|
|
Home » City Government » Planning Commission » Minutes Archive; 2000 - 2002 » Planning Commission Minutes 2002 » February 27, 2002
February 27, 2002
The Lindon City Planning Commission held a regularly scheduled meeting on Wednesday, February 27, 2002 at 7:00 p.m. in the Lindon City Center Council Chambers at 100 North State Street, Lindon, Utah.
Conducting: Loren Morse, Chairman
Invocation: Jim Peters
PRESENT
Loren Morse, Chairman
Ron Anderson, Commissioner
Lori Atchison, Commissioner
Bruce Carpenter, Commissioner
Jim Peters, Commissioner
Marilyn Simister, Commissioner
Lindsey Bayless, Councilmember
Kevin Smith, Planning Director
Venla Gubler, Administrative Clerk
Matt Perkins, Planning Intern
Justin Draeger, Planning Intern ABSENT
Evan Nixon, Commissioner
The Meeting began at 7:05 P.M.
1. MINUTES
Review of the Minutes of February13, 2002.
The minutes of the regular meeting of February 13, 2002 were reviewed. The following corrections were made:
Page 2, Line 19: Add the phrase “may have to” before the word “be.”
Page 4, Line 2: Replace the misspelled word “mulit” with the spelling “multi.”
Page 6, Line 14: Add the word “that” after the word “out.”
Page 7, Line 12: Replace the word “decided” with the phrase “working with the City to determine.”
Page 9, Line 4,5: Add the phrase “on both the Datapad parking lot and on Lot #3" before the word “not.”
Page 13, Line 27: Delete the phrase “for Redevelopment Agency issues.”
COMMISSIONER CARPENTER MOVED TO APPROVE THE MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF FEBRUARY 13, 2002 AS CORRECTED. COMMISSIONER PETERS SECONDED THE MOTION. ALL PRESENT VOTED IN FAVOR. THE MOTION CARRIED.
2. PUBLIC COMMENT
Mr. Neal Henry, a realtor representing a buyer, asked the possibility of changing the zoning of a home on the corner of Main and 200 South from commercial to residential to allow the possibility of an R2 Overlay project. Mr. Smith commented that the zone would have to be extended to the property across the street on the west side of Main to tie the zone into existing residential property. Commissioner Peters observed that a previous proposal had been turned down on the west corner of Main and 200 South in favor of retention of the commercial zoning. Commissioner Simister asked the zoning of the homes north of this property. Mr. Smith explained that the homes are bisected by the commercial and residential zones. Chairman Morse asked if there was enough square footage in this lot to allow a duplex in addition to the home. Mr. Smith replied that the lot contained 30,000 square feet. Commissioner Anderson observed that this property did not border a residential zone, and explained to Mr. Henry that the Commission could not consider a rezoning application that would create a “spot zone.” Mr. Smith commented that the property owners in the affected area would need to sign the application. Commissioner Anderson asked if Mr. Henry had talked with the neighbors. Mr. Henry replied that he was exploring the options before approaching the neighbors. Commissioner Peters observed that, without neighborhood cooperation, the chances of a zone change would be slim. Commissioner Anderson agreed. Mr. Henry thanked the Commissioners for their time. Chairman Morse asked if there was any other comment. There was none.
3. NEW BUSINESS (Reports by Commissioners)
The Commissioners had no new business to report.
4. CENTER STREET ESTATES - 800 EAST CENTER STREET - R2 OVERLAY - 6-UNIT TWIN HOME PROJECT
This is a request by Bill Bang for approval of a 6-unit twin home project on one acre on Center Street next to the Murdock Canal.
Mr. Smith noted that Mr. Ryan Christensen, the traffic engineer of JUB Engineering, was not present. It was decided to hold this item temporarily until he arrived. Mr. Tanner was asked if he was ready to present Item 6. He indicated readiness.
6. CANBERRA HILLS, PLAT “V,” LOT 153 - 1296 EAST TETON DRIVE - SUBDIVISION VACATION AND AMENDMENT
This is a request to amend and vacate Canberra Hills, Plat “S,” Lot 150 and create Canberra Hills, Plat “V,” Lot 153.
Mr. Smith presented the area map and explained that this lot has already been created as part of Canberra Hills, Plat “S,” Lot 150. However, the lot was traversed by a FEMA flood plain. FEMA has now amended the flood plain map for this area and removed the flood plain from this lot. In order to remove the designation from the plat, it is necessary to vacate the lot from the previous plat and record an amended plat. He noted that Staff has no problem with the application.
Chairman Morse asked if the Commissioners had any comment. Commissioner Peters confirmed that there were no changes in the boundary lines of the lot. The buildable area was discussed.
COMMISSIONER CARPENTER MOVED TO APPROVE THE REQUEST BY STEVE TANNER TO CREATE A ONE LOT SUBDIVISION BY AMENDING AND VACATING CANBERRA HILLS, PLAT “S,” LOT 150 AND CREATING CANBERRA HILLS, PLAT “V,” LOT 153, AND RECOMMEND APPROVAL TO THE CITY COUNCIL. COMMISSIONER ATCHISON SECONDED THE MOTION. ALL PRESENT VOTED IN FAVOR. THE MOTION CARRIED.
It was noted that Traffic Engineer Ryan Christensen had arrived, so Item #4 was returned to the floor for discussion.
4. CENTER STREET ESTATES - 800 EAST CENTER STREET - R2 OVERLAY - 6-UNIT TWIN HOME PROJECT
This is a request by Bill Bang for approval of a 6-unit twin home project on one acre on Center Street next to the Murdock Canal.
Mr. Smith commented that in response to traffic concerns of the neighborhood, he had instructed the Planning Interns to count the pedestrian traffic on the trail exit on Canal Drive near Center Street. He reported that the highest count is 16 Junior High School students which was taken during the afternoon hours. He asked Mr. Ryan Christensen of JUB Engineers to present his report.
Mr. Christensen reported that the bottom line of his report is that the shoulders that exist on Center Street near 800 East are probably adequate as long as there is no blockage. He added that if parked vehicles use this area that at least one shoulder should remain free at all times. He reported that it appeared that Oak Canyon Junior High Students would be the only school children that would benefit from use of the cutoff. He suggested a policy that Elementary Students not use the trail because of their age. He felt that Junior High Students are older and more aware of the dangers.
Commissioner Carpenter asked how much traffic the R2 Overlay would add to the street. Mr. Christensen replied that the Overlay would add three trips. He explained that he had made some assumptions based on similar types of developments since this project was under consideration and not constructed. Commissioner Simister expressed surprise that the project would only add three trips. Mr. Christensen explained that the subdivision was already approved and the R2 Overlay would only change Lot #10 from a single family to three twin homes. The complete numbers of trips for the subdivision were calculated at 14, the overlay would add three, so the total number of trips is 17. Commissioner Carpenter asked how the peak hours affected the numbers. Mr. Christensen explained that the morning peak hour is 8am, which is after the junior high students are already in school.
Chairman Morse asked if the fence in the road needed anything done to keep traffic away from it. Mr. Christensen suggested that the fence was a natural deterrent to students crossing the street there. He added that he could not see a student choosing to cross by the fence. Chairman Morse asked if the road needed to be made safer for motorists near the fence. Commissioner Anderson commented that he would like to see how the transition that was required as part of the subdivision approval would affect the traffic flow. Mr. Christensen replied that this subject was not addressed in the report, but he felt the fence was an apparent hazard that motorists would avoid. Mr. Smith noted that there were no plans for a sidewalk in the transition. Mr. Olsen suggested that it may be advantageous to place reflectors on the posts. Commissioner Carpenter commented that there were reflectors on the posts now. Commissioner Simister commented that there was no place for the kids to walk through the transition. Mr. Christensen commented that his traffic study only counted five junior high students walking through the transition.
Commissioner Carpenter verified that Mr. Christensen did not think it likely that the students would cross to the south before they passed the end of the fence. Mr. Christensen agreed and noted that the rule of thumb for pedestrians, where there is no sidewalk, is to walk where they face oncoming traffic. He commented that the sensible route is to stay on the north side of the street until 750 East Street and cross there. Chairman Morse suggested that a painted line to designate a pedestrian walkway may help the situation. Commissioner Peters noted that this fence was on a corner. He added that it was not sight obscuring, but wondered if there was an ordinance that dictated distance from a corner or height. Mr. Smith replied that this is not a corner lot, but a corner of a private parcel.
Mrs. Bentley commented that there were more students who cut across her field in warmer seasons. Mr. Christensen acknowledged that his report addressed the fact that more students would walk in better weather. Mr. Gordon VanWagoner commented that kids’ lives were in the balance of this decision. He observed that no one can assume what they will do. Many walk down the middle of the road. He suggested markings on the pavement to designate a walkway. Mr. Dennis Wilson agreed and noted that kids right now shun the sidewalk to walk on the side of the street. Commissioner Simister also agreed that students will walk in the middle of the street and cut across whenever and wherever they desire. Mr. Olsen suggested a crosswalk just past the narrow area. Mr. Curtis Harwood commented that this discussion had centered on the junior high students, but the recommendation for the elementary school children would have no effect unless they were supervised.
Mrs. Holly Whiting commented that she could not imagine that there will be no parked vehicles in front of the residences along the street. Chairman Morse asked Mr. Christensen to comment on this observation. Mr. Christensen replied that some type of restriction on parking needs to be considered. Mrs. Whiting asked Mr. Christensen to explain what assumptions he had based his opinion on. Mr. Christensen explained that the only traffic count he had performed had been in the morning. He had assumed that the afternoon traffic was no worse than the morning traffic. Mrs. Whiting disagreed because the schools all let out at the same time in the afternoon. Mr. Harwood also disagreed because he felt the weekends were the busiest time on the street. He commented that the weekends are when most of the cars were being test driven from the car lots on State Street and more of the neighborhood did their shopping and traveling on the weekend. He considered weekday mornings the slowest traffic of the week.
Commissioner Atchison commented that she would like to play devil’s advocate for just a moment and pose a question to the neighborhood. She pointed out that the subdivision was approved for 10 homes. The overlay project would only add another five homes to the area. She asked if the five extra units were going to make that much of a difference. Mr. VanWagoner confirmed with the developers that this would add five more residences only. Mr. Olsen verified this. He added that the project will be very upscale and nice. Commissioner Peters pointed out that the lot proposed for the project was a one-acre lot and could have been divided into two half-acre lots which would make the total number of lots in the subdivision number eleven. The added lot would have faced Center Street which may have caused problems with the driveway. Based on this premise the project is only adding four extra homes to the neighborhood.
Mr. Wilson commented that the Commission was assuming that Center Street is not going through over the canal at any time in the near future. He commented that when the canal bridge is completed there will be a freeway of cars going to the school and all the traffic from the upper subdivisions will come through this area. Commissioner Carpenter observed that the Commissioners are required to assume that the road will go through by the General Plan. He added that major changes will be needed for the street before the bridge is built. Commissioner Anderson agreed that the street will need major changes before it will go through. He added that the Walkers will need to develop their side of the street and the road will be widened.
Mr. Wilson commented that he felt the five more units would contribute more trips than Mr. Christensen had determined. Mr. Christensen clarified that the extra trips were for the peak hours, not per day. Mr. Roy Shepherd agreed and commented that society today is a “supermarket society.” He added that he realized the neighborhoods to the east of the canal would all like to have more routes to the west, but felt that putting a bridge over the canal would “open a can of worms.” He felt that Center Street is a safety hazard to residents and children unless it is widened and has sidewalks. He suggested that the single family homes in this subdivision would double the traffic and if these duplexes are built, it would triple the traffic on the street because each homeowner would make two trips to the supermarket each day. He added that the present configuration does not leave room to put in a sidewalk. He suggested that the Commission consider something besides a “concentration camp” in the middle of their neighborhood.
Mr. Wilson observed that the numbers of children that were counted walking through the neighborhood would be added to by the number of children that would move into the homes in the subdivision. Mrs. Whiting addressed Commissioner Atchison’s question earlier by saying that the specific problem is the parcel chosen for the R2 Overlay. She felt that the project would concentrate traffic on a street that already has a fence running through it. Mr. Danny Bentley commented that he did not feel that adding ten lots to the neighborhood was safe so adding five more is even less safe. He also questioned whether there was a full 28-feet of width to the street, especially if a sidewalk was continued through the narrow portion. Mr. Olsen observed that the road would be the full 28-feet of width because the developers had been awarded the full 2-feet of width in the condemnation action. He commented that the fence would need to be moved and replaced after the asphalt was complete.
Mr. Bentley commented that he felt the neighborhood was not safe and was being manipulated by the developers and the City. Mr. Smith replied that the City’s position on the project is neutral. That is why the opinion of the Traffic Engineer has been sought, to find answers to the questions the neighborhood has presented. He added that the City is confident of their engineer’s opinions. Mr. Bentley replied that he was not questioning the integrity of the City’s engineer, but he added that the neighborhood has already felt the effects of lower property values. He claimed that the whole community is upset because there are all these reasons why the project should not go in, and the reasons are being ignored or undervalued. He observed that he wanted a neighborhood that he would be proud to live in.
Commissioner Peters observed that he lives on a cul-de-sac similar to this one on Center Street. His cul-de-sac is also master planned to go through to 400 East Street. He also lives at the end like the Bentleys. He commented that recently a developer had approached him to donate his property to finish a sidewalk. He had agreed because it was on the master plan and because he was concerned about safety in his neighborhood. He added that it was hard for him to understand why neighbors who are concerned about safety in their city can put up obstacles and not work together to achieve that safety. He suggested that the attitudes were contradictory.
Mr. Bentley replied that his family put curb, gutter and sidewalk in front of their home. They care about the safety of the neighborhood and it shows. He added though that the things the City requires change from one administration to another. This is what concerns and frustrates him and his family. Commissioner Peters commented that the master plan has shown the street going over the canal for a long time and has not changed. Mr. Bentley pointed out that his parents had been forced to allow for 800 East to go north because that was in the master plan then. However, now the general plan is changed and 800 East will not go through to Canal Drive as originally planned. He objected to being threatened by developers trying to push a subdivision on a neighborhood.
Chairman Morse observed that the question before the Commission is the R2 Overlay, not the subdivision. Mr. Bentley reiterated that what has been approved is not safe. Mr. Wilson commented that he personally thought that adding five more homes is an “accident waiting to happen.” Chairman Morse asked Mr. Smith if the trail into the cul-de-sac was put there at the City’s request. Mr. Smith replied that the purpose of trails is to promote the interconnectivity of neighborhoods. Mrs. Bentley commented that the kids cut through there anyway, so the trail would not change them coming onto Center Street. Chairman Morse agreed but added that the trail would provide a place for them to go that was out of private property.
Mr. Harwood asked who was responsible for paving the Curtis the transition area. Mr. Smith answered that the developer was required to do the paving as part of the subdivision approval process. He added that the requirement did not include a sidewalk. Mr. Harwood asked for an explanation of the City’s criteria for a 28-foot road. Mr. Smith explained that this 28-foot section of street was not a permanent fixture, but an interim solution. It was not intended that this street meet development standards. He explained the standards for local and collector streets.
Commissioner Anderson asked if the other Commissioners agreed that a temporary sidewalk along the transition area would improve pedestrian safety. Mr. Smith noted that this section would need to be torn out to fully improve the street to city specifications at some point in the future. Chairman Morse asked how much of the street was there. Mr. Smith replied that there was half of a street. Commissioner Atchison observed that she felt the sidewalk should be provided.
Commissioner Carpenter observed that the Planning Commission was attempting to balance the concerns of the neighborhood of dense traffic and safety with providing for future growth. He noted that compared to many locations in Lindon, the possibility of “dense traffic” was a minor concern. He observed that no one wants change and that if this were his neighborhood, he would protest also, but he could not see that putting 15 units on a cul-de-sac will turn this street into a major thoroughfare. He noted that the other concern of the neighborhood is safety which may be the greater of the two. Commissioner Carpenter commented on the Planning Commission’s mandate to “allow growth is in a structured fashion that meets the guidelines.” He added that there were no simple solutions, but that he felt that the neighborhood was losing objectivity. He pointed out that the Planning Commission had no obligation to either the developer or the neighborhood, but only to consider the facts as presented objectively.
Mr. Bentley agreed that the city is going to grow. He objected to “bending over backwards to growth.” He noted that he was not opposed to development. He was concerned about safety and the appearance of the community. He suggested that the street be fully finished before any more homes are added to it.
Commissioner Simister observed that she thought she disagreed with Commissioner Carpenter. She commented that she felt the Planning Commissioners had a responsibility as citizens of the community to ensure that the people who live here are protected first. She felt that the proposed development should not cause safety problems. Commissioner Carpenter replied that he agreed with Commissioner Simister.
Chairman Morse asked Mr. Christensen to comment on his summation of ways to mitigate the safety issues, first traffic safety and then children’s safety. Mr. Christensen commented that there seems to be concerns that parking restrictions are not adequate and that, in practice, the snow plow may not push snow beyond the shoulder. He agreed that a reliable solution was needed. He observed that although in theory the shoulders are adequate, in practice the presence of a sidewalk is a better solution. A sidewalk offers more to the community in a sense of safety.
Commissioner Peters asked Mr. Smith if the buildings were required to be set back thirty feet from the right-of-way line. This was confirmed. It was pointed out that one building needed to be moved back either to the east or the south to meet this setback requirement. Commissioner Peters asked if the Uniform Building Code designated the distance requirement between units. This was discussed. Mr. Smith noted that the code allowed less than was shown. Mr. Olsen noted that he expected to have to “tweak” the site plan to meet the requirements.
Commissioner Peters observed that the requirements for parking are 2 ˝ parking spaces per unit. Mr. Olsen replied that the architect had left the parking off and it was just an oversight. The plan was to have the required parking. Commissioner Peters asked if the percentage of open space had been calculated. Mr. Olsen said that the open space was not determined. Mr. Smith commented that he felt the project would have more than 50% open space. Commissioner Peters observed that the requirement is a minimum of 40%. He asked about the specifications for driveways. Mr. Smith replied that this is a conditional use permit and the Planning Commissioner Commission can decide the adequate driveway width. The requirement is no more than 34 feet and no less than 20 feet. Chairman Morse observed that the driveways need to be placed so that the homeowners can see each other to back from their garages. It was noted that the trees shown between the driveways by the architect may not allow clear vision. Chairman Morse noted the fence on the north property line.
Commissioner Peters asked what the final width of 800 East would be when finished. Mr. Smith replied that the right-of-way easement would be 50 feet with 28 feet of asphalt pavement. Commissioner Peters asked the width of Center Street. Mr. Smith replied that where the street fell within the boundaries of the subdivision, Center Street would have a 66-foot right-of-way and 50 feet of asphalt.
Chairman Morse asked Commissioner Peters for his recommendation on the width of the driveway. Commissioner Peters suggested 24 feet would allow for passing. He felt that the driveway should be marked with no parking signs. The Commissioners discussed passing on this application to the City Council with recommendations. Chairman Morse confirmed with the developers that the look of the units will be as presented in the pictures. Mr. Bang replied that the single story units will have the garages in the rear and will face Center Street.
Commissioner Peters observed that Center Street is shown ending short of the property line. Mr. Smith replied that the developers will bond for the remaining section. There was a discussion of the elevation change, the sidewalk on the north side of Center Street, and the curb that will protect the asphalt and provide drainage. Mr. Bang noted that the street would have just enough slope from south to north to send storm water to the catch basin.
Chairman Morse addressed the safety issue. He asked if the Commissioners had any ideas or comments for mitigation of traffic concerns. Commissioner Anderson commented that approving any R2 project is a problem because the neighborhoods do not want them. He added that this project meets the requirements of the city ordinance. His concern is only with the transition area of Center Street. He commented that in the daylight there may be enough width in the transition area. He added that if a sidewalk is required, it may be there for 50 years before the street is widened to full width and it is replaced. He suggested that if additional units are allowed, that some type of sidewalk be required on the transition for the safety of pedestrians.
Commissioner Carpenter asked if there was any way to solve the widening the street in front of the next parcel owned by Hal Richins. The Commissioners discussed safety where the jog in the street occurs. The width of the next parcel was determined estimated at about 150 feet. The total width of the street in the transition area was determined estimated at 31 feet. Commissioner Carpenter noted that 3 feet of sidewalk could be required and still maintain a 28-foot asphalt surface.
Mrs. Bentley commented that Mr. Richins had talked to her about wanting curb and gutter. She suggested that the future street be considered and sidewalk not be put where it will go and a radius be added to the other side like hers. Mr. Smith noted that although the Bentleys would have half of this proposed street, the other half would need to be agreed to by the neighbor, Hal Richins. Mrs. Whiteley pointed out that the requirement for streets without sidewalks was six foot shoulders on the side of the street. Mr. Smith agreed that this is the requirement for fully improved streets without sidewalks. He pointed out that this is only a half street.
Mr. VanWagoner commented that he would like to respond to Commissioner Peters comments on the fence and safety. He observed that safety is his main issue and the fence has created a problem, however, that’s the only way to retain ownership of the property. If he allowed the land to be driven on, it would create a situation where the family doesn’t own it. Mr. Smith agreed that the city and the property owners need to work together for safety and Mr. VanWagoner should not be vilified for protecting his ownership. Mr. VanWagoner expressed his feelings that he was tired of being the bad guy for trying to maintain his privacy and property rights. Ms. Bentley added that the developers changed the use of land and so have responsibility for the fence, not Mr. VanWagoner. She noted that the city had required their family to install 44 feet of asphalt for one house and these developers were only required to have 28 feet. There was a discussion of the street not being deeded to the city.
Chairman Morse asked what the Commissioners suggested for this project. Commissioner Atchison suggested a sidewalk on the north side and pavement striping by the fence. Commissioner Peters suggested no parking signs in front of the units on Center Street. This was discussed and decided that since Center Street would be a full width street in front of these units, the no parking signs were unnecessary.
Mr. Wilson asked why the Planning Commission was rushing this thing through. He suggested that they hold off on approval and assess the safety impact after the homes are constructed in the subdivision. Commissioner Atchison agreed. Mr. Shepherd asked when it will be determined that Center Street needs to be widened and put over the canal. He suggested that allowing a development on a half road was premature because the other half of the road may have to be obtained through condemnation. Chairman Morse agreed that if the City chooses to put the street over the canal, the full width of the street will be needed then, but he expressed the opinion that this would not happen soon.
Mr. Bang pointed out that this development will be less dense with the R2 Overlay than the subdivisions on the other side of the canal. Chairman Morse noted that suggestions had been made to put in a sidewalk and there were concerns about how the project will fit on the lot that can be dealt with in DRC. Commissioner Peters commented that the only reason he could see to have this project come back to the Commission is to require actual elevations of the units. He felt that a motion could be made to the Council with recommendations. Commissioner Anderson agreed.
COMMISSIONER PETERS MOVED TO APPROVE THE REQUEST BY BILL BANG FOR CENTER STREET ESTATES, A 6-UNIT R2 OVERLAY PROJECT AT APPROXIMATELY 800 EAST CENTER STREET AND RECOMMEND APPROVAL TO THE CITY COUNCIL WITH THE FOLLOWING RECOMMENDATIONS:
1) THAT SIDEWALK BE INSTALLED IN THE TRANSITION AREA OF APPROXIMATELY 150 FEET IN LENGTH AND A FULL STANDARD WIDTH.
2) THAT A 28-FOOT WIDTH OF ASPHALT PAVING BE MAINTAINED WITHIN THE TRANSITION.
3) THAT NO PARKING SIGNS BE INSTALLED ON THE TRANSITION SECTION OF CENTER STREET.
4) THAT REFLECTIVE TRAFFIC GUIDING SIGNS BE INSTALLED AT THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF THE FENCE.
5) THAT A DRIVEWAY WIDTH OF 24 FEET WITHIN THE PROJECT BE REQUIRED.
6) THAT A MINIMUM OF 30 FEET OF SETBACK WIDTH BE MAINTAINED FROM 850 EAST STREET.
7) THAT THE PROJECT BE REQUIRED TO HAVE A MINIMUM OF 2 ˝ PARKING SPACES PER UNIT.
8) THAT THE LANDSCAPING WITHIN AND NEAR THE DRIVEWAYS OF THE UNITS NOT BE SIGHT OBSCURING.
9) AND, THAT THE ELEVATIONS OF THE UNITS COMPLY WITH WHAT HAS BEEN PRESENTED.
COMMISSIONER ANDERSON SECONDED THE MOTION. ALL PRESENT VOTED IN FAVOR EXCEPT COMMISSIONER SIMISTER WHO WAS OPPOSED. THE MOTION CARRIED WITH A VOTE OF 5 TO 1.
Mr. Smith noted that this item will probably go to the Council on March 19, 2002. Chairman Morse thanked the residents for their comments and noted that R2 projects are never easy issues to deal with.
5. TIMPANOGOS ACADEMY - 100 EAST CENTER STREET - CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT
This is a request by Leonard Lee for approval of a charter school on lot 2 of Timpanogos Academy Subdivision.
Mr. Smith presented this site plan for a conditional use permit. He suggested that the Planning Commissioners consider the fence on the rear of Lot #1, the traffic circulation plan for drop off and pick up, and staggering starting times with the existing school.
Commissioner Carpenter asked where the primary entrance of the building was located. It was pointed out as facing south. Chairman Morse asked about the traffic circulation plan. Mr. Eric Smith explained that parents would circle one way and teachers would be on hand to escort the students into the building. Chairman Morse asked the numbers using the building. Mr. Eric Smith replied that the 350 students would have 14 teachers and two other full-time employees. Mr. Smith noted that the parking was sufficient to meet the requirements at 40 stalls shown on the site plan. The parents who would be volunteering were also considered for parking needs. Commissioner Carpenter suggested that visitor parking be designated.
Chairman Morse asked the width of the driveways. Mr. Lee was not sure of the exact width but commented that it was wide enough for two vehicles to pass so those who were leaving to could pass those parked.
Mr. Smith noted that the ordinance requires 20 feet of landscaping along the frontage of a street, except in the drive approaches. It was noted that there was extra parking in front, so some of the parking could be eliminated to put in landscaping.
Commissioner Peters asked about parking for special events when parents are invited. Mr. Eric Smith replied that a parking easement was available for parents on the Datapad site. Mr. Lee noted that the easement was also reserved as access for fire engines.
The landscaping requirement was discussed further. Chairman Morse expressed the opinion that all the parking was needed and there was no excess parking. Various solutions were examined. Mr. Eric Smith suggested that the parking could be staggered and adjusted to the north to allow for more parking on the south edge of the driveway.
Commissioner Simister noted that there was no sidewalk along the drop off area. Adding a sidewalk to the edge of the driveway was discussed and decided on.
Chairman Morse asked Mr. Lee to explain the fencing plan. Mr. Lee replied that a chain link fence would be installed along the shared lot line between Lots #1 and #2, and a 6-foot concrete wall will be constructed on the north and east sides of the school site. Commissioner Anderson commented that the concrete wall was required, so why wait on construction of it between Lots #1 and #2. It was discussed that it was unknown at this time which way the home would face and the chain link was a temporary solution. Chairman Morse confirmed that Mr. Lee would be responsible for whatever kind of fence is decided with the future homeowner. Commissioner Anderson suggested that it is better to be specific now. Mr. Lee proposed a 6-foot chain link fence to be installed from the current wall to within 30 feet of the street. This was discussed.
Chairman Morse asked if plans had been made to stagger the school schedules. Mr. Eric Smith replied that Lindon Elementary had been consulting and they were planning a ˝ hour later start time.
Chairman Morse reintroduced the parking issue for the Datapad site. Mr. Smith noted that the engineer needs to specify a parking easement on the Datapad parking lot for overflow. The access easement is to be kept open at all times and the engineer should designate an open lane across the Datapad site. Commissioner Simister asked if the access easement would be in asphalt. Mr. Smith replied that the easement is not required to be asphalted, only traversable. Mr. Lee added that the access easement would be gravel. Commissioner Peters suggested a crash gate with walking access on the easement. Mr. Lee said that he had planned a chain link gate that can be opened. Mr. Eric Smith pointed out that the gate would not need opening very often, just on special occasions.
Chairman Morse asked about lighting. Mr. Lee replied that there would be a street light in the parking area of a single light with two heads and the school itself would have ten wall packs. It was noted that the lighting would need to be shielded so it did not filter into the residential areas. Commissioner Simister asked about responsibility for the school sign lights. Mr. Lee observed that the lights may need moving to make a longer school zone. He thought that the school district may be responsible. Mr. Smith commented that he would check into the ownership and responsibility for the lights.
Chairman Morse asked what Mr. Lee envisioned for the outside of the building. Mr. Lee replied that the construction would be similar to Datapad of concrete tilt-up and earth-tone colors. Chairman Morse asked Mr. Smith what the requirements in the commercial zone were. Mr. Smith read the ordinance and added that the intent is to avoid metal buildings on State Street.
Commissioner Carpenter asked about the power lines that traversed the site. Mr. Lee replied that the power lines were 40 feet above the parking lot. Chairman Morse asked about protection for the poles. Mr. Lee replied that there were no poles in the site.
Chairman Morse asked the location of the dumpster. Mr. Lee showed its location in the end of the parking lot. Chairman Morse asked if there were further questions or any public comment. There was none.
COMMISSIONER ANDERSON MOVED TO APPROVE THE REQUEST BY LEONARD LEE FOR A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR TIMPANOGOS ACADEMY AT APPROXIMATELY 100 EAST CENTER STREET AND RECOMMEND APPROVAL TO THE CITY COUNCIL WITH THE FOLLOWING RECOMMENDATIONS:
1) THAT THE PARKING CONFIGURATION RETAIN A MINIMUM OF 32 PARKING STALLS.
2) THAT A SIDEWALK BE ADDED TO THE DROP OFF AREA BETWEEN THE TWO ENTRY DOORS.
3) THAT THE STARTING TIME FOR THE SCHOOL BE STAGGERED ˝ HOUR LATER THAN LINDON ELEMENTARY.
4) THAT THE FENCE ON THE REAR OF LOT #1 BE A TEMPORARY SIX FOOT CHAIN LINK FENCE UNTIL THE FUTURE PROPERTY OWNER DECIDES ON AN ALTERNATIVE.
5) THAT ALL LIGHTING ON THE BUILDING BE SHIELDED FROM NEIGHBORING RESIDENTIAL AREAS.
6) THAT A TRAFFIC CIRCULATION PLAN BE DEVELOPED AND FOLLOWED THAT USES RIGHT ONLY TURNS.
7) THAT AN OVERFLOW PARKING EASEMENT BE RECORDED ON THE DATAPAD SITE AND THE ACCESS AND EMERGENCY EASEMENT FROM THE CUL-DE-SAC BE CONTINUOUSLY ACCESSIBLE.
8) THAT THE EXISTING SCHOOL ZONE BE EVALUATED AND EXPANDED AS DETERMINED.
9) THAT 20 FEET OF LANDSCAPING BE ADDED TO ALL DEDICATED FRONTAGE ALONG THE CUL-DE-SAC.
10) AND, THAT THE BUILDINGS BE CONSTRUCTED AS THE ELEVATIONS APPEAR.
COMMISSIONER CARPENTER SECONDED THE MOTION. ALL PRESENT VOTED IN FAVOR. THE MOTION CARRIED.
7. BUNNELL/WINTERTON TRIPLEXES - 770 WEST 200 SOUTH - CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT - R2 OVERLAY
This is a request for approval of 2 triplexes on the southeast corner of the intersection of 800 West and 200 South.
It was explained that Item #7 had requested a continuance.
8. WASATCH U-CART - 240 NORTH GENEVA ROAD - CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT
This is a request for site plan approval.
Mr. Smith presented this request for a conditional use permit to locate a small batch ready-mix concrete business on Geneva Road. Chairman Morse asked if this request was a permanent or temporary conditional use permit. Mr. Smith replied that the office trailer on the site would be temporary. Mr. Eric Maynes described his business. Commissioner Anderson asked if the Planning Commission could allow a temporary building on a conditional use permit. Mr. Smith replied that they can allow a semipermanent building on a conditional use with stipulations and a time limit. Mr. Maynes observed that he anticipated using the trailer for two years. Mr. Smith commented that the Commission could require a condition of two years to build a permanent office and remove the trailer. Chairman Morse asked what Mr. Maynes plans were if the two years passed and he did not get the business he anticipated. Would he still build the permanent office as required? Mr. Maynes replied that he planned to build within two years anyway because he could lease the building out to tenants.
Chairman Morse asked Mr. Maynes if the landscaping would be done now. Mr. Maynes replied yes. The landscaping was examined and discussed. The low fence along the street was noted. The storage of materials, carts, and parking requirements were discussed. Mr. Maynes showed how his materials were stored in concrete bins, and his carts enclosed in a fenced and graveled area. The staging area would be graveled also. Commissioner Peters asked about the disposition of left over concrete. Mr. Maynes replied that it was stockpiled and then sent back to the manufacturer to re-crush.
Commissioner Carpenter asked about the aesthetics of the mixer and gravel piles. Mr. Maynes replied that he planned a berm on the back side of the sidewalk to obscure the mixing area. There were concrete stem walls around the piles of materials. Commissioner Carpenter asked how the site would appear to people passing by on Geneva Road. Mr. Maynes replied that it would appear to be organized. He had a shed he planned to install over the material piles that would obscure them from the back, but that they would be open to view from Geneva Road.
Commissioner Carpenter asked Mr. Maynes’ plans for the future building area. Mr. Maynes replied that it would be graveled for now. Commissioner Carpenter asked about the storage of equipment. Mr. Maynes replied that he had an extra loader, a powder trailer, and hoped to add a dump truck eventually.
Commissioner Simister asked why Mr. Maynes was constructing his site all along the rear of the property. Mr. Maynes explained that he preferred to keep the operations on the rear of the lot and use the open middle area for staging. He added that the staging area would be paved when the building was completed.
Chairman Morse asked how many parking spaces by the office were planned and how many employees he had. Mr. Maynes replied that he had two employees and customer parking was limited to the front of the lot. Mr. Smith added that the requirements were met.
Commissioner Peters commented that Mr. Maynes had a reputation for keeping a clean yard. He could see no concerns on his part. Commissioner Anderson suggested that the materials storage bays be turned to the south rather than west, so they face the mixer rather than the street. Mr. Maynes replied that he could not change the way the bins were lined up because of his equipment.
COMMISSIONER PETERS MOVED TO APPROVE THE REQUEST BY ERIC MAYNES FOR A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR WASATCH U-CART AT 240 NORTH GENEVA ROAD WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS:
1) THAT THE TEMPORARY BUILDING BE ALLOWED FOR A MAXIMUM OF TWO YEARS FROM TODAY.
COMMISSIONER ANDERSON SECONDED THE MOTION. ALL PRESENT VOTED IN FAVOR. THE MOTION CARRIED.
2) SIMMONS OUTDOOR ADVERTISING - 270 SOUTH 1060 WEST
This is a request to reconstruct a legal non-conforming billboard.
Ms. Windy McLean was present to represent Simmons Advertising. Mr. Smith explained that this is an interesting situation. He had received a request for a building permit to modify an existing legal non-conforming billboard by moving the pole to make it a flag style billboard. The purpose of the building permit is to allow the property owner to use the ground underneath the sign. He read the ordinance pertaining to modification of non-conforming signs to the Commission. He then explained that the billboard can be maintained, but noted that it sounds as if the lease has expired and this billboard is being voluntarily removed by the owner of property and replaced by a competing sign company billboard. He added that the goal of the present sign ordinance is to remove some of the billboards from Lindon’s freeway frontage. The question is whether to allow the reconstruction of the sign.
Ms. McLean addressed the Commission and said that the first reason Lindon should allow the reconstruction of the sign is because the building permit was issued. The sign company has ordered and had a structure delivered and spent about $40,000 on that structure based on the building permit being issued. There are also other costs such as legal fees and commissions, and loss of revenue. She said there are four reasons that the City should recognize the permit as valid. The second is that State law declares that a legal non-conforming use be continued. She declared that an affidavit has been given that Simmons Advertising and Mr. Christensen are not enlarging the use, just continuing it. The third reason is that the City is not allowing the property owner to use his property. Not allowing the property owner to modify the sign restricts his use of the property under the sign. The fourth reason is that denying the permit is a taking of use. She read an excerpt from the State Code.
Chairman Morse asked if the City was aware of all the information at issue when the permit was applied for. Mr. Smith explained that when the application was received, he asked specifically if only the pole was being moved. He was not told that the complete structure would be removed and replaced by a different sign company’s structure. Commissioner Carpenter asked if Mr. Smith felt his question was misunderstood or if he was mislead. Mr. Smith answered that he is not a structural engineer and to be sure of what Simmons was asking for he asked various times if all they were doing is moving the pole. Ms. McLean indicated that all they were doing was moving the pole. Ms. McLean also affirmed that she is not a contractor and did not understand herself. She claimed a misunderstanding.
Mr. Smith commented that the purpose of his question to Ms. McLean was to make sure that all the permit allowed is the moving of the pole, not the replacement of the whole structure. Commissioner Carpenter confirmed that the misunderstanding occurred in Mr. Smith’s perceiving that only the pole would be moved and that the sign was not being reconstructed.
Mr. Smith added that it was brought to his attention that the lease was expiring and that the landowner was voluntarily removing the previous sign and replacing it with a totally new sign from another sign company. He felt that this changes the complexion of the permit issuance and issued a hold. Ms. McLean stated that the State Law allows a continuing use of a billboard and that this holding of the permit falls under takings law.
Mr. Jared Fry, City Attorney, replied that if the City required the landowner to take the sign down then it would be a taking. The City has not required them to take the sign down. They have chosen to remove it and are attempting to replace it. He added that once it comes down, it ceases to be a use. He declared that the Landowner has a choice. Commissioner Carpenter clarified that the landowner’s choice is to continue the lease and use it as is, or have it removed and have full use of the property.
Mr. Paul Magleby, a nearby property owner, told the Commission that he owns the sister to this billboard and he is in the same situation as Mr. Darrell Christensen, the landowner. He said that the City is forcing the property owners to stay with the original sign company, Viacom. He inherited his lease from a previous owner. The City changed the ordinance and made the sign non-conforming. He said that the City is causing a hardship on the property owners because the leases auto renew for a period of 10 years if they are not renegotiated. He said that the owners cannot renegotiate if they can’t change the signs. He added that “this is big money” and sign sites can be sold for as much as $120,000.
Chairman Morse noted that Lindon had a lot of billboards and asked if this was good for the City. Mr. Magleby pointed out that many motorists pass by these signs and the signs are used to sell Lindon businesses also. Commissioner Carpenter commented that it is not an issue of whether the Planning Commissioner’s personally like or dislike billboards. The intent of the ordinance is to reduce the number of signs in the community. This is a legal opportunity for the City to accomplish this goal. The property owner has the choice to “leave it up or it goes,” unless he can demonstrate special circumstances. Mr. Magleby observed that the owner needs the parking. Commissioner Carpenter added that the Commission needs to also look at the precedence that may be established by allowing a billboard to be replaced in this manner. Mr. Smith pointed out that the sign is being voluntarily removed at the landowner’s request, not the City’s requirement.
Commissioner Peters asked if the statement on the bottom of the permit was there when Mr. Smith reviewed the application. Mr. Smith said that the statement “Replace existing structure with a full flag structure so landowner develop property,” was there. That was what had prompted his question to Ms. McLean initially before the permit was issued. She had assured him that they were moving the pole only. That is the reason Mr. Smith wrote on the permit application “Pole Relocation Only.”
Commissioner Simister asked for a review of what makes a structure non-conforming. Mr. Smith replied that the distance between signs is required to be 800 feet under the current ordinance. These signs were constructed at a distance of less than 800 feet. As a non-conforming use is discontinued, it would allow the removal of some signs along the freeway corridor. Ms. McLean said that it is apparent that Lindon welcomes billboards because there are many in use, however, this is an attempt to deny a landowner the use of his property. Mr. Smith asserted that he is welcome to continue his non-conforming use. Mr. Magleby noted that he was in negotiation with the sign companies right now and would like to be able to change companies and signs also. Ms. McLean added that billboards bring extra income to property owners. Mr. Magleby noted that not allowing the property owners to negotiate eliminates competition in the sign business.
Ms. McLean reiterated that denying the permit places a hardship on the property owner and the sign company because of the money that has already been spent. She added that Lindon does allow billboards and the State dictates that non-conforming uses must continue. She asserted that they are not expanding the use, just modifying it. Chairman Morse asked how many non-conforming billboards are in Lindon. Mr. Smith replied that there are 18 total and probably nine or so are non-conforming. Ms. McLean asserted that the sign will not be removed. All the City will accomplish is denying the property owner the right to use his property.
Chairman Morse asked if the Planning Commission decision is final, or if they are making a recommendation to the Council. Mr. Smith replied that although the Planning Commission can make the decision, the applicant can appeal to the City Council. Ms. McLean pointed out that the property owner wants to use his property. Mr. Christensen observed that if the City wants to give him $125,000 the sign can be removed. Mr. Magleby agreed.
Chairman Morse asked if the Commissioners understand the situation. Mr. Smith pointed out that non-conforming signs are allowed to be repaired and maintained. This one is being voluntarily removed. He added that he knows that the property owner and the sign company disagree with this assessment. He suggested that if the applicant continues to threaten litigation we should adjourn to consult with legal counsel before proceeding.
Chairman Morse confirmed that the sign would have the exact same footprint; the pole would be moved 25 feet and the lease would be in another name. Commissioner Simister commented that the issue is whether this application is a continuing non-conforming use. She added that the City is not responsible to make sure that the property owner is making money. Mr. Smith suggested that if the Commissioners cannot find a hardship to allow the permit that they deny it. Commissioner Peters asked if there were any costs that are not recoverable by the sign company. The manager of Simmons Advertising said that hauling costs, legal fees, commissions paid, loss of revenue and printing charges would total in the mid-twenties. Mr. Smith pointed out that cost is not a hardship that the Planning Commission can consider. The manager noted that their competitor, Viacom, has a monopoly. The structure is non-conforming and if the Planning Commission decides that when it is moved it loses that right, the property owner will lose the additional revenue and the sign company will not get a return on their investment. He added that the moratorium on billboards drives their value up. He observed that Simmons would not have ordered the structure if the permit had not been issued.
Chairman Morse asked Mr. Smith if staff felt the sign company and property owner should be allowed to modify. Mr. Smith observed that he personally did not have strong feelings on whether it stays. His job is to interpret the sign ordinance and it seems clear to him, and the City Attorney, that it was important to know what information was available when the permit was issued. This information changes everything, but he did note that it was probably not done intentionally.
Mr. Magleby suggested that the Commissioners discuss the hardship on the property owner of not having the property under the sign to use. Mr. Smith replied that the sign ordinance would have to be amended to allow this kind of change to a non-conforming sign. The City’s goal is to reduce the number of non-conforming signs in Lindon. Ms. McLean commented that the sign is not the present property owner’s fault. Mr. Smith replied that the City is not making him move it either. Ms. McLean could see no harm to the City if the sign remained. Commissioner Carpenter replied that harm will result to the City if precedent is set that is contrary to the intent of the ordinance. He added that most of the reasons presented tonight have not convinced him that the sign should be allowed to be changed. The manager of Simmons Advertising commented that the hardship is forcing the property owner to accept less than the maximum revenue possible. Commissioner Simister replied that assuring revenue is not the City’s responsibility. Their responsibility is to all the citizens of Lindon, not one property owner.
Chairman Morse commented that the property owner is not really creating a materially different sign. He asked, “What does is the Council want us to do Council’s intent for non-conforming billboards.” Ms. McLean commented that the pole will not be seen from the freeway. Mr. Smith suggested that the Commissioners could continue this discussion and seek advice from the Council. Chairman Morse agreed with this suggestion. Ms. McLean commented that the signs advertise Lindon City businesses too. Mr. Smith replied that most of the signs are off premise advertising.
Commissioner Peters observed that he could see a problem with the building permit being issued. He felt that the City was under an obligation to honor the permit. He added that he could not totally understand the differences in the points of view. Commissioner Peters felt that just because Mr. Magleby wanted to do the same thing that this is a not reason for not allowing this one. Commissioner Simister asked Commissioner Peters if he felt that all the signs in Lindon can be modified similarly, or just this one. Commissioner Peters observed that he could see no special circumstances, but it will not adversely affect the general Plan and is in the spirit of the sign ordinance. He could see no difference in the sign if left as is, or made into a flagpole design. Commissioner Carpenter agreed that issuing the building permit was an error on the part of the department. Mr. Smith commented that the pole relocation is the result of the lease changing. Commissioner Carpenter asked if he the City was told that a totally new sign was being installed. Mr. Smith replied that he was told that the pole only was being moved. He suggested that the Commissioners make a recommendation to the Council. Commissioner Anderson agreed and observed that it was up to the Council to make an interpretation of the ordinance. Commissioner Peters commented that if the Planning Commission approves the permit, they are done. Commissioner Anderson felt that the Council should make the decision.
Commissioner Carpenter clarified that the intent of the ordinance is to make all the billboards in Lindon no closer together than 800 feet. Mr. Smith agreed and added that there is no other way of removing those signs unless the owner does so voluntarily. Commissioner Anderson commented that he was not against billboards and would like to have signs on his freeway frontage. He observed that the property owner bought the property with the pole in the middle and not allowing a change is not fair business practice. He also suggested passing to the Council for a decision because he could not see how to make it work to fit the ordinance. Commissioner Carpenter agreed.
Commissioner Peters observed that his biggest problem is with the issuance of the permit and the possible lawsuit over the monetary liability. Because of the permit, he felt that this particular billboard is a special circumstance. Mr. Jamie Evans introduced himself as the person that brought the lease changing to Mr. Smith’s attention because he wanted the same rights to change a billboard. Mr. Smith noted that he was not told that the owner was voluntarily taking the board down to change the lease company.
Chairman Morse commented that this is the City’s opportunity to reduce the number of billboards if that is the intent of the ordinance. Ms. McLean said that the changing of the lease is the property owner’s opportunity. The Commissioners discussed asking for an interpretation of the ordinance and the amount of delay time that may entail for a decision. Chairman Morse explained to the applicants that policy issues should be decided by the elected body, the Council. This issue seems to conflict with the ordinance and yet there are issues with the landowners. The Planning Commissioner wishes to be sensitive to both sides and yet the ordinance’s intent seems to dictate control of the number of billboards.
The manager of Simmons commented that they would be “out a chunk of change” because of the building permit being issued. Chairman Morse commented that the building permit had not been denied, just continued to obtain more information from the Council.
COMMISSIONER PETERS MOVED TO APPROVE THE REQUEST BY SIMMONS OUTDOOR ADVERTISING FOR A NON-CONFORMING SIGN MODIFICATION TO ALLOW RECONSTRUCTION OF A BILLBOARD BASED ON THE FOLLOWING FINDINGS:
1) A HARDSHIP HAS BEEN CREATED BECAUSE OF SIMMONS ACTED IN GOOD FAITH IN DUE TO THE ISSUANCE OF A BUILDING PERMIT.
2) THERE ARE SPECIAL CIRCUMSTANCES BECAUSE THE BUILDING PERMIT WAS ISSUED.
3) ALLOWING THE SIGN TO BE CHANGED WILL NOT ADVERSELY AFFECT THE GENERAL PLAN BECAUSE SIGNS HAVE BEEN ALLOWED IN THE PAST, AND THE BASIC FOOTPRINT OF THIS SIGN IS NOT CHANGED.
4) THE SPIRIT OF THE ORDINANCE IS OBSERVED AND SUBSTANTIAL JUSTICE WILL BE DONE.
COMMISSIONER ANDERSON SECONDED THE MOTION. THE VOTE IS RECORDED AS: TWO COMMISSIONERS VOTED AYE (COMMISSIONERS ANDERSON AND PETERS), TWO THREE COMMISSIONERS VOTED NAY (COMMISSIONERS SIMISTER AND CARPENTER AND CHAIRMAN MORSE) AND TWO COMMISSIONERS ONE COMMISSIONER ABSTAINED (CHAIRMAN MORSE AND COMMISSIONER ATCHISON). THE MOTION FAILED.
COMMISSIONER SIMISTER MOVED TO MODIFY THE PREVIOUS MOTION TO REFER TO THE COUNCIL FOR MORE INFORMATION ON THE INTENT OF THE SIGN ORDINANCE. COMMISSIONER ATCHISON SECONDED THE MOTION. FOUR COMMISSIONERS VOTED AYE (COMMISSIONERS CARPENTER, ATCHISON, MORSE AND SIMISTER). COMMISSIONER ANDERSON SUGGESTED THAT THE MOTION BE AMENDED TO ALLOW THE COUNCIL TO MAKE THE FINAL DECISION IF THEY SO DESIRE. COMMISSIONER SIMISTER ACCEPTED THE AMENDMENT. COMMISSIONER CARPENTER SECONDED THE AMENDMENT. ALL PRESENT VOTED IN FAVOR EXCEPT COMMISSIONER PETERS WHO VOTED NAY. THE MOTION CARRIED.
3) PLANNING DIRECTOR’S REPORT - Status report on the following:
1) March APA Conference in Moab - Not too late to sign up.
Mr. Smith asked if anyone else was planning to attend the APA Conference in Moab. Commissioner Peters affirmed his desire to attend.
Mr. Smith announced a joint (Planning Commission and City Council )URMMA Training meeting for April. Several dates were suggested and April 3 was decided as a possibility.
Mr. Smith noted that ULCT Certified Citizen Planner Training was available. It consists of a Friday and Saturday seminar. There is one scheduled May 17-18 at the Provo City Library or in March in Ivins, Utah. Commissioners Carpenter, Atchison and Chairman Morse expressed interest in the May seminar. Commissioner Peters expressed interest in the March seminar.
ADJOURN
THE COMMISSIONERS ADJOURNED BY CONSENSUS AT 11:40 P.M.
APPROVED - March 13, 2002
_______________________________________
Loren Morse, Chairman
Attest,
_______________________________________
Kevin Smith, Planning Director |
|
|
