The Mayor and City Council will meet with David Thurgood, City Engineer, to discuss the water rate study which he recently completed.

Conducting:                  Larry A. Ellertson, Mayor

PRESENT	ABSENT
Larry A. Ellertson, Mayor	Jeff Acerson, Councilmember
H. Toby Bath, Councilmember
Lindsey Bayless, Councilmember
Bruce Carpenter, Councilmember
Jerald I. Hatch, Councilmember
Ott H. Dameron, City Administrator
David Thurgood, City Engineer
Don Peterson, Public Works Director
Venla Gubler, Administrative Clerk

The Work Session began at 6:11 p.m.

Mayor Ellertson welcomed City Engineer Dave Thurgood and Public Works Director Don Peterson.  He asked Mr. Thurgood to address the Council. Mr. Thurgood observed that he had been asked by the City Council to study and recommend changes to the rate structure of the Lindon City culinary and secondary water systems.  He displayed a spreadsheet on the overhead projector and explained that this spreadsheet displays the “Water Balance” of the culinary system. explained that this is a comparison of the water metered into the system and the water metered out of the system as sales of water. He noted that the amounts are listed in thousands of gallons and in acre-feet. He pointed out blanks in the spreadsheet and noted that these records were not available.

Mr. Thurgood summarized the data by pointing out that there had been a steady increase in residential usage until 2001, when the trend reversed and usage declined again. He noted another small increase in residential usage for 2004.  He observed that the trends for the commercial customers, industrial customers and institutional customers follow similar paths, except that the commercial base has continued to decline this year. He commented that this suggests a significant use that is no longer there.

Mr. Dameron observed that the City has actually increased the number of commercial businesses, not decreased. He asked if there may be another reason for this decline. Mr. Thurgood replied that there may be an error in the billing procedure and agreed that it is a significant drop that needs investigation.  Councilmember Carpenter asked if the records allowed an investigation into the top ten commercial users. Mr. Thurgood replied yes and noted that another explanation may be a broken meter, or there may be another anomaly that has not been discovered yet.

Councilmember Carpenter asked how Mr. Thurgood accounts for the decline in residential metered sales.  Mr. Thurgood directed the Council to the report and pointed out four possible reasons that have been identified. He listed these as conservation measures, problems or errors in the billing system, errors in recording meter readings, or worn and malfunctioning meters. He observed that staff has performed spot checks on the billing system, and tested meters of varying ages. There were no problems found with the billing system and the random meter tests showed negligible inaccuracies.  Councilmember Carpenter commented that a second reading would correct most inaccurate readings.  Mr. Thurgood agreed.  Mr. Peterson commented that reading errors are normally caught with the second or subsequent readings.  He explained the procedures of the reading system.  He noted that the system includes “checks” that eliminate many errors.

Councilmember Carpenter commented that there is a large percentage in the decline of residential use.  Mr. Dameron asked if conservation would significantly impact these figures.  Mr. Thurgood responded that he felt that there has been effort to stress water conservation at all levels of government.  He noted that more efficient fixtures are being used in new construction and users are better educated and more water conscious.  The Council discussed the possible effects of conservation on these figures.  Councilmember Carpenter noted that the city has had an increase in population due to new construction also.  He asked if this decrease included conservation measures in outside use.  Mr. Peterson suggested that very little is saved in outside use and that most of the results of conservation are seen in inside use.  He pointed out that there are still incidents of overuse, day use, and waste that are prevalent in residents’ outside use.

Mr. Dameron observed that “unaccounted for water” is the subject of the next chart. Mr. Thurgood displayed this chart on the overhead and commented that the amounts are adjusted to reflect a fiscal year rather than a calendar year so that the data is consistent.  Councilmember Carpenter asked how the City could sell more water in 2001 than was delivered into the system.  Mr. Thurgood pointed out that the trend and magnitude of change is fairly low from year to year.  He noted that the differences between the amount delivered and amount sold increases in 2002 and 2003, and dips again in 2004.  Mayor Ellertson observed that the amount delivered includes city use that is not metered.  Mr. Thurgood and Mr. Peterson agreed and pointed out that the city has a number of uses that are not metered, such as the parks, street sweeping, flushing of new lines, landscaping on Geneva Road and the I-15 Interchange, contractor use (both authorized and unauthorized), and leaks.  Mr. Thurgood agreed and explained that these differences may affect the water fund deficit.  He suggested that the City consider transfers between the funds to pay for water being used for city uses, such as a transfer from the park fund to pay for water used in the park.

Mr. Peterson observed that the landscaping on the I-15 freeway interchange has been metered but not accounted for by billing.  He informed the Council that this accounts for over 12 million gallons.  Mr. Dameron asked if this use might account for some of the increase in unaccounted for water between 2003 and 2004.  Mr. Peterson replied yes.  He added that this is a significant amount and suggested that another significant unmetered amount may be the water used by contractors when they “flush” newly constructed water lines prior to opening the lines for use.  He reported that the Public Works Department is investigating ways to estimate and record these water uses to close the gap in the “unaccounted for” water balance.

Mayor Ellertson confirmed that Mr. Thurgood is suggesting potential transfers or payments between the funds to account for water usage by the correct departments.  Mr. Thurgood verified this recommendation.  He informed the Council that another of his recommendations is to install meters that will measure water use by the various city facilities and the determination of educated estimates for unmetered uses, such as the capacity of the street sweeper and the “vac” truck.  Mayor Ellertson asked if Mr. Peterson has ever observed an incident where a tap in one of the city parks was left running for an extended period of time.  Mr. Peterson replied no.  He noted the use of the city taps for dunking booths, water slides, and other summertime activities, but these would not account for huge amounts of use.  The Council and Mr. Peterson discussed suggested meter locations.  Mr. Thurgood asked if meters could be installed along Geneva Road.  Mr. Dameron noted that the I-15 freeway interchange is also on its second season of use.

Mr. Thurgood commented that he does not consider leaks a significant problem because of the city’s aggressive replacement program.  He noted that all of the old metal pipelines have been replaced except two that are scheduled soon.  He observed that most lines have been installed with new development during the 1990’s.  Mr. Peterson agreed and noted that leaks in the system typically surface and reveal themselves.  Mr. Thurgood verified the amount of water used at the I-15 freeway interchange and the meter read dates.  Mr. Dameron commented that this study exposed a billing error for the Oak Canyon Jr. High account and suggested that it may expose other weaknesses.  Councilmember Carpenter suggested that the commercial and industrial accounts be investigated.  He also suggested that a method may present itself to account for other uses of water that are not directly billable.  Mr. Peterson pointed out that certain large uses of water, such as flushing the lines, cannot be estimated and that a certain percentage of the water cannot be counted. 

Councilmember Carpenter commented that the premise of an enterprise fund is that the system pays for itself.  He noted that the water fund is currently being supplemented from the other enterprise funds.  Mayor Ellertson observed that citizens pay all taxes and user fees whether it comes through the utility bill or the property tax bill.  He commented that at least this study has exposed some weaknesses and correct billings are more possible.  Mr. Thurgood informed the Council that state law does not permit an enterprise fund to be supplemented by the general fund.  Any fund transfers become a debt owed by the water fund.  This study suggests that transfers from the other funds to pay for their water use may reduce the amount of the debt owed. 

Mr. Thurgood presented a spreadsheet showing the costs of operating the system, both fixed and variable.  He explained that fixed costs are typically used to determine the “base rate” and variable costs are used to calculate the “gallonage rate.”  He pointed out that he has separated costs that can be ascertained for the culinary and secondary systems.  He pointed out the costs of purchased power for pumping.  He also noted that net revenue for the secondary system has decreased since 2002 and is showing in the negative.  He suggested that separating power costs between the systems may have affected the amount of loss, but not to the magnitude suggested because the amount of negative revenue is greater than the net amount of power costs for pumping.  He asked the Council to note the revenue amounts and the appropriate power costs.  He observed that the trend for the combined systems has been a net loss and has now accumulated to $435,773.  He suggested that the amount owed to the other funds may significantly change if the appropriate department is charged for its applicable use of water.

Councilmember Carpenter observed that changes in the amounts owed by the water fund may suggest a lower rate increase.  Mr. Thurgood agreed and also noted that the net loss for the combined culinary and secondary systems is less each year, which may also indicate that a few changes in the accounting for the actual use of water may correct the fund balance.

Mr. Dameron asked if Mr. Thurgood is suggesting back payment for years past from the other funds.  Mr. Thurgood replied that he would suggest such a solution if it were possible, however, he acknowledged that the amounts are estimated and the years are closed.  He noted that the information would still give the City a better handle on the correct rates.   Mr. Dameron commented that if accurate information is obtained, it may make estimating amounts for prior years easier.   Mr. Thurgood agreed.

Mr. Thurgood directed attention to the next spreadsheet, which is an analysis of the existing rates compared to the number of connections.  He pointed out the number of customers, number of meters, and the sizes of the meters.  He observed that the larger meters place a larger demand on the system.  So to make the comparisons parallel, the numbers of meters are calculated at a one-inch equivalency.  He then calculated the total amount of water sales and the difference between the actual and calculated amounts.  He commented that he is confident that the number of connections is accurate because the difference is negligible.  He then used the total number of connections to calculate two methods of rate changes.  He noted that the suggested rate changes are for discussion only.  One increases the base rate by 18% and the overage rate at 6% and the other leaves the base rate as is and compensates in the overage rate at 25%.  He noted again that the fixed costs are typically returned to the fund in the base rate and the variable costs in the gallonage rate.  He commented that the fixed costs include employee costs, bond repayments and some power costs.

Councilmember Carpenter commented that if residents really do conserve on water use, the fund will still be in the red if the second breakeven rate is adopted.  Mr. Thurgood replied yes, but noted that people do not really conserve.  Mr. Dameron asked Mr. Thurgood his recommendation for a rate change.  Mr. Thurgood suggested that the City delay taking action on a rate change for another year, fix the “holes” in recording use, and then re-evaluate after the end of the next fiscal year.  He suggested that it would be more responsible to wait and implement the suggestions for accounting for actual use before deciding that a rate change is needed.

Councilmember Bath asked Mr. Thurgood’s opinion of when it would be advisable for the City to consider expanding the secondary system to the west side of Lindon.  Mr. Thurgood replied that this question has been asked and studied in years past.  He observed that the industrial zones have traditionally used less outside water than the residential zones.  He also noted that the costs of extending lines and installing pressure reducing stations are estimated to be large and prohibitive.  He suggested that the City consider the alternative of putting in a surface pond and pumping to users, in effect, constructing a separate secondary system for this section of Lindon.  Mayor Ellertson asked the limits of the current system.  Mr. Thurgood and Mr. Peterson outlined the edge of the secondary system near 800 West.  Mr. Thurgood also noted that upstream line increases would be needed to service the west side.

Mayor Ellertson verified with Mr. Thurgood that he is suggesting waiting one year and leaving the rates as they are for now.  He commented that the City is aware of non-metered use occurring that can be accounted for by installing new meters and changing the reporting system.  He observed that Mr. Thurgood is suggesting either fund transfers or payments from the various departments of the City for their water use.  Mr. Thurgood agreed that this sums up his recommendations and that payments to the water fund will reduce the amount of loss in the system.

Mr. Dameron observed that if the Council accepts Mr. Thurgood’s recommendations, he would like authorization to install meters on the various city uses to allow the accounting for use and the subsequent billing of the funds.  Mayor Ellertson asked if there was a suggestion for back years’ use and funding.  Mr. Dameron replied that he would like to discuss this issue with the auditor before offering a solution to the Council.  Mayor Ellertson asked if there were any further questions.  There were none.  Mayor Ellertson thanked Mr. Thurgood and Mr. Peterson for their input.  The Work Session was closed at 6:59 p.m.

REGULAR SESSION – 7:00 p.m.

Mr. Bill Candland, of 216 East 140 North commended the Council for taking action. He observed that this is the first time in fourteen years that a reasonable speed has been obtained for the neighborhood on 200 East. He commented that patrols, traffic control and radar have been used many times to no avail. He added that these methods only work when they are being applied. He commented on the many times he has heard vehicles speed through the Hollow on summer nights, and continue to speed through the stop sign on Center Street. He noted that the Council should remind people here tonight of the extensive study that went into this solution and added that this situation is what the residents of 200 South have had to live with for years.

Ms. Harriet Shawcroft, of 308 East 140 North, commented that she agreed with the speed humps until she heard the concern about bus drivers not able to exit the Hollow on snowy days because of the hump in the bottom preventing momentum. She observed that she also feels that the one in the bottom should be removed and considers this particular hump as “dangerous.” She thanked the Council for hearing her concerns.

A young resident present in the audience for his scouting merit badge told the Council that he and his friends use the Hollow to get to school. He commented that the hump in the bottom is dangerous to children on roller blades and bikes because there is no way to stop.

Ms. Leslie Packer, of 251 East 200 North, expressed gratitude for the speed humps. She commented that she had pictures of her husband’s accident for the Council or residents to view if they wish. She observed that vehicles travel through the Hollow at speeds of 60-65 mph during the day. She expressed gratitude that her husband is still alive and that her children have not been killed because of these excessive speeds. She commented that this is the first time she has been able to turn into her driveway without worrying about speeders not being able to see her. She noted that the lower speeds are an inconvenience for others, but that they have been living in a “life or death” situation for far too long. She expressed her support for the speed humps.

Ms. Maxine Jacobsen, of 55 North 200 East, told the Council that she has always let the kids cut through her lot to the elementary school because of the dangers of 200 East. She commented that she has noticed how the traffic has slowed since the humps were installed and wants the Council to know that she supports this action, “if for nothing else, for the children.”

Mayor Ellertson thanked the residents of Lindon for their comments. He observed that the policy and procedures for installing speed humps recognizes that all streets in Lindon are “not equal.” He acknowledged that part of the process is to decide where speed humps belong, and that some petitions have been denied because the location did not meet safety requirements. He added that this location had meet the requirements, in part because of the nature of the road and the attraction of the Hollow. He summarized the public comment tonight by noting that the biggest concerns have been declared about the hump in the bottom of the Hollow. Another concern is that that the posted speed limit does not correspond to the height of the hump. He assured the audience that installing speed humps is not something that the Council does without a lot of thought and concern. He asked Mr. Christensen to address the residents’ concerns.

Mr. Christensen agreed with the assessment that the speed limit does not match the height of the hump. He told the audience that he has measured the humps and has found that the two on the south are too high and he recommends that they be modified. He informed the Council that the hump on the north end is right and does not require modification. He pointed out that this is the reason for the scrapes on the pavement on both sides of the humps on the south end.

Mr. Christensen then addressed the safety of the hump in the bottom. He informed the Council that there are humps on the slope of 140 North and he was not aware of any safety problems with these humps. He told the audience that the goal of humps is to lower speeds to 20 mph. He reported that he has made arrangements to meet with the contractor to address the issues of height, paint, and limiting access around the humps on the side of the street. Mr. Dameron verified with Mr. Christensen that the contractor is responsible for correct signing and painting of the humps. Mr. Christensen replied that these items are part of the contract.

Mr. Dameron suggested that Mr. Christensen might address the fact that other kinds of traffic calming were considered during the traffic study commissioned by the Council. Mr. Christensen agreed and informed the audience that the humps are only one of several recommendations that will be implemented at this location. The recommendation includes striping to narrow and constrict the lanes and increased enforcement. Other measures considered were much more drastic and inconvenient than speed humps.

Mayor Ellertson observed that he hopes that everyone, regardless of opinion, understands that these humps have been installed as the culmination of a lengthy process and that the Council cares about the safety and well-being of all residents. He encouraged all Lindon residents to be responsible drivers. He commented that the Council does not enjoy inconveniencing residents, but they also have the obligation to ensure safety. It is not their intent to put speed humps everywhere, and he hopes that residents can make the adjustments necessary to accommodate the needs of their neighbors. He added that the Council is only hearing comment tonight and that no official action can be taken. Mr. Dameron assured the audience that the City Engineer would address the additional height with the contractor. Councilmember Carpenter commented that the City would also be watching to see if the winter brings the concerns that have been introduced. Mayor Ellertson asked the City Engineer what action could be taken to address this concern should it become applicable. Mr. Christensen replied that the street surface can be treated for better traction. He assured the audience that it will be addressed if it does become a problem.

MAYOR’S COMMENTS/REPORT

Mayor Ellertson reported that the Environmental Impact Statement team for the Mountain View Corridor is seeking input on design elements that have been identified for the eight transportation options. He asked Mr. Dameron to schedule a joint Work Session to have the Mountain View Corridor EIS Team make a presentation to members of the City Council and Planning Commission. There was a discussion of coordinating the meeting with Pleasant Grove’s City Council also.

Mayor Ellertson commented that the North County Animal Shelter is on the next step in the process. He reported that the Board of Directors has been assembled and approval is scheduled for the Utah County Commission’s Consent Agenda next week. Mr. Dameron added that the Board is planning their first meeting on November 18, 2004. Mayor Ellertson asked if there were any questions for him. There were none.

CONSENT AGENDA – No Items

CURRENT BUSINESS

1.        Public Hearing – Water Rates Amendment (Resolution #2004-14).The City Council will hear public comment and possibly act to amend the city-wide fee schedule by increasing the city’s culinary and secondary water rates.

COUNCILMEMBER BATH MOVED TO OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARINGS FOR THE NEXT FOUR AGENDA ITEMS. COUNCILMEMBER BAYLESS SECONDED THE MOTION. ALL PRESENT VOTED IN FAVOR. THE MOTION CARRIED.

Mayor Ellertson commented that the Council has just concluded a work session where this item was discussed. He asked Mr. Dave Thurgood, City Engineer, to give a summary of the discussion. Mr. Thurgood informed the audience that he had just completed a study of the rate structure and the financial condition of the Lindon City Water Fund. He presented the “Water Balance” spreadsheet on the overhead projector and explained that this spreadsheet shows the net revenue gain or loss of this fund. He informed the audience that the amount of water going into the Lindon City culinary water system is metered and the amount of water sold to customers is also metered. He noted that water is metered into the secondary system but not metered out because of problems with the longevity of meters in secondary systems. He informed the public that his study has found that overall use of water from the system is decreasing, and that the amount of water metered into the system is about 20 percent higher than what is sold. He commented that these amounts are “significant.”

Mr. Thurgood suggested that there are four possible reasons for the decrease in water use: conservation of water by residents, unknown problems in the billing system, errors in recording meter readings, and excessively worn meters. He explained that billing and reading errors are issues that are usually self-correcting. A random test of meters has not displayed any major inaccuracies, so it is likely that conservation is a significant contributor to declining use by the four classes of water users in Lindon City — residential, commercial, industrial, and institutional.

Mr. Thurgood stated that the engineers have concluded that unmetered uses need to be accounted for to explain the discrepancy between water that is metered into the system and water metered out of the system. This will help the City to discover the reasons for the differences in these two amounts. These unmetered uses may include water delivered to city-owned facilities, water used in street sweeping trucks and vac/flusher trucks, water used for landscaping on Geneva Road and the new I-15 Interchange, authorized and unauthorized use by contractors, and leaks.

Mr. Thurgood commented that, currently, the Water Fund is absorbing costs for water used on city-owned property, such as offices, parks, streets, and landscaping. He suggested that these separate funds should be making payments to the Water Fund for their water use. He also suggested that procedures be put in place to catch unauthorized contractor uses and account for authorized uses in the Water Fund. He observed that leaks are unlikely because of the age of the system. He pointed out that a large portion of Lindon’s water system has been installed or replaced since 1990.

Mr. Thurgood informed the audience and Council that his recommendations to the City are that all water uses become metered, and that a system of payments to the Water Fund from other funds be provided. He suggested that metering uses will provide accurate information on costs of use that will assist in making these payments or transfers between funds. He asked if there were any questions. There were none.

Mr. Thurgood concluded that if the City exercises the option to implement these recommendations for accounting for water use, the system should be re-evaluated at the end of the current fiscal year to see what effect these measures have on the “water balance.” He added that if the City does not exercise these options, the other option is to increase water rates to users. He expressed a concern that the rates will be increased based on incomplete information or information that will change. He displayed a spreadsheet that accounts for overhead and capital requirements of the water system. He pointed out that the fund has been operating “in the red” since 1999, but that the shortfalls have been decreasing since 2002. He suggested that this shortfall may be even less if the proper accounting for water use is determined; therefore, his recommendation is to hold off on changing the rates for another year.

Mayor Ellertson thanked Mr. Thurgood for his presentation and asked if there were any comments. Councilmember Bayless expressed the opinion that an accurate evaluation of the system needs to be completed before considering rate changes. Councilmember Carpenter asked if there was any value in a motion postponing implementation of the recommendations to allow consultation with the auditor on fixing past errors in accounting for water use by other divisions of the City. He also suggested that any motion include authorization for new meter installation on city-owned properties and facilities, and exploration of possible missing accounts. He asked Mr. Thurgood if replacement of meters is needed. Mr. Thurgood replied that a random check on meters did not reveal significant inaccuracies and therefore, he did not recommend replacing meters. Councilmember Bath asked the life-span of a meter. Mr. Thurgood replied that life-span has improved in recent years, but is hard to calculate. Mayor Ellertson asked if there was any additional public comment. There was none.

COUNCILMEMBER BAYLESS MOVED TO ACCEPT THE CITY ENGINEER’S REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS TO LEAVE WATER RATES UNCHANGED FOR THE CURRENT FISCAL YEAR TO ALLOW THE IMPLEMENTATION OF THE ADVISED METER INSTALLATIONS, PROCEDURAL CHANGES TO ACCOUNT FOR UNMETERED WATER USE, AND INVESTIGATION AND CONSULTATION WITH THE AUDITOR ON THE POSSIBILITY OF MAKING ADJUSTMENTS, TRANSFERS, OR PAYMENTS TO THE WATER FUND FROM OTHER FUNDS TO REFLECT ACTUAL USE. A FOLLOW-UP STUDY IS AUTHORIZED AT THE END OF THE CURRENT FISCAL YEAR TO ASSESS THE SUCCESSFUL IMPLEMENTATION OF THE ENGINEER’S RECOMMENDATIONS IN ACCOUNTING FOR UNMETERED WATER. COUNCILMEMBER BATH SECONDED THE MOTION. THE VOTE IS RECORDED AS FOLLOWS:
COUNCILMEMBER ACERSON                 ABSENT
COUNCILMEMBER BATH                           AYE
COUNCILMEMBER BAYLESS                    AYE
COUNCILMEMBER CARPENTER              AYE
COUNCILMEMBER HATCH                        NAY
THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY (4-0, ONE ABSENT).

Mr. Dameron expressed appreciation to Mr. Thurgood for his firm’s study of the City’s water system. He thanked Mr. Thurgood for finding the shortcomings and offering solutions to solve the problems.

2.        Public Hearing – Ordinance Amendment to the Road Impact Fee (#2004-12). The City Council will hear public comment and possibly act to approve an ordinance which will amend the Road Impact Fee originally adopted in May of 2003 as Chapter 11.12 of the Lindon City Code. This impact fee is for the area around the new I-15 Interchange and the proposed 700 North street.

Mayor Ellertson observed that the Council has been working on improving this ordinance for some time now. He introduced Ms. Elise Christensen of Lewis Young Robertson & Burningham, Inc., who represents the City’s financial advisors. Ms. Christensen informed the audience that a committee composed of City staff, property owners, Council members and advisors has been examining the roadway impact fee structure for some time. She commented that the roadway impact fee affects a region of Lindon known as the “I-15 Regional Transportation Area.” She referred to a map displayed on the projector screen, and pointed out the four sub-areas that compose this “transportation area.” She commented that Lindon City at large composes the fifth sub-area that is impacted by proposed and existing improvements for the new I-15 Interchange and for the completion of 700 North Street, which ties this Interchange to Lindon’s business and residential districts.

Ms. Christensen reviewed the capital project costs for these existing and proposed improvements and the analysis that apportions these costs by the amount of impact to each area. She commented that the goal is to distribute costs equitably. She then explained how the impact fees will be assessed based on “trip ends” and the development’s land use category. She displayed a list of probable uses that will be developed in this area and observed that national averages from the National Association of Traffic Engineer’s trip generation manuals have been used to calculate these representative impact fees. She commented that this method ensures that future users are paying their share of improvements instigated by their development, and that existing users “buy into the system."

Ms. Christensen added that the City may want to consider assessing a small portion of the impact fee to development in the city-wide area in a future update to the impact fee. She then explained adjustment factors to the trip end calculations. She disclosed that the adjustment factors take into account that some ends or “stops” in a motorist’s daily routine are enroute to another location, like stopping on the way to work at a convenience store. She observed that adjustment factors allow the City to assign a portion of the costs to the stops that are most likely to be “interim” ends. She asked if there were any questions.

Mayor Ellertson opened the discussion to the public. Mr. Kevin Call, resident of Orem, and executive vice president for the Utah County Realtors Association asked for an estimate of a typical impact fee for a new building permit. Mr. Dameron estimated a fee for a convenience store in Area C to demonstrate what a prospective client may expect. Mr. Brent Adair of 1283 East 140 South asked questions about the proposed Series 2006 Bonds which are anticipated in the costs of improvements. He was told that the Series 2000 Bond is a revenue bond taken out by the City for the I-15 Interchange improvements. and the Series 2006 Bond will be a general operation bond intended to install 700 North Street

Mayor Ellertson commented that this proposed ordinance is an adjustment and/or revision of the existing ordinance and the whole purpose is to facilitate improvements that will benefit the residents of Lindon. He commented to Ms. Christensen that the Council would consider her suggestion for a city-wide contribution, and agreed that he feels there will be significant benefit to current residents. Ms. Christensen observed that the current ordinance is being revised largely because the original ordinance based the fees on benefit rather than impact. Mayor Ellertson asked if there were any other comments or questions. There were none.

COUNCILMEMBER BATH MOVED TO ACCEPT THE IMPACT FEE ANALYSIS PREPARED BY LEWIS YOUNG ROBERTSON & BURNINGHAM AND APPROVE ORDINANCE #2004-12 REVISING, FIXING AND PRESCRIBING A POLICY FOR IMPACT FEES FOR ROADWAY FACILITIES, ADOPTING A CAPITAL FACITLIES PLAN FOR THE PROVISION OF SAID FACILITIES, ESTABLISHING AN I-15 REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION AREA FOR PURPOSES OF ROADWAY IMPACT FEES, AND OTHER RELATED MATTERS AS PRESENTED. COUNCILMEMBER BATH FURTHER MOVED TO ACCEPT THE RECOMMENDATION THAT THE CITY COUNCIL CONSIDER A CITY-WIDE ROADWAY IMPACT FEE IN FUTURE DELIBERATIONS. COUNCILMEMBER CARPENTER SECONDED THE MOTION. THE VOTE IS RECORDED AS FOLLOWS:
COUNCILMEMBER ACERSON                   NABSENT
COUNCILMEMBER BATH                           AYE
COUNCILMEMBER BAYLESS                    AYE
COUNCILMEMBER CARPENTER               AYE
COUNCILMEMBER HATCH                        AYE
THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY (4-0, ONE ABSENT).

3.        Public Hearing – Zoning Ordinance Amendment to Rear Yard Setbacks (#2004-13). The City Council will hear public comment and possibly act to approve an ordinance amendment to Section 17.44.090 – Setback Measurements – of the Lindon City Code. This amendment would allow flexibility of the measurements of the rear yard setback for homes in the R1-12 zone. The Planning Commission recommended denial of the request.

Mr. Smith observed that the City Council asked staff to look at an ordinance which may allow modification to rear-yard setbacks for porches. He presented the version in the staff report that was reviewed by the Planning Commission. He noted that the revision deals primarily with residential property in the R1-12 zone. He explained that the problems with setbacks seem to be occurring in this zone and not in the R1-20 zone.

Mr. Smith reported that the Planning Commission voted to recommend a denial of the amendment. He explained that four of the Commissioners felt that there should be no changes to the existing ordinance, and the remainder were not opposed to a change, but were not in favor of the proposed change. He explained that the Commission raised three main issues: that a “porch” should be more specifically defined, that the ordinance should clarify that a “porch” does not include central heating or cooling, and that the porch space might be defined as “ancillary space.” Councilmember Bath asked for a definition of “ancillary space.” Mr. Smith explained that “primary space” is the livable area and “ancillary space” is “incidental to, or added.” He reported that the Planning Commission is concerned that residents should not be adding a room to the house that doesn’t comply with setback requirements.

Mr. Smith introduced Mr. Brent Adair, who is the originator of the request to amend the ordinance. He explained that Mr. Adair would like to add a sun porch on his home. He noted that staff has looked at several options to accomplish this request over the last six months. The goal has been to give the Planning Commission and City Council the ability to adjust rear setbacks without creating “ripple effects.” He explained that the code already allows a 12-foot extension of an unenclosed porch.

Mr. Smith pointed out that the proposed amendment would allow an extension of an enclosed porch or patio not more than 12-feet into the rear setback by considering three findings—literal enforcement will cause undue hardship on the property owner, the addition will not detract or be injurious to neighboring properties, and the request will not substantially affect the general plan or be contrary to the public interest. The Planning Commission were concerned that what determines “undue hardship” is not more clearly defined. He admitted that there were some situations that could be adapted to create favorable conditions for an addition and some that would not.

Councilmember Carpenter asked if verbiage could be added to limit enclosed porches to conditions that are favorable. Mr. Smith felt that it was a possibility, but asked what criteria should be used to limit the use of this ordinance for one location over another. The Council discussed some specific instances where the ordinance could be used.

Councilmember Bayless observed that she felt somewhat philosophical about amending ordinances and asked why this ordinance should be amended. She pointed out that the ordinance was enacted for a reason. She asked if Mr. Adair’s request justifies amending the ordinance. She pointed out that if the sun porch or patio was built with the original home, it would have been placed correctly. She also expressed concern that residents may use the ordinance to add another room onto their house within a setback that should not be built on. Councilmember Carpenter agreed that the Council desires to assist a homeowner to make his space more livable, but expressed concern that the proposed amendment opens the application up to one’s judgment and therefore, the application may be “uneven.” Councilmember Bayless agreed that the criteria are too vague, and may result in judgment that is too subjective and may be considered arbitrary and capricious.

Mayor Ellertson commented that the Council can consider the original thinking of the authors of this ordinance and ask what perception was being guarded. He suggested that the original intent was to create space between dwelling units and safeguard privacy. He observed that the question is how to alter the original ordinance without infringing on the original goal.

Mr. Smith suggested that the Council may accomplish the same goal by reducing the rear setback from 30-feet to 25-feet. He commented that he has found that people struggle in particular with the rear-yard setback in the R1-12 zone because of the large homes that are being put on these lots. He observed that the struggle is typically only a foot or two, but the policy has been to enforce the setback. Councilmember Bayless commented that if the setback is reduced, human nature dictates that this limit will also be challenged. Mr. Smith agreed that the trend is to “push the limits.”

Councilmember Bath observed that he perceives this amendment as similar to a traffic law or speed ordinance. He commented that if the posted speed is 65 mph, motorists will tend to travel at 70-75 mph. He added that drivers also do not come to a complete stop at a stop sign. He noted that his aim to these metaphors is that the City is impelled to set limits—to “draw the line.” He asked why the original standard of 30-feet had been chosen and why it should be altered. He pointed out that if Mr. Adair is allowed to alter his setback, others will request that their setback be altered to match. He commented that sometimes alterations can be made for safety reasons, but issues like this that do not involve safety, cause him concern. He expressed sympathy for Mr. Adair’s request and understands his desires, however, he asked how the Council can allow one person to disregard the setbacks and not another. He suggested that this is an “avenue” that he is “not willing to open.”

Mr. Adair observed that he wished that Councilmember Acerson were present. He pointed out the distance between his home and all of his neighbors on the rear side. He explained that the reason this situation has occurred is because his home has a greater front setback than was necessary. He acknowledged his understanding of the concerns for preserving privacy, but this is not a consideration here because of the distances that are maintained from his neighbors. He also pointed out that his neighbors have no objections to his proposal so why should the Council care. He added that he inherited the problem from his builder and observed that it is hard to move the house.

Mayor Ellertson asked if there is a way to look at one given situation and allow it without changing the ordinance. Mr. Smith replied that he has examined the proposal with the intent of referring Mr. Adair to the Board of Adjustments, but the criteria are not favorable. Councilmember Carpenter suggested that an alternative to changing the ordinance should be found. He expressed concern that the ordinance amendment opens options to the public that may be detrimental.

Councilmember Bayless expressed sympathy and understanding for Mr. Adair’s desires, and the uniqueness of this situation, but suggested that changing the ordinance would affect the community and situations that do not have the same criteria. Mayor Ellertson suggested changing the ordinance so that the criteria would prevent alteration of setbacks anywhere else. Councilmember Bayless asked if that approach is appropriate. Mr. Adair suggested that a criterion may be to allow an addition or conversion to living space if the distance is no closer than 60-feet to the nearest house.

Councilmember Carpenter asked if this criterion would solve the concerns that have been expressed. Mr. Smith replied that it may, but asked what would happen if the neighboring lot was vacant. He pointed out that the lot owner of a vacant lot would be building his home knowing in advance about the narrowed setback. Councilmember Carpenter observed that the neighboring lot owner may protest the change because of the change to the value of the lot. The Council discussed these questions. Mr. Smith commented that most residents are not aware that they cannot enclose a porch that projects into the setback. The Council discussed adding noticing requirements to the amendment.

Councilmember Bayless expressed the opinion that the amendment is “too subjective.” Councilmember Bath pointed out that the potential for precedence is his main concern. Mayor Ellertson asked if the Planning Commission discussed the potential for adding a distance separation and noticing criteria to the amendment. Mr. Smith replied no. Mayor Ellertson asked if Mr. Smith felt that the Planning Commission decision to recommend denial may change if they were to consider adding these criteria. Mr. Smith replied that it may help, but these items were not part of the Commission’s discussion. He suggested that he could ask the Commissioners their opinions.

Mayor Ellertson asked the Council if they wanted to take the time to send the item back to the Planning Commission for a recommendation on adding these criteria. Councilmember Carpenter replied that he was not sure that having a favorable recommendation from the Commission would help. He pointed out that the Council’s comments have led him to believe that, although the Council would like to help Mr. Adair, there is an element of abuse they would like to avoid. Mayor Ellertson asked about timing on staff’s part to present these suggestions to the Planning Commission. Mr. Smith informed the Council that the next regularly scheduled meeting for the Planning Commission will be held on December 8, so the item could return to the Council in January 2005. Mr. Dameron suggested that the Council might consider adoption of the amendment and see if a problem occurs in the future.Councilmembers Carpenter and Bayless indicated that they were not comfortable with this scenario.

Ms. Nancy Zundel informed the Council that one of her neighbors has a climate-controlled garage that he is working in constantly. She asked what differences the Council sees in extending a home closer to the property line and allowing an accessory building within a short distance from the property line. She felt that the situations are very similar. Mayor Ellertson observed that accessory buildings are allowed closer on the side yard setback than the rear yard setback. Mr. Smith explained the ordinances governing placement of accessory buildings. Mayor Ellertson commented that situations do exist that an accessory building can be closer to the property lines than a home. Mr. Adair commented that all these hypothetical situations can be solved by getting the express permission of the neighbors. The Council responded with the comments, “it is not good policy to leave it up to the neighbors,” “it puts too much pressure on the neighbors who want to remain good neighbors,” and “what if there is a change in the neighbors.” Mr. Smith asked why the Council was considering noticing the neighbors if their opinions will not be considered. Mayor Ellertson pointed out that a Council meeting is a neutral ground for airing opinions, but allowing the neighborhood to make the judgment is “problematic.”

Councilmember Carpenter asked if the Council’s opinions would change if this amendment, with the two criteria discussed, came back from the Planning Commission with a recommendation for approval. Mayor Ellertson asked if the Council was willing to make the effort to find a solution to their concerns. Councilmember Bayless asked if returning the amendment to the Planning Commission was just delaying the ultimate decision. Mr. Adair requested that the Council spend more time finding a way to make it work, rather than just rejecting the current version. Mayor Ellertson asked if there was any further public comment. There was none. He closed the discussion to public comment to allow the Council final comments.

Councilmember Hatch suggested that the adjustment to the rear setback be tied to the extra distance in the front setback if this item is remanded back to the Planning Commission for further consideration and revision. Councilmember Bayless suggested that the ordinance needs to meet the needs of the whole city and not just to isolate the Adair situation from the rest of the City. Mayor Ellertson asked if the Council was willing to try and find a solution. Councilmember Carpenter commented that he was not sure how to direct the Planning Commission in a solution that the Council will accept. Councilmember Bayless agreed. The Council discussed the suggestions that were made.

COUNCILMEMBER CARPENTER MOVED TO REMAND THE ORDINANCE AMENDMENT OF SECTION 17.44.090 – SETBACK MEASUREMENTS – OF THE LINDON CITY CODE TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION FOR FURTHER CONSIDERATION AND REVISION.THE MOTION DIED FOR LACK OF A SECOND.

Councilmember Bath commented that this amendment has troubled him all along. He expressed concern about trying to find a solution that blurs the line between the “letter of the law and the intent of the law.”

COUNCILMEMBER BATH MOVED TO DENY THE REQUEST TO AMEND AND REVISE SECTION 17.44.090 – SETBACK MEASUREMENTS – OF THE LINDON CITY CODE AS RECOMMENDED BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION. COUNCILMEMBER BAYLESS SECONDED THE MOTION.

Mayor Ellertson explained to Mr. Adair that the last time this item came to the Council, the decision was to try and work out the concerns. He noted that this time, the questions are still not answered and the problems are not solved. COUNCILMEMBER CARPENTER MOVED TO CALL THE QUESTION. MAYOR ELLERTSON ASKED FOR A VOTE ON THOSE IN FAVOR OF ENDING DISCUSSION. ALL PRESENT VOTED IN FAVOR. THE MOTION CARRIED.

MAYOR ELLERTSON ASKED THE COUNCIL TO VOTE ON THE MOTION BY COUNCILMEMBER BATH AND SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER BAYLESS, TO DENY THE REQUEST TO AMEND AND REVISE SECTION 17.44.090 – SETBACK MEASUREMENTS – OF THE LINDON CITY CODE. THE VOTE IS RECORDED AS FOLLOWS:

COUNCILMEMBER ACERSON                   ABSENT

COUNCILMEMBER BATH                           AYE

COUNCILMEMBER BAYLESS                    AYE

COUNCILMEMBER CARPENTER               NAY

COUNCILMEMBER HATCH                        AYE

THE MOTION CARRIED (3-1, WITH ONE ABSENT).

Mr. Adair was advised that he can propose an alternative solution for consideration if he would like, or he can apply to the Board of Adjustment.

4.         Public Hearing – Zoning Ordinance Amendment to Nonconforming Buildings and Uses. This public hearing was scheduled in anticipation of a recommendation from the Planning Commission. A recommendation has not yet been forthcoming. However, staff would like the City Council to discuss the amendment and provide some direction. The public hearing will then need to be continued awaiting a recommendation from the Commission.

COUNCILMEMBER CARPENTER MOVED TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARINGS FOR ITEMS #1 THRU #3, WITH CONTINUANCE OF THE PUBLIC HEARING FOR ITEM #4, TO CONSIDER A ZONING ORDINANCE AMENDMENT TO NONCONFORMING BUILIDNGS AND USES. COUNCILMEMBER BAYLESS SECONDED THE MOTION. ALL PRESENT VOTED IN FAVOR. THE MOTION CARRIED.

5.         Preliminary Plat – Orchard Town Homes, Plat “A.”This is a request by David and Maureen Gren for approval of a six unit residential condominium plat which converts the existing apartments to condominiums for individual unit sales. The complex is located at 375 West 800 North in the R1-20 zone. The Planning Commission recommended approval.

It was decided by consensus to continue this item to later in the meeting to allow the applicants to appear.

6.         Preliminary Plat – Lindon West Condominiums. This is a request by Jerry Carroll for approval to convert the previously approved Lindon West office/warehouse site plan into condominiums for individual unit sales. This project will be located at 121 North 1900/1800 West in the LI zone. The Planning Commission recommended approval.

Mr. Jerry Carroll expressed apology to the Council for this second request for approval on this project. He explained that with time constraints and illness in his engineer’s family, the plat had been previously approved without the condominium platting. Mr. Smith displayed an aerial photo of the location and the amended site plan showing the condo parcels. Councilmember Hatch verified that the building was not constructed yet. Mr. Carroll and Mr. Smith confirmed this statement. Mayor Ellertson confirmed that the change only involves the ability to sell individual lots. This was verified. Councilmember Bayless asked if any issues were raised with the Planning Commission or staff because of the change. Mr. Smith replied no.

Mr. Smith pointed out the planned location for an additional building to be constructed in the future. Mayor Ellertson asked if this future development potential changes or causes any immediate concerns. Mr. Smith replied that the future development could be a separate project or it could be an amendment to this current project. Mr. Carroll informed the Council that this project is planned as an expandable design. Mayor Ellertson asked if there were questions. There were none.

COUNCILMEMBER HATCH MOVED TO APPROVE THE REUQEST BY JERRY CARROLL FOR LINDON WEST OFFICE/WAREHOUSE CONDOMINIUMS, PLAT “A,” AN 11-UNIT INDUSTRIAL CONDOMINIUM PLAT LOCATED AT 121 NORTH `1800 WEST. COUNCILMEMBER BAYLESS SECONDED THE MOTION. ALL PRESENT VOTED IN FAVOR. THE MOTION CARRIED.

7.         Preliminary Plat – Meadows at Bald Mountain, Plat “C.” This is a request by Ty Ricks for approval to add a half-acre parcel to the rear portion of Lot 24 of Meadows at Bald Mountain, Plat “A” located at 797 East 640 North in the R1-12 zone. The Planning Commission recommended approval.

Mayor Ellertson invited Mr. Ty Ricks to the front for this presentation. Mr. Smith displayed the aerial photo of the location and pointed out the specific lot that Mr. Ricks proposes to expand. He informed the Council that the Planning Commission had one concern–that the back of the lot may have a right-of-way issue with the 1200 East collector. He pointed out that the plat has allowed for the slope and construction easement, but there may need to be some right-of-way dedication. Mayor Ellertson observed that the City has been working with the developer for the right-of-way. It was noted that this may not be the same developer. Mr. Dameron suggested that although it may be found that the right-of-way dedication is unnecessary on this plat, it can be taken care of by noting the concern in the motion so that staff can investigate before recordation.

Councilmember Carpenter asked if the potential owners would have a problem with the dedication of the street. Mr. Ricks replied no, and noted that the reason for the expansion of the lot is two-fold. It solves a problem with a remainder parcel and allows expansion and moving of the buildable area for a home. He felt that the owners would agree to a dedication of right-of-way if the City finds that it is necessary.

COUNCILMEMBER BATH MOVED TO APPROVE THE REQUEST BY TY RICKS FOR APPROVAL OF MEADOWS AT BALD MOUNTAIN, PLAT “C,” A ONE-LOT SUBDIVISION PLAT LOCATED AT 797 EAST 640 NORTH WITH THE CONDITION THAT ROAD DEDICATION FOR THE 1200 EAST RIGHT-OF-WAY TOGETHER WITH THE APPROPRIATE SLOPE AND CONSTRUCTION EASEMENTS BE VERIFIED, AGREED UPON AND ADDED TO THE PLAT, IF NECESSARY, BEFORE RECORDING AT THE UTAH COUNTY RECORDERS OFFICE. COUNCILMEMBER CARPENTER SECONDED THE MOTION. ALL PRESENT VOTED IN FAVOR. THE MOTION CARRIED.

The Council and Captain Cullimore discussed efforts by communities in Salt Lake County to control and promote safe use of the popular “pocket bikes.”

4.         Public Hearing – Zoning Ordinance Amendment to Nonconforming Buildings and Uses. This public hearing was scheduled in anticipation of a recommendation from the Planning Commission. A recommendation has not yet been forthcoming. However, staff would like the City Council to discuss the amendment and provide some direction. The public hearing will then need to be continued awaiting a recommendation from the Commission.

COUNCILMEMBER BATH MOVED TO OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING THAT WAS POSTPONED EARLIER FOR ITEM #4. COUNCILMEMBER BAYLESS SECONDED THE MOTION. ALL PRESENT VOTED IN FAVOR. THE MOTION CARRIED.

Councilmember Hatch asked if this proposed amendment affects residential or commercial properties.Mr. Smith replied that both are affected. He explained that the City Attorney had drafted an amendment to this ordinance at the Council and Planning Commission’s request that treated nonconforming uses similar to the Utah State Code. The Planning Commission reviewed this proposed amendment and requested a version that would allow more flexibility than the State Code. Mr. Smith explained that the intent behind the State Code is a gradual and systematic discontinuation of nonconforming uses, so there are no changes or expansions allowed. Councilmember Carpenter commented that the State Code “amortizes” nonconforming uses. Mr. Smith agreed. He noted that for most nonconforming uses, this is the goal. He pointed out, however, that there are exceptions to the rule and used the historic Cullimore Mercantile building as an example. Councilmember Hatch commented that some nonconforming uses are assets to the City and noted that one of these is Patches on State Street.

Mr. Smith reported that the Planning Commission reached consensus to return to the original version with a few clarifications, which is the version before the Planning Commission and Council now. However, the Planning Commission still has issues and has not reached a recommendation to give to the Council. He had been asked by the Commissioners to explain their concerns to the Council for input before taking the amendment back to the City Attorney for further modifications.

Mr. Smith explained that the current version does not allow a nonconforming use to move. Mayor Ellertson commented that the nonconforming use status “runs with the land.” Councilmember Hatch felt that the status should belong to the business that is using the nonconforming status to operate. Mayor Ellertson suggested that nonconforming use status is a constitutional issue of land right. Mr. Smith commented that the ownership of the nonconforming use becomes a “non-issue” if the use cannot move, which is part of the current version. Councilmember Hatch pointed out that a move can only be accomplished to a conforming zone. This was confirmed.

Mayor Ellertson asked if expansion of a nonconforming use is addressed, too. Mr. Smith directed attention to Page 2. Mayor Ellertson asked if the Commission is still okay with this section of the amendment. Mr. Smith replied that their questions here lie in the premise that the eventual goal of this section of code is to “phase out” nonconforming uses. If this is the case, should expansions be allowed? Mayor Ellertson and the Council discussed the nonconforming use of Haun’s Auto on State Street and a hypothetical expansion of this business. Mr. Smith pointed out ambiguities and problems with the criteria used to allow expansions, particularly with the definition of the word “harmony.”

Councilmember Carpenter observed that he was not in favor of expanding existing nonconforming uses. He suggested that the Council consider an amortization program over a lengthy period of time as an alternative. He also pointed out that the Cullimore Mercantile is a historical building and as such, is an exemption from the nonconforming ordinance. The Council briefly discussed Provo’s Hotel Roberts. Mayor Ellertson suggested that business owners that have made a significant investment in their properties to the point that they have succeeded and wish to expand, should be encouraged and not forced to move. Councilmember Carpenter suggested that maybe these businesses should not be a nonconforming use. He asked why the City should consider expanding a business that they have already determined does not belong in that location in the first place. Councilmember Hatch asked why an existing business owner of Lindon, present and operating for a number of years, cannot be allowed to meet the growing demands of his chosen profession if he meets the criteria for expansion.

Mr. Smith brought up another situation dealt with often in nonconforming lots. He pointed out that there are lots that were created in Lindon before the “hard” date that is the inception of the zoning ordinances. These lots are nonconforming as to size, frontage, and/or setbacks, and sometimes because of errors in surveying, have homes that straddle the property lines. He suggested that these lots can never be made to conform to the current ordinance, but are not the fault of the current owner or a self-imposed hardship. Councilmember Carpenter commented that the City also needs to consider the creation of hardships when the zoning ordinances are changed. Mr. Smith observed that the nonconforming ordinance has been used three times in the several years that he has been employed by Lindon City—one is the Utah Auto Sales application that initiated many of the changes.

Councilmember Bayless commented that the difficulty is anticipating and avoiding the creation of situations that are undesirable. Mr. Smith agreed that the criteria established for allowing an expansion is important. He suggested that synonyms for the word “harmony” are “parallel” or “complementary.” Councilmember Hatch suggested that the changes or expansion should bring the building, business, or use closer to complying with the regulations of the zone. Mr. Smith asked the Council for other suggestions to make the ordinance workable. Mayor Ellertson suggested that the owner should comply with as many of the requirements of the code as is reasonably feasible. Councilmember Bayless suggested the addition of the words “closer” or “more closely” in harmony. Councilmember Carpenter agreed that those items that are affordable should be required. He suggested that moving the building may not be feasible, but the addition of eight-feet of landscaping is feasible and should be required.

Mr. Smith referred to the final issue brought up by the Planning Commission. They want to have the authority to review all architectural remodels of a nonconforming use to enforce the proposed architectural guidelines for State Street. He told the Council that the Development Review Committee currently is reviewing these standards. After discussion, Councilmember Bayless suggested that this authority be shared with the Planning Commission.

Mr. Smith asked about defining the ownership of a nonconforming use if moving is not allowed. After discussion, the section was stricken. Mayor Ellertson asked if there was any public comment. There was none. Mr. Smith verified that the Council was in favor of enlarging the area to receive the noticing requirement for expansion of nonconforming uses to a radius of 750 feet. The Council indicated approval. Mr. Dameron asked how the noticing requirement is affected when properties are adjacent or nearby city boundaries. The Council discussed sending notices to property owners in neighboring communities and/or just allowing notice by agenda to a neighboring City Council. Mayor Ellertson observed that the intent is to be a “good neighbor.” It was decided that the noticing requirement should include a 750-foot radius, irrespective of city boundary. Mayor Ellertson asked for any final comments from the public or Council. There was none.

COUNCILMEMBER BAYLESS MOVED TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. COUNCILMEMBER BATH SECONDED THE MOTION. ALL PRESENT VOTED IN FAVOR. THE MOTION CARRIED.

COUNCILMEMBER HATCH MOVED TO RESCHEDULE THE PUBLIC HEARING TO CONSIDER AN AMENDMENT TO SECTION 17.16 – NONCONFORMING USES – OF THE LINDON CITY CODE FOR THE FIRST REGULARLY SCHEDULED MEETING IN JANURAY 2005. COUNCILMEMBER BAYLESS SECONDED THE MOTION. ALL PRESENT VOTED IN FAVOR.THE MOTION CARRIED.

5.         Preliminary Plat – Orchard Town Homes, Plat “A.”This is a request by David and Maureen Gren for approval of a six unit residential condominium plat which converts the existing apartments to condominiums for individual unit sales. The complex is located at 375 West 800 North in the R1-20 zone. The Planning Commission recommended approval.

Councilmember Bayless commented that the Council has seen the Orchard Town Homes condominium plat and approved it once before, but the approval expired before the plat was recorded. Councilmember Hatch asked questions about maintenance and Mr. Smith replied that a homeowners association will be formed to oversee maintenance issues. Ms. Nancy Zundel and another neighbor commented that the units are fairly well maintained at present.

COUNCILMEMBER BAYLESS MOVED TO APPROVE THE REQUEST BY DAVID AND MAUREEN GREN FOR ORCHARD TOWN HOMES, PLAT “A.” A SIX-UNIT RESIDENTIAL CONDOMINIUM PLAT LOCATED AT 375 WEST 800 NORTH. COUNCILMEMBER HATCH SECONDED THE MOTION. ALL PRESENT VOTED IN FAVOR. THE MOTION CARRIED.

8.         Review and Action – Wasatch U-Cart. The City Council will consider the possible revocation of the conditional use permit for Wasatch U-Cart.The deadline for compliance with the conditions imposed by the Council was November 12, 2004.

The Council discussed the absence of the applicant at this review.Mr. Smith reported that Mr. Maynes had a commitment that he was unable to change and would possibly be late. The Council reached consensus to move this discussion to the end of the agenda to allow Mr. Maynes the opportunity to arrive and participate.

9.         Review and Action – Property Purchase. This is a request by staff for approval of the purchase of a twelve-foot strip along the proposed 1200 East Street for the preservation of the right-of-way.

Mr. Dameron referred the Council to the staff report and commented that this property purchase is for the 1200 East right-of-way. After discussion, COUNCILMEMBER HATCH MOVED TO APPROVE THE PURCHASE OF A 12-FOOT STRIP OF PROPERTY FOR THE 1200 EAST RIGHT-OF-WAY AS REQUESTED AND OUTLINED BY STAFF. COUNCILMEMBER CARPENTER SECONDED THE MOTION. THE VOTE IS RECORDED AS FOLLOWS:

COUNCILMEMBER ACERSON                   ABSENT

COUNCILMEMBER BATH                           AYE

COUNCILMEMBER BAYLESS                    AYE

COUNCILMEMBER CARPENTER               AYE

COUNCILMEMBER HATCH                        AYE

THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY (4-0 WITH ONE ABSENT).

10.       Review and Action – 700 North Right-of-Way Agreements. These agreements outline a cooperative effort between the city and property owners for the acquisition of right-of-way along the majority of the length of the proposed 700 North Street.

Mr. Dameron presented the stipulation agreements between Lindon City and the property owners along the 700 North Street right-of-way. He pointed out that Mr. Ron Anderson has asked for some minor changes to the agreement, including the specification of an irrigation ditch easement in clause #4, and a clarification on the reimbursement for crops lost within the construction easement in clause #1.7. The Council discussed the changes as suggested.

COUNCILMEMBER BAYLESS MOVED TO APPROVE THE STIPULATION AGREEMENTS BETWEEN LINDON CITY AND BOYD ANDERSON & SONS COMPANY WITH THE TWO CHANGES AS DISCUSSED, AND WITH THE BLACKHURST FAMILY TRUST AS PRESENTED. SHE FURTHER MOVED TO AUTHORIZE THE MAYOR TO SIGN THE AGREEMENTS ON BEHALF OF LINDON CITY. COUNCILMEMBER HATCH SECONDED THE MOTION. THE VOTE IS RECORDED AS FOLLOWS:

COUNCILMEMBER ACERSON                   ABSENT

COUNCILMEMBER BATH                           AYE

COUNCILMEMBER BAYLESS                    AYE

COUNCILMEMBER CARPENTER               AYE

COUNCILMEMBER HATCH                        AYE

THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY (4-0, WITH ONE ABSENT).

11.       Discussion – Utility Billing Policy for Accessory Apartments.Kathy Rhoades has requested to be on the Council agenda to discuss the utility billing policy for accessory apartments.

Mayor Ellertson reported that he had talked with Ms. Rhoades and told her that it was not necessary to bring the issue to the Council at this time.

8.         Review and Action – Wasatch U-Cart. The City Council will consider the possible revocation of the conditional use permit for Wasatch U-Cart. The deadline for compliance with the conditions imposed by the Council was November 12, 2004.

Mayor Ellertson suggested that the Council return to the Wasatch U–Cart item. He noted that Mr. Maynes was still not present. Mr. Smith asked the Council if they preferred to hear the item now or to continue it to another meeting to allow Mr. Maynes to be present. Councilmember Bath commented that Mr. Maynes’ situation is not resolved and suggested that a delay is not justified. Councilmember Bayless agreed that no effort has been made to rectify the issues, although some items could be done quite quickly. Mr. Dameron informed the Council that Mr. Maynes had submitted a building permit application in November.

Mr. Smith observed that if Mr. Maynes was present, he would have a different view of the issues and would be trying to talk the Council out of revoking his conditional use permit. Ms. Zundel commented that her opinion is that Mr. Maynes has had plenty of time. Councilmember Carpenter observed that he was always reluctant to do something this final when the applicant is not present. Ms. Zundel asked if the Code allows a fine to be paid rather than vacating the property. She was told that this option was not available at this point. Mr. Dameron asked what the next step would be if the Council decides to revoke the permit. Mr. Smith replied that the file will be sent to the City Prosecutor. The typical procedure is for the City Prosecutor to contact the applicant and set a time limit for vacating the property. The results of inaction escalate from this point to an appearance and court order to vacate.

Councilmember Bayless asked what items from the list of requirements have been done to justify postponement of the decision to revoke. Mr. Smith replied that Mr. Maynes has landscaped the strip behind the fence and along the northern street edge, and put in a concrete boundary on the landscaping. Items still to finish include removal of the trailer, sodding the detention basin (although top soil has been installed), and graveling the surface of the yard. He noted that the storage bins that were installed have not been approved and that Mr. Maynes has been operating an excavation business from the same site that does not have a business license. Councilmember Carpenter asked what percent of the site plan improvements have been completed in terms of the total financial commitment. Mr. Smith replied that the site was approximately 90% completed. The Council discussed the building permit application.

Mayor Ellertson commented that he would prefer not to close Mr. Maynes down without a hearing. Councilmember Bayless agreed, but noted that Mr. Maynes has been given a lot of chances. She asked what the Mayor would suggest. Mayor Ellertson replied that Mr. Maynes deserves an opportunity to defend himself. Councilmember Carpenter asked what delaying will accomplish other than allowing Mr. Maynes additional time to show progress. The Council discussed the amount of “junk” on the site. Mr. Smith commented that the construction of the building may reduce the amount of visible junk.

The Council discussed the amount of time that Mr. Maynes has operated at this site, when site construction was started, and the number of items left to accomplish. Councilmember Bath commented that although Mr. Maynes seems willing, little is accomplished. Councilmember Carpenter noted that the Council can give Mr. Maynes an additional two weeks with little lost. He stressed, however, that Mr. Maynes needs to use this additional time wisely. He asked Mr. Smith to convey the reminder that “action is more important than talk.”

COUNCILMEMBER HATCH MOVED TO CONTINUE THE HEARING TO CONSIDER THE REVOKATION OF A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR ERIC MAYNES OF WASATCH U-CART, LOCATED AT 240 NORTH GENEVA ROAD, UNTIL THE REGULARLY SCHEDULED MEETING OF DECEMBER 7, 2004. COUNCILMEMBER CARPENTER SECONDED THE MOTION. ALL PRESENT VOTED IN FAVOR, EXCEPT COUNCILMEMBER BATH WHO VOTED NAY. THE MOTION CARRIED (3-1, WITH ONE ABSENT).

WATER, SEWER, SOLID WASTE, HOUSING CONSORTIUM

Councilmember Hatch reported on a meeting of the Utah County Housing Consortium held yesterday, November 15, 2004. He observed that the list of projects for the New Year is ready and that progress is being accomplished.

TRAILS, PLANNING, ZONING, BOARD OF ADJUSTMENTS, ADMINISTRATION

            Councilmember Bayless reported that the meeting of the R2 Overlay Advisory committee will be tomorrow, November 17 at 6:00 p.m. She also suggested that the Council might want to visit some of the housing projects in anticipation of the new proposal by Fieldstone Homes and Trophy Homes. The Council discussed nearby projects that are similar to what is being proposed.

PUBLIC SAFETY, COURT, BUILDING INSPECTIONS<

            Councilmember Bath had nothing to report for tonight.

PARKS, RECREATION, ENGINEERING, LINDON FAIR, NEWSLETTER

            Councilmember Acerson was excused.

GENERAL PLAN, STREETS & SIDEWALKS, PUBLIC BUILDINGS

            Councilmember Carpenter had nothing to report for tonight.