|
|
Home » City Government » Planning Commission » Planning Commission Schedule 2004 (Agendas & Minutes) » Planning Commission Minutes 2004 » November 10, 2004 Minutes
November 10, 2004 Minutes
The Lindon City Planning Commission held a regularly scheduled meeting on Wednesday, November 10, 2004 at 7:00 p.m. in the Lindon City Center, City Council Chambers, at 100 North State Street, Lindon, Utah.
Conducting: Dustin Sweeten, Chairman
Invocation: Julie Bryner
Pledge of Allegiance: Dustin Sweeten
PRESENT ABSENT
Dustin Sweeten, Chairman Lindsey Bayless, Councilmember
Ron Anderson, Commissioner
Julie Bryner, Commissioner
Gary Godfrey, Commissioner
Evan Nixon, Commissioner (arrived 7:17 p.m.)
Jim Peters, Commissioner
Marilyn Simister, Commissioner
Kevin Smith, Planning Director
Venla Gubler, Administrative Clerk
Karl Woodard, Planning Intern
The meeting began at 7:00 p.m.
1. APPROVAL OF MINUTES
The Minutes of the Meetings of October 13, 2004 and October 27, 2004 were reviewed. The following corrections were made:
October 13, 2004:
Page 5, Line 16: Replace the word “status” with the phrase “progress of moving the composting operation.”
Page 6, Line 2: Add the phrase “This was done” before the word “with.” Delete the word “road” after the word “East.”
Page 6, Line 3: Replace the words “the road” with the phrase “300 East to go through.”
Page 7, Line 7: Deleted the “ed” on the end of the word “encroach.”
October 27, 2004:
There were no corrections.
COMMISSIONER PETERS MOVED TO APPROVE THE MINUTES OF OCTOBER 13, 2004 AND OCTOBER 27, 2004 AS CORRECTED. COMMISSIONER SIMISTER SECONDED THE MOTION. ALL PRESENT VOTED IN FAVOR. THE MOTION CARRIED.
2. PUBLIC COMMENT
Ms. Carmen Richins from Lindon Care and Training on North State Street declared that she wanted some clarification on the site plan requirements for her new neighbor, Lindon Car Wash. She told the Council that the contractor has piped the irrigation ditch and removed trees that provided privacy for the back yard of this facility. She expressed concern about noise from the blower that is now about 75-feet away from the bedrooms. She informed the Council that she had approached the contractor about fencing, but was told that her facility had no reason for any complaint. Mr. Smith commented that the minutes did not specify that the contractor must put in a fence, just to “coordinate” the fence. Ms. Richins asked the intent of the Planning Commission concerning the fence.
The Commissioners talked about the application and the requirements for fencing between commercial businesses. Chairman Sweeten commented that his recollection is that the contractor was supposed to ask if the care center required a fence and if they did, he was responsible for constructing one. Commissioner Peters commented that another neighbor had complained about the height of the fence and wondered if that issue had been resolved. Mr. Smith replied that he had talked to the contractor and felt that the issue had been resolved. Commissioner Simister reported that this neighbor was now satisfied. She added that he is also concerned about the noise of the blowers. Commissioner Simister commented that she recalls the discussion as more concerning whether the irrigation ditch was a better barrier than a fence. She commented that it was not an issue of whether the barrier was needed, but whether it should be a fence, or the ditch and trees. She asked if the contractor was required to pipe the ditch by the City. Mr. Smith replied that he would have to check with the Council to see if they required piping the ditch. Commissioner Peters suggested that Ms. Richins also address her concerns to the Council at their next meeting on November 16.
(Commissioner Nixon arrived at 7:17 p.m.)
Chairman Sweeten asked if the care center wanted the neighboring business to build a fence. Ms. Richins replied that the residents of the care center use the back yard daily and she expressed concern about their safety and privacy. Commissioner Simister agreed that a fence for the care center is a safety issue. It would protect the residents and limit access to State Street. Chairman Sweeten asked about the wording of the code and whether it specified a fence is required between a residential use and a commercial use, or a residential zone and a commercial zone. Mr. Smith read the passage and clarified that the fence is required between a commercial use and a residential use in a residential zone. Ms. Richins commented that she could use the City’s help because she had not had a pleasant experience talking to the contractor. Chairman Sweeten observed that the contractor will be gone when the job is done and does not have to live in the neighborhood.
Commissioner Anderson informed the Commission that the irrigation company may have a requirement for development to pipe the ditch. Mr. Smith added that the City Engineers may also have required the piping. Chairman Sweeten commented that the pipe does not extend beyond the car wash property out to the edge of State Street.
Commissioner Godfrey commented that Logan City requires special permission to remove historic trees. He suggested that Lindon might consider such a requirement. The Commission discussed the historic elms that had been recently removed along State Street. Mr. Smith replied that he would follow up to research a tree ordinance if the Commission wishes.
Chairman Sweeten asked if there was any other business. There was none.
3. NEW BUSINESS (Reports by Commissioners)
Commissioner Bryner asked about the timing for the light on 400 North and State Street. She added that she was aware that Lindon does not control this light, but asked if Lindon had any influence with UDOT in this matter. She pointed out that the light is set so that any car on 400 North triggers a signal change and that sometimes traffic backs up on State Street a long distance. Commissioner Nixon noted that the opposite is true for the light on 200 South and a long wait for the side street is normal. Mr. Smith replied that he would contact the Region 3 Traffic Engineer and ask for a review of both lights.
Commissioner Anderson reported that it appears that either Goodfellow or UDOT have graded the shoulder on the freeway and pushed the fence down. Mr. Smith replied that he would investigate this report and follow up.
Chairman Sweeten asked if there were any other reports. There were none.
4. LINDON WEST CONDOMINIUMS – 121 NORTH 1800 WEST – PRELIMINARY SUBDIVISON PLAT
This is a request for approval to convert the Lindon West Industrial Park into a condominium plat.
Mr. Jerry Carroll was invited to the front. Mr. Smith displayed an aerial photo of the location and commented that the site plan had been approved by the Planning Commission at the last meeting, but now the applicants are asking for a condominium plat so that they can sell each unit individually. He presented the plat and explained that it is a basic condominium plat with the units being private, and the parking being limited common and the landscaping being common. The landscaping will be maintained by the owners association. He pointed out an area that the applicants are planning to expand the project in the near future, which lies on the opposite side of the parking area. Commissioner Nixon asked if the parking area would be common for both sections of the project. Mr. Carroll replied yes. Commissioner Nixon pointed out that Mr. Carroll may be creating a problem for himself, because the owners of this plat will have to sign and approve an amended plat to include the other units. Mr. Carroll replied that the owners’ association bylaws will address this issue.
Chairman Sweeten asked if there were any staff concerns. Mr. Smith replied no. Commissioner Nixon asked if drainage had been addressed with the City Engineer. Mr. Carroll replied that his engineer had been working directly with the City Engineer.
COMMISSIONER BRYNER MOVED TO APPROVE THE REQUEST BY JERRY CARROLL FOR APPROVAL OF LINDON WEST OFFICE/WAREHOUSE CONDOMINIUMS, PLAT “A,” AN ELEVEN UNIT CONDOMINIUM PLAT LOCATED AT 121 NORTH 1800 WEST AND RECOMMEND APPROVAL TO THE CITY COUNCIL. COMMISSIONER PETERS SECONDED THE MOTION. ALL PRESENT VOTED IN FAVOR. THE MOTION CARRIED.
5. OLD ORCHARD TOWN HOMES – 375 WEST 800 NORTH – PRELIMINARY SUBDIVISION PLAT
This is a request for re-approval of Old Orchard Town Homes.
Mr. David Gren, owner of the project, was introduced. Mr. Smith displayed an aerial photo of the location and explained that this was previously approved by the Planning Commission in August of 2000. He informed the Commission that the proposal joins two existing lots and buildings on 800 North into one lot with two triplexes that will be sold as condominiums. The owner is asking for re-approval of the plat. He noted that the proposal complies with the R2 Overlay ordinance. Commissioner Peters verified that the proposal consists of two lots that will be joined in one plat. Mr. Smith confirmed that creating the plat will join the lots.
Commissioner Anderson asked about this being a second request. Mr. Smith explained that the original plat had not been recorded and was now expired. He pointed out the various private and common areas. Commissioner Anderson asked if the buildings met the condo standards of the International Building Code. Mr. Smith replied yes. Commissioner Bryner confirmed with Mr. Gren that the purpose of the plat is to sell the units individually. Mr. Gren replied yes. Commissioner Nixon asked if the parking was adequate. Mr. Smith replied yes. Commissioner Bryner asked the amount of property involved in the project. Mr. Smith replied that the project is two half-acre lots, which will be combined into one acre. He noted that this is one of the last projects approved under the old high density ordinance before adoption of the R2 Overlay ordinance.
Commissioner Peters asked if the units had basements. Mr. Gren replied yes. Commissioner Nixon asked how many parking stalls were allotted per unit. Mr. Smith brought up the aerial photo and showed the parking. Mr. Gren replied that there were about three to four per unit.
COMMISSIONER PETERS MOVED TO APPROVE THE REQUEST BY DAVID GREN FOR APPROVAL OF ORCHARD TOWN HOMES, PLAT “A,” A SIX UNIT RESIDENTIAL CONDOMINIUM PLAT LOCATED AT 375 WEST 800 NORTH AND RECOMMEND APPROVAL TO THE CITY COUNCIL. COMMISSIONER BRYNER SECONDED THE MOTION. ALL PRESENT VOTED IN FAVOR. THE MOTION CARRIED.
6. BALD MOUNTAIN PLAT “C” – 797 EAST 640 NORTH – SUBDIVISION PLAT AMENDMENT
This is a request for approval to add a one-half acre parcel to the rear portion of Lot 24 of Plat “A” of Meadows at Bald Mountain.
It was noted that the applicant was not in the audience. Mr. Smith was asked if there were any concerns by staff. Mr. Smith replied no, that the amendment to the plat just solves the fate of a remainder parcel and enlarges one lot. Commissioner Godfrey asked where the 1200 East collector lies in relation to this parcel. Mr. Smith pointed out that there is a 10-foot construction easement and slope easement for the 1200 East collector that runs through the back of this lot. He noted that this motion will include a recommendation to the Council. Commissioner Simister asked about some notations on the plat. Mr. Smith explained that these areas are steep and cannot be built on.
COMMISSIONER NIXON MOVED TO APPROVE THE REQUEST BY TY RICKS FOR APPROVAL OF MEADOWS AT BALD MOUNTAIN, PLAT “C,” A ONE LOT SUBDIVISION LOCATED AT 797 EAST 640 NORTH AND RECOMMEND APPROVAL TO THE CITY COUNCIL WITH THE FOLLOWING RECOMMENDATIONS:
1. THAT THE COUNCIL VERIFIES THE RIGHT-OF-WAY ALIGNMENT FOR THE 1200 EAST COLLECTOR STREET IN RELATION TO THE LOT LINE SHOWN ON THIS PLAT AND MAKES ANY CHANGES TO THE PLAT NECESSARY TO ENSURE THE CORRECT ALIGNMENT AND APPROPRIATE CONSTRUCTION AND SLOPE EASEMENTS.
COMMISSIONER SIMISTER SECONDED THE MOTION. ALL PRESENT VOTED IN FAVOR. THE MOTION CARRIED.
7. KEETCH-SCHWARTZ PROPERTY – LAKEVIEW DRIVE AND STATE STREET – DESGIN REVIEW
The applicants would like Planning Commission input regarding a proposed development plan.
Mr. Brigham Ashton of CSA Construction came to the front and commented that the project is getting better and he was pleased with the progress. Mr. Smith observed that the neighbors were not noticed about this design review, but that this information would be presented at a public hearing. He told the Commission that the traffic engineers have completed a study to assess the relocation of the intersection of Lakeview Drive and State Street to align with 200 North. He noted that the traffic engineer has come to the evaluation that there are more positives to move the intersection than there are for leaving it at the current location. Commissioner Godfrey asked if there are any conclusions about leaving both intersections. Mr. Smith replied that leaving both intersections would create conflicts with crossing movements, left and right turns, that closing the Lakeview intersection would eliminate. Chairman Sweeten suggested that the neighbors would also object to opening both intersections.
Mr. Smith reported that the neighbors have a varied viewpoint on the benefits and disadvantages of the plan, and have suggested some alternatives. Commissioner Simister reported that she had talked with Councilmember Hatch. His main concern is that relocation of the intersection would place it midway on the slope of the Lindon hill and it may be difficult to stop at this point in slippery road conditions. Commissioner Nixon pointed out that the same slope exists down to the current Lakeview Drive location. He suggested that there may not be much of a difference in stopping at the middle of the hill compared to stopping at the bottom of the hill.
Chairman Sweeten suggested that the line of sight distances would be better if the intersection is moved and angled at ninety degrees to State Street. He noted that Lakeview currently adjoins State Street at an angle that is less than desirable for safety. Commissioner Nixon agreed. He added that he felt it would be best to block off the current intersection with Lakeview if a new intersection is built at 200 North.
Commissioner Anderson asked if the neighbor on the corner of Lakeview and State Street has been involved in the discussions. Mr. Ashton replied that he has talked to the Drapers in the next house to the west, but not the owners of the corner parcel. He agreed that they need to be brought into the discussion. He suggested that one of the options the developers are considering may be to acquire this parcel. This would give the development a second access from State Street.
Commissioner Anderson commented that one issue not decided yet is whether this new street should be collector or local street width. Mr. Ashton observed that the traffic engineers conclude that this is not a collector street. Mr. Smith brought up the street master plan and pointed out that 400 West is the collector for this area and is planned to eventually connect to State Street at 400 North. The Commissioners discussed the likelihood and time frame of this proposal. Commissioner Anderson suggested that making this new road collector width now may solve a problem that might otherwise not be an option in the future.
Commissioner Nixon asked if there are issues with tying into existing curb, gutter and asphalt on Lakeview. The locations of existing improvements were pointed out. Mr. Smith informed the Commission that Lakeview Drive is part of trail grant that will involve complete reconstruction of this street to conform to the City’s trail cross section with 28-feet of asphalt. Commissioner Anderson asked which side of the street the trail will follow. Mr. Smith replied that the trail changes sides and pointed out the route of the trail along Lakeview Drive. Commissioner Nixon suggested that putting the trail section between 400 West and State Street on Lakeview Drive may be “problematic,” until 400 West goes through to State Street.
Commissioner Simister asked if this is the location of the proposed “daylight tunnel” to allow pedestrian traffic across State Street. Mr. Smith replied that although the daylight tunnel had been discussed, the costs are prohibitive. He reported that Mayor Ellertson is convinced that pedestrian signalization on 200 North is the answer to pedestrian crossing of State Street. Mr. Harlow Clark, newspaper representative, asked if UDOT was favorable to this plan. Mr. Smith replied that negotiations are continuing. Chairman Sweeten asked if the trail system is then planned to go through this development. This was discussed. Mr. Ashton asked if a wider road is required for the pathway. Mr. Smith replied that the current design does not add width, but reduces the asphalt to 28-feet and restricts parking. Commissioner Simister explained the trails plan for Lindon to Mr. Ashton. She described Lindon’s goal to have a continuous trail from Utah Lake on the west to the mountains on the east.
Commissioner Peters asked how the City anticipates joining 400 West to 400 North with the obstacles that are currently blocking the route. Mr. Smith replied that when the traffic and development warrant the change, it may happen. Commissioner Godfrey asked if the trail underpass is threatened by this proposal. Mr. Smith replied that the possibility of either a pedestrian signal or traffic signal on 200 North negates the need for the underpass. He informed the Commission that the underpass proposal had two main complications—one is the half million dollar price tag and the other is the utilities that are situated under State Street. It may not be feasible. He explained that the Mayor is working closely with UDOT to find a solution to making a grade crossing safer. Commissioner Peters commented that this may make three lights on State Street that are very close together—one at 400 North, one at 200 North and one at Lakeview Drive. Mr. Smith replied that if a light is put at 200 North there will not be a light at Lakeview Drive, and that the light at 200 North may just be a pedestrian signal for a long period of time.
Chairman Sweeten asked what concerns the Drapers had expressed. Mr. Ashton replied that they were concerned about vehicle lights shining into their windows where the road from the development intersects with Lakeview Drive. He pointed out that a previous version of the road joined Lakeview Drive at an angle, which prompted concerns of speeding. It was decided to “tee” the road to Lakeview Drive on the property line between Drapers and Childs to reduce lights shining in the windows. He acknowledged that there will still be some “flashing” as vehicles make the turn, but the Drapers realize that this is a commercial area and the inconvenience is expected.
Chairman Sweeten asked how the development plan will change if the applicant is successful in purchasing the corner parcel from the Childs. Mr. Ashton replied that there are several options—a cul-de-sac into the parcel from State Street, a cul-de-sac into the property from the end of Lakeview Drive, or direct access from State Street with cross easements between this parcel and the development on Lakeview Drive.
Commissioner Nixon confirmed that the reason for the change in the road configuration since the last Planning Commission review is the speed at which vehicles may join with Lakeview Drive. Mr. Ashton agreed. He pointed out a blind driveway belonging to the Christensen’s near the juncture of the sloped road design and Lakeview Drive. Turning the road at a right angle and making a stop sign intersection with Lakeview Drive will slow speed and give better sight distances. Commissioner Godfrey suggested that changing the road design also dictates changing the orientation of the buildings on Lots #1 and #3. Mr. Ashton agreed.
Commissioner Godfrey asked if Mr. Ashton was willing to consider a 66-foot collector width street. Mr. Ashton asked if the City was willing to pay for the difference in the width. He pointed out that the change would reduce the acreage available for sale and the engineer has not indicated the need to accommodate traffic with a wider street. Commissioner Peters suggested that the City may consider vacating the end of Lakeview Drive and a trade could be negotiated. Commissioner Godfrey agreed that the Commission may consider a trade for a trail and a collector. He noted that the City will also be giving up part of the park on 200 North to realign this intersection. Mr. Ashton replied that he is hopeful of creating a plan that will work for both the developers and the City. Commissioner Godfrey suggested that the trail and collector may also increase the value of the land and Mr. Ashton may consider contributing to the installation of the pedestrian light also. This was discussed.
Commissioner Peters asked about time tables for this development. He suggested that no changes are needed to streets before this development is underway. Mr. Smith commented that the City Engineers agree that this development is the impetus of the change to Lakeview Drive, and that a change is not considered beneficial to the City unless it is part of the land development process. Chairman Sweeten agreed that the development’s proposal to relocate Lakeview Drive would improve the safety issues, but there are still other issues that need solution. He added that the best solution to facilitate access and circulation is to extend 400 West to 400 North. He suggested that changing Lakeview Drive to a collector is the second best option.
Commissioner Nixon suggested that the intersection of the road through the development with Lakeview Drive, if changed, should not be a stop sign. He explained his reasoning for this suggestion. Mr. Ashton commented that the stop sign and change to the alignment was a solution for the residents of the area. He mentioned that his development company does not own Lot #1. This lot belongs to Scott Farrer and Mike Marchbanks and is planned for an Assisted Living Center.
Commissioner Godfrey observed that the changed alignment is a “circuitous route” to State Street for residents. Commissioner Nixon commented that this development may “force” the master plan issue of 400 West to be solved sooner. Commissioner Godfrey added that he would like to see the trail issue solved. Commissioner Anderson suggested that the collector width road is also more traffic “friendly” and would allow street-side parking in this commercial zone. The Commission discussed width issues, funding for the trail, and trading properties. Commissioner Simister suggested that the wider street in a commercial area would allow more area to make the pathway “well established” and safer. Commissioner Godfrey pointed out that the arena in the park is a favored destination for horse owners on the west side of State Street. Mr. Ashton commented that his plan for the architectural details of the buildings is to follow up on the “Old Train Station” theme indicated by the historic railroad station in the adjoining parcel.
Commissioner Godfrey observed that the Engineers have addressed the slick road concern in their report. He added that he agrees that correcting the line of sight issues are more important. He noted that there is also the possibility for a complete intersection at 200 North that will never happen at the current alignment of Lakeview Drive. The Commissioners discussed possibilities for the current Lakeview Drive if the road is changed into a turn to the south. Chairman Sweeten commented that the change would be easier to approve if the developers owned the Childs corner. Commissioner Anderson agreed. Chairman Sweeten commented that he is in favor of the proposal except for the cul-de-sac to end Lakeview Drive before the intersection with State Street. The Commission discussed other options for Lakeview Drive.
Mr. Smith summarized the discussion by informing Mr. Ashton that the main concerns seem to be the pathway, the width of the road, and plans for the Child’s property. He suggested that the Council may like to look over the changes and then allow more comment from the property owners. Chairman Sweeten cautioned Mr. Ashton that the City will be more willing to approve a project that is endorsed by those that are directly affected. Mr. Smith added that he would let Mr. Ashton know the date the Council will review the plans. Mr. Ashton thanked the Commission for their time and suggestions.
8. PLANNING DIRECTOR REPORT
Mr. Smith presented a proposal to transfer ownership of back pasture land from two neighbors to another neighbor. He informed the Commission that the subdivision code and State Code require Planning Commission approval of any land division. He displayed an aerial photo on the overhead and explained that this parcel is located in the area between 400 North and 600 North near the end of 450 North. He displayed the Lindon City street master plan and pointed out a proposed extension of 450 North to the north to tie into 600 North. He suggested that, in this case, it will be hard to accommodate this future road and pointed out obstacles such as an existing barn and the narrowness of some of these back pastures. He noted that the only way this street will be accomplished is for several of these neighbors to work together on a development plan. He pointed out that two neighbors, the Griffins and the Nelsons, would like to transfer title to a back pasture to the Moosmans. The Griffins and Nelsons would not reduce the acreage of the lot where their home sits below the required one-half acre by selling the back pasture to the Moosmans and the Griffins will be dedicating right-of-way along 400 East. The only staff concern is that there may be other neighbors who will perceive that they are landlocked because this may preclude the construction of a road as indicated on the master plan. He asked for guidance from the Planning Commissioners.
Commissioner Peters asked if anyone is really being landlocked. Mr. Smith replied that all the parcels currently have frontage on a dedicated street and the problems only arise if the neighbors decide to subdivide their back pastures. The only parcels truly landlocked by this transfer are the parties involved. Commissioner Peters observed that if the transfer is not affecting anyone but themselves and creating open space, he is in favor of approval. He also commented that city objectives are being accomplished by the dedication of right-of-way on 400 East.
Commissioner Nixon commented that the parties involved need to understand that recording a new plat combines the parcels and they will not own lots that can be sold separately in the future. Commissioner Anderson agreed and noted that the Commission is not approving a landlocked parcel, but one lot that has altered its dimensions. Mr. Smith suggested a note on the deed that specifies that no access is granted.
Commissioner Simister observed that this is more than just a transfer of pasture. She informed the Commission that the Moosmans operate a horse boarding and training business and this is an expansion of the business operations. She asked if a review of the conditional use permit is needed. Mr. Smith clarified that this is a home occupation and that there have been no complaints. He noted that his one concern has been that some of the neighbors may believe that the City “owes” them access to their back pastures because of this approval. He wants it understood that there is no guarantee of access and no guarantee about the number of future development lots.
THE COMMISSION REACHED CONSENSUS TO APPROVE THE REQUEST BY RICHARD GRIFFIN, RALPH NELSON AND RON MOOSMAN FOR THE TITLE TRANSFER OF PASTURE LAND LOCATED AT APPROXIMATELY 525 AND 535 NORTH, 339 EAST WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS:
1. THAT THE APPLICANTS UNDERSTAND THAT NEITHER ACCESS NOR THE NUMBER OF FUTURE DEVELOPMENT LOTS IS GUARANTEED,
2. THAT THE LOTS REMAINING AT 525 NORTH AND 535 NORTH ARE NOT REDUCED TO ACREAGES LESS THAN THE 20,000 SQUARE FEET REQUIRED BY THE ZONING ORDINANCE, AND
3. THAT THE GRIFFINS DEDICATE THE REQUIRED RIGHT-OF-WAY FOR 400 EAST.
Mr. Smith gave the Planning Commissioners an update on the Mountainview Corridor Study. He explained that this is a proposed transportation corridor that starts in Magna at I-80 and ends in Lindon on the I-15 freeway at the new interchange. All the current options include these two ends. The questions remain on how to get through Lehi. Commissioner Nixon commented that some of the option corridors are more important than others. Mr. Smith agreed, and noted that the ultimate decision lies with Lehi.
Mr. Smith presented a copy of a book distributed by the Utah League of Cities and Towns on the responsibilities of the Planning Commission. He urged the Commissioners to familiarize themselves with this information and asked who would like copies of their own.
ADJOURN
COMMISSIONER GODFREY MOVED TO ADJOURN THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING AT 9:01 P.M. COMMISSIONER BRYNER SECONDED THE MOTION. ALL PRESENT VOTED IN FAVOR. THE MOTION CARRIED.
APPROVED – December 8, 2004
___________________________________
Dustin Sweeten, Chairman
________________________________________
Kevin Smith, Planning Director
|
|
|
