|
|
Home » City Government » Council » Schedule: Agendas and Minutes 2005 » Council Minutes 2005 » August 2, 2005
August 2, 2005
The Lindon City Council held a regularly scheduled meeting on Tuesday, August 2, 2005, beginning at 7:00 p.m., in the Lindon City Center, City Council Chambers, 100 North State Street, Lindon, Utah.
Conducting: Jeff Acerson, Mayor
Pledge of Allegiance: Benson Boy, Boy Scout
Invocation: Toby Bath, Councilmember
PRESENT ABSENT
Jeff Acerson, Mayor Eric Anthony, Councilmember
H. Toby Bath, Councilmember
Lindsey Bayless, Councilmember
Bruce Carpenter, 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 7:08
PRESENTATION - The Little Miss Lindon Royalty will make a presentation to the Council.
The Little Miss Lindon Royalty had not yet arrived at the meeting. Mayor Acerson suggested moving on with agenda items, and returning to this item upon arrival of the Royalty.
PROCLAMATION – The Mayor and City Council will consider a Proclamation designating an Arbor Day Activity during Lindon Days.
Mayor Acerson read the proclamation, which designates August 13, 2005 “Celebrate Arbor Day” in Lindon City.
COUNCILMEMBER CARPENTER MOVED TO APPROVE THE CELEBRATE ARBOR DAY PROCLAMATION AND AUTHORIZE THE MAYOR TO SIGN THE PROCLAMATION. COUNCILMEMBER BATH SECONDED THE MOTION. ALL PRESENT VOTED IN FAVOR. THE MOTION CARRIED.
MINUTES – The minutes of the regular meeting of July 19, 2005 were reviewed. The following corrections were made:
Page 9, Line 19: add the word “rental” in front of the word “home”.
Page 10, Line 7: add an “s” to the word “representative”.
Page 11, Line 11: delete the word “the” before the word “Mr.”
Page 13, Line 21: change the word “on” to the word “only”.
Page 14, Line 21: add the word “electric” before the words “changeable copy”.
COUNCILMEMBER BAYLESS MOVED TO APPROVE THE MINUTES OF THE JULY 19, 2005 MEETING AS CORRECTED. COUNCILMEMBER HATCH SECONDED THE MOTION. ALL PRESENT VOTED IN FAVOR. THE MOTION CARRIED.
OPEN SESSION –
Linda Nelson of the Lindon Days Celebration Committee, commented that it has been difficult to accommodate all the activities in park in relation to the location of the baseball fields. She suggested that City consider having a separate park where all of the City baseball fields can be located. Mayor Acerson informed her that the City does have future plans for a baseball complex. Ms. Nelson expressed concern regarding available parking for the events. Councilmember Bath suggested that she talk to Captain Cullimore, of the Police Department, for parking suggestions.
MAYOR’S COMMENTS/REPORT –
Mayor Acerson commented on street construction on 200 North. He cautioned citizens that care should be exercised when driving in this area. He noted that construction is scheduled for completion in a couple of months.
CONSENT AGENDA –
No items.
CURRENT BUSINESS –
1. Public Hearing - Zone Change and General Plan Map Amendment. The City Council will hear public comment and possibly act to approve a request by Ronald Hatfield for approval of a zone change between the CG zone and the R1-20 zone, and a general plan map amendment in the area of approximately 150 South Main Street. The Planning Commission recommended approval with conditions.
COUNCILMEMBER BATH MOVED TO OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING FOR THE ZONE CHANGE AND GENERAL PLAN MAP AMENDMENT. COUNCILMEMBER BAYLESS SECONDED THE MOTION. ALL PRESENT VOTED IN FAVOR. THE MOTION CARRIED.
Mr. Cowie reviewed the application. He stated that required noticing of surrounding property owners had created some confusion. Mr. Cowie clarified that only the Hatfield property would be affected by the proposed zoning change. State law requires that property owners in a 300 foot zone surrounding the area of proposed rezoning receive notice of the proposed change. Mr. Cowie noted that the Planning Commission had approved the zoning change with the condition that the area immediately adjacent to Main Street remain zoned commercial, and the zone line be adjusted at a right angle on or near the rear property line of the ‘barn lot’. Citizen comments during the public hearing held at the Planning Commission meeting indicated that there is some concern from area residents that there may be future conflicts between residential and commercial development. Mr. Cowie stated that the preliminary plan submitted by Mr. Hatfield indicates that residential development will be placed on the south end of the site, with the road being to the north. Mr. Cowie observed that there are currently no commercial businesses on the west side of Main Street, and that there are several older residential homes located in the current commercial zone.
Councilmember Carpenter asked if the boundary change would alter the use of the property in any way. He noted that the current commercial zone boundary bisects several parcels of property. Mr. Cowie observed that there have been other zoning adjustments in the City which follow parcel boundaries. Mr. Cowie stated that Mr. Hatfield indicated in his application that there is a potential for commercial development on the site in the future.
Mr. Cowie pointed out that Mr. Hatfield has been unable to obtain access to this parcel from the north, south, or west. Mr. Cowie reported that the street master plan includes a road off of 200 South, but that Mr. Hatfield has not been able to obtain access to the future residential lots from that area. Mr. Cowie stated that there are no major staff concerns relating to the proposed street. He felt that the intent of the master planned street was to provide access to the residential area, which will be provided with the street proposed by Mr. Hatfield. Councilmember Carpenter observed that there is also no access yet to the residential area from the west side.
Councilmember Carpenter inquired as to past zone changes, and any principles which may have emerged as a result of those changes. Councilmember Bayless observed that typically, zone changes have included changing residential to commercial, rather than commercial to residential. Councilmember Hatch stated that he has no major concerns regarding the boundary change, but is concerned that the sewer will require pumping to Main Street unless an easement can be obtained through the Johnson property. Councilmember Hatch observed that sewer lines in the area are might be too shallow to allow basements in homes in this area.
Mayor Acerson invited Mr. Hatfield to address the Council. Mr. Hatfield observed that it would be difficult to provide access to the residential area if the proposed street area were to remain in the commercial zone. He felt that the proposed changes increase the usability of the available property. Mr. Hatfield noted that the boundary change will make the entire commercial area more usable as well. Mr. Hatfield noted that some of the area residents are older, and are resistant to change of any kind. Mr. Hatfield reported that pending a financial agreement, he has negotiated a sewer and water right-of-way to the south with Mick Johnson. Mr. Hatfield is also negotiating with the Ace Rents, owner of the parcel to the north of the site. Ace Rents has expressed an interest in participating in the development of the residential subdivision. Kent and Sheila Chipman have also been contacted and asked to provide access to 40 South. Mr. Hatfield felt that storm drainage and sewer would be workable from the area with the cooperation of these property owners. Mr. Hatfield reported that he has purchased the Atwood property, and that he currently owns one half to two thirds of the commercial zone in the area. Mr. Hatfield stated that it is his intention to develop the area, and make it a positive addition to Lindon. Mr. Hatfield felt that the requested zone change would create a contiguous and more viable commercial area.
Mayor Acerson called for further discussion and public comment. Jeff Alan, owner of Renaissance Sleep Center, inquired as to the notice he had received regarding the zone change. Mr. Cowie clarified to Mr. Alan that his property would not be affected, but that he had received the notice because his business is located in the 300 foot zone around the proposed zone change area.
Councilmember Bayless inquired as to the title of “Lindon Treasury.” Mr. Hatfield stated that it is his intention to create a residential area that will be unique, with New England style homes, tree lined streets, and larger setbacks. He felt that the name “Lindon Treasury” was unique, and would set the area apart as a unique development.
Councilmember Bayless noted that the Planning Commission felt that including a residential area along Main Street may create opposition to commercial development. Mr. Hatfield stated that he is in control of the majority of the commercial area, and will be very aggressive in providing appropriate commercial development, which will be compatible with the residential development. Mr. Hatfield felt that maintaining the commercial area along the west side of Main Street was not productive. Councilmember Carpenter asked Mr. Hatfield if he was unhappy with the recommendation of the Planning Commission. Mr. Hatfield stated that he is willing to accept the decision of the Planning Commission, but felt that it was not consistent with his intentions for the area. Mayor Acerson inquired as to the time frame for the residential development. Mr. Hatfield stated that he is prepared to proceed as soon as the zone change is resolved.
Mayor Acerson called for further public comment. Hearing none, the public hearing was closed.
COUNCILMEMBER BAYLESS MOVED TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING FOR THE ZONE CHANGE AND GENERAL PLAN MAP AMENDMENT. COUNCILMEMBER CARPENTER SECONDED THE MOTION. ALL PRESENT VOTED IN FAVOR. THE MOTION CARRIED.
Councilmember Bayless stated that she had no concern regarding the northernmost zone boundary change, but felt that the relevant issue was allowing the residential area to extend to Main Street. Mayor Acerson observed that Main Street seems to be a natural barrier, but expressed concern that extending the residential zone may have an impact on the opposite side of Main Street. Mr. Cowie noted that the area of the proposed zone change has been zoned commercial for thirty years, with no indication of commercial development. Councilmember Carpenter asked if the zone change is consistent with the land use table. Mr. Cowie indicated that the zone change is consistent with the land use table, would not create a non-conforming lot, and that private parks are permitted in the commercial zone.
Councilmember Hatch stated that he owns property near the proposed development. However, he will not benefit in any way from the development, and has no conflict of interest related to this request.
Councilmember Carpenter stated that he was in agreement that it would be a benefit to have access to the residential area through a residential zone, rather than crossing a commercial zone to access the residential area. Councilmember Hatch asked Mr. Cowie if residential development is allowed in a commercial zone. Mr. Cowie stated that residential development is not allowed in commercial zones. Mr. Cowie presented a visual of the area, and clarified the road placement. Mr. Hatfield stated that the barn structure will be removed, and the proposed street will be located where the barn is currently located, with homes being located to the south of the new street. Councilmember Hatch observed that it is not likely that the area would ever be developed commercially, due to the placement of Main Street in relation to State Street.
Mayor Acerson called for further discussion. Hearing none, he called for a motion.
COUNCILMEMBER CARPENTER MOVED TO APPROVE THE REQUEST BY RON HATFIELD FOR A ZONE BOUNDARY LINE ADJUSTMENT BETWEEN THE CG AND R1-20 ZONES WITH THE CORRESPONDING GENERAL PLAN LAND USE MAP CHANGES TO REFLECT THE NEW ZONE BOUNDRIES. COUNCILMEMBER HATCH SECONDED THE MOTION. THE VOTE WAS RECORDED AS FOLLOWS:
COUNCILMEMBER BATH AYE
COUNCILMEMBER BAYLESS AYE
COUNCILMEMBER CARPENTER AYE
COUNCILMEMBER HATCH AYE
THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY WITH ONE ABSENT.
Little Miss Lindon –
Holly Nelson, a member of the Little Miss Lindon Royalty, presented the Mayor and Council with a bag of Starburst candy as a reminder of their theme of “Reach for the Stars”, and invited the Mayor and Council to attend the Queens Tea at the City Center following the Lindon Days Parade on August 13th.
2. Preliminary Plat – Jacobson Commercial Subdivision, Plat “D”. This is a request by Summit Development & Management, represented by Jeff Damron, for preliminary subdivision approval of Jacobson Commercial Subdivision, Plat “D”, 4 lots, in the LI zone at 1380 West 200 South. The Planning Commission recommended approval with conditions.
Jeff Damron was the representative for this item. Mr. Cowie reviewed the application. The Planning Commission recommended approval with the condition that 1380 West be constructed to the full width. Mr. Cowie noted that the City has been in contact with Larry Finch, owner of one parcel on the west side of 1380 West. Mr. Finch has indicated that he is willing to participate in required improvements. Mr. Damron reported that he has discussed required improvements with Duane Long, owner the second parcel which will require street improvements. According to Mr. Damron, Mr. Long is willing to participate in required the improvements, but is not able to install required landscaping at this time. Mr. Cowie noted that Mayor Ellertson had committed the City to complete 24 feet of asphalt in the center of the road at City expense, with the adjacent property owners being responsible for completion of the balance of the street, curb, and gutter. Mr. Cowie stated that there is some engineering review still pending, but there are no major staff concerns regarding this application. Mr. Cowie pointed out that there are existing buildings on lots 1 and 2, and future development is planned for lots 3 and 4.
Councilmember Hatch inquired as to a “notch” on the south side of the site. Mr. Cowie stated that the area is a UDOT right-of-way designated for a future overpass. Councilmember Hatch expressed concern that the right-of-way may restrict access to the site. Councilmember Carpenter agreed that future expansion of the freeway by UDOT may limit access from the south. Mr. Cowie pointed out that there is currently no access from the area of the right-of-way. Councilmembers Carpenter and Hatch suggested the possibility of a required cross easement from lot 4 to create additional access to lots 1 and 2, should the UDOT right-of-way be used. According to Mr. Damron, UDOT is required to provide access to the site outside the right-of-way. He also noted that a cross easement is provided between lots 1 and 4, and lot 4 provides access to 1380 West.
Mr. Finch was present in the audience, and reported that he has been in contact with Mr. Long, and that both property owners are willing to participate in required improvements. Mr. Finch noted that it will be necessary to come to a financial agreement with the City. Mr. Damron.
Mr. Cowie asked if the Council felt that landscaping should be required along the frontage of the parcels where the road is completed. Councilmember Bayless expressed concern that if landscaping is not required upon completion of the road, landscaping may not be completed. Mr. Finch pointed out that his lot is currently vacant. He stated that he is willing to install landscaping upon development of the lot, but does not want to install landscaping on the frontage of a vacant lot. Mr. Cowie observed that typically, landscaping would be a requirement upon site development. Councilmember Bath felt that landscaping should be required upon completion of any road. Councilmember Carpenter suggested that a generous time frame be provided for installation of landscaping along the C&L Equipment frontage. Mayor Acerson called for further discussion. Hearing none, he called for a motion.
COUNCILMEMBER BAYLESS MOVED TO APPROVE THE REQUEST BY SUMMIT DEVELOPMENT & MANAGEMENT LLC FOR A 4 – LOT SUBDIVISION AS PROPOSED WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS:
1. THAT THE APPLICANT WORK WITH THE NEIGHBORING PROPERTY OWNERS REGARDING ROADWAY IMPROVEMENT AND DEDICATION, AND THAT THE PROPERTY OWNERS SIGN THE PLAT DEDICATING THE ROAD.
2. THAT THE ROADWAY BE IMPROVED TO THE FULL WIDTH.
3. THAT ADEQUATE DOCUMENTATION BE PROVIDED BY PROPERTY OWNERS DEDICATING THE ROAD AREA TO THE CITY OF LINDON.
4. THAT LANDSCAPING BE COMPLETED ON THE FINCH PROPERTY AT THE TIME THE PROPERTY IS DEVELOPED.
5. THAT LANDSCAPING BE COMPLETED ON THE C&L EQUIPMENT FRONTAGE WITHIN TWO YEARS.
6. THAT ANY OUTSTANDING ENGINEERING CONCERNS BE ADDRESSED.
7. THAT AN APPROPRIATE CROSS EASEMENT FROM LOT 1 TO LOT 4 BE RETAINED.
COUNCILMEMBER BATH SECONDED THE MOTION. ALL PRESENT VOTED IN FAVOR. THE MOTION CARRIED.
3. Public Hearing Continued – Amendments to the City’s Sign Ordinance – Title 18 of the Lindon City Code (Ordinance #2005-12). The City Council will hear public comment and possibly act to approve amendments to Title 18 – Sign Ordinance of the Lindon City Code. This public hearing was continued from the meeting of July 19, 2005.
COUNCILMEMBER CARPENTER MOVED TO OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING FOR AGENDA ITEM #3 AND AGENDA ITEM #4. COUNCILMEMBER BAYLESS SECONDED THE MOTION. ALL PRESENT VOTED IN FAVOR. THE MOTION CARRIED.
Mr. Cowie reviewed specific changes made to the proposed ordinance since the last discussion. He noted that Arby’s restaurant had recently presented a site plan which included lights around the roof line of the building which would be comparable to LED type lights. Language was added to disallow “strings or lines of lights.” Mr. Cowie also noted that on page ten, garage sale signs are allowed at five square feet as recommended by the Council. Page twelve, items ten through twelve currently refer to the use of a three foot berm measured from street grade to raise monument signs above fence level. Councilmember Hatch stated that the three foot berm should be measured from sidewalk grade. Councilmember Carpenter observed that the ordinance should reflect the that the berm is required to extend along the entire frontage in areas where fence is not required to avoid spot berms located directly under signs. Councilmember Bayless mentioned that the wording in the ordinance which refers to required fencing on State Street should be changed from “split rail” to “two rail” fence. Councilmember Carpenter commented that in an area where sidewalk is not required, monument signs could be placed on the curb. Mr. Cowie clarified that another section of the code specifies that monument signs must be placed ten feet off of property line.
Mr. Cowie went on to review specific changes made in regard to a clear vision area adjacent to monument signs. The code specifies a forty foot clear vision area, which would allow the two trees nearest the sign to be relocated to different area of the site, with no net loss of trees. It was the consensus of the Council that the relocated trees should remain in the twenty foot landscape strip and not closer than three feet from the parking lot curb.
Mr. Cowie noted that the previous ordinance had no side yard setback related to pole signs in the T zone. Revisions were made which require no set back along the freeway frontage, with all other setbacks being ten feet. Mr. Cowie felt this may avoid future conflicts.
Mayor Acerson called for public comment. Jim Kelly, owner of a graphic sign company, commented that the 500 foot spacing requirement for LED type signs in the T zone seemed too restrictive. Mr. Kelly also suggested that the requirement for 4x14 foot LED type signs should be changed to allow the same fifty six square feet with a different configuration. Following further discussion, the consensus of the Council was to allow LED signs at a maximum of fifty six square feet, a maximum height of 4.5 feet, and a maximum width of 14 feet. This change will allow for slight variations to the specific dimensions of LED type signs. Mr. Kelly commented that he is not aware of any other city sign ordinance which includes the spacing requirement. Councilmember Bayless stated that she was not comfortable in changing the distance requirement. Councilmember Carpenter stated that he is willing to be a “pioneer” regarding the distance requirement.
Mayor Acerson called for further public comment. Hearing none, the public hearing was closed.
COUNCILMEMBER BAYLESS MOVED TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING FOR PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO THE LINDON CITY SIGN ORDINANCE – TITLE 18 OF THE LINDON CITY CODE. COUNCILMEMBER HATCH SECONDED THE MOTION. ALL PRESENT VOTED IN FAVOR. THE MOTION CARRIED.
COUNCILMEMBER CARPENTER MOVED TO APPROVE ORDINANCE #2005-12 AMENDING TITLE 18 (SIGN ORDINANCE) OF THE LINDON CITY CODE, MODIFYING, AMENDING AND REVISING VARIOUS PROVISIONS OF THE CHAPTER, SUBJECT TO REVIEW BY MAYOR ACERSON, WITH THE FOLLOWING CHANGES:
1. THAT LED TYPE SIGNS ARE ALLOWED AT A MAXIMUM OF 56 SQUARE FEET, WITH A MAXIMUM HEIGHT OF 4.5 FEET AND A MAXIMUM LENGTH OF 14 FEET.
2. THAT A FORTY FOOT CLEAR VISION AREA IS PROVIDED ADJACENT TO MONUMENT SIGNS.
3. THAT TREES MOVED TO PROVIDE THE CLEAR VISION AREA REMAIN WITHIN THE TWENTY FOOT LANDSCAPING STRIP, AND ARE A MINIMUM OF THREE FEET FROM THE PARKING LOT OR BACK OF CURB.
4. THAT ANY BERMS ARE REQUIRED TO RUN THE ENTIRE LENGTH OF THE FRONTAGE.
5. THAT THE REQUIRED FENCE IS DEFINED AS “TWO RAIL”, RATHER THAN “SPLIT RAIL”.
COUNCILMEMBER BAYLESS SECONDED THE MOTION. THE VOTE WAS RECORDED AS FOLLOWS:
COUNCILMEMBER BATH AYE
COUNCILMEMBER BAYLESS AYE
COUNCILMEMBER CARPENTER AYE
COUNCILMEMBER HATCH AYE
THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY WITH ONE ABSENT.
4. Public Hearing – Proposed West-Side Residential Overlay Zone (R3 Overlay Zone) (Ordinance #2005-13) and General Plan Amendment. The Council will hear public comment and possibly act to approve the adoption of the proposed R3 Overlay Zone and General Plan Amendment for the west-side area of the city between the Anderson Dairy and 2000 West. The Planning Commission held a public hearing during their meeting of July 13, 2005 and continued the public hearing on July 27, 2005. After deliberations, the Planning Commission recommended denial.
Mr. Cowie noted that the Planning Commission had experienced difficulty in reaching a consensus as to a recommendation for the proposed R3 Overlay. He noted that the official recommendation was for denial of the ordinance, due to differing opinions between the Planning Commission and the City Council in relation to lot size and density issues. The Planning Commission felt that further discussion would not be productive, and made the decision to forward the proposed ordinance to the City Council. Councilmember Bayless noted that while the majority of the Planning Commission felt that greater density should be allowed, there was one Commissioner who felt that the density proposed in the R3 Overlay was too dense.
Mr. Cowie discussed specific recommendations made by the Planning Commission. The ordinance will include a “right to operate” for companies in the commercial and industrial areas surrounding the overlay zone. The Planning Commission recommended that the “right to operate” requirement be listed on the plat for each property to assure that potential home owners are forewarned of the right of area businesses to operate, consistent with standard practices of the business. Mr. Cowie stated that Mr. Goodfellow, owner of Goodfellow Corporation, had initially responded in opposition to the proposed residential development. Mr. Goodfellow was in attendance at the Planning Commission meeting where the “right to operate” was discussed. Mr. Goodfellow left the meeting without making further comment.
Mr. Cowie went on to discuss the possibility of allowing some clustering of homes for the housing which will be required to meet moderate income guidelines. The Planning Commission felt that some clustering could be allowed to create more affordability for the moderate income homes.
The Planning Commission also discussed required open space. The consensus was that open space should be required at four acres per thousand residents. Mr. Cowie clarified that if a development included an estimated 760 residents, approximately three acres of open space would be required. The figures from the 2000 census which indicate 4.3 residents per household will be used to calculate estimated number of residents in a proposed development. The homes in the retirement area of any proposed development will be calculated at two residents per household. The Planning Commission felt that private open space in the retirement area could be counted toward the total required open space, if the private space is proportional to the number of residents in the area.
The Planning Commission also suggested that a site obscuring fence be installed along the perimeter of the residential area at the expense of the residential developer. The intent of the fence would be to mitigate possible conflicts between the residential area and the commercial or industrial areas.
Councilmember Carpenter asked Mr. Cowie if he felt that including the proposed changes would have resulted in approval by the Planning Commission. Mr. Cowie stated that it was his impression that three of the four Commissioners who were present would vote in favor of the ordinance, and one would be opposed. Mr. Dameron pointed out that three members of the Planning Commission had voted to deny the ordinance because they felt that the density should be greater, while one voted to deny because he felt density was too high.
Mr. Cowie presented photographs of the Harvest Hills development in Saratoga Springs. Mr. Cowie noted that Harvest Hills includes many elements which are similar to the proposed R3 Overlay, such as curved roadways, open space, quarter acre lots, meandering sidewalks, and a trail system throughout the development. Councilmember Carpenter asked Mr. Cowie what he felt the main differences were in the proposed R3 Overlay zone and the Harvest Hills development. Mr. Cowie stated that the main difference would be the constraints of the master planned roads in the proposed R3 Overlay area. He noted that the master planned roads create four sections, which makes the use of curvilinear streets difficult. Councilmember Carpenter asked if the master plan could accommodate adjustment of the roads. Mr. Cowie informed him that the road alignment could be considered during review of the master plan. Councilmember Carpenter observed that the photographs indicate the main roads are not fronted by any homes, but that homes are accessed from side streets.
Mr. Cowie presented a potential scenario from Fieldstone Developers. Mr. Cowie clarified that this was not a proposal for development, but was intended to illustrate how potential development may be laid out under the guidelines of the proposed R3 Overlay. Mr. Cowie noted that the number of residents in the illustration was estimated at 596 at build-out, and open space had been provided at 2.6 acres, in addition to the private open space in the retirement home area. Open space depicted in the drawing would be greater than required.
Councilmember Bayless asked Mr. Johnson, from Fieldstone Developers, if tree lined streets in the illustration would be included in any proposed development. Mr. Johnson stated that it is the intent of Fieldstone Developers to include tree lined streets. Mr. Johnson noted that addition of elements such as tree lined streets and park strips would require some flexibility in street standards. Mr. Johnson noted that the streets in the retirement area could be proposed at twenty five feet of asphalt with additional off street parking to avoid street parking on the narrower streets. Mr. Johnson stated that other residential streets could be proposed at thirty feet of asphalt with a four foot park strip. Councilmember Bayless clarified that variations to streets could only be considered on residential streets, and not the main thoroughfares in the development. Councilmember Carpenter suggested that the ordinance be worded to reflect that applicants may submit options for consideration.
Mayor Acerson called for public comment. Lindon resident Linda Nelson asked Mr. Cowie if the homes in the Harvest Hills development meet moderate income guidelines. Mr. Cowie responded that most do not. Councilmember Carpenter stated that 15% of the homes in the overlay area will be required to meet moderate income guidelines at the time of first sale. Ms. Nelson commented that she would be in favor of additional open space. Councilmember Carpenter observed that some neighborhoods may have the appearance of more open space because of vacant lots and large lots, but that the proposed overlay is typical in terms of dedicated open space.
Mr. Cowie stated that Bill West had requested that approximately two acres of property which he owns adjacent to the proposed overlay area be included. Mr. Cowie suggested that the additional two acres may be useful in development. Griffin Johnson of Fieldstone Developers stated that if the overlay is approved he will discuss the use of the two acres with Mr. West. Mr. Johnson mentioned the possibility of a church site in the development if Mr. West’s property is included.
Lindon resident Ron Anderson is a property owner in the area of the proposed overlay. Mr. Anderson is also a member of the Planning Commission. However, he declared a conflict of interest, and excluded himself from the Planning Commission discussion regarding the ordinance. Mr. Anderson stated that he has spoken with Mr. Goodfellow. Mr. Goodfellow indicated that he is in favor of requiring fencing around the perimeter of the residential development, but felt that his concerns regarding operation of his business had been adequately addressed. Mr. Anderson observed that the original proposal for development had required four acres of open space. However, the proposed overlay allows a much lower density, and Mr. Anderson felt that the four acre minimum could not be met while providing moderate income housing.
Councilmember Carpenter observed that the 700 North corridor may be more commercially viable with the addition of a residential component in the area.
Mayor Acerson asked if the Council felt they were ready to approve the R3 Overlay ordinance, or if they felt the discussion should be continued. Councilmember Bayless commented that she would like to give Councilmember Anthony the opportunity to give his input regarding the ordinance. It was noted that if the discussion were continued to the next regular meeting, Councilmember Carpenter would not be present. Mr. Cowie stated that in discussion with Councilmember Anthony, he indicated that he is in favor of higher density housing, with more clustering and more open space. Linda Nelson suggested that the Council consider some “stacked” housing to create more affordability. Councilmember Bayless stated that she felt there is value in having your own back yard. Ms. Nelson stated that everyone would like to have their own yard, but that it is not realistic for every family. Councilmember Bayless observed that there are strong feelings on both sides of the issue of appropriate density. Councilmember Carpenter observed that the City is not interested in stacked housing, and felt that the relevant issues were related to lot size, clustering, and open space. Councilmember Carpenter noted that the required thirty foot setbacks would provide adequate yard area for the single family homes. He noted that most people may not want to care for a larger area of yard.
Mr. Cowie inquired as to the feeling of the Council regarding allowing 8,000 square foot lots for the moderate income housing units. He suggested that some clustering may allow the 8,000 square foot lots, and create more affordability. Mr. Cowie noted that 8,000 square foot lots could be written in to the ordinance as an option rather than a requirement. Councilmember Hatch felt that lots should be maintained at 10,000 square feet. Councilmember Carpenter suggested that clustering could be used to create an appearance of more open space and add variety to the development, but should not increase the overall density, or create additional dedicated open space.
Mayor Acerson called for further comment. Hearing none, the public hearing was closed.
COUNCILMEMBER BATH MOVED TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING FOR THE PROPOSED WEST SIDE RESIDENTIAL OVERLAY ZONE (R3 OVERLAY ZONE). COUNCILMEMBER HATCH SECONDED THE MOTION. ALL PRESENT VOTED IN FAVOR. THE MOTION CARRIED.
COUNCILMEMBER BATH MOVED TO APPROVE ORDINANCE #2005-13 (R3 OVERLAY), SUBJECT TO REVIEW BY MAYOR ACERSON, WITH THE FOLLOWING CHANGES:
1. THAT SINGLE FAMILY DWELLINGS BE BUILT ON MINIMUM 10,000 SQUARE FOOT LOTS.
2. THAT RETIREMENT DWELLINGS BE BUILT ON MINIMUM 5,000 SQUARE FOOT LOTS.
3. THAT SOME FLEXIBILITY IS PROVIDED IN RELATION TO STREETS AND TRAILS.
4. THAT PARK SPACE IS PROVIDED AT FOUR ACRES PER ONE THOUSAND RESIDENTS.
5. THAT PRIVATE OPEN SPACE IN THE RETIREMENT COMMUNITY DOES NOT COUNT TOWARD THE REQUIRED PARK SPACE FOR THE DEVELOPMENT.
6. THAT A SIGHT OBSCURING FENCE BE INSTALLED BY THE DEVELOPER AROUND THE ENTIRE PERIMETER OF THE DEVELOPMENT.
COUNCILMEMBER HATCH SECONDED THE MOTION. THE VOTE WAS RECORDED AS FOLLOWS:
COUNCILMEMBER BATH AYE
COUNCILMEMBER BAYLESS AYE
COUNCILMEMBER CARPENTER AYE
COUNCILMEMBER HATCH AYE
THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY WITH ONE ABSENT.
COUNCILMEMBER CARPENTER MOVED TO AMEND THE LINDON CITY GENERAL PLAN TO INCLUDE THE R-3 OVERLAY ORDINANCE WITHIN THE LAND USE ELEMENT. COUNCILMEMBER BAYLESS SECONDED THE MOTION. ALL PRESENT VOTED IN FAVOR. THE MOTION CARRIED.
5. Discussion/Appeal – Dirker Farms, Plat “C”. This is a request by Mayor Acerson for the Council to revisit the approval of Dirker Farms, Plat “C” for Wayne Johnson. Mr. Johnson contends that the developer of Dirker Farms, Plat “C” should have been compelled by the Council to extend all city utility lines to his property.
Wayne Johnson and his attorney, Peter Whitmer, were present at the meeting. Mr. Dameron noted that the Mayor and the Council had received copies of the minutes of the previous “Dirker Farms, Plat “C” approval. Mr. Dameron stated that the purpose of this discussion was to give the Council the opportunity to address any concerns they may have, as well as to give Mr. Johnson the opportunity to express his concerns.
According to Mr. Whitmer, he and Mr. Johnson had been under the impression that the City Council had approved the subdivision re-plat with the condition that 300 East be completed, and that all utilities would be installed to Mr. Johnson’s property. Mr. Whitmer asserted that the re-plat had been approved without Mr. Johnson’s signature. Mr. Whitmer went on to say that the minutes of the previous meeting held on October 19, 2004, as well as the associated ordinance adopted at that meeting, left out discussion which took place regarding the requirement for Rick Murano to provide normal utilities to Mr. Johnson’s property. According to the minutes of the October 19, 2004 meeting, Mr. Murano was required to give the City cash for curb, gutter, and half of the pavement of the street. Mr. Whitmer suggested that the required improvement represented in the minutes were a minimal portion of the utilities which should have been required. Mr. Whitmer and Mr. Johnson felt that the discussion during the meeting had required Mr. Murano to provide sewer, gray water, and water utilities to Mr. Johnson’s property. Mr. Whitmer asserted that by not requiring Mr. Murano to install City utilities to Mr. Johnson’s property, the City Council was in violation of normal requirements of the City on other subdivision approvals. Mr. Whitmer stated that approving the re-plat without Mr. Johnson’s signature represented a violation of State law.
Mayor Acerson noted that the Council had reviewed the minutes of the previous meeting. He asked for comments from the Council regarding the accuracy of the discussion as reflected in the minutes. Councilmember Hatch stated that the minutes did reflect the actual discussion held during the meeting. He also stated that Mr. Johnson and Mr. Whitmer had agreed to the conditions of approval during that meeting. Mr. Johnson stated that Mr. Dameron had told him that installation of utilities was not mentioned in the discussion. Mr. Johnson noted that utilities were mentioned repeatedly in the discussion. Mr. Dameron clarified that he told Mr. Johnson that utilities were not a requirement of approval in the motion made by the Council. Councilmember Hatch stated that the City can not require a developer to install utilities which are not a direct benefit to the developer. Councilmember Bath noted that the motion adopted by the Council states that Mr. Murano would install utilities only where required. He noted that there would be no benefit to Mr. Murano to install utilities on the east side of the street. Therefore, the City can not require him to do so.
Mr. Johnson stated that the City Master Plan shows a water line located on 300 East, which Mr. Murano should have been required to install. He suggested that by not requiring the installation of the water line, the City had not followed the Master Plan. Councilmember Hatch noted that the Master Plan shows improvements in many areas which are not currently installed. He noted that those improvements would be required as land is developed. The developer who would benefit from those improvements will be responsible for the required improvements.
Mr. Dameron noted that City Attorney, Gordon Duval, was present at this meeting. He asked Mr. Duval to comment on utility installation requirements. Mr. Duval stated that installation of utilities is governed by federal law, which states that a City can not compel a developer to install utilities which are not a direct benefit to the developer. Mr. Duval observed that the discussion reflected in the minutes of the October 19, 2004 meeting were a correct reflection of state and federal law.
Mr. Whitmer felt that a resolution was not likely, and informed the Council that Mr. Johnson was providing a notice of claim against the City. Mr. Whitmer distributed copies of the notice of claim to Mr. Dameron, Mayor Acerson, and members of the Council.
Councilmember Carpenter asked for clarification of the required signatures for the re-plat. He noted that Mr. Whitmer had stated that the re-plat had been approved without the required signature of Mr. Johnson or the proper filing procedures. Councilmember Carpenter asked Mr. Duval to review the signature requirements for plat approval. Mr. Duval explained that if the re-plat is voluntary on the part of all property owners’ involved, unanimous consent and the signature of all property owners are required. Mr. Duval noted that there are many circumstances where there is not unanimous consent. Under these circumstances, the City Council can approve the plat following a properly noticed public meeting without the signatures of all property owners. Councilmember Carpenter clarified that this approval took place at a public meeting which was properly noticed. Mr. Whitmer suggested that the plat was approved administratively. Councilmember Carpenter read the motion contained in the minutes of the October 19, 2005 meeting which read: “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 ‘C’.”
Mr. Whitmer and Mr. Johnson left the meeting at this time. Mr. Dameron asked Mr. Duval to elaborate on legal cases which have resulted in the associated laws. Mr. Duval stated that similar cases have been litigated many times at the Supreme Court. Mr. Duval reiterated that a City can not compel a developer to install improvements which are not a direct benefit to the developer. Mr. Duval gave an example of an appropriate requirement, where a developer may be required to install a water tank if the proposed development extends above current water lines. He noted that there must be a nexus between the required improvements and the benefit to the developer. Mr. Dameron asked Mr. Duval if Mr. Murano would have had any recourse if the City had required him to install utilities to Mr. Johnson’s property. Mr. Duval stated that if Mr. Murano had been compelled to install the utility lines, the requirement could have been subject to litigation. Councilmember Hatch noted that Mr. Murano had installed utility lines up to the turn in the road, which is a greater distance than had been required. Mr. Dameron noted that the minutes indicate that utilities are stubbed to the northeast turn. Councilmember Carpenter commented that stubbing the utility lines had created an additional expense for Mr. Murano, which he had done voluntarily. Mr. Dameron asked Mr. Duvall to comment on assertions made by Mr. Johnson and Mr. Whitmer that installation of utilities had been required in other areas. Mr. Duvall stated that requirements are made on a case by case analysis. He gave an example of utilities being required past vacant land in order to connect a development to existing lines, but that required improvements must be a direct benefit to the developer. Councilmember Hatch noted that requiring installation of the utilities to Mr. Johnson’s property would clearly not be a benefit to Mr. Murano. He felt that the misunderstanding may be due to a misinterpretation of Mr. Johnson of the designation of “property owner” in the minutes of the previous meeting, and the belief of Mr. Johnson that “property owner” referred to Mr. Murano, when it, in fact, was intended to refer to Mr. Johnson.
Mr. Dameron gave Mr. Duval a copy of the notice of claim presented by Mr. Whitmer. Mr. Dameron informed Mr. Duval that he would forward a copy of the notice to URMMA as well.
6. Review and Action – Timp Lake Trail Cross Section. This is a request by staff for the Council to review and possibly act to approve a variation from Lindon’s standard street cross sections in areas where the Timp Lake Trail will follow streets, due to AASHTO design criteria required for federally funded projects.
Mark Christensen and Craig Friant of JUB Engineers presented information on status of the Timp Lake Trail to the Council. Mr. Christensen noted that the funds for the trail are provided through Federal transportation money, and must be associated with a transportation need in the community. He noted that the requirements for the trail include a minimum ten foot width of paved or asphalt type surface, which is appropriate for two way travel. Mr. Christensen observed that the trail would be intended for bicycle travel, but would also be suitable for pedestrian use. Mr. Christensen went on to discuss additional requirements of AASHTO design criteria. Mr. Christensen noted that the trail is required to have a separation from adjacent streets, and in most cases curb and gutter structures could be considered to meet the separation requirement. Mr. Christensen observed that, where feasible, a park strip may increase the feeling of safety by those using the trail. Mr. Christensen commented that the exact placement of the trail has not yet been determined, but that it expected to follow existing streets in many areas. Some trail areas are also expected to be adjacent to existing sidewalks.
Mr. Christensen went on to explain possible problems associated with trail placement in relation to existing streets. Mr. Christensen noted that there are several areas where placement of the required ten foot trail may require the street width to be reduced. He went on to discuss other possible challenges associated with trail placement in residential areas. Mr. Christensen stated that he is requesting that the Council allow some flexibility in the placement of the trail in relation to existing streets and sidewalks in order to maintain the required ten foot asphalt surface for the trail area.
Councilmember Bayless asked Mr. Christensen if area residents had been contacted regarding possible trail placement. Mr. Christensen stated that several residents have been contacted, and that various opinions have been expressed. Councilmember Carpenter asked if Mr. Christensen had any sense of how many property owners would be willing to participate in acquiring the land needed for the trail. Mr. Christensen stated that initial indications are that several property owners may be willing to donate right-of-way land needed for the trail, while others may not be willing to donate or sell the land for the right-of-way. Mr. Christensen noted that the federal process requires that property owners be offered payment for right-of-way land. Councilmember Carpenter inquired as to what procedure should be followed if the required right-of-way land could not be obtained. Mr. Christensen stated that if the required right-of-ways could not be obtained, it would be necessary to find an alignment where right-of-way land could be obtained. Councilmember Carpenter asked about the possibility of meandering the trail to accommodate the right-of-way. Mr. Christensen stated that it would not be feasible to meander the trail to a great extent.
Mr. Christensen introduced Jim Price of Mountainland Association of Governments. Mr. Christensen stated that Mr. Price has extensive experience with various aspects of trails, and would be happy to answer any questions the Council may have. Mr. Christensen stated that he is requesting that the Council allow flexibility in the street cross sections associated with the trail. He invited the Council to give specific recommendations for trail placement and street cross sections. Councilmember Bath observed that due to the scope of the project, flexibility would be required.
Councilmember Carpenter expressed disappointment regarding the federal requirements for the surface of the trail. Councilmember Bath asked if there might be other options available to the City for construction of the trail. Mr. Christensen stated that a soft surface and landscaping elements could be included in addition to the required ten feet of hard surface, but that the ten foot surface could not be reduced. Councilmember Bayless felt that the trail may not be as aesthetically pleasing as had been expected without the landscaping elements and soft surface which had been discussed in previous discussions regarding the trail. Councilmember Carpenter stated that he had been unaware of the surface requirements until this meeting. Mr. Dameron asked Mr. Price if a six foot hard surface adjacent to a four foot soft surface would be acceptable. Mr. Price stated that exceptions can be made in areas where specific problem exists, but narrowing of the trial trail to provide a soft surface would not be allowed. Mr. Christensen asked Mr. Price if there had been any success in varying from the required standards. Mr. Christensen stated that the Federal funds require the ten foot width to meet a specific transportation need, and that AAO and ADA guidelines must also be met. These requirements include the ten foot paved width with a slip resistant surface. Mr. Price observed that the funding may not fit the needs of the community, but that there is not much flexibility allowed by the guidelines. Councilmember Bath inquired as to how the ten foot width had been determined. Mr. Price stated that a ten foot width is required for two bicycles or two wheelchairs to pass safely. In addition, trails are used increasingly by in-line skaters, which requires approximately five feet of width to accommodate one skater. Mr. Price noted that the guidelines suggest that trail areas which may experience heavy traffic should be increased to a width of twelve to fourteen feet. Mayor Acerson asked the width of the trail located in Provo Canyon. Mr. Price stated that the Provo Canyon trail is fourteen feet wide. Councilmember Carpenter stated that he was prepared to make a motion.
COUNCILMEMBER CARPENTER MOVED TO AUTHORIZE THE USE OF ALTERNATIVE STREET CROSS SECTIONS SIMILAR TO THOSE PRESENTED, WITH RADICAL DEPARTURES BEING PRESENTED FOR REVIEW BY THE COUNCIL.
Mayor Acerson called for a second of the motion. The motion died due to lack of a second.
Councilmember Bath suggested that the City seek an alternative funding source for the trail project. Councilmember Carpenter asked Mr. Christensen how much funding was proposed for this project. Mr. Christensen stated that funding for the trail would be approximately 3.5 to 4 million dollars. Mayor Acerson asked what the affect would be on the proposed State Street tunnel crossing if the trail is not constructed. Councilmember Carpenter noted that the tunnel would not connect to anything if the trail is not constructed. Mr. Dameron observed that the tunnel was approved in part because it would connect to the trail.
Councilmember Hatch asked if there was a requirement for contiguous trail sections and the possibility of using federal funds for some sections of the trail and not for other sections. Mr. Price stated that if a logical beginning and end of sections could be identified it may be possible to use alternate funding for some sections, but that random segments would not be permitted.
Mr. Dameron suggested that a work session be scheduled for the Council to undertake a full discussion of the issues associated with the trail. Mr. Christensen suggested forwarding a proposal to UDOT which would outline what the Council would find acceptable. He felt that variations from the requirements were not likely, but that a request could be made. Councilmember Carpenter suggested that any proposal should outline the specific transportation needs of the community, and how the proposal would meet those needs. Councilmember Carpenter observed that any decision regarding street cross sections may be premature, due to the fact that if an acceptable method of trail construction cannot be found, it may not be something the City wants to pursue. Mr. Christensen stated that he will gather additional information on the project, and bring specific options for discussion to the Council.
7. Review and Action – Change Order Request – McKinley Drive Trail. This is a request by staff which has been generated by neighborhood input for the Council’s consideration and possible approval of a change order amount which exceeds the parameters of staff authority.
Mr. Dameron explained that modifications to the trail have become necessary due to objections of residents in the area. The changes create an additional cost for the project in the amount of $62,486.10. Mr. Christensen reviewed the specific changes to the trail and the associated cost of each change. Councilmember Bayless inquired as to the width of the trail. Mr. Christensen stated that the trail is proposed to have an eight foot asphalt width and a four foot soft surface width. Mayor Acerson called for further discussion. Hearing none, he called for a motion.
COUNCILMEMBER HATCH MOVED TO APPROVE THE CHANGE ORDER REQUEST FOR THE MCKINLEY DRIVE TRAIL. COUNCILMEMBER BAYLESS SECONDED THE MOTION. THE VOTE WAS RECORDED AS FOLLOWS:
COUNCILMEMBER BATH AYE
COUNCILMEMBER BAYLESS AYE
COUNCILMEMBER CARPENTER AYE
COUNCILMEMBER HATCH AYE
THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY WITH ONE ABSENT.
COUNCIL REPORTS
WATER, SEWER, SOLID WAST, HOUSING CONSORTIUM -
Councilmember Hatch had no items to report.
TRAILS, PLANNING, ZONING, BOARD OF ADJUSTMENTS, ADMINISTRATION -
Councilmember Bayless discussed specifics of the Lindon Days parade on August 13.
PUBLIC SAFETY, COURT, BUILDING INSPECTIONS -
Councilmember Bath expressed concern about the need for a traffic control light at 700 North State Street. Mr. Dameron informed him that the contract had been awarded by UDOT for installation of the light on July 19, 2005, and construction should begin in the near future.
PARKS, RECREATION, ENGINEERING, LINDON FAIR, NEWSLETTER -
Councilmember Anthony was not present at the meeting.
GENERAL PLAN, STREETS & SIDEWALKS, PUBLIC BUILDINGS -
Councilmember Carpenter stated that the General Plan Committee is planning to begin meeting in approximately one week, and that the intent is to complete review of the General Plan by the first week of October.
ADMINISTRATORS REPORT –
Mr. Dameron reported on the following items:
1. Interviews for the Code Enforcement Officer position will be held Thursday, August 11th, at 9:00 a.m.
2. Utah Auto Sales will hold a ribbon cutting ceremony at 3:00 p.m. on Friday, August 12th.
3. A Timp Lake Trail meeting is scheduled for August 15th at 3:00 p.m.
4. The Council will review an annexation ordinance at the regular meeting on August 16th. The City has not received any response from neighboring municipalities regarding this annexation application.
5. The Council reviewed the project tracking list.
6. The process of refunding of RDA bonds is in process. Jason Burningham has submitted bids, and initial figures indicate that Bank of America has presented the best offer for the City. Mayor Acerson asked if Zion’s Bank had participated in the bids. Mr. Dameron indicated that bids had been received from Zion’s Bank, as well as four other institutions.
7. Recycling accounts have increased to 295 this month.
8. The City is participating in a recreation task force with other north Utah County cities. The task force is measuring the recreation facilities gap for the next ten years and will make recommendations regarding what facilities will be needed.
9. Utah County has refused to provide the North Utah County Animal Shelter with the same fixtures and furniture which were provided for the South Shelter unless a maintenance agreement is signed with the County. Mr. Dameron noted that Commissioner Ellertson is attempting to negotiate the terms with the County.
10. Rooms have been reserved for those who will be attending the Utah League of Cities and Towns Conference.
COUNCILMEMBER BAYLESS MOVED TO APPROVE THE PAY VOUCHERS. COUNCILMEMBER HATCH SECONDED THE MOTION. ALL PRESENT VOTED IN FAVOR. THE MOTION CARRIED.
ADJOURN –
COUNCILMEMBER HATCH MOVED TO ADJOURN THE MEETING AT 11:58 P.M. COUNCILMEMBER BAYLESS SECONDED THE MOTION. ALL PRESENT VOTED IN FAVOR. THE MOTION CARRIED.
APPROVED – August 16, 2005
_____________________________________
Ott H. Dameron, City Administrator/Recorder
______________________________
Jeff Acerson, Mayor
|
|
|
