SALT LAKE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION
451 South State Street, Room 126
Present from the Planning Commission were Ralph Becker, Ralph Neilson, Cindy Cromer, Kimball Young, Jim McRea, Diana Kirk, Judi Short, Ann Roberts and Gilbert Iker. Rick Howa and Lynn Beckstead were excused.
Present from the Planning Staff were Planning Director William T. Wright, Brent Wilde, Doug Wheelwright, Doug Dansie, Alex Beseris and Margaret Pahl.
A roll is being kept with the minutes of all who attended the Planning Commission meeting. Mr. Becker called the meeting to order at 5:00p.m. The minutes are presented in agenda order, not necessarily as cases were presented at the meeting. Tapes of the meeting will be retained in the Planning Office for a period of one year after which they will be erased.
CONSENT CALENDAR
Historical Landmark Cases from February 1. 1995.
Ms. Kirk moved to ratify the actions of the Historical Landmark Committee on their cases from Wednesday, February 1, 1995 as presented on their disposition of cases, a copy of which is filed with the minutes. Ms. Cromer seconded the motion. Ms. Roberts, Ms. Cromer, Ms. Kirk, Ms. Short, Mr. Young, Mr. McRea and Mr. Iker voted "Aye." Mr. Howa, Mr. Beckstead and Mr. Neilson were not present. Mr. Becker, as Chair, did not vote. The motion passed.
SUBDIVISIONS
Preliminary approval of Westpointe Subdivision. Plats "M and "N" by Ivory Homes for 83 single family lots located at approximately 1100 North and 1900 West in a Residential "R-1" zoning district.
Ms. Margaret Pahl presented the staff report, the findings of fact and the staff recommendation, a copy of which is filed with the minutes. Ms. Pahl stated that the staff was recommending that Lot 21 be omitted from the preliminary approval of Plat "N" in the event that land was needed for access.
Mr. David Wolfgram, representing Ivory Homes, stated that they would prefer Lot 21 be allowed as a lot and not required for a possible future road. He stated that they were desirous of maximizing the value of their land and did not want to have to wait 20 years for a resolution relative to Sir Philip Drive.
Mr. Becker opened the hearing to the public and asked if anyone wished to address the Planning commission.
Mr. Gerald Edgar, a resident of this area, expressed concern at the quality of homes proposed and a fear of neighborhood deterioration if quality homes were not constructed. He asked what the lot sizes would be.
Ms. Pahl demonstrated the locations of the various lots and stated that none of the lots would be smaller than 7000 square feet. Mr. Edgar asked what the price range would be.
Mr. Wolfgram responded that they would range from $110,000-165,000.
Mr. Edgar expressed concern about the proposed storm drainage basin relative to the safety of the neighborhood children.
Mr. David Byrd, the civil engineer for the project, explained that the basin would be spread out over a two acre area with gentle slopes and that it would be two-three feet deep at the deepest place. Mr. Byrd added that the standing water would only be there for a couple of hours before it would dissipate.
Upon receiving no further requests to address the Planning Commission, Mr. Becker closed the hearing to the public and opened it for Planning Commission discussion.
Ms. Kirk moved to grant preliminary approval of the Westpointe Subdivision, Plats "M" and "N", based on the findings of fact and subject to the conditions listed in the staff report. Ms. Short seconded the motion.
Mr. Young asked how this n1otion addressed Lot 21. Ms. Kirk stated that it would be handled by the Planning Director during the final approval process.
Ms. Roberts, Ms. Cromer, Ms. Kirk, Ms. Short, Mr. Young, Mr. McRea and Mr. Iker voted "Aye." Mr. Howa, Mr. Beckstead and Mr. Neilson were not present. Mr. Becker, as Chair, did not vote. The motion passed.
CONDITIONAL USE PETITIONS
INFORMAL HEARING- Petition No. 410-157 by Central Valley Water Reclamation requesting a conditional use for an outdoor biosolids composting (outdoor sludge drying) operation located at the southwest corner of 7200 West and 1300 South in an Industriai"M-1A"/Landfill Overlay zoning district.
Mr. Doug Wheelwright 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. Ron Roberts, representing Central Valley Water Reclamation Facility, explained their project and the various stages of their proposal, the agencies that regulate this type of operation and added that the type of composting they would be dealing with was a disinfected produce, and therefore, would not be a target for domestic animals or wildlife.
Mr. Becker opened the hearing to the public and asked if anyone wished to address the Planning Commission.
Mr. Wes Groesbeck, a concerned citizen, expressed concern relative to the heavy metal content of the com posted product and the amount and type of water that would be used during the composting process.
Mr. Roberts explained that their sludge met all of the criteria required by the Environmental Protection Agency and the metal concentration would be reduced further by the composting that would be added.
Upon receiving no further requests to address the Planning Commission, Mr. Becker closed the hearing and opened it for Planning Commission discussion.
Ms. Kirk moved to approve Petition No. 410-157 based on the findings of fact and subject to the conditions listed in the staff report. Ms. Roberts seconded the motion. Ms. Roberts, Ms. Cromer, Ms. Kirk, Ms. Short, Mr. Young, Mr. McRea and Mr. Iker voted "Aye." Mr. Howa, Mr. Beckstead and Mr. Neilson were not present. Mr. Becker, as Chair, did not vote. The motion passed.
INFORMAL HEARING- Petition No. 410-156 by Steven Frank for Weyerhaeuser Recycling requesting a conditional use for outdoor storage for a recycling facility located at 2285 West California Avenue in an Industrial "M-3" zoning district. The "M-3" zoning district is currently under a zoning rewrite moratorium for the "M-1" zoning district.
Mr. Alex Beseris 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. Dave Rynick, representing Weyerhaeuser Recycling, was present for this portion of the Planning Commission meeting and stated that they were in agreement with the staff report. Mr. Rynick requested the Planning Commission approve this request.
Mr. McRea asked if there were any way to control the distribution of particles this type of recycling created that could be a problem exacerbated by wind.
Mr. Rynick explained that the major portions of their operation were contained within buildings.
Mr. Becker asked if this operation would service the public.
Mr. Rynick responded in the affirmative.
Mr. Becker opened the hearing to the public and asked if anyone wished to address the Planning Commission.
Mr. Bruce Alder, a property owner in the area, expressed concern relative to containment of the materials this operation would be dealing with. He explained that in another area of town where he also owned property near a recycling facility, the litter in the area from the recycling facility created a problem.
Mr. Rynick reiterated that all of the loose matter they received and processed was dealt with indoors.
Ms. Cromer asked if a mechanism existed as part of the conditional use process to review this kind of issue.
Mr. Wright stated that a condition of approval could be a requirement for future review of the operation. Mr. Wright reminded the Planning Commission that the recycling business was a permitted use in this zoning district and the outdoor storage was the conditional use issue.
Mr. McRea moved to approve Petition No. 410-156 based on the findings of fact and subject to the conditions listed in the staff report. Mr. Young seconded the motion. Ms. Roberts, Ms. Cromer, Mr. Neilson, Ms. Kirk, Ms. Short, Mr. Young, Mr. McRea and Mr. Iker voted "Aye." Mr. Howa and Mr. Beckstead were not present. Mr. Becker, as Chair, did not vote. The motion passed.
PLANNING ISSUES INFORMAL HEARING - Request by the Redevelopment Agency of Salt Lake City to approve additional land uses for the Brooks Arcade parcel. located at State Street and 300 South Street. as regulated in the Block 57 Master Plan. June 1992.
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.
Ms. Alice Larkin-Steiner and Ms. Valda Tarbet, Executive Director and Project Manager, respectively, were present for this portion of the Planning Commission meeting. Ms. Larkin-Steiner gave a brief history of Block 57 and its recent development and the types of land sales the Redevelopment Agency could engage in with public land. She stated that there were three types of land sales available to them: 1) a sale/grant to public entities; 2) a sale to a private entity interested only in acquiring the property with no other relationship to the property through a public bid process; and 3) a sale to a neighboring property owner. Ms. Tarbet stated that over the past year the Redevelopment Agency had received many requests from private organizations, who understood the facade easement, expressing an interest in the Brooks Arcade building. Ms. Tarbet added that up until this point, those entities had been informed that the Redevelopment Agency was continuing in their endeavors to market the building to the public sector. She added that the Redevelopment Agency's Board of Directors now felt the property could be made available to the private sector if the Planning Commission agreed to move in that direction.
Ms. Cromer asked if there was a prioritization policy for adjacent property owners versus other private entities such as a right of first refusal.
Ms. Larkin-Steiner stated that interest for an option had been expressed by an entity that was also looking at purchasing the other corner of the block.
Ms. Cromer asked if there was a hierarchy in terms of retaining the facade of the building versus the entire building and whether that would influence a successful bid.
Ms. Larkin-Steiner stated that no such hierarchy existed at this time but added that it was the intent of the Redevelopment Agency that at least the facade would remain.
Mr. Becker opened the hearing to the public and asked if anyone wished to address the Planning Commission.
Mr. Gayle Hunt, and Mr. Jim Basamakis of the Broadway Shoe Repair, a tenant of the Brooks Arcade building, were present for this portion of the Planning Commission meeting.
Mr. Basamakis stated that he would do whatever needed to be done, but added that he did not want to have to relocate his business again unless it was absolutely necessary.
Upon receiving no further requests to address the Planning Commission, Mr. Becker closed the hearing and opened it for Planning Commission discussion.
Ms. Cromer said she believed it was time to move on with this issue but added that she hoped the entire Brooks Arcade building would be retained and not just the facade.
Ms. Kirk moved to approve additional land uses for the Brooks Arcade parcel as requested by the Redevelopment Agency based on the findings of fact and the staff recommendation. Mr. Young seconded the motion. Ms. Roberts, Ms. Cromer, Mr. Neilson, Ms. Kirk, Ms. Short, Mr. Young, Mr. McRea and Mr. Iker voted "Aye." Mr. Howa and Mr. Beckstead were not present. Mr. Becker, as Chair, did not vote. The motion passed.
ZONING ORDINANCE REWRITE UPDATE
Mr. Becker explained that the Planning Commission would not be taking public comment at this meeting since it had already held six or seven hearings where public comments had been received. He explained that this meeting was for the Planning Commission to review some of the mapping and text issues in order to make their recommendations to the City Council.
Ms. Cromer stated that Mr. Howa had raised some concerns about a meeting Ms. Cromer had attended on January 20, 1995 with Councilmember Alan Hardman, a number of City staff and East Central residents. Ms. Cromer said she had expected that meeting to include Councilmember Alan Hardman, herself, Doug Dansie of the Planning Staff, and possibly, Ms. Nancy Saxton and Ms. Aria Funk, residents of the East Central community. She stated that a much larger group of people had attended that meeting in which Ms. Cromer had made some rather strident remarks about the 1300 East Business District Master Plan. She explained that it was not the kind of meeting she had expected to be going to and she stated that, in retrospect, she believed she had erred in not discussing her needs to see the map with Doug Dansie prior to that meeting. Ms. Cromer said she had not set up that meeting. Ms. Cromer said she sensed that Mr. Bill Wright concurred with Mr. Howa's concerns and that she had spent the last week balancing what she considered to be the most important meeting of her entire tenure on the Planning Commission with what she considered to be a very important issue regarding conflicts of interest and the credibility of the Planning Commission. Ms. Cromer said she had spoken before with the Commission about the public's perception of their actions and her comments had been ignored over a period of a number of years. She stated that she believed the only way for her to maintain integrity, given her history of raising this issue, would be to excuse herself, but not because she felt she had contaminated a process. She stated that she had left the meeting before it was over, had not agreed with anyone there, and had been unsuccessful in persuading anyone to agree with her. Ms. Cromer said she would have asked that people consider her concerns about conflicts of interest and the appearance of conflicts of interest in the past. She stated that she believed the only thing she could do that had any integrity at this point would be to consider their concerns about her own behavior and excuse herself. Ms. Cromer said she would not be participating in tonight's discussion regarding the East Downtown issues or the East Central neighborhood issues even though she felt fervently about them. She added that it was very likely that she would not return until the Planning Commission's discussions on the Zoning Rewrite were completed. She concluded by stating that she believed this was the most important thing that had happened during her tenure on the Planning Commission, that she regretted not participating and that this had been a very painful decision on her part.
Mr. Becker stated that he regretted that Ms. Cromer was leaving the Commission and that he did hope she would participate on the other portions of the Zoning Rewrite project.
Ms. Cromer left the meeting at this time.
Mr. Wright stated that the Historical Overlay District issues would be postponed until the next Planning Commission meeting.
Copies of the various options available for the East Downtown R/MU zoning district were handed out, a copy of which is filed with the minutes.
Mr. Becker informed the Planning Commission that he was a co-owner of a business property in the East Downtown area. He stated that he did not believe it produced a conflict of interest but added that he wanted to make sure everyone was aware of that ownership.
Mr. Bill Wright and Mr. Brent Wilde described the issues relative to the proposed East Downtown R/MU district zoning options. They pointed out the need to resolve difficult nonconforming issues in this area relative to property owners' abilities to finance nonconforming properties and the need to protect the residential component of the area.
Mr. Wright explained that no vote on this issue would take place at this meeting.
The discussion then shifted to the East Central and South Central neighborhoods.
Mr. Wright stated that the staff had analyzed a "broad brush" application of the zoning to this area versus a "patchwork" application and the advantages and disadvantages of each type of zoning application, the nonconforming issues, and the need to preserve the residential components as well as the business components.
Mr. Doug Dansie demonstrated each of the applications on briefing boards. Mr. Dansie explained that if a structure had been constructed as a single family dwelling but now contained three or four apartment units the zoning had been pulled back to R-2; however, if it had been constructed as an apartment structure, the zoning would remain appropriately zoned. Mr. Dansie stated that one of the major issues that needed to be decided was whether to treat institute/seminary buildings like schools, private schools, or churches. Mr. Dansie stated that relative to mapping, if they were treated like churches and were under four acres they would be folded into the base zone; if larger than four acres, they would be placed in the institutional zone. He added that public and private schools, however, had always been placed in the institutional zone regardless of the size. Mr. Dansie stated that a neighborhood concern was that if they were zoned institutional, they would begin to encroach into the residential neighborhoods.
Mr. Neilson stated that he could not see the rationale in placing a seminary building in an institutional zone when its purpose was to teach a religion. Mr. Wright stated that the building on 300 South and University Street (referred to as the West Institute building) was not being used to teach religion at this time, but rather was being leased by the University of Utah. Mr. Neilson said that his comments, however, would be applicable to the other seminary buildings in the City.
Mr. Wright stated that the issue was whether or not these buildings were teaching facilities or places of worship.
Mr. Dansie stated that these buildings were used Mondays through Fridays but rarely on Sundays.
Ms. Roberts asked how they would be zoned if they were churches.
Mr. Dansie responded that they would be folded into the area's base zone.
Mr. Wright stated that the Planning Commission needed to keep in mind that these were special purpose buildings built to teach in, not as places of worship.
Mr. McRea asked if it would be appropriate if something other than religion was taught in these buildings.
Mr. Wright stated that it might be possible that a private school might want to utilize the facility in the event it was ever abandoned by the original user. Mr. Wright explained the placing these buildings in residential zones might place restrictions that were too tight on the structure.
Mr. Becker asked if there was a conditional use process associated with any of these zones.
Mr. Wright responded that the reuse of churches and schools was a conditional use process.
Mr. Becker asked if an office use could operate at these sites.
Mr. Wright responded that any reuse would require a conditional use approval by the Planning Commission. Mr. Wright stated that the staff's recommendation was that these seminary/institute buildings be placed in the Institutional Zoning District.
Mr. Neilson asked what these buildings were currently being used for.
Mr. Dansie responded that one was being leased by the University and three were being used as teaching facilities.
Mr. McRea asked what the current zoning was at the location of the West Institute building. Mr. Dansie responded that the zoning was R-3A and that in that zone public schools and churches were allowed uses. Mr. Wright stated that the key here was that schools would be moved out of the allowed use category in residential districts in the zoning rewrite.
Ms. Roberts asked if the seminary buildings were given up, if new uses would have to come before the Planning Commission to get approval for the proposed new use.
Mr. Wright responded that a non-school related use would have to obtain approval from the Planning Commission.
Motion on Seminary & Institute Buildings in Institutional Zones
Mr. Young moved to approve the Institutional zone for seminary/institute buildings. Ms. Roberts seconded the motion. Ms. Roberts, Mr. Neilson, Ms. Short, Ms. Kirk, Mr. Young, Mr. McRea and Mr. Iker voted "Aye." Mr. Howa, Mr. Beckstead and Ms. Cromer were not present. Mr. Becker, as Chair, did not vote. The motion passed.
Mr. Dansie stated that the existing zoning on both sides of 1300 East from 200 South to 300 South and up 200 South to University Street was Business "B-3". Mr. Dansie stated that the next issue that needed to be resolved was this core University of Utah commercial district and whether it should be zoned Commercial/Neighborhood "CN" or Commercial/Business "CB". He added that there were a couple of apartment complexes in that district and a decision needed to be made on whether to pull them out and zone them residential or leave them in the commercial zone and nonconform them. He stated that the neighborhood was in favor of the "CN" zone for this area to keep the commercial uses to a smaller scale.
Mr. Dansie explained that the "CN" zone had been intended for the small, neighborhood corner-type business and the "CB" for businesses similar to those located at 900 South and 900 East.
Mr. Wright stated that there was a 90,000 square foot maximum district size in the "CN" zone and both sides of 1300 East in this area exceeded that maximum.
Mr. Becker asked if the maximum would still be exceeded if the one apartment building was pulled out.
Mr. Wright stated that that would split the one district.
Mr. Dansie stated that the neighborhood's argument was that since 1300 East was a n1ajor arterial, this district should be split. He added that if the east side was split because of the apartment complex, three districts were involved, not two.
Mr. Wright stated that under the "CN" zone there would not be much redevelopment potential and less urban design ·flexibility.
Mr. Neilson stated that the master plan called for compatibility with the residential activities and neighborhood-scale businesses such as beds and breakfasts, cafes, restaurants, neighborhood retail, community centers, general offices and existing structures. Mr. Neilson stated that he felt the area between 200 and 300 South on 1300 East was too fragile and should not be invited to stand any redevelopment. Mr. Neilson stated that it was a very attractive neighborhood business district and should be zoned "CN".
Mr. Becker expressed concern that a 7-11 type of development would be allowed in the "CN" zone and asked if there was any flexibility to control redevelopment so that it would match the existing character of this area.
Mr. Wright explained that that type of control was the underlying purpose of the "CB" zoning and the basis behind the staff's recommendation for this area to be zoned "CB". Mr. Wright stated that at this time the conditional use process began with a building size of 40,000 square feet which was large for this area and stated that an alternative would be to lower that requirement. Mr. Wright stated that the "CN" zone had not been designed for strip development but rather for corner pocket types of development. Mr. Dansie reminded the Planning Commission that this area was in a historical district and development would also have to meet the historical development criteria.
Mr. Wilde stated that the "CN" zone fit neighborhood corners very well but added that it would be difficult to modify it to accomplish what was wanted in this area without losing control of the small corners. Mr. Wilde suggested that it would be easier to modify the "CB” zone than the “CN" zone to accomplish their goals.
Mr. Neilson stated that to invite redevelopment on any scale would compound the traffic and problems which were horrendous. Mr. Neilson added that a parking structure in this area, unless all of the land was assembled, would fail to accomplish its purpose because it would not be adequately sized to provide for all the cars that redevelopment would attract. Mr. Neilson added that he felt the pedestrian access area was very attractive.
Mr. Wright stated that the goal in the plan was to balance the pedestrian and parking issues. Mr. Wright added that after the plan had been adopted there had been a big furor over why hadn't the City followed up on the traffic mitigation and parking plan. Mr. Wright stated that the suggestion at the time had been that the 7-11 building was the least architecturally significant structure and that it could be removed and a parking structure built to accommodate the businesses in the area. He explained that a parking study which concluded that the area lacks about 100 stalls to meet zoning requirements. Mr. Wright said the staff felt the “CB" zone for this area would allow the maximum alternatives to solve some of the area's extremely serious parking issues and urban design goals.
Motion on University of Utah Core Business Area
Ms. Kirk moved to support the staff's recommendation of the Commercial/Business "CB" zoning district for the area between 200 and 300 South along 1300 East and up 200 South to University Street and look at lowering the building size that would trigger the conditional use process from 40,000 square feet to 20,000-25,000 square feet and that the staff would report back to the Planning Commission its findings relative to the lower square footage for the "CB" zone. Mr. Young seconded the motion. Ms. Short, Ms. Kirk, Mr. Young, Mr. McRea and Mr. Iker voted "Aye." Mr. Neilson and Ms. Roberts voted "Nay." Mr. Howa, Mr. Beckstead and Ms. Cromer were not present. Mr. Becker, as Chair did not vote. The motion passed.
Mr. Dansie stated that between the area of 900 and 1700 South and east of State Street to 1000 East, the issue of whether to use the "broad brush" or "patchwork" zoning needed to be decided. He explained that on the original map the staff had applied the "broad brush" zoning as with most of the other communities.
Following a discussion on the advantages and disadvantages of both types of zoning, Mr. Young moved to support the "patchwork" approach of R-1 and R-2 zoning for this area. Ms. Short seconded the motion. Mr. Wilde stated that if the Planning Commission wanted the "broad brush" approach for this area, the R-2 zone would probably work best for this area. Mr. Dansie stated that the current zoning was R-2.
Ms. Kirk and Mr. Young voted "Aye"; Mr. Iker, Mr. McRea, Ms. Short, Mr. Neilson and Ms. Roberts voted "Nay." Mr. Howa, Mr. Beckstead and Ms. Cromer were not present. Mr. Becker, as Chair, did not vote. The motion failed.
Mr. Neilson moved to use the "broad brush" approach with R-2 zoning for this area. Ms. Short seconded the motion. Mr. Iker, Mr. McRea, Ms. Short, Mr. Neilson and Ms. Roberts voted "Aye"; Ms. Kirk and Mr. Young voted "Nay." Mr. Howa, Mr. Beckstead and Ms. Cromer were not present. Mr. Becker, as Chair, did not vote. The motion passed.
Mr. Dansie stated that the issue of higher density on arterial streets needed to be studied. He added that in the north area from 400 South to South Temple Street on 700 East the major issues of concern were height and density. He stated that the existing zoning was R-6 which would allow a building height of 75' and the proposed map included RMF-35, RMF-45 and RMF-75 zones for the area. Mr. Dansie stated that a preference for the RMF-45 zoning had been expressed by much of the neighborhood.
Mr. Becker directed the conversation to south of 500 South along 700 East.
Mr. Dansie stated that the core of the Central City Historical District was zoned RMF-30 on the map with some potential for apartment development along the 700 East corridor. He stated that the question involved in this issue was whether the depth of the lots really provided the possibility for apartment complex construction.
Mr. Wilde stated that on the southern part of 700 East the neighborhood had requested RMF-30. Mr. Becker stated that part of the master planning for the 700 East arterial had been an intention to limit commercial development in order to limit curb cuts and people driving in and out of driveways to access commercial properties.
Mr. Young moved to support a general policy of allowing higher density development along major arterials such as 700 East; to zone the properties on 700 East between 600 and 900 South RMF-35; and to zone the area on 500 South between 1000 East and University Street a combination of RMF-30 and RMF-35. Ms. Kirk seconded the motion. Mr. Iker, Ms. Kirk and Mr. Young voted "Aye." Ms. Roberts, Mr. Neilson, Ms. Short and Mr. McRea voted "Nay." Mr. Howa, Mr. Beckstead and Ms. Cromer were not present. Mr. Becker, as Chair, did not vote. The motion failed.
Mr. Neilson moved for both of the above area to be zoned RMF-30. Ms. Roberts seconded the motion. Mr. Iker, Ms. Roberts, Mr. Neilson, Ms. Short and Mr. McRea voted "Aye." Ms. Kirk and Mr. Young voted "Nay." Mr. Howa, Mr. Beckstead and Ms. Cromer were not present. Mr. Becker, as Chair, did not vote. The motion passed.
Mr. Dansie stated that between 400 and 500 East and between 600 and 900 South Streets was zoned "R-3A" now; on the proposed map it was RMF-35, and the interior courts were zoned SR-3. He stated that the staff had been requested to change the RMF-35 to RMF-30.
Ms. Kirk moved to support the RMF-30 zoning for this area with the interior courts zoned SR-3; Ms. Roberts seconded the motion. Ms. Roberts, Mr. Neilson, Ms. Kirk, Ms. Short, Mr. McRea and Mr. Iker voted "Aye." Mr. Young voted "Nay." Mr. Howa, Mr. Beckstead and Ms. Cromer were not present. Mr. Becker, as Chair, did not vote. The motion passed.
Mr. Dansie stated that a decision needed to be made on the area between 1300 East and University Street and between 300 and 400 South Streets as to whether it should be R-2 or RMF-30.
Ms. Short moved to support an R-2 zone for this area. Mr. McRea seconded the motion.
Mr. Dansie stated that the next area that needed to be zoned was on 700 East between South Temple and 350 South on the east side of the street and on the west side of the street between the Payless Store and 300 South. Mr. Dansie stated that the current zoning was R-6.
Ms. Roberts moved to zone the area RMF-45. Mr. Neilson seconded the motion. Ms. Roberts, Mr. Neilson, Ms. Kirk, Ms. Short, Mr. Young, Mr. McRea and Mr. Iker voted "Aye." Mr. Howa, Mr. Beckstead and Ms. Cromer were not present. Mr. Becker, as Chair, did not vote. The motion passed.
Mr. Dansie stated a decision needed to be made on whether to zone the area between 800 and 900 East Streets on the south side of 300 South RMF-35 or RMF-30. Mr. Dansie stated that there was medical clinic on 300 South and the redevelopment of that structure needed to be considered.
Mr. Wright stated that one of the goals of the neighborhood was to get rid of the medical clinics and redevelop those structures as residential structures.
Mr. Young moved to support a zoning of RMF-35 for this area. Ms. Kirk seconded the motion. Ms. Kirk, Mr. Young, Mr. Neilson and Mr. Iker voted "Aye." Ms. Short and Mr. McRea voted "Nay." Ms. Roberts abstained from the vote and explained that her doctor was located in the above mentioned clinic. Mr. Howa, Mr. Beckstead and Ms. Cromer were not present. Mr. Becker, as Chair, did not vote. The motion passed.
Mr. Dansie stated that a decision needed to be made whether to zone the area south of Holy Cross Hospital RMF-35 to give the medical clinics some redevelopment potential or zone it RMF-30. He stated that there were several apartment complexes and medical facilities in this area.
Ms. Kirk moved to support a zoning of RMF-35 for this area. Mr. McRea seconded the motion. Ms. Roberts, Mr. Neilson, Ms. Kirk, Ms. Short, Mr. Young, Mr. McRea and Mr. Iker voted "Aye." Mr. Howa, Mr. Beckstead and Ms. Cromer were not present. Mr. Becker, as Chair, did not vote. The motion passed.
Mr. Dansie stated that the staff recommended a zoning of R-2 for the northwest corner of 1300 East and 200 South.
Ms. Short moved to support this R-2 zoning. Mr. McRea seconded the motion. Ms. Roberts, Mr. Neilson, Ms. Kirk, Ms. Short, Mr. Young, Mr. McRea and Mr. Iker voted "Aye." Mr. Howa, Mr. Beckstead and Ms. Cromer were not present. Mr. Becker, as Chair, did not vote. The motion passed.
Mr. Dansie stated that the last area in this portion of the City that needed to be decided on was on 1000 East between 300 and 400 South Streets. He stated that the staff recommended an R-2 zoning for this area.
Ms. Roberts moved to support an R-2 zoning for this area. Ms. Short seconded the motion. Ms. Roberts, Mr. Neilson, Ms. Short, Mr. Iker and Mr. McRea voted "Aye." Ms. Kirk and Mr. Young voted "Nay." Mr. Howa, Mr. Beckstead and Ms. Cromer were not present. Mr. Becker, as Chair, did not vote. The motion passed.
Mr. Iker moved to support the other maps of the City as prepared by the Planning Staff and extensively discussed at previous Planning Commission meetings. Mr. Young seconded the motion. Ms. Roberts, Mr. Neilson, Ms. Kirk, Ms. Short, Mr. Young, Mr. McRea and Mr. Iker voted "Aye." Mr. Howa, Mr. Beckstead and Ms. Cromer were not present. Mr. Becker, as Chair, did not vote. The motion passed.
There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 9:10 p.m.