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 Chairperson Chambless, Vice Chairperson Laurie Noda, and Commissioners Babs De Lay, John Diamond, Kathy Scott, and Jennifer Seelig. Commissioners Prescott Muir, Craig Galli and Peggy McDonough were excused.
Present from the Staff were Louis Zunguze, Community Development Director, Brent Wilde, Deputy Community Development Director, Alexander Ikefuna, Planning Director, Doug Wheelwright, Deputy Planning Director, Cheri Coffey, Deputy Planning Director, Kevin LoPiccolo, Planning Program Supervisor, Everett Joyce, Principal Planner, Elizabeth Giraud, Senior Planner, Wayne Mills, Senior Planner, Ray McCandless, Principal Planner, Maggie Tow, Secretary.
A roll is kept of all who attended the Planning Commission Meeting. Chairperson Chambless called the meeting to order at 5:46 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 FOR WEDNESDAY, August 10 13, 2005.
(This item was heard at 5:47 P.M.)
Chairperson Chambless asked for a motion to approve the minutes of August 10, 2005. Commissioner Seelig asked that the slides shown in the August 10, 2005 meeting be made a part of the public record. Louis Zunguze stated the slides would be part of the public record. Commissioner De Lay moved that the minutes be approved. Commissioner Scott seconded the motion. Commissioner De Lay, Commissioner Scott, Commissioner Seelig, and Commissioner Noda voted “Aye”. Commissioner abstained. Commissioner Muir, Commissioner McDonough and Commissioner Galli were excused. The motion passed.
REPORT OF THE CHAIR AND VICE CHAIR
(This item was heard at 5:50 P.M.)
None.
REPORT OF THE PLANNING DIRECTOR
(This item was heard at 5:51 P.M.)
Mr. Louis Zunguze, Community Development Director, introduced and welcomed the new Planning Director, Alexander Ikefuna. Mr. Zunguze said that Mr. Ikefuna came from Savannah, Georgia and had been in a similar capacity there for the last fourteen years.
At 5:52 P.M. Mr. Zunguze reported on Petition 400-03-10 regarding property owned by Shaw Investments. He stated that this petition was created in 2003 and was originally an application for an M1 rezone. Originally, the Planning Commission believed CN zoning would be most appropriate for the area, given the location of the property, 200 South and 1545 West, and its proximity to the Interstate at 200 South and approximately 1400 West. Accordingly, CN zoning was recommended to the City Council. The City Council reviewed the Planning Commission’s recommendation and key issues raised by the public at the City Council hearing. The City Council has now requested that the Planning Commission re-visit its recommendation. Mr. Zunguze stated that the Planning Office’s recommendation remains the same; the CN neighborhood type of commercial development is more appropriate for that area. He said that if the Planning Commission decided to re-hear the matter, the petition would be scheduled for a hearing. If the Commissioners decided to affirm the previous recommendation, it would be reported to the City Council.
The Planning Commission discussed various points, such as the property’s inclusion in the quiet zone, and what studies had been done on this issue. The Planning Commission then voted to reaffirm their earlier recommendation.
At 5:54 P.M. Mr. Brent Wilde stated that Mr. Zunguze is asking that the Planning Commission consider initiating a petition pertaining to multi-family dwellings in the commercial and downtown zoning districts. The ordinance of 1995 required that multi-family housing include the presence of a retail or office element on the ground floor of the building fronting the street. Mr. Wilde said the intent of the adopted 1995 ordinance was to assure that a relationship be maintained between retail or restaurant, and the pedestrian on the sidewalk. The concern was that a stand-alone apartment house may not have that relationship. He stated that Planning Commission has constantly been running into this issue as we try to accommodate multi-family dwellings in the downtown area and the time has come to change the requirement from one that requires mixed use buildings to one that allows stand-alone multiple family buildings in these zoning districts.
Chairperson Chambless asked for a motion. Commissioner De Lay moved to recommend the initiation of a petition and Commissioner Noda seconded the motion. Mr. Wilde noted that a formal vote was not needed.
At 5:56 P.M. Mr. Zunguze noted that the increase in institutional uses in neighborhoods, such as churches and hospitals, was creating a need for increased parking. He stated that there is not an adequate mechanism or review process in place to address the impact of the proposed expansions in the various neighborhoods. He said that often the proposals that are received entail the demolition of homes in order to expand parking lots. Through the current Conditional Use process we cannot capture all the elements and issues of the neighborhood that need to be addressed, such as quality of life and safety, when such requests for parking lot expansions are received. Mr. Zunguze would like to look at another vehicle that would capture broader aspects of what neighborhoods are, and obtain a more balanced review process. He asked that the Planning Commission move that a study be done and a petition created that could lead to ordinance changes, thus allowing the Planning Commission and staff to be more effective when they review these proposals.
Chairperson Chambless asked Mr. Zunguze if this request needed to be written in the form of a formal petition. Mr. Zunguze replied that it did not. However, after study it would come back to the Planning Commission as a formal petition. The Planning Commission gave their approval.
At 5:59 P.M. Mr. Zunguze asked the Planning Commission to create a petition that would establish design guidelines for large retail uses. He stated there are a number of uses being proposed and often come with a single format type of development. These uses do not always conform, from a design stand point, to pedestrian friendliness in the neighborhoods and locations they are in. He asked the Commission to create a petition to address large scale retail development from a design standpoint to fit in our neighborhoods.
Commissioner Seelig stated that she would like to initiate the petition. The Planning Commission gave their support without opposition.
At 5:59 P.M. Mr. Zunguze stated that at the August 10, 2005 Planning Commission meeting he asked the Planning Commissioners to review the proposal for the priority listing of master plans in the community. Commissioner Diamond asked Mr. Zunguze how this proposal would be driven and how it would happen. Mr. Zunguze responded that the Planning Commission would drive the proposal and staff would give them a proposed timeline for updating a particular master plan or if it was a new plan, when it would be addressed. He said a format for master plans is now in place. Mr. Zunguze also stated that the Planning Commission would determine what subcommittees would be needed, and what degree of interaction is needed with the community. He stated that this would be a product that Planning Commission would ultimately send to the City Council.
Chairperson Chambless asked for comments. Commissioner Diamond said that it would be helpful to know how the Planning Commission would set up the subcommittees to deal with the list in terms of Staff’s timelines and the Planning Commission’s schedules. Mr. Zunguze noted that it would obviously entail a lot of interaction with the various community councils concerned with those master plans. He said Staff would set up the first some guidelines and give the Planning Commission an outline indicating a timeline for different kinds of subcommittees. The Planning Commission approved, without opposition, the proposed master plan priority use.
At 6:01 P.M. Mr. Zunguze announced a presentation and book signing by author Dr. Joel Hirschhorn. He noted that the book is titled “Sprawl Kills”. Dr. Hirschhorn will be in town Thursday, September 8, 2005, between 4:00 and 5:00 p.m. at the Salt Lake City Library, 210 East 400 South. Mr. Zunguze stated that we all want to do smart growth type development practices and it would be very nice to attend this gathering to hear the thoughts of this author on the subject.
PUBLIC NOTICE AGENDA – Salt Lake City Property Conveyance Matters
At 6:03 P.M. Chairperson Chambless read the Public Notice Agenda for Cephalon, Inc.
Cephalon, Inc. is expanding their operations within Salt Lake City and is seeking a Telecommunications Right-of-Way Permit at 4710 Wily Post Road to connect the communications between the buildings across the street. Plans call for a perpendicular street crossing with the six 4” ducts installed via trenching (street cut design has already been approved by the Development Review Team).read the that Cephalon, Inc. is expanding their operations within Salt Lake City and is seeking a Telecommunications Right-of-Way Permit at 4710 Wily Post Road to connect the communications between the buildings across the street. Plans call for a perpendicular street crossing with the six 4” ducts installed via trenching (street cut design has already been approved by the Development Review Team).
Chairperson Chambless asked if there were any comments or discussion from the Planning Commission or the audience. No response was heard.
PUBLIC HEARINGS
Petition No. 400-03-34, a request by Salt Lake City Council that the Planning Commission review additional refinement of the nonconforming use ordinance, looking specifically at guidelines and criteria to address neighborhood impacts and concerns relating to the enlargement and/or intensification of nonconforming uses.
At 6:03 P.M. Chairperson Chambless introduced Petition No. 400-03-34 and Everett Joyce, Principal Planner.
Mr. Joyce stated that this petition was first introduced to the Planning Commission in a public hearing on July 13, 2005. At that time a quorum was not present and the petition was continued to this date, August 24, 2005. Mr. Joyce said that the text changes were high-lighted in red and blue. The red text was part of the original text change recommended by the Planning Commission and forwarded to the City Council. The City Council adopted and recommended changes to the non-conforming, non-complying regulation. They specifically returned the portion on enlarging non-conforming uses.
The blue text contained specific changes made in response to issues brought forward by the City Council. The memo in the packet identified key issues of the City. Mr. Joyce delineated key issues and gave further clarification of the contents of the new blue text, citing page by page, the issues and conditions as stated in the memo.
Chairperson Chambless asked if a representative of a Community Council was present and if Mr. Joyce was representing the petitioner. Mr. Joyce said his response addressed the issues of the City Council. No one in the community wished to speak to this matter.
Commissioner Diamond asked Mr. Joyce what that process would be and Mr. Joyce responded that it is a Conditional Use process for an intensification or expansion of non-conforming uses. It does not cover all situations. The process begins administratively when the petitioner exceeds the ordinance limits. It then goes into the Conditional Use process and comes to the Planning Commission for approval.
Motion for Petition 400-03-34:
Commissioner De Lay moved that the Planning Commission approve Petition No. 400-03-34, based on the analysis outlined in the staff memorandum. Commissioner Noda seconded the motion. Commissioner De Lay, Commissioner Seelig, Commissioner Scott, Commissioner Noda, and Commissioner Diamond voted “Aye”. Commissioner Galli, Commissioner Muir and Commissioner McDonough were not present. The motion passed.
Petition No. 410-584, from Salt Lake Apartment Builders to modify a previously approved planned development for the Emigration Court Apartments, generally located on the block between 500 to 600 East and 300 to 400 South.
6:11 P.M. This petition was postponed by the petitioner. It will be placed on the September 14, 2005 agenda.
Petition No. 400-05-12, a request initiated by the Planning Commission to review the definition of “automobile” found in Section 21A.62.040 of the Salt Lake City Zoning Ordinance, specifically considering the removal of the words “motor scooter” and “motorized bicycles” from the existing definition.
At 6:12 P.M. Chairperson Chambless introduced Petition No. 400-05-12 and Kevin LoPiccolo, Zoning Administrator.
Mr. LoPiccolo stated that last May he brought a petition to the Planning Commission that changed the existing definition of automobiles. The primary reason for the change was to allow motor scooters and motorized bicycles to be sold as retail goods in all commercial areas that permit retail sales. As currently written, the definition stated that are currently prohibited from selling a scooter or motorized bicycle in certain zones because that particular zoning district does not permit the sales of automotive type uses. As written, the definition of automobile would still restrict automotive type sales in the underlying commercial districts that prohibit automobile sales, but would relax the sales of motor scooters and motorized bicycles.
Chairperson Chambless asked if there were questions for Staff. There were none. Chairperson Chambless then stated that the petitioner is the Planning Commission and asked if there was a representative of the Community Council that wanted to speak to the matter. No one responded. Chairperson Chambless asked if there was someone from the general community that wanted to speak to this matter. No one responded. Chairperson then closed the public meeting and asked for discussion and/or a motion on the petition. A motion was then heard.
Motion for Petition 400-05-12:
Regarding Petition 400-05-12, Commissioner Scott moved that, based upon the facts listed in the staff report, the Planning Commission forward a favorable recommendation to the City Council. Commissioner Noda seconded the motion. Commissioner De Lay, Commissioner Seelig, Commissioner Scott, Commissioner Noda, and Commissioner Diamond voted “Aye”. Commissioner Galli, Commissioner Muir and Commissioner McDonough were not present. The motion passed.
Petition No. 400-05-13, a request initiated by the Planning Commission to comprehensively review all applicable regulations in the Zoning Ordinance that address the permitting of tents in both residential and commercial districts city wide
At 6:15 P.M. Chairperson Chambless introduced Petition Number 400-05-13 and Kevin LoPiccolo, Zoning Administrator.
Mr. LoPiccolo stated that this was a request generated last May. Staff held an open house June 16, 2004. This petition affects Chapter 42, “Temporary Uses”, and Chapter 52, “Special Exceptions” of the zoning ordinance. The changes that have been modified are reflected in the Staff Report. As proposed, this change allows the use of temporary tents to be more inclusive and recognizes all commercial, manufacturing and special purpose districts to allow the use of tents under a temporary use. As part of the requested changes to the Temporary Uses, Mr. LoPiccolo stated that the proposed language change included businesses located in residential districts and that those businesses be afforded the same opportunity for temporary tent use. Mr. LoPiccolo noted that businesses located in residential zones would be required to go through a Special Exception process which would require the abutting property owner’s support to erect a tent for a five day period. The Special Exception process could be done at an administrative level. He stated the process of receiving a tent permit had not been changed; all respective departments that typically review tents would continue to do so under the proposed change. Staff requested that the Planning Commission forward a positive recommendation to the City Council.
Commissioner Scott addressed the question of time limits or the period of time a tent could remain up, with Mr. LoPiccolo. Mr. LoPiccolo responded with a history of the current ordinance stating the timelines were essentially established and Staff was not requesting any type of modification to the time limits currently placed on tents. He said that since the proposed change to allow tents for businesses within residential districts was being added, Staff was concerned with preserving the residential character of the residential district. With the requirement of a Special Exception, the residential integrity would be maintained.
Chairperson Chambless asked if there were questions for Staff. There were none. Chairperson Chambless then stated that the petitioner is the Planning Commission and asked if there was a representative of the Community Council that wanted to speak to the matter. No one responded. Chairperson Chambless asked if there was someone from the general community that wanted to speak to this matter. No one responded. Chairperson Chambless then closed the public meeting and asked for discussion and/or a motion on the petition. A motion was then heard.
Motion for Petition 400-05-13:
Commissioner Seelig moved that the Planning Commission approve Petition No. 400-05-13, based on the analysis outlined in the staff report. Commissioner Noda seconded the motion. Commissioner De Lay, Commissioner Seelig, Commissioner Scott, Commissioner Noda, and Commissioner Diamond voted “Aye”. Commissioner Galli, Commissioner Muir and Commissioner McDonough were not present. The motion passed.
Petition No. 410-753, a request by the Housing Authority of Salt Lake City for conditional use approval of a proposed transitional treatment housing facility located at approximately 542 West 600 South. The property is zoned CG General Commercial.
At 6:23 P.M. Chairperson Chambless introduced Petition No. 410-753 and Everett Joyce, Principal Planner.
Mr. Joyce explained that the site is located at the northwest corner of 500 West 600 South. He stated the property is vacant land at this time. Transitional treatment facilities were a specific Conditional Use listed in the zoning ordinance for the CG zone. He also stated the criteria for Conditional Uses. The Salt Lake City Community Housing Plan defined transitional housing as rental housing offered to people moving into the community from various types of shelters. This project would be consistent with the Community Housing Plan and the Central Community Master Plan.
Mr. Joyce stated that the Transportation Division had no concerns with the street impact regarding the capacity on the streets and the internal circulation of the project. The new facility must connect to existing utilities that are in the street. He also said there may be some issues regarding water flow and fire hydrants and the petitioner would be responsible for those items when the facility is submitted for the building permit process.
Mr. Joyce then discussed specific standards:
1) Protection of adjacent land uses from light, noise and visual impact is provided with a ten foot landscape buffer on the perimeter of the parking lot.
2) Staff recommended that final landscape plan approval be by the Planning Director or designee.
3) Federal assistance in financing is requested by Housing Authority which requires an environmental review process and
4) Staff recommends that final site plan approval by the Planning Director or designee be subject to addressing mitigation requirements from the environmental review process.
Mr. Joyce further stated that because the land is vacant, and there are no environmental or historical aspects on site, there would not be a problem with historical issues. Abutting land uses were industrial and commercial, including a produce warehouse, service and storage garage, other warehouse uses and a restaurant. The findings from Staff were that the Conditional Use for transitional treatment facility was compatible with the surrounding neighborhood and would not have a net cumulative adverse impact upon the City or the neighborhood as a whole.
Mr. Joyce said that there were additional standards related to transitional treatment homes that included a requirement to be 800 feet from similar uses. There was a similar use on 700 South 550 West, Safe Haven facility, which was over eleven hundred (1,100) feet from the proposed site, if one took the public walk ways and traveled door to door to the facilities.
Based on the findings of the fact, staff recommends that the Planning Commission approved the request of Conditional Use for a transitional treatment facility at 542 West 600 South subject to the following conditions:
1) Final site plan and landscape plans be approved by the Planning Director or designee subject to the applicant addressing any issues raised within the environmental review process
2) That final plans meet applicable City standards and building permit plan review requirements.
Chairperson Chambless asked if there were any questions for staff. None were noted.
Chairperson Chambless asked the applicant, Bill Nighswonger, Development Director, Housing Authority, to speak. Mr. Nighswonger said that based on his meetings with City staff, it was the recommendation that he apply for the Conditional Use as a transitional treatment facility. He believed that part of the agenda tonight, from the report of the Director, which talked about multi-family developments being allowed in Down-Town districts, was partially driven by this project. He wanted to build a multi-family apartment building that happened to be for the homeless, with services on site for the residents. This is what drives the title of transitional treatment facility and this does require Conditional Use approval.
Chairperson Chambless asked if there were any questions for Mr. Nighswonger. Commissioner Scott asked Mr. Nighswonger about issues relating to parking. Mr. Nighswonger replied that the parking is surface parking with about ninety five (95) parking stalls, which exceeds the required number and the parking area will be gated and lighted. Access to the area would require a card.
Mr. Nighswonger stated there would be about 5000 square feet set aside for retail space and he anticipates some type of catering business may be included to provide training and job skills for the residents. He is now looking for support from the community to help with those ideas, such as Meals on Wheels.
Chairperson Chambless asked if there was a representative of the Community Council that wanted to speak to this petition. No one responded. Chairperson Chambless stated he had two cards from the general community that had expressed a point of view. He asked Mr. Ernest D. Mariani to come forward.
Ernest D. Mariani, Chairman and owner of Ernest F. Mariani Company, addressed the Planning Commission. Mr. Mariani stated that his company is located on the northwest corner of 600 South and 600 West. He gave a history of his company, its founding and expansion. Mr. Mariani stated that he was concerned that the City, County, and State, do not recognize ongoing businesses in their zeal to get new companies into this area. Consequently, 600 West, which was at one time a very nice industrial street, has deteriorated dramatically. Mr. Mariani commended Mr. Nighswonger and the Housing Authority and stated that Mr. Nighswonger had explained the purpose well.
Mr. Mariani stated his concern was with the safety and security of his employees and he felt that his primary responsibility was to provide a safe environment and neighborhood for his employees, especially the women. He asked Mr. Nighswonger to explain the security elements that would be in place.
Bill Nighswonger responded to Mr. Mariani’s questions and concerns, stating that the project would provide security lighting on the property but the exact lighting design had not been completed. He continued, saying that security lighting on all areas of the perimeter of the property, in particular Mr. Mariani’s area, would be installed. Mr. Nighswonger stated that the project would have interior and exterior security cameras and the exterior security cameras would pinpoint areas such as the viaduct concern and the areas of entry to the parking lot. The parking lot structure would be gated so people could not get behind the property without gaining proper entry.
Mr. Nighswonger went on to say that this would be a twenty four hour, seven days a week secured facility. There would always be somebody on site. The director of the facility, Rosemary Kappas, had told Mr. Nighswonger that they had a good working relationship with the Salt Lake City Police Department and would request more Police Department patrols in the area to alleviate any concerns of the neighboring businesses. Mr. Nighswonger stated that the facility would be a permanent residence, housing single men and women in a self-contained apartment housing unit. It would be an SRO and would house supportive services. He further stated that the apartments would be home for each individual. Guests would register with the front desk and the residents would be free to come and go as any resident would do.
Commissioner Seelig asked Mr. Nighswonger about a retaining wall and its purpose. Mr. Nighswonger responded that the retaining wall is structurally sound and supports the ground on the other side of the wall. Commissioner Seelig then inquired about graffiti and what could be done by Mr. Nighswonger to prevent it. He responded that the only real solution for graffiti was to plant pyracantha bushes, grow them to a height of 6 feet and keep them pruned thick and tall. He explained that with his other buildings he had used an anti-graffiti material on the surface that made graffiti easy to remove. He believed that with the security measures in place, graffiti would be minimal and individuals who vandalize would be caught.
Mr. Nighswonger then introduced Mr. Ken Engh from MJSA Architect and asked him to give a design perspective on this concern. Mr. Engh provided information on materials to be used and stated it was a cement-like horizontal corrugated material that had a pre-finished surface to look like masonry. The material was bolted onto the wall and the panels could be removed and replaced.
Commissioner Scott stated that the area seemed especially dark and asked what lighting would be used. Mr. Nighswonger reiterated the current lighting sources and stated that the additional lighting for this project would increase lighting even more in this area.
Chairperson Chambless asked if there were any other questions. No questions were heard. Chairperson Chambless stated he had one card from Mr. Angelo Gianelo, who did not want to speak, but had concerns about the adjoining business. Mr. Nighswonger stated that he had talked with Mr. Gianelo and had addressed his concerns.
Chairperson Chambless stated that if there were no questions or discussion from the audience or staff he would close the public meeting. None was heard. Chairperson Chambless then asked a motion on the petition. A motion was heard.
Motion for Petition 410-753:
Commissioner Noda moved that the Planning Commission approve Petition No. 410-753, based on the findings of fact, and analysis as outlined in the staff report with the stated conditions, 1 and 2. Commissioner De Lay seconded the motion. Commissioner De Lay, Commissioner Seelig, Commissioner Scott, Commissioner Noda, and Commissioner Diamond voted “Aye”. Commissioner Galli, Commissioner Muir and Commissioner McDonough were not present. The motion passed.
Commissioner Scott asked that it be included in the minutes that the concern of lighting had been discussed at great lengths and requested that Mr. Nighswonger ask the appropriate person with the Engineering Division to visit the area and check out the various lighting sources to determine why the lighting was less than would be expected.
Petition 410-750, by Qwest Corporation, requesting conditional use approval to install ground-mounted communication equipment cabinets at approximately 1092 North 2200 West. The property is located in a Business Park “BP” zoning district.
At 6:55 P.M. Chairperson Chambless introduced Petition No. 410-750 and Elizabeth Giraud, Senior Planner.
Ms. Giraud stated this Conditional Use included three (3) cabinets that sit on a concrete pad that is 375 square feet or 15 feet by 25 feet. The cabinets would be directly behind the property line and would front onto the corner by 2200 West. This is in the business park zone. The purpose of that zone is to create a well landscaped open environment for industrial uses or businesses in regular office park settings, but in a more open well landscaped environment. Ms. Giraud stated that this is being processed as a Conditional Use because the boxes are larger than normal. However, the Planning Division staff determined that it should be approved upon the condition that it is set thirty (30) feet back from the property line in order to meet the thirty (30) foot front yard setback requirement in a business park zone and that some sort of screening device and graffiti measures be taken in order to secure the site. Currently this parcel of land, which was over fourteen (14) acres, is vacant, and Staff recommended this screening because once the property is developed, the boxes would be right in front of whatever is developed and be very visible from 2200 West. The applicant has been informed that Staff recommended approval upon that condition. Ms. Giraud stated that Qwest obtained from the owner, the Boyer Company, about five (5) years ago and Staff recommended that a new lease or easement be obtained from Qwest in order to place the proposed facilities back thirty (30) feet to meet the business park zoning district’s front yard set back requirement.
Chairperson Chambless asked if there were any questions for Staff. There were no questions. Chairperson Chambless then asked the petitioner to come forward and address the Planning Commission.
Eric Isom, Government Affairs Director for Qwest, stated the he is seeking approval for a Conditional Use and placement of three (3) cabinets at approximately 1092 North 2200 West. This is a non-residential area. These cabinets would allow Qwest to provide telephone and broadband services to the area. Mr. Isom said that Qwest had already secured an easement from the property owner, Boyer Company and was desirous to move forward with the placement of the facilities. He stated that they understood and respected the recommendation of the Staff to place the facilities thirty (30) feet behind the property line. Mr. Ralph Vigil, a Qwest representative, had already corresponded with the representative from Boyer Company and they were desirous, as was Qwest, to have the cabinets placed at the original proposed location. Qwest’s understanding was the cabinets would be placed about twenty two (22) feet from the road and when the sidewalk was installed the cabinets would set back about eleven (11) feet from the sidewalk. Qwest feels that there is adequate distance between the cabinets and the road and the cabinets and the sidewalk and that it should help mitigate the placement and the concerns regarding the distance. One of the reasons larger cabinets would be used was the larger size would provide current and future services. Qwest would recommend that the cabinets be approved in their proposed location and Qwest would work at mitigating concerns with graffiti and work on landscaping efforts to make the site more aesthetically pleasing. Mr. Vigil then said that Qwest believed the equipment could be pushed closer together and minimize another six (6) or seven (7) feet, thus obtaining an eighteen (18) or twenty (20) foot setback from the back of the sidewalk.
Chairperson Chambless asked if there were questions for Mr. Vigil. Commission Scott asked if there was or wasn’t a thirty (30) foot front yard setback requirement. Elizabeth Giraud answered that a building cannot be constructed without a (30) foot setback from the property line and this would be measured from the front property line.
Commissioner Seelig asked if Mr. Vigil would be willing to comply with the previous requirements for graffiti control, that being, telephone number, appropriate contact number, and the identifying number on the boxes. Mr. Vigil deferred to Mr. Isom, who said that they would absolutely agree to that; a one call one resolution telephone call.
Chairperson Chambless asked if there was a representative of the Community Council present that wished to speak to this matter. No response was heard. Chairperson stated he had no cards from the audience and asked if anyone from the audience wished to speak. No response was heard.
At this point Ms. Giraud added that she had attended a West Point Community Council meeting July 20, 2005. No objection was made at that meeting to the placing of cabinets there. The West Point Community Council did asked that the pad be decreased to something smaller than the 15 foot by 25 foot and Mr. Vigil had replied that he would shorten the pad by five (5) feet, making it 20 foot by 15 foot. Mr. Vigil said that he had just learned that they could minimize the pad even more and it would be 18 foot by 15 foot.
Chairperson Chambless closed the public hearing and called for a motion.
Motion for Petition 410-750:
Commissioner De Lay moved that the Planning Commission approve Petition No. 410-750, based on the findings of fact, and analysis as outlined in the staff report with conditions as noted in the staff report. Commissioner Noda seconded the motion. Commissioner De Lay, Commissioner Seelig, Commissioner Scott, Commissioner Noda, and Commissioner Diamond voted “Aye”. Commissioner Galli, Commissioner Muir and Commissioner McDonough were not present. The motion passed.
Petition 400-05-11, by the Salt Lake City Planning Division, requesting comments and a recommendation to the City Council for a text amendment to the Salt Lake City Zoning Ordinance allowing additional types of signage in the Open Space zoning district for parks that are 28 acres or larger in size.
At 7:11 P.M. Chairperson Chambless introduced Petition 400-05-11 and Elizabeth Giraud, Senior Planner.
Ms. Giraud began by pointing out an error that was in the notice for this meeting, August 24, 2005. The agenda read “This petition was initiated by the Planning Division”. The agenda should read “This petition was initiated by the Planning Commission”. Commissioner Seelig then asked if this petition had not gone to a Planning Commission Subcommittee. Ms. Giraud responded that this issue had been discussed at a subcommittee meeting as a component to the Banner Subcommittee, but that this petition did not go through the subcommittee.
Ms. Giraud stated that the proposal had been instigated by a desire on the part of the Parks Division and Engineering Division to increase and improve the orientation and way-finding in Liberty Park. Because Liberty Park is a landmark site the proposal was reviewed by the Historic Landmark Commission and a positive recommendation was forwarded to the Planning Commission who in turn would be encouraged to forward a positive recommendation to the City Council. This petition would only apply in the open space zone to parks twenty eight (28) acres of size or greater as the purpose was not to open up additional signage to other uses in the open space zone such as nature parks, cemeteries or trails. The focus would be on parks, specifically urban parks, and large parks that could absorb the additional impact of the additional signage. Five parks were identified as twenty eight (28) acres or greater. There is a break between the 25 acre park and the 28 acre park. The five parks twenty eight (28) acres or greater were: 1) Sugar House Park 2) Riverside Park 3) Liberty Park 4) Jordan Park and 5) Fairmont Park.
The Planning and Engineering Division staffs also determined that the additional signage would be helpful in parks such as Fairmont or Jordan that have other venues, such as the International Peace Gardens, the swimming pool, and the soon to be skate board park. The proposal included increasing the height of what is essentially a monument sign. In Liberty Park the signs would be refurbished Olympic signs that had been on Main Street during the Olympics and happened to be ten (10) feet tall. Currently only an eight (8) foot tall monument sign is permitted in an open space zone. The signs would be used for orientation purposes for maps of the park and also entrance signs of the park. The other is park banner signs that would be for permanent venues in Liberty Park such as the Youth City program, the tennis courts, the swimming pool, Tracey Aviary and the Chase House. The signs would technically be pole signs but would be limited to eighteen (18) feet in height. The others would be park identity banners and the Engineering Division is proposing twenty (20) sets of three (3). That is why, in the last column in the proposed table, number of signs permitted stated one (1) set of three (3) signs per five acres.
Chairperson Chambless asked if there was a representative of the Community Council that wished to speak. No one responded. He then asked if there was anyone from the community that wished to speak. No one responded. Chairperson Chambless stated he had no cards and that he would close the public meeting discussion. He asked for a motion.
Motion for Petition 400-05-11:
Commissioner Scott moved that the Planning Commission forward a positive recommendation to the City Council for Petition No. 400-05-11, based on the findings of fact, analysis and conditions as noted in the staff report. Commissioner Noda seconded the motion. Commissioner De Lay, Commissioner Seelig, Commissioner Scott, Commissioner Noda, and Commissioner Diamond voted “Aye”. Commissioner Galli, Commissioner Muir and Commissioner McDonough were not present. The motion passed.
Petition Number 490-05-10, a preliminary subdivision approval to subdivide the existing parcel located at approximately 239 North Virginia Street into three new single-family parcels. The project area is located in the SR-1, Special Development Pattern Residential District.
At 7:20 P.M. Chairperson Chambless introduced Petition 490-05-10 and Wayne Mills, Senior Planner.
Mr. Mills stated that the subject property was located at 239 North Virginia Street and currently contained a two family dwelling on the property. The two family dwelling would be demolished if the subdivision was approved. The subject property extends along 5th Avenue. This property included the frontage of 1224 5th Avenue and half the frontage of 1216 5th Avenue. The application for the subdivision included title work and a letter from the property owner’s title company showing information dating back to the 1800’s during the old “government patent days” which identified the land as part of the applicant’s property. Mr. Mills stated that the property owner does own that property.
Mr. Mills then described the square footage and frontage width for each lot and the SR-1 district minimum lot area and minimum lot width requirements. He stated that Lots 1, 2, and 3 exceed both the minimum lot width of 50 feet and the minimum lot size of 5,000 square feet. In addition, the proposed subdivision would deed property, 5.45 feet in depth, along 5th Avenue to the City for future sidewalk improvements. The applicant was working abutting property owners would be deeded parcels of land that would increase their frontage along the street.
Mr. Mills went on to say that the subject property was located in a transition area with the larger lots to the north and to the east zoned R1-1200. The lots had a minimum lot size of 12,000 square feet for new single family development. The lots to the south and east in the older Avenues area were zoned SR-1, and the lot sizes for a new subdivision would be 5,000 square feet. The existing development was a range of lot sizes from 3,000 square feet on up.
One issue of contention for this project was a private right-of-way located to the south of the subject property. The issue has been who did and did not have a right to use it. This right-of-way had been a private right-of-way easement, was not owned by the City and was not owned in fee title by any particular person. The deed stated that a perpetual right-of-way existed. This particular right-of-way was not included within this subject subdivision request. The southern most proposed lot, Lot 3, was proposed to be accessed directly from Virginia Street by a driveway.
Mr. Mills stated that a verbal and written claim had been made by a property owner at 1221 4th Avenue, stating she owned a portion of the southern strip of the subject property. A copy of that written claim has been included in the Commissioners’ packets, along with an e-mail correspondence. The same property owner also claimed that twenty years ago the previous owner obtained permission to build a retaining wall. The retaining wall had since been utilized, and because it had been utilized, the ownership issue needed to be resolved before a subdivision process took place. Mr. Mills stated that he had spoken to the City Attorney who stated this subdivision needed to be reviewed according to legal documents that had been recorded and stated the legal description of the subject property described it right to the north side of the right-of-way, and the legal description of the person with the verbal claim described it to the south side of the right-of-way. According to the City Attorney, the subdivision should be reviewed upon those legal documents and not according to verbal claims. Mr. Mills also stated that this was a minor subdivision request. The Subdivision Standards of Review have been addressed in the staff report.
Chairperson Chambless asked if there were questions for staff. Commissioner De Lay verified with Mr. Mills that the title report was clean on this property and that the claim was a verbal claim. She also stated that she knew this property and its state of disrepair because she was the listing agent when this property was sold. Commissioner Scott asked for clarification of a perpetual easement. Mr. Mills responded that on paper it was a private right-of-way and again stated that this private right-of-way was not included within this subdivision request.
Commissioner Scott questioned the grade of the property. Mr. Mills explained that there was approximately a 62% grade at the southern side of the property. The applicant had proposed a grading plan, included in the staff report, wherein the lots would step down with the grade of Virginia Street. The petitioner, Mr. Glen Saxton, was present. Mr. Mills deferred the discussion to Mr. Saxton.
Chairperson Chambless asked the petitioner to speak. Mr. Saxton, a principal in Terrace Hills Associates, stated he was the owner of this property. He purchased the property in January of 2004, with the objective of subdividing it into three lots. He stated that when the company filed the application in March, the Planning staff raised the question of ownership of the property along 5th Avenue; the northerly twenty seven (27) feet area purchased by Mr. Saxton. Mr. Saxton stated that the right-of-way to the south is a private issue between the Terrace Hills Associates and at least one of the owners on the south side of the right-of-way. The issue would be resolved independent of the hearing and the subdivision process. Mr. Saxton then discussed driveway access for the three proposed lots.
Chairperson opened public discussion and stated he had nine cards for this petition. He said that six cards had indicated positions but did not wish to speak. Three cards indicated the individual wanted to speak.
First to speak was Sam Ghosh. Mr. Ghosh stated that he lived in Federal Heights and that this area was well known throughout the county. He stated that if the petition was approved the area would soon become very crowded, all utilities and the school system would be over loaded. He stated that the property values would go down and taxes would go up. Chairperson Chambless asked for questions for Mr. Ghosh. Planning Commissioner De Lay responded that schools are now closing in the Avenues and that the subject property in question is now structurally unsound.
Sarah Sandberg spoke next from the public community, saying she had lived in the avenues all her life and currently lived in Federal Height. She would like to see something more attractive put in place on the subject property.
Kimberly Pilger also spoke, stating the neighbors had a gut reaction because they did not have a lot of the information they needed, such as home size square footage, size of lot, three car garages and placement of driveways. The Planning Commission spoke to the issue of garage size and the placement of driveways.
Bob Farrington spoke, stating the neighborhood was in transition. He stated he would like to focus, not on minimum requirements, but what would be best for the neighborhood. He said neighbors are concerned about three lots and about the density issue involving the neighborhood.
Larry Broxton addressed the Planning Commission. He stated his concern regarding the addition would be the size of the homes put on the three lots. He stated three lots would be too high a density for the neighborhood. Jody Evans spoke next. Mr. Evans stated that he would be greatly affected by lot three of this subdivision. He said there was a pending property lot issue on the table and he had taken steps for a court hearing. He felt he should have a ruling on his issue before the petition for subdivision is addressed.
Chairperson Chambless then stated he had several cards from people that did not wish to speak but had issues with this subdivision. The Planning Commission then discussed various issues; traffic impact, square footage of houses, garage size and location, driveway location, and character of the neighborhood being maintained with style of homes that would be built.
Mr. Mills then asked to make a clarification regarding the recommended notion stated in the staff report. He said there would be three (3) parcels included in the subdivision that would be deeded to Salt Lake City and included in the 5th Avenue right-of-way, not two (2) as stated in the proposed motion.
Chairperson Chambless then closed the public hearing and called for a motion.
Motion for Petition 490-05-10:
Commissioner Scott moved that the Planning Commission approve Petition No. 490-05-10, based on the findings of fact, and analysis as outlined in the staff report with conditions as noted in the staff report. Commissioner Noda seconded the motion. Commissioner De Lay, Commissioner Seelig, Commissioner Scott, and Commissioner Noda, voted “Aye”. Commissioner Diamond voted “Nay”. Commissioner Galli, Commissioner Muir and Commissioner McDonough were not present. The motion passed.
Petition Number 410-755, by Architectural Nexus, representing Myriad Genetics, requesting conditional use approval to allow additional building height for a proposed research laboratory located in the Research Park (RP) zoning district at approximately 320 South Wakara Way.
At 8:39 P.M. Chairperson Chambless introduced Petition Number 410-755 and Ray McCandless, Principal Planner.
Mr. McCandless defined the boundaries of the area included in the petition and owned by Myriad Genetics. Architectural Nexus proposed a new research and office building at 320 South Wakara Way in the University of Utah’s Research Park. Myriad Genetics presently occupies a building on the site that was constructed in a series of phases. The proposed new building will be a separate building called Phase Four, and would be located just east of the existing building on what was previously a parking lot. The proposed building would be approximately two (2) stories of offices and research space, approximately 60,000 square feet and would be located over a three (3) story parking structure that would be partially underground because of the slope of the lot. The lot slopes away from Red Butte Garden and the western most portion of the parking structure would be exposed with the remainder built into the hillside.
Mr. McCandless further stated that in the Research Park zoning district, buildings up to forty five (45) feet are allowed as a Permitted Use. Buildings between forty five (45) and seventy five (75) feet require Conditional Use approval by the Planning Commission. In this case, the tallest point on the western most side of the building being considered is fifty three (53) feet tall; eight (8) feet over the approved height for a Permitted Use. The applicants indicated that the building would be located below the Red Butte Gardens parking lot. The difference in height between the existing building and proposed building is approximately six feet.
Mr. McCandless continued, saying that because the proposed building is in Research Park, approval by the Research Park Architectural Review Committee is required. Approval was received on July 18, 2005. Approval was also received by the Research Park Community Advisory Committee on August 3, 2005. On August 3, 2005 the proposal was presented to the Yalecrest Neighborhood Council. Research Park is not located within any particular community council boundary. Mr. McCandless stated that the issues discussed at the Yalecrest Neighborhood Council meeting were outlined in the Planning Commission’s staff report. The two biggest issues were 1) if this building would set a precedent for other buildings and 2) the visibility of the building given that it is physically located on a sloping piece of property. Mr. McCandless then gave examples of previous height exceptions for various buildings that had all exceeded the required height. With regard to the visibility issue as viewed from the east, Mr. McCandless said there were only two (2) points at which the building would be visible: 1) the top of the hill as one would drive out of the Red Butte Garden parking lot and 2) the bottom of the hill upon leaving Red Butte Gardens. In terms of looking from the west at the property, the tops of the buildings would be roughly in line so one would not see much of the proposed building from a distance.
Mr. McCandless stated he had recently received letters from the Sunnyside East Neighborhood Association but had not had an opportunity to respond to the letters on a point by point basis. Those letters were given to the Planning Commissioners. The letters from Sunnyside East Association mainly relate to transportation and traffic issues and have been forwarded to the Transportation Engineer. The Transportation Division also did not have time to review the issues point by point. It has been written into the staff report that approval would be subject to meeting all departmental comments and applicable ordinance requirements.
Planning Commissioners asked for clarification on building height, surface parking, grade similarities between sites and any concerns that Red Butte Gardens may have. Mr. McCandless addressed each point for clarification and stated that the applicant had indicated that Red Butte Gardens had given their approval.
Chairperson Chambless asked the petitioner, Jon Erdmann of Architectural Nexus, to speak. Mr. Erdmann stated he had worked on all previous phases of this project over the last ten years. The Phase Four building did present a problem on the very west portion of the building. It was above the forty five (45) foot limit because of a twenty four (24) foot section of grade across the width of the building itself. This grade had to be kept as low as possible because shoring was done during the excavation and the parking would have actually ended up being buried by about thirty five (35) feet on the east side of the site. Nexus would like to keep the plan at the point stated because they are beginning to partially bury windows on the east side of one of the two floors. The grade has been pushed as far as possible without creating real problems with the building.
The Planning Commissioners asked questions regarding the height of the building in regards to the parking structure, how the roof of the building would appear when approaching the building from Red Butte Gardens, if construction had been started, and possible landscaping ideas for the roof top of the proposed building. Mr. McCandless answered all questions and concerns to the satisfaction of the Commissioners.
Several citizens and representatives of Sunnyside East Neighborhood Association spoke to the Planning Commission, expressing their views, concerns and recommendations. Larry Spendlove, President of Sunnyside East Neighborhood Association, spoke on behalf of the Association and the neighbors regarding this proposed site, stating the Association had not received any favorable responses from 10 of the 15 representatives of the Association. The Yalecrest Community Council was notified, but Sunnyside East Neighborhood Association, the area most impacted by the traffic, was not. Mr. Steve Blackham stated that for forty years Research Park and Sunnyside East Neighborhood Association had been good neighbors. When the Business Park was explained to the neighborhood forty years ago, it was explained as a high technology park with low traffic impact. In actuality, over the last forty years Research Park had morphed into an extension of the Medical Center, and a lot of the high tech firms had either dissolved or are no longer there. He stated that now the problem for their neighborhood was more traffic being generated in and out of the Research Park.
Greg Gardner, Boyer Research Park Associates, clarified one question raised by the Commissioners. Mr. Gardener stated that Nexus began grading work last week because a permit had been issued to Nexus. He said they had not and would not ever begin work that related to the issue of the petition, that being the height of the building, unless the petition was approved. Mr. Gardner also answered Commissioners’ questions on the number of parking stalls to be added, Red Butte Gardens approval status, and enhancing the “berm”, which is located on the north side of Wakara Drive.
Chairperson Chambless closed the public meeting and asked for further discussion and/or a motion.
Doug Wheelwright, Deputy Planning Director gave further clarification on Community Council issues, stating that the Sunnyside East Neighborhood Association was listed in the City’s list of recognized community councils. Information the City had regarding meeting dates indicated that regular meetings were not held by Sunnyside East Neighborhood Association and an applicant had to call the Sunnyside East Chair for the meeting date. This Council was also on the Planning Division’s notification list. When talking with Larry Spendlove, it was determined that Mr. Spendlove was notified by the distribution of the agenda, but perhaps he meant to say that they had not been approached as a Community Council to receive a presentation. A member of the Sunnyside East Neighborhood Association had been present at the Yalecrest Community Council meeting when a presentation was made by staff.
Mr. Wheelwright commented on the traffic issues. He stated that currently a Utah Department of Transportation project was underway at the intersection of Sunnyside Avenue and Foothill Drive to add some “free flow turn lanes” to two of the four corners. The intersection was further restricted than what it would normally be. Movement would be easier when construction was completed. Mr. Wheelwright said that, to his recollection, a petition had never been brought before the Commission regarding a request to exceed height regulation in Research Park that was denied.
Mr. Wheelwright also clarified that projects on the University of Utah campus are not within our zoning purview. Mr. Wheelwright stated there was an agreement established in the 1960’s or 1970’s regarding Research Park that is between Salt Lake City Corporation and the University of Utah and that agreement was the only reason Research Park was subject to the City’s zoning jurisdiction. Buildings in Research Park were subjected to property taxes. All properties owned by the University had ninety nine (99) year leases and the lease holders paid payment in lieu of property tax equivalent to the value of the buildings in this park. Salt Lake City had more influence and relationship in Research Park than it did with the rest of the Campus.
Mr. Zunguze then stated that every Conditional Use had an impact and clearly, there was a relationship between that building and the other buildings built in Research Park and what the neighbors were concerned about. He stated that, as a City, we had an obligation, because we had zoning rights over the approval of the buildings, to play a role in decisions made. The unfortunate part was that the Transportation Division did not have an opportunity to examine the issues raised by the neighborhoods and those issues needed to be looked at closely to see how they could be mitigated. He stated he didn’t think anyone was saying that this project was a bad thing for the community. The question was “how do we get it to work within the setting that this community is in”. He stated this project should not be held hostage, but a clear message should be sent that there was direction and that there was communication with the Transportation agencies. He stated we should sit down with the neighborhood and go through the issues, facilitating resolution and not just approving a petition that had an impact on a neighborhood, thereby creating disconnect. He said that every Conditional Use in Research Park generated an impact.
Chairperson Chambless asked for further discussion and/or a motion.
Motion for Petition 410-755:
Commissioner Noda moved that the Planning Commission approve Petition No.410-755, based on the findings of fact, and analysis as outlined in the staff report with conditions as noted in the staff report. Commissioner Scott seconded the motion. Commissioner De Lay, Commissioner Seelig, Commissioner Scott, Commissioner Noda, and Commissioner Diamond voted “Aye”. Commissioner Galli, Commissioner Muir and Commissioner McDonough were not present. The motion passed.
Chairperson Chambless heard a motion by Commissioner De Lay, which was seconded by Commissioner Noda and amended by Commissioner Seelig and Commissioner Diamond, proposing that the Planning Director set up a work group to:
1) initiate a meeting or meetings between the surrounding neighborhood councils, Salt Lake City Corporation, University of Utah and UDOT to look at traffic and planning issues in that area,
2) review the current design guidelines and restrictions as related to zoning and the neighbors,
3) evaluate the appropriateness of the current height limit, with the impetus of going back to the original reason for the forty five (45) feet height limit.
Mr. Zunguze suggested that the issues raised by the neighborhood be resolved before any new Conditional Use requests were scheduled to come before the Planning Commission. Planning Commissioners agreed.
Petition Number 400-05-20, the Salt Lake City Council requesting to create a new zoning district limited to natural open space (Natural Open Space, NOS zone).
At 9:39 P.M. Chairperson Chambless introduced Petition Number 400-05-20 and Mr. Ray McCandless, Principal Planner. At this point, Commissioner De Lay notified the Chair that she would be leaving at 9:50 p.m., thus breaking the quorum if this petition was not completed. Chairperson Chambless announced that this last item would be handled very expeditiously.
Mr. McCandless briefly outlined the petition, stating the petition was not about zoning property but was to create a zoning district that could be applied to other properties within the City, such as the foothills area. It was targeted specifically towards natural open space.
Chairperson Chambless asked if the Commissioners had any questions of staff. Seeing none, he opened the public hearing.
Greg Simonson, Lakeview Rock Product, said his company had a rock aggregate operation near the north Salt Lake City border and he was very concerned as to how this ordinance would apply to private property. He stated that open space was a burden that must be bourn by the entire community, not just the people that happened to own private property in the area. He then referred to the staff report and asked if the criteria discussed in the report “Is consistent with the purpose and goals?”
Mr. Simonson said that clearly open space was a legitimate goal but the report referred to the Capitol Hill Community Master Plan which he said stated “one of the goals is to create a new zoning district for public lands in the foothills which prohibit the development of structures”.
Mr. Simonson believed the language went too far if applied to private lands, totally eliminating the uses to which the ordinance restricted itself. Mr. Simonson felt he could then do nothing with his private property under the specific language used in the ordinance. He referred to Lucas vs. South Carolina Coastal Council decision that stated under some circumstances, where all uses are viable economic uses, they are eliminated. He would urge the Commission to look at some of the restrictions on the ordinance as it applied to private property and the severe impact it would have. He stated that even the wording of the ordinance under Section A, “to ensure stewardship” as a purpose, implies ownership. He conceded that the Planning Commission clearly had the right to regulate for the public, but stated that the Planning Commission does not have the right to ensure the absolute preservation of natural lands, which means taking away rights of private property rights.
A discussion with the Commissioners ensued on the language and the meaning of “specific ownership”. Mr. Simonson referred the Commissioners to page 4 of the staff report and stated he had received a notice from Mr. McCandless, dated July 18, 2005, wherein his property was specifically named in the recommendation of open spaces.
Mr. Zunguze stated that the request before them was to simply create a definition of open space. The issues raised by Mr. Simonson would become germane when the definition was completed and a petition to rezone specific property comes up to apply the NOS zoning.
Mr. Dak Maxfield, real estate manager for Staker and Parson Companies then stated that the issue that caught his attention was a letter sent by Mr. McCandless that specifically mentioned Lakeview property and Staker property. Mr. Maxfield’s concern was that the language removed many of the uses for open space zones, namely, corporate retreat, cemetery, community recreational center, and golf courses. He felt that Salt Lake City was trying to illegally control the property. He stated that Staker property was already 400 yards from public land and they were opposed to any open space zone because the Planning Commission was basically restricting the use of the private land to nothing. He said he understood that the Commissioners’ recommendation goes before the City Council, and he felt the City was left with only the option of going forward with the zoning of these private properties this way. He stated that if the City targets his company, they would oppose it. It was a “taking” in his mind.
At this point, Commissioner De Lay recommended the item under discussion be tabled and carried over to the next Planning Commission meeting because she had to leave. Chairperson Chambless verified the rules concerning voting and discussion without a quorum with Brent Wilde and Doug Wheelwright. Chairperson Chambless then announced that due to a lack of a quorum, Petition Number 400-05-20 would be tabled until September 14, 2005.
UNFINISHED BUSINESS
None.
The Planning Commission meeting was adjourned at 9:50 P.M. by Chairperson Chambless.