SALT LAKE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
In Room 326 of the City & County Building
451 South State Street, Salt Lake City, Utah
Present from the Planning Commission were Chair, Prescott Muir, Vice-Chair, Tim Chambless, Bip Daniels, Babs De Lay, Peggy McDonough, Laurie Noda, Kathy Scott and Jennifer Seelig. John Diamond and Craig Galli were excused.
Present from the City Staff were Deputy Planning Director Doug Wheelwright; Zoning Administrator Larry Butcher; Planning Programs Supervisor Cheri Coffey; Principal Planner Doug Dansie; Principal Planner Wayne Mills and Planning Commission Secretary Kathy Castro.
A roll is being kept of all who attended the Planning Commission Meeting. Chair Muir called the meeting to order at 5:45 p.m. Minutes are presented in agenda order and not necessarily as cases were heard by the Planning Commission. Tapes of the meeting will be retained in the Planning Office for a period of one year, after which they will be erased.
Approval of minutes from Wednesday, March 24, 2004
The Planning Commission made revisions to the minutes. Those revisions as noted are reflected in the March 24, 2004 ratified minutes.
Commissioner Scott made a motion to approve the minutes.
Commissioner De Lay seconded the motion.
Commissioner Chambless, Commissioner De Lay, Commissioner McDonough, Commissioner Noda and Commissioner Scott voted “Aye”. Prescott Muir as Chair did not vote. Commissioner Daniels and Commissioner Seelig abstained due to their excused absences from that meeting. Five Commissioners voted in favor, two Commissioners abstained, and therefore the motion passed.
REPORT OF THE DIRECTOR
This item was heard at 5:48 p.m.
Mr. Wheelwright noted that both the Planning Director Mr. Zunguze and Deputy Planning Director Mr. Wilde were out on vacation.
Mr. Wheelwright referred to the matter of Jeff Jonas as a member of the Planning Commission and noted that Commissioner Jonas has missed the last nine Planning Commission meetings, including tonight’s meeting. Mr. Wheelwright stated that Commissioner Jonas is still receiving Planning Commission informational packets but is not responding to Staff’s attempts to coordinate meeting attendance inquiries. Mr. Wheelwright stated that for all intent and purposes Commissioner Jonas has ceased to participate with the Planning Commission. Staff suggested that the Commission take action appropriate with the Planning Commission bylaws.
Chair Muir said that he felt that the Commission understood Commissioner Jonas’ intentions and felt that it would be appropriate procedurally for the Commission to request that Jeff Jonas be removed from the Planning Commission. Chair Muir also requested that a letter be sent to Commissioner Jonas complimenting him for his participation and contributions to the Planning Commission.
Motion
Commissioner Daniels made a motion that Commissioner Jonas and any other member of the Planning Commission that has such an attendance record be removed from the Commission, and that a letter be sent thanking Commissioner Jonas for his participation.
Commissioner De Lay seconded the motion.
Commissioner McDonough referred to the inclusion of any other Planning Commission member which may have the same attendance record. She felt that the intent of the Planning Commission bylaws is that any member may be removed by a majority vote and therefore it is a case by case basis.
Chair Muir agreed and said that perhaps the motion should be contained solely to Commissioner Jonas status.
Commissioner Daniels accepted the amendment to the motion.
Commissioner De Lay accepted the amendment as well.
Amended Motion
Commissioner Daniels made a motion that Commissioner Jonas be removed from the Commission, and that a letter be sent thanking Commissioner Jonas for his participation.
Commissioner De Lay seconded the motion.
Commissioner Chambless, Commissioner Daniels, Commissioner De Lay, Commissioner McDonough, Commissioner Noda, Commissioner Scott and Commissioner Seelig voted “Aye”. Prescott Muir as Chair did not vote. All voted in favor and therefore the motion passed.
Chair Muir wondered whether the Planning Commission should recommend to the City Council and the Mayor that the Planning Commission position be filled.
Commissioner Daniels thought that there have been times when the Commission has come dangerously close to not having a quorum. He felt that the position should be filled.
Chair Muir suggested that Staff make a recommendation to the Planning Commission regarding the need to fill the position and the challenges regarding getting a quorum in advance.
Commissioner Seelig agreed and said that the difficulty with getting a quorum is not due to the number of Commissioners. She felt that it deals more with whether the members on the Commission can participate. She supported the request for Staff to submit a recommendation to the Commission.
Motion
Commissioner Daniels made a motion that Staff present a recommendation to the Planning Commission regarding an appropriate number of Planning Commission members and if need be adjust the amount for a quorum.
Commissioner Seelig seconded the motion.
Commissioner Chambless, Commissioner Daniels, Commissioner De Lay, Commissioner McDonough, Commissioner Noda, Commissioner Scott and Commissioner Seelig voted “Aye”. Prescott Muir as Chair did not vote. All voted in favor and therefore the motion passed.
Mr. Wheelwright referred to the correspondence from City Council Member Dave Buhler which the Planning Commission received in their packets for discussion this evening. Mr. Wheelwright referred to a related issue saying that Mr. Jonas was a member of the standing telecommunications subcommittee. He said that as part of City Council Member Buhler’s legislative initiative the telecommunications subcommittee will need to be meeting. He said that Staff intends to inquire within the industry regarding new technology that may have developed within the past two years. Mr. Wheelwright added that the City Attorney’s Office will be submitting comments regarding the progression of the legal issues relative to cellular antenna regulations on a national perspective. Staff is requesting that the Commission consider additional appointments to the telecommunication subcommittee. He said that currently Commissioner Daniels is a member and Commissioner Galli is an alternate member.
Commissioner De Lay volunteered to join that subcommittee.
Chair Muir suggested that in addition to Commissioner De Lay’s membership, that Commissioner Galli be consulted to see if he would be willing to become a full time member of that subcommittee, since he is not in attendance this evening.
Chair Muir referred to the North Salt Lake City proposed boundary adjustment saying that the Mayor has requested that City Attorney Ed Rutan render an opinion about the probability and vulnerability of the City in litigation of the issue. He said that some City Staff members visited the site along with the Mayor and City Council Member Nancy Saxton, and they are exploring financial options for compensation. Chair Muir felt that the Commission should defer the issue for two weeks before they take a course of action as a Planning Commission. He felt that the Commission made a commitment to North Salt Lake City the night that the item was heard to at least engage in a dialogue as a subcommittee with North Salt Lake City regarding what their agenda for this property is and how this parcel fits into their open space plan. He said that at a minimum the Planning Commission has an obligation to meet with North Salt Lake City representatives.
Commissioner Scott clarified that the delay would be until the next Planning Commission meeting. Chair Muir said that he would like to delay it until the Commission receives feedback from Mr. Zunguze regarding the results of the onsite meeting and the input from the City Attorney’s Office as well as the options for acquisition. He supposed that if the option for acquisition is pursued that may preclude the issue from returning to the Planning Commission. He did not want to engage in a side bar dialogue with North Salt Lake that may muddy those waters.
Commissioner Seelig referred to the discussion among the Planning Commission when this item was reviewed that the Planning Commissioners who have not visited the proposed site would in fact do so. She asked if an organized field trip could be arranged for those members who have not viewed the site.
Mr. Wheelwright stated that it would take about two hours to adequately view the site and said that Staff would organize that fieldtrip.
Commissioner De Lay asked if an update of this item will be presented to the Commission at the next Planning Commission meeting.
Chair Muir felt that that would be appropriate during the director’s report.
Initiated Petitions
Mr. Wheelwright requested that the Planning Commission initiate a petition dealing with a more definitive definition of what a solid fence is. He said that some of the zoning ordinance requirements include a sight proof or visual screening fence. He said that there have been many variations of that theme applied over the years and most are problematic. Staff is suggesting defining what constitutes meeting that visual barrier requirement. Mr. Wheelwright said that Staff would like to study the various ways that one could accomplish that requirement in the ordinance and present that information to the Planning Commission.
Chair Muir so initiated the petition.
Mr. Wheelwright requested that the Planning Commission initiate a petition allowing Staff to explore the possibility of a pure retail option as a land use within the Business Park “BP” Zoning Districts. He referred to the previously approved changes in the Industrial Zoning District to allow stand alone retail or retail that is a substantial portion of a wholesale or warehousing operation. Staff feels that there is a market demand for the same consideration for the Business Park zone. He said that the “BP” zoning mainly exists along the new freeways near on and off ramps in the City and are highly visible. Staff would like to study the need for that ordinance amendment and bring it back to the Commission for review.
Commissioner Noda so initiated the petition.
Mr. Wheelwright noted that the Land Use Appeals Board has received two appeals which will be reviewed on April 26, 2004. The first appeal is regarding the Marthakis objection to the utility pole and cellular antennas which was approved by the Planning Commission on February 11, 2004. The second appeal is regarding Peter Hoodes objection to the Planning Commission’s approval of the Westminster College conditional use which was heard on January 14, 2004.
Chair Muir requested that Staff present at the next meeting during the director’s report a status report and feedback of Staff’s diligence in support of the Planning Commission subcommittees. He felt that some Commissioners are challenged and concerned by the lack of progress. He said that perhaps there is a concern in the community that master plans and such will be moving forward. He thought that perhaps the workload on Staff needs to be reviewed. He said that the Commission is supportive of the burdens that Staff has taken on and they would like to help in that regard.
CONSENT AGENDA – Salt Lake City Property Conveyance Matters:
This item was heard at 6:06 p.m.
a. Cottonwood Improvement District and Salt Lake City Public Utilities Department – Cottonwood (sewer) Improvement District is requesting that Salt Lake City Public Utilities Department allow a standard utility permit for the construction of a buried sanitary sewer line through the Mick Riley Golf Course, which is leased by Salt Lake County and owned by Salt Lake City Public Utilities. The City owned property, used as a golf course is located at approximately 4800 South and 500 East in Murray City.
Motion
Commissioner Daniels made a motion to approve the item noted on the consent agenda.
Commissioner Scott seconded the motion.
Commissioner Chambless, Commissioner Daniels, Commissioner De Lay, Commissioner McDonough, Commissioner Noda, Commissioner Scott and Commissioner Seelig voted “Aye”. Prescott Muir as Chair did not vote. All voted in favor and therefore the motion passed.
PUBLIC HEARINGS
Petition No. 400-04-08, a request to modify the sign ordinance to increase the size of outdoor television monitors on buildings in the Downtown “D-1” and “D-4” Zoning Districts. On May 14, 2003, Salt Lake City processed petition 400-03-09 to allow outdoor television monitors in the Downtown “D-1” and “D-4” Zoning Districts. The petition was initiated at the request of KUTV who wanted to install a television monitor on their building. At the time it was determined that a 50 square foot screen would be adequate for the KUTV station located at 333 South Main. Since that time KUTV has discovered that the smaller screen does not provide the best resolution for outdoor use and is requesting a larger size. The Administration has therefore submitted petition 400-04-08 asking the City Council to reconsider the size limitations of the original petition and modify it accordingly. The new proposed screen size is approximately 62 square feet. There are no other changes proposed to original petition 410-03-09.
This item was heard at 6:07 p.m.
Principal Planner Doug Dansie presented the petition as written in the staff report. He referred to the petition which was approved by the Planning Commission and the City Council to legalize outdoor television monitors on buildings in the “D-1” and “D-4” Zoning Districts. He said that at that time KUTV requested approval of an outdoor television monitor within the size range of 200 square feet, but through the approval process the size was reduced to 50 square feet and KUTV felt that would be sufficient. He said that during the review process KUTV was considering a monitor that was 48 square feet. After approval of the ordinance they discovered that the monitors contemplated were appropriate for indoor use but not necessarily outdoor use. In terms of outdoor panels, the technology allows the monitor to be assembled in fixed blocks and the closest size to the approved 50 square feet that also met the technical criteria is 62 square feet. He said that the 62 foot size monitor is currently erected on the building. Mr. Dansie said that the Administration initiated the petition to update the ordinance from 50 square feet to 62 square feet which will legalize the current KUTV monitor.
Commissioner Chambless asked Mr. Dansie why the resolution of the monitor is clearer from farther away. Mr. Dansie replied that the exterior monitors basically have individual pixels and you have to be a certain distance away for the eye to blend the pixels together.
Commissioner Chambless referred to the previous approval and noted that there was a concern raised at that time regarding the decibel level of the monitor. He said that during the field trip earlier today he did not notice the volume to be intrusive to pedestrian traffic and asked if that is the typical volume. Mr. Dansie said that the previous approval is subject to the City and County health code which has a limitation on noise levels. He said that he is not aware of any complaints in that regard.
Commissioner Chambless wondered if the Applicant would be back next year with a new request to increase the size. Mr. Dansie replied that the Applicant has the right to make a request. He said that Staff responds to petitions as they are submitted.
Commissioner Chambless clarified that the other competing television station KSL does not currently have a similar outdoor sign. Mr. Dansie said that currently they do not; however they are also located in the zoning district that allows television monitors if the proposal is approved they would also be allowed to have monitors up to 62 square feet.
Commissioner De Lay reiterated that this proposed size increase is due to the available technology. Mr. Dansie agreed and said that Staff’s perspective is that the best solution is to modify the ordinance to match the technology.
Chair Muir opened the public hearing.
No one was forthcoming.
Chair Muir closed the public hearing.
Motion for Petition No. 400-04-08
Commissioner Scott made a motion regarding Petition No. 400-04-08, a request to modify the sign ordinance to increase the size of outdoor television monitors on buildings in the Downtown “D-1” and “D-4” Zoning Districts, based on the findings of fact, analysis and staff report that the Planning Commission forward a positive recommendation to the City Council to alter table 21A.46.110 of the sign ordinance to increase the maximum area per sign face in square feet for outdoor television monitors from 50 square feet to 62 square feet.
Commissioner Chambless seconded the motion.
Commissioner Chambless, Commissioner Daniels, Commissioner De Lay, Commissioner McDonough, Commissioner Noda, Commissioner Scott and Commissioner Seelig voted “Aye”. Prescott Muir as Chair did not vote. All voted in favor and therefore the motion passed.
Petition No. 400-04-06, a request by the Salt Lake City Planning Commission to amend the sign ordinance (Chapter 21A.46) to allow standardized public parking lot identification/entrance signs for the Downtown Area.
This item was heard at 6:17 p.m.
Principal Planner Wayne Mills presented the petition as written in the staff report. He noted that Mr. Dan Bergenthal from the Salt Lake City Transportation Division is present. Mr. Mills stated that the Transportation Division has developed a public parking facility identification program, which will allow owners of parking facilities that provide on demand public parking to enter into contract with the City and place a neon public parking sign on their facility. He said that this program will only be available through a contract with the Salt Lake City Transportation Division, and the sign would have to fit the appearance criteria noted in the staff report. Mr. Mills stated that the proposed sign does not meet zoning regulations because the zoning ordinance does not allow three sided signs. It has also been determined that the current zoning ordinance would limit the flexibility that may be needed to place these signs in their most beneficial locations. He gave an example saying that projecting parking entry signs are currently restricted to the “D-1”, “D-4” and “G-MU” Zoning Districts. He added that in zoning districts that allow free standing signs there are setbacks required that may push the signs back to areas which may not be visible to the public. In response to these ordinance limitations Staff has developed language noted in the staff report that would permit neon public parking signs within an expanded Downtown area bounded by 200 North, 300 East, 900 South and I-15. The proposed regulations deal with basic safety concerns but do not limit the location of the signs on a site, therein lies the flexibility for the sign to be placed in the most beneficial location for the public. Mr. Mills noted a correction in the staff report saying that in the body of the report it speaks to the requirement of historic approval by stating that approval is required from the Historic Landmark Commission or Salt Lake City Planning Director or designee. He said that the recommendation in the staff report states Planning Staff but it should note that approval is required from the Historic Landmark Commission or Salt Lake City Planning Director or designee to be more consistent with other sections of the Zoning Ordinance.
Mr. Bergenthal stated that the Transportation Division is anxious to get these signs out there to highlight parking areas 24-hours a day. Currently there are signs visible during the day; however, at night it is difficult to find parking locations and the proposed signs will eliminate that difficulty.
Commissioner De Lay asked how many signs are anticipated immediately. Mr. Bergenthal stated that that depends on the interest received from the parking entities. The Transportation Division has not been pushing these signs because they have been waiting for all of the approvals to be completed. The Transportation Division has funding from the Redevelopment Agency for about 36 signs.
Commissioner De Lay felt that the proposed area should be expanded north two or three blocks due to the large amount of parking associated with the Delta Center.
Chair Muir wondered if the language regarding the location recommendation should be reworded to permit neon signs on or near any appropriately zoned commercial parking lot subject to the approval of the Historic Landmark Commission or Salt Lake City Planning Director or designee. He felt that that recommendation indicates that the City can determine who may have these signs. Chair Muir felt that the intent of this is to allow every parking vendor the opportunity subject to going through this approval process.
Mr. Mills agreed saying that the intent of that language is to only allow these signs where City approved parking lots are allowed by either permitted or conditional use.
Commissioner De Lay said that the proposed area looks too small and perhaps the issue is not a boundary area but something more general. She referred to the new Intermodal Hub area and the Fair Grounds along North Temple saying that perhaps they should be included.
Mr. Wheelwright stated that the intent of this proposal is also to put up a sign that would be recognizable by people who may not live in Salt Lake but frequent the City. It is generally proposed in the areas where there is a parking structure that may appear as a building which may be accessed off the main street. He said that outside of the Downtown Area it is pretty obvious where the parking lots are located.
Commissioner Seelig asked how many non-neon signs are allowed at an entrance of a parking lot. She felt that there needs to be a clear expectation for those that may want to participate in the program as well as a responsibility on the City’s part to avoid clutter. Mr. Mills replied that currently in the “D-1” and “D-4” Zoning Districts projecting parking entrance signs are limited to one per driveway or parking lot entry.
Commissioner Chambless asked how other cities have identified parking locations. Mr. Mills stated that he has seen them in Victoria and has seen photos of them in Seattle.
Commissioner Scott asked if the proposed signs will replace any existing signs. Mr. Mills replied that Staff included language that specifically states that this would not limit existing signage in order to encourage parking facilities to enter into this program. He said that if the parking lot facilities were not allowed to put up identification signs of their own Staff believes that it may harm this program.
Commissioner Scott asked if the City will be installing the signs. Mr. Bergenthal stated that the sign company will be installing the signs.
Commissioner Scott asked if one sign company has excusive rights to the sign. She wondered if the parking entities can purchase the sign from another vender. Mr. Bergenthal replied that they can purchase the sign from any vendor as long as it meets the sign criteria in the staff report; however, there is one sign company that has already produced one of these signs and they could probably make it cheaper that anyone else. He said that there is a good chance that most parking entities would go through that company.
Mr. Mills added that before a parking lot could pull a permit for this type of sign they would have to prove that they are under contract with the Transportation Division.
Commissioner Scott noted that the parking entities own and maintain the sign for the duration of the five year contract with the Transportation Division.
Chair Muir said that it is regrettable that perhaps these signs may add more clutter to some degree because they are totally different from the blue and brown signs that are currently being used.
Chair Muir opened the public hearing.
No one was forthcoming.
Chair Muir closed the public hearing.
Commissioner De Lay agreed that it may add more clutter, but felt that these signs are very recognizable and will be a great help to the public. She reiterated the need for the boundary to be expanded to include 600 North.
Motion for Petition No. 400-04-06
Commissioner De Lay made a motion regarding Petition No. 400-04-06 in light of the comments, analysis and findings of fact as well as the discussion this evening that the Planning Commission forward a positive recommendation to the City Council to adopt the following additions to the sign chapter of the Zoning Ordinance:
1. 21A.46.020 – Definitions
“Neon Public Parking Sign” means a standardized parking identification/entry sign as shown in Figure 21A.46.020 that is approved under contract with the Salt Lake City Transportation Division. The sign may be attached to a building as a projecting sign or stand alone as a freestanding sign.
2. Figure 21A.46.020
3. NEW SECTION: Neon Public Parking Signs
Neon Public Parking Signs are permitted under contract with the Salt Lake City Transportation Division as part of the Neon Public Parking Sign Program provided they comply with Section 21A.46.030 and Sections 21A.46.070A through 21A.46.070I of this title. Neon Public Parking Signs are not regulated by the specific zoning district sign regulations and are not limited, nor do they limit the number of signs otherwise allowed in a zoning district. Neon Public Parking Signs shall comply with the following:
A. Location: Neon Public Signs are permitted on, or near, City approved parking facilities within the area bound by 200 North Street, 300 East Street, 900 South Street, and I-15.
B. Dimensions and Design: Neon Public Parking Signs shall be dimensioned and designed as shown in Figure 21A.46.020.
C. Height and Elevation:
1. Projecting Neon Public Parking Signs: A Projecting Neon Public Parking Sign shall be located at the parking entry level of the building.
2. Freestanding Neon Public Parking Signs: A minimum clearance of ten (10) feet shall be provided between the ground and the bottom of the sign face of the Neon Public Parking Sign. A Neon Public Parking Sign shall not exceed fifteen (15) feet in height.
D. Minimum Setback: No minimum setback shall be required for Neon Public Parking Signs. Neon Public Parking Signs encroaching on or over the public
right-of-way shall obtain permission from the City pursuant to the City’s rights of way encroachment policy.
E. Neon Public Parking Signs on Public Property: The Salt Lake City Transportation and Engineering Divisions may approve Neon Public Parking Signs, with any necessary support structure, on publicly owned land or on public right-of-ways pursuant to the City’s rights of way encroachment policy. All necessary building and electrical permits must be obtained for the sign.
F. Neon Public Parking Signs in Historic Districts: A Neon Public Parking Sign proposed in a Historic Preservation Overlay District, or on a structure or site listed on the Salt Lake City Register of Cultural Resources, shall require review and approval by the Historic Landmark Commission or Salt Lake City Planning Director or designee in accordance with Section 21A.34.020 of this title.
Commissioner De Lay referred to Item 3A in the above motion and requested that the boundary be changed from 200 North Street to 600 North Street.
Chair Muir requested that the language “City approved parking” in item 3A be replaced with “currently zoned commercial parking lots subject to approval of Historic Landmarks Commission or the Planning Director or designee”. Commissioner De Lay accepted that modification.
Commissioner Daniels seconded the motion.
Commissioner Seelig requested to include language in the motion that would limit the number of neon parking signs allowed.
Commissioner De Lay accepted the modification and stated that a limit of one neon parking sign per parking facility entrance would be sufficient.
Chair Muir requested that Staff draft language regarding the number of signs allowed.
Commissioner Daniels accepted the amendment as well.
Commissioner Scott referred to other parking areas north of 200 North Street. She specifically mentioned in and around the State Capitol Building saying that parking lots may potentially be installed there which would be allowed by moving the northern boundary to 600 North.
Commissioner De Lay said that she did not have a concern with that area due to the fact that there are no current parking facilities near the Capitol Building.
Commissioner McDonough asked for clarification regarding the boundary modification.
Commissioner De Lay clarified that the northern boundary has been moved from the Staff recommended 200 North Street to 600 North Street and the other three boundaries are as Staff recommended.
Chair Muir said that he felt that eastern boundary should be changed otherwise it will encroach into residentially zoned property.
Commissioner McDonough suggested amending the motion to add a new boundary to the proposed boundary “which lies between 200 North and 600 North and between 200 West and I-15”.
Commissioner De Lay accepted the amendment.
Commissioner Daniels accepted the amendment as well.
Amended Motion for Petition No. 400-04-06
Commissioner De Lay made a motion regarding Petition No. 400-04-06 in light of the comments, analysis and findings of fact as well as the discussion this evening that the Planning Commission forward a positive recommendation to the City Council to adopt the following additions to the sign chapter of the Zoning Ordinance:
1. 21A.46.020 – Definitions
“Neon Public Parking Sign” means a standardized parking identification/entry sign as shown in Figure 21A.46.020 that is approved under contract with the Salt Lake City Transportation Division. The sign may be attached to a building as a projecting sign or stand alone as a freestanding sign.
2. Figure 21A.46.020
3. NEW SECTION: Neon Public Parking Signs
Neon Public Parking Signs are permitted under contract with the Salt Lake City Transportation Division as part of the Neon Public Parking Sign Program provided they comply with Section 21A.46.030 and Sections 21A.46.070A through 21A.46.070I of this title. Neon Public Parking Signs are not regulated by the specific zoning district sign regulations and are not limited, nor do they limit the number of signs otherwise allowed in a zoning district. Neon Public Parking Signs shall comply with the following:
A. Location: Neon Public Signs are permitted on, or near, parking facilities allowed as permitted or conditional uses in non-residential zoning districts located within the area bound by 200 North Street, 300 East Street, 900 South Street, and I-15; and the area bound by 200 North, I-15, 600 North, and 200 West.
B. Dimensions and Design: Neon Public Parking Signs shall be dimensioned and designed as shown in Figure 21A.46.020.
C. Height and Elevation:
1. Projecting Neon Public Parking Signs: A Projecting Neon Public Parking Sign shall be located at the parking entry level of the building.
2. Freestanding Neon Public Parking Signs: A minimum clearance of ten (10) feet shall be provided between the ground and the bottom of the sign face of the Neon Public Parking Sign. A Neon Public Parking Sign shall not exceed fifteen (15) feet in height.
D. Minimum Setback: No minimum setback shall be required for Neon Public Parking Signs. Neon Public Parking Signs encroaching on or over the public
right-of-way shall obtain permission from the City pursuant to the City’s rights of way encroachment policy.
E. Number of Neon Public Parking Signs Permitted: Neon Public Parking Signs are limited to one (1) per driveway or parking lot entry.
F. Neon Public Parking Signs on Public Property: The Salt Lake City Transportation and Engineering Divisions may approve Neon Public Parking Signs, with any necessary support structure, on publicly owned land or on public right-of-ways pursuant to the City’s rights of way encroachment policy. All necessary building and electrical permits must be obtained for the sign.
G. Neon Public Parking Signs in Historic Districts: A Neon Public Parking Sign proposed in a Historic Preservation Overlay District, or on a structure or site listed on the Salt Lake City Register of Cultural Resources, shall require review and approval by the Historic Landmark Commission or Salt Lake City Planning Director or designee in accordance with Section 21A.34.020 of this title.
Commissioner Chambless, Commissioner Daniels, Commissioner De Lay, Commissioner McDonough, Commissioner Noda, Commissioner Scott and Commissioner Seelig voted “Aye”. Prescott Muir as Chair did not vote. All voted in favor and therefore the motion passed.
UNFINISHED BUSINESS
Mr. Wheelwright noted that the Westminster College housing mitigation plan has been moved to be discussed at that next Planning Commission meeting scheduled for April 28, 2004.
Commissioner De Lay referred to the City noticing requirement and felt that it should be reviewed and possibility changed. She noted that the owners of the properties are the people noticed which may exclude the residents of the properties.
Chair Muir said that he is hesitant to initiate a petition to review that with out the Planning Director being present. He said that he shares that concern and thought the way that the residents of properties have been notified was by Staff posting information on the premises. Chair Muir said that it is a real challenge for Staff to chase down those people and if the Planning Commission makes that a statute then it may set the Commission up for appeal. Chair Muir felt that if the Planning Commission is defining cumulative impact of anything within 800 feet of a petition the notification should correspond with the 800 foot area.
Commissioner Seelig said that it is important to be cognizant of the administrative time required to this. She said that the Planning Commission cannot recommend things that are not possibly achieved. She said that she did not see a problem with sending information to residents and additional addresses. She felt that the current noticing requirement provides a higher level of service to owners and are not inviting renters in the same way. She felt that the City is sending a message to the community that a renter’s voice does not matter in the same way.
Commissioner Scott said that it is a matter of the most effective way to reach to residents whether they are owners or renters. If information is sent to an address, there is a chance that the owners never get word of it. She said that it is assumed that any responsible owner of a property who receives notification is going to inform their tenants.
Commissioner Seelig said that she is not suggesting that the owners not receive notification. She said that she recognizes that there is a problem and requests that it be studied.
Commissioner De Lay said that it is a misconception that owners of properties communicate with their tenants. She gave an example as a landlord saying that she has never spoken to any of her tenants. She said that she has a leasing company who handles those properties for her which she has an arms length from all of the tenants. Commissioner De Lay said that she is comfortable waiting for the Planning Director to be present before the Commission initiates a petition.
Commissioner Daniels said as a renter he has never been informed by a landlord regarding City related issues. He also requested that Staff submit the amount of additional Staff and money it would take to notify the tenants as well as the owners. He felt that the City is under serving the community in that respect.
Chair Muir suggested that an issues only hearing be scheduled and invite the community councils throughout the City and send the Charge to them to come back to the Commission with ideas on how to solve the problem.
Commissioner Scott referred to a petition which was initiated about a year ago to map the conditional and non-conforming uses within the City. She said that such a map would have been helpful for the Commission when reviewing the House of Refuge petition which was tabled by the Commission on March 24, 2004. Commissioner Scott said that she had mentioned at that hearing that when the Planning Commission reconsiders the House of Refuge that would be a good time to get going again on that petition.
Commissioner Scott gave Commissioner De Lay a magazine page showing structures that could be adopted for stealth telecommunication facilities, and might be appealing to property owners. She suggested that Commissioner De Lay share the page at a telecommunications subcommittee meeting.
There being no other unfinished business to discuss, the Planning Commission meeting adjourned at 6:56 p.m.