SALT LAKE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
In Room 126 of the City & County Building at 451 South State Street
Present from the Planning Commission were Chairperson Robert “Bip” Daniels, Jeff Jonas, Tim Chambless, Kent Nelson, Laurie Noda, Arla Funk, Peggy McDonough, Prescott Muir, Kay (Berger) Arnold and Andrea Barrows.
Present from the Planning Staff were Planning Director Stephen Goldsmith, Deputy Planning Directors Brent Wilde and Doug Wheelwright, Joel Paterson, Cheri Coffey, Doug Dansie, Jackie Gasparik and Melissa Anderson.
A roll is being kept of all who attended the Planning Commission Meeting. Mr. Daniels called the meeting to order at 5:52 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
Mr. Jonas made a motion to approve the minutes of Thursday, January 3, 2002, subject to the discussed corrections being made as requested.
M. Nelson seconded the motion. Ms. Arnold, Mr. Nelson, Mr. Chambless, Mr. Muir, Ms. McDonough, Mr. Jonas, Ms. Noda, Ms. Funk and Ms. Barrows voted “Aye”. Mr. Daniels, as Chairperson, did not vote. The motion carried.
PUBLIC HEARINGS
PUBLIC HEARING - Petition No. 400-02-01, Salt Lake City has received Petition 400-02-01 from the Salt Lake Organizing Committee (SLOC), requesting to construct temporary parking lots at 825 East Warm Springs Road and 1130 N. Warm Springs Road in a M-1 Light Manufacturing District.
Mr. Paterson presented the staff report. SLOC is requesting approval to operate two temporary parking lots on Warm Springs Road that are part of a network of park and ride lots serving Olympic spectators entering Salt Lake City from Davis County. The two proposed lots on Warm Springs Road are part of the North Park and Ride system that includes three parking lot facilities: two in Davis County (LDS Regional Center and Eagle Crest) and the two lots on the Granite Construction Company property between 800 North and 1100 North Warm Springs Road. Granite Construction has used both lots as equipment storage yards and Wasatch Contractors used the north lot as an operations center during the reconstruction of I-15. Both lots contain some hard surfacing and the remainder of each lot is covered with compacted road base.
Mr. Daniels invited the petitioner to speak to the Planning Commission.
Randy Park, representative for petitioner, stated that the sites would be used for temporary parking during the Olympics. The sites would revert back to their current usage after the Olympics are finished.
Jon Cluff, representative for petitioner, stated that temporary lighting trees would be placed on the south lot. The north lot has existing lighting.
Mr. Chambless asked if there would be around the clock security.
Mr. Park explained that the parking lot would operate from 2:00 pm to 1:00 or 1:30 am, when the bus service in concluded. It is intended that patrons would return to the site to retrieve their cars. If cars remain overnight, they will not be towed at that time. If the cars remain longer than 24 or 48 hours, they would consider towing the cars if they interfere with the overall operation of the site.
Ms. Barrows asked where the snow removal plows would be stored.
John Wilkes, snow removal contractor, explained that the snow removal plows would be stored on the property that they would be used for.
Mr. Daniels opened the public hearing.
There was no public input.
Motion for Case #400-02-01:
Mr. Jonas made a motion based on the findings of fact, as stated in the staff report, to approved Petition No. 400-02-01, by SLOC, requesting approval of temporary parking lots which are not currently allowed in the M-1 Light Manufacturing or M-2 Heavy Manufacturing districts, to be constructed without the required hard-surfacing, curb controls, and landscaping.
Conditions of Approval:
1. Asphalt or similar paving material is installed for the first 100 feet of the entrances/exits to reduce the amount of dirt that will be deposited on City streets.
2. Temporary lighting be installed that provides a minimum lighting output of 2.4-foot candles.
3. Execution of an agreement, in a form acceptable to the City, providing for the restoration of the site after the Olympics.
4. That City Staff will determine if the existing surface of the parking lots adequately meets the standard set previously by the Planning Commission for temporary parking lots. If the surface is deemed not to be adequate, road base or roto-mill must be imported and compacted to provide a suitable parking surface.
Mr. Chambless seconded the motion. Ms. Arnold, Mr. Nelson, Mr. Chambless, Mr. Muir, Ms. McDonough, Mr. Jonas, Ms. Noda, Ms. Funk and Ms. Barrows voted “Aye”. Mr. Daniels, as Chairperson, did not vote. The motion carried.
Mr. Nelson felt that he would like some permanent park and ride facilities within the City to alleviate the traffic congestion.
Mr. Muir stated that the Downtown Alliance is currently looking into the matter.
PUBLIC HEARING - Petition No. 410-577, Salt Lake City has received Petition 410-577 from the QC Utah II, LLC requesting conditional use approval to use an existing parking lot as a temporary commercial parking lot during the 2002 Olympic Winter Games. The parking lot is located generally at 150 South 200 East in the D-1 Central Business District.
Mr. Paterson presented the staff report. Most of this site is occupied by a surface parking lot providing parking spaces for adjacent buildings. At least 200 of the existing parking stalls are reserved as required parking. The commercial parking operation will operate after business hours and all required parking for adjacent buildings would remain available to employees during business hours. Unlike the other Olympic related temporary parking lots reviewed by the Planning Commission, this request will not be forwarded to the City Council to waive the parking lot design standards. The Zoning Administrator has determined that this is a legal parking lot and this request will not require the petitioner to improve the lot to meet current zoning standards for new parking lots, such as interior lot landscaping.
Mr. Daniels invited the petitioner to speak to the Planning Commission.
Read Hollowell, representative for petitioner, stated they are asking for an expansion of the two outer areas of the existing parking lot for use during the Olympic evening events. The event parking would be needed after the daily business parking is finished for the day. He stated that the adjacent business hours would close at 3:00 pm. They would like to open the event parking soon after the daily business parking is concluded.
Mr. Daniels opened the public hearing.
There was no public input.
Motion for Case #410-577:
Mr. Nelson made a motion based on the findings of fact, as stated in the staff report, to approve Petition No. 410-577, by QC Utah II, LLC, requesting conditional use approval to use an existing parking lot as a temporary commercial parking lot during the 2002 Olympic Winter Games.
Ms. Funk seconded the motion. Ms. Arnold, Mr. Nelson, Mr. Chambless, Mr. Muir, Ms. McDonough, Mr. Jonas, Ms. Noda, Ms. Funk and Ms. Barrows voted “Aye”. Mr. Daniels, as Chairperson, did not vote. The motion carried.
PUBLIC HEARING – Petition No. 410-575, by Colonial Flag, representing Garff-Warner Nissan, requesting a conditional use to construct a flag pole 120 feet tall in a D-2 zoning district, located at 777 South West Temple.
Mr. Dansie presented the staff report. The application is for a conditional use for a flagpole that is 120 feet in height. Flagpoles exceeding 60 feet in height are a conditional use in the D-2 zoning district. The D-2 zoning regulations allow structures to extend to 120 feet high as a conditional use. The original placement of the flagpole would allow the flag to go over the property line. The petitioner would move the flagpole further into the site to comply with regulations.
Mr. Daniels invited the petitioner to speak to the Planning Commission.
Steve Hutchinson, petitioner, handed out a map showing the new proposal for the placement of the flagpole. He stated that the car dealership is requesting to put a 120-foot high flagpole at the front of the site. It is a common use for car dealerships all over the country. He felt it would be a beautiful asset to the City landscape.
Ms. Barrows asked what was the purpose of the flag.
Mr. Hutchinson explained that the car dealership has a desire to fly the American flag on their property.
Mr. Muir asked if the property owner had a budget for maintaining and replacing the flag.
Mr. Hutchinson stated that the property owner is aware of the upkeep of the flag. He felt the property owner would agree to an upkeep agreement.
Ms. McDonough asked if there would be a lighting impact on the City.
Mr. Dansie stated that the City does not regulate lighting on buildings and facades in the D-2 zoning district.
Ms. Arnold asked if the new proposal was to move the flagpole from the corner and place it in the center of the staircase.
Mr. Hutchinson stated that the new proposal would place the flagpole, centered, in the front of the building, on the stairs. Another option would be to place the flagpole next to the stairs, in a planting area.
Ms. Arnold felt concerned that the stairs would not be able to handle the base of the flagpole. She felt the height of the flagpole could be obtrusive to the neighborhood.
Mr. Dansie stated that Building and Permits would need to approve whether or not the stairs could handle the flagpole and require appropriate engineering.
Mr. Hutchinson stated that the flagpole could be located elsewhere on the property, other than on the stairs. The flagpole has a 14-inch diameter base.
Mr. Daniels opened the public hearing.
Tony Kraatz, property owner, stated that it is their intent to maintain the flag and flagpole. He has a car dealership in Orem, Utah, that has a flagpole on the site. It has a positive community response to the same size flag and flagpole as is being requested in this petition.
John Francis, People’s Freeway Community Council Vice-Chair, stated that the Community Council voted to support this petition unanimously at the January meeting. He felt the flagpole could be placed on the corner of the property in regulation to the ordinance.
Casey Robertson, nearby property owner, asked the Planning Commission to support this petition.
Mr. Daniels closed the public hearing.
Ms. McDonough stated her concern about the issue of scale. She felt there was a future concern for the neighborhood regarding potential lighting and noise. She asked if there was a mechanism that allows for re-approval every year or two, as growth occurs.
Mr. Wilde stated that the conditional use could be revisited for compatibility.
Ms. Barrows stated that she had problems with Findings of Fact, B., F. and K, in the staff report. She felt that the flagpole is in harmony with the general purposes of the City, that it does not have appropriate buffering and would have a visual impact to the City, and it is not compatible with the surrounding neighborhood. She stated that the Community Council might find that the community becomes split in the support when the flagpole comes into existence. She stated she would be more agreeable if the flagpole masked a monopole.
Mr. Muir felt concerned that allowing this petition could set a precedence in the downtown area, with other businesses petitioning for 120-foot flagpoles.
Ms. Arnold agreed with Ms. Barrows. She stated there is a loud noise emitted, caused by the flapping of the flag.
Mr. Daniels asked if there was a flag material that causes a lesser amount of noise.
Mr. Hutchinson stated there is a polyester fabric that causes less noise than nylon fabric.
Mr. Jonas stated that there is not a residential neighborhood near the site. There is already a lot of noise in the area. He felt the flag would not make an additional net cumulative increase of noise that would affect anyone.
Ms. Barrows felt that there is a residential component in the area.
Ms. Arnold felt the flag would cause additional noise to the neighborhood.
Mr. Nelson felt that the noise created from the flag wouldn’t be as noisy as the public address system used at all the car dealerships in the neighborhood. He stated that he didn’t feel there was anything that would be considered incompatible with the neighborhood.
Ms. McDonough stated that the intent of the original ordinance is to limit the height for a reason. She stated that in theory, the flagpole in very thin. She stated that the mass of the flag is enormous in proportion to the height. She felt there is a scale and advertising issue.
Mr. Jonas stated there are 120-foot buildings one block away from this site.
Ms. McDonough felt that building massing was a different argument.
Mr. Nelson felt that it wasn’t a fair analogy to compare a flag with a billboard. He stated that an American flag does not advertise a business.
Ms. Noda felt that a corporate flag would be considered advertising. She stated that the height of a flagpole is different than the height of a building. She stated that a 120-foot flagpole does affect the view of the skyline.
Ms. Funk stated that conditional uses are site specific and this petition needs to be determined on those criteria. She felt this was an appropriate site for a flagpole and wouldn’t have potential future problems.
Mr. Daniels felt that a condition of approval should include that the flagpole is only to fly the American flag so that it cannot be used for advertising purposes.
Ms. Barrows felt that there would have a potential adverse effect on the immediate neighborhood and City as a whole. She felt there was not a public need or benefit derived from allowing a 120-foot flagpole on this site.
Ms. McDonough would like the flagpole to stay within the height limitation.
Mr. Muir felt that the flagpole would be an advertisement for the business at this site. He agreed with Ms. McDonough.
Ms. Funk asked if the business owner would be comfortable with the flagpole having a reduced height.
Mr. Kraatz stated that the site is within one block of the freeway entrance. He felt there was significance in being able to see it from the freeway ramp. There is a tall building to the south and substantial large trees that would block the view of a flagpole with a reduced height.
Ms. Funk stated that the People’s Freeway Community Council voted in favor of this flagpole. She felt that the Planning Commission should seriously consider this point.
Motion for Case #410-575:
Mr. Jonas made a motion based on the findings of fact, as stated in the staff report, to approve Petition No. 410-575, by Colonial Flag, requesting a conditional use to construct a flagpole 120 feet tall in a D-2 zoning district, located at 777 South West Temple.
Conditions of Approval:
1. The flagpole is located to a site preventing the flag from crossing the property line.
2. Salt Lake City Transportation and Public Utilities review and approve the new location.
3. Only an American flag be flown on the pole.
4. City Departments review the location for compatibility with the existing steps.
5. The material of the American flag be made of a material that is less noisy.
Ms. Funk seconded the motion. Mr. Jonas, Ms. Funk and Mr. Nelson voted “Aye”. Ms. Arnold, Mr. Chambless, Mr. Muir, Ms. McDonough, Ms. Noda and Ms. Barrows opposed the motion. Mr. Daniels, as Chairperson, did not vote. The motion failed.
Ms. Barrows asked Mr. Kraatz if he would consider building an 80-foot flagpole on the site.
Mr. Kraatz stated that he would not be interested in an 80-foot flagpole, as the trees would hide the American flag.
Ms. Barrows made a motion based on the findings of fact, B., F., and K., as stated in the staff report, to deny Petition No. 410-575, by Colonial Flag, requesting a conditional use to construct a flagpole 120 feet tall in a D-2 zoning district, located at 777 South West Temple.
Conditions of Denial:
1. B. The proposed development is not in harmony with the general purposes and intent of this Title and is not compatible with and implements the planning goals and objects of the City, including the applicable City master plan.
2. F. Appropriate buffering is not provided to protect adjacent land uses from light, noise and visual impacts.
3. K. The proposed conditional use is not compatible with the neighborhood surrounding the proposed development and will have a material net cumulative adverse impact on the neighborhood or the City as a whole.
Ms. Arnold seconded the motion. Ms. Arnold, Mr. Chambless, Mr. Muir, Ms. McDonough, Ms. Noda and Ms. Barrows voted “Aye”. Mr. Jonas, Ms. Funk and Mr. Nelson opposed the motion. Mr. Daniels, as Chairperson, did not vote. The motion carried.
Mr. Jonas wanted to note on the record that he doesn’t believe the findings made by the consensus of the Planning Commission was correct. He felt the proposal is not in conflict with the general goals of the City (B). He felt that there is adequate buffering for light, noise and visual impact (F). He doesn’t believe the flagpole would have a material net cumulative adverse impact on the neighborhood or the City as a whole (K).
Mr. Nelson agreed with Mr. Jonas. He stated that the local Community Council supported this proposal, which is an important element.
PUBLIC HEARING - Adams / Bird Minor Subdivision by Mr. Leo Adams to modify the property lines of five existing residential lots, located at approximately 459 N. Main Street, 121 West 500 North, 125 West 500 North, 450 North Center street, and 444 North Center Street, located in a Special Development Pattern Residential “SR-1” zoning district.
Ms. Gasparik presented the staff report. The applicant has owned these properties for some time. The proposed subdivision reflects fence lines and landscaping that has already been installed over many years to make the best use of the properties for the applicant and his tenants’ needs. The Lot line adjustments are proposed to make each of the lots more conforming to the current zoning standards. The City’s Zoning Administrator has interpreted the ordinance for this subdivision, “Since the proposed subdivision does not create any new non-compliances and actually makes the subject lots conform more closely to the ordinance requirements, the planning staff supports the subdivision.”
Mr. Wheelwright stated that with or without the subdivision, the petitioner could get a building permit to build a single family dwelling on the corner lot (Lot #1).
Ms. Arnold felt that the Planning Commission had to approve this petition to make it less non-conforming.
Mr. Daniels invited the petitioner to address the Planning Commission.
Leo Adams, petitioner, stated that the property has been in its present condition for about 100 years.
Mr. Chambless stated that the Planning Commission is having to correct a problem that is over a century old, to alleviate a hardship.
Mr. Adams stated that when he purchased the property, property lines were going through sections of the homes.
Ms. Barrows asked for clarification of the property lines.
Ms. Gasparik explained the property lines using the map in the staff report.
Mr. Jonas asked if the smallest lot (Lot #1) could be used for something.
Mr. Wilde explained that as long as the lot is legally non-conforming, a small home could be built on the site as long as it met the zoning requirements.
Ms. McDonough asked if the property line between Lot #1 and #2, was proposed to be moved.
Ms. Gasparik explained that that property line was not moving.
Mr. Chambless asked if the corner lot (Lot #1) had ever had a structure built on it.
Mr. Adams stated that there had never been a structure on the property to his knowledge.
Ms. Gasparik stated that she could not find any City records in support that a structure had ever been on the property (Lot #1).
Mr. Nelson asked if there are any utility easements on any of the properties.
Mr. Adams stated there is a utility on the south of Lot 2.
Ms. Gasparik stated that Public Utilities believe there may be a storm drain that encroaches within Lots 1 and 2. They want a survey done so an easement can be placed on the property if necessary.
Mr. Daniels opened the public hearing.
Casey Robertson, resident of Lot 2, asked the Planning Commission to approve this petition.
Mr. Daniels closed the public hearing.
Motion for Adams / Bird Minor Subdivision:
Ms. Funk made a motion based on the findings of fact, as stated in the staff report, to approve the Adams / Bird 5-lot minor subdivision.
Conditions of Approval:
1. Clean up the property lines.
2. Remove houses from two different lots.
3. Subject to all department / division requirements.
Ms. Noda seconded the motion. Ms. Arnold, Mr. Nelson, Mr. Chambless, Mr. Muir, Ms. McDonough, Mr. Jonas, Ms. Noda, Ms. Funk and Ms. Barrows voted “Aye”. Mr. Daniels, as Chairperson, did not vote. The motion carried.
PUBLIC HEARING - Petition No. 400-01-32, by Salt Lake City Planning Commission, requesting the following: 1) rezoning of numerous parcels of land located in and around the Sugarhouse Business District, within the area bounded by 900 East on the west, 1300 East on the east, Romona Avenue on the north and I-80 on the South; 2) Text amendments to the Sugarhouse Business District zone to provide consistency between the zoning ordinance and the Sugarhouse Master Plan; and 3) an amendment to the master plan to adjust the boundary of the business district to include the parcel at 2070 S. Douglas Street into the CCSHBD zone along with a change to how the height limits in the business district are defined.
Mr. Muir recused himself from this hearing as he has a conflict of interest.
Ms. Anderson presented the staff report. The proposed changes will establish consistency between the policy document of the master plan and the implementation tools of the zoning ordinance and map. The purpose of the proposal is to establish consistency between the zoning map and the ordinance with the newly adopted Sugar House Master Plan (2001).
Ms. Barrows asked for clarification of a map that was handed out.
Ms. Funk asked about the finding in regards to the Irving School Apartments.
Ms. Anderson explained that the finding promotes residential use in the area.
Ms. Funk felt there are inconsistencies in the Sugar House Master Plan, the Sugar House Business District Zone and the Land Use map that is associated with this area.
Ms. Barrows and Mr. Jonas agreed.
Ms. Anderson explained that changes are attributed to the ordinance amendment. The Land Use map was adopted along with the Sugar House Master Plan. This petition is to amend the ordinance to clarify the specific districts.
Mr. Jonas felt that the Land Use map was confusing.
Mr. Wilde stated that there is a strong tie in the Land Use map and the Zoning Text in the Sugar House Business District’s purpose statement.
Ms. Funk felt that it is confusing to the public.
Ms. Barrows asked that the delineation be made in the table of permitted and conditional uses to make it less confusing.
Ms. Anderson stated that there is limited area in the table. She felt it was more effective and efficient to list the reference to other areas of the ordinance. She explained that this is done the same way for other zoning districts listed on these tables.
Mr. Wilde stated that sub-areas one through four could be delineated on the zoning map. It means there would be four different sections of text rather than one.
Ms. Anderson recommended not to have four different sections of text because every time the CSHBD is listed throughout the ordinance, there could be ten different other citations. It could cause a lot of extra work and confusion, when the only difference between these areas is the height limit.
Ms. Barrows stated that the City micro-manages most of the zones.
Ms. Anderson stated that she has worked with the Building Services and Licensing Division on this proposal. When someone calls in and asks for information, staff at the permits counter will be able to look on a map and give you the proper information, based on the zoning map and ordinance.
Ms. Coffey explained that the staff in Permits uses a computer program that tells the zoning district and height requirement for each property.
Mr. Wilde explained that the intent was to break out areas one through four on the zoning map.
Ms. Anderson explained that the legend on the zoning map would refer to the ordinance requirements for each area.
Mr. Jonas felt that the proposed boundary map was not adequate.
Ms. Anderson stated that the map could be formatted to make it clearer.
Ms. McDonough stated that an architect is used to looking at all the details in the ordinance.
Ms. Coffey explained that everything in Sugar House Business District requires conditional use and planned development approval. Any developers would investigate the details for their projects.
Ms. Funk asked if the zoning ordinance is written consistently with other plans.
Mr. Wilde explained that in the case of building heights, this is the first time there has been a height standard for multiple sub-sections under the general heading. He stated that the East Downtown area has a reference to a master plan to determine height.
Ms. McDonough asked if the RMF-35 was going to be rezoned to RMF-45.
Ms. Anderson stated that is correct, in order to make the whole site of the Lincoln Towers apartments one zone that is consistent with the land use.
Ms. Barrows felt she would like to discuss the institutional zone at a later date.
Ms. Anderson stated the Planning Commission could initiate a petition to have a public process for the institutional zone.
Mr. Jonas asked that staff analyze a portion of Sugar House that he referred to on a map, east of 9th East and north of Sugarmont Drive.
Ms. Barrows agreed.
Mr. Daniels opened the public hearing.
Bret Wahlen, representative for Smith’s Food and Drug, stated they have concerns regarding the rezoning of their site. They are opposed to the rezone because they feel it adds restrictions to redevelop the site. They want to redevelop the site into a new grocery store. He requested they be given time to pursue the direction to see if it is economically viable to redevelop the site.
Rawlins Young, Transportation Chairman of the Sugar House Community Council, felt there is a flaw in the proposed rezoning. He stated that a section needs to be developed under regulations of general applicability that would develop pedestrian and transit oriented development.
Judi Short, resident, felt that Sugar House Business District is going in the right direction. She felt that the large concrete parking lots are inappropriate for the character of the CSHBD.
Susan Pletheram, member of Land Use and Zoning Sugarhouse Subcommittee, asked the Planning Commission to approve this petition.
Mr. Daniels closed the public hearing.
Ms. Barrows asked if the new zoning would impact the bus stops along 2100 South.
Ms. Anderson stated the new zoning would not impact bus stops along 2100 South. The public right-of-way would remain with the new zoning.
Mr. Nelson asked if bike racks would be placed in parking lots in the CSHBD.
Ms. Anderson stated that the zoning ordinance already requires bike racks in parking lots in the CSHBD.
Mr. Nelson asked if the height limitation is flexible or is it limited by the master plan.
Ms. Anderson stated that the master plan is a guiding document.
Mr. Nelson stated he would like the height limit to include the main floor as retail, with five floors of residential.
Ms. Anderson stated that retail is already allowed in the ordinance. The 75-foot height limitation is allowed for developments that include at least 30% residential use.
Ms. Barrows felt concerned that delaying this petition may not be in the best interest of the community.
Mr. Wilde stated that any development in the CSHBD has to obtain a conditional use and planned development. Any development would have to go through the Planning Commission hearing process.
Ms. Barrows asked if the walkable community program has been discussed with the community.
Ms. Anderson stated that staff is discussing the walkable community program with the Sugar House Community Council.
Motion for Case #400-01-02:
Mr. Jonas made a motion based on the findings of fact, as stated in the staff report, on Petition No. 400-01-02, to transmit a favorable recommendation to the City Council to 1) adopt the text and map amendments for the Sugar House Business District and 2) adopt the text and map amendments to the Sugar House Master Plan as presented on the Sugar House Business District Land Use Map, with a request for staff to come back with a Sugar House Business District Zoning Map that can be incorporated into the Sugar House Business District at a later date.
Ms. Arnold seconded the motion. Ms. Arnold, Mr. Nelson, Mr. Chambless, Ms. McDonough, Mr. Jonas, Ms. Noda, Ms. Funk and Ms. Barrows voted “Aye”. Mr. Daniels, as Chairperson, did not vote. The motion carried.
Initiate a Petition:
Mr. Jonas made a motion to initiate a petition to address the area east of 900 East and north of Sugarmont Drive, that wasn’t addressed as part of the Sugar House Business District Land Use map.
Ms. Funk seconded the motion. Ms. Arnold, Mr. Nelson, Mr. Chambless, Ms. McDonough, Mr. Jonas, Ms. Noda, Ms. Funk and Ms. Barrows voted “Aye”. Mr. Daniels, as Chairperson, did not vote. The motion carried.
Meeting adjourned at 8:50 pm.