|
|
Home » City Government » Council » Minutes Archives; 2000 - 2003 » 2001 Council Minutes » July 17, 2001
July 17, 2001
The Lindon City Council held a Regular Meeting on Tuesday, July 17, 2001 beginning with a Work Session at 6:00 P.M. in the Lindon City Council Chambers at 100 North State Street, Lindon, Utah.
Conducting: Larry A. Ellertson
PRESENT
Larry A. Ellertson, Mayor
Jeff Acerson, Councilmember
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 6:15 P.M.
WORK SESSION
The Mayor and Council will begin the review process of the Standard Land Use Codes applicable across all zones of the City.
Planning Director Kevin Smith presented the first three pages of the proposed and updated Standard Land Use Table (SLU) for the Lindon City Code. Mayor Ellertson commented that this is the beginning of the process to update the Code Book to reflect the goals identified in the new General Plan.
Mr. Smith informed the Councilmembers that this proposed Standard Land Use Table is simpler and shorter than the one in present use. He observed that this table is often the first thing developers and property owners ask to see when proposing a development for a parcel.
Mr. Smith told the Council that the Planning Commission had reviewed three pages per meeting. This proposed SLU Table contains the Commissioners’ recommendations. He was asked to review the meaning of the headings indicating the zone designations. He observed that the Mixed Use (MU) Zone designation in the SLU Table corresponds to “Open Space” in the General Plan and would now be called “Recreation Mixed Use.” The new designation of Mixed Commercial or MC would also be implemented.
Councilmember Acerson suggested that the zone designations be changed to be consistent with each other and with the general plan. He thought that General Manufacturing (MG) should be Heavy Industrial or HI and Manufacturing & Distribution (MD) should be Light Industrial or LI. There was discussion on the confusion created by the zone designations and making them standard. Mr. Smith suggested that Mixed Use (MU) be changed to RMU to add the recreational aspect and General Commercial (CG) be changed to just Commercial or C. The Councilmembers reached consensus on the proposed acronym changes.
Mr. Smith added that other symbols in the SLU Table were “p” for permitted, “c” for conditional and “n” for not permitted. The entries of the SLU Table were discussed. Mayor Ellertson asked Mr. Smith if solicitors were permitted wherever they wanted to go. Mr. Smith explained that Lindon has a strict licensing ordinance for solicitors. The various solicitors operating in Lindon were discussed. Councilmember Hatch asked the difference between solicitors and itinerant merchants. Mr. Smith explained that itinerant merchants were those than that set up temporary roadside stands within a community for a short period and then moved on to the next community. Examples discussed were a sweater merchant and a jewelry merchant. Councilmember Bayless asked if the City had to allow these kinds of merchants by statute like the sexually-oriented businesses. Mr. Smith said no and further explained that these merchants were not as well organized as the SOBs and so case law on their presence is not as comprehensive.
There was a discussion on the use of conditional use permits. Mr. Smith explained that the purpose of a conditional use permit is to allow an appropriate use within a zone with certain conditions that mitigate their presence there. Councilmember Bayless observed that applicants for a conditional use permit must come and present their proposal to the Planning Commission for approval to operate.
Temporary permits for itinerant merchants were discussed. Mayor Ellertson noted that if they are “permitted” they don’t have to apply to the Planning Commission. He asked if there was a time limit on a temporary permit. Mr. Smith replied that the limit is six months. Mr. Dameron mentioned that another example of an itinerant merchant would be the gun show that had been held at the Lion’s Club.
Mr. Dameron wondered about entry 0600 Recyclable Materials Containers. Mr. Smith explained that this is a site or center that collects recyclable materials not just a location of a container like at Allen’s. Mayor Ellertson clarified with Mr. Smith that containers put in a parking lot like a church or market did not require a conditional use permit.
The next section on residential uses was reviewed. Councilmember Bayless verified with Mr. Smith that the RMU zone allowed residential homes as a conditional use. She wondered if accessory apartments and R2-Overlay Projects were conditionally allowed also. Mr. Smith replied that the RMU zone had a lot size of 40 acres so he felt that there was room for a duplex or an accessory apartment, but noted that the R-2 Overlay ordinance specifically limits these projects to the R1-12 and R1-20 zones. Mayor Ellertson verified that Mr. Smith intended to change the listing for SLU1111, Accessory Apartments, in the RMU zone to “not permitted” to match the zoning ordinance. Councilmember Bayless suggested that accessory apartments should be “conditional.” Mayor Ellertson felt that it should be “permitted” because a mother-in-law apartment on 40 acres would have minimal impact. Councilmember Bayless pointed out that a residential home is conditional so an accessory apartment would also be conditional. Mayor Ellertson agreed and mentioned that SLU1282, Assisted Living Facilities, Large, should maybe be conditional also. Mr. Smith pointed out that SLU1281, Assisted Living Facilities, Small, was already a conditional use, but felt that the large Assisted Living Facilities like the Seville in Orem, should not be allowed in a neighborhood. The Council agreed.
Mr. Dameron asked for a definition or example of SLU1233, Membership Lodging. Mayor Ellertson asked if a timeshare would qualify here. Mr. Smith suggested that an example may be the “Thousand Trails Campgrounds” or possibly lodging provided by a Fraternal Order like the Lion’s. Councilmember Bayless commented that the SLU Table showed this as a conditional use in the Commercial zone. Mr. Smith pointed out that the SLU Table has a listing for “NEC” or “Not Elsewhere Codified.” The category is for any use that does not fall easily into any of the listed categories. He noted that the NEC category for transient lodging is “not permitted” in all zones of the City.
Councilmember Bayless recalled a Planning Commission discussion on overnight accommodations for visiting executives included in office buildings in the Research & Business zone. She wondered if such accommodations would be governed under transient lodging. Mr. Smith suggested that they might be better classified under SLU1510 Hotels, Tourist Courts, Bed & Breakfasts and Motels, or SLU1910 Caretaker Facilities. He also reminded the Council that an overnight room would only be an accessory use of the building, not the purpose of the facility. Councilmember Acerson commented that such an accommodation is not widely used. Mr. Smith noted that none had shown up in any of the plans for office buildings yet. Mayor Ellertson observed that it could have been labeled as a “sick room” on the plans, and still would not detract from the purpose of the building.
Mr. Smith directed the Councilmembers’ attention to the next category of uses in the Manufacturing area. Councilmember Bath questioned why SLU2110, Slaughterhouses, were only a conditional use in one zone of the City, that of heavy industrial. Mr. Smith replied that the business is “messy and smelly.” Mayor Ellertson observed that a slaughterhouse is not conducive to other businesses included in the industrial section of the City. Councilmember Bath pointed out that the category of Meat & Dairy Manufacturing did not have a SLU number. There was a short discussion on this type of business including hotdog and bologna production. Councilmember Hatch commented that it would include processing and packaging of meat and dairy products. Mr. Dameron asked if the Springville business of Stouffers would be an example of this industry. Mr. Smith expressed the opinion that Stouffers would be better classified under SLU2130, General Food Manufacturing. Councilmember Dain asked if the Salem supplement business, Nature’s Sunshine, would also qualify under the SLU2130. Mr. Smith agreed. Councilmember Bath suggested that the NEC category, SLU2100, All Food Stuffs, may fit Nature’s Sunshine better. Mr. Smith commented that may be true. Mayor Ellertson observed that SLU2100 is less restrictive and less well defined. Councilmember Bath suggested that the use be made conditional then, rather than permitted. Mr. Smith suggested that all NEC categories be made conditional, so that they may be reviewed by the Planning Commission. The Councilmembers agreed.
Councilmember Dain suggested that SLU’s 2600, 2610 and 2611 were redundant. All three uses list the same kind of business, All Pulp Products, Pulp, and Pulp & Paper Products. Mr. Smith suggested making SLU2600 conditional as the NEC category and deleting SLU2610 and SLU2611.
Mr. Smith made a suggestion for SLU2700, All Publishing, Printing, & Misc. Related Work, NEC. He pointed out the printing business, Alexanders, located in the light industrial zone. The SLU Table would now make this a conditional use in the Commercial zone. He did not feel that this business is appropriate in the Commercial zone and could not be mitigated to be appropriate. He felt it should be changed to “not permitted” in the Commercial zone. He noted that the Mixed Commercial zone includes light industrial uses and it could be an appropriate conditional use there.
Councilmember Bayless suggested that SLU2800, All Industrial Chemical & Allied Products, should be conditional, rather than permitted in the Heavy Industrial zone. She also suggested that SLU3410, All Fabricated Metal Products, Indoor Only, was too lenient. She felt that those should be changed to conditional rather than permitted in the Mixed Commercial and Light Industrial zones.
Mr. Dameron asked if scenery manufacturing could be classified under SLU3500, All Professional, Scientific, Photographic, Optical Instruments & Associated Equipment. Mr. Smith commented that it could be. Councilmember Acerson suggested that this business was better classified under SLU3970, Signs and Advertising, since most of their business involved the manufacture of signs and displays. Manufacturing scenery was more of a sideline. Mr. Dameron suggested that scenery manufacturing would be better classified under SLU2500, All Furniture & Fixtures, NEC. Councilmember Hatch noted that the NEC uses should be conditional rather than permitted. The changes were noted. Mr. Smith observed that some NEC uses were totally appropriate in a zone and maybe should be permitted. He commented that the next three pages reviewed would include these three pages showing the changes made so that the Council could review them again.
Mayor Ellertson asked what morticians’ goods manufacturing included. It was decided that it may include the manufacture of caskets, but that a funeral home would be listed in another SLU category.
Councilmember Bayless questioned allowing a Motion Picture Studio under SLU3930, Motion Picture Production, on State Street in the Commercial zone. She then looked at SLU4741 through SLU4751 dealing with television broadcasting. She noted that SLU4742, Television Transmitting Stations & Relay Tower, is conditional in the RMU zone. Mr. Smith explained that the RMU zone is essentially the west side of town near Utah Lake. It was discussed that the landfill should be designated public facilities.
Mayor Ellertson questioned Mr. Smith on the procedure for approving uses that are permitted by the SLU Table. Mr. Smith explained that if a building was already constructed on a parcel, that a business license would be issued to the permitted business use. If a building was not constructed on the site, a review would be conducted by the Development Review Committee and a building permit issued when the business completes all submissions.
Councilmember Bayless asked why sewer treatment plants are permitted in the Mixed Commercial zone, but are conditional in the Recreation Mixed Use and Heavy Industrial zones. Mr. Smith asked for her suggested changes. Mayor Ellertson observed that this would not be a large commercial business, but would be a public utility. Councilmember Bath suggested a closer look at SLU4811, Electric Generation, with wind power in mind. He expressed the opinion that wind towers should be conditional. Mr. Smith suggested adding language in the code to regulate the height of these towers. As an aside, he mentioned a need to adopt a sports court fencing code that would review the height of these fences. Councilmember Bayless noted a misspelling in SLU4811.
Mayor Ellertson asked for a definition of SLU4711, Telephone Exchange Stations. He wondered if the move to expand DSL into neighborhoods would foster the proliferation of these stations. Councilmember Dain expressed the opinion that he didn’t think that a DSL distribution point required a building like a telephone exchange station. Mayor Ellertson wondered what would be built and how it would fit into a residential neighborhood.
Mayor Ellertson suggested that the Council review the amendments to Chapter 17.42 attached to the staff report. Councilmember Bayless wondered if 17.42.040 could be considered a capricious regulation. Mr. Smith expressed the opinion that he did not think it capricious to require a conditional use permit for a home on 40 acres in the Recreation Mixed Use zone. He felt that the Planning Commission would want to know if an applicant was planning to put a home 10 feet from the edge of their 40 acre parcel. He did suggest that some minimum standards could be set if the Council preferred. Mr. Dameron suggested the same minimum standards in use in other areas. The Councilmembers agreed.
Mayor Ellertson asked whether Section 17.42.010 states all of the purposes and intents of this ordinance. He suggested that protecting open space and viewsheds should be added. Councilmember Dain suggested adding an “s” to the word “wetland”. Councilmember Bath felt that the definition of “upper Mt. Timpanogos elevations” was too vague and covered too broad an area. Mayor Ellertson suggested it be changed to “above 1200 East.” Mr. Smith pointed out that the Recreation Mixed Use zone only covers an area within City limits above a defined elevation in the General Plan.
Mr. Dameron thanked Mr. Smith for his time and effort to compile the SLU Table. Mayor Ellertson added his thanks to Mr. Smith also.
REGULAR SESSION
Conducting: Larry A. Ellertson
Pledge of Allegiance: H. Toby Bath
Invocation: Jeff Acerson
PRESENT
Larry A. Ellertson, Mayor
Jeff Acerson, Councilmember
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 7:10 P.M.
MINUTES
Review of the Minutes of June 26, 2001 and July 10, 2001.
A review of the Minutes of the Special Meeting of June 26, 2001 was held. The following corrections were made:
Page 2, Line 25: Add the phrase “of June 1, 2001 (copy attached)” after the word “letter.”
Page 3, Line 29,30: Replace the words “gotten approved” with the words “received approval.”
Page 4, Line 8,9: Add the phrase “of June 1, 2001 (copy attached)” after the word “letter.”
Page 6, Line 19: Replace the phrase “like what had happened” with the phrase “such as those.”
COUNCILMEMBER HATCH MOVED TO APPROVE THE MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL MEETING OF JUNE 26, 2001 AS CORRECTED. COUNCILMEMBER ACERSON SECONDED THE MOTION. ALL PRESENT VOTED IN FAVOR. THE MOTION CARRIED.
A review of the Minutes of the Special Meeting of July 10, 2001 was held. The following corrections were made:
Page 4, Line 28: Add the word “minimum” after the word “in.”
Page 4, Line 36,37: Add the phrase “and when the entire assessment was due and payable in full” after the word “record.”
Page 4, Line 39: Replace the words “was concerned” with the word “observed.”
Page 5, Line 5: Add the words “the items” after the word “of.” Add the word “be” after the word “to.”
COUNCILMEMBER BAYLESS MOVED TO APPROVE THE MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL MEETING OF JULY 10, 2001 AS CORRECTED. COUNCILMEMBER BATH SECONDED THE MOTION. ALL PRESENT VOTED IN FAVOR. THE MOTION CARRIED.
OPEN SESSION - Citizens comments
Mayor Ellertson asked if any member of the public present had something to talk about that was not on the agenda. Ms. Maxine Smith of 260 South 280 West, was the only one present. She asked the Council the proper procedure to report a violation of an ordinance. Mayor Ellertson asked her if her concern was a zoning violation. She affirmed this. Mr. Smith explained that she needed to file a complaint form that would be investigated by city staff and evidence of the violation gathered. A notice of violation would be sent to the offender. If there was no response, the City Attorney would follow up. He observed that most violations are resolved before the City Attorney becomes involved.
Ms. Smith reported that she had filed a complaint twice. She observed that there was someone living in a trailer with no septic tank in her neighborhood. Mr. Smith noted that this report has been investigated and no evidence found of someone living in the trailer. He told Ms. Smith that if he had an affidavit of three or four of the neighbors it would help, because the property owner denies that anyone is living in the trailer. Ms. Smith noted that the person had answered the door when the Board of Health had knocked. She complained that there was litter all over the lot. She felt that she could get affidavits from the neighbors for Mr. Smith.
Ms. Smith also reported three other problems. One was on East 400 North and State Street at the old Cullimore building. She said that the building was in a state of disrepair, the weeds were out of control and the site was being used to dump old appliances. The second is the orchard of Alan Marchbanks. The trees are diseased, not taken care of, and are passing insects and diseases to trees in the neighborhood. The third problem is the former Roland Hooley property that contains a partially dilapidated structure that is a hazard to the community. Councilmember Bath asked if she was referring to 800 West 200 South. Councilmember Bayless noted that this property did not belong to Mr. Hooley. The present owner is Esnet.
Mayor Ellertson thanked Ms. Smith for her concern for the community. He told her that these items she had reported would be followed up on.
MAYOR’S COMMENTS/REPORT
Mayor Ellertson reported that the location of the Gold Medal Mile Walk being held in conjunction with Lindon Days had changed. It will be held at Pioneer Park instead of near Home Depot. The date is Monday, August 6, 2001 at 6:00 P.M. The goal is to have 1000 people walking one mile each. Mr. Dameron verified that the walk would be held at the Pioneer Park walking track.
Mayor Ellertson thanked the citizens of Lindon for their water conservation measures. He noted that things were still okay, but he still notices, occasionally, situations where someone is watering in the daytime. For the most part though, he reported, most residents are doing a better job of refraining from watering between the hours of noon and 6:00 P.M. He asked residents to find a friendly way to inform their neighbors if they see someone watering during restricted hours. The Councilmembers talked about delivering a door hanger notice to residents who are reported watering during these hours. Mr. Dameron noted that most people are very cooperative when called to ask them not to water.
Mayor Ellertson announced that Lindon Days is coming. Festivities will start on August 4th. The programs are being printed and will be distributed this weekend. He asked if there were any questions.
Mayor Ellertson noted that work is continuing on the preservation of open space and trails.
CONSENT AGENDA - No Items
CURRENT BUSINESS
1. Preliminary Plat - Total Health Institute, Plat “A”. This is a request by Carl Larsen for preliminary subdivision approval for a commercial subdivision, Total Health Institute, Plat “A”, 1-lot, CG Zone at approximately 380 West 600 North, east of State Street.
Mr. Smith displayed the amended plat and an aerial photo of the area. He told the Council that this plat is a planned commercial development with 2 buildings on one parcel. It is similar to a condominium project with two units and limited common and common area. He informed the Council that the Planning Commission recommended that the west side of the parking lot be reserved for future access as the front parcel on State Street develops. They felt that this would limit the access needed to 600 North Street. The cross easement has been added to all of the parking lots so that parking will not be restricted to an individual unit.
Mayor Ellertson asked if there was a lot line for each unit or building. Mr. Smith replied that there is no individual lot line for each building. The buildings would be separately owned but the owners would share ownership of the land. Mr. Dameron noted that there was an employee parking lot on the east side of the buildings. Mr. Smith informed him that all of the parking is shared in the cross easements.
Mayor Ellertson noted a possible encroachment on the residential zone. Mr. Smith reminded him of the State Street zoning amendment that had squared up the corner and put it into the commercial zone. He told the Council that the owners of this parcel have worked with the neighbors to minimize the effects of this development. They have moved the building back from the street and planned a berm between the street and the north building. Mayor Ellertson asked if the width of 600 North would change in this location. Mr. Smith replied that the street would remain unchanged. Mr. Dameron asked if there would be any buffering on the south side of the project. Mr. Smith observed that the parcel to the south was zoned commercial and therefore needed no buffering.
Mayor Ellertson asked about the project generating traffic. Mr. Smith replied that there would be an increase, but it would not exceed the street’s design. He informed the Council that the business planned to operate between the hours of about 7 am to 6 pm with some additional hours after it is established. Mayor Ellertson commented that 600 North is a residential street and expressed a concern that it is too narrow. Mr. Smith replied that with the projected amount of traffic this is going to have, the street width will be adequate. Councilmember Bath asked if it would still be adequate in the future. Mayor Ellertson observed that the second building would add traffic when it was completed. Mr. Smith commented that the second building was planned for professional offices. He noted that there were other planned commercial developments in Lindon. He cited the examples of the Lindon Warehouse, Best Sheds, and the twin homes at Strawberry Estates. He said that there had been no problems with them because of no frontage.
Mayor Ellertson asked if these examples were located on a typical street like 600 North. Mr. Smith replied that the ones cited were on 66-foot roadways, but there were some on 50-foot roads, like Federal Express. Mayor Ellertson suggested some parking restrictions on 600 North. He also suggested that 600 North be widened.
Councilmember Hatch commented that he was the owner of the parcel over the fence to the south. He was presently using the parcel for agriculture and expressed a concern that cars parking near the fence line would get grey water sprinkled on them. He observed that he irrigated in the evenings and nights. The developer, Mr. Mark Hampton, commented that there would be no need for cars to be parked there after business hours. Councilmember Bayless asked if there were any excess parking stalls. Mr. Smith replied that there were 12 extra. Councilmember Bayless suggested that they be pulled out to landscape the area near the south fence. Mr. Hampton noted that he preferred to keep as much parking for common use as possible. He suggested a chain link fence with slats to deflect the water away. Councilmember Hatch commented he would prefer that the fence not be used as a retaining wall and asked if there would be tire barricades in front of the fence to stop cars from hitting the fence. Mr. Hampton verified that concrete parking strips would be installed.
Dr. Cutler introduced himself to the Council as the owner of the first building. He informed them that he is a family physician. His proposal is a multi-disciplinary clinic that will be incorporate complementary health fields, including herbal, educational, chiropractic, dietary and massage therapies. He stated that his clinic would put Lindon on the map of health care. He said that other states have similar clinics, but this would be the first of its kind in Utah. He commented that they would use the preventive approach. He informed the Council that he hoped at some point to purchase the lot in front - not for retail, but to allow access from State Street and build more professional office space. He wanted a thoroughfare to share with these businesses to help draw traffic away from 600 North. Mr. Smith observed that this was the reason the Planning Commission recommended a cross easement on the west side of the property.
Mr. Hampton commented that they had pulled the building back from the street and added a berm with a shrub barrier to make the project favorable to the neighborhood. He displayed the proposed elevations of the project from 600 North and showed the Councilmembers that no entrances, fire exits, or exits would be on the north side. All would be on the south. Councilmember Bayless observed that there would be no advantage to customers to park on street. Mr. Hampton agreed. He informed the Council that the first building would be constructed now and the second in the spring 2002. Mayor Ellertson verified with Mr. Hampton that he would be the builder and owner of the second building.
Councilmember Dain asked what Mr. Hampton’s plans were if the rental market dropped before spring. He asked if the second building was not constructed, did he have a plan to control the weeds. Mr. Hampton informed him that the landscaping on 600 North would be installed with the first building. Mayor Ellertson thanked Mr. Hampton and Dr. Cutler and asked the Council for a motion.
COUNCILMEMBER BAYLESS MOVED TO APPROVE THE REQUEST BY RIMROCK CONSTRUCTION FOR APPROVAL OF THE TOTAL HEALTH INSTITUTE, PLAT “A”, A 1-LOT COMMERCIAL SUBDIVISION WITH THE PLANNING COMMISSION’S RECOMMENDATIONS FOR ACCESS AND CROSS EASEMENTS FOR PARKING AS PROVIDED ON THE PLAT AND INCLUDING ALL COMMON AREAS, THE LANDSCAPE BERM ON 600 NORTH, AND OTHER LANDSCAPING AS DISCUSSED AND AGREED UPON. COUNCILMEMBER ACERSON SECONDED THE MOTION. ALL PRESENT VOTED IN FAVOR. THE MOTION CARRIED.
2. Discussion - Street Profile, Dirker Farms Subdivision. Rick Murano, developer of this approved subdivision, is requesting a review of the required street profile which includes a “pathway” detail.
Mr. Smith presented Mr. Murano’s plat for Dirker Farms on 200 East. He reported that Mr. Murano’s plat was approved based on using the pathway/street cross section. Mr. Murano is requesting to bond for the pathway, but would not install it until the pathway has an outlet onto Center Street. Mayor Ellertson asked what the pathway easement would be used for in the meantime. Mr. Murano reported that he had wanted to see a similar pathway in use and had gone to Dimple Dell. He informed the Council that he had a potential buyer for a lot that did not want a horse trail in his front yard. He claimed this buyer would build a $300,000 home. He reported that the people in Dimple Dell did not use their trail, so many of the homeowners had planted the easement. Mr. Murano claimed that there were few horses in the neighborhood and since the street would not go through to Center Street right now, he suggested that he landscape now then put in the trail later.
Mr. Murano claimed that negotiations with the Walkers were not going well. Councilmember Dain suggested that the City clarify the situation with Mr. Larry Walker. Mr. Walker has proposed to agree to a trail when 300 East is completed through to Center Street, and is not agreeable to a half street. The Eggetts are not interested in promoting a trail or a street. Councilmember Dain asked Mr. Murano if he would consent to meet with Mr. Johnson, an adjacent property owner, again. He thought that some misunderstandings could be cleared up.
Mr. Murano observed that he would like to see the trail put in now. Councilmember Dain observed questioned whether that Mr. Walker was opposed to the idea. Mr. Smith suggested that Mr. Walker would may not be opposed if he knew how the trail would be cared for and fenced. Councilmember Dain commented that he would prefer the trail profile be kept for this subdivision. Councilmember Bayless observed that if the trail was not built now, it may become very difficult to install it later. Mr. Murano reiterated that the potential homeowner did not want the trail.
Mayor Ellertson commented that shredded bark was used on a trail in Provo at the Veterans Park. Mr. Murano observed that he would like to see the trail on 300 East to Center Street. He was willing to dedicate the trail. He asked about maintenance. Mr. Dameron mentioned that signs would be there marking the pathway. Councilmember Bayless asked if the pathway could be added on the city maintenance contract.
Councilmember Dain observed that this may not be a good spot for a trail if it doesn’t continue to Center Street. Councilmember Bayless commented that is the “big if.” She observed that presently the horses are ridden on the sidewalk. Mayor Ellertson commented that the pathway was intended as multi-use. Councilmember Bayless agreed that bikes would use the pathway also. There was discussion on surfaces and what was best for horses verus bikes. Mr Smith commented that he had been discussing multipurpose surfaces with Jon Knudsen at the Department of Natural Resources. Councilmember Dain commented that bark would need to be renewed every year. Mr. Smith agreed that bark is not a good surface. Councilmember Dain suggested that some options on surfaces be researched. Mr. Smith commented that Mr. Knudsen recommends limestone crusher fines. Mayor Ellertson observed that Mr. Murano’s question could not be answered tonight. Mr. Murano did not want to be left without an answer for too long, especially with a buyer hanging in the balance. Mayor Ellertson informed him that the next meeting would be August 7. Mr. Smith thought that he could have some answers by then.
Mayor Ellertson asked Mr. Murano if he was aware that the homes built under the power line easement would need to be reviewed by the power company to determine if there was no conflict. Mr. Murano replied that he was unaware of this requirement. Mr. Smith commented that this review would be completed when the application for a building permit was reviewed. Mayor Ellertson thanked Mr. Smith for this information. He asked if the Council had any more questions. Councilmember Dain asked Mr. Murano if he could set up a meeting between himself, Mr. Murano and Mr. Johnson. Mr. Murano agreed and commented that if an agreement was reached he could amend the plat. Councilmember Bayless asked Mr. Smith to talk to Mr. Walker and the Eggetts.
3. Discussion - Cell Tower Location. Kim Rohatinsky, representing NexTel Communications, will be present to discuss a location of a new cell tower on city property recently leased to Utah Auto Sales.
Mr. Dameron introduced Kim Rohatinsky, representative for NexTel, to the Council. Mr. Dameron observed that NexTel was looking at two locations, one would be a co-location with Sprint, or a possible alternative would be across the street in the Utah Auto Sales leased property. She was asked how large of a property lease would be needed. She replied that a site that would include room for another co-location would need a parcel of 50 x 50 feet. If they did not have to allow for co-location then they could get by with11 ½ x 20.
Mr. Dameron commented that he felt 50 x 50 feet was out of the question in the Utah Auto Sales Lot. Mayor Ellertson observed that the wireless ordinance promotes allowing for future co-location. Mr. Dameron asked Ms. Rohatinsky if NexTel could co-locate on the Qwest tower. Ms. Rohatinsky replied that they needed a height of 70 feet and she thought the Qwest Tower only had a level of 60-feet available. They cannot work with Qwest. Mayor Ellertson commented that it would not be the City’s preference to put the tower on the Utah Auto Sales Lot, but he asked if Kevin Gallagher is agreeable. Mr. Smith commented that Mr. Gallagher was agreeable, but may not be if told the size of the parcel needed. Mr. Dameron mentioned the order of site precedence in the ordinance and wondered if the tower could be located on the school property.
Ms. Rohatinsky commented NexTel equipment was similar to AT&T, which needs a larger area because they use larger equipment. Councilmember Dain asked Ms. Rohatinsky how many towers would eventually be needed in this geographical area. She replied that most of the carriers were represented in Lindon now–there is ATT, Sprint, Qwest, and Cricket. Most of these towers had provided for co-location also. Mr. Dameron asked if NexTel could provide a stealth tower. Ms. Rohatinsky replied that NexTel has the ability to provide a stealth tower, however, the engineer has informed her that the use of stealth technology is site specific. The radio frequency required by NexTel for this Lindon site needs a fully sectored antenna array.
Mr. Dameron mentioned that the ordinance the Council recently passed requires any new tower to use stealth technology and allow co-location. Mayor Ellertson asked Ms. Rohatinsky what would happen if the 70-foot level was not available. She replied that separation space between the levels was needed to minimize interference, and a structural study of tower would be required to see if another level could be built. Councilmember Dain observed that the City Council would rather not have another tower built. Mayor Ellertson inquired what options NexTel would consider if they just couldn’t get 70-feet. Ms. Rohatinsky replied that NexTel would redesign the tower or move the search range. She asked if the ordinance restricts the height of towers.
Mr. Dameron again asked if the 70-foot level was available on the Sprint tower. Ms. Rohatinsky answered that Sprint had given her two answers, one yes and one no. She has asked for clarification from Sprint. Mr. Dameron commented that visually the 70-foot level looks clear and available. He observed that he understood that Cricket is at the 60-foot level and ATT at the 80-foot level. Ms. Rohatinsky commented that if NexTel could locate on the Sprint tower, it would be easiest for all involved. However, this meeting with the Council was an opportunity for NexTel to search for other available options.
Councilmember Bayless observed that stealth technology would be required in Lindon. Mayor Ellertson asked Ms. Rohatinsky when she expected to get a definite answer from Sprint. He suggested that she get the feedback from Sprint and then come back to the next Council meeting. He mentioned the stealth tower in Provo disguised as a pine tree. Ms. Rohatinsky observed the stealth technology was usually avoided because of the expense. She also mentioned that contractors avoid these contracts because of the controversy. Councilmember Bayless ,characterizing herself as the City Mother, asked why the wireless companies would avoid stealth technology because of the expense expressed frustration that the company was not more actively pursuing the co-location possibility. These towers have great impact on communities that can be somewhat mitigated by stealth technology. To hear that financial reasons are being cited to avoid stealth technology is not acceptable. She observed that wireless company executives and employees lived in communities like Lindon too. Wouldn’t they prefer to have stealth technology to live with? She commented that she was confused as to why NexTel would look for another location if only stealth could be used, and the Sprint tower was available.
Ms. Rohatinsky replied that if the Sprint tower was not available NexTel would have to go back to the engineers for redesigning. She was looking for an option that would not waste four more months. She commented that she understood that people don’t like cell towers, however, it is their use of cell phones that supports the need for new towers. NexTel is just looking for other options. Mayor Ellertson told Ms. Rohatinsky that her best option is to look for co-location. If that is not possible then NexTel must consider Lindon’s stealth ordinance.
Councilmembers Dain and Bath commented that a ground lease of 50 x 50 feet in the Utah Auto Sales Lot is not possible. Mayor Ellertson asked Ms. Rohatinsky if that large of a ground lease was required. She replied that the ground lease is negotiable. Councilmember Dain asked if the NexTel tower required a distance away from the Sprint tower. She answered that NexTel’s engineering department would have to determine that and the height level.
Councilmember Hatch asked what minimum distance was needed between towers. She replied about 2 miles. Mr. Don Shively, associate of Ms. Rohatinsky, mentioned that there are some issues that NexTel can give up. He told the Council that if some height is given up, then NexTel would need additional towers. The wireless technology requires line of sight between towers. 70-feet is the ideal height. If stealth is required, coverage is reduced, so NexTel will need another tower. Councilmember Hatch asked if a tower is on the mountain, will it take care of the wireless needs in the valley? Mr. Shively replied yes. The wireless companies go there first, however, as frequency use increases, it brings the height down from the mountain.
Mayor Ellertson invited Ms. Rohatinsky and Mr. Shively to come back after getting an answer from Sprint.
4. Public Hearing - Campaign Finance Disclosure. The City Council will hear public comment and possibly act to approve an ordinance amendment to Chapter 2.44 of the Lindon City Code, “Elections,” dealing with campaign finance disclosure provisions of candidates for election.
Mr. Dameron observed that this ordinance is in response to a new state law.
COUNCILMEMBER BATH MOVED TO OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING. COUNCILMEMBER DAIN SECONDED THE MOTION. ALL PRESENT VOTED IN FAVOR. THE MOTION CARRIED.
Councilmember Bayless asked if any candidate for Council seats had spent a large amount. She mentioned a conversation with someone from another city who had spent $35,000 and not been elected. Mayor Ellertson commented that only the sources and expenditures associated with the election campaign would need to be reported, not all the personal information. The Councilmembers discussed the minimum limit of either $750 in receipts or expenditures before a report is required, and identifying each contribution of more than $50. Mayor Ellertson verified with Mr. Dameron that this ordinance is required by state law. He asked if there was any public comment. There was none.
COUNCILMEMBER DAIN MOVED TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. COUNCILMEMBER BATH SECONDED THE MOTION. ALL PRESENT VOTED IN FAVOR. THE MOTION CARRIED.
COUNCILMEMBER BAYLESS MOVED TO APPROVE ORDINANCE 2001-7 ENACTING A CAMPAIGN FINANCE DISCLOSURE REQUIREMENT BY AMENDING CHAPTER 2.44 OF THE LINDON CITY CODE. COUNCILMEMBER ACERSON SECONDED THE MOTION. ALL PRESENT VOTED IN FAVOR. THE MOTION CARRIED.
5. Discussion - Canberra Heights, Plat “C”. Canberra Development Company has requested a discussion with the City Council concerning the recording of Canberra Heights Plat “C”. Staff has concerns with recording the plat when the infrastructure of Plat “A” and “B” has not been completed, specifically the McKinley Drive Trail.
This item was withdrawn by from the agenda by the petitioner.
6. Resolution - Policies and Procedures Manual. Staff has prepared the amended Policies and Procedures Manual for Council’s consideration. Periodically, updates are submitted to the Council for approval.
Mayor Ellertson introduced this review of the amended Policies and Procedures Manual and proposed that Mr. Dameron give the Councilmembers a synopsis of the major changes. Mr. Dameron noted that some changes had been proposed by the City Attorney, Gordon Duval. Mayor Ellertson observed that these changes were not substantive, just clarifications. Mr. Dameron stated that the major changes were in the overtime and call out policies. He noted that overtime is proposed to be figured differently. Most employees will be figured the same way, with the exception of the classified employees. Overtime calculations include paid holidays as time worked, but will not include vacation time as time worked. Councilmember Dain expressed the opinion that this is a good policy. It gives employees an incentive to work on paid holidays. Mr. Dameron noted that the City will make the decision whether to give comp time or overtime pay. The only time an employee can choose between comp time and overtime pay is for the first two hours after being called out.
Councilmember Dain asked, “How much comp time can be accrued?” Mr Dameron replied that FSLA guidelines currently set that at 240 hours. Comp time can carry over from one year to the next. Anything over 240 hours will be paid in cash at the overtime rate. Councilmember Dain observed that basically employees could accumulate comp time and get two months off. Mr. Dameron announced that there were other rules to consider to get the time off. Councilmember Bath asked if there was a section that defines terms used in the manual. Mr. Dameron replied that at present there was not.
Mr. Dameron noted that the policy had changed on working on weekends. He observed that all non-exempt employees will be paid time-and-a-half comp time for any required work hours that fall in the weekend, regardless of the number of hours worked during the week. Mayor Ellertson verified that the hours must be taken as comp time. Mr. Dameron mentioned that this would be used in situations where a water line on a busy street must be replaced. They would plan it on a weekend and call the employees in to work. Councilmember Bath observed, that since it is planned, could the employees have comparable time off during the week to allow for the weekend work. Mr. Dameron replied that this policy required all time worked on the weekend to be at the overtime rate regardless of the number of hours worked during the week.
Councilmember Bath commented that all the employees would want the same time off. Mr. Dameron replied that all time off needs to be cleared with the supervisor and their duties covered. Councilmember Bath mentioned that his experience with comp time was different. Mayor Ellertson commented that if problems arose the overtime could be paid and comp time discontinued. Councilmember Bath suggested lowering the maximum accumulation of comp time. Mayor Ellertson asked what the accumulations of comp time per employee averaged. Mr. Dameron replied that the most was about 40-50 hours. Councilmember Bath expressed satisfaction that accumulations were not excessive. Councilmember Dain suggested that a “tight leash” be kept so the program does not become excessive.
Mr. Dameron commented that only three employees were on call. Councilmember Bayless observed that they rotated by the week. Mr. Dameron mentioned that the on-call amount has been changed from $28 per week to $50 per week, with a CPI increase yearly. If the employee is called out, he will be paid at time-and-one-half. Mr. Dameron made a clarification on the hours that qualify for call out. He said that only those hours outside of regular work hours will be considered. For instance, if an employee is called out for snow removal at 5:00 am, they will received call-out pay from 5:00 to 7:00, when their regular hours start. They will receive one hour of overtime for being called out, two hours at their choice of pay or comp time, and the third hour and beyond is paid at the city’s choice of pay or comp time, which is normally comp time.
Mayor Ellertson asked where the section on disciplinary measures had been moved. Mr. Dameron directed him to page 31. Mayor Ellertson asked if the correction had been made in the Table of Contents. Mr. Dameron noted that this change was needed to the Table of Contents.
Mayor Ellertson asked if there was any more discussion and/or questions. Councilmember Dain verified that a dismissal must be agreed to by the mayor. He added that this was good protection for the City.
COUNCILMEMBER DAIN MOVED TO APPROVE RESOLUTION 2001-7 ADOPTING THE REVISED “LINDON CITY POLICIES AND PROCEDURES” MANUAL AS CORRECTED. COUNCILMEMBER ACERSON SECONDED THE MOTION. ALL PRESENT VOTED IN FAVOR. THE MOTION CARRIED.
7. Agreement - Aqueduct Connection. This is an agreement between Lindon City, the Central Utah Water Conservancy District, and the US Department of the Interior for the carriage of water through the Alpine Reach Aqueduct 3 to Lindon’s Zone 2 Secondary Water Reservoir.
Mr. Dameron presented this temporary agreement for the delivery of secondary water to the Zone 2 reservoir through a connection in the Central Water Conservancy District’s Alpine Reach Aqueduct. He commented that this is another backup to the secondary system. Councilmember Hatch asked if this would make water available earlier in the season. It was assumed that this may be true.
The aqueduct system schematic was examined by the Council. Mr. Dameron commented that most of the northern Utah County communities had chosen raw water rather than treated water to be delivered through this system. That is why a new treatment plant will be built further north. Mayor Ellertson noted that the contract is dated in 2000. Mr. Dameron observed that negotiations were started in 2000. Mayor Ellertson observed that the term of this contract ends on December 31, 2001. Mr. Dameron advised him that this is a temporary contract just for this year. Another, permanent contract will be negotiated with the Department of the Interior on behalf of all the northern Utah County cities receiving water through the CUP system. Mayor Ellertson wondered if the permanent contract negotiations were delayed past next April, if this contract could be extended into next year. He asked if any water had been used from this connection this year. Mr. Dameron replied that he would ask the CUP representative about an extension and that no water had been used yet. The connection was just getting finished and a pump was still needed. Councilmember Acerson suggested if this contract cannot be extended, that a new similar agreement should be started on. Mayor Ellertson suggested a tickler or reminder may be needed in January. Mr. Dameron reported that CUP representative, Richard Tullis, is working on the long term agreement.
COUNCILMEMBER BAYLESS MOVED TO APPROVE THE AGREEMENT AMONG THE CENTRAL WATER CONSERVANCY DISTRICT, LINDON CITY, AND THE UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR FOR THE CARRIAGE OF NON-PROJECT WATER THROUGH THE BONNEVILLE UNIT PROJECT FACILITIES AND AUTHORIZE THE MAYOR TO SIGN ON BEHALF OF LINDON CITY. COUNCILMEMBER HATCH SECONDED THE MOTION. ALL PRESENT VOTED IN FAVOR. THE MOTION CARRIED.
8. Review - Proposed Subdivision Ordinance Revision. Kevin Smith, Planning Director, has prepared a proposed revision to the subdivision ordinance as a result of the recently adopted General Plan. A discussion of this proposal by the Council is requested before a public hearing is scheduled to consider its adoption.
Mr. Smith commented that he had started on this amendment in 1997. Now, he noted that since the general plan has been adopted, this amendment has become necessary. This amendment makes the City Code coincide with the State Code and outlines the procedures that are already being used. Councilmember Dain suggested that Mr. Smith just go through the changes.
Mr. Smith informed the Council that the original ordinance appeared to be taken from a template ordinance. He noted the changes that say “local jurisdiction” that should be “Lindon City” and “governing body” instead of “City Council.” He then noted that the intent of this ordinance is not to make the division of land cumbersome. The State requires approval from the City, but the County Recorder’s Office does not look at that. Mayor Ellertson asked if this ordinance says you cannot sell a piece of property? Mr. Smith replied “no.” He replied that this is a protection to buyers and sellers. Mayor Ellertson asked if a person can sell off 5 acres of a 10 acre parcel without filing a subdivision plat. Mr. Smith told the Mayor that the answer to his question is located in Section 17.32.060, but he would like to go through the sections prior to this first.
Mr. Smith directed the Council to #3 of Section 17.32.010 which has been deleted. He admitted that he did not know what a restricted lot is. He noted that the previous and subsequent paragraphs on page 2 are already being required. He directed the Council to page 3 and the section dealing with exemptions. He noted the phrase “divided...into 3 or more parts.” He also pointed out the deletion of paragraphs 3 through 5 in that section. He informed the Council that these revisions are worded from the State Code.
Mr. Smith noted the deletion of the requirement to record a final plat within 10 days after approval by the City Council. He said that time limit is unrealistic. Mayor Ellertson commented that this requirement would limit approval to those plats that were accepted as is and with no conditions to complete. Mr. Smith agreed. Mayor Ellertson asked if this requirement was in the State Code. Mr. Dameron replied that there was not a time limit stated in the State Code.
Mr. Smith told the Mayor that Section 17.32.060 lists the exemptions for filing a plat. If the parcel meets these criteria, they are not required to file a subdivision plat. The change between this and the State Code is that the Lindon City Code says 3 lots or more, while the State Code lists a minimum of 10 lots. He noted that the Planning Commission must give approval, not the City Council.
Mr. Smith summarized the changes by saying, “If you want to divide your land, go see the city first.” He gave an example of someone selling a 10,000 sq. foot lot. The County Recorder’s Office will record this deed and will not check to see if it meets the City ordinances. Mayor Ellertson asked how a person would know if they needed to check with the City. Mr. Smith replied that they don’t, until they come in for a building permit. Mayor Ellertson commented that unless the buyer checks, he wouldn’t know. He observed that this ordinance protects the buyer and gives him recourse against the seller.
Mr. Smith commented that final approval for a subdivision plat is given through staff. Mr. Dameron suggested that the County Recorder looks for a stamp that indicates the plat is approved by the City. Mr. Smith informed him that the County Recorder does not enforce the City ordinances. Without researching the deed, the County Recorder would not even be sure that the deed is a subdivision of land. Mr. Smith noted that there are other requirements listed which require the recording of a plat such as being traversed by a proposed street as shown in the General Plan and meeting the requirements of the zoning ordinance.
Mr. Smith said that Section 17.32.070 lists the procedure to amend a plat, and just directs readers to the State Code. Mr. Dameron asked what the State Code requires for the vacation of a plat. Mr. Smith replied that the neighboring property owners within 300 feet of any amended line must be notified. No public hearing is required.
Mayor Ellertson verified that if a parcel is not traversed by map or road lines, and is a large piece, but the General Plan shows a road through it, is the owner required to dedicate the road? Mr. Smith replied that the person needs to record a plat, but may not need to dedicate the road. Mayor Ellertson asked how the person would know? Mr. Smith replied that most people would not know. He They would need to check with the City.
Mr. Smith pointed out changes proposed by City Engineer, Mark Christensen, concerning streets. He noted that the Planning Commission recommended removal of all language referring to private streets. Mayor Ellertson noted #5 on page 4 and asked if the home was required to front on a street. Mr Smith observed that the lot must touch the street.
Mr. Smith said that the next change in #4 on page 5 was suggested by Mr. Christensen. Mr. Dameron mentioned that he was trying to picture a large street connecting to a smaller street. Councilmember Dain suggested collecting the smaller streets and having one main street out of an area. Mr. Smith observed that this would limit access to State Street and promote cul-de-sacs.
Mayor Ellertson asked if paragraph #6e should be eliminated. Mr. Smith replied that the Planning Commission has recommended this deletion. Councilmember Bath expressed the opinion that it should be kept. Mayor Ellertson observed that alternatives to curb, gutter and sidewalk had been talked about many times. Mr. Dameron initiated a short discussion on mandatory curb, gutter and sidewalk requirements.
Mr. Smith noted that the next paragraphs deal with stub streets and half streets. Mr. Dameron asked for a definition of the width of a half street. Mr. Smith replied that it depends on the situation. He noted that the half street proposed for Center Street is different than one proposed for one home. Mr. Dameron noted that Mr. Joyner had been required to have a 35-foot width on his half street. Councilmember Acerson commented that the width of a half street meets the needs of the neighborhood and is determined at the time. Mr. Smith suggested that the word “half” be changed to “partial” or “incomplete.” Mr. Dameron agreed that “partial” may be a better word.
Councilmember Dain questioned the words “street names.” He thought that grid numbers were preferred. Mr. Smith commented that the Planning Commissioners had recommended the words “names/numbers” in that paragraph.
Mayor Ellertson asked what would happen if the Council required a full street instead of allowing a half or partial street. Mr. Smith replied that the developer would be required to finish the remaining portion of the street. Mr. Dameron noted that the reimbursement agreement would come into the equation in situations like this. Mr. Smith was asked if there is a time limit on the reimbursement agreement. Mr. Smith replied that there is no time limit in the code. The City maintains the streets after 7 years, but there is no time limit on the agreement to reimburse the developer. Mr. Dameron observed that the homeowners get the benefit of fixed costs. Councilmember Acerson wondered who received the reimbursement if the developer is unavailable. Mr. Smith was unsure, but noted that the assessment is filed in the public record. Councilmember Acerson agreed that the homeowners benefit by no appreciation in the value of the cost. Mr. Dameron noted that the Ostler Industrial Park would be coming in for a reimbursement agreement in a few weeks.
Mr. Smith noted the change that established the Lindon City Land Development Policies, Standard Specifications and Drawings Manual as the final authority on public improvements. He then directed the Council’s attention to paragraph #8 on pages 6 & 7 as a critical change. The City Council will have the authority to change the street grade within certain conditions. He noted that the City Council has done this in the past without having this provision in the code. Councilmember Dain observed that only minor changes could be made with a recommendation from the Development Review Committee and the Planning Commission. Mayor Ellertson noted that these boards do not always recommend approval, sometimes they recommend a denial.
Mr. Dameron noted that a grade change had been approved on 140 N at 14%. This provision was not in code at the time. If a similar situation came up, now there would be a provision and procedure to administer it. Other grade changes like Strawberry Estates and Canal Drive were recalled. Councilmember Acerson commented that he could see the need for it. Mr. Dameron observed that the ordinance denies multiple waivers like those requested by Bald Mountain and Canberra.
Mr. Smith noted that Section17.32.170 adds pathways and trails to the street improvements. Mayor Ellertson mentioned that he was adverse to curb and gutter everywhere. He referred to the clause added back in about shoulders on the roadways. Mr. Dameron asked if the Mayor was proposing a change the requirement for curb and gutter. Councilmember Bayless commented that there was no blanket statement that sidewalk was required everywhere. Mr. Dameron suggested that some information from the engineers and public works was needed before a fundamental change in policy was made. Councilmember Dain expressed the opinion that it was not a fundamental shift away from requiring these improvements, just a statement that there are times that it may not be needed. Mr. Smith suggested that this clause could refer back to the other clause on street shoulders. Councilmember Dain conceded that it was rare not to have these improvements required. Mr. Dameron commented that not having curb and gutter may cause flooding. Mayor Ellertson observed that allowances may be made for that, but there still may be a place where it is not needed. Mr. Dameron suggested that the experts be consulted. Councilmember Dain reminded the Council of a situation where having curb and gutter collected storm water and caused a flooding situation.
Mr. Smith suggested that the City Council review possible locations were where curb and gutter may not be required. Councilmember Bath observed that some criteria would need to be set or some sides of the street would have curb and gutter and some wouldn’t if it was left up to the property owners. Councilmember Acerson suggested that sidewalks only be waived in certain conditions. He commented that the push for several years now had been to complete curb and gutter development. He wondered if the push was now the other way. Mr. Dameron suggested that the City Engineer address these issues for the Council. Mayor Ellertson observed that the whole city would have to be examined to know where it may not be required. He felt that there would be few exceptions to the curb and gutter rule. Mayor Ellertson expressed the opinion that an alternative standard was needed. Councilmember Acerson asked if the storm drain would be piped since there would be no curb and gutter to help collect the drainage. Mayor Ellertson observed that some other means of dealing with storm water may be needed, possibly swales. Councilmember Dain asked if this would be a new development requirement. This was discussed. Mr. Dameron commented that funding from MAG may require curb and gutter. The Council directed staff to research options and report back.
Mr. Smith finished reviewing the changes to Chapter 17.32. He said that the rest of the chapter deals with required soils surveys for sewer and septic tanks, updating the water share policy of the City, and adding the fire code to water flow requirement and traversable driveways. He pointed out particularly the last added section dealing with subdivision applications that are submitted and then dropped because of no progress for a lengthy period of time. The new requirement states that if no new submittals are made on a subdivision within 6 months, a new application must be approved.
Mayor Ellertson asked Mr. Smith if there was a total time limit, or if a developer could drag out an application by submitting one thing every six months. Mr. Smith replied that there was no limit on the process. Mayor Ellertson asked what constituted a submittal. He asked if a conversation with Mr. Smith was sufficient. Mr. Smith observed that active work must be progressing, not just a contact. The Councilmembers decided by consensus to continue this item for further discussion.
9. Review - Proposed Mixed Commercial Ordinance. Kevin Smith, Planning Director, has prepared a proposed mixed commercial ordinance to conform to the recently adopted General Plan. A discussion of this proposed ordinance by the Council is requested before a public hearing is scheduled to consider its adoption.
Mr. Smith informed the Council that a Public Hearing is scheduled for this ordinance on August 7 , 2001. This ordinance will regulate land use on the west side of town. He displayed the land use map of the General Plan showing the areas designated for the mixed commercial zone. Mr. Smith noted that to meet the General Plan goals for this zone, the ordinance restricts light industrial, research & business, and general commercial businesses to be fully contained within a building. He informed the Council that this is a liberal zone that allows many uses, inhibits objectionable uses, and although liberal is use, is more stringent in landscaping, building materials, and open space requirements.
He told the Council that the Planning Commission had discussed the open space requirement extensively. There had been proposal of 10%, 15%, 20% and 30%. The They had even briefly considered not having a percentage requirement, but most of the Commissioners felt that some standard should be kept. The recommendation is 15%. He commented that the tree standard is consistent with the rest of the City. He noted that the setbacks and standards table on page 3 is a typical table. He reviewed the setbacks and noted that 30 acres is the minimum size of a parcel for a rezoning application.
Councilmember Hatch questioned the maximum height requirements on page 1 in Section 17.50.040. He mentioned that he thought the maximum height in Lindon was 35-feet. Mr. Smith informed him that the maximum height for residential structures is 35-feet. Mayor Ellertson asked what circumstances allowed the maximum height of 65-feet. Mr. Smith advised the Council that for every foot higher than 48-feet that the structure is designed, the setback must be increased by 10 feet over the minimum. So, for an increase in height from 48 to 65, the setback must be 190-feet from the property edge on the street. There was a discussion on how the maximum height is figured as an average of the four corners of the building, and that it does not include the enclosures for mechanical units or parapet walls. Councilmember Dain suggested that if the equipment enclosure is so large that it reaches a footprint percentage of more than a predetermined number, then it needs to be considered part of the height.
The Councilmembers discussed fire truck capabilities and why this height was a standard among cities. Mr. Ron Anderson pointed out that the light industrial zone has a maximum height of 48-feet. The Council decided to amend the ordinance to a maximum height of 48 feet and take out any reference to a larger setback.
Mr. Anderson expressed concern for this zone, designed as a hybrid, having higher landscaping requirements than the zones it is based on. He felt that 15% open space might be fine for some businesses, but he wondered, if this is a “heavier” zone than either general commercial and research & business, why it is requiring more open space than the original zones. He pointed out that Lindon does not require 15% open space and a 5-foot planter in any other zone. Mr Smith said that he would look at the other zones. The Council thanked Mr. Anderson for his comments.
10. Review and Action - Appointment of Recreation Committee. After discussion during this year’s Council Retreat concerning the direction of Lindon’s recreation programs and the future of recreation in Lindon, the recommendation was made to appoint a citizen’s committee to help the Council determine the direction of these programs. Names of volunteers who will serve on this committee will be considered during this meeting. Staff recommends creating the committee and appointing these individuals.
Mayor Ellertson noted that this item concerned the creation of a recreation citizens advisory committee. He looked at the list of proposed individuals for the Committee and asked, “Are all aspects of recreation represented?” This was discussed and it was decided that more members could be added later. If the Councilmembers had any recommendations for Committee members, Councilmember Acerson suggested that he be contacted. Mayor Ellertson asked if Recreation Director, Kim Walker, was part of the committee. Mr. Dameron replied that he was the staff consultant to the Committee.
Councilmember Bayless questioned the length of the terms. Mr. Dameron replied that some long term commitment was needed to accomplish the goals. It was decided to have the committee elect a chairman. Councilmember Bath suggested that the term be less than the proposed 4 years. Mr. Dameron suggested that the term be two years and then stagger some appointments. Councilmember Bath observed that the members could be reappointed after the completion of the first term. Councilmember Dain suggested a two year term. The Council agreed.
COUNCILMEMBER DAIN MOVED TO APPROVE THE CREATION OF THE RECREATION CITIZENS ADVISORY COMMITTEE AND CONFIRM THE APPOINTMENTS OF COUNCILMEMBER JEFF ACERSON, BRET FRAMPTON, CHERYL BROWN, TAMI WALKER, AND ELYCSE ALLPHIN TO THIS COMMITTEE WITH TWO YEAR TERMS. COUNCILMEMBER BATH SECONDED THE MOTION. ALL PRESENT VOTED IN FAVOR. THE MOTION CARRIED.
11. Review and Action - Increase in Part-Time Recreation Director’s Salary. Staff recommends that the city’s part-time Recreation Director’s salary be increased from $600 per month to $800 per month.
Mr. Dameron recommended an increase in salary for Mr. Kim Walker. He complimented Mr. Walker on his performance in the past and noted that this new assignment would add a new dimension to the job. He would like to encourage Mr. Walker to stay and consider taking the job full-time when the time comes. Councilmember Dain asked if the funds were in the budget. Mr. Dameron confirmed that the funds were available.
COUNCILMEMBER ACERSON MOVED TO APPROVE THE INCREASE IN PART-TIME RECREATION DIRECTOR KIM WALKER’S SALARY FROM $600 PER MONTH TO $800 PER MONTH. COUNCILMEMBER HATCH SECONDED THE MOTION. ALL PRESENT VOTED IN FAVOR. THE MOTION CARRIED.
CITY COUNCIL REPORTS
WATER, GENERAL PLAN, BUILDING INSPECTION, ENGINEERING
Councilmember Dain had nothing to report.
SEWER, SOLID WASTE, PUBLIC BUILDINGS AND PROPERTIES
Councilmember Hatch had nothing to report.
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 a problem with overflow of water from the water tank on 835 East. He said that it spills into the streets. Mr. Dameron replied that one pump is down and the telemetry is not functioning properly.
Councilmember Acerson reported that a woman had called him to offer to put an item in old rock house at Pioneer Park.
He also reported a deficiency in trash pickup this last week.
ADMINISTRATOR’S REPORT
Mr. Dameron:
1. Presented the recreation report from Mr. Walker. Councilmember Acerson commented on the good numbers.
2. Reported that the agreement with Johanson Thackeray had been reviewed with City Attorney Gordon Duval and some changes had been made. He asked if this could be considered in the next agenda. The Council agreed.
3. Informed the council that Johansen Thackeray has presented a letter for the first draw on the RDA. He suggested scheduling a meeting of the RDA to consider this application for a draw. He recommended that City Engineer Mark Christensen be invited to comment. He commented that the request appears to follow the guidelines talked about with Mr. Thackeray about leaving an amount there. Mayor Ellertson commented that Johansen Thackeray was interested in not drawing down more than what would even be potentially needed by the SID. The Council agreed to add an RDA meeting to the next agenda.
4. Reported that the City had closed on the SID bonds today.
5. Informed the Council that a alternate sidewalk design was being considered for 200 South in front of the Hooley property because of their proximity to the street.
6. Presented the latest speed trailer report. He commented that the average speed tends to be about 10 mph over the 25 mph limit. This makes 35 mph the percentile.
7. Requested that the City Attorney review the situation with the billboard on the park property. He reported that he had called Mr. Preston Parkinson to remind him of the condition of approval of the purchase. The City Council required that the billboard be removed when they approved the purchase on June 26, 2001. Mr. Parkinson agreed. Reagan Signs has protested the sale because they did not get the first right of refusal on the city offer.
8. Asked Councilmember Bath if he was getting notified of the public safety meetings. Councilmember Bath replied that he was not getting the notices. He recommended that Pleasant Grove City be informed that Lindon is an active part of the process. Councilmember Acerson asked if Mr. Walker was getting notices of the recreation department meetings. Councilmember Acerson suggested that Mayor Ellertson come to first meeting with the Recreation Committee and thank them for their commitment.
9. Reported that Staff was wondering if the Council would like to schedule a play day in September to play baseball. They replied that it sounded like fun. Mayor Ellertson asked if staff was issuing a challenge to the Council. Mr. Dameron replied that was the appearance.
10. Informed the Council that a cost sharing proposal had been worked out on the repairs for 570 North in Manzana Acres. The work to repair the street was underway.
Mayor Ellertson reported that progress was being made on the Murdock Trail with the Provo River Water Users Association. They had replied with some feedback on clauses in the proposed agreement. The County Attorney is making the changes now. Councilmember Bath mentioned that the gates had been locked one day not long ago.
Mayor Ellertson mentioned that the League of Cities and Towns had informed the membership that their policy committee was having a discussion with the State Tax Commission on reducing the administrative fee to collect sales taxes. They also talked about the Draper City and Granite School District situation with the new subdivision on the point. He reported that the State Water Resources Department was suggesting that any entity not fully utilizing their water rights, should have them revert back to the State Engineer. Mr. Dameron observed that the cities were accumulating water for growth that was undeveloped and unused at present. Mayor Ellertson said that the State Engineer’s Office was going to propose legislation.
Mayor Ellertson asked for ideas for their entry in the Lindon Days Parade. After discussion, it was decided that the City Council would ride horses.
COUNCILMEMBER DAIN MOVED TO APPROVE THE PAY VOUCHERS. COUNCILMEMBER BAYLESS SECONDED THE MOTION. ALL PRESENT VOTED IN FAVOR. THE MOTION CARRIED.
COUNCILMEMBER BAYLESS MOVED TO ADJOURN AT 11:25 PM. COUNCILMEMBER DAIN SECONDED THE MOTION. ALL PRESENT VOTED IN FAVOR. THE MOTION CARRIED.
APPROVED - August 7, 2001
Ott H. Dameron, City Administrator/Recorder
Attest:
Larry A. Ellertson, Mayor |
|
|
