|
|
Home » City Government » Council » Schedule: Agendas and Minutes 2005 » Council Minutes 2005 » August 16, 2005
August 16, 2005
The Lindon City Council held a regularly scheduled meeting on Tuesday, August 16, 2005, beginning at 7:00 p.m., in the Lindon City Center, City Council Chambers, 100 North State Street, Lindon, Utah.
Conducting: Lindsey Bayless, Mayor Pro Tem
Pledge of Allegiance: Ott Dameron, City Administrator
Invocation: Eric Anthony, Councilmember
PRESENT ABSENT
Lindsey Bayless, Mayor Pro Tem Jeff Acerson, Mayor
Eric Anthony, Councilmember Bruce Carpenter, Councilmember
H. Toby Bath, Councilmember
Jerald I. Hatch, Councilmember
Ott H. Dameron, City Administrator/Recorder
Adam Cowie, Planning Director
Debra Cullimore, Deputy Recorder
The meeting was called to order at 7:05 p.m.
MINUTES – The minutes of the regular meeting of August 2, 2005 were reviewed. The following corrections were made:
Page 3, Line 24: strike the word “are” and add the words “might be.”
Page 6, Line 5: strike the words “Mr. Dameron” and add the words “the City”.
Page 15, Line 18: change the word “trial” to the word “trail”.
COUCILMEMBER HATCH MOVED TO APPROVE THE MINUTES OF THE AUGUST 2, 2005 MEETING AS CORRECTED. COUNCILMEMBER BATH SECONDED THE MOTION. ALL PRESENT VOTED IN FAVOR. THE MOTION CARRIED.
OPEN SESSION –
Councilmember Bayless invited comment from anyone present who wished to address an item not on the agenda. Steve Bown of Skyline Exhibits business in Lindon requested to address the Council regarding a sign application he had submitted for an LED type sign for his business which is located in the T-zone. The sign Mr. Bown applied for was denied due to the fact that a neighboring business has an existing LED type sign which is within the required 500 foot buffer zone specified in the sign ordinance.
Councilmember Bayless stated that she would like to preface the discussion with the fact that Mr. Bown has been present at public hearings during the revision process of the sign ordinance. She thanked Mr. Bown for his input and for being positive and supportive during the process. Councilmember Bayless commented that City officials and staff regret this situation. She observed that the sign on the Brookline business has been turned off for an extensive period, and that it was an oversight to have not mentioned it during previous discussions. Councilmember Bayless pointed out to Mr. Bown that it would be necessary for his request to be an agenda item prior to any action by the City Council. She noted that Mr. Bown’s business is important to Lindon City, and felt that there are possible options which may be considered.
Mr. Bown discussed several possibilities which would allow him to install the sign. Councilmember Bath suggested that the City look into the possibility of rescinding the use of the neighboring sign, as it has not been used for an extensive period of time. Mr. Cowie informed Mr. Bown that a back-lit sign would be allowable, provided that it met the size requirements specified in the sign ordinance. Mr. Bown suggested the possibility of purchasing or leasing neighboring property to create the required distance between his property boundary and the existing sign.
Mr. Dameron stated that he will put this item on the agenda for the next City Council meeting on September 6, 2005. Councilmember Bayless suggested that Mr. Bown discuss the possibility of leasing the neighboring property further with the property owner prior to that meeting. Mr. Dameron offered an apology to Mr. Bown on behalf of the City for the oversight in not bringing the existing sign to his attention during previous discussions.
MAYOR’S COMMENTS/REPORT –
Councilmember Bayless expressed appreciation to Linda Nelson and Nancy Zundel for their efforts in coordinating the Lindon Days Celebration this year. Councilmember Bayless noted that she had received a great deal of positive feed back from residents regarding the celebration.
CONSENT AGENDA –
No items.
CURRENT BUSINESS –
1. Public Hearing – Non-Conforming Lot Change and Preliminary Plat for Wesvirginia Hollow Subdivision. The City Council will hear public comment and possibly act to approve a request by Royce Swenson to alter a non-conforming lot, and approve a preliminary plat for Wesvirginia Hollow Subdivision, 2 lots, in the R1-20 zone at 525 West 200 South. The Planning Commission recommended approval with conditions.
COUNCILMEMBER BATH MOVED TO OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARINGS FOR AGENDA ITEMS #1 AND #2. COUNCILMEMBER HATCH SECONDED THE MOTION. ALL PRESENT VOTED IN FAVOR. THE MOTION CARRIED.
Mr. Cowie reviewed the application. He stated that the applicant is requesting approval of a minor subdivision that entails altering an existing non-conforming lot. The non-conforming lot does not meet the minimum 20,000 square foot requirement specified in the City code. Mr. Cowie went on to explain that county records indicate a deed gap between the subject property and the Wasden property, which is located on 200 South. This gap has been corrected and the new lot line adjustment actually increased the lot size of the Wasden property to make it more conforming with the 20,000 square foot size requirement.
Mr. Cowie explained that both lots in the proposed subdivision exceed the 20,000 square foot minimum. Mr. Cowie stated that the City code specifies that a minimum 100 foot width is required at the 30 foot setback, and Lot 1 narrows slightly to a width of 97.5 feet beyond the 30 foot set back. Mr. Cowie presented examples of several lots in the City which do not meet the width requirement, and noted that this interpretation of the width requirement has not been enforced consistently within the City. Mr. Cowie stated that a small addition to the existing home on Lot 2 will be removed in order to maintain required setbacks. The Council discussed interpretation of the width requirement, and came to a consensus that a 100 foot width is required at the 30 foot setback, but not at the rear boundary of the property. The proposed lot appears to meet this requirement. Councilmember Bayless noted that the proposed lot has adequate frontage, and appears to meet all other requirements. She felt that the width of the lot did not present a problem. Mr. Cowie stated that there are no significant staff concerns, but that staff wanted to assure the Council was aware of the lot configuration.
Councilmember Bayless called for public comment. Hearing none, the public hearing was closed.
COUNCILMEMBER BATH MOVED TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING FOR WESVIRGINIA HOLLOW SUBDIVISION. COUNCILMEMBER HATCH SECONDED THE MOTION. ALL PRESENT VOTED IN FAVOR. THE MOTION CARRIED.
COUNCILMEMBER HATCH MOVED TO APPROVE THE REQUEST BY ROYCE SWENSON FOR A 2-LOT MINOR SUBDIVISION TITLED WESVIRGINIA HOLLOW WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS:
2. THAT THE NEW DEED DESCRIPTION OF THE BOUNDARY LINE ADJUSTMENT BETWEEN THE WASDEN AND SWENSON PROPERTY BE FILED WITH THE COUNTY.
3. THAT THE ADDITION ON THE DWELLING ON LOT #2 BE REMOVED TO MAINTAIN REQUIRED SETBACKS.
COUNCILMEMBER ANTHONY SECONDED THE MOTION. ALL PRESENT VOTED IN FAVOR. THE MOTION CARRIED.
2. Public Hearing – Non-Conforming Lot Change and Preliminary Plat for Dray Savage Estates Subdivision. The City Council will hear public comment and possibly act to approve a request by Dray Savage to alter a non-conforming lot and approve a preliminary plat for Dray Savage Estates Subdivision, 2 lots, in the R1-20 zone at 85 South 500 East. The Planning Commission recommended approval with no conditions.
Gary Hoglund and Dray Savage were the representatives for this item. Mr. Cowie reviewed the application. He stated that this application also includes alteration of an existing non-conforming lot. Lot 1 does not meet the 100 foot width at the 30 foot setback requirement. However, the proposed subdivision eliminates the double frontage on the lot and makes it more conforming.
Mr. Cowie noted that the initial application submitted by Mr. Savage included the north parcel, but the application has been revised to include only the south portion of property. The lots on the north property currently have double frontage which has been created due to the construction of 500 East by the Alpine School District some years ago. Approval of a subdivision which would include the north property would create non-conforming lots, which is not consistent with City ordinance. The owner of the north portion of property intends to maintain it as farm land, so it has been eliminated from the subdivision plat. Mr. Cowie pointed out that the non-conforming lots already exist, and approval of the subdivision would not “create” the non-conforming lots. Reed Walker is the owner of the remnant parcel. Mr. Walker has been advised that when the property is developed, it will be necessary to sub-divide it in a manner which will create two conforming lots.
Mr. Cowie went on to discuss the proposed residence for Lot 2. He reported that the Planning Commission discussed the possibility that Lot 2 has adequate size to be subdivided further. Mr. Cowie noted that Lot 2 has 162 feet of frontage, which could allow a future “flag lot.” However, City ordinance specifies that a subdivision can not create a flag lot. Councilmember Bayless observed that there is sufficient frontage on the lot to allow for a full street width. Mr. Hoglund stated the proposed residence will be quite large, and would not allow sufficient space for an additional structure.
Councilmember Bayless called for public comment. Hearing none, the public hearing was closed and a motion was made.
COUNCILMEMBER BATH MOVED TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING FOR DRAY SAVAGE ESTATES. COUNCILMEMBER HATCH SECONDED THE MOTION. ALL PRESENT VOTED IN FAVOR. THE MOTION CARRIED.
COUNCILMEMBER BATH MOVED TO APPROVE THE REQUEST BY DRAY SAVAGE FOR A 2-LOT MINOR SUBDIVISION TITLED DRAY SAVAGE ESTATES. COUNCILMEMBER HATCH SECONDED THE MOTION. ALL PRESENT VOTED IN FAVOR. THE MOTION CARRIED.
3. Preliminary Plat – Orchard Park Residential Subdivision. This is a request by Wentworth Development, represented by Ian Dunn, for preliminary subdivision approval of Orchard Park Residential Subdivision, 34 lots, in the R1-20 zone at 600 North to 800 North Main Street. The Planning Commission recommended approval with conditions.
Mr. Cowie stated that Wentworth Development is requesting approval of a 34 lot subdivision located east of Main Street and North of 600 North. The proposed development includes the completion of Main Street north to where it connects with 1000 South in Pleasant Grove or 800 North in Lindon. This street will eventually be completed as a joint Lindon City/Pleasant Grove City project and will be a main corridor. Lindon City has purchased a 4 acre parcel from the Alpine School District in southwest corner of the property which is reserved for a City park. The applicants have requested the use of a corner of the City park area for the detention basin for the development. The City has negotiated an agreement with the developer which will require the developer to install street improvements in exchange for the detention basin area. The north Lindon boundary line will need to be adjusted with the Pleasant Grove boundary to locate the boundary along the south portion of the 1000 South/800 North right-of-way. Both cities have been aware of this situation and are working cooperatively to come to a resolution. The Pleasant Grove City Council felt that the entire boundary adjustment should be done at the same time (including the Fryer property to the east), rather than adjusting only the section of property associated with this development. Mr. Cowie noted that a significant number of residents had participated in the discussion of this item during the Planning Commission meeting. None of the residents had expressed strong opposition to the development, but had questions regarding the completion of 1000 South/800 North and the portion of Main Street associated with the development. Mr. Cowie reviewed the recommendations for approval made by the Planning Commission as follows:
1. That the subdivision plat not be recorded until the boundary line adjustment between Lindon and Pleasant Grove is finalized for at least the section of property involved with this development.
2. That the developer continue to work with Lindon City and DRC staff to finalize details of payments for subdivision improvements, address concerns regarding payment of fencing, and finalize agreements for utilization of the City park for the detention basin.
3. That the section of the North Union Canal that runs through the development and any canal laterals on the property be piped, and that the applicant contact the Fryers to see if they will consider a land swap to facilitate the alignment of the parcel boundaries with the canal and to determine if the portion of the canal on the Fryer property can be piped. The Planning Commission recommended that the City consider participating in the cost of piping the canal.
4. That all double frontage lots that have rear or side property lines abutting 600 North, Main Street, or 1000 South in Pleasant Grove have access restrictions identified on the plat that clarify that access is not permitted onto these streets. Mr. Cowie identified the proposed lots that would require these restrictions as lots 1, 2, 3, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 24, 25, and 34.
5. That the developer pay a cash amount to the City for full width Main Street improvements between 725 North and 1000 South in Pleasant Grove, but that street improvements would extend only to 725 North at this time.
6. The Byron property currently has a vacant area which could be improved in the future. The developer will install utility laterals to the Byron property at the expense of the Byrons.
7. Any outstanding engineering concerns are addressed by the developer to the satisfaction of the City engineer.
Councilmember Hatch inquired as to the reasoning behind the recommendation that the City consider participating in the cost of piping the canal. Mr. Cowie explained that the Planning Commission felt that the developer has agreed to participate in a large portion of improvements for the development, and some compensation should be considered. Councilmember Bayless asked if the developer has agreed to do more than would normally be required. Mr. Cowie stated that due to the amount of cost sharing between the developer and the City, it would be difficult to determine if the developer has agreed to do more than is typically required of other developers. Councilmember Anthony asked what the normal minimum requirement would be for street improvements for a developer. Mr. Cowie stated that typically a developer would be required to install half street improvements if the full width right of way could not be obtained, otherwise, full street improvements are the norm.
Councilmember Bayless inquired as to maintenance for the uncompleted area of Main Street past 725 North. Mr. Cowie indicated that the owner of the adjacent property, Wes Carter, is currently farming and maintaining the area to the center of the roadway. Mr. Carter was present at the meeting, and stated that he would not be opposed to continuing maintenance of the area. Mr. Cowie pointed out that there would be an additional half street width that would not be maintained by Mr. Carter. Mr. Dameron expressed that staff would prefer to improve Main Street to 1000 South/800 North at this time. He felt that concerns expressed by area residents that there would be a significant increase in traffic from 1000 South/800 North were unwarranted. Mr. Dameron noted that the completion of 1000 South/800 North will require federal funding, and is not likely to occur for some time. Mr. Dameron suggested that barricades could be used to eliminate traffic flow from 1000 South if it becomes warranted, and the barricades could be left in place until the entire 1000 South corridor is completed to Locust Avenue.
Councilmember Anthony noted that he felt an additional park access would be beneficial in the area of lot 9, 10, and 11. He observed that the additional access would create a shorter and safer walk to the park for children in the area, and that providing the additional access would be difficult after the lots are developed. Mr. Dunn stated that the developer would prefer to provide the park access as an easement rather than a dedication, so as not affect the size of the adjoining lots, but that the developer is willing to comply with the preference of the City regarding the park access. Planning Commissioner Jim Peters was present in the audience, and noted that he had voted nay to the motion made by Commissioner Nixon during the Planning Commission meeting, due to the fact that he felt strongly that an additional park access would be beneficial, and should be required. Following further discussion, it was the consensus of the Council that an additional park access should be required.
Councilmember Anthony went on to discuss possible safety concerns regarding the section of the nearby canal which is not in the development. He felt that some effort should be made to mitigate safety concerns related to the canal. Mr. Dunn suggested that CCR’s for the development could include installation of fencing by homeowners to restrict access to the canal area. Councilmember Bayless noted that while the City does not enforce regulations set by CCR’s, it would appear that requiring fencing would address the safety concerns associated with the open canal.
Jim Byron was present in the audience. Mr. Byron commented on the proposed fence along his property line. Mr. Byron stated that the fence is proposed as a six foot site obscuring fence. However, there is a shed located on the Byron property which has a door which is accessed from Main Street. The shed is used for storage of a boat and a motor home. Mr. Byron requested that they be allowed to maintain access to the shed door from Main Street. Mr. Cowie noted that the motion which was approved included a six foot fence with no Main Street access. The intent of not allowing access was to address possible safety concerns related to an access adjacent to a six foot fence, which would not allow adequate visibility. Mr. Cowie felt that a three foot fence may be considered. Mr. Byron suggested the possibility of discontinuing the fence in front of the shed. Mr. Dameron noted that the fence is not a City requirement, but is being installed at the request of the Byron’s, and could be installed to the specifications of the Byron’s, provided that safety concerns are addressed.
Mr. Dunn noted that in previous discussions, the City had expressed an interest in having the trees on the park site removed as the trees in the development are removed. Mr. Dunn stated that it may be appropriate to have a written agreement between the developer and the City for the removal of the trees. Mr. Dameron stated that it will be necessary to evaluate the cost of removal of the trees prior to entering into a written agreement. Mr. Dunn stated that the proposed cost of tree removal is $11.00 per tree at this time.
The Council returned to discussion regarding completion of Main Street to 1000 South. Councilmember Hatch felt that it would be appropriate to complete the street at the time of development of the subdivision. Councilmember Anthony agreed that it would likely be more cost effective to complete the street at the time of development. Lindon resident Matt Bean inquired as to City investments, and the ability for investments to keep up with inflation. Mr. Dameron explained that the City invests with the state wide treasurer’s pool, which currently earns approximately 3.2% interest. Mr. Bean noted that if money is invested wisely, funds provided now should keep up with the cost of inflation to allow for completion of Main Street in the future with no increase in expenditures for the City. Following further discussion, it was the consensus of the Council that the street should be completed at the time of development of Orchard Park subdivision, with barricades being used to restrict traffic flow into the residential area until 1000 South is completed to Locust Avenue.
COUNCILMEMBER ANTHONY MOVED TO APPROVE THE REQUEST BY WENTWORTH DEVELOPMENT FOR A 34 LOT RESIDENTIAL SUBDIVISION TITLED ORCHARD PARK WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS:
1. THAT THE SUBDIVISION PLAT NOT BE RECORDED UNTIL THE BOUNDARY LINE ADJUSTMENT BETWEEN LINDON CITY AND PLEASANT GROVE CITY IS FINALIZED FOR AT LEAST THE SECTION OF PROPERTY INVOLVED WITH THIS DEVELOPMENT.
2. THAT THE DEVELOPER ENTER INTO A DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT WITH THE CITY TO FINALIZE DETAILS OF PAYMENTS FOR SUBDIVISION IMPROVEMENTS, ADDRESS CONCERNS REGARDING PAYMENT OF FENCING AND FINALIZE AGREEMENTS FOR UTILIZATION OF THE CITY PARK FOR THE DETENTION BASIN.
3. THAT THE SECTION OF THE NORTH UNION CANAL THAT RUNS THROUGH THE DEVELOPMENT AND ANY CANAL LATERALS ON THE PROPERTY BE PIPED, AND THAT THE APPLICANT CONTACT THE FRYER’S REGARDING A POSSIBLE LAND SWAP TO ALIGN THE PARCEL BOUNDARIES WITH THE CANAL. THE APPLICANT WILL BE RESPONSIBLE TO PIPE ONLY AREAS OF THE CANAL LOCATED ON PROPERTY OWNED BY THE DEVELOPER.
4. THAT ALL DOUBLE FRONTAGE LOTS THAT HAVE REAR OR SIDE PROPERTY LINES ABUTTING 600 NORTH, MAIN STREETS, OR 1000 SOUTH IN PLEASANT GROVE HAVE ACCESS RESTRICTIONS IDENTIFIED ON THE PLAT TO CLARIFY THAT ACCESS IS NOT PERMITTED ON THESE STREETS. PROPOSED LOTS WITH RESTRICTIONS ARE: LOTS 1, 2, 3, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 24, 25, AND 34.
5. THAT A SIX FOOT ACCESS EASEMENT TO THE CITY PARK IS PROVIDED IN THE AREA BETWEEN LOTS 9 AND 11, AND THAT THE CITY BE RESPONSIBLE FOR MAINTENANCE OF BOTH PARK ACCESS EASEMENTS.
6. THAT MAIN STREET IS COMPLETED ACCORDING TO THE PLAT, AND BARRICADED AT THE NORTH END TO ELIMINATE TRAFFIC FLOW. THE BARRICADES WILL REMAIN IN PLACE UNTIL THE PLEASANT GROVE 1000 SOUTH CORRIDOR IS COMPLETED TO LOCUST AVENUE.
7. THAT THE BYRON’S PAY FOR ANY UTILITY LATERALS INTENDED TO SERVE THEIR PROPERTY ADJACENT TO MAIN STREET AND ALLOW INSTALLATION OF THE LATERALS BY THE DEVELOPER AT THE TIME OF DEVELOPMENT TO PREVENT THE ROADWAY FROM BEING CUT IN THE FUTURE, AND THAT THE DEVELOPER COMMUNICATE WITH CITY STAFF REGARDING THE INSTALLATION OF A FENCE ON THE BYRON PROPERTY.
8. THAT ANY OUTSTANDING ENGINEERING CONCERNS BE ADDRESSED TO THE SATISFACTION OF THE CITY ENGINEER.
COUNCILMEMBER BATH SECONDED THE MOTION. ALL PRESENT VOTED IN FAVOR. THE MOTION CARRIED.
Mr. Dameron noted that it is the expectation of the City that Alpine School District will bare the expense of any mitigation which is required regarding testing for and removal of any pesticide residue found at the City Park site.
4. Review and Action – Site Plan, Arby’s Restaurant. This is a request by Arby’s Restaurant chain for approval of the site plan for a restaurant in the CG zone at 593 North State Street. The Planning Commission recommended approval with one condition.
Beau Pettit introduced himself as the civil designer for the Arby’ project. Mr. Cowie reviewed the application. He stated that the Planning Commission had made several recommendations during design review of this application. Most of the suggestions made by the Planning Commission have been included in the current site plan. Changes which were incorporated are the addition of vertical stone elements to the facade, the addition of timber elements to the awning structures and gable, and timber cornice brackets, as well as the addition of awnings, timber elements, and signage to the rear elevation facing Wal-Mart. The Planning Commission recommended approval with the condition that the applicant consider relocating the south entrance ten feet to the north to widen the turning radius and align the entrance with the drive through window area. This recommendation has been included in the current site plan. Mr. Cowie also reviewed requests made by the Planning Commission regarding landscaping elements on the large grass area and the parking islands. Trees have been added as per Planning Commission recommendations.
Councilmember Bayless called for further discussion from the Council. Hearing none, she called for a motion.
COUNCILMEMBER BATH MOVED TO APPROVE THE SITE PLAN FOR ARBY’S RESTAURANT. COUNCILMEMBER ANTHONY SECONDED THE MOTION. ALL PRESENT VOTED IN FAVOR. THE MOTION CARRIED.
5. Discussion/Appeal – Rental Unit Billing Policy. This is a request by Gary and Karie Godfrey, landlords of Oak Canyon Estates, for a review of the city’s rental utility billing and enforcement policies and procedures.
Mr. Dameron introduced this item. Kristen Colson, Finance Director/Treasurer for the City, was present for the discussion to answer any questions the Council or Mr. Godfrey may have regarding billing and enforcement policies of the City. Mr. Dameron stated that this discussion is in response to concerns raised by Gary and Karie Godfrey regarding the responsibility of landlords for payment of utility bills on rental properties. Ms. Godfrey is the owner of 14 rental units located on 200 South. Mr. Dameron stated that the Council had revised the utility billing policy to make the landlord responsible for payment of utility bills if they are not paid by the tenant. Mr. Dameron felt that this was an issue that should be addressed by the City Council.
Mr. Godfrey addressed the Council. He stated that Ms. Godfrey had purchased the units approximately one year ago, at the same time the policy change was being considered. He stated that he and Ms. Godfrey did not receive notice of the new policy due to the change in ownership of the property. Mr. Godfrey gave an example of one tenant who had moved with a utility balance of approximately $800. In Mr. Godfrey’s opinion, the problem does not lie in the policy itself, but in enforcement of the policy. Mr. Godfrey felt that utility service should have been terminated before an $800 balance was allowed to accrue. Mr. Godfrey felt that it is unfair of the City to require a landlord to pay an outstanding utility account balance when the landlord has no control over the utility service. Mr. Godfrey stated that the current policy gives tenants with a past due balance on their utility account one late notice and one shut off notice, after which services should be terminated until the balance is paid. However, according to Mr. Godfrey, if the tenant makes a token payment, or a promise of payment, services are not terminated, which, he felt may result in the account balance growing. Mr. Godfrey felt that if the property owner is responsible for payment of the utility account if not paid by the tenant, the property owner should also have control over the amount of leniency given to tenants prior to termination of services.
Mr. Godfrey reviewed the utility policies of several neighboring cities, and requested that the City consider using elements of other policies which have been successful in other cities. Mr. Godfrey suggested the possibility of a higher deposit for non-owner residents, which would cover a higher balance that may be left owing when the tenant moves. Another suggestion was made to require mandatory termination of any rental unit account which has a past due balance of over $100. Mr. Godfrey felt that this would not affect owner occupied homes, but would protect property owners of rental properties from paying large outstanding balances left by tenants.
Councilmember Bath inquired as to the deposit currently required for utility services for tenants of rental properties. Mr. Dameron stated that the City does not collect the utility deposit, and that it is at the discretion of the property owner to determine the deposit amount paid by the tenant. Ms. Colson noted that many property owners include the cost of the utility services provided by the City in the monthly rent, which would alleviate the conflict caused by trying to collect the money for the separate utility bill each month. Mr. Godfrey felt that including the cost of the utility service in the monthly rent would give tenants the perception that rent was higher, and that property owners should have the right to determine if utility service is included in the rental amount, without the risk of being required to pay outstanding balances left by tenants.
Mr. Dameron asked Ms. Colson how many property owners have rental properties in Lindon. Ms. Colson stated that there are approximately thirty five property owners with rental units in the City. Mr. Dameron asked if the City had received complaints from any other landlords. Ms. Colson stated that no other complaints have been received. Mr. Dameron asked if other landlords are including the cost of utilities in the monthly rent. Ms. Colson stated that it is her understanding that they are.
Councilmember Anthony asked Mr. Godfrey if he had been able to recover any losses associated with payment of utility accounts when tenants have moved with outstanding balances. Mr. Godfrey stated that while it would be possible to pursue payment through small claims court, the fees associated with filing the claim do not make it a cost effective solution to the problem.
Ms. Godfrey suggested the possibility of the City paying the difference in the amount left owing on a utility account and the amount of the deposit collected by the landlord if City policy is not followed regarding termination of services for non-payment. The Council also discussed further the possibility of requiring shut off of rental unit accounts if the past due balance exceeds $100. Councilmember Anthony expressed concern that it may be viewed as discrimination if rental accounts are treated differently than owner occupied accounts. Mr. Dameron stated that he will discuss the matter further with the City attorney to determine what action can be taken by the City. Mr. Dameron also stated that he will put this item on the agenda for the City Council meeting on September 6, 2005 for further discussion depending upon the City Attorney’s timely response.
6. Review and Action – Annexation Ordinance (Ordinance #2005-14). The City Council will consider adopting the annexation ordinance. This ordinance is the final step in the annexation of approximately 27 acres southwest of the new I-15 Interchange. The required notice was provided to all interested parties and no objections to the petition for annexation have been filed with the City.
Mr. Cowie introduced Steve Miner as the petitioner and reviewed this item. He stated that the area of proposed annexation is included in the Annexation Policy Plan of the City which was adopted in 2003. Mr. Cowie stated that the proposed annexation includes three parcels of property which are under two ownerships. Mr. Cowie noted that the proposed Ordinance 2005-14 follows state code for an annexation procedure. He went on to explain that proper noticing had been provided to all interested parties with the appropriate thirty day response period. No response has been received from any noticed party. Mr. Cowie stated that Property Reserve Inc. (PRI) owns the two parcels of property in the proposed annexation area which are not owned by Mr. Miner. PRI is owned by the LDS Church, and due to their tax exempt status, they are not allowed to apply for annexation. The City has contacted PRI representatives, who have stated that they are not opposed to the annexation, but have requested that the annexed area be zoned CG. Mr. Cowie went on to discuss utility service to the annexed area. Mr. Cowie stated that the City already has provided utility service along 2600 West, but extension of utility lines to the properties is the sole responsibility of the property owners requesting service. Mr. Cowie noted that some upgrades in the sewer system in the area will likely be necessary, but the upgrades would be necessary regardless of the annexation. Councilmember Bayless asked if the LDS Church is aware of the requirements for providing utility service. Mr. Cowie stated that representative of the LDS Church have been present at DRC meetings when utility service has been discussed, and they are aware of possible issues associated with utility service.
Mr. Cowie also pointed out that a boundary line adjustment with American Fork City may be required for the road right-of-way. Mr. Miner stated that, in his opinion, the Mountain View Corridor is proposed for the area, and that the placement of the road has already been determined. Mr. Cowie stated that options for the Mountain View Corridor are a four lane road or a six lane freeway, but that the alignment is not certain at this time. City engineers for American Fork and Lindon have reviewed the proposed road, and made a recommendation that improvements only to the south side of the road should be required at this time.
Mr. Miner noted that there are some flooding problems in the area associated with the metal culvert installed by UDOT at the railroad crossing. He suggested that the length of the culvert needs to be extended. Mr. Cowie noted that the Army Corp of Engineers is currently reviewing wet lands in the area and will make a recommendation regarding drainage and maintenance of these areas. Mr. Miner stated that the culvert in the area has been damaged by large trucks and is in need of repair to provide proper drainage of storm water and well water which is produced in the area.
Councilmember Anthony inquired as to the potential benefit to the City regarding the annexation. Mr. Cowie stated that due to the fact that the area will be zoned CG, if approved, there is a possibility of increased tax revenue to the City. Councilmember Anthony also asked about possible negative affects to the City. Mr. Cowie stated that the City may be responsible for long term maintenance of the roads in the area. According to Mr. Miner, road maintenance may fall under the jurisdiction of the State.
Councilmember Bayless called for further discussion. Hearing none, she called for a motion.
COUNCILMEMBER BATH MOVED TO ADOPT ORDINANCE 2005-14 ANNEXING LANDS INTO LINDON CITY PURSUANT TO SECTION 10-2-408 OF THE UTAH CODE ANNOTATED, ADOPT THE ANNEXATION PLAT, AND ZONE THE ANNEXED AREA CG. COUNCILMEMBER HATCH SECONDED THE MOTION. THE VOTE WAS RECORDED AS FOLLOWS:
COUNCILMEMBER ANTHONY AYE
COUNCILMEMBER BATH AYE
COUNCILMEMBER BAYLESS AYE
COUNCILMEMBER HATCH AYE
THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY WITH ONE ABSENT.
7. Review and Action – Property Purchase – Public Works Complex. This is a request by staff for approval of the purchase of approximately 1.41 acres from Arden B. Hutchings. This parcel will allow for the expansion of the public works yard and provide space for future operations. The city will retain the “right to first refusal” on the remaining properties in this area owned by Mr. Hutchings.
Mr. Dameron gave an overview of this item. He stated that the City is entering into a purchase agreement with Arden B. Hutchings for the purchase of 1.41 acres of land adjacent to the existing Public Works complex. The property will allow the City to expand Public Works operations on the site as necessary in the future. Mr. Dameron reported that the City Council had directed him to attempt to negotiate the property purchase price with Mr. Hutchings one more time before finalizing the agreement. According to Mr. Dameron, Mr. Hutchings would not negotiate the price further, and agreed to sell at the price of $150,000, which may be paid over the next two fiscal years at a rate of $75,000 per fiscal year. Mr. Dameron stated that the purchase agreement also gives the City “right of first refusal” for remaining property in the area owned by Mr. Hutchings. Mr. Dameron noted that the property is located north and west of the existing Public Works facility, and will require pumping of water to drain the area prior to any construction.
Councilmember Bayless called for further comments or discussion. Hearing none, she called for a motion.
COUNCILMEMBER HATCH MOVED TO APPROVE THE REAL ESTATE PURCHASE CONTRACT BETWEEN LINDON CITY AND ARDEN B. HUTCHINGS AND TO AUTHORIZE MAYOR ACERSON TO SIGN ALL RELATED DOCUMENTS. COUNCILMEMBER BATH SECONDED THE MOTION. THE VOTE WAS RECORDED AS FOLLOWS:
COUNCILMEMBER ANTHONY AYE
COUNCILMEMBER BATH AYE
COUNCILMEMBER BAYLESS AYE
COUNCILMEMBER HATCH AYE
THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY WITH ONE ABSENT.
Councilmember Anthony was excused temporarily at 10:25 p.m., and returned at 10:33 p.m.
COUNCILMEMBER BATH MOVED TO ADJOURN THE LINDON CITY COUNCIL MEETING TEMPORARILY AND CONVENE THE LINDON CITY REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY AT 10:33 P.M. COUNCILMEMBER HATCH SECONDED THE MOTION. ALL PRESENT VOTED IN FAVOR. THE MOTION CARRIED.
BOARDMEMBER HATCH MOVED TO ADJOURN THE LINDON CITY REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY AND CONVENE THE LINDON CITY MUNICIPAL BUILDING AUTHORITY AT 10:38 P.M. BOARDMEMBER BATH SECONDED THE MOTION. ALL PRESENT VOTED IN FAVOR. THE MOTION CARRIED.
BOARDMEMBER HATCH MOVED TO ADJOURN THE LINDON CITY MUNICIPAL BUILDING AUTHORITY AND RECONVENE THE LINDON CITY COUNCIL MEETING AT 10:50 P.M. BOARDMEMBER BATH SECONDED THE MOTION. ALL PRESENT VOTED IN FAVOR. THE MOTION CARRIED.
8. Review and Action – Resolution Approving the RDA Refunding of District 3 Tax Increment Bonds (Resolution #2005-14). The City Council will consider for adoption a resolution of the City Council of Lindon City, Utah, (the “City”) authorizing and approving the issuance by the Agency of its $3,095,000 Tax Increment Revenue Refunding bonds, series 2005, for the purpose of refunding a portion of its prior obligations; authorizing the taking of all other action necessary to the consummation of transactions contemplated by this resolution; and related matters.
Mr. Dameron noted that a mistake had been made on the agenda for this item by Ballard Spahr, bond attorneys. He noted that the agenda listed the aggregate principal amount as $2,835,000.00, and the actual amount is $3,095,000. Mr. Dameron asked if there were any questions or concerns regarding the resolution. Hearing none, Councilmember Bayless called for a motion.
COUNCILMEMBER BATH MOVED TO APPROVE RESOLUTION 2005-14 AUTHORIZING AND APPROVING THE ISSUANCE BY THE AGENCY OF IT’S $3,095,000 TAX INCREMENT REVENUE REFUNDING BONDS, SERIES 2005 FOR THE PURPOSE OF REFUNDING A PORTION OF ITS PRIOR OBLIGATIONS; AUTHORIZING THE TAKING OF ALL OTHER ACTION NECESSARY TO THE CONSUMMATION OF TRANSACTIONS CONTEMPLATED BY THIS RESOLUTION; AND RELATED MATTERS. COUNCILMEMBER HATCH SECONDED THE MOTION. THE VOTE WAS RECORDED AS FOLLOWS:
COUNCILMEMBER ANTHONY AYE
COUNCILMEMBER BATH AYE
COUNCILMEMBER BAYLESS AYE
COUCILMEMBER HATCH AYE
THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY WITH ONE ABSENT.
9. Review and Action – Resolution Approving the MBA Refunding of I-15 Lease Revenue Bonds (Resolution #2005-15). The City Council will consider for adoption a resolution of the City Council of Lindon City, Utah (the “City”) authorizing and approving the execution of a supplemental resolution dated as of August 1, 2005 by and between the City and Municipal Building Authority of Lindon City, Utah (the “Authority”) authorizing the issuance and sale by the Authority of its Lease Revenue Refunding bonds, Series 2005, in the aggregate principal amount of $1,492,000; authorizing the execution of a first amendment ground lease, first amendment to sublease agreement, bond purchase agreement, and other documents required in connection therewith; authorizing the taking of all other actions necessary to the consummation of the transaction contemplated by this resolution; and related matters.
Mr. Dameron noted that a mistake had been made on the agenda for this item. He noted that the agenda listed the aggregate principal amount as $1,490,000.00, and the actual amount is $1,492,000. Mr. Dameron asked if there were any questions or concerns regarding the resolution. Hearing none, Councilmember Bayless called for a motion.
COUNCILMEMBER HATCH MOVED TO APPROVE RESOLUTION 2005-15 AUTHORIZING AND APPROVING THE EXECUTION OF A SUPPLEMENTAL RESOLUTION DATED AS OF AUGUST 1, 2005 BY AND BETWEEN THE CITY AND MUNICIPAL BUILDING AUTHORITY OF LINDON CITY, UTAH AUTHORIZING THE ISSUANCE AND SALE BY THE AUTHORITY OF ITS LEASE REVENUE REFUNDING BONDS SERIES 2005 IN THE AGGREGATE PRINCIPAL AMOUNT OF $1,492,000, AUTHORIZING THE EXECUTION OF A FIRST AMENDMENT TO GROUND LEASE, FIRST AMENDMENT TO SUBLEASE AGREEMENT, BOND PURCHASE AGREEMENT, AND OTHER DOCUMENTS REQUIRED IN CONNECTION THEREWITH; AUTHORIZING THE TAKING OF ALL OTHER ACTIONS NECESSARY TO THE CONSUMMATION OF THE TRANSACTION CONTEMPLATED BY THIS RESOLUTION; AND RELATED MATTERS. COUNCILMEMBER BATH SECONDED THE MOTION. THE VOTE WAS RECORDED AS FOLLOWS:
COUNCILMEMBER ANTHONY AYE
COUNCILMEMBER BATH AYE
COUNCILMEMBER BAYLESS AYE
COUNCILMEMBER HATCH AYE
THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY WITH ONE ABSENT.
10. Review and Action – Interlocal Agreement with Utah County for the “EASY” Program. This is a request from Utah County to renew the Interlocal Agreement for the Eliminate Alcohol Sales to Youth (EASY) Program. The agreement is for one year and provides for cooperation between the County and Lindon City in the enforcement of underage drinking laws.
Councilmember Bayless noted that this is a renewal of the agreement the City entered into last year. Mr. Dameron asked if there were any comments or concerns regarding the agreement. The Council expressed no concerns regarding the agreement.
COUNCILMEMBER HATCH MOVED TO APPROVE THE INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT BETWEEN LINDON CITY AND UTAH COUNTY FOR THE “EASY” (ELIMINATE ALCOHOL SALES TO YOUTH) PROGRAM. COUNCILMEMBER BATH SECONDED THE MOTION. ALL PRESENT VOTED IN FAVOR. THE MOTION CARRIED.
11. Review and Action – Dan Jones Community Survey. This is a request by staff for the Council’s approval to retain Dan Jones & Associates to complete a community survey.
Mr. Dameron stated that staff is requesting approval to retain Dan Jones and Associates to conduct a community survey of Lindon residents regarding the construction of a Community Center. Mr. Dameron requested direction from the Council regarding the number of residents surveyed and the length of each survey. Options for the survey include a sample size of 200, 300, or 400 residents, and a survey length of 5-7 minutes, 8-11 minutes, or 12-15 minutes. Following discussion the Council felt that 300 residents should be surveyed, for a length of 12-15 minutes each. Mr. Dameron suggested the possibility of including additional questions regarding other City services.
COUNCILMEMBER ANTHONY MOVED TO RETAIN DAN JONES AND ASSOCIATES TO CONDUCT A COMMUNITY SURVEY AND AUTHORIZE A SURVEY OF 300 RESIDENTS FOR A PERIOD OF TWELVE TO FIFTEEN MINUTES EACH. COUNCILMEMBER HATCH SECONDED THE MOTION. THE VOTE WAS RECORDED AS FOLLOWS:
COUNCILMEMBER ANTHONY AYE
COUNCILMEMBER BATH NAY
COUNCILMEMBER BAYLESS AYE
COUNCILMEMBER HATCH AYE
THE MOTION CARRIED (3-1) WITH ONE ABSENT.
Councilmember Bath noted that he felt the survey should include 400 residents in order to achieve a more accurate outcome.
12. Review and Action – Murdock Canal Enclosure Financing. This is a request by staff for direction from the Council concerning the method of payment for the city’s share of the costs of piping the Murdock Canal. The JVWCD has offered to pay the expenses for piping the canal in exchange for the transfer of capacity rights in the canal.
Dave Thurgood of JUB Engineers addressed the Council on this item. He stated that Provo River Water Users Association has determined that cost sharing for the canal enclosure will include two segments of financing. One will be associated with water shares, and one with capacity rights. Mr. Thurgood reviewed specific findings of the research conducted by JUB Engineers regarding possible options for the City regarding the cost of the canal enclosure. Mr. Thurgood recommended that the City relinquish capacity rights in the Murdock Canal, as there is currently no mechanism to divert water from the canal into the pressurized irrigation system. Therefore, the capacity rights are not being used at this time, and relinquishing capacity rights would have a minimal effect on the irrigation system in the City. In exchange for the capacity rights, the cost of the City’s share of improvement based on capacity rights would be paid by Jordan Valley Water Conservancy District, which would eliminate the cost of improvements being paid by the City in the amount of $135,913. The City would still be required to pay the cost of improvements associated with shares in the amount of $57,772. Mr. Thurgood explained that the fees associated with shares could be paid over a period of time, possibly up to forty years.
Mr. Thurgood explained that the intent of the improvements is to eliminate leakage and evaporation from the canal in order to conserve water and eliminate waste. He noted that the population of the state is growing, and no additional water is being produced. Water conservation procedures are necessary and important to the future of Utah.
Mr. Thurgood explained the irrigation system in detail, and answered specific questions of Councilmembers regarding the transfer of capacity rights and the cost of improvements. Mr. Dameron asked for further questions. Hearing none, he requested that the Council provide direction in a motion regarding relinquishment of capacity rights.
COUNCILMEMBER BATH MOVED TO RELINQUISH THE CAPACITY RIGHTS OF LINDON CITY IN THE MURDOCK CANAL IN EXCHANGE FOR THE PAYMENT BY JORDAN VALLEY WATER CONSERVANCY DISTRICT OF THE CITY’S SHARE OF EXPENSE BASED ON CAPACITY RIGHTS ASSOCIATED WITH PIPING AND/OR MAINTENANCE OF THE CANAL. COUNCILMEMBER HATCH SECONDED THE MOTION. THE VOTE WAS RECORDED AS FOLLOWS:
COUNCILMEMBER ANTHONY AYE
COUNCILMEMBER BATH AYE
COUNCILMEMBER BAYLESS AYE
COUNCILMEMBER HATCH AYE
THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY WITH ONE ABSENT.
COUNCIL REPORTS –
WATER, SEWER, SOLID WASTE, HOUSING CONSORTIUM
Councilmember Hatch had no items to report.
TRAILS, PLANNING, ZONING, BOARD OF ADJUSTMENTS, ADMINISTRATION
Councilmember Bayless inquired as to landscaping on the south corner of the Wal-Mart site. Mr. Dameron stated that Mr. Cowie is following up on landscaping requirements.
Councilmember Bayless commented on possible street cross sections associated with the proposed Timp Lake Trail. She suggested the City submit a proposal based on the needs of the community. She noted that the proposal may be denied, but felt that an effort should be made to ensure the Trail is based on the needs and desires of the City.
PUBLIC SAFETY, COURT, BUILDING INSPECTIONS
Councilmember Bath had no items to report.
PARKS, RECREATION, ENGINEERING, LINDON FAIR, NEWSLETTER
Councilmember Anthony requested that the Tree Advisory Board be expanded to include a degreed professional, as well as a Secretary to facilitate meetings and keep records of Board meetings. The Council expressed no opposition to the additional Board members.
Councilmember Anthony expressed appreciation to the Lindon Days Committee, and specifically Linda Nelson and Nancy Zundel, for their efforts in planning and conducting the celebration. He noted that a “recognition night” will be held at La Casita Restaurant to honor all those who participated in planning and carrying out the event. Mr. Dameron informed Councilmember Anthony that the City will provide a “night out” package to the Homestead Resort which Councilmember Anthony can present at the restaurant.
GENERAL PLAN, STREETS & SIDEWALKS, PUBLIC BUILDINGS
Councilmember Carpenter was not present at the meeting.
ADMINISTRATORS REPORT
Mr. Dameron reported on the following items:
1. Engineering Coordination Meeting will be August 17th at noon. Councilmember Bayless will attend.
2. A Timp Lake Trail meeting will be held Monday, August 22 at 3:30 p.m.
3. The Planning Commission requested a joint work session with the City Council to discuss State Street commercial design guidelines with CRS Architects. The meeting was scheduled for August 23rd at 9:30 a.m.
4. There was no project tracking list available, but Mr. Dameron noted that all State Street projects would be reviewed for approval by the City Council.
5. Recycling accounts increased to 299.
6. The Utah League of Cities and Towns Conference will be held in Salt Lake City September 14 – 16.
7. Mr. Dameron requested that a joint work session be held with the City Council, the Planning Commission, and the Board of Adjustments to review the new LUDMA (Land Use Development Management Act) requirements. The work session will be scheduled at 6:00 p.m. prior to a future City Council meeting.
8. A pre-construction meeting for the traffic light at 700 North State Street will be held August 23rd at 9:00 a.m. in the UDOT offices.
COUNCILMEMBER BATH MOVED TO APPROVE THE PAY VOUCHERS. COUNCILMEMBER HATCH SECONDED THE MOTION. ALL PRESENT VOTED IN FAVOR. THE MOTION CARRIED.
ADJOURN -
COUNCILMEMBER BATH MOVED TO ADJOURN THE MEETING AT 12:04 A.M. COUNCILMEMBER HATCH SECONDED THE MOTION. ALL PRESENT VOTED IN FAVOR. THE MOTION CARRIED.
APPROVED – September 6, 2005
______________________________________
Ott H. Dameron, City Administrator/Recorder
_______________________________
Jeff Acerson, Mayor
|
|
|
