|
|
Home » City Government » Planning Commission » Minutes Archive; 2000 - 2002 » Planning Commission Minutes 2002 » July 10, 2002
July 10, 2002
The Lindon City Planning Commission held a regularly scheduled meeting on Wednesday, July 10, 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: Lori Atchison
PRESENT
Loren Morse, Chairman
Ron Anderson, Commissioner (arrived at 7:19 p.m.)
Lori Atchison, Commissioner
Bruce Carpenter, Commissioner
Jim Peters, Commissioner
Marilyn Simister, Commissioner
Dustin Sweeten, Commissioner
Lindsey Bayless, Councilmember
Kevin Smith, Planning Director
Venla Gubler, Administrative Clerk
Karen Devine, Planning Intern
Robert Hammond, Planning Intern
ABSENT
The Meeting began at 7:07 P.M.
1. MINUTES
Review of the Minutes of June 12, 2002.
The Minutes of the regularly scheduled meeting of June 12, 2002 were reviewed. The following corrections were made:
Page 3, Line27: Move the quotation marks from after the word “ordinance” to after the word “complaint.”
COMMISSIONER CARPENTER MOVED TO APPROVE THE MINUTES OF THE REGULARLY SCHEDULED MEETING OF JUNE 12, 2002 AS CORRECTED. COMMISSIONER PETERS SECONDED THE MOTION. ALL PRESENT VOTED IN FAVOR. THE MOTION CARRIED.
2. PUBLIC COMMENT
Mr. Mark Walker, of the Walkers gas station/convenience store chain, told the Planning Commissioners that they are planning a $3.5 million reconstruction of their site on the Lindon/Pleasant Grove border. He presented a tentative site plan showing the locations of the car wash, new office building, maintenance bays, fuel islands and a Walkers/Wendy’s combination gas/convenience store and a fast-food restaurant. He noted that the business would occupy the corner of State Street and the new 700 North. In an attempt to hurry the approval process, he showed the Commissioners the proposed two 50-foot entrances on 700 North for their opinion. He explained how their fuel transports and customers would use the entrances. Mr. Smith explained that the City Engineer was concerned with the proximity of the entrances to the intersection. The distance from the intersection to the east entrance was revealed to be about 200 feet. The particulars of the street, design speed, arterial designation, number of lanes, and possible use were discussed.
(Commissioner Anderson arrived at 7:19 p.m.)
Chairman Morse asked what the recommended distance from the intersection is. Mr. Smith replied that the recommended distance is 400 feet. Commissioner Peters suggested that the east entrance be closed. Mr. Walker objected to this closure, saying that his customers will be inconvenienced. Commissioner Carpenter expressed a concern that the curve in 700 North made accessing 700 North more dangerous. Commissioner Peters suggested making a left turn onto 700 North illegal. Mr. Walker expressed his preference for letting his customers choose whether they wish to turn right or left. He noted that people would probably not read the signs put there anyway. Commissioner Sweeten commented that there was not much of a curve there.
Commissioner Carpenter discussed a similar situation on 1600 North in Orem. Mr. Smith observed that ASHTO standards are recommendations. He also noted that until the 700 North corridor develops more, there won’t be the heavy traffic to contend with until some time in the future. Commissioner Anderson suggested that the Commission approve the approaches for now, and then deal with a possible traffic hazard if it develops in the future. Mr. Walker cautioned the Commissioners to not regard standards too highly because they are guidelines only. Sometimes a different situation calls for a different solution to protect the citizens.
Commissioner Peters asked the intended use of the parking spaces between the two entrances. Mr. Walker explained that the parking was intended for the use of Wendy’s customers. He showed the Commissioners the drive-through stacking plan and the additional parking required for the restaurant. Commissioner Sweeten observed that the customers will need to have access to the front of the store so he could not recommend that the east entrance be eliminated. Mr. Walker added that directing all the traffic to the west entrance would also hinder the drive-through. Commissioner Peters commented on the possibly awkward design of the fuel island. Mr. Walker described the design and how it would facilitate the fueling process. Commissioner Peters asked if the site would include a RV dump. Mr. Walker indicated that it was planned to be part of the design.
Commissioner Simister observed that she could see no problem with approving the design as is and dealing with possible problems in the future. Commissioners Atchison and Sweeten agreed. Commissioner Anderson suggested that if a traffic hazard develops in the future, the Walkers agree to work with the City on a solution. Mr. Walker asked if a written agreement was needed years in advance of a possible problem. Mr. Smith answered that it can be noted in the minutes that a possible safety hazard may occur, and that it was discussed. Commissioner Carpenter observed that he was “not overly distressed” with the present plan. It presents some challenges that he believes can be overcome. Mr. Walker asked if the Commissioners were agreeable enough for him to finalize his plans. Chairman Morse observed that there seemed to be enough of a consensus for Mr. Walker to go ahead with the general design.
Chairman Morse asked if there were other comments from the public. There were none.
3. NEW BUSINESS (Reports by Commissioners)
Commissioner Peters asked if there had been any progress on lowering the posted speed on partially developed streets. Mr. Smith replied that nothing had been discussed so far. Chairman Morse asked if there were other reports from Commissioners. There were none.
4. MCMILLAN/PEAY ZONE CHANGE APPLICATION - 70 SOUTH 800 WEST - R1-20 (RESIDENTIAL) TO LIGHT INDUSTRIAL
This is a request by the property owners to change the zoning for the rear portion of their property to Light Industrial from the current designation of R1-20. This request is consistent with the General Plan Land Use Map.
Mr. Ken McMillan was present. Mr. Wayne Peay was out of town. Mr. Smith presented this application for a zone change. He explained that Mr. Steve Larson of S&L Construction desires to purchase the McMillan’s and Peay’s back lots to expand his business. Commissioner Peters asked if all access to this property would be from Mr. Larson’s business on Center Street. Mr. Smith replied yes. He added that the zone change request is consistent with the General Plan. Commissioner Anderson asked how the General Plan shows the demarcation line between the Light Industrial zone and the R1-20 zone. Mr. Smith showed this on an overhead transparency. Chairman Morse commented that the applicants’ back property has little practical use in its current form. Mr. Smith agreed and showed the Commissioners that if Mr. Larson does not buy the property as anticipated, access may be from Geneva Road through the truss plant or from a business on 200 South. Access was discussed. Commissioner Peters observed that access to this parcel may be a self-imposed hardship that the Commission has no control over. Chairman Morse confirmed with Mr. McMillan that his neighbors to the south between his parcel and 200 South do not want to be involved in this zone change. Mr. McMillan agreed.
COMMISSIONER PETERS MOVED TO APPROVE THE REQUEST BY KENNETH MCMILLAN AND WAYNE PEAY FOR A ZONE CHANGE, CHANGING THE REAR PORTION OF THEIR PROPERTY AT APPROXIMATELY 70 SOUTH 800 WEST FROM R1-20 TO LI AS PER EXHIBIT A AND RECOMMEND APPROVAL TO THE CITY COUNCIL WITH THE RECOMMENDATION THAT FUTURE ACCESS FOR A LIGHT INDUSTRIAL USE NOT BE ALLOWED THROUGH THE RESIDENTIAL ZONE. COMMISSIONER ANDERSON SECONDED THE MOTION. ALL PRESENT VOTED IN FAVOR. THE MOTION CARRIED.
5. LDS CHURCH - RE-APPROVAL OF CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AND SUBDIVISION PLAT - 600 NORTH 50 EAST
The applicants would like the City to re-approve the site plan and subdivision plat. It has been almost a year from the previous approval date and after one year the site plan and subdivision plat expire. It appears that the Church will begin construction with the coming year.
Mr. Roger Knell of Knell Architects was present to represent the LDS Church. Mr. Smith explained that the Commissioners and City Councilmembers have already approved both the site plan and conditional use permit, however, they have expired and need re-approval to allow the LDS Church to begin construction. Mr. Knell confirmed that the LDS Church has budgeted the funds to immediately start construction upon approval. The expiration of the conditional use permit was explained and the conditions on the previous approval were read.
Commissioner Carpenter observed that most of the conditional use permit concerns were on the traffic. Commissioner Peters agreed and commented that the LDS Stake that would occupy the building would mostly access 600 North Street from the west end. He also expressed a concern about access to the residential homes during construction of the street. He noted that 600 North is presently a half street with 35 children less than eight years of age in the neighborhood. He suggested that access for construction vehicles be limited to the east end of 600 North. He also expressed concern about construction on the west end of 600 North and how it will affect the daily travel of the residents. Construction plans for the area were discussed. Commissioner Peters asked about speed bumps for 600 North.
The discussion turned to the site plan. Mr. Knell noted that the Stake President had requested more parking, so ten parking spaces had been added to the east edge of the parking lot by the pavilion. Commissioner Peters asked if the pavilion was still a future addition to the site. Mr. Knell replied yes. Chairman Morse questioned the use of the sheds. Mr. Knell explained that three of the sheds would be for the use of the wards and one shed would be reserved for facilities management storage. The style of the Stake Center was disclosed and discussed.
COMMISSIONER PETERS MOVED TO RE-APPROVE THE REQUEST BY THE CHURCH OF JESUS CHRIST OF LATTER DAY SAINTS FOR A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AND SUBDIVISION PLAT FOR THE PREVIOUSLY REVIEWED AND APPROVED STAKE CENTER AT 50 EAST 600 NORTH AND RECOMMEND RE-APPROVAL TO THE CITY COUNCIL WITH THE FOLLOWING RECOMMENDATIONS:
1) THAT THE CITY CONSIDER INSTALLING TRAFFIC CALMING MEASURES AT THE TIME OF ROAD CONSTRUCTION AND UTILITY EXTENSION,
2) THAT ACCESS FOR CONSTRUCTION EQUIPMENT BE LIMITED TO 200 EAST,
3) THAT THE CITY COORDINATE THE IMPROVEMENTS OF THE WEST END OF 600 NORTH WITH THE CONSTRUCTION OF THE CHURCH TO ALLOW MINIMALLY INTERRUPTED ACCESS FOR RESIDENTS, AND
4) THAT THE ADDITIONAL TEN PARKING SPACES BE APPROVED.
COMMISSIONER ATCHISON SECONDED THE MOTION. ALL PRESENT VOTED IN FAVOR. THE MOTION CARRIED.
6. PUBLIC HEARING - DEAN BERANEK - 1114 EAST 135 SOUTH - EXPANSION OF A NONCONFORMING USE
This is a request by the property owner for an expansion of his legal non-conforming home. Mr. Beranek desires to construct a room on the back of the home which will extend 4 feet into the 30-foot required rear yard setback. This home is part of the Kirkland Estates PUD approved in 1982.
Mr. Smith displayed a plat map of the lot and explained that this subdivision had been approved as a planned unit development in 1982. He noted that many of the lots in this subdivision are nonconforming lots and have less than the minimum square feet and/or less setback than is required by the current code. He informed the Commissioners that there is a specific section of the City Code that pertains to expanding a nonconforming use. Mr. Beranek has applied to add on a room to the back of his house. He pointed out that there is a high retaining wall on the back of the property that adjoins the LDS Chapel there.
The ordinance was read aloud and discussed.
COMMISSIONER PETERS MOVED TO OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING. COMMISSIONER CARPENTER SECONDED THE MOTION. ALL PRESENT VOTED IN FAVOR. THE MOTION CARRIED.
The Commissioners discussed the home and lot with Mr. Beranek. It was disclosed that Mr. Beranek wishes to enclose his existing, covered deck. The neighboring parcels were described and it was determined that there would be no visual impact.
COMMISSIONER ANDERSON MOVED TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. COMMISSIONER PETERS SECONDED THE MOTION. ALL PRESENT VOTED IN FAVOR. THE MOTION CARRIED.
COMMISSIONER ATCHISON MOVED TO APPROVE THE REQUEST BY DEAN BERANEK FOR AN EXPANSION OF A LEGAL NONCONFORMING USE ALLOWING A FOUR FOOT ENCROACHMENT ON THE REQUIRED THIRTY FOOT REAR YARD SETBACK FOR THE PROPERTY AT 1114 EAST 135 SOUTH. COMMISSIONER SIMISTER SECONDED THE MOTION. ALL PRESENT VOTED IN FAVOR. THE MOTION CARRIED.
7. EVE HANSON - 137 NORTH 550 EAST - DESIGN REVIEW FOR DEEP LOT PROPOSAL
Ms. Hanson would like the Planning Commission to review a potential plan for creation of a deep lot to the rear of her home in County Villa Estates, Plat “C,” lot 16 & 17.
It was determined that the applicant was not present. Mr. Smith explained that Ms. Eve Hanson is proposing a deep lot made up of a portion of her lot and the neighboring lot to build a home for her elderly parents. He displayed a plat map of the subdivision and an aerial photo on which he had sketched the proposed deep lot. He informed the Commission that he would like an interpretation of the deep lot ordinance from their perspective. He added that it is staff’s opinion that this proposal is not applicable to the ordinance.
Commissioner Peters noted that clause 3c pertains to the twenty-five-foot driveway. Commissioner Carpenter suggested that the residents in this neighborhood had purchased extra large lots purposely, and that this particular neighbor is now willing to give up their large lot for the sake of their elderly parents. He suggested that this was the situation that was trying to be avoided by the ordinance. Commissioner Anderson asked how this request was any different from one of the older lots in town requesting to split their parcel. Chairman Morse commented that this interpretation would allow anyone who owned an acre to split it in half. Mr. Smith explained that the deep lot ordinance was created only recently to allow the development of older lots created before the subdivision ordinance was adopted.
Commissioner Simister asked if the R2 Overlay ordinance could be an option. Commissioner Peters questioned having detached apartments on large lots. Councilmember Bayless agreed that the Council was not favorable to splitting the ownership of a large lot and felt that it was skirting the requirements of the zoning. That would be putting two houses on a lot that was originally intended to only have one, and does not fit what the deep lot, R2 Overlay and residential ordinances are trying to accomplish. She noted that it seemed to her that this seven-lot subdivision had been created purposely with large, more attractive lots to appeal to a certain market. Commissioner Sweeten agreed that the lots had probably been purchased because of their large size and that the neighborhood would probably not like this proposal to increase the density of their neighborhood. Commissioner Atchison agreed and expressed the opinion that she felt the proposal did not conform with the intent of the ordinance. The Commissioners agreed.
8. ZONING ORDINANCE AMENDMENT - 18.04. AND .05. - SIGN ORDINANCE
The Planning Commission will review, discuss and possibly make a recommendation to the City Council to amend provisions of the Lindon City Sign Ordinance including provisions for off premise advertising.
Mr. Smith explained the proposed changes in the sign ordinance. He commented that he had been working with the City Attorney’s office to bring the ordinance into compliance with the Utah State Code for off-premise advertising. He noted that the total number of billboards will be reduced from nineteen to twelve. City Attorney Jared Frei explained that the separation distance was also expanded to a radius of 1,500 feet. Commissioner Anderson asked why the City did not just ban billboards outright and save the paper. Mr. Frei responded that the intent of the amendment is to make the corrections that will bring the ordinance in line with State laws.
Mr. Frei explained that one way to reduce the number of billboards on the I-15 corridor is to require billboard lease owners to record their leases with the City. The reason for this requirement is that state statute allows termination by agreement. The City can identify and notify owners of approaching automatic renewal periods. Chairman Morse commented that lease agreements are a confidential agreement between the property owner and a sign company. This requirement would make these lease agreements a public document. Mr. Frei replied that requiring the disclosure of leases by cities is common in the telecommunications industry. Commissioner Peters suggested that only the expiration date of the lease is what is desired, so only that information should be disclosed. Mr. Frei agreed that the only information needed is the length of the lease.
Commissioner Carpenter clarified that the reason the City needs to know the expiration date is to inform the property owner of this upcoming deadline, and possibly to negotiate a termination of the lease in the City’s favor. Mr. Smith observed that the City’s notification of the expiration date can be a protection to the owner as well because of the auto renewal clause in many leases. Chairman Morse confirmed that a lease agreement holder will just be disclosing the term of the lease and no confidential issues will be required to be disclosed. He asked if this practice is done in other cities. Mr. Frei replied that the practice occurs in other industries, but not in other cities.
Commissioner Anderson asked if the City Council was against billboards enough to totally remove them. Mr. Smith replied that this amendment is a response to Planning Commissioner and City Councilmember statements. Commissioner Carpenter commented that he personally feels that billboards are unattractive and detract from the aesthetics of the community, but he considered the final decision on how that should be done as the responsibility of the elected body, the City Council. He commented that billboards enrich a few at the expense of many. Mr. Frei agreed that there are many documented reasons to ban them.
Commissioner Simister asked what was expected of the Planning Commission. Mr. Smith replied that the Planning Commission was expected to make a recommendation to the Council on this amendment. The Council will meet on July 16, 2002 to discuss this item.
Commissioner Carpenter commented on the addition of 18.04.020(2)(g) to the ordinance which prohibits the moving or altering of any sign unless it is brought out of nonconforming status into compliance. This was discussed. Chairman Morse asked if the clause was clear and unambiguous to the Commissioners. Mr. Smith asked if the Commissioners wished to allow a property owner to move or change a sign. The Commissioners discussed a situation where a property owner may wish to change a sign to another company when a lease expires. Commissioner Carpenter asked if restricting a property owner to the current lease agreement was considered “constraint of trade.” Mr. Frei replied no.
Chairman Morse asked what determination had been used to restrict the total number of billboards to twelve. Mr. Smith replied that the number had been chosen at random. Chairman Morse suggested that the number should be based on “good science.” Mr. Smith replied that he could check and see what the total number would be if it was based on the 1,500-foot radius spacing.
Commissioner Peters expressed the opinion that he, personally, doesn’t like billboards, but the Commission also needs to consider the rights of the property owner. He felt that not allowing an owner to change a sign to a new lease is a “tricky way of eliminating them.” He suggested that the property owner should be allowed to change the sign if they leave it in the same location and at the same size. He commented that if they want to move it anywhere else on the property, then would be the time to bring it into compliance with the ordinance. Mr. Frei observed that if this clause is removed, the property owner will be able to do other things than move it. Commissioner Peters felt that the property owner should be able to replace the sign with one under a new lease. Chairman Morse commented that the clause is a “strong hammer to remove the billboards” if it is left as is. Commissioner Sweeten agreed that the harder it is to change a sign, the more owners there are that will remove them. Commissioner Carpenter agreed that more restrictions will reduce the number of signs, however, the Commissioners need to be sure that the imposition of these restrictions can be upheld and that the restrictions do not strike at their the Commissioners’ sense of fairness.
Mr. Paul Magleby commented that he agrees on the issue of the requirement of disclosure of lease expiration dates, but does consider it an imposition into the lives of people and businesses. He added that the leases are crafted by the sign companies to catch people unawares. He observed that he sees the City notifying a landowner of an approaching lease expiration as a positive thing. He noted that the sign industry is “ruthless,” although he has to deal with them because of the sign on the property that he bought. He agreed that signs are something that he doesn’t like and areas where there are no signs are “wonderful,” however, that is something that we live with here. He would like to see the City find a way to minimize and restrict them to make them eventually disappear, but as a property owner he would also like to see a way that would allow a property owner to modify or change a sign without moving it.
Commissioner Simister asked Mr. Magleby what happens when a property owner wants to sell and has a sign lease on the property. Mr. Magleby replied that the lease goes with the property. He told the Commissioners that a property owner has three options for a sign: either he has the sign removed, he signs another lease, or he sells an easement to the sign company and there is no lease. He told the Commission of an easement that sold in Orem for $120,000. The Commissioners discussed the negotiation of expiring leases.
Commissioner Peters recommended that the restriction on the total number of signs be tied to the 1,500-foot radius spacing restriction. Chairman Morse agreed. Commissioner Carpenter asked if Lindon’s goal is to eventually have no billboards. Mr. Smith commented that Draper has banned all signs. The selling of an easement to construct a sign was discussed. Mr. Smith noted that many property owners will not want to encumber their parcels with a non-expiring easement.
The Commissioners discussed nonconforming signs other than billboards and the definition of “erected.” Commissioner Peters expressed a concern that section 18.04.070 jeopardizes the rights of other property owners in the 1,500-foot radius. Mr. Smith explained that this will affect only rare instances of an I-15 on/off ramp construction project. Chairman Morse asked if there was further comment.
Commissioner Atchison asked if the Commission had decided on a total number restriction. Commissioner Carpenter commented that the Council should consider their intent and the number wanted and reflect that in the language of the ordinance. If they want zero signs, then that should be the number. Commissioner Peters suggested looking into restricting the selling of easements. The Commissioners discusses discussed requiring information on leases and easements.
Mr. Dewey Reagan of Reagan Signs told the Commission that if the City required information from a third-party lease agreement, he would fight it. He told the Commissioners that property owners agree to keep the terms of these agreements as confidential information. He suggested that it was illegal for the City to require the information as a conditional condition of approval of a sign permit. He also objected to the “ban” on outdoor advertising which he says is the effective intent of this ordinance. He noted that even if the Commissioners don’t like billboards, this ordinance will not give the sign companies any incentive to do anything other than basic upkeep. He suggested that in fairness to the industry, he be allowed to assemble and present some information for the Commissioners’ next meeting. Chairman Morse welcomed his input.
Commissioner Anderson asked if billboards are banned in some cities. Mr. Frei replied that billboards are prohibited in some cities. Mr. Reagan replied that Draper has banned billboards, but, although signs are banned, there is the same number of signs in Draper as when the ordinance was passed. Mr. Smith commented that there are no more signs either. Mr. Reagan agreed, and then observed that the ban was overturned in San Diego. He expressed interest in trying to work with the City on something beneficial, rather than get into a posture that requires litigation. He pointed out that West Valley City and Salt Lake County have ordinances which allow the movement and changing of signs. Reagan Signs has worked with these entities to remove signs from residential neighborhoods and now the company has fewer total signs in the County and only one more in West Valley City. He asserted that if entities “lock down where signs go, then their situation won’t change.”
Commissioner Sweeten asked how many signs were Reagan Signs in Lindon. Mr. Reagan replied one. He added that he is more interested in addressing specific problems with signs that the City sees as problems, and suggested that the ordinance address aesthetic improvements that will work for both sides of the debate. Mr. Smith commented that he could understand the sign companies’ stance–that they are fighting for their lives, however, Lindon is not proposing a ban. The ordinance has a limit of twelve, which he feels is not overly restrictive. He added that, at the present time, Lindon has nineteen signs on two miles of interstate. Mr. Smith observed that it may take 35 to 40 years to reduce that number. Mr. Reagan asserted that the ordinance is “tantamount to a ban.”
Mr. Jamie Evans commented that there is one billboard in Lindon that may be removed because of its location on the property. He explained that all other signs are located on the sides or in the corners of parcels, so that if and when they are developed, the signs will remain unchanged. He suggested that not allowing the altering or changing of a sign only hurts the property owners. He added that the sign contracts are more valuable to the property owners than the building.
Mr. Reagan asked the Commission to continue the item. Mr. Smith observed that the City was working under a moratorium. Commissioner Carpenter added that the Council needs time to consider the proposed amendment before the expiration of the moratorium. Mr. Reagan asked if the moratorium could be extended. Commissioner Sweeten asked if the proposal could be sent to the Council without a recommendation. The reply was no. The Commissioners discussed whether to continue the item for more discussion, or to make a recommendation to the Council. Mr. Smith observed that the discussion had centered on a logical determination of a total number of signs allowed, requiring specific information on lease agreement terminations and possibly eliminating the loophole on the selling of easements for signs. Chairman Morse suggested that the Commission send a recommendation to the Council rather than continue the item.
COMMISSIONER PETERS MOVED TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL TO THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE REQUEST TO AMEND AND REVISE CHAPTER 18 - SIGNS, OF THE LINDON CITY CODE WITH THE FOLLOWING RECOMMENDATIONS:
1) THE CITY COUNCIL SHOULD CONSIDER THE INTENT OF THE ORDINANCE WHEN ESTABLISHING THE TOTAL NUMBER OF BILLBOARDS ALLOWED AND THE LANGUAGE IN THE ORDINANCE OUGHT TO REFLECT THAT INTENT.
2) THE LENGTH OF THE LEASE AGREEMENTS SHOULD BE RECORDED WITH THE CITY, BUT NOT THE WHOLE LEASE AGREEMENT.
3) THE CITY ATTORNEY SHOULD RESEARCH THE LEGALITIES OF PROPERTY OWNERS SELLING EASEMENTS TO BILLBOARD COMPANIES.
COMMISSIONER CARPENTER SECONDED THE MOTION. ALL PRESENT VOTED IN FAVOR EXCEPT COMMISSIONER ANDERSON WHO VOTED NAY.
9. PLANNING DIRECTOR’S REPORT
Mr. Smith introduced the new commissioner, Mr. Dustin Sweeten. He reminded the Commissioners of the Lindon City Summer Employee Party on July 26, 2002 at Lagoon. He also reminded the Commissioners of the revised meeting schedule for August 7, and August 28. Commissioner Carpenter noted that he would be absent on August 7 and Commissioner Sweeten on August 28.
ADJOURN
COMMISSIONER ATCHISON MOVED TO ADJOURN AT 9:57 P.M. COMMISSIONER SIMISTER SECONDED THE MOTION. ALL PRESENT VOTED IN FAVOR. THE MOTION CARRIED.
APPROVED - August 28, 2002
_______________________________________
Loren Morse, Chairman
_______________________________________
Kevin Smith, Planning Director |
|
|
