|
|
Home » City Government » Council » Minutes Archives; 2000 - 2003 » 2001 Council Minutes » August 21, 2001
August 21, 2001
The Lindon City Council held a regularly scheduled meeting, beginning with a Work Session at 6:00 P.M. on Tuesday, August 21, 2001, in the Lindon City Center Council Chambers at 100 North State Street, Lindon, Utah.
Conducting: Larry A. Ellertson, Mayor
PRESENT
Larry A. Ellertson, Mayor
H. Toby Bath, Councilmember
Lindsey Bayless, Councilmember
James A. Dain, Councilmember
Jerald I. Hatch, Councilmember
Ott H. Dameron, City Administrator
Kevin Smith, Planning Director
Venla Gubler, Administrative Clerk
ABSENT
Jeff Acerson, Councilmember
The Meeting began at 6:07 P.M.
WORK SESSION
The Mayor and Council will continue the review process of the Standard Land Use Codes applicable across all zones of the City.
Planning Director Kevin Smith noted that the previously asked for changes had been made to this copy and directed attention specifically to page 3 and the addition of the definition of wholesale. Mayor Ellertson commented that he had noticed several businesses in the 6000 Services section that were allowed or conditional in the commercial (CG) and mixed commercial (MC) zones, but not in the planned commercial (PC-1) zone. Mr. Smith reading from the ordinance, informed the Councilmembers that the purpose of the planned commercial zone is to provide a regional commercial center. He disclosed that the table of land uses included in the planned commercial ordinance does include some service businesses, however, it is intended to be more of a regional retail center.
Mayor Ellertson suggested that some of the service businesses would be an asset to the employees and customers of the businesses in the PC-1 zone and the nearby Research & Business (R&B) zones. He suggested that the Councilmembers consider permitting finance, insurance and real estate offices. Mr. Smith commented that the PC-1 zone is small now, maybe a total of about 40 acres. Mr. Dameron observed that these service business do not generate retail. The Councilmembers discussed how a bank may be an asset to the businesses in this zone. It was decided to make 6130 Insurance Agents, Brokers, and Related Services and 6150 Real Estate Agents, Brokers, and Related Services conditional in the PC-1 zone.
Mayor Ellertson suggested adding dry cleaning, photographic services and a barbershop to the zone. He suggested that crematory services be made conditional. Mr. Smith agreed that this service may not be appropriate for any of the commercial zones. Councilmember Bath suggested that a crematorium may have emission or other environmental issues that should be addressed by the Planning Commission with a conditional use permit.
It was noted that entry 6110 was a duplicate of 6100. It was decided to delete 6110. Mayor Ellertson suggested that 6100 be made conditional in the PC-1 zone so that the business can be reviewed. Councilmember Dain suggested that 6241 Funeral Homes not be permitted in the residential zones. The Council agreed that Lindon’s residential zones were probably not appropriate areas for a Funeral Home. The Council discussed the overlapping uses of 6211 Laundering, Dry Cleaning, & Dyeing Services and 6215 Rug Cleaners/Repair Services. It was decided to combine the entries. Councilmember Bath pointed out that 6251 Apparel Repair, Alterations, Laundry/Dry Cleaning Services was also a redundant entry. Councilmember Dain suggested that 6211 include rugs and alterations and delete the duplicate entries.
Mayor Ellertson asked Mr. Smith if these SLU codes correspond to the SIC codes. Mr. Smith replied that they did not, but were a system used by cities. Councilmember Bayless questioned why the entry 6220 Photographic Services was conditional in the CG zone when 6219 Chimney Sweep is permitted in the same zone. She felt that this was a contradiction. Mayor Ellertson wondered if the Chimney Sweep business would more likely be a home occupation business rather than a commercial business and the entry should be deleted. Councilmember Bayless questioned whether the photographer should be conditional. Councilmember Bath observed that the photographer may have some environmental issues with the darkroom chemicals that should be addressed by the Planning Commission. Councilmember Bayless compared 6321 Beauty & Barber Shops and 6233 Massage Therapy and again noted that the Beauty & Barber Shops were conditional and Massage Therapy permitted in the CG zone. Mayor Ellertson agreed that these businesses provide a good service to the offices located nearby. He suggested that they both be permitted in the CG and in the Light Industrial (LI) zone.
Mayor Ellertson observed that in his review of the previously changed pages, he had noted some more questions. He directed the Council to page 3, Entry 4710 Telephone Utility Lines and 4810 Electric Utility Lines. He suggested that the entries need to specify whether they are for overhead or underground utilities. He also suggested that overhead electrical lines and 4811 Electric Generation should be conditional. Mr. Dameron suggested that separate entries be made for overhead and underground utilities and that 4812 Electricity Regulating Substations be conditional in all zones. Mayor Ellertson agreed that the Planning Commission should look at all plans to put in substations.
There was a short discussion on the gas utilities. Councilmember Bath suggested that 4822 Gas Production Plants be made a conditional use in the Heavy Industrial zone. Mayor Ellertson suggested that 4824 Gas Pressure Control Stations also be conditional in the industrial zones. There was a short discussion on how making uses conditional lets the Planning Commission review and set conditions to mitigate concerns.
Mayor Ellertson suggested that 4831 Water Treatment Plants should be conditional in the MU zone. He observed that any plans to put facilities on the mountain should be reviewed. Councilmember Bath suggested that it may be wise to make 4912 Petroleum Pressure Control Stations conditional in the industrial zones.
Mayor Ellertson commented that the 5100 section felt backwards. He noted that in the heavy industrial zone, all the wholesale trades are a conditional use, but were permitted in the light industrial and mixed industrial zones. Mr. Smith explained that the wholesale trades were more likely to locate in the light industrial and mixed commercial zones. Mayor Ellertson agreed.
Mr. Smith suggested that the retail business of 5395 Flea Market should be changed to make it conditional in the light industrial zone. Councilmember Dain suggested that 5931 Antiques should be a conditional use in the T zone. The purpose and design of the T zone as an overlay was discussed. It was decided to make Antiques a conditional use in the underlying zones. There was another short discussion on the zones that 5511 New Car Dealers, 5512 Used Car Dealers and 5513 Mobile & Manufactured Home Sales would be allowed.
Mr. Smith indicated that he was planning to put an explanatory page at the front of the SLU Table explaining overlay zones and discussing primary and secondary uses. He thanked the Council for spending the time to go over the table thoroughly now so that fewer changes would need to be made in the future.
Councilmember Bayless wondered why 6411 Automobile Wash was not permitted in the heavy industrial zone and all other auto services and repairs were permitted. Mr. Dameron mentioned that one of Schaeffer Industries' biggest concerns were that retail services were locating in the heavy industrial zone. There was a discussion of how auto repair businesses should be located in the light industrial zone rather than on State Street. Mayor Ellertson suggested that these businesses not be permitted in the heavy industrial zone. Councilmember Dain observed that most of the various types of auto tire shops and lubrication businesses also did repairs. The Councilmembers agreed that these businesses overlapped into several uses, including wrecking and impound yards. Mr. Smith commented that the primary use would determine the zone they can locate in and the conditions set on the business by the Planning Commission. Mayor Ellertson suggested that all the auto repair services be made conditional uses so that they can be reviewed.
Councilmember Dain observed that it is the intention of the Council to move the auto service centers from State Street to the industrial zones because of their general unsightliness. He expressed concern that they could set up business in the new Mixed Commercial zone, which is even more stringent on landscaping and building design. Councilmember Bayless agreed. Mayor Ellertson commented that the Mixed Commercial zone is reserved more for businesses with no outside activity than the General Commercial zone. Mr. Smith observed that the uses in the Mixed Commercial zone are more flexible since they allow the light industrial uses, however, the code is more stringent in the aesthetic requirements. Councilmember Dain pointed out several businesses that are not permitted in the CG zone but are allowed in the MC zone. Mayor Ellertson suggested that the Councilmembers look at the uses in the MC and CG zones for inconsistencies and bring their findings to the next meeting. He suggested that the next review start with 6500.
REGULAR SESSION
Conducting: Larry A. Ellertson, Mayor
Pledge of Allegiance: Larry A. Ellertson
Invocation: Lindsey Bayless
PRESENT
Larry A. Ellertson, Mayor
Jeff Acerson, Councilmember (arrived 8:44 pm)
H. Toby Bath, Councilmember
Lindsey Bayless, Councilmember
James A. Dain, Councilmember
Jerald I. Hatch, Councilmember
Ott H. Dameron, City Administrator
Kevin Smith, Planning Director
Venla Gubler, Administrative Clerk
ABSENT
The Meeting began at 7:15 P.M.
MINUTES
Review of the Minutes of August 7, 2001.
The Minutes of the regularly scheduled meeting of August 7, 2001 were reviewed. The following corrections were made:
Page 3, Line 36-38: Replace the phrase “be not permitted in the PC zone” with the phrase “may be compared to businesses with outside storage and this should be considered in the decision to allow them in the PC zone.”
Page 6, Line 32: Replace the name “Cassidy” with the name “Kasslie.”
Page 7, Line 29: Add the word “it” after the word “that.”
Page 7, Line 30: Replace the word “and” with the word “as.”
Page 9, Line 22,23: Delete the sentence “Councilmember Bayless suggested that the minimum lot size be changed to ½ acre.”
Page 12, Line 28: Replace the word “remove” with the word “removed.”
COUNCILMEMBER BATH MOVED TO APPROVE THE MINUTES OF THE REGULARLY SCHEDULED MEETING OF AUGUST 7, 2001 AS CORRECTED. COUNCILMEMBER BAYLESS SECONDED THE MOTION. ALL PRESENT VOTED IN FAVOR. THE MOTION CARRIED.
OPEN SESSION - Citizens comments
There was no comment from the audience.
MAYOR’S COMMENTS/REPORTS
Mayor Ellertson commented that the Utah League of Cities and Towns was having their annual meeting September 5, 6 and 7, 2001. He noted that the registration confirmations had been received. Mayor Ellertson encouraged the Councilmembers to attend and mentioned some of the sessions that may be of interest. He specifically detailed sessions dealing with the water rights issue and alternatives to curb and gutter.
CONSENT AGENDA - No Items
CURRENT BUSINESS
1. Public Hearing - Subdivision Ordinance Revision - Chapter 17.32 - Ordinance #2001-8. This is a continued Public Hearing from August 7, 2001. The City Council will hear public comment and possibly act to approve a revision of the Lindon City Subdivision Ordinance which is the result of the recently adopted General Plan for the city. The Council reviewed this revision to Chapter 17.32 of the Lindon City Code during its meetings of July 17, 2001 and August 7, 2001.
COUNCILMEMBER BATH MOVED TO OPEN ALL FOUR PUBLIC HEARINGS. COUNCILMEMBER HATCH SECONDED THE MOTION. ALL PRESENT VOTED IN FAVOR. THE MOTION CARRIED.
Mr. Smith noted that the changes requested in the previous meeting had been made. Mayor Ellertson commented that the League of Cities and Towns had planned a presentation at their semi-annual conference on the subject of alternatives to curb and gutter. Mr. Smith directed the Councilmembers' attention to page 5 and the added statement “Street numbers shall always be preferred over street names.” Mayor Ellertson suggested that the words “with the grid” be added. After discussion, the Councilmembers decided that the second sentence covered streets that are in alignment with the grid. Mr. Smith noted the addition of the word “be” on page 3, line 47 and then turned the time over to City Engineer, Dave Thurgood, for a discussion on the treatment of roadway edges.
Mr. Thurgood passed out a list of considerations. He noted that Mark Christiansen had done the research. He read through the list of advantages of a barrier curb, roll-type curb, drainage swale and unimproved shoulders. He then went through the list of disadvantages to each of these options, listed some general considerations, and pointed out AASHTO guidelines. There was discussion among the Councilmembers about the definition of each option. Barrier curbs are the typical curb of 6 inches in height. Mr. Thurgood pointed out that most of the barrier curbs in Lindon are only 4 inches high. A drainage swale is a grassed gutter. The roll-type curb can be either asphalt or concrete. Mr. Thurgood observed that asphalt typically breaks off on the edges because it has no tensile strength. He recommended some type of edging or finish to the sides of the roadways to preserve the asphalt. He also noted that AASHTO guidelines recommend that when only a shoulder exists between travel lanes and a sidewalk, the shoulder width should be at least 10 feet. Mayor Ellertson clarified that the shoulder width would be an addition to the street easement. Councilmember Bayless commented that the protection for pedestrians was either 6 inches up or 10 feet wide.
Mr. Thurgood observed that he could foresee that not requiring curb and gutter would be a significant cost reduction for developers. He suggested some strict standards and asked who would be responsible for maintenance and sprinkling of the grass. He noted that sloped streets did not lend themselves easily to the swale alternative. He observed that the ideal street candidate for a swale is on level ground where both sides have the same elevation and are fairly flat. He said that the runoff velocities should be limited to 4 feet per second or the water will erode the grass.
Councilmember Dain asked Mr. Thurgood about the problems of vehicles using the swales for parking. Mr. Thurgood could see a problem if the grass was wet. He considered putting a gravel base under the grass to help, or possibly eliminating on-street parking.
There was a discussion on the aesthetic value of swales over curb and gutter. Mr. Dameron raised the issue of storm water collection. Mr. Thurgood observed that the storm water would run to the edge of the roadways and into the swales. He also observed that swales are designed primarily for local streets and are not adequate for collector or arterial streets. He noted that current right-of-ways may not be of adequate width to incorporate swale design. He also commented on the slow percolation rates of the general soils in Lindon that do not lend themselves well to swale design.
Councilmember Dain commented that it would be difficult to not have on-street parking. He recommended that any decision the Council made on this issue not preclude on-street parking. There was a discussion of narrowing the pavement to allow for parking and slowing the traffic. Discussion of narrow streets was held.
Councilmember Dain commented that the current method of handling storm drainage is to collect it and send it to Utah Lake. He suggested that the conference referred to earlier may have some alternate suggestions to handling this. Mr. Thurgood observed that the swale design is considered on-street detention. Councilmember Dain noted that any water retained and used within the parcels would be extra irrigation. Mayor Ellertson agreed that the citizens of Lindon should utilize any rain that is received. Councilmember Bayless asserted that any option that is decided on should be standardized and not left up to the developer to apply. The Council agreed. Mayor Ellertson suggested that this item be continued until after the conference discussion. He asked for some pictures of alternative options.
Mr. Thurgood said that there are examples of swales and other alternatives in Highland and Orem. He raised the question of storm water contamination and mentioned the Highland was discontinuing the use of sumps for this reason. There was discussion of Phase 2 Storm Water Requirements. Councilmember Bayless suggested that there may be other combinations of swales or curb and gutter suggested at the conference. Mayor Ellertson asked Mr. Thurgood the depth of the storm drain system in the streets. He replied 3 to 5 feet. Mayor Ellertson commented that inlets to the storm drain system could still be put within the swales. Councilmember Dain mentioned some storm drainage system inlets on unimproved street edges in Lindon. Mr. Thurgood observed that the City could put in small drop structures to reduce the velocities of the water. There was more discussion on the aesthetic differences between swales and curb & gutter.
Mayor Ellertson asked if there was any public comment. There was none. Mr. Thurgood observed that the Council may want to give consideration to allowing wider lots. The Councilmembers discussed the pros and cons of wider, shallower lots. Mr. Smith mentioned a possible problem with setbacks for accessory buildings if the lots are shallower.
Mr Thurgood was asked to assemble information on locations in the City alternative methods could be considered and what alternatives he suggests for these areas. Councilmember Bayless mentioned that the pathway system should also be considered as part of this determination. Mr. Smith noted that the public hearing would need to be re-noticed.
COUNCILMEMBER DAIN MOVED TO CONTINUE THE PUBLIC HEARING ON THE PROPOSED REVISION OF THE LINDON CITY SUBDIVISION ORDINANCE UNTIL SEPTEMBER 18, 2001. COUNCILMEMBER BATH SECONDED THE MOTION. THE VOTE IS RECORDED AS FOLLOWS:
COUNCILMEMBER BATH AYE
COUNCILMEMBER BAYLESS AYE
COUNCILMEMBER DAIN AYE
COUNCILMEMBER HATCH AYE
THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY WITH COUNCILMEMBER ACERSON ABSENT.
2. Public Hearing - Mixed Commercial Ordinance Adoption - Chapter 17.50 - Ordinance #2001-9. This is a continued Public Hearing from August 7, 2001. The City Council will hear and possibly act to approve the adoption of the Mixed Commercial Ordinance as an addition to the Lindon City Code. This action is in accordance with the recently adopted General Plan for the city. The Council reviewed this new ordinance during its meetings of July 17, 2001 and August 7, 2001.
Mayor Ellertson reminded the Councilmembers and audience that the public hearing was still open. Mr. Smith commented that this item had been discussed at the last Council meeting. He had been asked to amend three things in the ordinance; the statement and the reference in 17.50.040 on the average height of the buildings in the zone, and to add the words “have finishes” and “stone” in 17.50.070. The rest of the discussion centered around page 2 line 25 about berm height and width.
Mr. Smith showed the Council slides of different berms in the area. There was discussion on how the berms were measured. The varying heights and widths of the berm pictures shown were compared. Councilmember Dain mentioned that he preferred the height that did not obscure the business, yet shielded the parking. Councilmember Bath expressed preference for those with a park-like appearance. Mayor Ellertson suggested a standard of 2 ½ to 4 feet in height with an average of 3 feet. This was discussed and consensus was reached on a varying height of 2 ½ to 4 feet with an average of 3 ½ feet. Mayor Ellertson asked if there was any public comment. Mr. Ken Holmstead, of 135 North 200 East, commented that vehicles entering the street from the parking lot needed to be able to see oncoming traffic. Mayor Ellertson asked if there were any other comments or questions. There were none.
COUNCILMEMBER DAIN MOVED TO APPROVE THE PROPOSED NEW SECTION OF THE LINDON CITY CODE TITLED 17.50. - MIXED COMMERCIAL AS AMENDED AND CORRECTED. COUNCILMEMBER BAYLESS SECONDED THE MOTION. THE VOTE WAS RECORDED AS FOLLOWS:
COUNCILMEMBER BATH AYE
COUNCILMEMBER BAYLESS AYE
COUNCILMEMBER DAIN AYE
COUNCILMEMBER HATCH AYE
THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY WITH COUNCILMEMBER ACERSON ABSENT.
3. Public Hearing - Accessory Apartments Ordinance Amendment - Section 17.46.100 - Ordinance #2001-10. This is a continued Public Hearing from August 7, 2001. The City Council will hear and possibly act to approve an ordinance amendment to Section 17.46.100 of the Lindon City Code, “Accessory Apartment” dealing with detached accessory apartments.
Mayor Ellertson noted that the Council was still in a public hearing. He observed that the changes were outlined in paragraphs 6 and 7 of the Accessory Apartment requirements. Mr. Smith commented that, as requested, he had added clause “d” to paragraph 6. He showed some photos of detached apartments currently constructed in Lindon. Mayor Ellertson commented that neither of the apartments shown have the conditions specified in the proposed ordinance. Mr. Smith agreed that these apartments shown are totally detached.
Councilmember Dain addressed Mr. Holmstead in the audience and asked him if he, as a real estate agent, perceived any interest in detached apartments as part of an estate. Mr. Holmstead did not feel that there was an issue there. He expressed the opinion that detached apartments were considered when a homeowner has a dilapidated structure in their backyard that must either be pulled down or remodeled into something useful.
Mayor Ellertson, referring back to the proposed ordinance, questioned the definition of “substantially attached.” Mr. Smith clarified that it must be more substantial that just a 2x4. There was a discussion of setting conditions that will make it possible to approve an accessory apartment at the staff level instead of bringing the applications to the Planning Commission.
Councilmember Dain observed that the presence of a kitchen in an outbuilding or basement is the element that determines whether the space is considered an accessory apartment. Councilmember Bayless commented that the Council needed to decide if they want detached accessory apartments before they decide how to allow it. Councilmember Bath observed that if a resident applied to build an accessory building, then certain things like kitchens would not be allowed. Mr. Smith commented that a second kitchen can be built if the homeowner signs an affidavit that they will not rent the unit and it meets the second kitchen requirements listed in 17.46.110. He listed the requirements.
Councilmember Bath questioned whether either detached apartments or apartments “substantially”attached should be allowed in Lindon. Mr. Dameron pointed out that the Mayor and Councilmembers Dain and Acerson had asked to see language that may regulate these types of uses and Mr. Smith had attempted to accommodate their request. Councilmember Bath expressed the opinion that allowing detached apartments would be “opening pandora’s box.” He felt that some residents would find creative ways to circumvent the intent of the ordinance. Councilmember Dain commented that he could see ways to create this opportunity for residents that would not detract from the neighborhood. Councilmember Bayless expressed the opinion that the intent of the original ordinance was that the apartment would be part of a dwelling and would look like a single family home.
(Councilmember Acerson arrived at 8:44 p.m.)
Councilmember Dain asked Councilmembers Bayless and Bath to explain further their reasons for opposing detached apartments. Councilmember Bath felt that a detached apartment would look like two separate residences. Councilmember Dain, using his home as an example, asked Councilmember Bath if he would feel better about taking out the breezeway and making his garage touch the house. Councilmember Bath reiterated his opinion that separate buildings would look like two separate residences. He asked the Council to define “substantial connection” in a more detailed fashion. Councilmember Dain observed that he understood Councilmember Bath’s fears that some residents may use this amendment to establish two homes on one lot without applying for an R2 Overlay project. Mr. Smith observed that the applications for detached accessory apartments could be reviewed by the Planning Commission.
Councilmember Dain observed that Councilmember Bath would allow an accessory apartment if the two buildings touch walls, but not if they are 6 feet apart. Councilmember Dain commented that he would like to allow accessory apartments that are substantially attached as written in clause “d.” Mayor Ellertson observed that “people don’t try to create bad looking stuff.” He commented that he would be supportive of allowing people to use their property. Mr. Smith cautioned the Council that the approval or disapproval decisions would fall onto staff so the Councilmembers should make their wishes clear. He noted that any questionable applications would be brought to the Planning Commission anyway.
Councilmember Bayless expressed the opinion that if you take two separate buildings and attach them with a breezeway, it defeats the intent to preserve the single-family residential appearance of the building. She also observed that the homeowner was more aware of and in control of the activities of the renter in their basement than they would be of the renter in the backyard. Mayor Ellertson questioned forcing someone to have a separate entry to the apartment. He felt there should be access from inside the home. Mr. Smith pointed out that a homeowner would not want access from the apartment renter into his home, and if the intent is to have a second or canning kitchen the inside access cannot be blocked.
Mr. Holmstead commented that as a homeowner gets older, they may wish to creatively use some space in the home rather than sell and downsize. He suggested that a pool house may be turned into an apartment as a way to deal with an individual situation. Councilmember Dain agreed. Councilmember Acerson cited the example of his grandparents’ home in Moab and commented that the detached apartment “looks fine” and he also did not want to exclude Lindon residents from the opportunity. He commented that the problems start when the apartment is being transitioned from caring for a family member to renting to the outside public.
Councilmember Bayless observed that allowing detached accessory apartments would permit two families to live on ½ acre. Councilmember Acerson observed that two families are living on ½ acre if the apartment is in the basement also. He pointed out that one of the advantages and attractions of an accessory apartment is the extra income. He noted that the problems arise in trying to stop those certain cases which are trying to get around the intent of the ordinance. Councilmember Dain commented that he felt 15 feet apart is essentially the same house.
Mr. Holmstead suggested that the Council approve the ordinance as written, then, if there is abuse, the restrictions could be made tighter. Councilmember Bath expressed the opinion that he would prefer it be tightened up before there is abuse. Mr. Smith observed that if this amendment is approved then applications will automatically be reviewed by the Planning Commission if desired. He noted that there has never been a flood of applications and there is rarely a problem. If a problem exists, then the Planning Commission can do a review. Mr. Dameron wondered if there are enforcement problems with other apartments in Lindon. Mr. Smith assured him that the neighbors are the best source of complaints and so far there have been no enforcement problems.
Mayor Ellertson observed that this amendment allows either attached or substantially attached apartments. Nothing detached is allowed. Councilmember Dain confirmed that nothing totally detached is allowed. Mayor Ellertson noted that the ordinance specifies that nothing detract from the single-family nature of the home. Councilmember Bath suggested that the definition of “substantially detached” needed to be refined. Mayor Ellertson and Councilmember Dain pointed out that the amendment states “by covered walkways, covered breezeways, and covered porches not more than 15 feet from the main dwelling.”
Councilmember Dain suggested that since the main objections are aesthetic issues, the ordinance specify that the design of the garage or accessory building match the design of the home. Councilmember Bayless asked, “What is substantially attached?” Mr. Smith observed that this would be determined by the Planning Commission. Mayor Ellertson endorsed the suggestion to have the accessory building match the decor of the main structure. Councilmember Hatch asked if the Planning Commissioners had any specific objections to detached apartments. Mr. Smith explained that the original proposal allowed detached apartments on lots of 30,000 square feet or larger. Their recommendation had been to not allow detached apartments at all by a 3 to 2 vote. Councilmember Acerson commented, “There are good and bad ways of building homes, but how do you control that?” Councilmember Bayless agreed that you can’t control the quality of home building and that’s another reason why substantially attached accessory apartments should not be allowed.
Mr. Smith asked the Councilmembers to review the definition of a second kitchen that had been added as 17.46.110. He noted that this is the definition that staff is using now, but this defines it in the ordinance. Mayor Ellertson suggested that the second kitchen definition should say that this is not an apartment. Mr. Dameron suggested that it should say that it shall not create an apartment. Councilmember Acerson agreed that if the second kitchen is maintained in a single-family home and there are no complaints from the neighbors then this definition is adequate. Councilmember Hatch observed that he knew of a home business that operates out of a commercial kitchen in an accessory building. This was discussed. Mr. Smith suggested that the phrase “unless approved as a home occupation by the Planning Commission” be added to the second kitchen definition. Mayor Ellertson asked if there was any further comments or discussion. There was none. Mayor Ellertson confirmed with Councilmembers Bayless and Bath that they were not opposed to substantially attached apartments if they were similar to Councilmember Dain’s example–they were opposed to the potential of abuse of the ordinance.
COUNCILMEMBER DAIN MOVED TO APPROVE THE AMENDMENT OF 17.46.100 ACCESSORY APARTMENTS AS PROPOSED WITH THE ADDITION OF A CLAUSE THAT THE SUBSTANTIALLY ATTACHED GARAGE OR ACCESSORY BUILDING SHALL MATCH THE DECOR AND ARCHITECTURE OF THE MAIN RESIDENCE, AND THAT A SECOND KITCHEN IN AN ACCESSORY BUILDING IS NOT ALLOWED UNLESS APPROVED AS A HOME OCCUPATION BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION. COUNCILMEMBER ACERSON SECONDED THE MOTION. THE VOTE IS RECORDED AS FOLLOWS:
COUNCILMEMBER ACERSON AYE
COUNCILMEMBER BATH NAY
COUNCILMEMBER BAYLESS NAY
COUNCILMEMBER DAIN AYE
COUNCILMEMBER HATCH AYE
THE MOTION CARRIED WITH THREE COUNCILMEMBERS IN FAVOR AND TWO OPPOSED.
4. Public Hearing - Sexually Oriented Business Ordinance Amendment - Chapter 17.61 - Ordinance #2001-11. The City Council will hear public comment and possibly act to approve an ordinance amendment to Chapter 17.61 of the Lindon City Code dealing with distance separation requirements between these businesses and property zoned as residential, or a church, park, or school.
Mayor Ellertson suggested that the Council work through the Planning Commission recommendations. Councilmember Bayless observed that this amendment had been reviewed by the City Attorney to make a legally defensible ordinance. She commented that if the City doesn’t allow these businesses somewhere to operate, that they may have legal grounds to operate anywhere. Mr. Smith noted that the present ordinance allows sexually-oriented businesses to locate within the heavy industrial zone within certain limitations that include the T zone, gateway streets and within a certain distance of homes, churches and schools. Councilmember Bayless questioned the distance between Pheasant Brook subdivision and the heavy industrial zone. She was assured that the distance was adequate according to this amendment. Mayor Ellertson asked if the distance could be expanded to 1500 feet and still have an area that sexually-oriented businesses can locate within.
There was a short discussion on the distance from gateway streets, homes, and/or any historic sites. Mayor Ellertson suggested that the distance from the homes be increased as far as possible that would still allow these businesses a place to operate. Mr. Holmstead asked if these businesses would have a legal complaint to such a strict restriction. Mr. Smith explained that if there was a place allowed for them, that the courts have overruled their complaints. Mayor Ellertson asked if there were any other comments or questions. Mr. Smith observed that the City Attorney had looked over this amendment and approved this distance. Councilmember Dain verified that the Councilmembers agreed to the distance of 1500 feet in each clause of 17.61.030 if the City Attorney confirms the legality. If not, then the distance will stay at1250 feet as recommended by the Planning Commission and reviewed by the City Attorney.
Mr. Holmstead mentioned the possibility of Indian burial grounds in the heavy industrial zone. Mr. Smith was asked to check into this and/or other historic sites.
COUNCILMEMBER BATH MOVED TO APPROVE THE PROPOSED ORDINANCE AMENDMENT TO CHAPTER 17.61. OF THE LINDON CITY CODE WITH A DISTANCE OF 1500 FEET UNLESS DETERMINED NOT LEGALLY DEFENSIBLE BY THE CITY ATTORNEY, OTHERWISE THE DISTANCE IS APPROVED AT 1250 FEET. COUNCILMEMBER HATCH SECONDED THE MOTION. THE VOTE IS RECORDED AS FOLLOWS:
COUNCILMEMBER ACERSON AYE
COUNCILMEMBER BATH AYE
COUNCILMEMBER BAYLESS AYE
COUNCILMEMBER DAIN AYE
COUNCILMEMBER HATCH AYE
THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
COUNCILMEMBER BAYLESS MOVED TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARINGS. COUNCILMEMBER DAIN SECONDED THE MOTION. ALL PRESENT VOTED IN FAVOR. THE MOTION CARRIED.
5. Agreement - Utah State Retirement Board Settlement. The City Attorney has negotiated a settlement agreement with the Utah State Retirement Board for retirement payments required by the Board for retired Judge Keetch. These payments were not recognized by city staff, in years past, as being statutorily required since the city had provided an IRA for Judge Keetch’s retirement.
Mayor Ellertson asked if the Councilmembers had any questions or discussion on the proposed agreement. There was none.
COUNCILMEMBER HATCH MOVED TO APPROVE THE SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT WITH THE UTAH STATE RETIREMENT BOARD AS PRESENTED AND AUTHORIZE THE MAYOR TO SIGN THE DOCUMENT. COUNCILMEMBER BAYLESS SECONDED THE MOTION. THE VOTE IS RECORDED AS FOLLOWS:
COUNCILMEMBER ACERSON AYE
COUNCILMEMBER BATH AYE
COUNCILMEMBER BAYLESS AYE
COUNCILMEMBER DAIN AYE
COUNCILMEMBER HATCH AYE
THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
CITY COUNCIL REPORTS
WATER, GENERAL PLAN, BUILDING INSPECTION, ENGINEERING
Councilmember Dain reported that the LDS Church has requested some picnic tables to be donated to the park pavilion located at the ballfield by Alpine School District bus garage as payment for the use of the ballfield for City recreation programs. Councilmember Hatch confirmed that Mr. Lyle Lamoreaux had talked with him also. Councilmember Dain asked Mr. Dameron the cost of picnic tables and whether the budget would allow this purchase. Mr. Dameron observed that the picnic tables in use at the Creekside Park Pavilion cost $200 each. Councilmember Dain suggested that the tables be purchased and if they are not used at the ballfield then they can be moved into one of the City park pavilions. Mr. Dameron noted that an agreement between the Church and the City should be negotiated for the City’s use of the ballfield. Mayor Ellertson verified that the ballfield could be scheduled for the use of the City recreation programs. Councilmember Dain confirmed that the Councilmembers were agreeable to negotiating an agreement between church and city. There was consensus to move forward.
Councilmember Dain reported that the prebid meeting on the new fire station would be held tomorrow, August 22, 2001. He noted that the bid opening would be held a week from Thursday on August 30, 2001, and that there were 5 contractors who had picked up plans so far.
SEWER, SOLID WASTE, PUBLIC BUILDINGS AND PROPERTIES
Councilmember Hatch reported on the progress of the golf course development proposal for the landfill. He told the Council that the Special Service District had given the developers an ultimatum to show some progress or lose their option. The developers opted to lose their option. Councilmember Hatch noted that the Districts’ intention is to solicit for another development plan.
Councilmember Hatch reported that the Special Service District is contemplating a partnership agreement with Peterson Company in North Ogden to use a machine that will compact, bail and wrap garbage in plastic. This process will save the District transportation costs and space in the landfill because of the compaction. It also has the potential of preserving the garbage for burning to produce power since there is no bacteria. Peterson Company will use the site as a showplace for this emerging technology. He noted that the only one drawback is the amount of power usage.
Councilmember Hatch reported that the name of Special Service District has changed from the Utah County Solid Waste Special Service District to the North Point Solid Waste Special Service District to take the name of Utah County out. Councilmember Hatch noted that the Radmall demolition landfill had been approved by Cedar Fort the State. Councilmember Hatch reported a problem with untarped loads coming to the transfer station. He asked the Councilmembers for suggestions to correct the problem.
Councilmember Hatch reported a complaint about dust near the Saddleridge Subdivision. He reported that the secondary water was turned off at 570 North Locust near the recent road repair. He asked if a portable lighting and speaker system could be considered for purchase for next year’s Lindon Days events.
TRAILS, PLANNING, ZONING, BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT, ADMINISTRATION
Councilmember Bayless had nothing to report.
STREETS, SIDEWALKS, PUBLIC SAFETY AND COURT
Councilmember Bath had nothing to report.
PARKS, RECREATION, EMERGENCY MNGMNT, LINDON FAIR, NEWSLETTER
Councilmember Acerson reported on the Recreation Committee meeting. He observed that each member had taken an assignment. Mayor Ellertson noted that other people with varying interests were needed for the Committee. Councilmember Acerson asked about the schedule to install play equipment in the mini-park on 140 North 900 East.
Councilmember Acerson reported that Lindon Days had gone well. He asked the procedure for gift certificates for the chairpersons. Mr. Dameron reported that Ms. Colson was handling that. He asked if there was any news on the proposed Center Street subdivision. Councilmember Bath observed that since Mr. Fred Bentley had died, there had been no progress.
Councilmember Acerson commented that he had witnessed and reported a drug deal at an Orem business. He asked Councilmember Bath why the task force had not called him back. Councilmember Bath observed that he would ask for an update.
ADMINISTRATOR’S REPORT
Mr. Dameron:
1. Announced a “Day of Caring” sponsored by the United Way. He noted that volunteers can be either individuals or a group. Councilmember Acerson mentioned that the Character Connection is helping to sponsor this project.
2. Asked the Mayor for a date and time to meet with John Thackeray concerning the Special Improvement District. The Mayor gave him several possible appointments.
3. Reminded the Mayor and Councilmember Bayless of the scheduled interviews on Wednesday, August 29, 2001 at 5:30 p.m.
4. Asked for volunteers to attend the Engineering Coordination meeting to be held this Thursday, August 23, 2001. Councilmembers Bayless and Acerson agreed to attend.
5. Reminded Mayor Ellertson and the Councilmembers that the Hollow Park Committee was scheduled to meet on Tuesday, August 28, 2001 at 7:00 p.m.
6. Reported that Mr. Preston Parkinson had called him about the progress on the billboard in the City Park. Mr. Parkinson told Mr. Dameron that Reagan Signs had promised the sign would be removed by August 13th, 2001. Mr. Parkinson was very disappointed that Reagan Signs had not followed through on their promise. Mr. Dameron reported that the City Attorney has been alerted to this development. Councilmember Acerson suggested that the revenues collected from Reagan Signs should come to the City.
7. Noted that Spanish Fork City is offering high-speed internet to their residents. They are providing this service through their cable system. He observed that Orem City has requested a discussion on partnering with the other cities in the North Utah County area.
8. Commented that Lindon City normally holds a “Meet the Candidates Night” before the elections. He asked if the candidates would like to participate in an open house since the only candidates that filed were the incumbents. Mayor Ellertson suggested that it be done as part of the City Open House Night scheduled for October 11, 2001. The Councilmembers agreed. Mr. Dameron commented that he would ask Ms. Barbara Walker to be the Master of Ceremonies, as she has done for the last several years.
9. Commented that the Councilmembers may have noticed the green generator near the back of the parking lot. He observed that this installation was part of the Y2K project and was now working. It operates automatically. Mayor Ellertson observed that a schedule was needed to keep the gas tank full or when it was needed, it wouldn’t work.
10. Reported that the Utah Department of Transportation has hired Fehr and Peers Co. to look at the southbound off-ramp on 600 South to find a solution to the traffic problem.
11. Asked the Council for guidance on the City Buildings rental policy. He reported that requests had been received to rent on Sunday. He suggested that no Sunday rentals be taken if the rental requires an employee to open and close a building. The Council concurred.
12. Commented that there were about 300 books in the City Building basement that were intended for use in a Lindon City Library. He suggested that the books be donated to the nearby elementary schools. Mayor Ellertson asked if the Character Connection had a literacy program. Councilmember Acerson offered to check.
13. Observed that a draft copy of the design for the Pheasant Brook Park was presented at the last Engineering Coordination meeting. He suggested that a citizen committee was now needed. He noted that he has two names, but needs a few more. Councilmember Dain suggested the Atchison’s.
COUNCILMEMBER BAYLESS MOVED TO APPROVE THE PAY VOUCHERS. COUNCILMEMBER HATCH SECONDED THE MOTION. ALL PRESENT VOTED IN FAVOR. THE MOTION CARRIED.
COUNCILMEMBER BAYLESS MOVED TO ADJOURN THE CITY COUNCIL AT 10:37 P.M. COUNCILMEMBER BATH SECONDED THE MOTION. ALL PRESENT VOTED IN FAVOR. THE MOTION CARRIED.
APPROVED - September 4, 2001
Ott H. Dameron, City Administrator/Recorder
Larry A. Ellertson, Mayor |
|
|
