SALT LAKE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION
451 South State Street, Room 126
Present from the Planning Commission were Chairperson Judi Short, Andrea Barrows, Robert "Bip" Daniels, Arla Funk, Diana Kirk, Craig Mariger, Vice-Chairperson Max Smith, Stephen Snelgrove and Mike Steed.
Present from the Planning Staff were Planning Director William T. Wright, Deputy Planning Director Brent Wilde, Doug Dansie, Craig Hinckley, Jackie Gasparik and Bill Allayaud.
A roll is being kept of all that attended the Planning Commission meeting. Ms. Short called the meeting to order at 6:25 p.m. Minutes are presented in agenda order, 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
Mr. Daniels moved to approve the minutes of Thursday, July 15, 1999. Mr. Steed seconded the motion. Ms. Barrows, Mr. Daniels, Ms. Funk, Ms. Kirk, Mr. Mariger, Mr. Smith, Mr. Snelgrove and Mr. Steed voted “Aye”. Ms. Short, as Chair, did not vote. The motion passed.
PUBLIC HEARINGS
PUBLIC HEARING – Petition No. 400-99-41 by the Salt Lake City Department of Community and Economic Development requesting that Section 21A.46 of the Salt Lake City Zoning Ordinance be modified to allow for murals and mural signs.
Mr. Doug Dansie presented the staff report outlining the major issues of the case, the findings of fact and the staff recommendation, a copy of which is filed with the minutes. Mr. Dansie stated that Salt Lake City has allowed murals as long as they contained no commercial content. This has been an administrative interpretation rather than an ordinance specification. Signage painted onto buildings is defined as "Wall Signs". They are restricted to industrial and heavy commercial zones. Signage as part of a mural is not differentiated from general painted signs. Mr. Dansie then stated that wall signs have not been allowed in Neighborhood Business, Community Center or Downtown zoning districts because "painted signs" were perceived as not offering the kind of formality and character desired in those zones. Mr. Dansie continued by stating that staff is recommending that the definition of "Wall Sign" be changed so that in situations where signage and art are combined, it is clarified which portions constitute
signage and which portions are art. It is also being recommended that wall signs be allowed in all Commercial, Downtown, Manufacturing, Gateway and Airport zones.
Mr. Wright noted that when the Zoning Administrator reviews murals and wall signs for compliance, the artwork is not part of the review. Mr. Wright then stated a mural with no signage does not require a permit. Only murals with a wall sign will need a permit and to be reviewed by the Zoning Administrator.
Mr. Mariger feels that all murals should be reviewed by the Zoning Administrator to ensure that there will be no violations. Mr. Wright stated that Mr. Mariger's concern could be addressed by requiring a no-fee permit for murals so that the Zoning Administrator can review all murals and make sure that they do not meet the definition of a wall sign.
Ms. Funk asked why this issue is being brought to the Planning Commission without the actual ordinance. Mr. Wright stated that, in this particular case, it was necessary to get direction from the Planning Commission prior to the ordinance being drafted. It was staff's intent to not bring the ordinance back to the Planning Commission. However, if the Planning Commission desires to see the ordinance before it goes to the City Council, staff will accommodate that.
Ms. Short opened the hearing to the public and asked if anyone wished to address the Planning Commission.
Mr. Jared Nicholson, a mural artist, feels that it is a great idea to legalize wall signs in Salt Lake City. He also feels that it is a bad idea to incorporate murals into the sign laws. Mr. Nicholson then stated that painting murals is his way of improving the quality of life in the community.
Ms. Lorraine Miller, President of the Salt Lake Vest Pocket Business Coalition, was present for this portion of the meeting. The Coalition consists of locally owned and operated small businesses located in primarily residential areas. Ms. Miller commended Mr. Dansie on doing a great job with the staff report for this issue. Ms. Miller then stated that Salt Lake City needs to somehow get information to small business owners that lists the steps that need to be followed, such as obtaining a permit for signs. Some of these business owners do not realize everything that Salt Lake City requires of them.
Ms. Michelle Scofield, owner of the Dragonfly Café, was present for this portion of the meeting. The Salt Lake City Ordinance is currently being enforced upon the Dragonfly Café because it has a painted mural with a painted wall sign within. Ms. Scofield stated that she worked with several inspectors over the course of 18 months. No one, including the inspector that did the final inspection, said anything about the mural and that it was in violation. It was approximately 6 months later that she found out that she was in violation. Ms. Scofield then agreed with Ms. Miller's comments that a checklist
should be available at the beginning of the process when applying for a business license and/or a building permit.
Ms. Cori Sutherland, representing the American Civil Liberties Union, presented a letter to the Planning Commission, a copy of which is filed with the minutes. The letter states that "any sign ordinance must provide mural artists and business owners with clear guidelines that allow them to recognize when their art becomes advertising, and therefore requires a permit. At that point, it is very important that sign permits be granted in a consistent and reasonable fashion that is completely independent of the artistic content of the surrounding mural. As your proposal makes clear, the city simply cannot be in the business of regulating art."
Upon receiving no further requests to address the Planning Commission, Ms. Short closed the hearing to the public and opened it for Planning Commission discussion.
Mr. Wright stated that the ideas of trying to get a brochure completed and get information out to small business owners is being worked on by the department of Community & Economic Development.
Mr. Steed noted that he also feels that it is very important that information is available to small business owners. He would also like to see wall signs permitted in the residential zones as well.
Ms. Barrows asked what will happen to the existing wall signs that are in violation. Mr. Wright stated each case will be evaluated under the new ordinance language and determined if it will become compliant. The Dragon Fly Café mural/sign would be in compliance under the proposed ordinance.
Mr. Snelgrove stated that he does not agree with the proposed new language for wall signs because he does not feel that adding commercial content to a mural will always detract from the artwork.
Motion for Petition No. 400-99-41:
Ms. Funk moved, based on the findings of fact, to approve the general direction of Petition No. 400-99-41 to modify the sign ordinance to allow for mural signs. Ms. Funk further moved that the City Attorney be directed to draft an ordinance in light of the discussion that has taken place and have the draft ordinance return to the Planning Commission for further review and action. Ms. Barrows seconded the motion. Ms. Barrows, Mr. Daniels, Ms. Funk, Ms. Kirk, Mr. Mariger, Mr. Smith and Mr. Steed voted “Aye”. Mr. Snelgrove was abstained. Ms. Short, as Chair, did not vote. The motion passed.
PUBLIC HEARING – Petition No. 400-99-40 by the Salt Lake City Department of Community and Economic Development to consider a proposed amendment to Section
21A.48.060 of the Salt Lake City Zoning Ordinance, relative to parkway landscaping standards.
Mr. Craig Hinckley presented the staff report outlining the major issues of the case, the findings of fact and the staff recommendation, a copy of which is filed with the minutes. Mr. Hinckley stated that Salt Lake City ordinances have addressed landscaping in the parkway for at least the last 40 years or so. In 1992 there was a significant increase in enforcement cases relating to park strip landscaping. As a result, the Planning Division was asked to evaluate the issue and, in the Fall of that year, made a recommendation to the Planning Commission for a Park Strip Landscape Policy. The new policy encouraged a variety of plants that could be planted other than just lawn. Mr. Hinckley then presented a few slides showing some examples of park strips that have been enforced upon and some examples of park strips with creative landscaping that either meets the ordinance or, with the proposed amendments, will meet the ordinance.
Mr. Smith does not agree with allowing 100% annuals in the park strip because there will be several months where the park strip will be bare. He feels that there should be some form of vegetation that will be there year round.
Ms. Short feels that there should be some sort of a walkway from the street to the sidewalk every 30 feet or so.
Ms. Funk stated that she feels that by allowing certain percentages of flowers vs. year round vegetation and walkways every 30 feet is complicating the park strip ordinance. She feels that we should go back to the basic idea of what is safe and attractive. Ms. Funk then stated that she is concerned about planting anything that is 18 inches high within 20 or 30 feet of a corner where there is a crosswalk. She feels that 6 inches should be the height limit because 18 inches is too high if there is a child crossing the street.
Ms. Short opened the hearing to the public and asked if anyone wished to address the Planning Commission.
Mr. Mark Smedley, a concerned citizen, stated that due to the fact that we live in a desert, he does not want to use any water in his park strip. Mr. Smedley uses drought tolerant plants and feels that others should do the same because people need to be taught to conserve water. He also feels that rock mulch should be allowed. Mr. Smedley then stated that he feels that the City should allow people to do what they would like with their park strip as long as it looks nice, especially if it uses little or no water.
Mr. Sky Gronie, a concerned citizen, stated that he has a park strip with all rocks and few boulders that requires no water which is not in compliance with the ordinance. Mr. Gronie feels that his park strip looks better than some of the park strips that are in compliance. He stated that it is frustrating that he is prohibited from taking a step, which he thought was responsible, to limit the amount of water that he uses. He feels
that compliance should be based on how much the person cares about the looks of their park strip. As a pedestrian, he does not understand why having rocks in the park strip is a safety issue for pedestrians.
Cliff Seigneur, Executive Director of the Utah River's Council, stated that he is concerned about the amount of water use. He feels that allowing things like rocks is something that should be considered because it requires no water. With the growing municipalities, by conserving water in doing things like zero-scape, a great deal of water can be saved which would make some of the reservoirs not necessary in the short term and, hopefully with more serious conservation measures, not necessary in the long term as well.
Mr. Jerry Schmidt, a concerned citizen, stated that he is in favor of revising the ordinance regarding xeriscaping. However, some citizens in Salt Lake City who are doing xeriscaping are being sighted and threatened with fines. This is not a common sense solution to our water needs since Utah is the second driest state in the nation. Mr. Schmidt also spoke about the City's enforcement and how inconsistent it is.
Ms. Liz McCoy, a concerned citizen, stated that she is not in compliance because she put rocks in the park strip. She did this to do her part to conserve water since Utah is a desert state. In May she was served a violation that stated within 30 days she would have to replace her rocks and gravel with sod or she could ultimately be fined $5,000. She understands that this is not what the ordinance says, however, that is what her violations said. Ms. McCoy then made a recommendation that the violations be consistent with the ordinance. She is pleased that the ordinance does allow drought resistant plants and she applauds the City for their efforts. Ms. McCoy then stated that she believes that the City is moving in the right direction, it is a logical direction because we do live in a desert. However, she feels that the City can do more by being proactive and conserving more water by allowing rocks, gravel, bricks and slate in all park strips no matter what the size or length is.
Mr. Jay Ingleby, Chair of the Glendale Community Council, stated in the Glendale area there are Elm Trees in the park strips. The sidewalks and lawns are lifting up because of the roots from these trees. Some sidewalks are being replaced every five years. Utah is a desert and water needs to be conserved. There are a lot of senior citizens in the Glendale area that would like something that is maintenance free, such as the decorative rock, because they are homebound.
Ms. Cindy Cromer, a concerned citizen, stated that this issue should be sent to the community councils to receive more comments and input because she believes that there are some issues that continuously need some work. She is, however, pleased to see the ordinance being addressed. She believes that the current ordinance is too restrictive. Ms. Cromer then stated that there are definite problems with the enforcement of this ordinance and that it needs to be addressed.
Mr. George Schaffer, Chair of the Jordan Meadow Community Council, stated that he is bothered by the fact that the citizens that are being proactive in conservation are the ones being enforced upon. Mr. Schaffer then stated that some of the park strips may look nice, however, the plants and trees sometimes encroach onto the sidewalk which make it impossible to walk down the sidewalk. He feels that every measure should be taken to conserve water and that enforcement should be consistent. Mr. Schaffer also feels that this issue should be taken to the community councils and to the residents to get their comments and concerns.
Ms. Kelly VonStroh, a concerned citizen, stated that she understands that rose bushes are allowed in the park strip. She then asked the City to consider including other prickly plants that are drought tolerant such as a cactus.
Ms. Jan Striefel, owner of a landscape architecture and planning business, stated that she feels that the City is headed in the right direction with the ordinance. She appreciates the fact that aesthetics is one of the goals. She believes that this goal can be accomplished without using things such as rocks and gravel in the park strip. Ms. Striefel also appreciates the fact that the proposed ordinance is more flexible than the previous one.
Mr. Don Brooke, Chair of the East Central Community Council, stated that the community councils have received the most tentative notification of this issue. However, he feels that this issue is something that should be reviewed by the community councils.
Mr. Rawlins Young, Chair of the Transportation Subcommittee of the Sugar House Community Council, stated that he also believes that this issue should be taken to the community council level for their review before action is taken by the Planning Commission.
Upon receiving no further requests to address the Planning Commission, Ms. Short closed the hearing to the public and opened it for Planning Commission discussion.
Mr. Mariger stated that he is not in favor of changing the current ordinance to allow paving in a wider section of the park strip. Mr. Mariger then stated his concern about enforcement and if it is adequate to make sure that the plants do not exceed the height requirements that may block views of people backing out of their driveways and approaching intersections. Mr. Hinckley stated that enforcement is normally in response to complaints. Mr. Mariger then asked if the City could be making a new risk by allowing the proposed 36 inch height for vegetation since the enforcement occurs after the accident occurs.
Mr. Daniels stated that he is concerned about the lack of notification to the community councils. He feels that the Planning Commission should not make a recommendation until the community councils have had an opportunity to address this issue.
Mr. Wright stated that when there is a City-wide issue, it is difficult to go to all of the community council meetings because there are so many. Therefore, on issues that are City-wide they are discussed at the Mayor's meeting with Community Council Chairs. It is hoped that the community council chairs will then put the issue on their agenda if there is strong interest.
Mr. Smith stated that he feels that it would be more appropriate to hold an open house and invite all of the community council chair's rather than having staff attend each community council meeting. Mr. Smith then stated that he shares Mr. Mariger's concerns about height.
Ms. Barrows stated that she feels that the ordinance is moving in the right direction. She also feels that the community council's should have an opportunity to address this issue. Mr. Barrows then stated that she has no problems with allowing 100% rock or gravel in the park strip.
Mr. Steed stated that he would also like to see alternative materials, such as rock and gravel, in the park strips.
Ms. Funk stated that she feels that having an open house may be too much work for this issue. However, she feels that this issue should be addressed by the community council's at their next meeting. Ms. Funk then stated that it is important that the citizens are able to give their opinions about this.
Motion for Petition No. 400-99-40:
Ms. Funk moved to delay action on Petition No. 400-99-40 to modify the Parkway Landscaping Standards until the community council's have had an opportunity to review this issue. Ms. Funk further moved that the Petition come back to the Planning Commission for final action at their last meeting in September. Mr. Mariger seconded the motion. Ms. Barrows, Mr. Daniels, Ms. Funk, Ms. Kirk, Mr. Mariger, Mr. Smith, Mr. Snelgrove and Mr. Steed voted “Aye”. Ms. Short, as Chair, did not vote. The motion passed.
PUBLIC HEARING – Case No. 410-361 by Mr. Mike Kibbie requesting conditional use approval for an Industrial Planned Development consisting of four lots, two of which would have frontage on a private street. Also requested is modifications to the required front yard and buffer landscaping requirements and approval of a subdivision amendment. The property is located at 3135-3195 West Director's Row (1100 South) in a Light Manufacturing "M-1" zoning district.
Ms. Jackie Gasparik presented the staff report outlining the major issues of the case, the findings of fact and the staff recommendation, a copy of which is filed with the minutes.
Mr. Mike Kibbie, the petitioner, was present for this portion of the meeting and stated that he was in agreement with the staff recommendation.
Ms. Short opened the hearing to the public and asked if anyone wished to address the Planning Commission. Upon receiving no response, she closed the hearing to the public and opened it for Planning Commission discussion.
Motion for Case No. 410-361:
Ms. Kirk moved, based on the findings of fact, to approve Case No. 410-361 for the Horizon West Industrial Planned Development subject to the following conditions as listed in the staff report with one addition as noted:
1. Grant final development approval authority to the Planning Director.
2. Grant final landscaping approval authority to the Planning Director.
3. Provide an easement to Public Utilities Department for existing and proposed infrastructure that will be on private property.
4. Twenty-four hour access must be provided to the Fire Department and Public Utilities Department to provide City services.
5. Approve the project subject to meeting applicable City standards.
6. Recordation of the final amended plat of the subdivision.
7. Public Utilities has requested that an Environmental Impact Study be done on the lot before construction begins. (underlined portion added by the Planning Commission)
Mr. Steed seconded the motion. Ms. Barrows, Mr. Daniels, Ms. Funk, Ms. Kirk, Mr. Mariger, Mr. Smith, Mr. Snelgrove and Mr. Steed voted “Aye”. Ms. Short, as Chair, did not vote. The motion passed.
PUBLIC HEARING – Case No. 410-362 by 24-Hour Fitness Centers requesting a conditional use approval to allow the expansion and conversion of the Fairmont Bowl building into a 37,000 square foot fitness center located at 1121 Ashton Avenue in a Community Business "CB" zoning district.
Mr. Bill Allayaud presented the staff report outlining the major issues of the case, the findings of fact and the staff recommendation, a copy of which is filed with the minutes.
Ms. Barrows excused herself from the Planning Commission meeting at this time.
Mr. Mo Myers, the architect for the project, was present for this portion of the meeting and stated that he was in agreement with the staff recommendation. Mr. Myers used presentation boards to explain the project and the proposed materials.
Ms. Short opened the hearing to the public and asked if anyone wished to address the Planning Commission.
Ms. Helen Peters, Chair of the Sugar House Community Council, presented a letter in support of the project, a copy of which is filed with the minutes. Ms. Peters stated that she believes that the 24-Hour Fitness Center will be a nice combination with the Fairmont Pool in the area.
Mr. Rawlins Young, Chair of the Transportation Subcommittee of the Sugar House Community Council and a representative from the Coalition for Livable Streets, was present for this portion of the meeting. Mr. Young distributed a map to the Planning Commission which shows the proposed Salt Lake Jordan Linear Park System as it goes through Sugar House, a copy of which is filed with the minutes. The proposed trail is located on the east side of the 24-Hour Fitness Center. Mr. Young would like to see the east side of the project contain walkways, that are not sidewalks, which will make it easy in the future to develop a trail.
Mr. Allayaud stated that he does not see the opportunity through this block to develop a trail. There are other future trail opportunities. If this site were the last chance to have an accessway, he would fight for it. However, he does not see this as the last chance or the best link.
Upon receiving no further requests to address the Planning Commission, Ms. Short closed the hearing to the public and opened it for Planning Commission discussion.
Ms. Funk excused herself from the Planning Commission meeting at this time.
Motion for Case No. 410-362:
Mr. Steed moved, based on the findings of fact, to approve Case No. 410-362 for the proposed development subject to the following conditions as listed in the staff report:
1. Prior to issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy, the applicant shall record a deed restriction, the form and content of which is subject to the approval of the Planning Director, that restricts the use of Sidwell Parcels #16-20-254-005 and #16-20-254-006 as parking to support the use on Sidwell Parcel #16-20-253-002. The deed restriction shall specifically reference terms of the conditional use approval and that removal of the deed restriction is subject to the approval of the Planning Director.
2. Prior to issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy Building Permit, the applicant shall submit evidence that a qualified geotechnical engineer has evaluated the project and the City Building Official has determined that the recommendations of that expert have been incorporated into the project. (Strike and underline text indicates changes made by the Planning Commission.)
3. Prior to issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy, the applicant shall submit evidence that Sidwell parcels #16-20-254-005 and #16-20-254-006 have been legally combined.
Mr. Snelgrove seconded the motion. Mr. Daniels, Ms. Kirk, Mr. Mariger, Mr. Smith, Mr. Snelgrove and Mr. Steed voted “Aye”. Ms. Barrows and Ms. Funk were not present. Ms. Short, as Chair, did not vote. The motion passed.
OTHER BUSINESS
There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 10:15 p.m.