The Lindon City Council held a regularly scheduled meeting on Tuesday, October 7, 2003 in the Lindon City Center, City Council Chambers, at 100 North State Street, Lindon, Utah.

Conducting: Larry A. Ellertson, Mayor
Pledge of Allegiance: Alex Harris, Troop 1201
Invocation: Ott Dameron

PRESENT

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

ABSENT

H. Toby Bath, Councilmember
Jerald I. Hatch, Councilmember

The meeting began at 7:12 p.m.

MINUTES - The minutes of the regular meeting of September 16, 2003 will be reviewed.

The minutes of the meeting of September 16, 2003 were reviewed. The following corrections were made:
Page 1, Line16,17: Add the phrase "due to its proximity to the Aqueduct and its value to the City" after the word "property."
Page 4, Line 14: Replace the word "will" with the word "may."
Page 8, Line 4: Replace the name "Winegar" with the name "Brown."
COUNCILMEMBER ACERSON MOVED TO APPROVE THE MINUTES OF THE MEETING OF SEPTEMBER 16, 2003 AS CORRECTED. COUNCILMEMBER DAIN SECONDED THE MOTION. ALL PRESENT VOTED IN FAVOR. THE MOTION CARRIED.

OPEN SESSION - Citizens Comments

There was no public comment.

MAYOR'S COMMENTS/REPORT

Mayor Ellertson told the public present about a celebration that had been held on Saturday, September 20 at the mouth of Dry Canyon. This event commemorated the transfer of hillside property from private to public hands to preserve this area for future generations. He expressed appreciation for all who were able to attend.

Mayor Ellertson gave an update on the various County meetings he had attended recently. He told of an effort by the State, with local ties, called UN Utah. This project promotes economic development for Utah communities with the goal of expanding the job market by 50,000 jobs in the next five years. They are looking for ideas from the communities they serve. He asked the residents to contact him with these ideas.

Mayor Ellertson informed the Council and audience that Senate Bill 243 has passed dealing with the preservation of transportation corridors. He told Mr. Dameron that this may be an opportunity for the City to develop the tie between 1200 East and 800 North. He asked Mr. Dameron to contact Mr. Shawn Eliot. Mayor Ellertson told the Council about the process to challenge the census. The Council discussed whether it was necessary for Lindon to pursue this avenue. Mayor Ellertson noted that there are only 60 days left to complete the protest. Mr. Larry Shipp, a Lindon resident, commented that he and other residents completing missions for the LDS Church had not been included in the census. The Council discussed the census and determined that there was no need to protest.

Mayor Ellertson observed that there is an ongoing effort to plan transportation systems within Utah County. He suggested that persons with questions or input should call Dan Nelson or Chad Echoles as Mountainland Association of Governments. He noted that there is planning underway for a transportation corridor on the west side of Salt Lake and Utah Counties from I-80 south to Saratoga Springs and then across the top of Utah Lake to the new Lindon/Pleasant Grove exit on I-15.

Mayor Ellertson commented that homeland security is receiving some attention. He asked Mr. Dameron to check with Chief Paul on the possibility of applying for a justice grant through this agency. He noted that fire as well as police can apply for grants.

Mayor Ellertson asked the audience and Council for suggestions on a person to represent Lindon on the Utah County Cultural Arts Board. He explained the committee's purpose. A member of the audience had a suggestion. Mr. Roger Gillies, resident of the Green Valley Condos, asked when 700 North would be finished. Mayor Ellertson replied that the section between State Street and Geneva Road would be finished this fall, and that there is no set date on the rest. He informed the audience that the City was working with the property owners within this section and he hoped to have resolution by next spring or summer.
Mayor Ellertson asked if there were any other questions. There were none.

CONSENT AGENDA - No Items

CURRENT BUSINESS

1. Public Hearing - Zoning Ordinance Amendment - Assisted Living Centers. The City Council will hear public comment and discuss this proposed ordinance amendment which would add Section 17.72 - Assisted Living Centers to the Lindon City Code. This will be the first review by the City Council of the proposed ordinance and as such will not normally be approved at this meeting, but continued to a future meeting for additional discussion.

COUNCILMEMBER BAYLESS MOVED TO OPEN BOTH PUBLIC HEARINGS ON THE AGENDA. COUNCILMEMBER DAIN SECONDED THE MOTION. ALL PRESENT VOTED IN FAVOR. THE MOTION CARRIED.

Mr. Smith distributed copies of the proposed ordinance to the audience. He explained that the Planning Commission had spent three meetings looking at this potential assisted living ordinance and recommended the current version to the Council. He noted that this proposed ordinance process stemmed from a development application that was denied by the Council earlier this year.

Mr. Smith pointed out that there were two issues that the Planning Commission had suggestions, but left the decision for the Council. One is whether to allow large assisted living centers in residential zones. Mr. Smith explained that small assisted living centers are regulated as group homes. This ordinance deals only with medium and large facilities. He conjectured that the City would mostly deal with medium-sized applications. The Planning Commission felt that large facilities could be in residential zones if it is to be located in a residential zone that borders on a commercial zone. The reason is that the facility could be accessed through the commercial zone. Mr. Smith suggested that an alternative to allowing large facilities in residential areas bordering commercial areas may be to change the zoning to commercial. Councilmember Dain felt that an application to change the zone may be the better choice. Councilmember Bayless agreed and noted that a "border area" may be hard to determine.

Mr. Smith suggested that each individual section of the ordinance be examined. He commented that §17.72.010 contains the definitions for the various sizes of assisted living centers. He noted that §17.72.020 states that assisted living centers are a conditional use. He explained the process to apply for and be granted a conditional use permit. He also explained that this section requires medium-sized assisted living centers to be located on collector or arterial streets. Large assisted living centers are limited to commercial zones.

Mr. Smith disclosed that §17.72.030 requires assisted living centers to be spaced 1500 feet from each other and any similar facility. Mayor Ellertson confirmed that this separation requirement applies even if the distance crosses a zoning border. Mr. Smith verified this requirement. Councilmember Bayless asked Mr. Smith to explain the benefit of spacing large assisted living centers within the commercial district. Councilmember Dain agreed. The Council discussed the reasons why large assisted living centers located in commercial districts should be required to adhere to the spacing requirement. Councilmember Bayless suggested that one reason might be the neighbor hood support. Councilmember Acerson asked if there was a specific reason for the 1500 feet. Mr. Smith replied no. Councilmember Acerson suggested that the spacing requirement may not be needed in the commercial zone. Councilmember Dain pointed out that Lindon's commercial district is along State Street and asked if the City should say "no" to two assisted living centers that would like to locate next to each other. This was discussed.

Mr. Smith pointed out that the Planning Commission had discussed whether assisted living centers should be counted as units under the R2 Overlay ordinance. He observed that this use does make neighborhoods more dense, however, he explained that he was unsure of how to determine the rate. He asked if each room should be counted as a unit, or whether some other rate would be more appropriate. Councilmember Dain commented that the Lindon City Standard Land Use Table considers this use separate and different from multi-family housing. Mr. Smith agreed. Councilmember Bayless pointed out that the persons inhabiting an assisted living center would have an impact on the community. Mr. Smith agreed that there would be impact in such areas as traffic volume, but pointed out that the impact would be less than a similar sized structure with apartments. Councilmember Bayless asked what the Planning Commission suggested. Mr. Smith replied that the Planning Commission asked the question. They had no recommendation, but felt that the issue should be discussed.

Mr. Smith observed that §17.72.040 deals with project size and §17.72.050 addresses project design. He noted that the Planning Commission had reviewed off-street parking information from around the United States and this recommended amount is the average. Councilmember Bayless asked if there are design standards for the "small" assisted living center in the group home ordinance. Mr. Smith replied yes. He noted that this ordinance does not address a specific number of parking spaces, but requires that the staffing requirements be reviewed and one space allowed for each staff member, and one visitor parking space is required for each three beds in the facility.

Councilmember Dain commented that the setbacks for the side yards had been increased to 30 feet. He asked if this requirement is to buffer a home. Mr. Smith replied yes. Councilmember Dain asked if may be excessive for a thirteen-bed facility. He pointed out that there are a number of lots in Lindon that are about 100 feet wide. If there is a 30-foot setback on each side, the building will only be 40 feet wide. He asked if this was sufficient width for a building to house a facility. This was discussed.

Mr. Smith noted that the proposed ordinance limits buildings to one story only. He explained that the Planning Commission felt that one-story facilities would have less impact on neighborhoods. Councilmember Acerson expressed the opinion that one-level living for elderly people in a facility would be better. He asked if other assisted living centers in the area had problems with visitor parking. Mr. Smith replied that he had a letter from Orem City stating that this city had not experienced problems with parking.
Councilmember Dain commented that this section restricts a one-story building to a maximum height of 28-feet. He noted that the rest of the City has a residential maximum height of 35-feet. Mr. Smith agreed. The Council discussed the height of a facility. Mayor Ellertson suggested that there may be times that a two-story facility would be appropriate. Mr. Smith observed that elevators in small or medium-sized facilities may not be feasible, but that large facilities in commercial districts could be considered. Councilmember Dain suggested that the one-story limitation be placed on the facilities placed in residential zones. The Council agreed.

Mr. Smith commented that the architectural style of a building should blend with the neighborhood. Councilmember Bayless noted that this requirement has worked well in the R2 Overlay ordinance. Mr. Smith observed that the ordinance does not repeat the State licensing requirements, but specifies that the entity operating the facility must be licensed and certified before occupancy. Mayor Ellertson suggested that a letter from the appropriate State Agency verifying application for licensing could be required before the building permit is issued. Mr. Smith read the rest of the statements that deal with the health and safety of the residents and neighborhood.

Mr. Smith observed that the final statement of this section states that a conditional use permit is non-transferrable. Councilmember Dain questioned not allowing an owner to sell his operation. This was discussed. Mr. Smith pointed that a new owner would have to apply for his own license with the State. This requirement would allow the City to review a conditional use permit and the operations of the new ownership. Mr. Smith observed that a conditional use permit can be revoked for violation of original conditions of approval.

Mr. Smith commented that §17.72.060 deals with noticing the neighbors of an application. He explained the noticing requirements and noted that all notices must be approved by the Development Review Committee before mailing. The Council discussed noticing and how it is received by residents. Mr. Smith observed that §17.72.070 addresses appeal of a denial. He commented that a denial by the Planning Commission can be appealed to the City Council. He noted that the provision can be set up for automatic Council review and then appeal to District Court. The Council discussed this suggestion.

Mayor Ellertson asked if there are other kinds of uses that may be classed as group care facilities. Councilmember Dain asked if a common kitchen is the determining factor in separating group care from other types. Mr. Smith read the definition of an assisted living center in the proposed ordinance and expressed the opinion that a developer cannot create apartments under this ordinance. Councilmember Dain suggested that a "common kitchen" be added to this description.

Mayor Ellertson asked if there was any public comment. Mr. Brad Hall, of 612 North 75 West, submitted a report on his suggestions for the ordinance. He commented that there are cases where §17.70 of the Lindon City Code would not apply to small-sized group homes. He also pointed out that the 1500-foot separation rule does not apply to small group homes. He also suggested that a one-level 11,000 square foot building does not "fit" into a residential neighborhood. He expressed the opinion that a maximum limit on the size should be considered for large facilities.

Mr. Scott Farrer, of 623 West 20 South, expressed the opinion that this proposed ordinance is "good." He commented that the Planning Commission had spent a good deal of time and that they were unanimous in their opinion that Lindon City needs such facilities. He commented that these requirements are conservative and in many cases more restrictive compared to other cities. He mentioned the lot size requirement of 2000 square feet per bed and the 30-foot setback as examples of more restrictive conditions. He commented that the parking requirement and the height restriction were more than adequate, but that the conditions are in line with what our City is about–the preservation of open space and a country atmosphere. He told the Council that he supports this ordinance.

Mr. Randy Jones, of 517 North Locust, expressed appreciation for the opportunity to express his views. He also expressed support for this ordinance.

Mayor Ellertson asked if there were any other comment or questions. Mr. Smith pointed out that Mr. Bruce Carpenter, chairman of the Planning Commission, was present in the audience. He asked Mr. Carpenter if he had any views or questions that he would like to add. Mr. Carpenter replied that the views and opinions of the Planning Commission had been presented fairly. He commented that the Planning Commission had tried to balance the needs of the community and its residents and not be too restrictive on the business. He observed that this is a business, but that the business is also of a residential nature.

Mr. Larry Shipp, of 234 North 910 East, asked if there was anything in the ordinance that requires maintenance of the building and grounds. Mr. Smith replied that upkeep of the grounds is covered in the nuisance ordinance and maintenance of the building in the building code standards.

Councilmember Dain asked the reason for restricting this use on collector and arterial streets. He asked if the Green Valley Condos would be considered as fronting on a collector street where there is a retention basin along Locust Avenue and an entrance street. Mr. Smith replied that the reason for the restriction is to mitigate traffic concerns. He brought up a map of Lindon City and pointed out the collector and arterial streets.

Mayor Ellertson suggested a work session to discuss this ordinance in detail. The Council agreed and, after discussion, decided on November 18, 2003.

COUNCILMEMBER DAIN MOVED TO CONTINUE THE REQUEST TO ADOPT SECTION 17.72 - ASSISTED LIVING CENTERS OF THE LINDON CITY CODE TO THE MEETING OF NOVEMBER 18, 2003. COUNCILMEMBER ACERSON SECONDED THE MOTION. ALL PRESENT VOTED IN FAVOR. THE MOTION CARRIED.

2. Public Hearing - Zoning Ordinance Amendment - Single Family Residential. The City Council will hear public comment and discuss this proposed ordinance amendment for Section 17.44. - R1, Single Family Residential Zones, of the Lindon City Code. This will be the first review by the City Council of the proposed ordinance and as such will not normally be approved at this meeting, but continued to a future meeting for additional discussion.

Mr. Smith distributed copies of the current ordinance for comparison with this proposed ordinance. He commented that this is a complete redraft of the current ordinance, although the information contained in it is essentially the same. He informed the Council that the Planning Commission had spent three meetings discussing this amendment.

Mr. Smith touched briefly on the first three sections of the amendment and then commented that §17.44.040 reflects a change in philosophy on lot depth. The Planning Commission recommends striking the phrase "no lot which is five acres or less shall be created which is more than three times as long as it is wide." He commented that this may create future development problems, but that the Commission is of the opinion that it will help preserve "a little bit of country." He observed that, from a staff level, he has seen situations where some people buy these lots and then demand that the City provide a way to develop their back lot. Councilmember Bayless suggested a note on the plat or some kind of warning to lot owners that there will be no subdividing allowed on these lots. She suggested something to the effect that the City will not provide access for development. Mr. Dameron pointed out that a request to subdivide on 800 West had been denied for this reason not long ago. Mr. Smith noted that a lot with 125 feet of frontage can qualify for a deep lot exception. The Council discussed whether to strike this requirement from the ordinance. The Council agreed with the Commission and decided to strike this statement.

Mr. Smith pointed out the requirements in the next three sections and noted that no changes had been made. He noted that one thing to consider in §17.44.080 is that a thirty-foot rear setback may be excessive in the R-12 zone. Councilmember Dain commented that a thirty-foot rear setback is common for homes. Mr. Smith agreed, but pointed out situations where homes on smaller lots pushed the building envelope on the rear side. The Council discussed §17.44.090 on projections into the yard. Situations where a covered patio projects into the rear setback were discussed. Mayor Ellertson commented that the ordinance is attempting to create openness, however, the intent is not to be too restrictive on residents. Councilmember Dain suggested that the twelve-foot restriction is arbitrary and that a sixteen-foot roof span is common. This was discussed. Pools in the rear setback were discussed.

Mr. Dameron relayed a suggestion from Councilmember Hatch to restrict building height to thirty-five feet from base grade rather than finish grade. Mayor Ellertson observed that building height of new construction has an impact on pre-existing homes. The Council discussed this suggestion.

Mr. Smith pointed out that §17.44.110 is new. This new requirement has been suggested to avoid a problem of having accessory buildings attached to homes. Councilmember Dain asked the definition of accessory building. Mr. Smith replied that this includes any building on a lot that requires a building permit other than the primary residence. Councilmember Acerson asked if the reason for the amendment is a safety issue. Mr. Smith replied that it is both safety and aesthetics. It makes a home appear that there is no side yard. Councilmember Dain pointed out that there can still be a small lean-to structure on the side of a house that does not require a building permit. This was discussed. Chairman Carpenter pointed out that the problem is that an accessory building within six-feet of the house restricts movement for fire access to the back yard. He observed that a lean-to on the side of a house must meet the side setback and so will not restrict the access.

Mr. Smith pointed out that the amendment restricts how much of the lot can be covered with the primary and accessory structures. There are also requirements for parking and access. He noted that §17.44.150 deals with restrictions on accessory buildings. The definition of the "buildable area" was discussed. Councilmember Bayless noted that there are no aesthetics guidelines for fencing for agricultural uses.

The provisions for signs in residential districts and sport courts were discussed. Various sport courts in Lindon were examined for fencing and location issues. Private Recreational Grounds were discussed. Garage Sales were touched on.

Mayor Ellertson asked if there was any public comment. There was none.

COUNCILMEMBER DAIN MOVED TO CONTINUE THE REQUEST TO AMEND, IN ITS ENTIRETY, SECTION 17.44 - R1 - SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL ZONES OF THE LINDON CITY CODE TO THE NEXT MEETING OF OCTOBER 21, 2003. COUNCILMEMBER ACERSON SECONDED THE MOTION. ALL PRESENT VOTED IN FAVOR. THE MOTION CARRIED.
COUNCILMEMBER DAIN MOVED TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARINGS. COUNCILMEMBER BAYLESS SECONDED THE MOTION. ALL PRESENT VOTED IN FAVOR. THE MOTION CARRIED.

COUNCIL REPORTS:

WATER, GENERAL PLAN, BUILDING INSPECTION, ENGINEERING

Councilmember Dain reported on his visits to two Lindon businesses. He commented that it was a positive experience. He reported that Burton Lumber considers the paving of 1380 West as a "nonissue." He also commented that Francom Motors is "happy." Councilmember Acerson commented that his visit to Printing Resource had also been positive. Mayor Ellertson agreed with this assessment of his visits also. Councilmember Dain expressed his appreciation of the new gate near the Equestrian Staging Station.

SEWER, SOLID WASTE, PUBLIC BUILDINGS AND PROPERTIES

Councilmember Hatch was excused.

TRAILS, PLANNING, ZONING, BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT, ADMINISTRATION

Councilmember Bayless reported a malfunctioning street light on the west end of Gillman Lane. She also reminded the Mayor that a replacement was needed for the Planning Commission.

STREETS, SIDEWALKS, PUBLIC SAFETY AND COURT

Councilmember Bath was excused.

PARKS, RECREATION, EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT, LINDON FAIR, NEWSLETTER

Councilmember Acerson commented that he had no report for tonight.

(Councilmember Dain was excused.)

ADMINISTRATOR'S REPORT

Mr. Dameron:
1. Reported that the court re-certification will be on the agenda for October 21, 2003.
2. Mentioned that a notice to proceed had been given on the Canal Drive Trail project.
3. Informed the Council that BFI has submitted for a two-year extension of their contract. Mayor Ellertson asked him to set up a meeting to talk with them.
4. Reported that, although the normal shut-off time for the secondary water is October 15, Public Works Director Don Peterson suggests holding off because of the warmth of the season.
5. Announced "Meet the Candidates" night for October 23, 2003.
6. Informed the Council that he was taking some vacation time for the UEA weekend.
7. Reported that the Maxfields had inquired into the City's interest in purchasing another acre adjacent to the Pheasant Brook Park. The Council discussed this proposal. Mr. Dameron was asked to acquire more information and possibly start negotiations.
8. Reported that Canberra Development has offered the parcel at the southeast corner of Dry Canyon Drive and 200 South to the City. The Council discussed this proposal and Mr. Dameron was asked to get more information.

EXECUTIVE SESSION - The City Council will meet privately for the purpose of discussing the character, professional competence, or physical or mental health of an individual.

The Council decided to continue the executive session until the next meeting when tonight's missing Councilmembers would be present.

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

ADJOURN

COUNCILMEMBER ACERSON MOVED TO ADJOURN THE CITY COUNCIL MEETING AT 9:47 P.M. COUNCILMEMBER BAYLESS SECONDED THE MOTION. ALL PRESENT VOTED IN FAVOR. THE MOTION CARRIED.

APPROVED - October 21, 2003

back to top