Council approves subdivision code change, replacing length‑to‑width rule with buildable‑area test

The Lindon City Council on June 15 approved an amendment to the city subdivision code that replaces a long‑standing three‑to‑one length‑to‑width ratio with a test that evaluates whether a lot is practically buildable.

City planning staff told the council that the existing rule (codified as 1732.090 in the staff presentation) prevented a landowner from dividing a 200‑foot‑wide parcel because slicing it would create 100‑foot‑wide lots that would exceed the 3:1 length standard. "We started asking what the purpose of that rule is," staff said, and proposed focusing instead on minimum frontage, setbacks and an explicit buildable area that ensures parking, fire turnaround and landscaping can be met.

Mike Florence, representing a neighboring property owner, asked for background about what motivated the change. Planning staff said the amendment is intended to prevent irregular narrow extensions and to ensure lots can actually accommodate buildings and required improvements. Staff specifically noted that a proposed subdivision by Denny Farnworth of property owned by Lyall Lamo is on hold while the ordinance change is considered.

Several council members pressed staff on how the city would apply a practical or "functional" standard in a way that could be defended legally. One council member warned that without bright‑line rules it may be difficult to deny plats. Planning staff said the ordinance includes language barring "narrow extensions" and irregular configurations and that the primary operational test will be whether the lot meets minimum frontage and other zoning buildability criteria.

Council members also raised whether the change would affect flag lots. Staff replied that flag lots already have an exemption from the three‑to‑one width‑to‑length ratio and that the amendment is not intended to encourage a proliferation of flag lots; the city will retain frontage and buildable‑area checks to limit problematic configurations.

Council Member Jacobs moved to approve the amendment as revised in the staff presentation; the motion was seconded and carried after one council member voiced opposition during the roll call.

The ordinance passage means staff will move forward with the revised rule set; the specific subdivision that motivated the amendment remains on hold until the new code language is codified and applied by staff and the planning commission.