilmember Acerson asked for suggestions on a chairperson for Lindon Days. This was discussed. Mr. Dameron commented that the Armstrongs would be presenting the 2003 Lindon Days report on December 2, 2003.

ADMINISTRATOR'S REPORT

Mr. Dameron:
1. Informed the Council of a meeting between UDOT officals, Mayor Ellertson, Councilmember Bath, and members of staff on Friday, November 21. This meeting is to discuss crossing State Street with the TimpLake Trail.
2. Noted an Economic Development Summit meeting will be held on Monday, November 24, 2003 at 10:00 a.m. at the City Center. Councilmember Acerson volunteered to attend.
3. Reminded the Council that the City Center would be closed for Thanksgiving on Thursday and Friday, November 27 and 28th.
4. Asked for requests from the project tracking list. There were none.

OPEN SESSION

Mrs. Brad Pitman, asked for time from the Council. She asked about the decision not to sell the land behind her home to her for a corral and small barn. The Council discussed the dimensions of the parcel and the plans for a natural park. Councilmember Acerson suggested that she draw the boundaries of her proposal on an aerial photo so the Council has a better understanding of her idea. Mayor Ellertson agreed that it may help to clarify her request. She was asked to meet with Mr. Dameron the next day at the city offices.

Executive Session - The City Council will meet privately for the purpose of discussing the acquisition of real property. (UT Code 52-4-4)

COUNCILMEMBER DAIN MOVED TO ADJOURN THE CITY COUNCIL AND CONVENE THE EXECUTIVE SESSION AT 9:33 P.M. COUNCILMEMBER BAYLESS SECONDED THE MOTION. ALL PRESENT VOTED IN FAVOR. THE MOTION CARRIED.

COUNCILMEMBER BATH MOVED TO ADJOURN THE EXECUTIVE SESSION AND RECONVENE THE CITY COUNCIL MEETING AT 10:21 P.M. COUNCILMEMBER HATCH SECONDED THE MOTION. ALL PRESENT VOTED IN FAVOR. THE MOTION CARRIED.

COUNCILMEMBER DAIN MOVED TO APPROVE THE PAY VOUCHERS. COUNCILMEMBER ACERSON SECONDED THE MOTION. ALL PRESENT VOTED IN FAVOR. THE MOTION CARRIED.

ADJOURN

COUNCILMEMBER HATCH MOVED TO ADJOURN THE CITY COUNCIL MEETING AT 10:24 P.M. COUNCILMEMBER ACERSON SECONDED THE MOTION. ALL PRESENT VOTED IN FAVOR. THE MOTION CARRIED.

APPROVED - December 16, 2003

back to top