|
|
Home » City Government » Council » Minutes Archives; 2000 - 2003 » 2002 Council Minutes » January 31, 2002
January 31, 2002
The Lindon City Council held a special Work Session at 7:00 P.M. on Thursday, January 31, 2002, in the Lindon City Center Council Chambers at 100 North State Street, Lindon, Utah.
Conducting: Larry A. Ellertson, Mayor
PRESENT
Larry A. Ellertson, Mayor
Jeff Acerson, Councilmember
H. Toby Bath, Councilmember
Lindsey Bayless, Councilmember
James A. Dain, Councilmember
Jerald I. Hatch, Councilmember
Lori Atchison, Commissioner
Bruce Carpenter, Commissioner
Jim Peters, Commissioner
Kevin Smith, Planning Director
Venla Gubler, Administrative Clerk
ABSENT
Loren Morse, Chairman
Ron Anderson, Commissioner
Evan Nixon, Commissioner
Marilyn Simister, Commissioner
Ott Dameron, City Administrator
The Meeting began at 7:13 P.M.
WORK SESSION
Mayor Ellertson observed that Planning Commission Chairman Morse was out of town. He commented that the Planning Commission had requested this discussion, and although it is not an open or public meeting, the Councilmembers and Commissioners may take some comment from the audience later.
Mr. Smith described the discussion in the Planning Commission that prompted this requested meeting. He commented that the Planning Commission had decided that there may be more requests for high density housing on the west side of Lindon and that care should be taken to consider the whole area. He felt that Councilmember Dain’s summation of the questions facing Lindon was accurate and succinct. He asked Councilmember Dain to repeat his summary for the Councilmembers and Commissioners present.
Councilmember Dain asked, “Do we want a residential component on the west side?” “Where will it be?” and “What will it look like?” He commented that the Master Plan Committee had reached a consensus on the need for a residential component on the west side, but their difficulty had been the last two questions. They had not been able to agree on a location or what it will look like. A generalized statement had been added to the General Plan to reflect the agreement that housing options would be considered. Councilmember Dain added that if it was decided that Lindon did not need a residential zone on the west side, this discussion could be closed. If it was decided that a residential zone was needed, further decisions would be required. He suggested that the economics of developing a residential component may require consideration of smaller lot sizes. Councilmember Acerson commented that the Council and Commission should make the desires of the individual landowners a priority in considering any proposal. As long as individual landowners’ development decisions do not damage other citizens, the city should attempt to blend their development wishes into the overall plan for Lindon. Commissioner Peters suggested that it may be easier to decide what is not wanted and commented that he personally did not want a high crime situation like Strawberry Estates.
Councilmember Dain proposed that the focus center on the first question, “Do we want housing?” Commissioner Peters commented that he felt a residential component should somehow be included. He was not opposed to considering one. He referred to a study commissioned by the City that suggested a residential component was a necessity for development of a commercial corridor. Councilmember Dain summarized the answer to this question as “yes.” Mr. Smith commented that the Trophy Homes project is just one proposal in a wider area. The rest of the area should be considered also. He questioned whether more of the whole area should be zoned R12 or R20 or some other mixture. Councilmember Dain suggested that a high density overlay be considered. Councilmember Bath observed that the City had done a lot of hard work to refine the current R2 Overlay to fit the objectives of the City. He expressed concern that it would be replaced by this high density overlay.
Councilmember Hatch expressed concern that if the City allowed one high density overlay project like Trophy Homes, they would then have other proposals that would fill the area. He wondered how to limit the high density. Mr. Smith agreed that it may be hard to limit high density development when the City does not have a plan for the rest of the area. Councilmember Bayless observed that not having a plan for the whole area would make it harder to justify allowing only one development. She expressed the opinion that the City was not just deciding whether or not to allow the Trophy Homes development, but the future of that whole area. Councilmember Dain suggested that if a zone change were considered, it should be based on the whole picture and that zone changes not be made piecemeal. Commissioner Carpenter expressed agreement to Councilmember Dain’s comment.
Councilmember Hatch expressed his vision of the area as a mixed used area. Mr. Smith commented that the General Plan statement says that the City will consider proposals for residential housing. It does not make any provision for residential at all in that area. Councilmember Bayless reiterated that the first development has just been proposed and that the area be considered as a whole and not piecemeal. Commissioner Carpenter commented that at the time the General Plan was being discussed, it was difficult to predict what industry or development would approach the landowners.
Councilmember Acerson asked if question #1 had been answered to everyone’s satisfaction. Mayor Ellertson observed that the industrial area around Geneva Road had been a factor in dividing the community. By putting a residential element west of Geneva Road, this development will be separated by this industrial zone from the rest of the community. He expressed the opinion that this is a concern to him and he sees a need to plan some way to pull them back into the community. Councilmember Dain suggested that some housing may be brought up to Geneva Road along one of the intersections to tie the areas together. Commissioner Carpenter commented that this area is far enough away from State Street and near enough to the new freeway interchange that extra traffic in the main part of Lindon need not create a worry. Councilmember Bayless expressed the opinion that she did not like the idea of housing on Geneva Road. Councilmember Hatch asked why the housing should be concentrated in one area. His vision of the area included commercial development with owner-occupied housing in the same structure as a second or third story. Mr. Smith agreed that some of this may be incorporated into the mixed commercial or along 700 North.
Mayor Ellertson asked if there had been an indication of how residents thought the area might develop during the comments gathered for the General Plan. Commissioner Carpenter replied that there had been nothing specific–they do want residential growth and their children to be able to have homes, but there was also a contingent that was not anxious to grow quickly. He expressed concern that if Lindon filled the area with more industrial that it would look like Southern Louisiana.
Mayor Ellertson commented that there is discussion in the development community of conservation easements as a way to preserve open space. He suggested that an existing property owner can sell the development rights of a parcel. That way it also remains as open space, and the property owner maximizes the value. Councilmember Bayless asked if the open space was permanent. Mayor Ellertson replied that it would be. Councilmember Acerson observed that this method had been used in Mapleton. Mr. Smith confirmed that Mapleton has used this method called TDR. The density of housing is sold to other areas of Mapleton and that area receives the density. This makes other areas more dense to leave certain areas as open space. Councilmember Bayless asked if the transactions were held in perpetuity. This was confirmed. Commissioner Carpenter commented that it may be difficult to find an area to transfer the density to. Councilmember Hatch agreed and commented that some neighborhoods would object to becoming more dense, and others that back to the open areas would probably like it. He suggested that smaller areas of TDR may be workable. Councilmember Acerson observed that it may be difficult to find a way to balance the desires of those who actually own the land as opposed to those that are adjacent to it. Mayor Ellertson commented that it is not necessarily an “all or nothing” proposition. He suggested that a portion of the land may be designated for TDR’s.
Mr. Smith read the statement added to the General Plan stating the City’s desire to consider alternative housing options for the west side of Lindon. It was left open to the Council to decide later what different housing options would be considered. Mayor Ellertson suggested that the members consider the initial question. He asked, “Is it part of the future of Lindon to consider housing west of Geneva Road?”
Commissioner Peters observed that he envisions commercial development on 700 North and more light industrial right up to the commercial. Councilmember Bayless clarified that he Commissioner Peters did not envision more heavy industrial businesses like Schaeffer. Commissioner Peters confirmed that he could see light industrial with possibly some residential. Commissioner Atchison agreed that she would like to see some residential incorporated into the area. Councilmember Acerson asked if the members of the Commission or Council would consider moving into a complex like Trophy Homes or another neighborhood with a heavier density. Mayor Ellertson replied that he would consider a home along an agricultural easement. Councilmember Bayless commented that she had given much thought to this proposal for higher density, so she had asked her children if they would move into such a development. They had replied that they would rather have a little old house on a half-acre. They also felt that high density housing was “not Lindon.” Councilmember Dain commented that he had also considered his two sons. He pointed out that a 1/3 acre lot was selling for $60 to $70 thousand in Lindon, which is beyond the range of many young people. He observed that the cost may make higher density housing more enticing than the amenities shown in the drawing.
Councilmember Hatch suggested that a type of clustering may be used that would allow lots of a 1/4 or 1/3-acre minimum if the whole development maintains 1/2-acre density. Councilmember Bath commented that it has been a long struggle to keep the country image. He added that many residents have expressed their desire that this image be maintained. He does not want to promote anything that will take away from the country atmosphere of Lindon and this area is a part of Lindon even though it is detached. He explained that he has struggled with this concept of clustering and lost a lot of sleep over it. Councilmember Hatch commented that he felt one of the best examples of the country image in Lindon is the Salisbury development. Councilmember Dain expressed concern that the ½ acre lot may be economically beyond most young families.
Commissioner Peters observed that there are other needs to be met for housing and brought up the Green Valley Condos. He described this community as happy and close knit. The problems with this development are narrow streets and a lack of parking, although it “works.” Mr. Smith observed that the price of these condos is still higher than an “affordability” measure. Councilmember Bayless commented that the condos provide housing for retired people. Mr. Smith added that there are not many “for sale” signs in the development. Commissioner Peters agreed that the residents tend to stay longer and the units are well built. Commissioner Carpenter commented that his daughter had bought a condo because they thought they would like to live without the responsibility of a yard. However, two years later, they are looking for affordable land and a larger lot in Eagle Mountain. He expressed the opinion that he would like to accommodate the younger Lindon residents with housing, but worried that most lower-cost condo projects that appeal to these young professionals have a transitory nature.
Councilmember Dain wondered if limiting the number of units in a project is what would make a condo project more attractive. This would keep the residents in one ward. Commissioner Peters commented that the size limitation is what keeps it a neighborhood. Councilmember Bayless observed that a smaller number of units in a project will get mixed into the neighborhood with other types of housing. She commented that a larger project would lose that diversity in the neighborhood.
Commissioner Peters noted that the Green Valley Condos are primarily a retirement community with about 50 one-story units in the $275-$300 thousand range. Councilmember Dain commented that this price range is “not affordable.” Mr. Smith observed that the Salisbury homes in Pheasant Brook were affordable when the subdivision began.
Councilmember Dain suggested that higher density housing be mixed into part of a zone as an overlay. Commissioner Peters questioned how the housing would be limited. Councilmember Dain replied that the projects could be limited by a distance requirement similar to the current R2 Overlay. Councilmember Bayless asked if he was considering a R1-12 zone with an overlay. Councilmember Dain replied yes and added that this type of housing will mix in with traditional Lindon. Councilmember Bayless suggested that the overlay could also be limited to retirement condos and a specific number of units. Mr. Smith observed that it is difficult to limit a project to a certain age. The members discussed various retirement projects.
Councilmember Hatch described a painting he had seen which depicts old-time shops mixed with housing atop and amidst them. Councilmember Acerson commented that the intent of the putting a residential component near the 700 North corridor is to generate a population closer to create a base income for businesses. By doing this, businesses will be attracted to Lindon. He suggested that it may be to the City’s advantage to weigh the potential income of commercial development against the potential income of residential development. He wondered if present day shopping habits will make it feasible to promote the old “mom and pop” kind of storefront. Councilmember Hatch suggested that a move back to banks and bakeries in our neighborhoods would be nice. Commissioner Carpenter noted that our neighborhood corners have changed more to convenience stores and gas stations and that shopping at a Costco warehouse is less expensive than most neighborhood grocery stores.
Councilmember Bayless suggested that the 700 North corridor is not appropriate for residential homes. Mr. Smith agreed and suggested that Councilmember Hatch’s vision may be more appropriate for side streets rather than the main corridor. Councilmember Dain commented on the potential for commuter rail and its location. Mayor Ellertson replied that the Utah Transit Authority has now purchased the rights-of-way for both commuter rail along the Utah Lake and light rail along to the overpass on State Street and Geneva Road in Pleasant Grove. Councilmember Dain observed that these will affect this area and need to be planned for also.
Councilmember Bath suggested that the members consider zoning the area to R1-15 with an overlay to allow more density than the present R2. Councilmember Bayless asked why he had settled on R1-15. She commented that if a potential resident wants the R1-20 lifestyle, then R1-15 is not enough acreage and if they want less, then it is too much. Councilmember Dain asked for a definition of the R1-20 lifestyle. Councilmember Bayless replied that it is a lifestyle with animals and gardens. She added that if a homeowner does not have this lifestyle, the extra acreage is a burden. Councilmember Dain commented that many of the Council view the ultimate use of large lots for animals, but in his R1-20 neighborhood less than 20% of the residents have horses. He added that some like large gardens but don’t have horses. Councilmember Bath observed that this is the reason he suggested R1-15. He asked the Council to consider how much they would like to preserve the animal rights. Councilmember Hatch observed that, in his opinion, animal rights are very important to Lindon residents.
Councilmember Dain suggested a mixed lot size zoning in which 10% of the lots have to be 20,000 square feet. Councilmember Bayless commented that there is a development planned in Lehi with mixed size lots.
Councilmember Acerson commented that the members have raised a lot of questions. Councilmember Bayless observed that the discussion has brought out what each person sees in that area. Mayor Ellertson commented that there is not complete consent consensus on the vision for the west side, but confirmed that all agree that if there is something that can work, then there will be a residential component on the west side. The differences arise in where it will be and what it will look like.
Councilmember Bayless suggested that the area west of Geneva be broken down into smaller areas. Mayor Ellertson observed that presently there are basically three zones in the areas west of Geneva Road: industrial, commercial, and recreational with some mixtures of these uses as well. Councilmember Dain asked if this included the area west of I-15. Mayor Ellertson replied yes.
Commissioner Carpenter commented that the General Plan Committee had talked about the west side of I-15 for residential housing, but were concerned about the swampy areas and the mosquitoes. Councilmember Bayless mentioned the treatment plant was also nearby this area. Councilmember Dain observed that this was a large area and asked if the vision for this area should be all light industrial development. Councilmember Bayless asked how much land there is west of I-15. Mr. Smith estimated 200-250 acres and commented that the treatment plant is worried about residential housing too close to their boundaries. Mayor Ellertson observed that if there is value in a walkable community, this area is near the commuter rail and homeowners may appreciate being able to walk to the station. Councilmember Acerson commented that part of the commuter railway will be park and ride lots.
Mayor Ellertson commented that he wanted to avoid a situation like East Bay. Commissioner Carpenter asked him if he was referring to Kuhni’s. Mr. Smith observed that, if you ask the treatment plant operators, the plants do not smell all the time. He agreed that there are certain times that smell more than others and the reasons for the smells are usually technical problems. Councilmember Dain commented that there could be zoning provisions for the treatment plant like the distance radius for the odor easement that they had talked about. Mr. Smith observed that the requested odor easement was a mile radius. Mrs. Shirley Matthews asked if the area around the treatment plant is privately owned. Mr. Smith replied that there is quite a lot of it that is privately owned.
Mayor Ellertson wondered if there may be a perception issue that would preclude potential residents from locating near the treatment plant. He mentioned that plans for a commuter rail parking lot for 500-600 cars is being considered. Mr. Ken Holmstead pointed out that much of the land in this area is priced prohibitively for residential housing. He observed that the density would have to be 25-30 units per acre to allow housing to be feasible at all. Mayor Ellertson noted that Light Industrial zoning is perceived as a buffer to a residential area for many commercial and heavier industrial uses. He asked about the zoning along the freeway. Mr. Smith replied that the freeway frontage is zoned commercial, mixed commercial and light industrial. The T-zone is an overlay on these zones on both sides of the freeway. The Commercial zone allows retail and service businesses. The Light Industrial zone allows low intensity industrial businesses, and the Mixed Commercial zone allowed a mixture of General Commercial and Light Industrial uses. He added that Lindon’s Light Industrial zone generates a lot of revenue for the City.
Mayor Ellertson noted areas on the Lindon City Zoning Map that were zoned General Commercial and commented that these areas may be mixed use like Councilmember Hatch described. Councilmember Hatch agreed and added that the big box businesses should be on the main road and the smaller roads should have the mixed concept with retail businesses, recreational businesses, service businesses and certain light industries mixed with housing. Mr. Smith commented that when the Shops at Riverwoods became available, the first two housing units were sold with the shops underneath them. Commissioner Carpenter wondered if this type of business would be sustainable and suggested that there needs to be a “draw” to bring traffic to the area. Mr. Smith suggested that housing be put behind the mixed commercial area.
Mayor Ellertson commented that retail businesses require rooftops to survive. He asked what distance requirements are determined to be optimal. Mr. Smith replied that the standard requirement is 5,000 people within 1 mile to support 10,000 square feet of retail space. Councilmember Bath observed that the commercial will also draw commuters from the freeway. Mr. Smith agreed. Councilmember Hatch commented that the Walmart in Springville and the Mall in East Bay were examples of businesses that draw from a larger area, from the freeway and have no housing close around them. Mr. Smith agreed and commented that these businesses have a regional draw. Mayor Ellertson observed that there had been no suggestions to change any of the zoning west of the freeway to residential housing. Councilmember Bayless agreed and said that residential housing west of the freeway depends on what happens with commuter rail. She suggested that the situation is different between the freeway and Geneva Road.
Councilmember Acerson observed that this may be the classic chicken or egg scenario. He wondered if commercial businesses will come before or after the housing. He commented that the members of the Commission and Council need to be planners and visionaries that are willing to step forward and say that they want housing. Councilmember Bayless agreed and observed that if decisions are not made soon, this discussion will happen again every time a new project is proposed.
Commissioner Peters observed that he likes the idea of a planned community, but did not think that the Trophy Homes development had included enough components to make it a planned community. He said that their plan had open space and housing, but the plan did not go far enough. He told of a visit he had made to Concord and Walnut Creek, California. There were small commercial developments with housing surrounding them. He compared it to Utah where the commercial areas are strips of businesses following main streets with very little housing nearby.
Mayor Ellertson noted that the trend is to put businesses where people live so that communities are walkable. Commissioner Peters replied that these communities in California were more mixed uses. Mayor Ellertson asked the percentage in the mixture. Commissioner Peters replied that condos, apartments, single family homes and businesses were all mixed together. Commissioner Carpenter wondered if Lindon’s open space idea may not make that work. Commissioner Peters observed that it would be nice to encourage clustering of homes to preserve the open space, but there needs to be more of a mix than ½ acre lots. He added that one thing Lindon has done well is the R2 Overlay mixed throughout the community.
Councilmember Acerson observed that Lindon is more of a bedroom community and not a commercial community. Most of the present businesses in Lindon cater to the contractor rather than the individual. Mr. Smith agreed and commented that the most prominent businesses in Lindon are more of a regional-construction-supply-type of business. He suggested that possibly these types of businesses “match well with the ½ acre lot concept.” Commissioner Carpenter asked if the residents of Lindon are willing to pay higher property taxes to support their larger lots. He observed that if Lindon residents send sales tax dollars to other communities they will need to pay more property taxes. Councilmember Acerson observed that it is getting more expensive to build in Lindon and that possibly the higher property values will offset the missed sales tax revenue.
Commissioner Atchison expressed the opinion that she liked Councilmember Bath’s idea of mixed size lots with a higher density overlay. Councilmember Acerson observed that these suggestions were not similar to the Trophy Homes project. He asked if this is a consensus that projects like Trophy Homes are not for Lindon? Councilmember Dain said “yes” and added that the Trophy Homes project “in its present format won’t fit Lindon.” Commissioner Peters asked if incentives to developers who plan clustering into their project would be considered? The members discussed clustering and compared it to a development like Salisbury.
Commissioner Carpenter commented that, as a Planning Commissioner, he felt that he still did not have direction on what kinds of projects to consider for the west side of Lindon. Mayor Ellertson observed that the only decision made has been that there is no opposition to residential, just what will make it work is in question. Councilmember Bayless observed that some ideas have been expressed.
Mr. Smith asked if a developer such as Hubble, Trophy or Salisbury presented a project that would require a rezoning to R1-12, would it be considered? Councilmember Bayless replied that if the project included amenities perhaps it could be considered. She commented that there were amenities promised on the east side to facilitate the zone change to a smaller lot size that never materialized. Councilmember Hatch pointed out that the housing may not be affordable. Commissioner Carpenter observed that a project with lots of this size and larger may make the lots economically non-marketable. They may not be able to afford amenities or infrastructure improvements if the lot sizes are made too large. He suggested that Lindon may receive other offers of projects, but will they be better than the Trophy Homes project? Councilmember Bayless commented that the future is uncertain, but to say that the residential housing will never happen unless the Trophy Homes project is allowed is just as tenuous. She suggested that waiting for the “right” project may still be Lindon’s best alternative. Commissioner Carpenter commented that the property owners may sell to light industrial businesses in the meantime and make residential housing less feasible. He suggested that provisions to limit the nature of the light industrial businesses that can locate in this area need to be investigated.
Mayor Ellertson observed that most cities have a more dense city center and then branch out to less and less density. Lindon may become the opposite with a less dense, large-lot center and more dense areas surrounding it. He added that the west side has substantial infrastructure needs and a development proposal that will begin to fill those needs now could be beneficial. The quandary arises in how to not make the entire area follow this lead. Commissioner Carpenter agreed that sometimes a substantial compromise is needed to fill fundamental necessities. He suggested that Lindon may end up with something undesirable and unplanned.
Councilmember Dain asked if the City can help with infrastructure construction for underfunded but more desirable projects. Mr. Smith replied that the City was preparing to accept bids on extending sewer to the area west of the freeway. He described the sewer trunkline under the freeway that limits the number of connections in the area between Geneva Road and the freeway. Commissioner Carpenter asked if the present sewer trunkline would handle one high density area with a lower density around it until a new trunkline could be put under the freeway. Mr. Smith acknowledged that the answer is not a simple yes or no because there were too many variables. Mr. Smith added that capacities, potential growth and costs for upgrades will need more study before an estimate of minimum connections can be made. Mayor Ellertson commented that therefore some residential housing can be supported but not, in all probability, the whole area.
Councilmember Acerson suggested that other cities have dealt with these issues. He asked if other City Mayors had shared pros and cons at various regional meetings. Mayor Ellertson said not specifically, thanked him for the suggestion that it be done and mentioned that other planners may be consulted also. Mr. Smith agreed and commented that he could ask them what has worked the best and what have been the worst projects in their cities. Mayor Ellertson suggested that housing projects and density issues be addressed. Councilmember Dain suggested that other cities be asked what they consider to be dense high density housing and what Lindon might have to consider. Mayor Ellertson suggested that it may be wise to inquire beyond the boundaries of Utah County and to address the affordable housing issue too. The members discussed affordable housing and how the cost of housing in Lindon compares to other communities. Mr. Smith commented that Lindon compares favorably with rentals but less favorably with ownership.
Mayor Ellertson suggested that some research be completed on utilities in the west areas of the city on what can be presently supported and what the build out figures might be. Mr. Wayne Corbridge suggested that secondary irrigation also be addressed in this question. Councilmember Dain suggested that additional water needs and reservoir needs also be addressed in the secondary water issue. Councilmember Acerson observed that this meeting seems to have created more questions than answers. Councilmember Bath asked what the next step would be. Mayor Ellertson observed that the discussion had been somewhat general and potential ideas had been aired. Commissioner Carpenter noted that the current Trophy Homes proposal was in essence being told no because there had been no decisions made. Mayor Ellertson asked Mr. Smith to comment on the processing time line for the Trophy Homes proposal. Mr. Smith mentioned that the next step is to go back to the Planning Commission. Mayor Ellertson commented on the survey results.
Mr. Smith observed that he had a better idea of what would be considered on the west side now. He commented that single family housing options that mix commercial and a higher density housing may be considered. The questions that need answering are concerning revenue generation of sales tax as opposed to property tax, the build out figures on utility connections and what the area can presently support. Councilmember Bayless commented that it may be possible that a development impact fee could cover utility expansions in this area.
Mr. Smith observed that, maybe, one large higher density project could be put in this area if the Council finds a way to limit any more high density projects from developing in the surrounding area. Councilmember Acerson observed that the high density project that had been proposed might increase the population of Lindon by 25% almost instantly. Mr. Smith suggested that the zoning around this project could be larger lots. Councilmember Acerson asked how the Council might limit high density to just one project. Councilmember Hatch agreed. Mayor Ellertson suggested that the utility limits may dictate the housing limits. Councilmember Acerson agreed. Councilmember Hatch suggested that the amenities specific to Lindon, like horses and gardens, will be lost in a high density project. Commissioner Atchison agreed.
The members discussed how the increase in population will shift the demographics and change the character of Lindon. Councilmember Acerson observed that the area can develop without planning and control. He suggested that the character of Lindon is already changing as the population changes. He expressed the opinion that it is in Lindon’s best interests to try to direct the changes so that they take into consideration the people that already live here. Commissioner Carpenter observed that the division of Lindon is more a geographical difference than a division of attitude. He commented that he was heartened by the Dan Jones survey because it demonstrated more commonality of opinion and an appreciation of the value and nature of our community.
Mrs. Shirley Matthews expressed the opinion that clustering takes private property away from median income families. She claimed that most would prefer to take care of their own property and not have a bill for landscaping. She felt that the walkable community idea may not be feasible in Utah because of the long winters and the large numbers of children.
Mrs. Gloria Barnes commented that she had conducted her own canvass of her neighborhood and had found only one person who “had a clue” what Envision Utah represents or what the questions are that face Lindon on the west side of town. She added that many don’t take a newspaper and suggested an update in the utility bill. The Council informed Mrs. Barnes that they have made many attempts to inform the public in all kinds of forums.
Mr. Ken Holmstead suggested that Lindon City owes senior citizens and the young a place to live too. He claimed that Lindon’s reputation as a city that doesn’t care about affordable housing was mentioned in the State Legislature. Councilmember Bayless observed that many of the developments that started out as affordable housing have escalated in price beyond that designation as time has passed. There was discussion on land prices and how it affects the pricing of affordable housing.
Mr. Wayne Corbridge observed that someday the land west of Geneva Road will develop. He claimed that the reality is “custom home development will not build infrastructure.” He commented that the City can wait and industrial development will build the infrastructure, but there is a lot of acreage and possibly it will take decades to fill it. He suggested that Lindon will get passed by for the type of development they would prefer and the opportunity will be gone. He pointed out that much funding is dependent on compliance with the affordable housing statutes. He claimed that Lindon is not in compliance with the intent of the statutes and Lindon can be exclusionary only so long. He added that it was unfortunate.
Mayor Ellertson observed that if Lindon’s concern is getting infrastructure into the area, then there needs to be a plan to manage the ongoing growth. Mr. Kent Anderson commented that he had given the Trophy Homes project a positive look because of the infrastructure improvements. He noted that these improvements have been promised to this area for many years and they are still waiting.
Mr. Ron Winfield asked how the water table may affect building near Utah Lake. Mr. Reg Stumpe suggested that the City consider a specific zone instead of a residential overlay. Mayor Ellertson explained that he has been working with UDOT, MAG and the State to obtain funding for the 700 North corridor road. He told the group assembled to “stay tuned because the impossible may happen.” He hoped to have a least a two-lane road completed within a year’s time. Hopefully, the property owners, the City and the State can cooperate to make it a reality. He thanked everyone for their patience. He suggested that everyone had some food for thought and that Lindon “needs to do the right thing.”
The meeting adjourned at 9:37 p.m.
APPROVED - March 19, 2002
_______________________________________
Ott H. Dameron, City Administrator/Recorder
_______________________________________
Larry A. Ellertson, Mayor |
|
|
