The Lindon City Council held a regularly scheduled meeting on Tuesday, July 6, 2004 at 7:00 p.m. in the Lindon City Center, City Council Chambers, at 100 North State Street, Lindon, Utah.

Conducting: Larry A. Ellertson, Mayor<BRPLEDGE Ellertson
Invocation: Bruce Carpenter

Larry A. Ellertson, Mayor
Jeff Acerson, Councilmember - arrived 7:52 p.m
H. Toby Bath, Councilmember
Lindsey Bayless, Councilmember
Gerald I. Hatch, Councilmember
Kevin Smith, Planning Director
Lile Lavaki, Community Development Clerk

The meeting began at 7:08 p.m.

PRESENTATIONS - Ms. Clara Grange of the Mt. Timp 4-H Club will make a presentation to the Council concerning the Lindon City Center Park Horse Arena.

Ms. Clara Grange introduced herself and a young 4-H member Ms. Grange expressed her gratitude for the 4-H’s opportunity to use the Lindon City Arena. She commented that it’s a wonderful facility. Ms. Grange and her daughter presented the Mayor and Council with a check for $400, the proceeds from the club’s garage sales. Mayor Ellertson asked Ms. Grange if she recommends a specific use for the money. Ms. Grange wished for a sand surface in the area. Mayor Ellertson thanked Ms. Grange and the Mt. Timp 4-H Club for utilizing the arena and other public facilities and hopes the arena will be available for their use for many years.

MINUTES - The Minutes of the regular meeting of June 15, 2004 will be reviewed.

The Minutes of the meeting of June 15, 2004 were reviewed. The following corrections were made:
Page 2, Line 13: Add the words "Utah County" after the words "of the"
Page 2, Line 14: Replace the word "the" with the words "and that." Replace the word "one" with the words "with the."
Page 2, Line 15: Replace the words "in this conversation was the" with the words "that there is an."
Page 2, Line 16, 17: Add the phrase "and interest in addition to any other benefits" to the end of the sentence.
Page 2, Line 19, 20: Replace the word "so" with the phrase "and that due to current State commitments." Replace the word "greater" with the word "longer."
Page 2, Line 21: Add the phrase "than our anticipated needs would have otherwise dictated" to the end of the sentence.
Page 5, Line 22: Add the words "less incidents" after the word "prevent." Replace the word "more" with the word "of."
Page 7, Line 27: Replace the word "that" with the word "then. Delete the word "too" after the word "them."
Page 9, Line 23: Replace the word "pleding" with the word "pledging."
Page 11, Line 2,3: Replace the words "expects them to" with the phrase "believes that these issues can be addressed and that they could."
Page 11, Lines 16-18: Add the phrase "so to speak, in terms of short time returns on investments more than in the past "utility" business model" to the end of the sentence. Delete the next sentence "He explained that he also spent most of his career in a public utility and has seen the effects of private sector politics in the industry."
Page 11, Line 30,31: Delete the phrase "by being offered the use of the new infrastructure and let the ‘other people wait.’"
Page 12, Line 11-13: Replace the phrase "underground and aerial fiber installations" with the phrase "overhead utility system and if the cost of maintaining proper clearances has been considered." Replace the word "yes" with the phrase "that it is understanding that it has been."
Page 19, Line 29: Replace the name "Bath" with the name "Bayless"
COUNCILMEMBER HATCH MOVED TO APPROVE THE MINUTES OF JUNE 15, 2004 AS CORRECTED. COUNCILMEMBER CARPENTER SECONDED THE MOTION. ALL PRESENT VOTED IN FAVOR. THE MOTION CARRIED.

OPEN SESSION - Citizens comments

There was no public comment.

Mayor Ellertson reported that the county population has grown to the point where Utah County is now an entitlement county, which means more Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) money will be coming to Utah County. He recommends that the City continue working with MAG and the existing procedure.

CONSENT AGENA - No Items

1. Preliminary Plat - Alexander Heights, Plat "A". This is a request to subdivide an existing 3/4 acre lot into two lots in Kirkland Estates. The Planning Commission has recommended approval.

Mr. Smith introduced this item and acknowledged the attendance of Mr. Ben Probst, the applicant. Councilmember Bayless inquired if the parcel has adequate frontage. Mr. Smith confirmed it has.

COUNCILMEMBER BAYLESS MOVED TO APPROVE THE PRELIMINARY PLAT FOR ALEXANDER HEIGHTS, PLAT "A". COUNCILMEMBER BATH SECONDED THE MOTION. ALL PRESENT VOTED IN FAVOR. THE MOTION CARRIED.

2. Conditional Use Permit - R2 Overlay - H5 Development. This is a request for approval of a R2 Project; the applicant is proposing four single family homes on a 1.33 acre lot. The Planning Commission has recommended approval to the City Council.

Mr. Smith presented this item and displayed an aerial of the proposed site. He pointed out 650 East and 800 North. Mayor Ellertson invited Mr. Dan Parkinson, the applicant, to the front. Mr. Smith explained that this proposal is located in R2 Overlay District 1 which allows for 29 total units. Currently, there are 24 approved units in this district. Mr. Smith explained that the applicant had designed this project so that each unit will be accessed from a common drive approach along the back of the homes. He noted the dimensions of each unit are 40 feet by 60 feet. Mr. Smith observed that side yard setbacks are not required between the units, however, the homes are spaced 20 feet apart and all other setbacks are in compliance with Lindon City Code residential standards. He explained that each unit will have a paved three car driveway–two stalls for the unit and one visitor parking space. Mr. Smith commented that these homes will typically sell in the $300,000 range.

Councilmember Carpenter asked for clarification on why this is an R2 project when there is adequate acreage and frontage to subdivide into individual lots. Councilmember Hatch inquired if the application would be better served as a Planned Unit Development (PUD) instead of an R2 project. He declared that the R2 Overlay ordinance was created to meet State mandates for low to moderate income housing. Councilmember Bayless shared her interpretation of the R2 code and noted that she does not feel comfortable with the use of the R2 Overlay ordinance for this project. Mr. Smith asked for clarification of what the Council wants the R2 to accomplish. He pointed out that the City had a PUD ordinance and that it was replaced with the R2 Overlay ordinance. Councilmember Hatch observed that he believes the R2 Overlay ordinance to be a way for the city to integrate low to moderate income housing throughout the city. Councilmember Bayless reiterated her feelings of discomfort with the interpretation of the R2 ordinance and believes the applicant is using the R2 to get around the residential ordinance. Mayor Ellertson read Chapter 14.46, R2 Overlay Zone and commented on the intent of the ordinance. Mr. Smith informed the Council that the Planning Commission had the same concerns but recommended approval after reading Section 17.46.010, Lindon City Code which states, "to afford a reasonable opportunity for a variety of housing types, including moderate income housing, as defined by the Utah State Code (10-9-307(2)(a))."

Mayor Ellertson observed he understood the R2 Overlay ordinance would provide affordable housing since other types of housing already exist throughout Lindon. Councilmember Bayless concurred with the Mayor’s observation. Mr. Smith pointed out that this is a Council issue. As far as the Planning Commission is concerned, they read the ordinance and took the literal interpretation of "a variety of housing types" to approve the project. Mr. William Patton of 223 North 400 East asked if the State tells the cities what to do. Mayor Ellertson explained that the State requires the cities to have a plan for moderate income housing. Councilmember Bayless asked for a percentage of what is currently being provided. Mr. Smith explained there are approximately 400 to 600 units throughout the City, and over 200 units are legal accessory apartments. He observed there are 2100 utility accounts which calculates to approximately 20% of the housing are accessory apartments. He informed the Council that the figures do not include home renters and illegal accessory apartments.

Mr. Ben Lindow of 535 East 200 North inquired if the north corner lot is required to have 200 feet of frontage. Mr. Smith pointed out on the overhead the dimensions of the lot as 145 feet by 100 feet and noted that the code calls for 100 feet of frontage. He explained how frontage is measured on a typical lot and in a cul-de-sac. Mr. Parkinson expressed confusion about the Council’s discussion. Mayor Ellertson explained that according to the comments made, the Council is not in favor of the proposal. Councilmember Hatch observed that the residential ordinance will allow the parcel to be subdivided to accommodate up to three homes. Mr. Parkinson commented that it would not be economically feasible.

Mr. Steve Smith, 165 North 400 West, suggested dividing the parcel into two lots and building two duplexes. Mr. Kevin Smith commented that such a proposal was once approved under Happy Acres, however, the developer did not build due to issues with improvements to the property.

COUNCILMEMBER HATCH MOVED TO DENY THE REQUEST BY DAN PARKINSON FOR A FOUR UNIT, 1.33 ACRE, R2 OVERLAY PROJECT AT 800 NORTH 650 EAST. COUNCILMEMBER BAYLESS SECONDED THE MOTION. THE VOTE IS RECORDED AS FOLLOWS:
COUNCILMEMBER ACERSON NAY
COUNCILMEMBER BATH AYE
COUNCILMEMBER BAYLESS AYE
COUNCILMEMBER CARPENTER AYE
COUNCILMEMBER HATCH AYE
THE MOTION CARRIED (4-1).

3. Conditional Use Permit - R2 Overlay - Jones R2 Overlay Project. This is a request to construct six single family homes on a 1.25 acre lot. The Planning Commission has recommended denial of the project.

Mr. Smith displayed an overhead of the proposed site at 234 North 400 East and observed that the applicants are proposing to construct six single family homes on the property. Mr. Mark Jones and Mr. Evan Nixon approached the front. Mr. Smith reported that the applicants are showing a 24-foot wide private driveway to service the six homes. The dimensions of the parcel are 106 feet wide by 627 feet deep. The selling price of the homes will be in the $200,000 range. Mr. Smith noted that this proposal falls within R2 Overlay District 5 which allows for 38 total units of which 27 have been used. Mr. Smith pointed out that Staff and the Fire Chief are concerned with the length of the private driveway and the lack of an adequate turn around at the end. He informed the Council that the applicant would need to provide a fire hydrant at the east end of the project. Mr. Jones and Mr. Nixon distributed a revised site plan which addressed the Planning Commission’s concerns.

Mr. Smith informed the Council that the Planning Commission moved to deny the request by Mr. Jones and Mr. Nixon and recommended denial to the City Council with the following five reasons:
1. The lot is too deep and narrow for adequate access for the proposed R2 project.
2. The project does not have sufficient visitor parking.
3. The project does not have an adequate turn around which is acceptable to the Fire Chief.
4. The project creates adverse impacts to homes along 200 North.
5. The Planning Commission does not feel there are adequate means by which the applicants could mitigate these concerns.

Councilmember Bayless inquired if the revised site plan received tonight should go back to Planning Commission for review. Mayor Ellertson noted that the issue tonight has to do with the Planning Commission’s recommendation on the original site plan. Councilmember Hatch observed that the parcel for the proposed project is smaller than the previous application and yet, it will have two more homes. Mr. Nixon informed the Council that the property is bigger than what was reported by Staff. Mr. Smith verified the acreage according to Utah County records as 1.25 acres. Councilmember Bayless asked if the neighbors have been notified of the new changes. The overwhelming response from the audience was "No." The neighbors questioned why the Council is reviewing a revised site plan that had not been submitted to the Planning Commission.

Mayor Ellertson asked Mr. Jones and Mr. Nixon to state what they are requesting from the Council. Mr. Nixon informed the Council that they are seeking approval of the Jones R2 Overlay project. Councilmember Bayless felt that the applicants need to go back to Planning Commission with the revised site plans for review. Mr. Smith explained that the Planning Commission recommendation is to deny the original site plan. The Planning Commission has not reviewed the new site plans, but the Planning Commission noted that they would deny any resubmittal because they felt the applicants could not adequately mitigate their concerns. Mr. Nixon asked for suggestions on how to improve the site plans so they can resubmit. Mayor Ellertson observed that it would be a limited discussion, and acknowledged that the applicants must go back to Planning Commission for a new recommendation.

Mr. Jones and Mr. Nixon presented a power point presentation addressing the neighbors’ and Planning Commission’s concerns. Mr. Nixon mentioned they both live in Lindon. Mr. Nixon explained that Mr. Jones has developed in Lindon and he has worked as an engineer. He explained that they are "neighbors" and they want homes and not apartments; therefore, he and Mr. Jones want to control what goes in the neighborhood. Mr. Nixon reminded the Council that homes are priced in the $200,000 range which will make the units affordable. To address the narrow inadequate access, the applicants referred to the LDS Church private driveway on 400 North 410 East as being similar to the proposed driveway. Mr. Nixon explained that the church has only 19 feet of asphalt with a speed hump yet, he and Mr. Jones are proposing a 24 foot width driveway which is sufficient for the project. Councilmember Acerson observed that the church private driveway is used once a week and the building is not a habitat, but the private driveway for the R2 will be used daily. Mr. Nixon mentioned that according to the Institute of Traffic Engineers (ITE) standards, a single family unit generates 10 trips per day and multi-familiy units generates a little less.

Mr. Jones commented that the revised site plan has moved the road to the north side of the project to separate the large existing homes from the development and to mitigate the adverse impact to the neighbors. There was a discussion how to provide garbage, snow, and mail services to the site on a narrow common drive. Both Mr. Jones and Mr. Nixon commented that service would be similar to other locations in Lindon. Councilmember Acerson inquired about parking. He was informed that the application exceeds the required two and one-half stalls per unit. This was pointed out on the revised site plan which displayed nine additional parking spaces off the common drive. Mr. Nixon noted that a hammerhead had been added to mitigate the turnaround concern. He pointed out that an additional fire hydrant had also been added to meet fire code. Councilmember Acerson inquired about how probable it would be for a person to park on the narrow street. It was noted that visitors would probably park along the narrow street, however, the applicants felt with red curb and signage, the parking problem could be controlled. Mr. Jones observed that, as developers, they can enforce the CC&Rs of the development.

Councilmember Bayless asked if the applicants are planning to sell lots or homes. Mr. Nixon reported that they have not decided, but there are people interested in purchasing lots. Mayor Ellertson commented on the propensity for future applicants wanting to turn private streets to public streets and that the narrowness of the street becomes a City problem.

Councilmember Bayless inquired about fencing for the Smoot’s and the Beans’ properties on the north and if the applicants checked the 40% green space requirement. The response was "yes." Councilmember Bayless presented a parking scenario for unit six which demonstrated her concerns for the tendency to park on the proposed narrow street even if the curbs were painted red and signs were posted. Mr. Jones acknowledged that Councilmember Bayless’ concerns are valid. Ms. Eileen Nybo of 515 East 200 North expressed concerns with the noticing process. She claims the applicants "did not legally notify" her or her husband and they border the proposed project on the southeast corner. Mr. Nixon reported that he used the Utah County records to obtain information of property owners within 750 feet of the development as required by City Code. He apologized for missing the Nybos. Ms. Martha Smoot of 502 East 270 North inquired if the City Council requested to review the project. The response was "yes." Councilmember Bayless asked the applicants to distribute a copy of the revised site plan to all the neighbors in attendance. Mr. Jones commented that he prefers to mail it with a new noticing letter.

Mr. Mike Anderson of 455 East 200 North, asked the Council to deny the old site plan and have the applicants re-apply. Mr. Anderson noted he would be out of town for a couple of weeks, however, he desires to be in attendance for the resubmittal. Mr. Smith explained to the Council that they are not obligated to send this item back to Planning Commission but can deny the application and the applicants may return at a later date. Mr. Smith mentioned that the Planning Commission stated in their motion that they would deny any rendition of the proposal for lack of ways to adequately mitigate the concerns of the Commissioners and neighborhood. Councilmember Hatch observed that the intent of the proposal does not fit the R2 Overlay ordinance, which is providing low income housing at a price range of $130,000. Councilmember Bath mentioned that he does not feel comfortable with the proposal because it was "changed in midstream."

COUNCILMEMBER BAYLESS MOVED TO RETURN JONES R2 TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION FOR REVIEW.

Mr. Smith reminded the Council of the Planning Commission’s responsibility as a recommendation body. Mayor Ellertson observed that the applicants’ new plans are responding to the Planning Commission’s concerns and as part of the on-going process–the recommendation process–the Council can request the Planning Commission to review the revised site plan. Councilmember Hatch warned that if this proposal is approved, it will set a precedent.

COUNCILMEMBER BAYLESS WITHDREW HER MOTION.

Mayor Ellertson reminded the Council that the task at hand is whether to approve or disapprove the original site plan. Councilmember Bayless asked for a clarification for whether it was possible to set aside the original plans denied by the Planning Commission and deny the revised plans. She asked if the applicants have to submit a new application. The response was "yes." Mr. Jones expressed confusion about this process. He explained that the Planning Commission gave him and Mr. Nixon the option to mitigate and make changes to the site plans. Mr. Smith read the Conditional Use ordinance. He observed that the Planning Commission felt the applicant could not address their concerns and therefore rendered a recommendation for denial, however, the applicant must be given the opportunity for due process.

COUNCILMEMBER HATCH MOVED TO DENY THE REQUEST BY MARK JONES FOR A SIX UNIT, 1.25 ACRE, R2 OVERLAY PROJECT AT 234 NORTH 400 EAST (SITE PLAN DENIED BY PLANNING COMMISSION) BASED ON THE PLANNING COMMISSION’S RECOMMENDATIONS. COUNCILMEMBER BATH SECONDED THE MOTION.

Mayor Ellertson commented on the valiant effort by the applicants but noted the 35 foot depth by 65 foot width of the building pad as narrow. Mr. Nixon acknowledged the site plan is not drawn to scale but the configuration is do-able Councilmember Acerson observed that the problem is that both the width and the depth of the building pad are narrow. Mr. Jones suggested the code be modified.

COUNCILMEMBER HATCH WITHDREW HIS MOTION.

Councilmember Acerson expressed concerns with the project being consistent with the character of the neighborhood. He also did not want to give false hope to the applicants. Mr. Jones commented that his desire is to take the issues, modify the site plans, and go back to Planning Commission. Councilmember Bayless inquired if the fire chief reviewed the revised plans. Mr. Smith responded "No." Councilmember Acerson commented that he felt uncomfortable denying the application without knowing the waiting period for resubmittal. Mr. Jones thought it was six months. Mr. Smith reported that he was not aware of a waiting period requirement for resubmittal in the City Code, however, he will research the State code and verify the information with the city attorney.

COUNCILMEMBER HATCH MOVED TO DENY THE REQUEST BY MARK JONES FOR A SIX UNIT, 1.25 ACRE, R2 OVERLAY PROJECT AT 234 NORTH 400 EAST (THE ORIGINAL APPLICATION), CONCURRING WITH THE PLANNING COMMISSION’S RECOMMENDATIONS:
1. THE PARCEL IS TOO DEEP AND NARROW FOR ADEQUATE ACCESS FOR THE PROPOSED R2 PROJECT.
2. THE PROJECT LACKS SUFFICIENT VISITOR PARKING.
3. THE PROJECT LACKS ADEQUATE TURN AROUND FIRE DEPARTMENT’S EMERGENCY VEHICLES.
4. THE PROJECT CREATE ADVERSE IMPACTS TO HOME ALONG 200 NORTH BECAUSE A ROAD WOULD BE CONSTRUCTED ON THEIR REAR PROPERTY LINE.
5. THE PLANNING COMMISSION DOES NOT FEEL THERE ARE ADEQUATE WAYS THE APPLICANT COULD MITIGATE THESE CONCERNS.
COUNCILMEMBER BATH SECONDED THE MOTION. THE VOTE IS RECORDED AS FOLLOWS:
COUNCILMEMBER ACERSON NAY
COUNCILMEMBER BATH AYE
COUNCILMEMBER BAYLESS AYE
COUNCILMEMBER CARPENTER NAY
COUNCILMEMBER HATCH AYE
THE MOTION CARRIED (3-2).

4. Design Review - Adair Sun Porch. This is a request for review of an expansion to a residential home in the R1-12 Zone. The Planning Commission has reviewed the request and has recommended that the applicant review his request with the City Council.

Mr. Smith presented this item. Mr. and Mrs. Brent Adair were present. Mr. Smith explained that Mr. Adair desires the City Council to review and interpret Lindon City Code Section 17.44.090. The problem is the ordinance struggles with applying section (b) of the code to Mr. Adair’s request. He wants to build a sun porch onto the rear of the home and fully enclose a deck. Mr. Adair made reference to the Board of Adjustment Application he submitted. He mentioned that his son-in-law, who is the County Attorney for Cass County, Nebraska, felt that a variance request would be more likely to be approved than a request for a code change. Councilmember Bayless referred to the Variance Application and inquired if it’s appropriate for Mr. Adair to change the language of the application. Mr. Smith observed that the Adairs may have changed it for clarification purposes only. Mr. Adair agreed. Mr. Smith read the code which was adopted recently. Mayor Ellertson observed that the code does not differentiate between the upper or lower floor encroaching into the 30-foot setback. Mr. Adair explained that the builder made a mistake with the front setback–instead of 30 feet, he has a 45-foot setback. Mr. Smith mentioned that he measured the setback to be 35 feet from the property line. Mr. Adair challenged Mr. Smith’s measurement. Mr. Smith noted that he went on site and personally measured from the foundation to the property line and found it to be 35 feet. Mr. Smith referred to the site plan in the staff report provided by Mr. Adair which shows 30 feet from back of the curb. Mayor Ellertson noted that in this particular area, property owners have to deal with meandering sidewalks which makes it difficult to know exactly where the property line is located. Mr. Adair explained to the Council that he would like to enclose the deck so it could be used year-round and eliminate the huge upkeep of the redwood deck. He noted that his neighbors are supportive of his plan. Councilmember Acerson observed that if the neighbors do not have issues, then the ordinances are there as guidelines; principle verses intent. Councilmember Bayless mentioned that this is a benefit to the Adairs personally but expressed concern about the next applicant; "how to say no when you’ve said yes." Councilmember Carpenter concurred with Councilmember Bayless’ assessment that this could open up a "pandora’s box."

Mr. Smith described the process to amend the code. He explained to the Council that this is a design review and no action is required. Mayor Ellertson pointed out that may be workable if a way could be found to prevent a ripple effect. Councilmember Carpenter observed it could not be done without effects. Mr. Smith observed that there is an option. Mr. Adair can submit an application for something that is not in the City Code, but is in the Utah State Code. He suggested that consultation with the city attorney would be needed. Mr. Smith noted there are cities using this option. Councilmember Bayless asked what the exceptions are to the option. Mayor Ellertson informed Mr. & Mrs. Adair that research will be done to see if there is a way to accomplish special circumstances.

5. Conditional Use Permit - Utah County Animal Shelter. This is a request by Utah County to construct an animal shelter in Lindon to service the northern end of Utah County. The Planning Commission recommended approval with conditions.

Ms. Valerie Nakasaba, architect, inquired about a street number discrepancy. She noted that the County records show the street number as 150 North, however, she had been told by Staff that it’s 200 North. Mr. Smith explained the street number had been changed to 200 North Street but the County has not updated its records.

Mr. Smith presented this project. He explained that currently Lindon City and all cities in the northern end of Utah County have been contracting with Orem City for animal shelter services. Utah County and Orem have proposed to construct a new facility to service the north part of the county. This facility will be similar to the new shelter in Spanish Fork. The building is approximately 16,000 sq. ft. and is situated on a 1.6 acre lot. There will be no outside storage of animals. Mr. Smith noted that the Planning Commission recommended approval with the following two conditions: first, twenty feet of sod landscaping must be installed along street frontage and second, the pathway cross section be constructed on 2000 West. Councilmember Bayless expressed a concern that zeroscaping rapidly deteriorates into weed covered areas. If decorative rocks are to be used, maintenance must be considered. Mr. Donald C. Nay, Associate Public Works Director for Utah County, informed the Council that the County has five full-time employees whose sole responsibility is to maintain grounds. Mr. Smith noted that Planning Commission was fine with the use of the decorative rocks in the other three areas. Mr. Nay referred to his letter and asked the Council to approve the landscape plans as designed. Councilmember Carpenter inquired about the pathway. Mr. Smith explained that due to the linear detention on the west side of 2000 West, there may not be room for the pathway where originally planned. Mayor Ellertson observed that the trail may either need to be moved or eliminated in favor the Lakeshore trail in this area.

Mr. Smith commented that the site plans show sidewalk and inquired the sidewalk is required. The response was "No." Councilmember Hatch suggested allowing an area for future sidewalk, however, for now it can be part of the landscape. Mr. Smith clarified that at a future date, the County can construct a 4' sidewalk and maintain a 16' landscape on frontage. Councilmember Bayless and Carpenter like having landscaping against the building. Councilmember Bath inquired about housing large animals. Mr. Nay explained that in the Spanish Fork facility, they rarely dealt will large animals, although the shelter is able to handle it. He explained that usually safety officials prefers to deal with the large animal on site. Some have used horse arenas as holding pins until the owner is located.

COUNCILMEMBER BAYLESS MOVED TO APPROVE THE REQUEST BY UTAH COUNTY FOR A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO CONSTRUCT A COUNTY ANIMAL SHELTER AT THE CORNER OF 200 NORTH AND 2000 WEST, AND TO ALLOW THE USE OF COBBLE STONE IN THE LANDSCAPING, AND LEAVE A 20' STRIP ON 200 NORTH STREET AND 2000 WEST STREET FOR FUTURE SIDEWALKS ACCORDING TO THE PLAN. COUNCILMEMBER CARPENTER SECONDED THE MOTION. ALL PRESENT VOTED IN FAVOR. THE MOTION CARRIED.

6. Preliminary Plat - Animal Shelter, Plat "A." This is a request to subdivide one 1.6 acre lot on the corner of 200 North Street and 2000 West Street in Lindon. The Planning Commission recommends approval to the City Council.

COUNCILMEMBER CARPENTER MOVED TO APPROVE THE REQUEST BY UTAH COUNTY FOR FORTH UTAH COUNTY ANIMAL SHELTER, PLAT A, A 1.6 ACRE, 1 LOT SUBDIVISION AT 200 NORTH 2000 WEST. COUNCILMEMBER BAYLESS SECONDED THE MOTION. ALL PRESENT VOTED IN FAVOR. THE MOTION CARRIED.

COUNCILMEMBER BAYLESS MOVED TO ADJOURN THE CITY COUNCIL MEETING TEMPORARILY AND CONVENE THE LINDON CITY REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY AT 10:35 P.M. COUNCILMEMBER HATCH SECONDED THE MOTION. ALL PRESENT VOTED IN FAVOR. THE MOTION CARRIED.

BOARDMEMBER CARPENTER MOVED TO ADJOURN THE LINDON CITY REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY AND RECONVENE THE LINDON CITY COUNCIL MEETING AT 10:42 P.M. BOARDMEMBER ACERSON SECONDED THE MOTION. ALL PRESENT VOTED IN FAVOR. THE MOTION CARRIED.

7. Continued Public Hearing - Fryer Petition for Disconnection. This item was continued from the City Council meetings of May 18, 2004 and June 15, 2004. This is a formal petition from property owners David Fryer, Kenneth Fryer, and Laura Fryer for disconnection of just over 2 acres of property located along the Lindon/Pleasant Grove boundary, west of the intersection of 800 North 200 East in Lindon City or 1000 South in Pleasant Grove.

COUNCILMEMBER BAYLESS MOTIONED TO OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING. COUNCILMEMBER HATCH SECONDED THE MOTION. ALL PRESENT VOTED IN FAVOR. THE MOTION CARRIED.

It was noted that the proposal is located in R2 District 6 which is 160% full. Mayor Ellertson invited Mr. David Fryer, Kenneth Fryer, and Laura Fryer to the front and reminded the Council of the disconnection issues. Mr. David Fryer, spokesperson for the petitioners, reported that he had not heard any negative feedback from the neighbors, but Mr. Sherrill Tomlinson indicated he is in favor of the disconnection. Mr. Fryer requested the Council to take action and bring the public hearing to a conclusion. He had been advised by his attorney that once the public hearing is concluded, a decision has to be rendered within 45 days. Mr. Smith read from the State Code which states, "within 45 calendar days" a decision must be made and an ordinance drafted.

Mayor Ellertson observed that there are potential issues affected by this request. He noted that comments have been made by others who are waiting and watching to see if this request is approved. Mayor Ellertson expressed his concerns with meandering property lines and city-provided utilities. Councilmember Bath also expressed concern with meandering boundary lines. Mayor Ellertson referred to the Pleasant Grove Minutes dated October 4, 1994, included in the staff report which showed there was discussion of intervention from the public utility commission. However, nothing was approved, but there is a plan for utilities connections. Mr. Fryer expressed his preference to be serviced by Pleasant Grove. Mayor Ellertson noted he prefers the petitioners to staying in Lindon and serviced by Pleasant Grove.

COUNCILMEMBER BAYLESS MOVED TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. COUNCILMEMBER ACERSON SECONDED THE MOTION. THE COUNCIL WILL RENDER A DECISION IN 45 DAYS. ALL PRESENT VOTED IN FAVOR. THE MOTION CARRIED.

8. Review and Action - Class A Beer License - Wal-Mart Supercenter #5270. The Council will review an application for an off-premise beer license for the new Wal-Mart Supercenter scheduled for opening on August 25, 2004.

Mayor Ellertson inquired if there was an ordinance precluding selling beer on Sunday. Captain Cody Cullimore acknowledged that neither Lindon City or Pleasant Grove have an ordinance limiting beer selling on Sunday, however, Utah County ordinance prohibits such a transaction.

COUNCILMEMBER CARPENTER MOVED TO APPROVE A CLASS A BEER LICENSE FOR WAL-MART SUPERCENTER #5270. COUNCILMEMBER HATCH SECONDED THE MOTION. ALL VOTED IN FAVOR. THE MOTION CARRIED.

Councilmember Hatch requested a street sign for 800 North Street. He noted that before the City shoots fireworks from Keetch’s property, it needs to be cleaned. Mr. Smith will coordinate with Ron Whiteley who is farming the field.

TRAILS, PLANNING, ZONING, BD OF ADJ, ADMINISTRATION

Councilmember Bayless had no items to report tonight.

PUBLIC SAFETY, COURT, BUILDING INSPECTIONS

Councilmember Bath had no items to report tonight.

PARKS, RECREATION, ENGINEERING, LINDON FAIR, NEWSLETTER

Councilmember Acerson had no items to report tonight.

GENERAL PLAN, STREETS & SIDEWALKS, PUBLIC BUILDINGS

Councilmember Carpenter had no items to report.

Mr. Smith discussed the R2 Overlay Zone. He commented that this ordinance has accomplished its purpose and he wished to know if the Council would entertain the possibility of repealing the R2 Overlay ordinance and focusing elsewhere for providing low/moderate income housing. Mr. Smith told the Council that the Planning Commission is also considering the same action.

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

COUNCILMEMBER ACERSON MOVED TO ADJOURN THE CITY COUNCIL MEETING AT 11:57 P.M. COUNCILMEMBER CARPENTER SECONDED THE MOTION. ALL PRESENT VOTED IN FAVOR. THE MOTION CARRIED.

APPROVED - July 20, 2004