|
|
Home » City Government » Council » Minutes Archives; 2000 - 2003 » 2002 Council Minutes » February 19, 2002
February 19, 2002
The Lindon City Council held a regularly scheduled meeting February 19, 2002 at 7:00 p.m. in the Lindon City Center Council Chambers at 100 North State Street, Lindon, Utah.
Conducting: Larry A. Ellertson, Mayor
Pledge of Allegiance: H. Toby Bath
Invocation: Lindsey Bayless
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 7:08 P.M.
MINUTES
Review of the Minutes of February 12, 2002.
The minutes of the regular meeting of February 12, 2002 were reviewed. The following corrections were made:
Page 3, Line 33: Add the phrase “50/50 split of the” before the word “lesser.” Replace the word “investment” with the word “relocation.”
Page 3, Line 34: Add the word “investment” before the word “cost.”
COUNCILMEMBER BATH MOVED TO APPROVE THE MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF FEBRUARY 12, 2002 AS CORRECTED. COUNCILMEMBER HATCH SECONDED THE MOTION. ALL PRESENT VOTED IN FAVOR. THE MOTION CARRIED.
OPEN SESSION - Citizens comments
There was no comment from the public.
MAYOR’S COMMENTS AND REPORT
Mayor Ellertson commented that it had been just one week since the last meeting and there was not much to report on. He asked if anyone had any questions for him. There were none.
CONSENT AGENDA - No Items
CURRENT BUSINESS
1. Public Hearing - Ordinance Amendment - Document Submission and Review. The City Council will hear public comment and possibly act to approve an ordinance which amends the Lindon City Code to add a provision to Chapter 17.12 providing for City Council review of site plans, conditional use permits, and other land development applications.
COUNCILMEMBER BAYLESS MOVED TO OPEN BOTH PUBLIC HEARINGS TO CONSIDER AN AMENDMENT TO CHAPTER 17.08 TO ADD A PROVISION FOR CITY COUNCIL REVIEW OF LAND DEVELOPMENT APPLICATIONS, AND CHAPTER 8, PUBLIC NUISANCES. COUNCILMEMBER DAIN SECONDED THE MOTION. ALL PRESENT VOTED IN FAVOR. THE MOTION CARRIED.
Mr. Smith introduced this provision to clarify the City Council’s right to review land development applications. He noted the Planning Commission’s recommendation to inform the developer in advance to the item being placed on the Commission agenda. Mayor Ellertson asked if this would preclude a request to review after the Planning Commission has heard an item. Mr. Smith replied that it would preclude last minute decisions to review an application. There was a discussion of the reasons the Planning Commission considered when making this recommendation. Mr. Smith informed the Councilmembers that there was a concern that it may be considered arbitrary or discriminatory.
Mr. Smith commented that another recommendation concerned the requirement for written findings. He noted that the Council always receives written staff reports and the requirement to make written findings is redundant. He suggested that since making written recommendations is always done anyways, that it not be made a set requirement. Mayor Ellertson asked if there was something in the code that requires minutes to be made of meetings. Mr. Smith replied that minutes are required, but written staff reports are not, and if this requirement is not in the code then it cannot be questioned. He noted the addition of the statement that clarifies that the City Council is the final approval authority for development applications which they request to come to the Council. Mayor Ellertson asked if there was any further comment from the audience or the Council. Councilmember Dain commented that the amendment seemed to be “straightforward.” There was no comment from the public. It was decided to hold the motion on this item until the end of the public hearing.
2. Public Hearing - Ordinance Amendment - Public Nuisances. The City Council will hear public comment and possibly act to approve an ordinance which amends Chapter 8 of the Lindon City Code, thereby providing more details relating to public nuisances.
Mr. Smith explained that this amendment is a complete revision of Section 8.20. He noted that the Council has reviewed the drafts a couple of times. He also explained that this ordinance enacts a provision that is in the State Code which allows the City to declare drug houses or prostitution houses as public nuisances. Councilmember Bayless observed that this State Law has been successfully used in Lindon to evict a known drug dealer. Councilmember Dain commented that public nuisance actions are usually triggered by a complaint, but can be initiated by the City. Mr. Smith confirmed this statement.
Mr. Harlow Clark, newspaper representative for a local paper, asked how a homeowner could reassert his property rights and regain possession of a home that he has been evicted from as a result of a public nuisance action. Mr. Smith replied that it was up to a judge to determine that. The order of eviction would come as the result of a court action and could only be reversed or amended the same way.
Councilmember Bayless observed that any citizen can initiate an action or file a complaint, but if the City does not feel that the complain complaint warrants action, a citizen can pursue action in court as his choice. Mr. Clark noted that since all final action is the result of a court order, there is no guarantee that the judge will rule in favor of the City either.
Mr. Smith noted additions and changes made as suggested at the last review. He directed the Council to page 6, lines 5 through 11, which concern curfew and noise violations. Councilmember Bayless suggested that the definition of a family be added to line 31. Councilmember Bath suggested that a reference be added to the definition in Chapter 17.02. Mr. Smith read the definition to the Council. Councilmember Dain commented that the definition is very broad. Councilmember Bayless added that it would allow four different adults with their children to reside in the same residence. Mr. Smith noted that this definition is the accepted one and has been court-tested. He added that Provo has a narrower definition, but it may be questioned.
Mr. Smith directed attention to the changes in Line 38 through 40 which refers to the animal control ordinance. Councilmember Bath suggested that the provisions of the nuisance ordinance should have explicit references to the other ordinances that control their enforcement like the reference to the animal ordinance.
Mr. Smith noted the last change in the replacing of the word “may” for the word “shall” in the last provision 8.20.180. He suggested that this would give the judge leeway in making that determination.
Councilmember Dain suggested that the word “or” should be deleted from the end of subparagraph c. This was discussed and it was suggested that the word “or” should be deleted from the end of every subparagraph of 25. Mr. Smith noted that he would read this section very carefully and make sure the meaning was clarified.
Councilmember Dain suggested that the section dealing with Notice - Proof of service be made more general and not pertain solely to notice of weed growth. He added that all the nuisances should be covered. The provision that one notice is sufficient and how that may apply to repeat offenders was discussed. Councilmember Dain commented that it was the practice to issue more notices as a courtesy to the violator, but legally, according to the ordinance, one notice was considered sufficient evidence of notice. Mr. Dameron suggested that some nuisances do not concern a lot or parcel. This was discussed and the reference to a lot or parcel was changed to refer to a nuisance violation. Some spelling errors were pointed out and corrected.
Mayor Ellertson initiated discussion of Section 8.20.110 concerning an informal hearing. He observed that when the Council meets together as a group, they must meet the requirements of the Open Meeting Law. He asked what meaning may be construed to the parenthetical statement “which need not be reported.” He suggested that this statement be deleted. Mr. Dameron observed that the statement “informal hearing” may be interpreted by considering the opposite “formal hearing” with witnesses and lawyers present. This was discussed and it was decided to leave the word “informal” and delete the parenthetical remark. Mr. Dameron commented that he felt the intent of this statement is to keep a nuisance action private. He suggested that a committee of two Councilmembers could meet privately with a responsible person to resolve a nuisance violation. If more Councilmembers were involved in a decision, the Open Meeting law requirements would need to be met.
Mayor Ellertson asked if there were any further comments or questions. Councilmember Bath suggested that Section 8.20.120 also be made more general than tying the nuisance to land. Councilmember Dain suggested that it be changed to “land or nuisance.” Mr. Dameron suggested “perpetrator of nuisance.” Mayor Ellertson suggested “any person.” Mr. Smith suggested “any responsible person.” This last suggestion was agreed to by the Council.
COUNCILMEMBER DAIN MOVED TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARINGS. COUNCILMEMBER BAYLESS SECONDED THE MOTION. ALL PRESENT VOTED IN FAVOR. THE MOTION CARRIED.
COUNCILMEMBER DAIN MOVED TO APPROVE THE AMENDMENT TO CHAPTER 17.08 OF THE LINDON CITY CODE BY ADDING SECTION 17.08.140 CITY COUNCIL REVIEW, WITH THE ADDITION OF THE PHRASE “BEFORE THE PLANNING COMMISSION ACTS UPON A DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION.” COUNCILMEMBER HATCH SECONDED THE MOTION. THE VOTE IS RECORDED AS FOLLOWS:
COUNCILMEMBER ACERSON ABSENT
COUNCILMEMBER BATH AYE
COUNCILMEMBER BAYLESS AYE
COUNCILMEMBER DAIN AYE
COUNCILMEMBER HATCH AYE
THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY WITH ONE ABSENT.
COUNCILMEMBER DAIN MOVED TO REPEAL AND REPLACE, IN ITS ENTIRETY, SECTION 8.20 PUBLIC NUISANCES AS HEREIN AMENDED AND CORRECTED. COUNCILMEMBER BATH SECONDED THE MOTION. THE VOTED VOTE IS RECORDED AS FOLLOWS:
COUNCILMEMBER ACERSON ABSENT
COUNCILMEMBER BATH AYE
COUNCILMEMBER BAYLESS AYE
COUNCILMEMBER DAIN AYE
COUNCILMEMBER HATCH AYE
THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY WITH ONE ABSENT.
3. Preliminary Plat - Timpanogos Academy, Plat “A.” This is a request by Leonard Lee for preliminary subdivision approval for Timpanogos Academy, Plat “A,” 3-lots, R1-20 zone at 100 East Center Street. The Planning Commission has recommended approval.
Mr. Dameron observed that this item is for subdivision plat approval and not site plan approval. Mr. Smith described the location of the plat and the plat of three lots. He noted that an easement for emergency access splits Lot #3. He informed the Council that the Planning Commission recommendations for this plat concern the proposed development agreement for Lot #3 which should restrict the businesses that will develop Lot #3 to less intense uses. Mayor Ellertson observed that persons looking at the plat may be confused about what constitutes Lot #3 because of the easement splitting the lot. He suggested that a line showing the sections as connected should be added to the plat.
Mr. Smith commented that the development agreement should be completed so it may be recorded with the subdivision plat. Mr. Dameron verified that Mr. Lee was agreeable to the basis of the agreement. Mr. Lee confirmed that he had reviewed the Standard Land Use Table and highlighted uses that he felt would be compatible with the neighborhood and the school.
Mayor Ellertson questioned a reference in the previous minutes of design reviews on this project to the purpose of the easement for emergency and overflow parking at the Southtowne Mall. He suggested that the overflow parking was to be at the Datapad site, not the mall. This was discussed and the Council agreed that this was the intent of the easement.
Mayor Ellertson asked if there were other questions or comments. There were none. He noted that Lot #1 is zoned residential and the approval of this subdivision does not change the zoning.
COUNCILMEMBER BAYLESS MOVED TO APPROVE THE REQUEST BY LEONARD LEE FOR PRELIMINARY APPROVAL OF A 3-LOT SUBDIVISION, TIMPANOGOS ACADEMY, PLAT “A,” AT APPROXIMATELY 100 EAST CENTER STREET WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS:
1) THAT A DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT BE COMPLETED AND RECORDED WITH THIS PLAT WHICH DETAILS SPECIFIC USES THAT MAY LOCATE ON LOT #3, AND
2) THAT THE PURPOSE OF THE EASEMENT IS FOR EMERGENCY ACCESS AND TO ACCESS POTENTIAL OVERFLOW PARKING AT THE DATAPAD BUSINESS.
COUNCILMEMBER BATH SECONDED THE MOTION. ALL PRESENT VOTED IN FAVOR. THE MOTION CARRIED.
4. Plat Amendment - Canberra Heights, Plat “E.” This is a request by Canberra Development Company to increase the size of current lot 31 of Canberra Heights, Plat “C” by approximately 8,000 square feet. In order to do this, the existing lot (Canberra Heights, Plat “C,” Lot 31) needs to be vacated and a new plat (Canberra Heights, Plat “E,” Lot 1) needs to be recorded in its place. The Planning Commission has recommended approval.
It was noted that the Lot number would be #43 and not Canberra Heights, Plat “E,” Lot #1 as published in the agenda. Mayor Ellertson confirmed with Mr. Tanner that this proposed amendment is adding square footage outside of the subdivision borders to the lot. Mr. Tanner commented that the prospective owner wanted a larger lot, so Canberra Development would like to accommodate him. The total amount of the addition was determined to be about 10,000 square feet. Mayor Ellertson noted that this would create a jog in the border of the subdivision, and asked if Mr. Tanner anticipated doing this again to the remaining lots on that border. Mr. Tanner replied that Lot #32 had been sold as is and Lot #33 was still available.
Councilmember Dain asked if the Planning Commission had any recommendations. Councilmember Bayless replied that the Commissioners had clarified that the footprint of the home did not change and the addition would be in hillside lands. Mayor Ellertson verified that the addition only added non-buildable area to the lot. He asked if there were any other questions. There were none.
COUNCILMEMBER DAIN MOVED TO APPROVE THE REQUEST BY STEVE TANNER TO CREATE A ONE LOT SUBDIVISION BY AMENDING AND VACATING CANBERRA HEIGHTS, PLAT “C,” LOT 31 AND CREATING CANBERRA HEIGHTS, PLAT “E,” LOT 43. COUNCILMEMBER BATH SECONDED THE MOTION. ALL PRESENT VOTED IN FAVOR. THE MOTION CARRIED.
5. Preliminary Plat - Stable Ridge, Plat “B.” This is a request by Rick Murano for preliminary approval for Stable Ridge, Plat “B,” 2-lots (one of which is a deep lot), R1-20 zone at 640 East 75 North. The Planning Commission has recommended approval.
Mr. Smith presented this application for a subdivision plat to the Council. He identified the location and explained the lot configuration includes two lots, one of which is a deep lot. He informed the Council that the Planning Commission’s only concern involved the ordinance requirement that a deep lot is only allowed if it can be shown that the lot could not be developed by normal subdivision standards. The Planning Commission has requested the Council to review the minutes of the Stable Ridge, Plat “A” approval to determine if this requirement has been met. Mr. Smith pointed out that the road may have included a bulb, or possibly used a different alignment to allow for the development of the lot.
Mr. Murano explained that the lot was left out of the original subdivision for tax reasons. Councilmember Bayless noted that the only reference in the minutes of June 28, 2001 was to a strip of ground left as part of a lot facing Center Street. It was noted that the requirements to be a lot (dimensions, setback, etc) were all met, except for the normal frontage. The probable direction the house will face was discussed. Mr. Murano observed that the home will appear to have frontage, although its actual frontage is limited to the width of the driveway.
Councilmember Hatch suggested that Lot #5 of Stable Ridge, Plat “A” may be adjusted to allow frontage for this lot. Mr. Murano replied that the square footage of Lot #5 was the minimum of 20,000 square feet. He also observed that the requirement for the length of the cul-de-sac was at the maximum.
Mr. Smith read the requirement for a deep lot from the Lindon City Code. Mayor Ellertson asked what point of time was intended by the ordinance. Councilmember Dain observed that now, at this point in time, the lot cannot be developed any other way, but what about earlier in the development of this block. Mr. Smith wondered if the lot had a different owner in the future would the Council feel differently. Mayor Ellertson asked if the Planning Commission understood at the time the previous application was approved that Mr. Murano would be coming back at a later date to ask for approval of these lots. Councilmember Bayless replied that it was not discussed as a possible deep lot application, only as a triangle parcel that would be attached to his home lot.
Mayor Ellertson asked if access could be provided from Center Street. Mr. Murano replied that the parcel had been bought a as pasture land and there was no access through the original parcel on Center Street. Mayor Ellertson asked why this lot was not included in the previous development. Councilmember Dain asked if Mr. Murano owned the parcel at that time. Mr. Murano replied that he did own it as a separate parcel, but considered it part of his home lot. He intended to develop it as a separate lot at that time and stubbed the utilities in as he was constructing the road to Stable Ridge, Plat “A.” Mayor Ellertson asked, if the intent was there, why hadn’t it been brought up to the Planning Commission then.
Councilmember Dain asked if there was a way to put a bulb in the street now. Mr. Smith did not fee see it could be done without involving neighboring property owners. Mr. Dameron asked if Lot #5 of Plat “A” was sold. Mr. Murano replied yes. Councilmember Dain asked if the bulb could be created without Lot #5. Mr. Smith replied that this would create a non-conforming lot out of Lot 2 of Plat “B” because it was also sold and a home built. Putting in a bulb would make the setback less than 30 feet on Lot #2. He noted that this lot had been sold as an approved metes and bounds description. It was noted that what was approved by the City and what was recorded did not match because Mr. Murano had reserved the driveway to Lot #1 out of the description before recording it.
Mayor Ellertson commented that the issue is whether this frontage limitation was self imposed or not. Mr. Smith asked if the deep lot was necessary. Councilmember Dain observed that clearly there was the possibility this lot could have been developed under normal conditional conditions at some point in time, but now it may not be possible to develop it any other way. Mr. Dameron
asked the Council if they would have approved this application if the previous owner, Mr. Ford, had requested a deep lot. Councilmember Bayless expressed the opinion that the question should be “under the present ownership, could it have been done?”
Mayor Ellertson asked if the width of driveway was a public safety issue. Councilmember Bayless asked if this is a circumstance that was not foreseen in the ordinance or if this is the intent of the first paragraph? Councilmember Dain asked Mr. Smith to delineate the options. Mr. Dameron commented that this may become an undevelopable remnant parcel. Mr. Smith commented that Mr. Murano was not aware it was a violation of the subdivision ordinance to change a description of a lot before it is recorded. He added that there is no obligation by the city to recognize a lot even if it is recorded in the County records. Mayor Ellertson commented that if anyone expects to develop property, it would be in their best interest to involve the City. He asked if the Board of Adjustments could be asked for a determination of this question. Mr. Smith noted that the Board of Adjustments could only rule in favor if a hardship could be identified that is not economic. He clarified that a finding must be identified that this person may be allowed a deep lot because of a characteristic of the ground itself.
The Council discussed the fact that not every parcel of land in Lindon may be developed into a lot. Mr. Smith noted that not every homeowner with a long narrow lot may expect to make a home site of their back pasture. Mayor Ellertson asked what precedent may be set if this deep lot is allowed. Mr. Smith replied that it may legalize the development of illegal lots. Mayor Ellertson asked how many other illegal lots are in Lindon. Mr. Smith replied that, potentially, there are many.
Councilmember Hatch suggested that Mr. Murano approach the owner of Lot #5 to trade frontage for back acreage. He showed how the property line between the two parcels could be changed to an angle to exchange frontage along the street for back acreage. Councilmember Dain suggested that the City Engineer be consulted on the possibility of making an alternative bulb on the street that will not encroach on the setback of the house on Lot #2.
Mr. Murano commented that he had always assumed he could develop a flag lot. Mr. Smith explained that the City Council did not want to compromise the integrity of the ordinance. Mayor Ellertson added that his struggle is finding a way to accommodate this request without having it apply to a broader result. He proposed that the Council continue this item for two weeks while Mr. Murano explores the options suggested with the City Engineer.
COUNCILMEMBER BAYLESS MOVED TO CONTINUE THE REQUEST BY RICK MURANO FOR PRELIMINARY APPROVAL OF A 2-LOT SUBDIVISION, STABLE RIDGE, PLAT “B,” AT APPROXIMATELY 75 NORTH 640 EAST TO MARCH 5, 2002 AND REQUEST THE CITY ENGINEER TO LOOK AT THE POSSIBILITY OF AN ALTERNATE METHOD OF CREATING FRONTAGE ON THE STREET AND STAFF TO RESEARCH THE POSSIBILITY OF PRECEDENCE AND MAKE A RECOMMENDATION TO THE COUNCIL. COUNCILMEMBER HATCH SECONDED THE MOTION. ALL PRESENT VOTED IN FAVOR. THE MOTION CARRIED.
CITY COUNCIL REPORTS
WATER, GENERAL PLAN, BUILDING INSPECTION, ENGINEERING
Councilmember Dain commented that the completed fire station looks nice. All of the Councilmembers agreed.
SEWER, SOLID WASTE, PUBLIC BUILDINGS AND PROPERTIES
Councilmember Hatch asked about the City’s intern program for the Planning and Zoning Department.
TRAILS, PLANNING, ZONING, BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT, ADMINISTRATION
Councilmember Bayless reported that the Mountainlands Association of Governments had opened a trails website. She noted that she has been very pleased with the excellent job done by the Planning Commission. She asked the status of the Summit Development application. Mr. Dameron replied that there had been no communication from them since they postponed their appearance before the Council for a design review. Councilmember Bayless suggested that the Council have a discussion on the future of deep lots in Lindon.
STREETS, SIDEWALKS, PUBLIC SAFETY AND COURT
Councilmember Bath had nothing to report for tonight.
PARKS, RECREATION, EMERGENCY MNGMNT, LINDON FAIR, NEWSLETTER
Councilmember Acerson was excused.
ADMINISTRATOR’S REPORT
Mr. Dameron:
1. Announced that Engineering Coordination Meeting will be held Thursday, February 21. Councilmembers Bayless and Bath volunteered to be present.
2. Disclosed that Verizon will be meeting with City representatives on Friday, February 22 at 9 a.m. and the colocater, Cingular, had scheduled for Thursday, February 21.
3. Reminded the Council that the Annual Retreat is scheduled for Saturday, March 2 at 8 a.m. at the City Center. He added that an agenda will be delivered next week.
4. Noted that Scott Mitchell has volunteered to rough in the parking lot for the Dry Canyon Trail Head. He suggested that a thank you letter would be appropriate. The Council agreed.
5. Discussed the completion of the fire station lettering and fencing.
6. Directed attention to a copy of the reply from UDOT on their warrant study for a light on Center Street. The Council briefly discussed the study which concludes that no light is required for the time being at that intersection.
7. Initiated discussion of using certain building permit bonds to complete driveway approaches and sidewalk improvements. After much discussion, it was decided that the improvements are required, and the bond money may be used to effect those improvements if necessary. Mayor Ellertson instructed staff to prepare the notices.
8. Distributed copies of the final design for both Hollow and Pheasant brook parks. He noted that these designs would be presented to the appropriate park committees and they would be brought back for Council approval. Mayor Ellertson asked if funding was available to start construction on these designs. Mr. Dameron replied that funding was not available in the current budget. Volunteer work was discussed.
Mayor Ellertson asked the status of the Canberra-Aqueduct trail. Mr Dameron replied that a bond had been posted to complete the trail. Mayor Ellertson discussed the possibility of condemnation action on the 700 North corridor with the Council.
COUNCILMEMBER DAIN MOVED TO ADJOURN AT 10:04 P.M. COUNCILMEMBER BATH SECONDED THE MOTION. ALL PRESENT VOTED IN FAVOR. THE MOTION CARRIED.
APPROVED - March 5, 2002
_______________________________________
Ott H. Dameron, City Administrator/Recorder
_______________________________________
Larry A. Ellertson, Mayor |
|
|
