Meeting Minutes 2007


MINUTES OF THE

PUBLIC HEARING OF THE

PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION MEETING OF

GARDEN CITY, UTAH

 

The Garden City Planning & Zoning Commission held a Public Hearing on Wednesday, January 3, 2007 at the Garden City Office Building located at 145 W. Logan Rd.  Commission Chairman Seamons opened the Public Hearing at 6:00 p.m.

 

Commission Members Present:

 

         Dennis Salzetti

         Jared Seamons, Chairman

         Frank Smith

         Jennifer Huefner

         Greg Bills

         DJ Ballingham

 

Others Present:

 

         Sharlene Millard                                  Kent Fisher

         Anita Weston                                     Branch Cox

         NaDene Larsen                                    Howard Pope

         Mel Larsen                                        Brian Skyler

         Jim Blotter                                         Rulon Crosby

         Karen A. Blotter                                  Doug Thompson

         Mark Hislop                                      Brandon Cook

         Jan Luczak                                         Mark Forakis

         Debi Wolfley                                      Joe McCord

         Steve Wolfley                                     Ray Elliott

         Brian Lyon                                        David Stringham

         Dennis Bullock                                    Scott Bessinger

        

SUBDIVISION OF 15 LOTS WITHIN BALSAMORHIZA,  Joe McCord

 

Mr. McCord said the addition of the 15 lots will fall within the rest of Balsamorhiza.  Ray Elliott said they are developing the area together.  It is separate ownership and Mr. McCord wasn’t ready to join them at the last meeting, so he’s starting the process himself. 

 

Mr. Elliott said the trail system has been removed from around the perimeter of the subdivision.  There are a couple of access points being negotiated for crash gates.  The booster pumps are being engineered. 

 

Mr. Elliott said he has met with engineers.  There will be booster pumps for homes and there will be pressure for fire flow.  It will be a part of the final engineered design.

 

RE-ZONE 15 ACRES OF BALSAMORHIZA,  Ray Elliott

 

This re-zone will be northeast of Mark Hislop’s house, south of US 89 and will go down to the section line.  It’s where the old horseshoe portion of the old road is.  There is approximately 15 acres.  He is requesting a re-zone from Recreational Residential to Community Commercial.  They want to build a log sales office for commercial use.  They will landscape it to be a park and will include a few ponds with a small fishing area.  There will be trees and a meadow around the lodge where they will potentially be able to rent snowshoes and cross country skies in the winter.  In the summer, they will plant fish for flyfishing, which will have better fishing than the lake.

 

A member of the audience asked about the exterior lighting.  Commission Chairman Seamons said the Planning & Zoning will request that the lighting be down-lit.  Mr. Elliott said the lodge will be the same size as a house.  They will have soft lights and look like any other house in Bridgerland.  Commission Chairman Seamons said they will have to follow the Architectural Standards, which includes non-offensive lighting.

 

LIGHTHOUSE,  Kent Fisher

 

Mr. Fisher explained that he previously went to the Board of Adjustments to propose adding a 100’ lighthouse to his subdivision, which would be next to Kimball Lane and US 30.  There were adjacent property owners there who weren’t too happy about it for privacy reasons.  They have decided to try for a 50’ lighthouse to help with their privacy.  They wanted to make the lighthouse as true to an original lighthouse as they could and make a landmark for the town.

 

Brandon Cook presented a letter that was read by Commission Chairman Seamons stating that Gene & Iris Cook are strongly opposed to the lighthouse.

 

A member of the audience said they are concerned with the location of the lighthouse.  In the summer, this area is a nightmare as it is with Pickleville Playhouse and everything going up on Kimball Lane.  He’s afraid there won’t be enough parking and especially for people with boats.  Also people going by the lighthouse slowing down or stopping to look at the lighthouse may cause traffic problems.  He suggested pushing the lighthouse back where it doesn’t block everyone’s view and keep the height at 35’.  He disagrees that the lighthouse would be a landmark.  He said the lake is the landmark.  We don’t need a lighthouse that tall.

 

Another member of the audience said they would still like to see the Milky Way and hoped the lighting wouldn’t be too intrusive to the area.

                                            

Mr. Fisher said with the lighthouse at 50’, it wouldn’t be a landmark for boats on the lake.  He would be willing to set it back a little, however, he said there’s a reason for it to be there.  It will also help bring business to the other businesses in the area. 

 

A member of the audience said it would be a billboard.

 

Gary Forakis, Vice President of the Cottages HOA said he is concerned with the traffic coming through there.  He agreed that the Pickleville Playhouse parking is a hazard in itself.  People stopping to look at the lighthouse are a concern. 

 

Mr. Fisher said when that is all developed into commercial, they’ll have to work with UDOT to make sure there are turning lanes on the Boulevard.  This is not a unique situation.  It’s going to happen as other subdivisions come in also.  Not just his subdivision.  He said he would be willing to let residents with mailboxes use some of his land to push them away from the road so they could get to them easier. 

 

Mr. Fisher said they will give up property to help with a 100’ right of way on Kimball Lane.

 

Mr. Fisher said he’s not proceeding with the commercial area right now, but would like to build the lighthouse now.  A member of the audience said she would like to see a conceptual plan of the whole subdivision.  Commission Chairman Seamons said

there will be requirements that will need to be met.  The Planning & Zoning will do the best job they can.

 

WOODHAVEN SUBDIVISION,   Michelle Locey

 

Mark Hislop is here representing Ms. Locey. 

 

Anita Weston questioned the home that will be put on Lot 2.  She wondered if it is too large for the lot.  She wondered about access to Lot 3.  Mr. Hislop said there is an easement down that road.  It will be a flag lot and is zoned commercial. 

 

Mr. Hislop said we’re here to just talk about Lots 1 and 2.   Ms. Weston said she is concerned about traffic, in particular parking.  It doesn’t look like enough area for 3 lots with the size of building going in.

 

A member of the phone company is concerned with the small access to the lot.  They would like to make sure that the access won’t be used for the property.  The easement is for the phone company and is as much theirs as it is for the Locey’s.  It’s 13’ wide and is not an adequate access.

 

 

Mr. Hislop said he’s been told that it’s not a good access, but it is a right of way and is too small for people with boats.  The Locey’s have requested to have a right of way down Lot 1 so there would be access to Lot 3.   The phone company doesn’t want them accessing their property through a wide-open gate. 

 

Howard Pope said there is a gate on their property that will be locked.  He’s concerned of renters who can’t get through the other access using the phone company’s driveway.  Their driveway is going through both lots.  He’d like to see the gate to the easement locked if the access isn’t good. 

 

Commission Chairman Seamons suggested they get together and work something out.  He said we don’t have a jurisdiction to tell you what to do.

 

Mr. Hislop said at this point in time, the Locey’s plan to use the building as a personal residence.  They don’t plan on using that easement as a thoroughfare.  It’s more for construction right now.  There is no right of way through Luczak’s previous property to bring trucks through there.

 

Mr. Pope asked how they would get a fire truck or ambulance through the area.  Commission Chairman Seamons said there’s nothing in our ordinances right now to protect that.  But they are working on getting an ordinance in place.

 

LOCHWOOD PHASE 2,  Dennis Bullock

 

There are 92 lots in the first phase and 72 lots in the second phase.

 

Mr. Hislop said he hasn’t seen the layout of Lochwood yet, but said it’s important to have a real good egress.  The access to Harbor Village now is really tough to get in and out of there.

 

COTTONWOOD SUBDIVISION,  Rulon Crosby, Doug Thompson

 

Mr. Crosby and Mr. Thompson are proposing a 4-lot development.  The front two lots will face Bear Lake Blvd. and the other two will face 3rd West from the rear.  This would be considered a flag lot and should be in consideration with what the ordinances are now. 

 

Mr. Crosby explained that there are 3 original lots.  Each of the lots will be just over ½ acre.  Anita Weston wondered where the parking will be.  Mr. Crosby said he was required to come up with 1000 feet and doesn’t think it matters where the parking comes from.

 

COTTONWOOD SUBDIVISION,  Mel Larsen

 

Mr. Larsen said his lots are next to Mr. Crosby and Mr. Thompson’s lots.  They are

working together on utilities.  He said he would have 3 lots and a private right of way to access the lower lot. Another lot would access 3rd West directly.  There would be a common fence line with Mr. Crosby. 

 

Ray Elliott said he and Mr. Larsen proposed to give a 50’ easement.  They will increase that to 100’ and dedicate the easement to the town to be the start of Hodges Canyon Road – heading south.  Mr. Larsen asked about the road.  He said he is concerned with involving other property owners to get the other 100’.  He asked if the 100’ is really necessary?  Commission Chairman Seamons said the General Plan is proposes 3rd West to be 100’ wide and will also allow other vehicles access. 

 

Dave Stringham said the new trunk lines for utilities would be a major thing for infrastructure for the entire community.

 

Commission Chairman Seamons said the town is asking people when they propose projects to dedicate a portion back to the town for the road.  3rd West is a necessary secondary access for this community.

 

Mr. Elliott said the town is starting with the 100’ on the north and when the Fisher/Spears project comes in, they will have the other end at 100’.  The only gap would be in between there.  We’re already establishing the start and the end of 3rd West.

 

Mrs. Larsen said she is concerned with the 4-wheelers buzzing by.  They are so loud.  She’s concerned if there is any control with snowmobiles and 4-wheelers on that road.  It will be hard for homeowners when it is developed.  Commission Chairman Seamons said as the town grows, it is their intention to have a police force and the ability to help with that.  We do rely on the county to help us with law enforcement right now.

 

Commission Member Smith said 3rd West will be designed to have alternate traffic.

 

Mr. Larsen said she is also concerned with safety of the snowmobiles and access off the hill.  There’s more risk for accidents.  Commission Member Smith said with the way the access is presently; there are people going over other people’s property to get to the canyon; the town was hoping this road would help with the access for the other vehicles.

Commission Chairman Seamons said these are issues we’ll address as we go along.

 

COTTONWOOD COMBINED SUBDIVISION,  Rulon Crosby and Mel Larsen

 

Mr. Crosby explained the separate and combined subdivisions.  He said they felt they could combine the subdivisions with a cul de sac and access it through 3rd West other than access by Bear Lake Blvd.  The cul de sac would be adequate for a fire truck to turn around.  It is an alternate plan for the other two plans.  They would like approval of all plans and see what they could work out.

 

The Public Hearing adjourned at 6:37 p.m.

 

APPROVED:                                     ATTEST:

 

 

 

__________________________________    ____________________________________

Jared Seamons, Chairman                        Assistant Clerk

 

 

 

 

MINUTES OF THE

REGULAR MEETING OF THE

PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION OF

GARDEN CITY, UTAH

 

The Garden City Planning & Zoning Commission held their regular meeting on Wednesday, January 3, 2007 at the Garden City Office Building located at 145 W. Logan Rd.  Commission Chairman Seamons opened the meeting at 7:00 p.m.

 

Commission Members Present:

 

         Dennis Salzetti

         Jared Seamons, Chairman

         Frank Smith

         Jennifer Huefner

         Greg Bills

         DJ Ballingham

 

Others Present:

 

         Sharlene Millard                                  Kent Fisher

         Anita Weston                                     Branch Cox

         NaDene Larsen                                    Howard Pope

         Mel Larsen                                        Brian Skyler

         Jim Blotter                                         Rulon Crosby

         Karen A. Blotter                                  Doug Thompson

         Mark Hislop                                      Brandon Cook

         Jan Luczak                                         Mark Forakis

         Debi Wolfley                                      Jim McCord

         Steve Wolfley                                     Ray Elliott

         Brian Lyon                                        David Stringham

         Dennis Bullock                                    Scott Bessinger

         Bill Shupe                                          Corey Doolin

 

APPROVAL OF MINUTES

 

The minutes of the Public Hearing of November 1, 2006 were presented.  Commission Member Salzetti made the motion to accept the minutes as presented.  Commission Member Ballingham seconded the motion.  All in favor and the motion carried.

 

The minutes of the regular meeting of November 1, 2006 were presented.  Commission Member Ballingham made the motion to accept the minutes as presented.  Commission Member Salzetti seconded the motion.  All in favor and the motion carried.

 

The minutes of the special meeting of November 29, 2006 were presented.  Commission Member Huefner made the motion to accept the minutes as presented.  Commission        

Member Smith seconded the motion.  All in favor and the motion carried.

 

The minutes of the Public Hearing of December 6, 2006 were presented.  Commission Member Ballingham made the motion to accept the minutes as presented.  Commission Member Huefner seconded the motion.  All in favor and the motion carried.

 

The minutes of the regular meeting of December 6, 2006 were presented.  Commission Member Huefner made the motion to accept the minutes as presented.  Commission Member Salzetti seconded the motion.  All in favor and the motion carried.

 

REVIEW OF CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT, LeGrand Johnson, Bill Shupe

 

Commission Chairman Seamons said he would basically like to go over some of the conditions that were set to see how far along they are.  Mr. Shupe said they don’t have the trees in yet.  They haven’t experimented with the berms yet either.  They had a hectic summer and have concentrated on getting their new plant in operation.

 

Commission Chairman Seamons said he would like to know what their intention is.  Mr. Shupe said for their long-term plan of the pit, their intent is to slope the banks to the required 3 x 1 and re-vegetate as they mine out of the areas.  They will still put in clumps of trees.  Commission Chairman Seamons suggested that we put a timeframe on landscaping so we can see some progress.

 

Commission Member Ballingham asked Mr. Shupe what he felt is a good timeline.  We can negotiate on this.

 

Mr. Shupe feels they could put in most of the trees within a year.  They were going to experiment with decorative clumps and evergreens.  Leaf trees cause them grief in concrete.  He said LeGrand Johnson gave the town some land for third west and the town tore down the fence so they should put it back.

 

Mr. Shupe said 3rd West is now their main access. 

 

Mr. Shupe said he understood that Frehner’s was going to fill and slope the pit.  They filled, but didn’t finish the slopes, so they can work on the slopes.  It may be close to a

1 x 1.  He’s not sure there’s enough material to make a 3 x 1.  They’ll probably do 3 x 1 on their property.

 

Commission Member Smith is concerned with the liability issue there.  If someone falls off into the pit, it’s a liability issue because it’s in their pit.  Mr. Shupe said they fell off the towns’ property, it’s their liability.  The fence has been taken out.

 

Mr. Shupe said they could start by the north side and work towards the east and some on the south, in working with trees and berms and should be done within a year. He’ll talk with the Green’s to see if they would like trees there.  He’ll come to the June meeting and report how they’re coming along.   Commission Chairman Seamons said it would be nice to have water piped in to keep the trees alive.

 

Commission Chairman Seamons said he would like to see something more specific on a timeframe. 

 

Mr. Shupe will draw up a plan for the whole area to be reclaimed and have it ready in a month. 

 

Commission Chairman Seamons said it doesn’t have to be an architectural drawing, just show a plan.   Commission Member Huefner would like to see a time commitment from the company for what will be done on the portion that will be reclaimed.  Mr. Shupe said that may take until March.

 

Commission Chairman Seamons said our intention is not to make it difficult, we just need a plan to help them get it done in a timely matter.

 

Mr. Shupe said he will bring the plan in for the March meeting along with timeframe to get the sections done.

 

CHERIMOYA DISCUSSION, Norman Mecham and Ray Elliott

 

Ray Elliott is here representing Norman Mecham.  Mr. Mecham had received a letter from the Planning & Zoning questioning why there weren’t two entrances into Cherimoya.  Mr. Elliott said there are two entrances.  There is one entrance west of Larry and Lana Hodges garage which has landscaping and a sign.  The second entrance is between Nancy Hodges and Larry Hodges.  The road is named Tamarind Way and is not paved yet.  The reason the lower road isn’t done is because the construction isn’t done yet. 

 

When Hodges Canyon Road is recorded, it will be 60’ wide.  The existing water line on the east side of US 30 is 14”.  It will go under the highway and up Hodges Canyon to the new 3rd West where the 14” will go down to a 12” around the Salzetti’s home.  When there’s an increased demand on that end, it creates a velocity problem through there and creates a pressure drain, so there will be a new 14” line through there.  Tamarind Way will be looped back to the 14”.  

 

Commission Member Smith thought there were plans to have the second road go onto the highway.  Mr. Elliott said it was too steep for a road and hasn’t been in the planning for a long time.  It’s best to have two entrances on Hodges Lane than on the highway.  UDOT won’t stand for it.  They’re more for safety.

 

The road is platted and recorded.  The total improvements haven’t been made to the lower end because the utilities aren’t in yet. 

 

FINAL APPROVAL OF BESSINGER SUBDIVISION,  Scott Bessinger

 

Commission Member Ballingham said the only corrections were to change the numbering of the lots.  That has been taken care of.

                                            

Commission Member Ballingham made the motion to accept the plot as planned as the potential final plot for the Planning & Zoning Commission.  Commission Member Salzetti seconded the motion.  All in favor and the motion carried.

 

BOUNDARY LINE AGREEMENT, Worldmark Phase II

 

Corey Doolin was here representing Worldmark.  He said it was a stipulation by the Planning & Zoning to expand the parking area for the development.  Trendwest had a piece of property, expanded it, paved it and put in a double parking area and quit claimed it to the Inn Condo Association, which is attached to the original parking lot.  They are seeking the town’s approval to change the boundary as defined by the new state law.  Worldmark used to own a part of it and has now deeded it to the Inn Condominium Association.

 

Commission Member Ballingham made the motion to approve the Boundary Line Agreement and Exchange of Deeds as presented before us by Worldmark and Harbor Village with the understanding that they will provide the town with a Mylar to be signed and recorded with the county.  Commission Member Huefner seconded the motion.  All in favor and the motion carried.

 

SUBDIVISION WITHIN BALSAMORHIZA,  Joe McCord

 

Commission Chairman Seamons said he has a conflict of interest but will oversee the meeting.  Balsamorhiza has already been approved for preliminary and Mr. McCord is required to have his own steps for his own approval. 

 

Mr. Elliott said this is a joint venture.  Mr. McCord owns 15 acres.  The road will be in common along with the utilities.  He said we would have brought it in simultaneously, but Mr. McCord wasn’t ready.  The name won’t change between properties.  They said they have a formal written agreement to do this jointly.

 

Commission Member Ballingham made the motion that we accept the application for preliminary approval with the stipulations that were indicated to Norm Mecham and Ray Elliott applying to the same subdivision:  Indicating open space being named on the final, RV and ATV parking indicated or considered, Dumpster location, Utility easement indicated on the plat prior to final approval, Names of streets be indicated and adjusted as previously discussed, Some kind of resolution on the allowance of septic tanks in comparison to the size.  Commission Member Bills seconded the motion.  All in favor and the motion carried.

 

REZONE OF A PORTION OF BALSAORHIZA,  Ray Elliott

 

Mr. Elliott showed a map of the area to be re-zoned from Recreational Residential to Community Commercial.  He said they are going to put in a lodge that will include rental

for snowshoes and cross-country skis in the winter and in the summer a fly shop and fishing rod rental.  There is water that comes onto the property and they will make a few ponds to put some fish in so customers can fly fish with planted fish.  They want to entice

the public to come in, because that is where their sales office will be.  They will retain it separately from the subdivision.  There will be a lodge, landscaping and an office.  It is approximately 15 acres. 

 

Commission Member Huefner said by the time you develop that many lots; there will be a lot of people who will want services.  She feels like that is a great location.  It will be nice to have a commercial zone to accommodate them.

 

Commission Member Ballingham made the motion to accept this proposal to change the lot of property to Community Commercial from Recreational Residential. Commission Member Huefner seconded the motion.  All in favor and the motion carried.

 

LIGHTHOUSE, Kent Fisher

 

Commission Chairman Seamons said his biggest question is the intent of the lighthouse.  Mr. Fisher said he’s got a large project with some commercial space in it.  It is the section the lighthouse feature is proposed to be on.  They want to attract tourists and locals also within their commercial development.  The project is called the Lighthouse Pointe with various aspects to that project.   There is a PUD, which is separate from this and they are also trying to develop moderate housing with townhomes within this subdivision.

 

He has reviewed the ordinances and found exceptions for height limitations in 11C-910.   It talks about exceptions for light poles, chimneystacks, etc.  He doesn’t want this to be an eye sore and doesn’t think it will be.    He’s talked with Cedar City who has a lighthouse that is 80’ tall and they don’t have any problems with it.  He was ambitious before to want it 100’ tall.  He won’t have it open for the public for privacy issues.  There will not be advertising or lettering on the lighthouse. 

 

Mr. Fisher said, as with every developer or contractor, they want to be unique. He’s concerned with having the lighthouse being too short it won’t look good. Already, people are talking about the lighthouse.  He would like to draw people to the south part of Garden City instead of them going north.  He wants his commercial property to flourish and benefit the citizens here as well.

 

Commission Chairman Seamons asked what the intention of the lighthouse is, if not public.  Is it his intent to have a working light or to tie another building to it?  Mr. Fisher said no other structure would be attached.  It will be a freestanding structure.  The intent was to have a working lighthouse to see it from afar, but with concerns of citizens they have dropped it back to 50’.  No one will see much even if there were a light in it.  The ordinance clearly states rotating beacons are not allowed.  He doesn’t want to upset the neighbors.  If they had a 100-watt light bulb it could be shut off by 10:00 p.m.  So it’s not an issue for the citizens.

 

Commission Chairman Seamons said if it is a commercial building, it falls under the Architectural Standards ordinance that states 35’ high and they don’t have a way to go beyond that.    Mr. Fisher said someone previously indicated that the town doesn’t have a means to extricate someone from something that tall. It’s a concern for him also.  He

feels putting it to 50’ would be better and it won’t be open to the public.  Nothing will be combustible inside.  There will be a spiral staircase inside.

 

Commission Member Smith said as far as illumination, they have a fluorescent light bulb in their lighthouse that is not obnoxious.  He wondered what to call the lighthouse; a monument or a building.

 

Commission Chairman Seamons said it is the Planning & Zoning’s job is to follow the ordinances of the town.  Under this circumstance, we are very limited to rely on requirements other than what is stated.  Be aware that there isn’t anything that specifically talks about this issue.  He asked to hear what the other members felt.

 

Commission Member Ballingham said based on our current ordinance and discussion; he doesn’t have a problem with this project.  If it is treated as a monument and not as a commercial building that would house offices or a business where people would come and go, he doesn’t have a problem with it.  And as long as the communities desires are met, such as lighting.

 

Commission Member Bills agrees, but is concerned with starting with the lighthouse.  It’s something unusual and automatically sends up red flags.  He said if we were talking about a 35’ minimum or maximum height, this would fly right through.  Our only question is the additional 15’ of height.  He doesn’t have a problem with it.  The attention has been drawn because of the type of project.  Height is only question.  He would be concerned if he were that close too, but it might be fun for the town.

 

Commission Member Ballingham said in reviewing 11C-910 he feels it does follow under that ordinance as if we are treating it as a monument.

 

Commission Member Salzetti said he is concerned with a lot of issues.  He lives right across the street.  He said we should adhere to the 35’ maximum standard.  He referred to comments from property owners with an issue of it being an after hour’s location for kids to hang out, also after the dance.  He’s speaking from a law enforcement point of view. There has been a lot of trouble from the dance and afterwards in trying to get kids to move away from business locations and go home.  From past experience, they just go from one location to another.  He wondered if there would be any control?  Mr. Fisher said there will be no night watchmen.  He doesn’t feel that it’s their responsibility to police the space.  There will be a parking lot and lights.  He thinks if they don’t congregate here, they’ll go somewhere else.  That’s where the police need to do something.

 

Mr. Fisher said they wouldn’t be able to get into the lighthouse. 

 

Commission Member Salzetti said they already congregate on the corner of Kimball Lane.  He hates to see it.

 

Commission Member Salzetti asked if there was any consideration to move it farther to the west inside the subdivision.  He suggested enlarging a cul de sac and put it in the middle of the cul de sac.

 

Mr. Fisher said their intention is for people to see it from the road, not tuck it in the development.  They could maybe move it a little more west on Kimball lane, maybe off the corner.  For now, they could barricade it off until they do something with the commercial space.  He wouldn’t want a parking lot there until there are commercial businesses.  Maybe that would help with the kids for a while.

 

Commission Member Salzetti would like to keep the height at 35’ with definite stipulation on lighting. 

 

Commission Member Huefner said our job is to enforce the ordinances. She’s gone through them to try and find out how we need to apply them to this project.  Regardless if we like the project or not it, doesn’t matter.  He’s here to get approval.   She would like to suggest we get attorney advice on this.  She doesn’t feel any of our ordinances apply.  She personally thinks this project is not a building, it’s a monument.  If it’s a monument, we don’t have any restrictions in our ordinance book.  If it’s a building, we can’t approve anything over 35’.   It’s a matter of definition.  She would like to see if the attorney feels it’s a monument or a building.  She doesn’t feel we can make a sound legal decision.

 

Commission Member Smith said the fact that it has stairs would mean that it has to be built to a code.  He also feels we need legal advice.  He did want to warn Mr. Fisher that young people all the time are trying to break into the building to get up to the top.  There is a liability issue.  He agrees with Commission Member Huefner that if it’s a monument, we need legal advice. 

 

Commission Chairman Seamons said their intent is not to hold him up on project.  He said we want to make sure we are making a good decision for the community and within our rights.  He would like to propose that we address this issue after we’ve talked with our attorney and seek his legal council. 

 

Mr. Fisher said this would be more of a monument for the subdivision as well as the town.  It won’t have a foghorn, but would be good to use for emergency.

 

Commission Chairman Seamons said he really appreciates Mr. Fisher coming in and allowing them to make a right decision.

 

Commission Chairman Seamons said he saw people with hands up with questions.  That is for the Public Hearing.   When we go into the regular meeting, and we let someone talk, it changes the type of meeting and legally, we cannot accept anyone’s input from this point.

 

WOODHAVEN SUBDIVISION,  Michelle Locey

 

Mark Hislop is here representing Ms. Locey.  He said he is here to talk about Lots #1 and #3.  It is currently one lot with one driveway off of Bear Lake Blvd. and goes to the

Luczak’s existing home.  They would like to subdivide that lot into two.  Commission Chairman Seamons asked what the intent of the road is.  Mr. Hislop said it is just a driveway.   The attorney has gone through the ordinances and said this is a non-conforming lot because there are two dwellings on a lot.  To make it conforming, it needs to be split into two lots.

 

Mr. Hislop said there is a 20’ legal right of way that would give access to all three lots so Lot #3 wouldn’t have to use the 13’ on 150 S.  Commission Chairman Seamons said he hopes they are able to work out something with phone company. 

 

Mr. Hislop said there is currently a gate at the Luczak’s property.  The 13’ right of way is  the only access Lot #2 legally has.  After this is split and recorded, there would be a legal access to Lot #2.

 

Commission Member Ballingham agrees that we need to find a way to make these lots conform, but in his opinion, the manner that is proposed, is inadequate. He said essentially, we’re creating 2 flag lots. That’s problematic in his eyes.  If another building were to be built on Lot #2, the access of 20’ isn’t wide enough.  Most cities require 30’.  Looking at the 20’, in order to be able to create a flag lot, access or easement, we’re creating a corner lot of Lot 1 and it has meet the appropriate requirements.  It’s a residential purpose so the residential zone needs to be met.  If it’s a commercial building, it has to adhere to the commercial zone. 

 

Mr. Hislop said whatever is there now is grandfathered in.  Commission Member Ballingham agreed that it is grandfathered until we change the current metes and bounds of the property.

 

Commission Member Ballingham said the access to Lot #2 appears to be 10’ wide.  To truly make this work, that access has to be 30’ wide with a cul de sac at the end for a turn around.  Mr. Hislop said that’s not true.  That’s not in our ordinance.  We already went through that with his lot split and his flag lot.

 

Commission Member Ballingham said he feels it’s a different situation.  A dead end is being created and won’t give the ability for someone to turn around.  If someone were to build on the front end of Lot #2, which isn’t a portion of this, it would leave only one way in and one way out, there is no turn around.  Mr. Hislop said there is a 13’ right of way as an egress.

 

Commission Member Ballingham said if they followed the commercial setbacks, they could put a building on the southeast corner of lot #2.  That would leave access to both lots.  It’s a problem in the future.

 

Mr. Hislop said they couldn’t put another building there in the future because you can only put one building on a lot.  The present home wasn’t shown on the map. 

 

Commission Member Ballingham said he should still follow the 30’ right of way requirement.  Mr. Hislop said there isn’t anything in the ordinance stating it has to be 30’.

 

He has 20’ on his property and he feels it’s plenty of room.

                                            

Commission Member Ballingham said Mr. Hislop’s personal project actually spurred a lot of conversation.  That is why they are creating a new flag lot ordinance.  He said our

purpose is also to look toward the future to protect the town.  He feels now is the time to start considering them.  If this were in the best interest of the property owner, he would agree.

 

Mr. Hislop said the ordinance isn’t in place now and we need to go by the present ordinance.  Commission Member Ballingham said our purpose is to follow the current ordinance and

to look and protect for the future.  Now is the time to start considering and implementing the ordinance.

 

Commission Member Smith wondered about moving the driveway more north.  Mr. Hislop said the ordinance is the issue and the Locey’s are trying to abide by the ordinance.  Commission Member Ballingham said the setbacks change as the use of the building changes.

 

Commission Chairman Seamons said if a residence is there, you have to go by the residential rules.  Mr. Hislop asked how you can taken an existing home and make them change the setbacks if the use changes?  It’s already in a commercial zone.

 

Commission Member Ballingham said while the easement and access currently exists as a driveway, because we’re splitting the lots, it’s no longer considered a driveway.  If we split the lots and there’s a residence, it needs to be a residential establishment within a commercial zone following the residential requirements.  To make it conform, it needs to meet current requirements or have a variance.

 

Commission Member Huefner read from the “Lot” definitions in the ordinance.  We have a non- conforming issue, but we’ll still make it non-conforming by doing this.  A lot is defined by having frontage on the street.  Whenever we create new flag lots, we’re creating lots that are not conforming to our ordinance.  Mr. Hislop said the 20’ right of way is on the frontage that goes back to the lot.  Commission Member Huefner said a right of way is not a street.  Mr. Hislop disagreed.  He said it’s still frontage off a main road, which is 150 South.

 

Mr. Hislop said the Planning & Zoning is saying that if the Locey’s want to rent these dwellings on both lots, it’s okay for them to be non-conforming, but if they don’t want renters and just have family, then it’s a residence and they’re non-conforming.

 

Commission Member Huefner said she doesn’t like either situation.  She wonders how we can make this the best for the present and future property owners.  If you’re going to break this into 3 lots, one day one of the lots will be for sale.  The town has liability issues to protect and that’s our job to use judgement and apply the ordinances the best they can.

 

Commission Member Smith suggested putting a cul de sac in there.  Mr. Hislop said it doesn’t matter if it’s a cul de sac or a driveway with a curve, it still has frontage.

 

Commission Member Ballingham said the easiest solution is to move the 20’ access to the north side of the lot.  It then wouldn’t be a flag lot, it will then be a mini subdivision situation.  There is a legitimate road that accesses all the lots.  It should be a bonafide street instead of a right of way. 

 

Mr. Hislop said there is a prescriptive easement off of Bear Lake Blvd.  If they move the road to the north side of the lot, then they have to fight with the state for turn lanes, etc.

 

Commission Member Ballingham said it wouldn’t be easy, but it would be the right thing to do.  He has a problem with the 20’ and creating 2 flag lots.

 

Mr. Hislop said he’s only asking for a lot split of Lots #1 and #2.

 

Commission Chairman Seamons said we’re trying to look out for the best interest for someone that may rent it. We need to be aware that an emergency could happen back there, where someone could get hurt and we can’t get back there.  We just need it to be safe back there.

 

Commission Chairman Seamons thinks there’s going to be contingencies, which is: a 30’ access, there can’t be two flag lots attached to one access, and the existing building needs to be easier to find.  They would also like a legal document stating that it will always be used for commercial or residential use.  Then the Planning & Zoning will need to make sure they meet the proper setbacks based on the current ordinance.

 

Mr. Hislop said Lot #2 is not a flag lot.  It has it’s own access.  Commission Member Ballingham said it is a flag lot although it has a 13’ access.  The access needs to be considered as a flag lot access.  That access requirement will be 30’ and it needs to indicate that it’s for Lot #3.

 

Commission Member Smith wondered if 13’ is large enough to go into a lot?  Commission Member Ballingham said not, but it’s been previously subdivided, it’s beyond our control right now.

 

Commission Chairman Seamons said we have no legal right for access to Lot #2.  Mr. Hislop is here to split the two lots.  The concern is the width of and consideration for a home there.

 

Mr. Hislop said there may be some legal ramifications on this.  Our present ordinances

don’t prohibit a 20’ right of way and flag lots.  Commission Member Smith said we need to seek legal council.  Commission Member Ballingham said our current ordinances are correct and we don’t have an ordinance for flag lots.  We are updating the ordinances and there will be an ordinance soon for flag lots. We are just trying to look out for the community.

 

Commission Member Huefner said our definition of a lot doesn’t allow for this.  She feels we can deny this based on the definition.

 

Commission Member Smith said we know we’re heading in the direction of getting this addressed through an ordinance.

 

Mr. Hislop said the Locey’s don’t want to have to give up property for people to drive on if they legally don’t have to.

 

Commission Member Huefner said we’re in a hard situation because we’re darned if we do and darned if we don’t.  We need to think of public safety.  We don’t have an ordinance to guide us.  We want the property owners to be able to do what they want with their property. We are their public guardians.  Even if there is a threat of legal ramifications.  Mr. Hislop said that wasn’t a threat.

 

Commission Member Huefner said we can approve, modify or deny this application.  She’s willing to modify and work with each other.

 

Commission Member Ballingham made the motion to accept the plot on the premises that there is a 30’ frontage right of way off of the state highway and there be some legal description and binding designation on the current existing building on lot #1 and as to whether it will remain always a commercial building or if it has potential to become residential, then the understanding that the 30’ access will be shifted to the point that it meets residential setbacks.  Commission Member Huefner seconded the motion.  All in favor and the motion carried.

 

The residential setbacks will be 30’ off the front and 20’ off the sides because it’s a corner lot.  Mr. Hislop said it won’t ever be 20’ off the highway.  Commission Member Ballingham said it’s close to that now.  Other setbacks that are in our control need to be met. 

 

Commission Member Huefner said the driveway/right of way is non-conforming.  Mr. Hislop said he’s only here to make it a conforming issue.  Commission Member Ballingham said we need to make it conforming to the point that we can.  We can’t make you move the house, but we can require that the driveway be in conformance with current residential setbacks.  If it’s going to be a commercial business, then they need to follow the commercial setbacks.  We need a legal binding document stating in writing that it won’t be used as a residence.

 

Mr. Luczak said when he bought the property; he bought the addition, which he sold so he could share the land with his sons.  The town approved it.  Now we tell him that the right of way which goes to the homes is not big enough.  It’s not a two way street.

 

Commission Member Ballingham said it still fits the flag lot description and we’re looking at the best interest of the town.

 

FINAL APPROVAL OF PHASE 2, LOCHWOOD,  Dennis Bullock

 

Mr. Bullock said he’s been working on this project for the last 2 ½ years.  He’s received master plan approval and Phase I approval.  Phase I has been recorded.  He’s asking for the approval of the remaining 72 lots in Phase 2.

 

Commission Member Smith said he doesn’t have a conflict of interest.  He’s a partner but with another situation.

 

Commission Chairman Seamons talked about stipulation in the past minutes stating that Phase I should be completed before Phase II be started.  Commission Member Smith said precedence has been set that phases can be approved before other phases are started.  As long as the irrevocable letters of credit are in place and they cover what needs to be covered, he thinks it would be okay.  Mr. Bullock said they’re putting in the infrastructure right now.  As soon as the power company can, they’ll pull the conduit through.  Phase I should be ready for asphalt in April.   They do have their approvals from UDOT.  Commission Chairman Seamons asked about the common area with the clubhouse.  Mr. Bullock said the pool and clubhouse will be in phase II, they will have a letter of credit and it will be in the recorded plat.  The pool is not in common area but will be done in phase II.

 

They just received the comments from the engineer and the county recorder.  Brian Lyon said they followed the ordinance 11E-400 for the legal description on a preliminary plat.  The square footage on the lots are typical size.  It will be shown on the final.  They also increased the common area.

 

They showed where additional parking was.  The retention pond is in phase I and is sized for whole development.

 

Mr. Bullock will bring a letter of credit.

 

Commission Chairman Seamons reminded Mr. Bullock to have his amenities done first.  Mr. Bullock agreed.

 

Commission Member Ballingham made the motion to accept Phase II of Lochwood subdivision as currently indicated.   It appears they have met all the previous stipulations and conditions.  Commission Member Bills seconded the motion.  All in favor and the motion carried.

 

COTTONWOOD SUBDIVISION,  Rulon Crosby, Doug Thompson, Mel Larsen

 

Commission Chairman Seamons said the property owners want to present two different situations, subdividing the lots individually and as a combined subdivision. He asked the intent of the access.

 

Mr. Crosby said you’ve published a set of rules so that when someone comes in, they’ll know what you’re expecting.  Tonight it’s obvious that you’re looking beyond the existing set of rules.  He said it’s difficult to anticipate what they want.  They’ve brought the proposal under the existing set of rules and would like it considered under the present ordinances, but if the Commission wants to set a new set of rules, they’ll try to comply. 

 

What they’re proposing does indeed constitute a flag lot.  Mr. Crosby said he lives on a flag lot and many do.  Some flag lots have as many as 4 homes on their driveway and love it because you don’t have to back up on a busy street.  He said you want to follow other city’s ordinances, but don’t follow their mistakes.

 

He thinks there’s some confusion about setback rules applying to driveways.  He said it isn’t the same for streets.  He said private driveways of 30’ are way too large.  No one really expects a driveway to be that large.  All that a staff is on is the private driveway.  It’s still part of the lot and still shows frontage.

 

Mr. Crosby would like to propose a situation where there would be two lots on the proposed 3rd West.  One would directly access 3rd West through a private drive of 16’ width.  They are trying to accommodate the town’s long-term goals with 3rd West and are willing to give up 50’ to help with it. 

 

Mr. Crosby said they originally had two lots accessed by a flag.  The Mayor suggested creating a common driveway through the homes.  Originally, the Planning & Zoning approved a 3-lot arrangement with Mr. Williams with the stem up the middle to access the rear lot.  He is asking for a private driveway and feels this is in compliance with the present ordinances.

 

Mr. Crosby would like both plans to be approved.  Commission Member Ballingham said we need some ambivalence.  Mr. Crosby said he doesn’t see why they can’t both be approved as a concept.  Commission Member Ballingham said we could do both, but only one could have a final and be recorded.

 

Mr. Crosby said with the proposal of what Mr. Elliott has in mind of the junction off Hodges Canyon Road and 3rd West, he and Mr. Larsen have agreed to also supply 50’ to help with 3rd West if the junction is approved.  They would like to use that road to access a 4-lot subdivision.  There will be 3 lots that would be accessed with a 16’ wide street.  The second access would be the common driveway between the two homes on Bear Lake Blvd., which was approved when the 3-lot subdivision was done.  The second individual subdivision to the south would have access from the common driveway of 16’ leading to Lot #2.   He feels he’s tried to meet the ordinances.

 

He said he doesn’t understand why they want 30’ for the driveway.  Commission Member Huefner said by definition, it makes it a street, not a driveway.  Mr. Crosby said he doesn’t want a street, he wants a private driveway.  This is not a right of way.

 

Mr. Larsen said they have a 3rd option and they would combine their subdivisions and go together on utilities, they would access that subdivision through 3rd West.  With the front two lots being accessed through the highway.

 

Mr. Crosby said if 3rd west doesn’t come into existence, none of this will happen.

 

Mr. Crosby said he has added 1000 sq. feet to the lot for the Conditional Use Permit.  There is almost 1200 sq. ft added on the south side of his lot. It is between the driveway and the road.  He told the Town Council that he would put it in the back if necessary

 

No one can access the subdivision until 3rd west is in.   Mr. Larsen said he has the right of way, so he can use that for his subdivision.

 

Commission Member Ballingham said this conceptually has some great ideas.  There are some issues that need to be resolved; on the plan with 4 lots - there is a concern over the definition of the private driveway vs. access point. He feels they’re the same and need to be 30’.  There’s no way to meet the setbacks from a residential standpoint by putting a 30’ access.  Mr. Crosby said we need to make a distinction between private driveways and city streets.  The setbacks apply to the streets, not private driveways.

 

Commission Member Ballingham said he feels the setbacks are going to apply.  He told of some recommendations he had with the subdivision.  He sees that those two homes meet the setbacks of residential unless it’s commercial property. 

 

Commission Chairman Seamons asked if we are prepared to make these changes prior to our flag lot ordinance being approved?

 

Commission Member Ballingham said he thinks we have to.  If you knew a company was going bankrupt next week, you wouldn’t buy stock today.  He thinks we need to look out for the best interest of the city.  Which is if we decide not to make it 30’, so be it.  We need to decide as a premise and follow it based if we’re going to implement a flag lot ordinance.

 

Commission Member Huefner wondered if we could base it on an ordinance that’s not in our books.  She feels the definition of a lot would help us.

 

Commission Member Ballingham said this project needs to be modified.  If it’s approved, it won’t be ready to build for a few months and we should look at what the ordinance will be when they’re ready to build.  He thinks the time to apply the ordinance is now.

 

Commission Member Ballingham said this is a great idea.  But he has some concerns with private access.  The highway is very busy, and with a passageway there and children from the renter’s it spells disaster.  He’s in the healthcare field and doesn’t want to take care of the child.  Mr. Crosby said he doesn’t either, but how does that protect the child?

 

Commission Member Bills discussed private driveways vs. public roads.  If you take any existing subdivisions, the roads are not quite public roads, because they may just stop or cul de sac.  Part of the concerns is that applying the potential building codes for residential building codes, which is 30’ in the front.  Where does that make the difference between a private drive or access?  At some point, when you turn in for a building permit, you’ve got to show setbacks and they’ll be off the driveway.  He said they don’t have a problem with the rear entrance, just the front entrance.

 

Commission Member Smith doesn’t understand how we can approve the back side until 3rd West is in.  Commission Chairman Seamons said it would be a condition.

 

Mr. Crosby said they thought Norm Mecham’s conceptual subdivision would have gotten their junction approved and then they would be happy to connect and run the concept of their access.  They’re trying to cooperate with town plans, etc. 

 

Mr. Elliott said he came for conceptual in December to propose the junction.  He’s met with the town engineer, his issues are all met.  They’ve also met with Dave Stringham; he feels this is the correct alignment for it.  The state engineer needs to come in and state where the entrance needs to be. Then they’ll come for Preliminary approval.

 

3rd West will eventually line up to Mr. Larsen’s and Mr. Crosby’s pieces.  They’re waiting to get a point from the state engineer.

 

Mr. Crosby said he would like to receive approval based on the contingency that 3rd West goes through.

 

Commission Member Ballingham said he doesn’t have a problem with this.  The combined plan looks like a good plan based on 3rd West and we allow subdivisions to concur minus the private driveway.  Private driveways shouldn’t go to two lots.

 

Item #12 - Crosby Subdivision: 

Commission Member Bills made the motion to deny the presented four-lot subdivision, due to the access and unusable conditions knowing we’re going to approve the other plat.

Commission Member Ballingham seconded the motion.  All in favor and the motion carried.

 

Item #13 – Larsen Subdivision:

Commission Member Bills made the same motion to decline approval due to the access and unusable conditions, knowing we’re going to approve the other plat.  Commission Member Smith seconded the motion.  All in favor and the motion carried.

 

Item #14 – Combined Subdivision:

 

Mr. Crosby said this combines both subdivisions.  It presupposes the ultimate existence of 3rd West.  It shows that we would give the town an additional 50’ of each property to help develop 3rd West.  They’re proposing a 30’ street that meets the requirement off of 3rd West and will go between both properties.  There will be a 60’ diameter cul de sac.  The fire hydrant will be within 400’ of all the lots.  They are willing to designate a safety escape hatch over the sewer easement.  Then there could an access to the highway and 3rd West.  

 

Mr. Crosby questioned the engineer and wondered if there is potential for a private cul de sac.  Commission Member Smith said he has a major subdivision, not a minor.

 

Commission Member Ballingham said this plan makes more sense.  There’s a larger waiting period because they’ll need to wait for 3rd West to go through.  There is a couple of  issues:  1)  He would like to see an engineered drawing.  2)  Fire hydrant requirement is to have a fire hydrant every 400’.

 

Commission Member Smith said this is a conceptual plan.  It will need to meet the fire code.

 

Mr. Crosby said even if 3rd West doesn’t come to pass, there is a 50’ access that could be used.  They agreed.  It’s all set up for utilities.

 

Commission Member Ballingham said sewer easement needs to be a sewer easement, not a driveway. 

 

There was discussion about using the cul de sac and the highway entrance.  Commission Chairman Seamons said that will need to be addressed.

 

Mr. Crosby and Mr. Larsen will need to bring in engineered plans.

 

Commission Member Ballingham made the motion to accept this conceptually as a future potential subdivision in order to establish this as a preliminary except this needs to comes before the Planning & Zoning with preliminary one more time with engineered plans and indicating setbacks, meeting fire codes and sewer and water requirements to approve plat for preliminary approval.  Commission Member Bills seconded the motion.  All in favor and the motion carried.

 

Mr. Elliott said in discussions with the sewer company, a main trunk line is proposed to go down the section line.  The current sewer line will go to Bear Lake Blvd. where it can continue.  A 14” main line will be 14” to Kimball Lane and go east to the Golf Course road. 

 

Mr. Crosby wondered about the 30’ wide flag lot entrance.  Commission Chairman Seamons said we’re hoping we’ve thought far enough ahead to prepare for emergency vehicles.  Commission Member Bills said talking as a consumer and a builder, their last plat it is much more marketable.  Mr. Crosby said about the 30’ driveway, no one will pave anything over 12’. 

 

FLAG LOT ORDINANCE

 

Commission Member Ballingham said he has also looked at more communities comparable to ours about flag lots. 

 

The flag lot ordinance is to preserve the beauty of the community and for safety reasons.  This ordinance was written on a general consensus on what these other communities are doing.  He feels some issues are very important.   A flag lot would only be for single-family dwellings. It is not permitted for duplexes and apartment buildings.   The staff portion has to be on a dedicated public street, not someone’s driveway.  The minimum width is 30’. The maximum length is 150’.  No building or construction will be allowed on the staff portion unless the minimum width is the same or greater minimum width allowed in the zoning district.  No more than 2 flat lots can be contiguous or share the same staff. If there are cluster buildings, it should be a major or minor subdivision or a PUD.

 

There was a discussion about commercial vs. residential zones and flag lots. 

 

Commission Member Huefner wondered about making a rental within a residential area a Conditional Use Permit?

 

Commission Member Ballingham said we need to have the ability to enforce what we require.

 

Commission Chairman Seamons said when we’re requesting something from someone, there needs to be a timeline and the motion needs to be very clear.  If they don’t have the proper information, we turn them down because they’re not in compliance.  Commission Member Ballingham wondered about getting an enforcement ordinance.  Those not in compliance will be charged $500.00 day until they comply with the ordinance.  They decided to ask the attorney.

 

Commission Member Bills said does it really matter if we really term something residential or commercial?  Aren’t the guidelines better than what we have now, which is nothing? He said as they come before us to divide us, that’s when the question should come up if it’s residential or commercial.  It should fall in the category of one or the other.

 

Commission Chairman Seamons said in reality, we’re going to set precedence for a piece of property by our decision.

 

There was discussion about a 30’ access or right of way being different than a 30’ road. 

 

Commission Member Smith said maybe the confusion is that the 30’ right of way doesn’t all have to be a driveway.  We need to determine how wide the road needs to be.  Commission Member Ballingham said the 30’ is from other communities doing the same thing.  He’s not sure why it’s that width.  We can change it.

 

Commission Member Bills feels there are more safety issues in a residential building than a commercial building because people sleep there during the night.  If a driveway goes to 2 or more homes, it’s no longer a driveway.

 

There was discussion about changing the residential home requirements in a commercial zone. He suggested maybe change the ordinance instead of the zoning. 

 

Commission Member Ballingham said we would be doing ourselves a disservice if we require residential homes in a commercial zone to meet commercial requirements.

 

Commission Member Huefner made the motion that we accept the flag lots ordinance, Title 11C-2000, a recommendation to the Town Council to adopt this.  Commission Member Bills seconded the motion.  All in favor and the motion carried.

 

New Name for 3rd West

 

The Rich Co. Recorder – Debbie Ames said because 3rd West – South bends it can’t be called 3rd West.  She strongly suggested that we try to find another name.  After some discussion, the following names were suggested to the Town Council;  Lighthouse Drive, West Bench Drive, Blue Water Blvd., Raspberry Blvd., Black Bear Road, Recreational Roadway, Raspberry Alley.  Their favorite was Raspberry Run.

 

It was stated that the approval forms need to be changed.  We need to put on the forms that we recommend to the Town Council to approve an item, we can’t approve. 

 

Commission Chairman Seamons said the Planning & Zoning previously chose to strike miscellaneous from the agenda.  After hearing that they can still discuss items, just not make any approvals, they would like to change miscellaneous to administrative issues.  It will be on the agenda next month.

 

Commission Member Ballingham made the motion to adjourn at 10:50 p.m.  Frank seconded the motion. 

 

 

 

APPROVED:                                     ATTEST:

 

 

 

 

__________________________________    ___________________________________

Jared Seamons, Chairman                        Assistant Clerk