The Lindon City Planning Commission held a regularly scheduled meeting on Wednesday, August 13, 2003 at 7:00 p.m. in the Lindon City Center Council Chambers at 100 North State Street, Lindon, Utah.

Conducting: Bruce Carpenter, Chairman
Pledge of Allegiance: Bruce Carpenter
Prayer: Ron Anderson

PRESENT

Bruce Carpenter, Chairman
Ron Anderson, Commissioner
Lori Atchison, Commissioner
Jim Peters, Commissioner
Dustin Sweeten, Commissioner
Lindsey Bayless, Councilmember
Kevin Smith, Planning Director
Venla Gubler, Administrative Clerk

ABSENT

Lucky Morse, Commissioner
Evan Nixon, Alternate Commissioner
Marilyn Simister, Commissioner
The Meeting began at 7:11 p.m.

1. APPROVAL OF MINUTES

The Minutes of the meeting of July 9, 2003 were reviewed. The following corrections were made:
Page 4, Line 20: Add the word "be" after the word "only."
Page 5, Line 40: Delete the words "and Jordanelle" after the word "Creek."
Page 6, Line 16: Replace the word "used" with the word "use."
Page 6, Line 18: Replace the word "an" with the words "a yearly."
COMMISSIONER SWEETEN MOVED TO APPROVE THE MINUTES OF JULY 9, 2003 AS CORRECTED. COMMISSIONER ATCHISON SECONDED THE MOTION. ALL PRESENT VOTED IN FAVOR. THE MOTION CARRIED.

2. PUBLIC COMMENT

There was no public comment.

3. NEW BUSINESS (Reports by Commissioners)

Commissioner Anderson reported a restriction of vision that has occurred as a result of the work on Geneva Road at 600 North. Mr. Smith replied that he would look into it.
Chairman Carpenter commented that Mr. Unice had requested to be heard earlier. He asked if there were objections. There were none.

8. UNICE GRADING PLAN - CANBERRA HEIGHTS, PLAT C, LOT 24 - 114 SOUTH DRY CANYON DRIVE
This is a request for grading plan approval.

Mr. Smith introduced the Commission to this application for grading plan approval on a lot in Canberra Heights. He displayed the location of the lot on an aerial and the grading plan on an overhead. He told the Commission that the lot had a slope, but he did not consider it steep. He pointed out a ten-foot retaining wall on the south side and the buildable area defined by a dotted line.

Chairman Carpenter noted that the orientation on the grading plan was incorrect and asked if staff had any concerns with the grading plan. Mr. Smith replied no. Commissioner Peters asked the Unice's the composition of the retaining wall. Mrs. Unice replied that the wall would be a "natural" construction of rocks. Chairman Carpenter asked where the high point of the slope occurs. Mr. Unice replied that the slope descends 12 feet from the northeast corner to the southwest corner with a natural "dip" at the location of the house. Commissioner Sweeten asked if the home would have a level entrance on the front and a walk out in the back. Mr. Unice verified this plan.

Mr. Smith commented that the ordinance does not allow any grading within twenty-feet of the property lines without Planning Commissioner permission. Mr. Unice observed that he would like to move the retaining wall further from the house and terrace the slope more gradually to make it less intrusive. Chairman Carpenter asked the slope of the land below the wall. Mr. Unice replied that the slope continues similar to the grade on his lot. Commissioner Peters asked if the retaining wall continues around the lot. Mr. Unice replied that the wall would just be on the south and west sides as shown. Mr. Smith displayed pictures of neighboring lots to show the slope of the land in the area.

Commissioner Sweeten commented that moving and softening the slope of the retaining wall would save little natural vegetation presently on the lot and would also create a more attractive yard for the homeowners. Commissioner Anderson commented that allowing grading closer to the property lines would set precedence so that everyone in that neighborhood would want the same exception. Commissioner Sweeten commented that some lots have been included in the hillside overlay that maybe shouldn't have been. Mr. Smith explained that the ordinance includes areas above the aqueduct and properties with 20% or greater slopes.

Chairman Carpenter commented that narrowing the buildable area of a lot by restricting any grading within twenty-feet of the property lines pushes homeowners into building taller houses. This observation was discussed by the Commissioners. Commissioner Peters suggested allowing grading to a point within ten-feet of the property line. Commissioner Sweeten suggested allowing the homeowner and staff to make the decision. Chairman Carpenter commented that it would be nice to have the wall turned into a gentler slope.

COMMISSIONER PETERS MOVED TO APPROVE THE REQUEST BY SCOTT UNICE FOR GRADING PLAN APPROVAL ON CANBERRA HEIGHTS, PLAT "C" LOT 24 WITH THE STIPULATION THAT THE OWNER CAN MOVE THE RETAINING WALL WITHIN TEN FEET OF THE PROPERTY LINE TO PROVIDE A GENTLER SLOPE USING TERRACING, WITH STAFF APPROVAL OF THE FINAL PLAN. COMMISSIONER ANDERSON SECONDED THE MOTION. ALL PRESENT VOTED IN FAVOR. THE MOTION CARRIED.

4. MOUNTAIN VIEW MARKETING - 214 NORTH 1800 WEST - AMENDED SITE PLAN
This is a request for approval of a 30,000 sq. ft. addition to the existing light industrial building.

Mr. Mark Eisele, Mr. Brandon Lundin and Mr. Ken Coleman were invited to the front to present their application. Mr. Smith presented the aerial photo and the site plan amendment. He informed the Commission that the applicants wish to combine two lots and expand their building an additional 30,000 square feet. He pointed out the parking and observed that the additional building space would require an additional 30 stalls. Commissioner Sweeten commented that he thought the Planning Commission had already approved an addition to this building previously. Mr. Smith agreed and showed the location of the last addition on the west side. This addition would be on the north side. He presented the building elevations and noted that the applicants have requested no architectural treatment to the north side of this addition because of plans for a future addition on that side. He pointed out that there were no guarantees that the future addition would occur and noted that this side faces I-15.

Chairman Carpenter asked what architectural treatment is used on the walls of this building. Mr. Lundin replied that the building consists of corrugated steel with a split block half wall. Commissioner Peters asked if they intended to continue this theme on the addition. Mr. Eisele replied that they are trying to make the building look like there had been no additions. He informed the Commission that they are planning the next addition within the next two years and that the additions are warehouse area only. Commissioner Sweeten suggested a time limit of two years to complete the split block treatment of the north wall. Mr. Eisele replied that they were willing to bond for this completion.

Commissioner Peters asked if the business planned outside storage. Mr. Eisele replied that the reason for the addition is storage and that no outside storage is contemplated. Chairman Carpenter asked what was intended for landscaping and parking in the new area to the north of the addition. Mr. Eisele replied that the remainder would be left vacant for the time being. He observed that the truck turnaround and parking would be paved, but they would like to do as little improvement there as possible to avoid "tear out" for their future expansion. Commissioner Peters asked where the storm drain detention areas would be built. Mr. Lundin replied that the landscaping and parking areas were designed as detention areas. He acknowledged that changes to this would be needed for future additions. The parking needs were discussed. Commissioner Peters asked if the parking was adequate to meet their needs. Mr. Eisele commented that the parking seemed to be adequate.

Chairman Carpenter noted that the proposed combination of lots did not include the full acreage of one parcel. He asked what was intended for the remainder parcel. Mr. Lundin replied that the parcel would be left as is for now. Chairman Carpenter verified that the parcel would not be used for storage. Mr. Eisele confirmed that the parcel would be left vacant. Chairman Carpenter asked Mr. Smith if there were requirements for remainder lots. Mr. Smith replied that there were no requirements, but noted that the lot could not be used for storage. He added that the remainder parcel is visible from I-15 and has no street frontage. Commissioner Peters expressed concern that the lot not be used as a dump for left-over construction material. Mr. Smith suggested that a requirement may be added to the site plan approval that the lot must be left as is. Chairman Carpenter asked the nature of the landscaping. Mr. Eisele replied that grass and trees were planned. Mr. Lundin added that drought-tolerant shrubs would be used also. Chairman Carpenter asked if the Commission had other items to discuss. There were none.

COMMISSIONER ANDERSON MOVED TO APPROVE THE REQUEST BY MOUNTAIN VIEW MARKETING FOR A 30,000 SQUARE FOOT ADDITION TO THEIR BUILDING IN MID VALLEY COMMERCE CENTER, LOTS 3 AND 4 WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS:
1. THAT THE APPLICANT MAY POSTPONE COMPLETION OF THE ARCHITECTURAL TREATMENT OF THE BUILDING'S NORTH SIDE BY POSTING A TWO YEAR BOND WITH THE LINDON CITY COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT OFFICE.
2. THE ARCHITECTURAL IMPROVEMENTS FOR THE BUILDING'S NORTH SIDE MUST BE COMPLETED AT THE END OF THE SECOND YEAR IN COMPLIANCE WITH CITY ORDINANCE, AND
3. NO OUTSIDE STORAGE IS ALLOWED.
COMMISSIONER PETERS SECONDED THE MOTION. ALL PRESENT VOTED IN FAVOR. THE MOTION CARRIED.

5. MID VALLEY COMMERCE CENTER, PLAT "C" - PRELIMINARY PLAT AMENDMENT
This is a request to combine lots three and four of MidValley Center.

Mr. Smith presented the amended plat that will combine lots 3 and 4 to create a 4.2 acre parcel. He noted that this is necessary to prevent Mountain View Marketing from building across the property lines and obstructing public easements. Commissioner Sweeten asked if staff had any concerns. Mr. Smith replied no. Commissioner Peters asked where the "jog" for the previous addition was located. Mr. Smith replied that the plat had been amended for this addition to create Plat "B." This is Plat "C" and that the new lot created, Lot #8, is shown correctly.

COMMISSIONER ATCHISON MOVED TO APPROVE THE REQUEST BY M13 CONSTRUCTION FOR MID VALLEY COMMERCE CENTER PLAT "C," A ONE LOT SUBDIVISION AT 214 NORTH 1800 WEST AND RECOMMEND APPROVAL TO THE CITY COUNCIL. COMMISSIONER SWEETEN SECONDED THE MOTION. ALL PRESENT VOTED IN FAVOR. THE MOTION CARRIED.

6. WASATCH U-CART - 240 NORTH GENEVA ROAD - CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT REVIEW
This is a staff request to review conditions of approval which remain incomplete for Wasatch U-Cart.

Mr. Eric Maynes was in the audience to represent Wasatch U-Cart. Mr. Smith explained that this Conditional Use Permit Review was scheduled to discussed Mr. Maynes progress on the completion of his site improvements. He informed the Commission that the project had been underway for about a year and a half and showed photos of the site. He noted the minutes of the meeting where Mr. Maynes had received approval of his conditional use permit. Mr. Smith explained the ordinance that requires twenty-feet of sod and a curb wall along the Geneva Road frontage.

Commissioner Sweeten commented on the fence showing across the front of the lot. Mr. Smith agreed that this fence should be located behind the twenty feet of landscaping. Chairman Carpenter noted that the cart areas were labeled as "temporary." Mr. Maynes replied that cart storage in this location was temporary because he is planning to build a warehouse for storage. When the warehouse is built, the carts will be moved to a location along the south fence. He commented that it appears that he is not doing anything to complete the site, but he assured the Commission that he had been working with UDOT and Public Works Director Don Peterson to gain approval to pipe the storm water ditch along his south property line. He informed the Commission that he had received approval of his plans on August 4 and would be starting construction on about August 15.

Commissioner Sweeten asked why the other landscaping was not complete. Mr. Maynes explained that he had installed grass and gravel following the pattern taken by UDOT and Lindon City in the planter strip along Geneva Road. Chairman Carpenter commented that this seems to be the source of the misunderstanding. Mr. Smith observed that the materials installed did not follow the approved site plan and commented that the grass/gravel combination is not what was envisioned by staff. Mr. Maynes replied that grass is a high water use material and he assumed he was following the City's example in using gravel. Commissioner Anderson explained that gravel is not part of the requirements listed in the ordinance. Chairman Carpenter agreed that the ordinance would have to be changed for the Planning Commission to approve the use of gravel as a landscaping material. He asked if the downturn in the economy had been part of Mr. Maynes' slowness in completion of his site plan.

Mr. Maynes acknowledged that his business was "off" about 65% last year. This year so far his revenues are up 30%, but still not at the previous level. He commented that he had been trying to finance the improvements from his current cash flow and not borrow. Commissioner Sweeten pointed out to Mr. Maynes that his project could be used as a negative example by other property owners in the area. Mr. Maynes agreed, apologized and explained that he had understood the ordinance wrong. Chairman Carpenter observed that Mr. Maynes is bound by the ordinance and the requirements of the original approval.

Commissioner Peters confirmed that Mr. Maynes needed to correct the grass and the fence. Mr. Smith replied that he believed that the fence was too close to the sidewalk and wondered if the fence was shown on the original approval. Mr. Maynes observed that he thought the fence was in the original site plan. Commissioner Sweeten commented that the fence must not be within the twenty-foot landscaping area and pointed out that if the fence is moved back, the temporary office trailer may have to be moved back. Mr. Maynes informed the Commission that the fence was necessary for security. Chairman Carpenter commented on the magnitude of the project left to complete. He listed moving the fence and trailer and installing grass and sprinkler system. Commissioner Peters asked for a projection on starting his permanent building. Mr. Maynes replied that he was planning on building this winter for completion by February 2004.

Commissioner Anderson expressed his concern about the aesthetic condition of Geneva Road. He told Mr. Maynes that, although it may be a hardship to meet the conditions that were originally approved, the work needs to be taken care of soon. Chairman Carpenter explained that the City was very concerned about the appearance of Geneva Road and was working on compliance issues in that area. Mr. Maynes confirmed that he needed to remove the gravel. Mr. Smith replied that the site must match the approved site plan. He told Mr. Maynes that the ordinance requires site improvements to be completed as per the approved plans within one year. He informed the Commission that Mr. Maynes is six months late.

Commissioner Peters asked Mr. Maynes when the site improvements would be complete. Mr. Maynes replied that he would be working on the piping of the ditch this weekend and would replace the gravel with sod. Chairman Carpenter commented that the Commission would like to see steady progress on the site, but their intent was not to "sink" the business in accomplishing this goal. Commissioner Sweeten suggested that the Commission set a final date for completion. Mr. Maynes asked if the temporary trailer must be moved now. Mr. Smith suggested that the temporary trailer must be removed by February and that the landscaping was more important at the present. Mr. Maynes observed that the asphalt would need to be done before winter and suggested a limit of two months. The Commission discussed the items to be completed and Commissioner Sweeten suggested a limit of ninety days. This was agreed to and Mr. Smith commented that Mr. Maynes would be scheduled to come back to the Commission for a report in ninety days.

7. UTAH AUTO SALES - 50 NORTH STATE STREET - DESIGN REVIEW
This is a request by Utah Auto Sales for Planning Commission and City Council review of a potential expansion of the sales lot.

Mr. Kevin Gallagher, Mr. Kevin Taylor and Mr. Kitterman presented the plans of a potential lot expansion for Utah Auto Sales. Chairman Carpenter informed the Commission that Mr. Gallagher had met with City Officials on Monday to present his proposal. Mr. Smith added that this agenda item is a design review of a proposal to expand a non-conforming use across State Street. The issues are whether this is amending or expanding a non-conforming use, or creating another car sales lot. He observed that another issue is how to get the public safely across State Street. Commissioner Peters agreed that the safety issue was a real concern.

Mr. Gallagher told the Commission that he has five employees that cannot work on the present lot because of a lack of office space. He would like to find a solution to maintaining his growth without hurting his employees, customers, and the public. He commented that the reason for building across the street is to keep his businesses in one location, but plan for a future when the leased City property is no longer available to him. His plan for the expansion is to have a facility where he can prep his vehicles for sale and house his warranty and finance offices. He displayed his proposed building and pointed out seven "bays" in the back that would house emissions inspections, tire, oil change, pin-striping, and glass repair and replacement for vehicles that he is putting on the front sales lot. He suggested that a way to cut down on the possibility of pedestrians crossing the street between the lots is to specialize the types of vehicles on the lots, so that if a person is looking for a "truck," they go to a certain location.

Mr. Gallagher commented that the safety of his customers is of primary concern to him also, but he is growing at a pace that dictates planning for future space. He told the Commission that he wants to stay in the present location, and he does not want to have multiple lots. He also commented that the golf carts would not be allowed to cross State Street. He commented that he made an offer on the parcel that is presently occupied by the Wok Right In, but was not hopeful that his offer would be accepted. His only other option is to move the whole operation elsewhere so he can consolidate his operation.

Commissioner Sweeten expressed his understanding of Mr. Gallagher's business concerns. He observed that he was not involved in the change of ordinance that limits auto dealerships on State Street. He asked Councilmember Bayless the intent of the ordinance change. Councilmember Bayless replied that the Council was concerned that State Street in Lindon did not become a string of used auto dealers. She pointed out that Lindon has a limited amount of State Street frontage. Mr. Smith commented that staff does not see this as putting in another business. He added that this does not affect the diversity of State Street and create an "unending flow of cars." Commissioner Sweeten commented that he disagreed with the expansion of a single business idea. He expressed the opinion that this is the same as adding another car lot to State Street. Commissioner Atchison agreed and added that she was also very concerned about safety in crossing the street.

Mr. Gallagher observed that the frontage of the lot on the west side of State Street is only 170 feet. He suggested ways to minimize the cars by landscaping, limiting the display number and focusing on the office building. Commissioner Sweeten suggested moving the whole business to a larger location in Lindon. Mr. Gallagher replied that he had too much money involved in this location to just pick up and move. Chairman Carpenter commented that there is less impact with less frontage, and although there are ways to mitigate aesthetic and safety issues, the issues are not eliminated. Mr. Kitterman commented that Mr. Gallagher is anticipating losing the city lot, which will also diminish his frontage on State Street. Mr. Gallagher commented that he would prefer to acquire the City property and the Wok Right In, but they are not available. He added that he felt confident that he did not need the State Street frontage to build a successful business because he had built a good reputation.

Commissioner Sweeten mentioned that some of the neighbors behind the proposed lot had approached him with concerns of noise from the intercom and prep bays. Commissioner Peters suggested building a walkway over State Street. Commissioner Anderson asked if customers would have to cross the street to sign papers. Mr. Gallagher replied that the paperwork would be in the offices on the lot and that crossing the street would be discouraged.

Commissioner Sweeten commented that he also owns a used car lot on State Street and the reason for his disagreement is not because of a fear of competition. He said that the reason car lots congregate is because they tend to help each other draw in customers. He commented that the reason for his objections is that defining this car lot as expanding a nonconforming use violates the spirit of the ordinance and is little more than a way to "trump" the ordinance. He suggested that the car lot can be more accurately defined as two dealerships owned by the same person because they will be totally self-contained.

Commissioner Peters commented that if the lot is sold at a future date, it can no longer be used as a car lot because of the ordinance. He suggested that allowing it to become a car lot may be creating unfair competition. Mr. Smith suggested a development agreement, similar to Mr. Lee's, that limits the uses that can occupy the parcel. He added that the premise of the development agreement is that there are some business that are normally allowed under the zoning that are not appropriate to this location. Chairman Carpenter observed that the car lot addition cannot be split from the main business because it will be considered part of the same business, if it is defined as an expansion of a nonconforming use. Commissioner Anderson asked if five is a magic number and consideration should be given to changing the ordinance.

Mr. Gallagher suggested moving the building closer to the street and removing the display area. He pointed out that the parcel is narrow and deep. He noted that most businesses need frontage, but he did not feel the frontage was necessary. Commissioner Sweeten contended that it still appeared to him to be a new dealership. Mr. Gallagher suggested that the purpose of the ordinance is to avoid displays of autos all along State Street, and he is willing to accomplish this purpose. Mr. Kitterman suggested that the building would add to the aesthetics of State Street.

Chairman Carpenter observed that the purpose of the commercial zone on State Street is to serve the citizens of Lindon specifically, and not Utah County generally. He suggested that if the space is used to serve the broader community, then less space is available to serve Lindon. Mr. Gallagher replied that a business that creates sales tax dollars serves the citizens just as well as a business where they can spend their dollars. However, he estimated that as many as 55% of his sales are directly to residents of Pleasant Grove and Lindon. Commissioner Sweeten agreed that sales tax dollars are a benefit to the residents of Lindon, but they may need other services such as restaurants. Chairman Carpenter commented that his wish would be for a library or play house, however, it is not the Planning Commission's job to decide what the people need or desire.

Commissioner Peters observed that limiting what businesses may locate on the parcel if it is sold may solve the concern about allowing a new auto lot, but this does not solve the safety question. He added that he would like to see a proposal to solve that issue. Chairman Carpenter commented that the Commission can prohibit the golf carts from shuttling people across the street. Commissioner Anderson agreed, but pointed out that the Commission could not protect people that decide to cross the street unsafely. He added that as long as every effort is made to make it unnecessary for customers to cross the street between the lots, the welfare of the public is satisfied. Mr. Gallagher agreed and reiterated that the lots would be self-sufficient and that limiting sales to a specific type of vehicle would help to minimize the safety issues.

Commissioner Sweeten asked if there was a possibility that the dealership could be combined in one location rather than splitting it. Mr. Gallagher replied that he had to either expand across the street or move. Commissioner Peters commented that there is a long stretch of State Street there without a crosswalk. He wondered if there was a possibility of UDOT putting in a light or crosswalk on Center Street. Mr. Smith replied no, and added that there is a problem there because the cross streets do not line up. He also felt that the warrants would not be met. He agreed that the Commission should not make a decision that will facilitate a hazard and needed to find ways to mitigate the safety issues, but the City may have the same hazard exist even if a restaurant located on this parcel. He suggested that patrons may see a vehicle while they are dining and cross the street to investigate it.

Commissioner Sweeten asked Councilmember Bayless how the Council feels on this issue. Councilmember Bayless replied that this is one issue where she could not guess the other Councilmembers' positions. She commented that she had torn emotions about this proposal herself–it would be a positive asset to Lindon and the building is attractive, but she would also like to see car lots limited. Chairman Carpenter commented that the idea of creating an office with multiple uses is a good one, but safety is an issue. He added that provisions can be made to mitigate the concerns, but one cannot foresee every situation.

Mr. Gallagher observed that he addresses problems with his growth daily, including parking. He wants to plan and provide for the future without moving or opening a new lot at a different location. He wants and needs one location. Chairman Carpenter commented that there is a legitimate need to meet the pressures of growth. Mr. Gallagher added that his present lot contains two acres and the lot across the street contains 1.8 acres. Commissioner Sweeten commented that he feels the need to facilitate an expansion, however, he feels that the business is fragmented and separated.

Mr. Gallagher observed that his present location is part of his success. It is on top of a hill, and has public gathering areas such as the school, church and service station. He informed the Commission that he has searched for another, similar, location, but it does not exist. The Commission discussed their opinions of whether the proposal is an expansion of a nonconforming use or a new car lot. Mr. Gallagher asked if his business was important enough to the City to make an exception for him to expand. He commented that he needs to expand, but he may need to move out of the City if he cannot expand here. He asked what other use could come in that will benefit the City as much as he does. Commissioner Peters asked Mr. Smith if the City Council would hold a design review also. Mr. Smith replied yes. The Commission reviewed their concerns of noise, safety, and the interpretation of the ordinance. Chairman Carpenter thanked Mr. Gallagher for coming and expressed the hope that the review was helpful.

9. ANNEXATION POLICY PLAN - PUBLIC HEARING
The Planning Commission will receive public comment, discuss and make a recommendation to the City Council regarding the Lindon City Annexation Policy Plan.

COMMISSIONER ANDERSON MOVED TO OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING. COMMISSIONER SWEETEN SECONDED THE MOTION. ALL PRESENT VOTED IN FAVOR. THE MOTION CARRIED.

Mr. Smith informed the Commission that the Lindon City Annexation Policy Plan is a requirement of House Bill #155. He explained that the City must identify and plan for future annexation requests. He commented that there is only one parcel contiguous to the City boundary that could be annexed and served by the City. It is a twenty-seven acre parcel that is owned at present by the LDS Church. He has approached the Church about the annexation possibility and they have indicated approval of the plan. He noted, however, that the parcel could also be annexed by American Fork, but that American Fork could not provide sewer service.

Commissioner Anderson asked about the possibility of annexing Geneva property. Mr. Smith explained that this property is presently within the boundaries of Vineyard and would not be an annexation, but a boundary adjustment.

Chairman Carpenter asked if the policy is mostly "boiler plate." Mr. Smith verified that the model had been widely distributed, but that it was modified to meet Lindon's particular needs. The policy was examined. Chairman Carpenter asked if there was public comment. There was none.

COMMISSIONER ANDERSON MOVED TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. COMMISSIONER SWEETEN SECONDED THE MOTION. ALL PRESENT VOTED IN FAVOR. THE MOTION CARRIED.

COMMISSIONER PETERS MOVED TO APPROVE THE REQUEST TO ADOPT THE LINDON CITY ANNEXATION POLICY PLAN AND RECOMMEND APPROVAL TO THE CITY COUNCIL. COMMISSIONER ATCHISON SECONDED THE MOTION. ALL PRESENT VOTED IN FAVOR. THE MOTION CARRIED.

10. PLANNING DIRECTOR REPORT

Mr. Smith discussed the Lindon City beautification project with the Commissioners. He informed the Commissioners that a new intern would be starting soon. He updated the Commission on the new assisted living center ordinance. The Commissioners discussed the upcoming elections.

ADJOURN

COMMISSIONER ATCHISON MOVED TO ADJOURN AT 9:41 P.M. COMMISSIONER SWEETEN SECONDED THE MOTION. ALL PRESENT VOTED IN FAVOR. THE MOTION CARRIED.

APPROVED - August 27, 2003

back to top