The Lindon City Council held a regularly scheduled meeting on Tuesday, October 19, 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
Pledge of Allegiance: Jeff Otterstrom, Troop 24
Invocation: Toby Bath

PRESENT

Larry A. Ellertson, Mayor
Jeff Acerson, Councilmember (arrive 8:21 p)
H. Toby Bath, Councilmember
Lindsey Bayless, Councilmember
Bruce Carpenter, Councilmember (arrive 7:20 p)
Jerald I. Hatch, Councilmember
Ott H. Dameron, City Administrator
Kevin Smith, Planning Director
Venla Gubler, Administrative Clerk

ABSENT

The Meeting began at 7:11 p.m.

MINUTES – The minutes of October 5, 2004 will be reviewed.

The review of the Minutes of the regular meeting of October 5, 2004 was continued to the next meeting.

OPEN SESSION – Citizens Comments

There was no public comment.

MAYOR’S COMMENTS/REPORT

Mayor Ellertson reported that efforts are continuing in Utah County to identify and recognize future needs for transportation. He assured the public present that this is an ongoing effort and asked that citizens participate in upcoming meetings. He observed that the Environmental Impact Statement for widening I-15 is progressing and hopefully will be complete in about a year. He also noted that the Mountain View Corridor will be the subject of the next round of meetings scheduled.

Mayor Ellertson reported that legislation to approve the title transfer of the Murdock Canal had been approved. This will assist the Provo River Water Users Association in financing the enclosure of the canal and the improvement of a public trail system expansion along this right-of-way. He commented that this project has been in negotiation for about eight years and is now coming close to fruition. He asked if there were any questions. A Lindon resident asked how the canal would be enclosed-- a box culvert or pipe, or a pressurized pipe. Mayor Ellertson replied that this question has not been decided, but will be once the detailed engineering is completed. He was asked if Lindon’s water is diverted from this canal. Mayor Ellertson replied that most of Lindon’s irrigation water was delivered through the North Union Canal. He was asked about the fate of plans to construct a highway on the canal right-of-way from Alpine to the mouth of Provo Canyon. Mayor Ellertson replied that although this option had been discussed, the canal company opposes it for operational and other issues. He questioned the feasibility because of the narrowness of the right-of-way, the limited access, and the sharp turns that the canal made.

Mr. Mike Anderson asked if residents should be made aware of any strings attached to the federal dollars earmarked for this project. Mayor Ellertson replied that one of the goals that this project will allow the Central Utah Project (CUP) to meet is the obligation to help with the recovery of the June Sucker, an endangered native fish species. The piping project will save 8,000 cubic feet of water usually lost through seepage and evaporation in the Canal. This saved water is reserved to the CUP for this recovery project. Mayor Ellertson asked if there were any other questions. There were none.

CONSENT AGENDA – No Items

CURRENT BUSINESS

1. Public Hearing – Adoption of Fighting Ordinance (#2004-10). The City Council will hear public comment and possibly act to adopt an ordinance which will prevent “ultimate fighting” or “prize fighting” within the city limits of Lindon City. This new ordinance will add Chapter 8.22 – Fighting Contests, to the Lindon City Code.

(Councilmember Carpenter arrived at 7:20 p.m.)

COUNCILMEMBER BAYLESS MOVED TO OPEN BOTH OF THE FOLLOWING THE PUBLIC HEARINGS. COUNCILMEMBER BATH SECONDED THE MOTION. ALL PRESENT VOTED IN FAVOR. THE MOTION CARRIED.

Mayor Ellertson commented that this proposed ordinance is an attempt to rectify issues that were raised at a City Council meeting earlier this year. He encouraged the public to participate and share their thoughts and feelings on the subject. He introduced City Attorney Jared Frei to present the proposed ordinance. Mr. Frei observed that the objective of the proposed ordinance is to prohibit “prize fighting,” “ultimate fighting,” “no holds barred fighting,” and “extreme fighting.” He explained that these fight exhibits lack the structure and rules to protect the participants from serious injury. He added that the ordinance is not intended to prohibit the exhibits organized by martial arts studios for the demonstration of skills learned by bona fide students.

Mayor Ellertson explained that such an event had been planned for a Lindon City location. The Council had serious concerns about the safety of participants and spectators, and the exhibition was cancelled. He added that the Council asked Mr. Frei to address those concerns with a new ordinance. He asked if there were any questions or comments from the Council.

Councilmember Carpenter asked if Section 8.22.010(6) would preclude a Lindon martial arts studio from having inter-studio matches with a studio licensed outside of Lindon City. Mr. Frei expressed the opinion that it would not as long as the participants are bona fide students. Mayor Ellertson suggested that the wording include “or an invited studio” to make it clear. Mr. Frei responded that he would add the requested phraseology.

Mr. Bill Patton of 223 North 400 East asked if there was a possibility of a boxing arena being built in Lindon. Mayor Ellertson replied that there were no plans for one before the Council now. Mr. Patton asked if the ordinance would allow a boxing arena. Captain Cody Cullimore of the Pleasant Grove/Lindon Police Department responded that boxing is licensed different than ultimate fighting at the State level. He told Mr. Patton that a “Golden Gloves” match would be considered similar to a martial arts studio and would therefore be allowed.

Mr. Paul Channel of Riverton commented that he owns a building in that city that is leased to a martial arts studio. He explained to the Council and public present in the audience that there is a lot of difference in the types of martial arts competitions. He commented that most are just to show the proficiency of the participants, but ultimate fighting is “brutal” and injuries are frequent. Some participants have been beaten to death in the ring. He observed that ultimate fighting is very different than karate and jujitsu.

Councilmember Hatch asked the source of the reference to 50 minutes in Section 8.22.010(9)(d)(ii). Mr. Frei replied that this clause is a quote from the State Code. Mr. Mike Anderson of 455 East 200 North asked if the ordinance would affect high school wrestling. Mayor Ellertson replied no and referred again to the clause about students.

COUNCILMEMBER BAYLESS MOVED TO APPROVE THE ADOPTION OF ORDINANCE #2004-10 ADDING SECTION 8.22 – FIGHTING CONTESTS, TO THE LINDON CITY CODE WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS:
1. THAT THE DEFINITION IN CLAUSE 8.22.010(6) BE EXPANDED TO INCLUDE INVITED STUDIOS TO AN EXHIBITION.
2. THAT THE MAYOR IS AUTHORIZED TO REVIEW THE CLARIFICATION AND SIGN THE ORDINANCE WHEN COMPLETED.
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 PASSED UNANIMOUSLY (4-0) WITH ONE ABSENT.

2. Public Hearing – Ordinance Amendment – Section 13.12.120 (#2004-11). The City Council will hear public comment and possibly act to amend Section 13.12.120 – Use of Sewer and Culinary Water Required, of the Lindon City Code.

Mr. Smith informed the Council and audience that this section of the Lindon City Code deals with the use of city services such as secondary water, sewer, and culinary water. This amendment would change this section to require hookup to the culinary water system if a resident is within 300 feet of a main. Councilmember Carpenter asked if the primary purpose of this proposed amendment is to reduce the use of private wells. Mr. Smith replied that the request for this amendment came from the Council several months ago as the result of a resident that did not want to “buy into” the system, but wanted access to the City’s fire hydrants. Councilmember Bayless commented that the purpose of the amendment addresses safety issues as well as the integrity of the system. Councilmember Hatch added that the sewer rates are tied to the water use as well.

Councilmember Carpenter asked what would happen to those residents that are on Lindon’s boundaries. He asked if this would prohibit residents from seeking utility hookups from a nearer system, such as Pleasant Grove. Mr. Smith replied that if Lindon’s system does not lie within 300-feet, the resident may seek alternative hookups. Mr. Dameron added that the ordinance would not prevent hookups from another city along Lindon’s boundaries. Mayor Ellertson suggested that the phrase “as approved by the City” could be added to make this provision clearer. Mr. Dameron agreed and suggested, “…Lindon City, or another approved system on the boundary.” He observed that the amendment is not intended to prohibit alternative services when Lindon’s services are not readily available.

Mr. Mike Anderson asked how this amendment would affect those residents on the west side that are currently using wells. He asked if these residents would be required to turn in their well rights and connect to the system when the mains are extended into this area, or if these users would be “grandfathered.” Mayor Ellertson replied that the City would not force these property owners to give up their well rights. He asked how sewer connections are dealt with if development occurs away from the City sewer system. Mr. Dameron replied that buildings that are built over 300 feet away from the system may apply to the Utah County Health Department for a septic tank permit. He added that there are not many places left in Lindon where this would apply and that the west side in particular, has a high water table to consider. He noted, however, that there are a few residents that are using a septic tank.

Mayor Ellertson asked if there were any other comments or questions. There were none.

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

COUNCILMEMBER HATCH MOVED TO APPROVE ORDINANCE #2004-11, AMENDING SECTION 13.12.120 – USE OF SEWER AND CULINARY WATER REQUIRED, OF THE LINDON CITY CODE , AS DISCUSSED WITH THE STIPULATIONS THAT:
1. THE PROPOSED AMENDMENT ACKNOWLEDGES THAT UTILITY HOOKUPS TO OTHER CITIES MAY BE APPROVED.
2. THE PROPOSED AMENDMENT ALLOWS EXISTING WELLS TO CONTINUE TO BE USED TO SERVE CULINARY NEEDS.
3. THE MAYOR IS GIVEN THE AUTHORITY TO REVIEW AND SIGN THE ORDINANCE WHEN IT IS AMENDED TO INCLUDE THE ABOVE PROVISIONS.
COUNCILMEMBER BAYLESS 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.

3. Preliminary Plat – Westlind Commercial Condominiums. This is a request by David Hardy for approval to convert an existing building with three rental units into an industrial condominium project for the purpose of selling each unit. Approval of this request will also vacate Lot 7, Plat “A” of the Westlind Industrial Park Subdivision. The building is located in the LI zone at 1418 West 70 South. The Planning Commission recommended approval with no conditions.

Mr. Smith presented an aerial photo of the area and pointed out the location of the existing building. He also displayed the original plat and commented that it was approved in 1997. He explained that the applicant wishes to convert the building located on Lot 7 into condominiums. The units will be defined to allow individual ownership and a owners association formed to own and maintain the parking lot and landscaping. He noted that the Planning Commission had no concerns and has recommended approval to the City Council.

Councilmember Bayless asked if the association will have Covenant, Conditions and Restrictions (CCR’s) recorded. Mr. Smith replied that the County Recorders Office will require this document before the plat is recorded. Councilmember Bayless asked the City’s procedure if the landscaping is not maintained. Mr. Smith replied that the City will take action against the association of all three owners. There was a short discussion of the building code requirements for fire separation for condominiums. Mayor Ellertson commented that the plat can be approved and if the building does not meet the International Building Code standards, reconstruction can take place in the one-year time period before the plat expires. He asked if there were buyers for the units. Mr. David Hardy replied that the current occupants have committed to buy the units. He added that the building was originally intended and built as condominiums.

COUNCILMEMBER BATH MOVED TO APPROVE THE REQUEST BY DAVID HARDY FOR WESTLIND INDUSTRIAL CONDOS, PLAT “A,” A THREE-UNIT COMMERCIAL CONDOMINIUM PROJECT LOCATED AT 1418 WEST 70 SOUTH. COUNCILMEMBER HATCH SECONDED THE MOTION. ALL PRESENT VOTED IN FAVOR. THE MOTION CARRIED.

4. Preliminary Plat – Dirker Farms, Plat “B.” This is a request by Rick Murano for approval of a subdivision amendment which reconfigures some lots and removes certain property from Dirker Farms Subdivision, Plat A.” This is a request for approval of Dirker Farms Subdivision, Plat “B,” in the R1-20 zone at 70 South 200 East. The Planning Commission recommended approval with one condition.

Mr. Rick Murano was invited to the front. Mr. Smith presented an aerial photo and pointed out the portion of the subdivision that was to be removed from the plat. He displayed the Plat “A” map and pointed out an area that was removed from the original plat because of discussion on the future of 300 East. He then presented the proposed Plat “B” and noted that this end parcel had been reconfigured into a one-acre lot and no allowance had been made for 300 East. He commented that the Planning Commission had no problem with the proposal other than providing for 300 East had not been decided. They have asked that the Council review the status of 300 East Street.

Mr. Smith displayed the Lindon City Streets Master Plan and pointed out that the plan shows a future extension of 300 East between Center Street and 70 South. This plat does not make allowance for this extension. He observed that the Council should discuss the options for this street and decide what is best for the neighborhood. He pointed out the location of a Lindon City pump station near the path of the street that may affect the decision-making process. Mr. Dameron asked the distance between the pump station and the nearest house to the west. Mr. Smith measured the distance as approximately 60-feet. He roughly drew in the path of the street and pointed out obstacles, such as buildings on the Eggett land, and clear vision limits around the pump house. He informed the Council that the Planning Commission discussed many of the issues surrounding this plat, including the possibilities of requiring a full-width street, requiring no street dedication but allowing a drive access to the back of the lots, and creating neither street nor drive. He observed that there is room here for a street to go through, but a street may not fit the desires of the surrounding residents. He added that the Lindon City Code also allows some flexibility for modification of street widths that the Council may consider.

Mayor Ellertson observed that the present proposal is to stop 300 East at the current location. Councilmember Bayless commented that there has been no discussion mentioned on provision of access to the back of the lot that is east of the Eggett parcel. Mr. Smith replied that one of the goals of community development is to avoid land locking a parcel; however, this parcel does not meet the strict interpretation of a landlocked parcel. He pointed out that there is frontage on a street even though the lots are deep. He suggested that it is hard for the City to anticipate and provide development potential for all and that groups of three or four neighbors can work together to provide access.

Councilmember Bayless verified that the Austin parcel had adequate frontage on the existing 300 East Street. Mr. Smith pointed out that the Code requires 50-feet of frontage on a bulb or turn and 100-feet of frontage along the 30-foot setback. It was determined that Mr. Austin’s end parcel contains .66 acres and so may contain enough acreage to meet the minimum requirements after dedication of the 300 East right-of-way. Mr. Murano observed that Mr. Austin has total property acreage sufficient for three lots and that he had placed three utility stub-outs along this frontage during the construction of the existing 300 East. He added that he had planned the lots and street so that it would work for the neighborhood. He observed that there is a petition on file with the City from the neighborhood requesting that 300 East not be extended to Center Street. He would lose a lot if the road was extended and suggested that they may not be enough space between the existing homes for the road. Councilmember Bayless asked if a cul-de-sac could be put on the end of 300 East. Mr. Murano suggested that a cul-de-sac may be extended from Center Street if needed, but that a street in this location may not accommodate every neighbor.

Mr. Wayne Johnson of 33 South 200 East told the Council that he has lived in Lindon 40 years. He informed the Council that Mr. Murano had approached him to buy this back parcel when he started this project. The original plan, at that time, was for 300 East to go through to Center Street. When the plat was recorded, the road was not provided for, and a legal battle ensued. The Judge on the case divided the property and Mr. Johnson wants the plat to return to the original state that includes 300 East. He suggested that there is plenty of room to put in the street as agreed upon.

Mr. Smith observed that the Council had required Mr. Murano to leave out the lot on Plat “A” affected by the potential 300 East Street because the neighbors were not united in opinion. Councilmember Bayless asked if enough acreage is contained in the affected parcels to meet the minimum requirements for lots if a cul-de-sac is created by extending 300 East from the south. Mr. Smith displayed the probable location of the street and cul-de-sac on the aerial photo. He commented that the Eggetts may not have enough property for a lot after the street dedication. He pointed out that 70 South Street uses the pathway cross-section.

Mr. Johnson expressed the opinion that the pathway cross-section is not needed for the cul-de-sac. Mr. Dameron asked Mr. Johnson if the cul-de-sac right-of-way that he is suggesting for access to his parcel is only shared between Mr. Murano and Mr. Austin. Mr. Johnson replied that the street dedication would be shared Mr. Murano, Mr. Austin, Mr. Eggett and himself. Mr. Smith was asked about the distance to the end of the cul-de-sac possibly exceeding the limit of 650-feet. Mr. Smith pointed out that 300 East does not “dead-end,” but has alternate access through 70 South Street. The cul-de-sac length would be measured from the intersection of 300 East and 70 South.

Mayor Ellertson confirmed with Mr. Johnson that he is suggesting that a road and utilities should be provided to the east side of his parcel. Mr. Johnson pointed out that any road shown on the Master Plan is expected by the adjoining property owners. Mayor Ellertson asked what precedence exists for preserving the right-of-way. Mr. Dameron replied that all property owners share in the costs and donate the right-of-way for a road that opens property for development. Mr. Johnson asserted that State law requires developers to improve streets. Councilmember Hatch pointed out that in this case, Mr. Murano does not own all the property for the proposed street. Mayor Ellertson asked if Mr. Johnson was willing to share in the partial development if the City tried to reserve the right-of-way. Councilmember Bayless pointed out that preserving the entire right-of-way may preclude the Eggetts from receiving the same benefits as Mr. Johnson. Mr. Dameron observed that the Eggetts may be able to show the Board of Adjustments that the City required the extension of the street and apply for a variance. Councilmember Bayless commented that this cul-de-sac may only serve two lots. Mr. Johnson informed the Council that one of the major reasons he had bought this parcel years ago was because this road was on the master plan to allow development for his rear yard. Councilmember Bayless suggested that the Eggetts need to be heard also.

Mr. Jalynn Eggett and Mrs. Bernie Eggett commented that they had bought their parcel 22 years ago. At the time they bought, they did not know about the road on the master plan. They asked what legal obligation they had to pay for improvements for a road that may take away their ability to develop.

(Councilmember Acerson arrived at 8:21 p.m.)

The Eggetts asserted that they had stated their position three years ago and that it had not changed. They do not want either a road or a trail. Mrs. Eggett stated her personal opinion that 300 East is not needed. It would take away their property, including their side yard, barns and play house. Mrs. Eggett commented that their property was more valuable without the road, but she added that Mr. Johnson should have access. Councilmember Hatch asked the Eggetts what their plans are for their back yard. The Eggetts replied that they would prefer to keep it as one lot, but maybe could divide for their children at some future date. They pointed out that there is no other possibility for development but what is needed for Mr. Johnson. Mayor Ellertson pointed out that allowing Mr. Johnson access will affect their property. Mr. Eggett suggested that Mr. Johnson be allowed to have an access of 28-feet. Mr. Dameron asked if Mr. Eggett was suggesting a deep lot for Mr. Johnson. The Council discussed this possibility. Mr. Smith pointed out that a deep lot is allowed for only one home on a maximum 250-foot driveway. This would restrict one property owner, either the Eggetts or Mr. Johnson, from building.

Mr. Vaughn Austin commented that he would like everyone to get what they desire and hoped that all the obstacles can be worked out. He observed that personally he would prefer that no development take place. Councilmember Carpenter asked if he would be satisfied if no more development takes place on 300 East. Mr. Austin replied that he would like to have two lots for the future. Councilmember Bayless asked if Mr. Austin had any suggestions. Mr. Austin replied that both his neighbors, the Eggetts and Mr. Johnson would like to see 300 South extended from the south, but not to go through. He suggested that if further development occurs in the future on the Eggett property, the street can be extended through to Center Street.

The Mayor and Council discussed the questions and issues. Mayor Ellertson pointed out that it appears that some type of road is needed. He added that safety, ownership of the road and the best width have yet to be decided. Mr. Dameron observed that utilities also have to be extended to service any homes. Mr. Johnson suggested that since Mr. Murano is amending the plat, he is responsible for these improvements and right-of-way dedication. Mayor Ellertson observed that the City does not usually require a developer to install improvement that they do not benefit from. Mr. Larry Walker disagreed and suggested that Mr. Murano had benefited from improvements required of Mrs. Helen Walker on another parcel in Lindon. He felt that requiring Mr. Murano to pay this time would be a “role reversal.” Mr. Smith observed that participation for the cost of improvements is required of those who benefit directly and that this has been the policy for many years.

Councilmember Hatch suggested that the right-of-way be left open for development later. Mr. Johnson replied that he would like the use of his property. Councilmember Bayless observed that this would require the participation of Mr. Murano, Mr. Austin, Mr. Eggett and himself. Mayor Ellertson commented that unless the other property owners are interested in maintaining access for the city street, the development potential of the backs of these lots is not solved. Mr. Eggett commented that he was not interested in seeing the street extended through to Center Street. Mr. Johnson observed that there was no better time than now during a revision of the plat.

Mr. Peter Whitmer, attorney for Mr. Johnson, asked to address the Council. He observed that the issue is whether to allow the Murano plat amendment and not provide the road as shown on the City’s Master Plan. He suggested that the access should be there and that the City should required Mr. Murano to do what they would require any other developer to do. Mr. Murano commented that he had not brought his attorney, but he pointed out that the original plan Mr. Johnson is referring to is labeled “concept plan.”

Councilmember Bayless observed that the Council is trying very hard to consider what is best for the community. She admitted that she was confused that the Council was being asked to follow the master plan, and not to follow it because the road is not wanted. Mayor Ellertson suggested that the best solution is for the neighbors to get together and work out an agreement. He admitted that, however, this solution sounds easier than it is.

Councilmember Hatch commented that the Eggetts should consider that if a cul-de-sac is favored over extending the street through, the Board of Adjustments may not award a variance because there will be no hardship. Mr. Eggett suggested that Mr. Johnson be allowed to create a deep lot and he would continue to use his current access, a lane from Center Street. Councilmember Carpenter suggested an alternative cul-de-sac that would bulb on Mr. Johnson’s property. Mrs. Eggett asked why the City was considering a full cul-de-sac for two lots. Councilmember Bayless replied that a full cul-de-sac is needed for safety issues. For instance, a partial street requires a garbage truck to back instead of allowing a turnaround. Mr. Eggett pointed out that 300 East never had a cul-de-sac bulb at the end and a garbage truck has backed out of there for years until recently when 70 South was completed. He suggested that the City is not being consistent. Mayor Ellertson replied that unequal-appearing situations are more frequently created when the City attempts to “tweak and adjust.”

Mr. Smith commented that the Planning Commission had also discussed whether an extension of 300 East is needed to serve two lots. Councilmember Carpenter asked what advantage there is to abandoning plans for 300 East other than preserving property to the Eggetts. Mr. Smith replied that it would accomplish the neighborhood’s desires. He admitted that, however, the neighborhood’s desires may not fit the Code requirements or accomplish what is best for the community. Mayor Ellertson suggested that it is also a challenge to decide between a full city street, or a variation thereof. He suggested that the Council is “danged if we do and danged if we don’t” and expressed a concern about setting precedence. Mr. Smith replied that there is more consistency than there may appear to be because of the variation and individuality of each situation and parcel.

Mayor Ellertson observed that there has been a lot of discussion tonight and that he would try to summarize. He suggested that by approving what has been presented tonight, the City Council is “walking away” from the Master Plan. He observed that there is some question as to this being the appropriate thing to do. Councilmember Carpenter asked if there was an advantage to keeping the road other than allowing Mr. Johnson access to his back property. Councilmember Bayless suggested that the question involves more than just the preference of the Eggetts; it includes the possibility that it reduces the Eggett parcel to the point that they become an undersized, nonconforming lot. Councilmember Carpenter observed that there is also the expectation of access entertained by Mr. Johnson for many years because of the Master Plan. Councilmember Bayless agreed. She pointed out that requiring the access to be preserved by Mr. Murano does not preclude him from developing lots. It may reduce the size of Lot 17, but the lot still exists. Councilmember Carpenter commented that until development occurs, the questions on the type or size of the street cannot be answered. He suggested that the possibility of a street can be answered then if the right-of-way is maintained.

Councilmember Bath commented that he had kept quiet to this point because all the parties involved are his neighbors and friends. He observed that he was disappointed that the neighborhood had not been able to resolve their difficulties without intercession to the Council. He suggested that the solution is there, but no one is willing to make the concessions necessary- on both sides. Mr. Murano suggested that he was willing to allow Mr. Johnson a twelve-foot strip and if Mr. Austin would do the same, this will enable Mr. Johnson to hookup to utilities and put in a driveway. Mr. Johnson suggested that Mr. Murano was making money on the neighborhood and that he should pay for the improvements.

Councilmember Bath suggested that the neighbors start from here and go on to resolve the issues. He added that both sides are going to have to give some for the situation to be resolved. Mr. Johnson replied that he was willing to let the court figure it out. Mr. Whitmer commented that allowing the court to decide may take several years. Mr. Johnson observed that his objective is to get the road. He commented that if he has access, he will drop his suit. Mr. Murano commented that his objective is to leave the road off. Mayor Ellertson suggested that Lot 15 must be adjusted to allow for the right-of-way. Councilmember Bayless agreed and commented that she was not comfortable with just leaving Lot 15 off the plat again. This solution just delays the decision for a future date and it will keep being revisited until a decision is made. Mayor Ellertson agreed and noted that Lots 16 and 17 will need reconfiguration to allow Lot 15 adequate acreage to meet the minimum.

Mr. Smith commented that he had a solution to suggest. He observed that the subdivision ordinance obliges a developer to dedicate half of a street in situations that the City Council “determines a partial width street is necessary to resolve problems with future road alignments of streets and/or intersections, or future development.” In cases such as these, the developer is required to either build the improvements, or to pay an assessment for curb, gutter and sidewalk for his half of the street. This assessment is held until the property owner of the other half of the street decides to develop.

Mr. Whitmer asked about extension of the utilities. Mr. Dameron replied that the utilities are stubbed to the northeast of the turn and the main line is stubbed to the corner. The ordinance does not require extension of utilities unless there is a direct benefit to the developer, so the property owners are required to extend them for their use. Mr. Whitmer commented that if this is what the ordinance requires, then Mr. Murano should be required to meet the requirements.

Mr. Dameron asked if this would satisfy Mr. Johnson so that the lawsuit is dropped. Mr. Johnson replied that there is no need to keep the lawsuit going if he has an easement. Mayor Ellertson asked if the Council wanted to see the revision of the plat before final approval.

Councilmember Hatch asked if there was any reason to hold the street corridor open all the way to Center Street. Mrs. Barbara Walker of 35 South 400 East observed that the street is on the master plan and should remain. She suggested that if there is a change in property owners in the future, it may still be allowed. She expressed the opinion that traffic will be facilitated by this street remaining on the Master Plan and that it should remain to allow future City Councils to see what the future brings. Mr. Eggett expressed the opinion that the street should end at Mr. Johnson. Mrs. Eggett agreed and pointed out that 300 East is a dead end now and should remain a dead end. Councilmember Bayless suggested that the “uneasy truce” should not be jeopardized by trying to decide this issue now.

Mayor Ellertson observed that it appears the general feeling of the Council is that the right-of-way should be maintained on the east side of Lot 15 and that the bonding requirements for the completion of the street improvements should be met. He suggested that Mr. Johnson may go the Planning Commission to develop his parcel and request a variance within city ordinances. Mr. Murano replied that he would accept the 25-foot right-of-way on Lot 15 and clarified that Mr. Johnson was responsible for hooking up to utilities. He asked that the Council approve the plat with this amendment and not require a second meeting.

COUNCILMEMBER CARPENTER MOVED TO APPROVE THE REQUEST BY RICK MURANO FOR A SUBDIVISION PLAT AMENDMENT FOR DIRKER FARMS PLAT “A,” AND CREATE DIRKER FARMS PLAT “B,” LOCATED AT 70 SOUTH 200 EAST WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS:
1. THAT THE LOTS BE ADJUSTED FOR LOT SIZE TO ALLOW FOR A 25-FOOT DEDICATION ON THE EAST SIDE OF LOT 15 BETWEEN 70 SOUTH AND THE NORTH PROPERTY LINE, AND
2. THAT THIS HALF STREET BE CONSTRUCTED, OR THE COSTS ASSOCIATED WITH THIS FUTURE ROAD BE PAID TO THE CITY, CONSISTENT WITH CITY ORDINANCES.
COUNCILMEMBER HATCH SECONDED THE MOTION. ALL PRESENT VOTED IN FAVOR, EXCEPT COUNCILMEMBER BATH WHO ABSTAINED FROM THE VOTE. THE MOTION CARRIED (4-0) WITH ONE ABSTENTION.

The Mayor called for a short intermission. The Council meeting was resumed at 9:33 p.m.

5. Appeal Hearing – Denial of Conditional Use Permit – R2 Overlay Project. Evan G. Nixon, co-applicant for an R2 Overlay project of 6 units on 1.25 acres, is appealing the decision of the Planning Commission to deny his application for a conditional use permit at 234 North 400 East in the R1-20 zone. Mr. Smith informed the Council that this item is an appeal of a Planning Commission decision to deny a conditional use permit for an R2 Overlay project. The applicants had submitted two versions that were considered over two different meetings. He read the motion from the minutes of the Planning Commission meeting of September 8, 2004. He explained that the applicant feels that there are ways to mitigate the concerns expressed by the Commissioners and so has appealed the decision to the Council. He noted that the City Attorney is present to answer questions. Mayor Ellertson invited the applicants, Evan Nixon and Mark Jones, to the front. Mr. Nixon presented the Councilmembers with a handout showing the plans and how the concerns of the Commission could have been mitigated. He explained that the Commissioners cited findings dealing with setback, inadequate access, parking and emergency and service facilities. He informed the Council that he had met with Fire Chief Mark Hales to show him the current plan and that Chief Hales had signed off the safety concerns. The only comment Chief Hales had given him was to designate the north side of the driveway as a fire lane with red curbing and signs. He noted that this was his intent for this driveway from the beginning. Mr. Jones added that he and Mr. Nixon had endeavored, at great lengths, to ask the Planning Commission to detail their concerns. He explained that he and his partner had not understood what requirements their project was not complying with and that they needed specifics on the criteria that prompted the denial. Mr. Nixon pointed out that the handout included a comparison with other R2 and multifamily projects in Lindon and nearby communities. Mr. Jones suggested that this comparison illustrates that this project is well within the guidelines of other approved projects. He added that he feels that the Planning Commission is being “arbitrary.” Mayor Ellertson verified which versions of the submittals being presented tonight were also submitted to the Planning Commission. Mr. Nixon pointed out versions S1 and S6 as those presented to the Commission. Mr. Nixon added that in the list of R2 project approved in Lindon, none have been approved in less than four or five times before the Planning Commission. He asserted that he was not asking for anything unreasonable, just guidance. Councilmember Bath asked the minimum frontage required for a lot. Mr. Smith replied 100 feet and added that if the frontage is on a cul-de-sac, the frontage must be 100 feet at the 30-foot setback line. Councilmember Bath asked if a private road is allowable for a driveway to this many units. Mr. Smith replied yes. Mr. Nixon pointed out several projects on the list that are located on similar sized lots. Mayor Ellertson commented that one of the concerns expressed was with the setback on the side property line on which the units back. Mr. Nixon replied that the side setbacks conform to the deep lot ordinance. Mayor Ellertson observed that it appears the Planning Commission view the side setback as the rear setback because the units are turned. Mr. Nixon replied that the project was designed with as many east-facing backyards as possible to allow residents a usable outdoor area for the evening. He added that there are other options available if this is not acceptable. He noted that the plans can be adjusted to allow for a 30-foot setback if needed. He explained that he had tried to “read the minds” of the Planning Commission to anticipate concerns. He presented an alternative plan that orients the units for north-south, rather than east-west facing homes. Councilmember Bayless asked if these are all single-family units. Mr. Nixon replied that he has other configurations that include duplexes and triplexes as well as the one with single-family homes. Councilmember Bath asked the size of the homes. Mr. Nixon replied that the homes contain about 1200 square feet on the main floor. Councilmember Bayless asked the plans for the remainder of the parcel. Mr. Nixon replied that it could be used for either pasture or parking. Councilmember Bath asked if there were basements. Mr. Nixon replied that they would like to have basements and added that they would also like to have some units with a second story. He noted that he was willing to limit the height of the units to 28-feet to meet the deep lot ordinance requirements and that any second story windows would not face the property lines where they would overlook neighbor’s yards. He added that the second story primarily lies over the garage and all windows would face either east or west. Mr. Jones informed the Council that they were prepared to present floor plans and color images. Councilmember Bath asked Mr. Nixon which plan he would prefer to construct. Mr. Nixon replied that he would prefer S1. Councilmember Bath indicated that this plan is “not acceptable” to him. Mr. Nixon asked why. Councilmember Bath explained that he did not approve of the turnaround at the end of the drive for fire and safety reasons. Mr. Nixon explained that this is an alternative hammerhead design acceptable to the fire department. Mr. Smith commented that he had talked to Chief Hales also. He explained that Chief Hales had told him that the design is not “approved,” but will meet the minimum fire code standards. Mr. Nixon replied that the State Fire Code prohibits parking on street of 26-feet width or less. Streets of 26 to 32-feet of width are restricted to parking on one side. He pointed out that the driveway proposed for this project is 26.5-feet wide. Mayor Ellertson commented that the parking along the driveway would be “tight.” Mr. Jones observed that the plans have been modified to make the drive wider and could be modified again. Councilmember Acerson asked where the developers planned to “push snow.” Mr. Nixon replied that the end of the lane and the end of the parking spaces would have no trees, just sod. These areas will be used for snow piles. Councilmember Acerson commented that the piles can get very large and the north side of the homes icy, and cited his experience with this issue. Mr. Nixon suggested that the homes can be made lower to allow more sunlight on the north side and he can accommodate a larger setback so that shadows do not shade the driveway. Councilmember Acerson commented that the drive will be maintained by the homeowners association and that snow can quickly become an issue if not dealt with promptly. Mr. Nixon observed that the Planning Commission was not willing to hear these additional suggestions for making the project compatible with the neighborhood and mitigating their concerns. He added that he tried very hard to get them to specify criteria that he could meet. Councilmember Bath commented that he did not feel that the City Council was the right body to be considering changes and corrections to the proposal, only as a reviewing body for the appeal. Councilmember Acerson agreed and asked if the Council should be reviewing all these plans when the Planning Commission only saw two of them. Councilmember Bath observed that the only plans the Council should review on an appeal are the ones presented to the Planning Commission. Mr. Nixon commented that he did not feel that the Planning Commission would accept additional plans. He explained that the reason he was presenting more plans here at City Council was that he wanted to show that the project could meet the requirements of the R2 Overlay ordinance and any other specific criteria, if he is allowed to amend and adjust the plans to meet these requirements. Councilmember Carpenter observed that the Planning Commission has stated that they feel the concerns cannot be mitigated because of the shape of the lot. Mr. Nixon replied that he felt that the concerns can be mitigated, but that the concerns were not specified. Mr. Jones added that he and his partner had no recourse other than appealing to the City Council because of the current moratorium on R2 projects. Mayor Ellertson observed that the moratorium was adopted in response to a “general question” on whether the R2 Overlay ordinance has accomplished its purpose. Mr. Nixon pointed out that the Council had heard applications in the past that they had sent back to the Planning Commission for further review. He asked that the Council remand the application back to the Planning Commission. Mayor Ellertson commented that this course of action would preserve the applicant’s right to apply. Mr. Jones asked if the Council agreed with the Planning Commission that the concerns cannot be mitigated. Councilmember Bayless replied that she has not seen a way to find solutions for the problems, and she had been to all the Planning Commission and Council meetings that have been held on this subject. She suggested that the depth of the property compared to the width is just not conducive to the sort of development that is proposed here. She also expressed concern about the use of single-family homes in this type of development. Mr. Nixon suggested that he could reduce the project to a home in front and a duplex or triplex in back. Councilmember Bayless replied that then the project appears to be a flag lot and multifamily housing is not permitted on a flag lot. She suggested that the property is suitable for a single-family home only. She admitted that she was not convinced that the project would maintain the quality of the existing neighborhood. Mr. Nixon asserted that he “is perplexed” on why the City will not allow this project to proceed. He suggested that if the parcel was only a half acre instead of the 1.25 acres, the City would allow a home and duplex. He pointed to the Cook project, Center Street project and 850 West project as examples. Mayor Ellertson replied that the Cook project is a triplex with parking behind, not a home and a duplex as Mr. Nixon is suggesting. Mr. Jones claimed that their only intent is to preserve the right to continue the discussion. Councilmember Hatch expressed the opinion that the parking and snow removal were not solved to his satisfaction. He pointed to the narrowness of the lot, the width and length of the driveway, and total number of units as all being excessive. Mr. Nixon replied that there are R2 project on narrower lots that this one. Councilmember Bath pointed out that these other lots are not nearly as deep as this particular one. Mr. Nixon suggested that he could move the whole project back on the lot 100 feet. Councilmember Bath observed that it appears that the R2 Overlay ordinance is being used to put as many homes in this area as possible. Mr. Nixon replied that this is the purpose of the R2 Overlay ordinance. It allows a developer to lower the cost of a home by increasing the density. It allows the creation of affordable homes. He asked the Council to give him some criteria for the project that he can try to meet. He asserted that the requirements of the ordinance have been met and he would like to hear the additional requirements. He observed that all he has been told is that the lot is too narrow, but similar projects have been done before on similar sized lots. Councilmember Bath asked why so many different versions had been brought to the Council and yet these were not presented to the Planning Commission. Mr. Nixon replied that they had not been given the opportunity to present alternative plans to the Commission. He commented that this is the first time that he has heard the opinion that the single-family home facing 400 East should have a setback of 100-feet. He agreed that he had “gone a little wild” in trying to find a plan that would fit all the possibilities that may be brought up. Councilmember Bayless commented that one of the considerations for a conditional use permit is whether the use is appropriate. She observed that the Council has received a recommendation from the Planning Commission to the effect that they consider this use inappropriate. She also noted that the opinions being expressed by the Council appear to substantiate the Planning Commission’s recommendation. She expressed the opinion that she also feels that the use is not appropriate and suggested that the lot’s depth compared to its width give rise to this opinion. She added that she feels that it is “questionable” that Mr. Nixon and Mr. Jones can accomplish what they desire by adjusting the orientation. She asked Mr. Nixon to explain how the width of the lot can be “mitigated.” Mr. Nixon asked if the Council would consider a plan with fewer units. He asked what kinds of setbacks he needed to plan. He asked if the Council would consider just putting a triplex on 400 East. Councilmember Acerson asked if the building would fit the character of the neighborhood. Mr. Nixon asserted that it would, because “the home on 400 East needs to be replaced.” Mr. Jones observed that affordable single-family homes are more needed in Lindon than duplexes or apartments. He commented that, as developers, they had tried to accommodate the depth and setback issues, but had “hit a brick wall.” Councilmember Acerson confirmed that the “driving force” of this development is to provide affordable housing, and not to make money. Mr. Jones replied that he and Mr. Nixon are residents of this community too. He asserted that children of residents and young couples are leaving Lindon because of the lack of affordable housing. He informed the Council that they have had some of their neighbors approach them to purchase units if they become available. Mayor Ellertson expressed a concern about the appropriateness of the venture in the immediate neighborhood of 400 East. He noted that these residents will be the most impacted, not those that “drive by.” Mr. Nixon agreed and pointed out that there is always “public clamor” when an R2 project is proposed. He suggested that there will be less impact to the neighborhood by the single-family units than would be created by apartments. Mr. Jones observed that he is a resident of this neighborhood and that the impacts have been taken into consideration. Mr. Nixon suggested that this project would have an impact comparable to Heritage Court. Mayor Ellertson observed that Heritage Court has a full-sized street, which is one of the issues repeatedly raised about this project. He noted, however, that the driveway is not a single issue. He commented that the driveway is not a standard street width, but only the width for a single-family home. He added that the City usually requires additional width for additional units. He suggested that an additional concern is the closeness and compactness of the proposed project. Mr. Nixon replied that this is the reason he had compiled the data about similar projects for the Council. He commented that these homes are not closer to neighboring homes than other projects in Lindon, and that there have been no complaints from the neighbors once the projects are completed. Mayor Ellertson observed that these other projects do not have the same depth to width ratio of this lot. Mr. Nixon pointed out that the driveway length is less than other projects, and is about half the street length of the Green Valley Condos project. Mayor Ellertson noted that the Green Valley project road is 33-feet wide. Mr. Nixon agreed and pointed out that Green Valley’s street serves 18 units rather than 6 units. He asked the Council to tell him what an appropriate width would be. Mayor Ellertson suggested that a standard street is needed. Councilmember Acerson observed that he also has done some development projects and had a “philosophical” comment to add to the discussion. He commented that some projects that he has proposed have been so opposed by the neighborhood that he has abandoned the project for his “own peace of mind.” Mr. Jones agreed that he has also been in this situation, but is “impelled by other reasons” in this case. Mr. Nixon commented that he also, has been in neighborhood meetings where he has had people that do not know him tell him what a liar and cheat he is. He agreed that it is “regrettable.” Councilmember Acerson commented that there are times when a developer must decided whether a project “is meant to be.” He suggested that a “good developer” finds a way to satisfy the concerns of the neighborhood. Councilmember Bayless added that, at times in the past, the Council has voted in favor of a project with more people in opposition than this one. The Council felt that these other projects “were in the spirit of the R2 Overlay ordinance, appropriate to the neighborhood, and had merit.” She observed that she did not feel this way about this project. She also commented that this discussion feels more like a design review and not a response to a denial. Mr. Nixon observed that he feels that the Planning Commission recommendation is not specific. Councilmember Carpenter observed that the meaning of the Planning Commission is clear to him from reading the minutes. He suggested that the project “can’t be fixed,” according to the Planning Commission. Mr. Nixon replied that other projects have been approved that are similar. He asked what worked there that does not work here. Councilmember Carpenter replied that Mr. Nixon may have some point in that approach, but he pointed that what Councilmember Bayless is trying to say is that this project has “all the problems,” not just one or two to mitigate. Mr. Nixon replied that he is willing to reduce his project. Mr. Jones observed that he and Mr. Nixon could not in good conscience walk away with this explanation. Mr. Nixon commented that it is obvious that the City Council will not approve homes on a driveway that is 500-feet long. He asked what an appropriate distance is in the opinion of the Council. Mr. Jones asked that the Council appreciate the amount of time and money invested in this parcel. He suggested that there are criteria set in the ordinances that they have met and that now the Council is changing the criteria. He felt that this is not fair. Mayor Ellertson asked if Mr. Jones really thinks that the criteria are changed. Mr. Jones replied that there has been no clear delineation of where the project does not meet the criteria. Mr. Nixon observed that they can put in a standard street width. Mr. Dameron observed that they cannot put in a standard street right-of-way. Mayor Ellertson pointed out that there have been clear indications on the part of the City that this parcel is “difficult.” Mr. Jones replied that they “took extra efforts” to make sure that they were making sound financial decision. Mayor Ellertson pointed out that there were other parcels available that are less difficult to develop. Mr. Nixon replied that the R2 Overlay ordinance has a radius restriction that limits which parcels can be used for projects. Mayor Ellertson observed that the R2 project appears to be the focus of their development efforts. Mayor Ellertson commented on Chief Hales’ conditional recommendation. Mr. Nixon observed that he views the fire code as a “minimum standard” and if the project meets these standards, it is safe. Mayor Ellertson replied that he views the fire code as a minimum standard only and that conditions may make the project safer. Mr. Nixon pointed out that the City’s trail/street cross section has the same amount of asphalt and allows parking on both sides. Councilmember Bayless suggested that one of the reasons to allow less asphalt is that other amenities are provided. She asked City Attorney Jared Frei for his opinion. Mr. Frei read a quote from the Lindon City Code about detrimental effects that cannot be mitigated. He suggested that the Council can consider the circumstances of a particular case to see if they feel the detrimental effects can be mitigated. He also suggested that the Council does not have to try and “second guess” the Planning Commission. They do not have to review plans not seen by the Planning Commission. He observed that it appears that the applicants do not feel that they have been given clear standards or the opportunity to mitigate the concerns. He pointed out, however, that the Council is expressing the same concerns as the Planning Commission. He asked the Council to list these concerns as grounds to uphold a denial, if they so desire. Mr. Smith also suggested that an R2 Overlay project is a conditional use. He read from the purpose section of the Conditional Uses chapter of the Lindon City Code. He observed that a conditional use is intended to promote the “health, safety, and welfare to existing and future residents” and it must be compatible to permitted uses. He suggested that this gives the Council the flexibility to consider that a conditional use does not fit on every parcel in Lindon. They are given the discretion to decide what works. Mayor Ellertson suggested that the applicants consider coming back with a plan that is more accepted by the neighborhood. He asked them to picture this project in their own “backyard.” Mr. Nixon asserted that he has considered the project this way. He suggested that if the Council compared this project to one that divided the parcel into half-acre lots, it would not have much more impact on the neighborhood. Mayor Ellertson replied that this is not what has been expressed here tonight from the Council, the neighborhood, or the Planning Commission. Mr. Nixon agreed, but pointed out that such projects are not “unprecedented.” He observed that the Heritage Court project was send back to the Planning Commission with some specific criteria to fulfill. He asked the Council to give his project the same consideration. There was audible outcry from the audience. Mayor Ellertson addressed the audience and acknowledged their desire to see some resolution tonight. Mr. Anderson commented on the amount of time already spent by the Planning Commission and Council discussing this matter. He asked if the Council feels that the issues that have been raised can be mitigated. Mayor Ellertson asked the neighborhood what they felt would mitigate their concerns. Mr. Anderson replied that it was not the neighborhood’s responsibility to tell the developers what to do. He suggested that the Development Review Committee, Planning Commission and City Council had a responsibility to the neighborhood to see that the project is appropriate to the neighborhood. Mr. Nixon asked the Council to spell out the additional restrictions that are required, over and above the ordinance. Councilmember Bayless replied that she does not see the issue that way. “There are no additional restrictions,” she added. She expressed the opinion that the lot is just not the “right shape” for the proposed project. Mr. Nixon suggested that the depth is the only difference. He observed that if they had known that the Council would not allow units back farther than 200 feet they would have proposed a triplex facing 400 East. He asked the Council to specify where on the lot they could put units. Councilmember Bath replied that it was not the Council’s responsibility to dictate a developer’s job, but to review the plans presented. He asserted that Mr. Nixon and Mr. Jones had not presented a plan that can be approved. He also pointed out that the lot configuration for this project is “totally different” than any on Mr. Nixon’s list. Mr. Nixon observed that R2 projects have been put on 100-foot wide lots in the past and the only difference is the depth. COUNCILMEMBER BATH MOVED TO DENY THE REQUEST BY MARK JONES AND EVAN NIXON FOR A SIX HOME, 1.25 ACRE R2 PROJECT AT 234 NORTH 400 EAST BASED ON THE RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION. COUNCILMEMBER HATCH SECONDED THE MOTION. Councilmember Bayless commented that Councilmember Bath might include findings in his motion and suggested that the Planning Commission cited “layout and setback problems related to the size of the parcel.” She added that the “layout and dimensions of the parcel make is inappropriate and unsuitable for this type of development.” Councilmember Carpenter added that the elements of the conditional use guidelines and the judgmental aspect of the conditional use permit are major points of emphasis in terms of the Council’s concerns. Mr. Frei suggested that the Council also address the opportunity to mitigate. Councilmember Bath commented that, in his estimation, the project does not fit the intent of the R2 Overlay ordinance, and is not appropriate to the neighborhood. Mr. Nixon commented that he would like to be given the same consideration as other R2 projects and asked that the Council remand the application back to the Planning Commission to give him the opportunity to present other configurations. Councilmember Carpenter observed that this is one of the motions that could have been made, but was not the substance of the motion on the floor. Mr. Nixon added that given the comments that have been made by the Council, he would not have put units in the back of the lot. Councilmember Acerson observed that he thinks the applicants may propose to claim that they do not have the option to come back to the Planning Commission if this motion is put to a vote tonight. He suggested that although there is a moratorium on R2 applications, when the moratorium is concluded the applicants have the opportunity to come back and reapply. Mr. Nixon asserted that no other applicant has been forced to reapply rather than just to come back. Mayor Ellertson directed attention back to the motion on the floor. He asked that the motion be read and restated. The motion was read as follows: COUNCILMEMBER BATH MOVED TO DENY THE REQUEST BY MARK JONES AND EVAN NIXON FOR A SIX HOME, 1.25 ACRE R2 OVERLAY PROJECT AT 234 NORTH 400 EAST BASED ON THE PLANNING COMMISSION’S RECOMMENDATION TO DENY BASED ON LAYOUT AND SETACK PROBLEMS RELATED TO THE SIZE OF THE PARCEL, INADEQUATE ACCESS, INADEQUATE PARKING, AND INADEQUATE FACILTIES FOR EMERGENCY AND SERVICE VEHICLES, AND THE FOLLOWING FINDINGS: 1. THE LAYOUT AND DIMENSIONS OF THE PARCEL MAKE IT INAPPROPRIATE AND UNSUITABLE FOR THIS TYPE OF DEVELOPMENT. 2. THE PROJECT DOES NOT MEET THE INTENT OF THE R2 OVERLAY ORDINANCE. 3. THE PROJECT IS NOT APPROPRIATE TO THE NEIGHBORHOOD. 4. THERE APPEARS TO BE NO PRACTICAL MEANS AVAILABLE TO THE APPLICANT TO EFFECTIVELY MITIGATE THE DETRIMENTAL EFFECTS. COUNCILMEMBER BATH ACCEPTED THE RESTATED MOTION. COUNCILMEMBER HATCH SECONDED THE RESTATED MOTION. THE VOTE IS RECORDED AS FOLLOWS: COUNCILMEMBER ACERSON AYE COUNCILMEMBER BATH AYE COUNCILMEMBER BAYLESS AYE COUNCILMEMBER CARPENTER AYE COUNCILMEMBER HATCH AYE THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY (5-0). 6. Review and Action – Sanitary Sewer System Capital Facilities Plan Update. This is a request by Staff for approval of the update to the capital facilities plan for the city’s sanitary sewer system. City Engineer, Mark Christensen, told the Council that the sewer model has been updated, and flow measurements have been taken to see if the model “reflects reality.” He added that they have also identified future projects to support the growth of Lindon. Mr. Christensen commented that based on the measurements, the model found no deficiencies and the system can be funded by impact fees as currently adopted. Mayor Ellertson asked about the west side of Lindon. Mr. Christensen replied that this area may be higher than what is conservatively estimated. He pointed out that there is a lot of area that is undeveloped, but that it is difficult to estimate and predict commercial and industrial uses compared to residential use. He noted that a large water user may have a demand that will affect future capacities. Mayor Ellertson asked if there is a project for potential development that is out of the normal, “How does the city respond to this request.” Councilmember Acerson asked if there were different parameters for the types of development that have a higher demand for water. Mr. Smith replied that the Lindon City Code has addressed this issue by allowing the city to review demands on the systems, and require adjustments to impacts. Councilmember Carpenter asked if this also addresses water delivery. Mr. Smith replied yes and noted that developments are evaluated on an individual basis. Mayor Ellertson commented that some developments may require on-site facilities. Mr. Dameron observed that all applications are reviewed by the City Engineer before they are presented to the Planning Commission. Mr. Christensen asked if there were any questions. Councilmember Hatch asked if anything had changed concerning the capacity of the Orem Treatment Plan and delivery system. Mr. Christensen replied that the engineers have considered increasing the capacity of the system on Geneva Road instead of pumping to 1200 West where there is extra capacity. Mayor Ellertson commented that there has been some discussion with Orem on this subject, but it concluded with no changes for now. Mr. Dameron noted the future project list included in the staff packet. There was a short discussion of the lift station by the landfill. COUNCILMEMBER ACERSON MOVED TO ACCEPT AND APPROVE THE RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE CITY ENGINEERS FOR A SANITARY SEWER SYSTEM CAPITAL FACILTIES UPDATE AS PRESENTED. COUNCILMEMBER BAYLESS SECONDED THE MOTION. THE VOTE IS RECORDED AS FOLLOWS: COUNCILMEMBER ACERSION AYE COUNCILMEMBER BATH AYE COUNCILMEMBER BAYLESS AYE COUNCILMEMBER CARPENTER AYE COUNCILMEMBER HATCH AYE THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY (5-0). 7. Review and Action – 900 East, 140 North Speed Study Update. This is a report requested by the Council to determine current speeds along 900 East and 140 North streets where speed humps were installed four years ago. Mayor Ellertson commented that this study was requested in response to concerns expressed by residents in this area. Mr. Christensen directed attention to the speeds measured in 2000 and in 2004. He summarized the information by stating that speeds have changed very little in the last four years. Councilmember Bath noted the recommendation to stripe the humps. Councilmember Carpenter reported that the striping had been completed this week. He also noted that the neighbors say that motorists are trying to avoid the humps by driving close to the curb. They are attempting to remedy the situation by parking their personal vehicles close to the humps. Mr. Christensen noted that there are measures that can be taken to remedy this situation and that he had not seen this occur when he was taking the data for the study. Councilmember Carpenter observed that the neighbors perceive that the potential avoiding of the humps is happening a lot and that speeds are excessive, but he noted that it appears that the prevailing speeds are lower overall. COUNCILMEMBER BAYLESS MOVED TO ACCEPT THE TRAFFIC STUDY REPORT FOR 900 EAST AND 140 NORTH AND RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE CITY ENGINEERS AS PRESENTED. COUNCILMEMBER HATCH SECONDED THE MOTION. ALL PRESENT VOTED IN FAVOR. THE MOTION CARRIED. 8. Resolution – 800 North/1200 East Access Management Plan (#2004-13). This is a request by staff for approval of a resolution which adopts an access management plan for the area around the proposed development of Highlands at Bald Mountain. The streets involved are 1200 East and 800 North. This is a requirement by UDOT before the approved corridor preservation funds will be made available. Mayor Ellertson commented that this request is a requirement from UDOT before funding of the corridor monies. Mr. Christensen presented a sketch of 1200 East and 800 North showing the areas where access is restricted and where access is allowed. He noted that the access is restricted in some areas because of the slopes involved and in others because it is owned by the Forest Service and there is no reason for access. He pointed out areas affected by retaining walls, the aqueduct, and existing development. Mayor Ellertson asked if there were questions. He noted that a traffic access plan is being completed for the whole city that will not be quite this detailed. COUNCILMEMBER CARPENTER MOVED TO APPROVE RESOLUTION #2004-13, ADOPTING AN ACCESS MANAGEMENT PLAN FOR 800 NORTH/1200 EAST STREETS FOR THE AREA FROM 650 EAST TO QUEENSLAND COURT AS PRESENTED AND AUTHORIZE THE MAYOR TO SIGN THE RESOLUTION. COUNCILMEMBER ACERSON SECONDED THE MOTION. THE VOTE IS RECORDED AS FOLLOWS: COUNCILMEMBER ACERSON AYE COUNCILMEMBER BATH AYE COUNCILMEMBER BAYLESS AYE COUNCILMEMBER CARPENTER AYE COUNCILMEMBER HATCH AYE THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY (5-0). Captain Cody Cullimore of the Pleasant Grove/Lindon Police Department asked to address the Council. Mayor Ellertson asked for a report on the Homeland Security conference that he had attended. Mr. Cullimore replied that the conference promoted the use of community police to increase the security of the community. They also promoted the use of volunteers in team building. He commented that the purpose is to get more officers out into the community for more visibility and target protection. Mayor Ellertson commented that they recommend the use of five core community programs to build the teams—neighborhood watch, CERT, VIPS, and the Fire and Medical Reserve Corp. Ms. Nancy Zundel, Lindon resident, commented that the LDS wards and stakes are a great resource for volunteers. Captain Cullimore agreed and commented on the great opportunities available. Mayor Ellertson observed that many of the volunteer organizations just listed exist and just need “nourishment” to keep growing. He added that the focus is not on just crime, because there is not enough crime in Lindon’s neighborhoods to keep these groups actively employed and interested. It is more about getting to know your neighbors and building community teamwork. He thanked Captain Cullimore for taking the time to go to the conference and sharing the information. 9. Review and Action – Property Purchases. This is a request by staff for approval of the purchase of two parcels of property. The first parcel is .86 of an acre for the southerly expansion of Pheasant Brook Park. The other parcel is a 12-foot strip along the 1200 East right-of-way. Mr. Dameron presented the property purchase information. He commented that the City was fortunate to be able to purchase the park property at last year’s prices. After discussion, COUNCILMEMBER ACERSON MOVED TO COMPLETE THE PURCHASE OF .86 ACRES FOR THE SOUTHERLY EXPANSION OF PHEASANT BROOK PARK AS PRESENTED. COUNCILMEMBER HATCH SECONDED THE MOTION. THE VOTE IS RECORDED AS FOLLOWS: COUNCILMEMBER ACERSON AYE COUNCILMEMBER BATH AYE COUNCILMEMBER BAYLESS AYE COUNCILMEMBER CARPENTER AYE COUNCILMEMBER HATCH AYE THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY (5-0). Mr. Dameron commented that the second parcel concerns a 12-foot strip for the 1200 East right-of-way. He observed that negotiations are continuing for this parcel, and the item will be brought back for approval at a future date. COUNCIL REPORTS: WATER, SEWER, SOLID WASTE, HOUSING CONSORTIUM Councilmember Hatch had no report for tonight. TRAILS, PLANNING, ZONING. BOARD OF ADJUSTMENTS, ADMINISTRATION Councilmember Bayless asked for a report on the staff training event held recently. Mr. Dameron replied that only one public works staff member had not attended the function. It had been held at a motel in American Fork and lunch was included. He reported that four staff members had thanked him specifically. He explained the premise of the training and added that a second session had been held for the staff members at the administration building. Councilmember Bayless commented that she would like to recommend that the Council visit the Fieldstone and Trophy Homes project in preparation for their requested design review. The Council discussed the location of the projects. PUBLIC SAFETY, COURT, BUILDING INSPECTIONS Councilmember Bath had no report for tonight. PARKS, RECREATION, ENGINEERING, LINDON FAIR, NEWSLETTER Councilmember Acerson had no report for tonight. Mayor Ellertson asked about the final accounting report for Lindon Days. Councilmember Acerson replied that he had talked with Mr. Tribe and the report is being completed and will be ready soon. GENERAL PLAN, STREETS & SIDEWALKS, PUBLIC BUILDNGS Councilmember Carpenter reported that Paul Miller had been hired for the newly created storm water technician position. He noted that this is a lateral moved for Mr. Miller. He also reported that Mr. Justin Taufer had been hired to fill the empty position. ADMINISTRATOR’S REPORT Mr. Dameron: 1. Announced the Engineering Coordination meeting for tomorrow, October 20, 2004. He also noted that the engineers will be out of town and have requested an alternative date. Various dates were discussed and November 17th was decided on if it could be confirmed with the City Engineers. 2. Noted that Pleasant Grove City has requested a second meeting on the taxing district proposal for Wednesday, October 27 at 4:30 p.m. This was discussed. 3. Reminded the Council that the next meeting date schedule for the Council is Election Day. He asked if the Council would like to reschedule the meeting for the 9th. Mayor Ellertson asked if there was any reason to meet on the 9th. It was decided to cancel the meeting and schedule any agenda items for November 16th. 4. Asked for any requests from the project tracking list. There were none. 5. Requested direction on the “U n’ Utah” Agreement request. The Council discussed the presentation and request by Mr. Steve Jury and asked Mr. Dameron to tell Mr. Jury that they were not prepared to make a decision yet, but would prefer to wait and see what the new governor would present. 6. Drew attention to various items in the staff report, including the building valuation reports, purchase of new equipment, and copy of a proposed ordinance for a future public hearing. 7. Announced his appointment to the Board for the North Utah County Animal Control Shelter. There was a short discussion of costs to the City for this new Shelter. 8. Presented a proposal for the County Trail System through Lindon’s Geneva Resort Park and Utah Lake frontage. The Council indicated consensus to approve the plan. 9. Noted that a Notice of Award for the Squaw Hollow Project was included in the staff report. COUNCILMEMBER BATH MOVED TO APPROVE THE PAY VOUCHERS. COUNCILMEMBER BAYLESS SECONDED THE MOTION. ALL PRESENT VOTED IN FAVOR. THE MOTION CARRIED. ADJOURN COUNCILMEMBER ACERSON MOVED TO ADJOURN THE C ITY COUNCIL MEETING AT 12:17 P.M. COUNCILMEMBER BAYLESS SECONDED THE MOTION. ALL PRESENT VOTED IN FAVOR. THE MOTION CARRIED. APPROVED – November 16, 2004