|
|
Home » City Government » Council » Schedule: Agendas and Minutes 2005 » Council Minutes 2005 » January 18, 2005
January 18, 2005
The Lindon City Council held a regularly scheduled meeting beginning with a Work Session at 6:00 p.m. on Tuesday, January 18, 2005 in the Lindon City Center, City Council Chambers at 100 North State Street, Lindon, Utah.
WORK SESSION – 6:00 P.M.
PRESENT ABSENT
Bruce Carpenter, Mayor Pro Tem
Jeff Acerson, Councilmember
H. Toby Bath, Councilmember
Lindsey Bayless, Councilmember
Jerald Hatch, Councilmember
Ott H. Dameron, City Administrator
Venla Gubler, Deputy Recorder
The Mayor and City Council will meet with Garth Lovell, Wal-Mart Store Manager, to hear a status report on the store’s performance and to express any concerns the city might have with the store’s operation.
The Work Session began at 6:09 p.m. Mayor Pro Tem Carpenter welcomed Mr. Garth Lovell, Wal-Mart Store Manager, to the Work Session. Mr. Lovell told the Council that he appreciated the time they have allowed him to come and tell them about the store. He also wanted to say Thank You to Lindon. He informed the Council that the store started off with sales less than forecasted. He explained that the forecast was $75 to $80 million for the first partial year, but that it appears $60 million will be more likely. He noted that so far, the store is producing about $1.1 to $1.2 million per week.
Mr. Dameron asked about the Christmas shopping. Mr. Lovell replied that the three stores, Orem, American Fork and Lindon generated about $200 million for Christmas, which is more than the Orem store alone last year at about $150 million. He noted that the weekly sales now will give a better idea of the sales projections for next year and that they are expecting a double digit increase. He explained that the food side of the store grows through the month of December, and then does not decrease after Christmas. The general merchandise side decreases. He explained that customers come in for Christmas shopping and then stay as grocery customers. He noted that Macy’s, in Orem and Pleasant Grove, is the store’s #1 competitor. He noted that the fiscal year closes for Wal-Mart on January 30.
Mr. Lovell informed the Council that he has 360 associates working in the store; 73 percent are full time employees. He noted that Wal-Mart offers their employees benefits that many of their competitors do not have because they are full-time. He offered the information that the Lindon store is probably the highest paid store in Utah and that the average wage is $10 an hour.
Mayor Pro Tem Carpenter asked if the store has lain laid off employees since Christmas. Mr. Lovell replied that the temporary employees hired after November 1 will be let go in two weeks, however, many of them have voluntarily quit. He informed the Council that the store has 344 hourly and part-time associates, and 16 management employees. He noted that the payroll is currently about ten percent of sales. He observed that Wal-Mart has donated about $30,000 this year to local nonprofit organizations, but he wondered if there was something that Lindon would particularly like him to address this year. He suggested helping with the “Welcome to Lindon” sign that is part of the Wal-Mart site plan. Mr. Dameron asked if Mr. Lovell thought Wal-Mart would pay for this sign. Mr. Lovell replied that he has some matching grants available in May that may possibly be used for this purpose. He added that he was also considering some support for Lindon Days.
Councilmember Hatch asked about sales on the day after Thanksgiving. Mr. Lovell replied that this was the busiest day of the year and that this store had done better than a lot of stores. He commented that one thing he learned that day is that the Lindon store is a “destination.” He found that most of the shoppers came in early and then left to other shopping. He reported that the first hour was good and that later hours were not as good. He commented that his staff had been trained well to serve the customer quickly and that this busy day had gone very well. Mayor Pro Tem Carpenter noted that this store is not as crowded as other Wal-Marts in the area and asked if he was getting sales projections per customer. Mr. Lovell replied that the average transaction is better than most, but not the highest. He explained that the stores in rural markets have the larger transaction amount per customer because they become a centralized shopping event.
Mr. Lovell commented that the good news is the customer surveys. He explained that this store in October, November, and December rated as #2 in the nation in the overall composite. He added that the store had been rated as #1 for store cleanliness and checkout experience. He mentioned that he was quite proud of being in this position with over 3,000 stores in the United States.
Mr. Lovell asked if the City had received inquiries from other retailers for location around the Lindon store’s out lots. Mayor Pro Tem Carpenter replied no, but that he was confident that the site would fill in one by one. Councilmember Bath agreed and observed that the only application granted is the strip mall on the corner of 700 North and State Street. Mayor Pro Tem Carpenter observed that he believes that a difference will be made when 700 North is completed to the freeway. He added that Pleasant Grove is also putting in a lot of high density residential units in this area and Lindon is considering some a housing proposal also. Mr. Lovell reported that he had been recruited to be part of the Pleasant Grove Business Alliance and the Provo/Orem Chamber of Commerce. He had chosen the Pleasant Grove Business Alliance because that is where his customer base is situated.
Councilmember Hatch asked Mr. Lovell if he was aware of development plans around the I-15 interchange. Mr. Lovell replied no. Councilmember Hatch replied that Pleasant Grove and Lindon are considering a joint taxing district that will reduce the competition between the communities and benefit both. Mayor Pro Tem Carpenter observed that the Wal-Mart store is serving both communities significantly.
Mr. Lovell inquired about the procedure for getting approval for an outside “corral” for the garden center. He described the temporary plans to use an area outside the garden center in the spring to market plants and garden supplies. He was referred to the Community Development Office for a temporary site plan application.
Mr. Dameron expressed appreciation for the store’s contributions to local 501-C-3 organizations during the Grand Opening. He thanked him in particular for his support of the Character Connection. Councilmember Bayless asked how Mr. Lovell envisioned supporting Lindon Days. Mr. Lovell was not sure—just that he would like to be involved. He mentioned that he had done the golf tournament for UVSC. He observed that this is one activity that appeals to the average shopper. Councilmember Acerson replied that once the City decides on Chairpersons for this year’s event, he would have the Chair call Mr. Lovell and find something that would fit into what Mr. Lovell would like to accomplish. Mr. Lovell commented that he was willing to volunteer to help man an event and that many of the Wal-Mart employees would also volunteer.
Councilmember Acerson asked if there was anything the City could do to help Mr. Lovell. He noted that there had been some police reports on shoplifting and asked if it has affected the store significantly. Mr. Lovell replied that he could not report on the number of apprehensions per dollar sold, but that he has his own security. He noted that this store has less shoplifting than a store that is near the freeway, which is frequented by shoppers that have no ties to the community. He also noted that Wal-Mart has less shoplifting because of their return policy. Councilmember Acerson asked if Lindon’s officers respond timely. Mr. Lovell expressed appreciation for Captain Cody Cullimore and his department. He reported that Captain Cullimore provided security for the store on Christmas Day so that the employees could spend time with their families. He noted that this is the only day that the store is closed. There was a discussion on Wal-Mart’s policy for shoplifting.
Mayor Pro Tem Carpenter asked if there were any parking lot issues. Mr. Lovell replied no. There was a discussion of employee training for liquor sales. Mr. Lovell reported that the store had been informed by the County Health Department of a “sting” buy that the store had passed. He noted that his employees are very well trained and that the County beer sales license training only reinforced the Wal-Mart program. There was a discussion of the amount of sales in beer. Mr. Lovell reported that beer sales are not a significant portion of the sales.
Councilmember Bayless relayed a concern from a resident on 425 North. She had commented that there were more large trucks on this road through the neighborhood, but they are not labeled Wal-Mart. Mr. Lovell replied that his trucks are all labeled, but he could put some pressure on local trucking companies. Mayor Pro Tem Carpenter observed that many of the surrounding neighborhoods had pre-construction worries about traffic that have since proved unfounded. Mr. Lovell replied that he was glad to hear that traffic in the neighborhoods had not increased significantly. He reported that he had worked with the neighborhood on light pollution and snow removal.
Councilmember Acerson suggested that some surveys in the local community and surrounding neighborhoods might be insightful. Mr. Lovell mentioned a fence gap that may need to be blocked off. Councilmember Bayless observed that she has been impressed with how few comments there have been. There was a discussion of the stop light intended for 600 North. The Council explained that traffic does not meet the UDOT criteria for this signal. Councilmember Acerson reported that UDOT is planning to do an update on the warrants for the intersection at 600 North. Councilmember Acerson suggested a kiosk where local citizens could access a computer for local information. Mr. Lovell replied that there was a bulletin board, but that he was willing to discuss the idea. The Council and Mr. Lovell exchanged “Thank You”s and promises to communicate. The Work Session ended at 6:53 p.m.
REGULAR SESSION – 7:00 P.M.
Conducting: Bruce Carpenter, Mayor Pro Tem
Pledge of Allegiance: Bruce Carpenter
Invocation: Lindsey Bayless
PRESENT ABSENT
Bruce Carpenter, Mayor Pro Tem
Jeff Acerson, Councilmember
H. Toby Bath, Councilmember
Lindsey Bayless, Councilmember
Jerald I. Hatch, Councilmember
Ott H. Dameron, City Administrator
Venla Gubler, Deputy Recorder
Kevin Smith, Planning Director
The meeting began at 7:06 p.m.
MINUTES – The minutes of the regular meeting of January 4, 2005 will be reviewed.
The Minutes of the regular meeting of January 4, 2005 were reviewed. The following corrections were made:
Page 2, Line 31: Replace the word “There” with the word “They.”
Page 9, Line 10: Delete the word “what” after the word “that.”
Page 12, Line 5: Replace the word “for” with the word “through.” Add the phrase “from 400 West and I-15.”
Page 13, Line 31: Replace the word “six” with the word “sixteen.”
Page 14, Line 6,7: Replace the name “Hackleberry” with the name “Tackleberry.”
Page 19, Line 7: Replace the punctuation “.” with “,”
Page 19, Line 36: Replace the punctuation “.” with “,”
Page 22, Line 35: Add the word “the return of” after the word “cover.”
COUNCILMEMBER HATCH MOVED TO APPROVE THE MINUTES OF THE MEETING OF JANUARY 4, 2005 AS CORRECTED. COUNCILMEMBER BAYLESS SECONDED THE MOTION. ALL PRESENT VOTED IN FAVOR. THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
OPEN SESSION – Citizens Comments
Mayor Pro Tem Carpenter introduced this section of the agenda and explained its purpose. Mr. Rick Murano, president of the North Union Canal Company, asked about an agreement with the City. Mr. Dameron suggested that he call the city offices the next day and Mr. Dameron would help him. Mr. Murano asked about recording of his latest plat. Mr. Dameron replied that he would check the progress and report to him.
MAYOR’S COMMENTS/REPORT
Mayor Pro Tem Carpenter observed that he had no items and asked the Council if they had any items to mention. Mr. Dameron suggested that there would be a presentation on the Mountainlands Corridor at Pleasant Grove City Community Development Office on Tuesday, January 25, 2005 at 6:00 p.m. He noted that the Lindon City Council would be interviewing Mayoral candidates at an open meeting on Wednesday, January 26, 2005. Mayor Pro Tem Carpenter invited the public to attend and participate in the process of planning for transportation and choosing a new Mayor for the remainder of Mayor Larry Ellertson’s term.
Mr. Brigham Ashton asked the process for choosing a new mayor. Mayor Pro Tem Carpenter explained that the Council will vote at their meeting of February 1 to select a Mayor to serve the remainder of the term—until the next election. He informed the audience present that there were several informational meetings going on for proposals to consider transportation. One is the Utah Department of Transportation (UDOT) seeking public input on the Mountainview Corridor on January 25, and another is the Mountainlands Association of Government’s (MAG) long-range transportation plan, Wasatch Choices, which will be holding workshops on February 24 in American Fork and March 1 in Orem. Councilmember Bayless added that the City was seeking participants for this process and asked any that were interested to contact either the City offices or a Councilmember and invitations would be sent to them.
CONSENT AGENDA – No Items
CURRENT BUSINESS
1. Preliminary Plat – De St Jeor Estates Subdivision, Plat “A.” This is a request by Don De St Jeor for approval of a two lot subdivision, one of which will be a deep lot, in the R1-20 zone at 755 North 200 East. The Planning Commission recommended approval.
Mr. Smith displayed an aerial photo of the neighborhood surrounding this proposed subdivision and commented that the Council had seen this application before as a design review. He informed the Council that the subdivision request includes a deep lot with a 25-foot driveway. There is one half-acre lot fronting on 200 East street and one half-acre lot, independent of a 25-foot driveway, in the rear.
Mr. Smith explained that the Planning Commission had discussed the application in relation to the deep lot ordinance and had deliberated on the requirement to consider alternative development plans. He pointed out that one border of this subdivision is adjacent to an irrigation canal. He informed the Council that the Planning Commission had decided that, even if this canal is piped, it provides a constraint to development potential that would make this property hard to incorporate into a neighboring subdivision. He added that there was no incentive to the owners of the neighboring parcel to consider adding this parcel to their plans. He informed the Council that the Planning Commission has recommended approval of the plat, and judged that it meets the requirements. He observed that the subdivision plat shows the building envelope for the deep lot, which will maintain the required 20-foot side yard setbacks, and 30-foot front and rear yard setbacks. There is also a note that only ramblers are allowed to be built on this lot.
Councilmember Hatch asked about connection to the sewer. Mr. Smith replied that a private lateral is planned adjacent to the south property line for connection of the home to the main sewer line in 200 South. Councilmember Hatch suggested that the City Engineer consider the possibility of sizing the lateral to service residential development property to the north of this parcel. Mayor Pro Tem Carpenter asked if Mr. De St Jeor had anything to add. Mr. De St Jeor replied no.
Mayor Pro Tem Carpenter asked for a clarification on the purpose of the deep lot ordinance and asked how it applied to long, narrow parcels. Mr. Smith replied that this ordinance was adopted specifically to deal with Lindon’s long, narrow lots. He quoted the ordinance, “Subdividing hardships created by previous development plans, thereby making a deep lot necessary to develop property, shall not be considered as a reason for approval of a deep lot.” He noted that this provision makes it appear that no lot in Lindon qualifies to be a deep lot. He added that this provision of the ordinance is just to make clear that other ways of subdividing need to be considered before approving such a lot. The applicant needs to be asked when this lot was created and why it was created this way. He observed that many of Lindon’s lots were created 40-50 years ago and at that time it was clearly difficult to look into the future and predict the amount of development that has occurred. He suggested that this particular parcel is confined by the irrigation canal, and therefore has limited options for development other than a deep lot.
Mayor Pro Tem Carpenter agreed that he also can not see how the parcel may be subdivided differently given the City’s master plan and the location of the canal. He asked Mr. De St Jeor about the creation of the parcel. Mr. De St Jeor replied that he had bought the parcel from his father-in-law in 1974. He added that this parcel had been part of the larger parcel over the canal at that time. Mayor Pro Tem Carpenter asked if there were other questions. There were none.
COUNCILMEMBER HATCH MOVED TO APPROVE THE REQUEST BY DON DE ST JEOR FOR DE ST JEOR ESTATES, PLAT “A,” A PRELIMINARY SUBDIVISION APPLICATION FOR A TWO-LOT RESIDENTIAL SUBDIVISION AT 755 NORTH 200 EAST. COUNCILMEMBER BATH SECONDED THE MOTION. ALL PRESENT VOTED IN FAVOR. THE MOTION CARRIED.
2. Design Review (Continued – Realignment of Lakeview Drive at State Street (Keetch/Schwartz Property). The City Council will further review the proposed realignment (and possible closure at State Street) of Lakeview Drive through the Keetch-Schwartz property.
Mayor Pro Tem Carpenter informed the public present that this item had been continued from the last meeting. He observed that public comment had been taken and the Council would allow additional comment in a few minutes. The item had been continued to allow the developer time to get further information from UDOT and to continue the discussion with the neighbors. Mr. Brigham Ashton asked if the City Engineer would be present for this discussion. Mr. Dameron replied that he would be arriving soon. Mr. Dameron reported that he had been asked by the Council to meet with UDOT right-of-way traffic engineers, Mr. Ashton and City Engineer Mark Christensen to ask if this development can have a road that accesses State Street, either public or private. He informed the Council that UDOT will not allow a street in this development that accesses State Street unless Lakeview Drive is closed. He also asked about access into the Childs’ parcel from State Street. He conveyed the information that this access could remain, or if Lakeview Drive is closed, a portion of Lakeview could be used to access this parcel. He had asked about signals. UDOT engineers told him that there is no possibility of a signal at the current location of Lakeview Drive and State Street and a slim possibility for a signal if Lakeview Drive is relocated, as long as it meets the warrants. Councilmember Bayless thanked Mr. Dameron for this information.
Mr. Ashton observed that there are some in the audience that have not attended the recent meetings. He shared the information from his engineer, Al Mecham of Atlas Engineering, that from a street engineering and safety perspective, a realignment of Lakeview Drive would be an improvement. He added that the Lindon City Engineer listed advantages and disadvantages, but concurred that the realignment proposal has merit over the long run.
Councilmember Bath asked Mr. Ashton how he proposed to preserve access to the Childs’ property. Mr. Ashton replied that the access from State Street will remain, or there can be access from the ending of Lakeview Drive where it turns south. He reported that UDOT has a strong opinion about the public possibly using the parking lots of the commercial development to continue using the Lakeview Drive right-of-way after it is closed. Mayor Pro Tem Carpenter asked him to explain his proposal. Mr. Ashton replied that he had originally envisioned a diagonal relocation of Lakeview Drive from its current alignment to 200 North. However, after discussion with the neighbors about speeding traffic and sight distances from their driveways, he is now proposing a design with two 90 degree turns. His other option is to leave Lakeview Drive open and put in a cul-de-sac that ties into Lakeview Drive. He noted that this removes the possibility altogether of ever having a signal at this location to assist residents’ access to State Street.
Mayor Pro Tem Carpenter asked if Mr. Ashton had continued his discussions with the neighbors. Mr. Ashton replied that he had not gone door to door. Mayor Pro Tem Carpenter commented that there is a variety of pros and cons to the proposal. He suggested that the discussion be opened to public comment. The Council agreed.
Mr. Travis Farr of 590 West Lakeview Drive commented that he was new to this discussion. He asked what would happen with the end of Lakeview Drive if it is closed. Mr. Ashton replied that the City would retain the utility easements and can opt to either keep the right-of-way or convey it to the property owners on either side. Mr. Farr asked the distance from the proposed ending and State Street. Mr. Ashton replied that it is approximately 260-feet. Mayor Pro Tem Carpenter observed that the closure would entail a more circuitous route for residents to State Street.
Ms. Annette Shepherd of Somewhere Inn Time at 175 North State, asked if the new alignment may cause interference with the entrance to her business. Mr. Ashton replied that distance minimizes the impact and she is still 300 to 400-feet away. He stated that he did not feel that the realignment would adversely affect entrance or exit to her business. The Council discussed the number and timing of her events and how this may affect traffic patterns. Mr. Christensen arrived and addressed the concern. He expressed the opinion that he could not see how the realignment would create a problem in this respect.
Mr. Doug Christiansen of 363 West Lakeview Drive confirmed that the neighborhood will not see a signal on State Street unless Lakeview Drive is realigned to 200 North. Mayor Pro Tem Carpenter replied that this is the information that the City has received. He asked if this may funnel more traffic onto Lakeview Road. He pointed out that customers of the commercial development will have as hard a time as the residents in returning to State Street without a signal. Councilmember Acerson commented that it may be a trade-off. He pointed out that it would reduce the number of vehicles that use Lakeview Drive to drive through and access 400 West and the freeway, and possibly add a few from the commercial businesses. Mr. Christiansen commented that the signal at 200 North is unlikely because it does not feed to a collector. Mayor Pro Tem Carpenter observed that he realizes that the neighborhood has difficulties turning on the State Highway, but the City has little or no options to make it easier.
Ms. Sandra Christiansen commented that the master plan has 400 West tying into 400 North. She expressed concern that the master plan will retain this option for the neighborhood. Mr. Christiansen suggested that 200 North would have a better chance of a signal if it tied directly through to 400 West. He suggested that there are only two owners between the turn showing on this plan and the alignment of 400 West. He suggested this as a much more viable plan than connecting 400 West to 400 North. Mayor Pro Tem Carpenter observed that these are interesting solutions, but they are not on the master plan. Mr. Ashton commented that he also understands the concerns that have been expressed, but as a property owner, he is not in favor of that option. Mr. Christiansen asked if this option would have more merit because it has less road. Mayor Pro Tem Carpenter observed that it would not solve the problem. He pointed out that the road would not continue to 400 West because there is one more homeowner involved and Lakeview would still have to be closed before the connection to State Street is allowed.
Mr. Dennis Wheeler of 330 West 60 North commented that a negative issue to consider on the proposal is that those who are turning left onto State Street from 200 North will be facing those who are turning left into the park. It will not allow vehicles to use the center lane of State Street for acceleration to traveling speed. He suggested that there is no gain to the residents if there is no signal light at this intersection. He also commented that putting a jog in Lakeview will redirect traffic to 40 South, which is too narrow to handle the traffic. He asserted that closing Lakeview Drive will have a negative effect rather than a positive advantage to the City. Mr. Ashton replied that the engineers disagree and cite a significant advantage, both in the short and long term. Mr. Wheeler suggested that the best long term advantage is tying 400 West to 400 North.
Mr. Mike Marchbanks introduced himself as one of the owners in Mr. Ashton’s proposal and a resident of Lindon. He observed that he has attended every meeting. He asserted that this proposal is not the most cost effective solution for the developers and is being done to help slow traffic down for the neighborhood. He noted that the most cost effective solution is the cul-de-sac from Lakeview Drive, but they are trying to be open minded to the future. He suggested that realigning Lakeview could aid the residents, and he is “shocked” that they don’t see it as an advantage. He pointed out that there is going to be a lot of development on both sides of State Street and that he knows for a fact that the parcel on the other side, the northeast side of the 200 North intersection, has been sold and is slated for development. He suggested that the potential of a light is more likely than has been suggested.
Ms. June Smith of 165 North 400 West agreed that the realignment of Lakeview will slow traffic and decrease traffic because of the inconvenience. Her only concern, she stated, is the access to State Street and the fact that vehicles will take alternate routes. However, if Lakeview is not realigned, the developers will create a cul-de-sac from Lakeview and this is likely to increase traffic. She commented that the Lakeview/State Street intersection is not safe now, and it won’t be safe then. She expressed the opinion that the realignment is the better option for the people that live in this neighborhood.
Mr. Steven Stewart of 532 West 40 South commented that traffic would slow in the turns only and would speed right back up on the rest of Lakeview. He suggested that the realignment would lessen the possibility of every making a left turn onto State Street.
Mr. Dave Brown of 778 West Lakeview commented that he lives on the west end of Lakeview and vehicles turning from 800 West onto Lakeview are back to full speed within 150-feet. Ms. Smith asked if a stop sign would be placed at the turn from the project back into the current alignment of Lakeview. Mr. Christensen replied no, that there is no cross traffic so a sign is not warranted.
Mr. Lonnie Hadlock of 137 North 400 West commented that he is not concerned with the speed of traffic because it has always been fast and always will be. He added that the existing entrance from State Street to Lakeview “scares” him now and he goes out of his way to avoid it. However, he suggested that it will be even worse without a light and going uphill. He felt that if it doesn’t make a difference to the developer, “leave it like it is.”
Mr. Farr commented that he also did not think the speeds would lessen, but he agreed that it would reduce the numbers of vehicles. He expressed favor to the realignment for that reason.
Mr. Richard Griffith of 156 North 400 West commented that the realignment would not move the intersection that far up the hill and UDOT is good at sanding. He also agreed that the proposal would decrease traffic, but not the speed. He asked what the City planned for 400 West if it does not connect to 400 North. He also asked if UDOT considered traffic that turns right and then executes a U-turn to go the opposite direction when they are counting to justify warrants. Mayor Pro Tem Carpenter replied that he did not think they consider this scenario. They are looking at the volume of traffic, not which way they turn. Mr. Christensen suggested that vehicles looking to turn left into Lakeview may turn right into the park and go around through 400 North and back onto State Street to turn right. He also noted that there were two adults killed by traffic on Lakeview and asked, if the intersection is moved, does UDOT start the “body count” over. There was a short discussion of this unfortunate event.
Mayor Pro Tem Carpenter pointed out that whether Lakeview is moved or not, the problems are not greatly changed. The engineers suggest that the realignment provides a “wash” in the short run and a modest improvement in the future. Mr. Brown commented that he is in favor. He suggested that UDOT can time the light to provide more of a gap for access to and from State Street. Mayor Pro Tem Carpenter agreed and thanked him for the comment.
Councilmember Bath observed that he appreciates the number of residents that have come to express their opinions and he understands what they are facing. He noted that he has been in several similar situations and the hardest part is accepting change. He agreed that it would be a major change. There are some advantages like discouraging traffic. There will be some redirection of traffic, but he did not think people would redirect to 40 South. He suggested that most will choose 200 South or 700 North. He also suggested that there is the possibility of a signal at Center Street, which will help to break traffic and create gaps. The light on 700 North will also help. It will change the flow of traffic. He noted that any new business or new subdivision changes the flow of traffic. He expressed the opinion that there are more advantages than disadvantages and he likes the idea. He observed that many residents are frustrated with UDOT and perceive that they do not respond adequately to safety issues, however, they are bound to certain criteria that must be met.
Councilmember Hatch commented that he disagrees with Councilmember Bath. He observed that many people know that he is a resident of 40 South. He added that he uses Lakeview as much as most of the neighborhood does and feels that the only benefits will be seen by the developer. He noted that he has seen very slick roads in the winter and expressed concern that vehicles will be unable to stop at a signal on the State Street hill in such conditions. He would prefer a cul-de-sac, he asserted.
Mayor Pro Tem Carpenter observed that this is a design review only and no approvals will be given tonight. Councilmember Bayless added that the design review will go back to the Planning Commission. She noted that from the Planning Commission minutes, they have expressed the opinion that if the neighborhood is not in agreement on the issue, they are not in favor of the realignment. She added a compliment to the neighborhood on the number of residents present. She observed that many times the Council does not know where the neighborhood stands and she appreciated their comments.
Mr. Christiansen commented that he would like to hear a clear plan on how residents are going to get across State Street, but he is in favor of the realignment. He expressed the opinion that he would love to have a cul-de-sac on Lakeview. Mr. Wheeler expressed the opinion that he was opposed. He pointed out that the traffic still needs to cross State Street and realigning the street will add frustration because it is more circuitous. He asked where the traffic will divert to—Gillman Lane, 40 South, or elsewhere. He observed that there are only the two narrow streets on both sides. Mr. Gary Thornton of 374 West Lakeview expressed the opinion that he is for the proposal. He commented that it will reduce the traffic, “guaranteed.” Mr. Marchbanks commented that this is the neighborhood’s chance to have a signal. He suggested out that the connection between 400 West and 400 North is not realistic and the City has no plans to condemn.
Mr. Wheeler suggested that there are two issues and Mr. Ashton needs an answer for direction. One question is the safe route to State Street, which does not exist now. He agreed that it needs solution and it is not easy. He suggested that not all changes are an improvement. The other issue is the traffic and that issue will continue to be a problem. He expressed the opinion that the realignment will not be an improvement.
Councilmember Acerson commented that it appears the Council is split on the issue. He suggested that Mr. Ashton has tried very hard to work with the citizens to accommodate their needs, but some needs cannot be accommodated with one project. The Council is charged to plan for the future and they have been informed that this is the only hope of a future signal to benefit the neighborhood’s access. He observed that if this proposal is not approved, it cannot be changed later because the developer will work another direction and the opportunity will be lost.
Mr. Ashton asked the likelihood of the trail crossing State Street. He suggested that he may need to change the layout which may change the location of the trail. Councilmember Acerson observed that accommodation of the trail has a strong influence on his opinion. Mr. Marchbanks added that if the road is not there on 200 North, the configuration of the commercial subdivision changes and it may jeopardize the trail. Mr. Ashton agreed.
Councilmember Bayless commented that she also uses Lakeview to access State Street. She agrees that the realignment is inconvenient, but she can see the value of it. She added that it would also reduce the traffic on Lakeview. If a cul-de-sac into the project from Lakeview is built, it may increase traffic on Lakeview. She observed that she was torn and can see both the good and bad possibilities. She noted, however, that she feels uncomfortable with the statement about not getting a trail and that it “bordered on a threat.” She commented that most of the Council and residents want to see the trail system continued through Lindon. She also is a “horse person” and wants to see children safely across State Street and into the park. She considers the trail crossing as a major issue with great impact on the community.
Mr. Ashton asked the Council to look at the map and asserted that he has tried to meet the needs of the City. He apologized for his comment that appeared to threaten the trail, but he also needs to be “reasonable.” Ms. Christiansen asked the location of the crossing. Mr. Christiansen pointed to the trail location on an aerial photo and commented that the trail crossing and the road would be adjacent but not next to each other because of the slope of the property. Mr. Ashton commented that he was in favor of trails and that they are a great protection for children. Mr. Marchbanks agreed, but asked how the trail can be accommodated if the road is taken away. He suggested that the road is a solution to the park access and the trail—if these issues are that important. Councilmember Acerson replied that he feels strongly that the trail is needed. He pointed out that State Street is only going to get busier. A safe crossing is needed for children and he would “do a lot to make sure that happens.”
Mayor Pro Tem Carpenter observed that the comments given tonight have given the Council the perception that there is a leaning to the acceptance by the neighborhood, but that the margin is narrow. He suggested that the Council will be sensitive to any updates. He noted that the engineer’s reports slightly favor the realignment and there is the prospect of slowing and discouraging traffic. It also assists in a more viable development and provides access to the back lots. He encouraged the neighborhood to stay involved in the process and to let the Council know their feelings.
Mr. Hadlock asked about the trail. Councilmember Bayless explained the route of the trail and the proposed crossing for State Street. Mr. Hadlock asked if the possibility was real enough that he would see the completion in his lifetime. Councilmember Bayless replied that the City has submitted a grant request for the funding. She commented that she appreciates Mayor Pro Tem Carpenter’s suggestions that the neighborhood remain involved. She noted that she is leaning guardedly towards the realignment although it may push more traffic on Gillman Lane. She added that she wished that an easy solution was more readily visible, but that the City is not considering eminent domain.
Mr. Dameron commented that the Council has given Mr. Ashton some direction. He cautioned that this is not a vote and approval is not “cut and dried.” Councilmember Acerson suggested that the best solution for the Council is if the citizens come to a conclusion. He noted that the conclusion does not have to be unanimous, but something that the majority approves. Mayor Pro Tem Carpenter commented that there is not always a right answer, and there is no clear right and wrong in this instance. Mr. Ashton asked the next step. He was told to submit his application to the Planning Commission. Mayor Pro Tem Carpenter informed him that the minutes of this meeting would be forwarded to the Planning Commission for their information. Mr. Ashton thanked the Council and apologized again to Councilmember Bayless.
3. Design Review – Creekside Meadows Proposal. Fieldstone Homes and Trophy Homes will present a proposed housing development concept plan in the area around 500 North 1700 West for the Council’s consideration.
Mr. Mike Stewart introduced himself and Mr. Grif Johnson of Fieldstone Homes, and Mr. Wayne Corbridge of Trophy Homes to the Council. He told the Council that they are looking for direction and would like comments from the Council on the changes that they have incorporated from comments given previously. He presented the original plan and the revised plan. He listed the concerns that had been raised by the Planning Commission and the Council as a general uncomfortable-ness for alley-loaded single-family units, and more specifically issues with parking, the unconventional rear yard, and the closeness of the homes. He observed that there was a sense of preference to a more conventional single-family detached product and an overall density concern. He added that there did not seem to be opposition to the multi-family, just that more mixing of the product types take place. The design items that seemed favored were the streetscapes, open feeling on the main intersection, and trail connectivity.
Mr. Stewart pointed out the biggest changes are the change in the street pattern of the single-family area and the removal of the alley-loaded product. The overall density has also been reduced to 5.8 units per acre. The major street patterns have not changed and the church site has been retained. The rear yards now face the church site, and the trails still connect through the neighborhood. He observed that this is the Fieldstone portion of the development and will consist of homes between 1,200 and 3,500 square feet with two and three car garages. He directed the Council to the Fieldstone projects, Jordan Willows in Lehi or Spanish Fields in Spanish Fork as examples, although he noted that the Lehi project is more upscale and Spanish Fork’s project has narrower homes. He pointed out changes in the multi-family area as more intermixing of product types, and moving the mansion homes to the edges of the project on the major streets so they are the most visible.
Councilmember Bayless asked the price range of the single-family homes. Mr. Johnson replied that the average home will be $195,000 with options, and the range is $165,000 to $215,000. They expect to sell more of the larger homes and this is the reason the average is high. He noted that the square footage is 1,500 to 3,500. Mr. Stewart added that the buyers average about $15,000 to $25,000 in options. He explained that the target market is families that need space to grow with a smaller price tag. Fieldstone Homes offers a product that fills this need.
Mr. Stewart pointed out that the park has been moved from the single-family neighborhood to the multi-family neighborhood. It is a 1.5 acre park, and will be a complement to the church site across the street. He noted that this has opened up the main intersection even more. He informed the Council that the biggest change to the design is that the product types are mixed in the neighborhoods. He added that a third product type has been added to the mix. The product mix now consists of the mansion product, which has the appearance of a very large, single-family home, along the edges of the major street. These are, in reality, triplexes. He observed that the manor homes have been placed internally in the neighborhood. These are also triplexes. The third and new product type is a town home, four-plex unit. Mr. Corbridge added that the end units of the town home building are a single-story unit that will appeal to “empty nesters.” Mr. Stewart pointed out the recreational complex that will be part of neighborhood four, but will be available to all the multi-family areas. Mr. Corbridge informed the Council that the recreation center will be constructed as part of the first phase. Mr. Stewart noted that the main streets are a substantial corridor with a 100-foot right-of-way and a landscaped median. He added that the trail connections join the neighbors within the neighborhoods, to the other neighborhoods, and externally to the commercial district north of this project area. He observed that the streets in the single-family neighborhood are conventional 50-foot width, although one is slightly wider to allow more landscaping. He noted that all the multi-family units are rear-loaded except the town homes.
Mr. Stewart presented the rendering of the types of units proposed. Mr. Corbridge explained the different types of units—their placement and setbacks, yards, and living spaces. Mr. Stewart asked the Council for their opinions.
Mayor Pro Tem Carpenter commented that he had visited the other Fieldstone Homes projects mentioned earlier. He declared that he was pleased after seeing Lehi, but “under-whelmed” with Spanish Fork. He observed that his concern is that this is a lot of housing in one place and was wondering if this contributes to a “declining neighborhood.” He added that he was pleased with the product mix now presented and considers it “healthier.” He added that design of the inside space of the homes is “incredibly” spacious.
Councilmember Bath asked about the distance between the buildings. Mr. Stewart replied that the distance varies, but the minimum is 20-feet and some are 30-feet. Mr. Corbridge observed that some of the multi-family units will have fencing to create private backyards. Mr. Stewart noted that the single-family units will each have a little bit of private space about 12 to 15 feet deep. Mr. Corbridge commented that although buyers want some private space, they don’t want large spaces that require more maintenance. Councilmember Bayless asked if the triplexes would have three little yards. Mr. Corbridge replied yes, but qualified that the manor type has two units on the bottom and one on top. The third unit has a deck and no yard. Councilmember Bayless commented that her son has bought such a unit and wants no yard work at all.
Mr. Stewart informed the Council that the landscaping will be maintained by the homeowners association. It will all be installed and finished. He noted that most homeowners feel that landscaping is an important element and they will use it and pay for it, but they do not want to take care of it. Mayor Pro Tem Carpenter commented that there are large areas of commonly maintained space between the private spaces. Mr. Stewart agreed. He noted that to make this a “vibrant area,” it needs a mix of uses and properties. This is what they have used to make it attractive. He observed that most developments tend to segment the different types of housing, which segments the neighborhoods. He asserted that this approach will create a better mix of people and styles of living. He commented that the single family area services an entirely different market than the multi-family area. This area will not be transient because the size of the homes will not force young families to move. Blending this area with the multi-family area will allow parents to live near their grandkids and families to stay closer together.
Mayor Pro Tem Carpenter observed that one of the precepts the City is interested in is the moderate income aspects of this project. He added that one of the concerns is that denser housing approximates low income housing in many minds. He asked what proportion of this project will meet the standards for moderate income housing. Mr. Corbridge replied that all of the manor housing, 145 units, will meet this standard. Mr. Johnson pointed out that these moderate income units will have the same amenities as the more expensive units. He informed the Council that the club house includes a fully equipped fitness center, meeting room, kitchen, swimming pool, and hot tub. Councilmember Bayless asked the prices of the mansion units. Mr. Corbridge replied that these units will sell in the $180,000 to $200,000 range.
Councilmember Acerson asked about the setbacks between the homes in the single-family neighborhood. Mr. Stewart replied that these lots are wide frontage lots. He informed the Council that these will have conventional side yards of about 20-feet. He noted that the lots are 65 to 75 feet wide and the houses are planned at about 40-feet wide. The homes will also be set so that one side yard is wider than the other to allow access to the back yard for storage. The front setbacks are varied, but the minimum is 18 feet to the front of the garage to allow off-street parking in the driveways. The backyards are 25 to 35-feet deep and 12 to 15 of it is private. He noted that the curve in the roads allows for a variety of lot sizes. The trail corridor is 30-feet wide and runs between the back yards. It is separate from the back yards, so allows more open space in the rear of the homes. He also noted that the main circulation street in this neighborhood is planned at 56-feet wide to allow a wider park strip in front of the homes. Councilmember Bayless commented that she liked the curved streets. The Council indicated agreement with this statement. Mr. Stewart commented that the wider lots and the wider park strip create a “street scene” of a larger lot than is really there.
Mayor Pro Tem Carpenter invited more questions or thoughts from the Council. Councilmember Bath commented that he is finding the idea of smaller lots “hard to swallow.” Councilmember Hatch observed that he would like to compliment the developers because he can see elements included from all the surveys that the Planning Department has conducted. He noted, however, that his concept of this west side area is to have smaller residential neighborhoods of 15 to 20 acres tucked into business areas. He observed that a project of this size and scope is also hard for him to accept. He agreed with Councilmember Bath that they have had to fight for the last 20 years to keep the half-acre lots in Lindon.
Councilmember Bayless observed that she would feel extremely cramped on only a half-acre, but she is aware that many people don’t want that much acreage. She observed that she was pleased with this concept and that it had potential. She observed that she feels strongly that Lindon has established a “core” that is half-acre minimum sized lots, and she sees that a place is needed to allow Lindon’s younger residents to remain in Lindon and stay near their families. She also noted that this land is expensive to purchase. She commented that she did not see how the property could be developed into affordable housing for these young families without allowing smaller lots. She observed that it is possible to retain the identity in the main part of Lindon as pro-animal and pro-large lot and give the option for other development plans. She added that this plan is better than anything that has been presented before.
Councilmember Hatch asked about the zoning around this property. Mr. Smith replied that the property to the south of this proposed development is zoned light industrial, the west side is mixed commercial and the north is general commercial. Councilmember Hatch asked what would prevent another developer from taking the next 30 acres and expanding this housing concept into the adjoining zones. Mr. Smith replied that it depends on how the City crafts the ordinance that will allow this development. He noted that there are other developers watching this proceeding with interest. He observed that the Council will be pressured to allow more and they need to decide their limit. Mayor Pro Tem Carpenter asked if this could be considered “spot zoning.” Mr. Smith replied that this project is 50 acres. He informed the Council that a “spot zone” is more like one acre.
Councilmember Acerson observed that this project consists of 330 units. He asked the average number of people in a house that can be expected. Mr. Stewart replied that the single-family area can expect 3.5 people. Mr. Corbridge replied that the multi-family area can expect 1.5 to 2 people. Councilmember Acerson noted that the City can then expect an additional thousand people. Mayor Pro Tem Carpenter explained that the Council is worried that a large burst of development may change the flavor of the community. There is also concern that the numbers of people not exceed the limits of utility constraints in this area. Mr. Smith commented that staff agrees that the utility issues need to be addressed. He noted that there is capacity to handle this project, and more, but before more residential development is allowed, surrounding development also needs to be considered. He pointed out that restaurants and hotels impact sewer more than some other types of commercial or light industrial development. Councilmember Acerson asked if allowing residential development would prohibit other commercial development. Mr. Smith suggested a sewer impact fee whereby the City may be able to recover the cost to upgrade the sewer lines.
Mr. Dameron commented that the Planning Commission minutes indicate that there were questions about open space and park standards in Lindon. He informed the developers that Lindon set a standard at three acres per thousand residents about seven years ago. Mr. Stewart commented that this project is probably in excess. He noted that the church site is a beneficial use and not a park, but the project should still exceed this standard. He pointed to the park, trail system and open space of the project and noted that not all of it was public space—some belongs to the homeowners association.
The Council discussed scattering the development in smaller parcels as suggested by Councilmember Hatch. Mr. Stewart observed that allowing residential development will enhance the commercial opportunity. He added that this type of housing fits the mixed use environment more and pointed out that owners of large homes on large lots usually will not choose to live next to a major commercial area. He suggested that surrounding the commercial area with half-acre zoning is not appropriate. He pointed out that separating the development into smaller parcels makes it more expensive because of the additional infrastructure needs. It makes the development impractical. He asserted that allowing this project does not impede the ability of the City to promote commercial and industrial uses around it. He also stated that buyers want to live in neighborhoods, so the large blocks are more of an attraction to them also.
Councilmember Hatch asked what the developers foresee for the area between the housing and the freeway and what kind of buffer would be needed between this project and these uses. Mr. Stewart replied that, in the short term, he suggests a fence to enclose the project. He observed that currently there is little access into this area near the freeway and he does not project businesses near the freeway yet. He observed that this project appears to work and meet the needs of the City for affordability, convenient location, and attraction to the buyer. Councilmember Acerson asked about the extension of roads into the area. Mr. Stewart replied that they plan to construct and extend 1700 West to connect to 700 North, and 500 North to connect to the existing 500 North and through to 2000 West. They are considering a reimbursement agreement to recoup their investment in this infrastructure. He observed that completion of these streets and utilities also makes the area more attractive to commercial development.
Councilmember Bath extended compliments to the developers on the attractiveness of their proposal, but expressed a concern about density. He noted that this is his biggest concern and acknowledged that this is probably because of the zoning in the rest of the city. He added that he had been to the other Fieldstone and Trophy projects and does like the homes proposed. Mr. Stewart observed that the Council had appeared to reach consensus during a review two years ago on a density of six units per acre. He noted that this project meets those criteria. He added that this density is about as low as they can go and still retain the affordability. Mayor Pro Tem Carpenter expressed appreciation for the fact that he had reduced the density and met the desires of the Council for the homes and streetscapes. He observed that some on the Council still have an issue for the very general issues of density and the size of the project. He acknowledged that the developers have done what they can to address the issues.
Councilmember Acerson suggested that he would like to see a smaller project to “test the water.” Councilmember Bayless pointed that that the cost efficiency is lost in a smaller project. Mr. Stewart asked if the Council was comfortable enough with this project to create a mechanism, either overlay or zone change, to allow them to pursue it further. Mayor Pro Tem Carpenter asked the members of the Council if their concerns are so “overriding” that there is no point in proceeding. Councilmember Hatch commented that he would face repercussion from citizens if this is allowed. Councilmember Bath agreed and noted that this is setting new precedent for Lindon. Councilmember Acerson observed that there are still many in Lindon that would not perceive this precedent as positive. Mayor Pro Tem Carpenter asked if the Council was ready to turn the project down on the density issue. Councilmember Hatch replied yes. He suggested that this is too much housing for one area.
Councilmember Bayless observed that the reason the Council had considered this project thus far is because of their concerns for affordability. She asked how important this question is to the Council and if this project is the way to assure affordability in any quantity. Councilmember Bath replied that affordability standards for Lindon have already been met. Councilmember Bayless pointed out that Lindon has met the standard for rentals and not for home ownership. Councilmember Acerson commented that the only way to offset the continued increase in land prices is to increase density. Mr. Stewart suggested that the mixed commercial zoning that the City has already placed on this land is a more intensive use than residential. It is already intended to be a higher use, and residential use has no more impacts than commercial. Councilmember Bath replied that he understands, but he is still “squirming” at the 5.8 per acre amount. He confided that he was hoping for four units per acre.
Mayor Pro Tem Carpenter pointed out that the manor and garden town homes are largely responsible for the density, and suggested that the Council compare the number of people coexisting in the area to Lindon’s traditional half-acre lots. He pointed out that there are, in most cases, more people living in two large homes on half-acre lots than in 5.8 units in this project. He suggested that this project may be less dense. Mr. Stewart pointed out that the single-family neighborhood is the more traditional neighborhood and the density there is less than four per acre. He added that they have tried to strike a balance and six is as low as they can go to get residential. The reality of the situation is that the property will be developed as commercial and the rooftops will not happen. Mayor Pro Tem Carpenter added that without rooftops, the City may expect to see commercial development along the major corridor of 700 North only. Mr. Stewart suggested that the mixed use of residential, commercial and industrial is more a transition from the freeway to the core of town. He questioned whether 800 acres of commercial property is really what the Council envisions for this area. Councilmember Bayless agreed that there is not much hope of ever developing this area as half-acre lots.
Mr. Corbridge commented that the City has competing goals. They are spending money for 700 North to spur development, but if they want that commercial corridor to come, they need to entice the development by bringing in utilities. Mayor Pro Tem Carpenter commented that the City Council is aware that this area will develop, but are taking care of lingering issues and concerns. Councilmember Bayless suggested that she would like to hear more from the community. Mr. Stewart suggested going forward to the point where public hearings can be held. He added that if the Council effectuates a code change, they can hear the conversations of the public. He suggested that the time has come and this project fits the confines that the City has outlined.
Councilmember Acerson suggested that, rather than changing the code, the City host an open house and invite the citizens to come and comment. He observed that this may be a quicker way to either raise or allay concerns in the citizenry. Mr. Stewart replied that they had some timing issues related to the property owners. He pointed out that the property owners have been patient, but they need to know that progress is being made. Mr. Johnson agreed. He observed that the property has been tied up for over a year and the property owners have the opinion that no positive progress has been made at the City. He acknowledged that they, as developers, were hoping to get some direction to craft an ordinance or overlay that would allow them to apply for approval. He added that they had a deadline tomorrow to either decide to proceed or let it go.
Mr. Stewart agreed that an open house is a good idea. He noted that it would provide an opportunity for them to explain the unique qualities of this project. He asked if the Council would be willing to start on a draft ordinance and hold the open house concurrently. He also wondered if five people show up to the open house, would the Council feel differently on their concerns. Mayor Pro Tem Carpenter commented that he feels this is a reasonable request. He added that this is an interesting political dilemma and the Council is reluctant to give a clear sign. Councilmember Hatch observed that the Council does need to start thinking about a change in the code. Councilmember Bath agreed and added that the way the code change is crafted may make some effect on his concerns.
Mr. Stewart asked if he should work with Mr. Dameron on the arrangements for the open house. The Council agreed. Mayor Pro Tem Carpenter commented that a professional survey was conducted for the last proposed project and he was not convinced that the Council would see a good turnout. Mr. Stewart described open houses he had conducted in the past.
Councilmember Bath observed that this is a serious move to Lindon City. He explained that he had moved to Lindon for the reasons many others have and that it is “hard to let go.” He observed that this move may take away the basis of Lindon’s motto, “A Little Bit of Country.” He declared that this concept is important to the people of Lindon. The Council and Mr. Corbridge discussed the opinions of their neighbors. Mr. Corbridge observed that the Council should consider whether they would rather see a project such as this one, or industrial and commercial yards. Mayor Pro Tem Carpenter agreed that a commercial and industrial area is not his idea of open space.
Councilmember Hatch commented on the rural lifestyle and how it is disappearing. Mr. Stewart commended Lindon for building their core around the rural lifestyle. He noted that many cities have traded that away. He observed that the Council is also aware that the City needs to generate a tax base and provide services for their citizens. He suggested that this proposal is adding to what the City is trying to accomplish. It does not violate the core of the City. Councilmember Bath commented that the most attractive feature to him is the mix that encourages young, middle aged and mature residents to live together. Mr. Smith suggested that the open house also include information on the R2 Overlay ordinance and ask residents if they want the City to pursue both this project and the R2, either, or some other combination. He observed that having this information may make the decision easier for residents. Mayor Pro Tem Carpenter agreed that the open house needs to be heavily informational to the citizens.
4. Public Hearing – Interlocal Cooperation Agreement – Lindon City and Pleasant Grove City. The City Council will review and possibly act on a proposed Interlocal Cooperation Agreement with Pleasant Grove City concerning a common taxing district in the vicinity of the new I-15 Interchange. By establishing this district, the cities will agree to share the tax base created by development within the boundaries of the district. The Council felt that this agreement is of such importance, that a public hearing was advertised to take as much public comment as possible.
The Council welcomed Utah County Commissioner and Former Mayor, Larry Ellertson, to the meeting.
COUNCILMEMBER BAYLESS MOVED TO OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING. COUNCILMEMBER HATCH SECONDED THE MOTION. ALL PRESENT VOTED IN FAVOR. THE MOTION CARRIED.
Mr. Dameron commented that the area of concern that was previously identified by the Council has been presented to Pleasant Grove. He informed the Council that Pleasant Grove seems willing to amend the agreement to address the concern, but that the amendment has not been completed. He reminded the Council that the concern is related to verification of the tax generation and distribution. He observed that this is a historic agreement as it may be the first time that two cities have agreed to share their tax base. He presented the proposed map of the taxing district boundaries and commented that the acreage is equal in both cities. The Council examined the proposed map.
Councilmember Hatch commented that the map includes all of Lindon’s main entrance area, but not any of Pleasant Grove Boulevard. Mr. Dameron agreed and replied that this was a trade-off for the street that loops to the American Fork boundary, 2000 West in Pleasant Grove. He added that the tax sharing includes the property tax as well. Councilmember Bath expressed favor to an agreement that shares all the taxes and not just the sales tax. Commissioner Ellertson informed the Council that the reason for including all the taxes is that there is a particular development that would have put their parking lot in Lindon and the building in Pleasant Grove. Including all the taxes takes away any advantages to either side and completes the “picture.”
The Council explored the particular passage under discussion. Councilmember Hatch noted that there is an exemption identified in the agreement for those parcels entered on Utah County Tax for PT-250CTY for interest and sinking fund balances. Commissioner Ellertson agreed and explained that these taxes are dedicated to repay a bond and cannot be shared. He noted that there are no properties in this area that fall under this designation at the present time. Councilmember Hatch commented that this could lead to an inequitable sharing.
Councilmember Acerson asked if the agreement considers the fact that the interchange may change based on future development and transportation planning. Commissioner Ellertson replied that this had been discussed. Councilmember Hatch had a question about this area using the Timpanogos Special Service District and other utilities hook-ups. Commissioner Ellertson replied that Pleasant Grove will recommend that Lindon be included in the service area because this area may be easier to hook in to these lines.
There was a discussion of using the committee formed by the agreement to operate and audit the tax records of both cities. Mr. Dameron suggested a third disinterested party to audit and verify the tax amounts. The Council agreed. There was also a discussion of requiring a minimum of one audit per year, or more as the committee desires. There was a short discussion of the legislative push to limit RDA districts. It was noted that this agreement is not doing away with any taxes, or giving away any taxes, it is just sharing them. The Council was reminded of the Mountainview Corridor meeting at the Pleasant Grove Community Development Office at 6:00 on Tuesday, January 25.
Mayor Pro Tem Carpenter asked if there were any other issues. There was none. Commissioner Ellertson encouraged Lindon to pursue and complete this agreement for the advantages it would bring to Lindon. Mayor Pro Tem Carpenter observed that the Council has the choice of either continuing the public hearing or closing it and re-advertising for a future date. Commissioner Ellertson asked if there is a follow-up meeting scheduled with Pleasant Grove to continue discussion. He suggested that the item not be “stalled too long.”
COUNCILMEMBER BAYLESS MOVED TO CONTINUE THE PUBLIC HEARING TO CONSIDER A PROPOSED INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT WITH PLEASANT GROVE CITY CONCERNING A COMMON TAXING DISTRICT IN THE VICINITY OF THE NEW I-15 INTERCHANGE. COUNCILMEMBER ACERSON SECONDED THE MOTION. ALL PRESENT VOTED IN FAVOR. THE MOTION CARRIED.
5. Review and Action – Interlocal Cooperation Agreement – Lindon City and Pleasant Grove City. The City Council will review and possibly act on the proposed Interlocal Cooperation Agreement with Pleasant Grove City concerning the use of federal funds available through MAG for the construction of roads on the northeast side of the new I-15 Interchange and Lindon’s 700 North street.
Mayor Pro Tem Carpenter observed that he had been hoping to have a modified agreement to review tonight. Mr. Dameron agreed, and added that it had not arrived from the City Attorney. Mayor Pro Tem Carpenter outlined the essential points of the agreement for the Council and audience. He explained that this is an Interlocal Agreement concerning the use of Mountainlands Association of Government (MAG) funding. There are two points addressed in the agreement; one, the cost of building the roads to connect to the new I-15 Interchange will cost more than the funds that are involved in the MAG funding; and two, the timing of the two road building projects.
Mayor Pro Tem Carpenter observed that two federal projects (one each for Pleasant Grove and Lindon) will cost more than if one project is given all the federal funding and the other project is completed without the federally mandated provisions. This agreement has arisen to save both cities money by directing all the federal funds to one project and then returning one half of the money back to the second project. The second part of the agreement concerns the fact that Pleasant Grove’s project will start before Lindon’s project, but last a longer time period. This affects the timing of the payment from MAG. The agreement stipulates that Lindon transfer their share of the funds and the matching funds for the exclusive use of Pleasant Grove. Pleasant Grove will then reimburse Lindon for its portion of the MAG funds.
Mayor Pro Tem Carpenter informed the Council that the problem arises in the fact that it may be a year or two before these funds are paid back to Lindon because of the lag in time for completion of the Pleasant Grove project after Lindon’s project. He suggested that tying the payment from Pleasant Grove to the completion of the road rather than the timing of the payment from MAG may help speed the refund.
Mayor Pro Tem Carpenter was asked how the savings are calculated for the cities. He replied that the engineers have prepared projections on three lanes and five lanes, the actual cost of the smaller project and the projected costs of federal projects. All costs of administering the payments and projects are deducted from the savings also. Lindon will receive the costs of bonding to construct their project. Mr. Dameron clarified that the match would not be reimbursed. Commissioner Ellertson explained that the cost of receiving the federal funds is the matching amount. Pleasant Grove will also be putting up matching funds. The reimbursement will only affect the amount being funded by MAG. There was a discussion of the proposed terms of the agreement.
Councilmember Acerson pointed out that Pleasant Grove would have the benefit of constructing their road at today’s prices with today’s money. He asked if the Lindon project would cost more because of the delay. Commissioner Ellertson replied that he had a source of 2.6 percent money that may help. Councilmember Acerson asked if Pleasant Grove was willing to move forward with the agreement. Mayor Pro Tem Carpenter replied yes, that the agreement only needed the clarification on the timing of the reimbursement. The Council discussed the negotiation of the agreement and the rights-of-way.
COUNCILMEMBER BAYLESS MOVED TO CONTINUE THE CONSIDERATION OF AN INTERLOCAL COOPERATION AGREEMENT BETWEEN LINDON CITY AND PLEASANT GROVE CITY RELATIVE TO THE USE OF FEDERAL FUNDS AVAILABLE THROUGH MAG FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF ROADS NEAR THE NEW I-15 INTERCHANGE AND 700 NORTH. COUNCILMEMBER BATH SECONDED THE MOTION. ALL PRESENT VOTED IN FAVOR. THE MOTION CARRIED.
6. Review and Action – Resolution to Update the Storm Water Management Plan (Resolution #2005-2). This is a request by staff for the Council’s consideration and possible approval of a minor change in wording to the city’s Storm Water Management Plan.
The Council discussed the proposed wording change of Section #1 of the Lindon City Storm Water Management Program to clarify submittal requirements of site and improvement plans.
COUNCILMEMBER BATH MOVED TO APPROVE RESOLUTION 2005-2 ADOPTING THE UPDATED STORM WATER MANAGEMENT PROGRAM FOR LINDON CITY AND SETTING AN EFFECTIVE DATE. COUNCILMEMBER HATCH SECONDED THE MOTION. THE VOTE IS RECORDED AS FOLLOWS:
COUNCILMEMBER ACERSON AYE
COUNCILMEMBER BATH AYE
COUNCILMEMBER BAYLESS AYE
COUNCILMEMBER CARPENTER AYE
COUNCILMEMBER HATCH AYE
THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY (5-0).
7. Review and Action – Resolution to Update the Land Development Policies, Standard Specifications and Drawings Manual (Development Policy Manual) (Resolution #2005-3). This is a request by staff for the Council’s consideration and possible approval of the annual updates to the above referenced manual. The annual meeting with contractors and developers is scheduled for January 28, 2005 at 9:00 a.m.
Mr. Dameron presented the proposed changes to the Lindon City Land Development Policies, Standard Specification and Drawings Manual. He noted that this manual is a compilation of Lindon’s land development policies and is Planning Director Kevin Smith and City Engineer Mark Christensen’s greatest achievement. He observed that the annual contractor’s meeting is scheduled for January 28 and the manual is given free to those who attend. The manual is $15 at any other time.
Mr. Dameron commented that there are two additional changes that are not noted in the list. Both are in reference to the new Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) requirements. He pointed to page 15—Chapter 2.03 Final Improvement Drawings (1) (k) curb ramp locations, and the appropriate drawings #5 and #6a in the Lindon Standard Drawings.
Mayor Pro Tem Carpenter asked if there were any concerns. Councilmember Hatch asked about the addition of the ADA requirements. Mr. Dameron replied that these requirements had recently changed and the manual would now reflect the correct and current specifications.
COUNCILMEMBER BAYLESS MOVED TO APPROVE RESOLUTION #2005-3 ADOPTING THE UPDATED LAND DEVELOPMENT POLICIES, STANDARD SPECIFICATIONS AND DRAWINGS MANUAL FOR LINDON CITY AND SETTING AN EFFECTIVE DATE. COUNCILMEMBER ACERSON SECONDED THE MOTION. THE VOTE IS RECORDED AS FOLLOWS:
COUNCILMEMBER ACERSON AYE
COUNCILMEMBER BATH AYE
COUNCILMEMBER BAYLESS AYE
COUNCILMEMBER CARPENTER AYE
COUNCILMEMBER HATCH AYE
THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY (5-0).
COUNCIL REPORTS:
WATER, SEWER, SOLID WASTE, HOUSING CONSORTIUM
Councilmember Hatch reported that the Housing Consortium had recently met and approved a five year update on their general plan. He informed the Council that the Housing Authority had completed one small project in Lindon last year re-roofing a home for Genevieve Hansen. He presented the Council with some pictures of the flood waters during the last storm in his neighborhood.
TRAILS, PLANNING, ZONING, BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT, ADMINISTRATION
Councilmember Bayless announced that there was a new trails committee member, Former Mayor Larry Ellertson. She observed that there is a position open on the Planning Commission. Councilmembers Bath and Hatch replied that they had names to suggest. Mr. Dameron suggested that they keep these names in mind to propose to the new Mayor.
PUBLIC SAFETY, COURT, BUILDING INSPECTIONS
Councilmember Bath reported that the Captain Cody Cullimore had nothing major to convey to the Council. Mayor Pro Tem Carpenter commented that he had recently attended the NOVA graduation at the Lindon Elementary. He and the Council discussed this program briefly. Mayor Pro Tem Carpenter commented that he is grateful for the smooth operation of the City and complimented Former Mayor Ellertson for his leadership in this respect.
PARKS, RECREATION, ENGINEERING, LINDON FAIR, NEWSLETTER
Councilmember Acerson reported that he had received an application for Lindon Days chair. He added that he would be attending Local Officials Day at the ULCT Spring Conference and asked if there were any issues to bring up the Council would like to see addressed. Mention was made of the sales tax distribution and RDA issues.
GENERAL PLAN, STREETS & SIDEWALKS, PUBLIC BUILDINGS
Councilmember Carpenter reminded the Council that this year is scheduled for the five year review of the master plan. He asked the Council for names of those they would like to see involved in the process so he could issue invitations in May.
ADMINISTRATOR’S REPORT
Mr. Dameron:
1. Announced the engineering coordination for tomorrow, January 19, 2005 at 11:00 a.m. Mayor Pro Tem Carpenter and Councilmember Bayless volunteered to attend.
2. Asked for RSVP’s to the Mayor’s Farewell Dinner at McGrath’s Saturday January, 22 at 7:00 p.m. The Council responded with their numbers attending.
3. Reminded the Council again about the Mountainview Corridor meeting on Tuesday, January 25, at 6:00 p.m. in Pleasant Grove.
4. Informed the Council that he had received two applications so far for the Mayor position. He reminded the Council that the interviews are scheduled for Wednesday, January 26, at 6:00 p.m.
5. Noted that the Annual Development meeting will be held on Friday, January 28 at 9:00 a.m. He observed that this meeting usually has a good turnout from the development and construction community.
6. Announced that there is a public hearing scheduled for February 1 to hear the proposed nonconforming uses amendment.
7. Informed the Council that there is also a public hearing scheduled for February 15 to hear the design variance application.
8. Asked for requests from the project tracking list. There were none.
9. Reported on storm water problems after last week’s heavy rain. He noted trouble on Mac Ostergaard’s place from water coming from Pleasant Grove. He added that no homes or businesses were flooded, just property with “lakes.” He observed that there will be a meeting tomorrow to identify problem areas and prioritize the corrections. He reported that four homes on the east side were threatened by construction overflows in the Bald Mountain subdivision and that the developer had responded quickly. There was also a large lake near 1800 West and the Ostler subdivision. Pumps were set up to pump over the rail line near the transfer station, but overall Lindon weathered the unusual storm well.
COUNCILMEMBER BATH MOVED TO APPROVE THE PAY VOUCHERS. COUNCILMEMBER BAYLESS SECONDED THE MOTION. ALL PRESENT VOTED IN FAVOR. THE MOTION CARRIED.
ADJOURN
COUNCILMEMBER BAYLESS MOVED TO ADJOURN THE CITY COUNCIL MEETING AT 11:27 P.M. COUNCILMEMBER HATCH SECONDED THE MOTION. ALL PRESENT VOTED IN FAVOR. THE MOTION CARRIED.
APPROVED – February 1, 2005
______________________________________
Ott H. Dameron, City Administrator/Recorder
_______________________________________
Bruce Carpenter, Mayor Pro Tem
|
|
|
