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 Tim Chambless, Chairperson, Babs De Lay, Craig Galli, Prescott Muir, Laurie Noda, Vice Chairperson, Kathy Scott, and Jennifer Seelig. John Diamond and Peggy McDonough were excused.
Present from the Planning Division Staff were Doug Wheelwright, Deputy Planning Director, Cheri Coffey, Deputy Planning Director, Joel Paterson, Senior Planner, Elizabeth Giraud, Senior Planner, Everett Joyce, Principal Planner, Maggie Tow, and Shirley Jensen, Secretaries. Louis Zunguze, Community Development Director, Brent Wilde, Deputy Community Development Director, and Lynn Pace, Deputy City Attorney, were also in attendance.
A roll is being kept of all who attended the Planning Commission Meeting. Chairperson Chambless called the meeting to order at 5:45 p.m. Minutes are presented in agenda order and not necessarily as cases were heard by the Planning Commission. Tapes of the meeting will be retained in the Planning Office for a period of one year, after which they will be erased.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES FOR WEDNESDAY, June 22, 2005.
(This item was heard at 5:46 P.M.)
Commissioner Scott moved that the Planning Commission approve the minutes of June 22, 2005 as written. Commissioner Seelig seconded the motion. Commissioner De Lay, Commission Scott, Commissioner Seelig, and Commissioner Noda voted “Aye”. Commissioner Muir abstained. Commissioner Diamond, Commissioner Galli, and Commissioner McDonough were not present. Chairperson Chambless did not vote. The motion passed.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES FOR WEDNESDAY, June 29, 2005.
(This item was heard at 5:47 P.M.)
Commissioner Seelig moved that the Planning Commission approve the minutes of June 29, 2005 as written. Commissioner Scott seconded the motion. Commissioner De Lay, Commissioner Muir, Commission Scott, Commissioner Seelig, and Commissioner Noda voted “Aye”. Commissioner Diamond, Commissioner Galli, and Commissioner McDonough were not present. Chairperson Chambless did not vote. The motion passed.
REPORT OF THE CHAIR AND VICE CHAIR
(This item was heard at 5:48 P.M.)
Chairperson Chambless announced a meeting scheduled for Tuesday, July 19, 2005 with the Chair and Vice Chair of the Salt Lake City Council. He said that more information will be available at that meeting. He also stated that the July 27, 2005 meeting of the Planning Commission was cancelled.
REPORT OF THE PLANNING DIRECTOR
(This item was heard at 5:49 P.M.)
Mr. Louis Zunguze, Community Development Director, stated that staff did not have anything to share with the Planning Commission at this time.
PUBLIC NOTICE AGENDA – Salt Lake City Property Conveyance Matters.
(These items were heard at 5:50 P.M.)
a. Harper Excavating and Salt Lake City Property Management Division – Harper Excavating is requesting a lease agreement from Salt Lake City to install a private sewer lateral under a portion of the City-owned 2300 North Street. The location of the private sewer line lease is at approximately 1125 West 2300 North. The zoning in the area is Industrial M-1. The lease is proposed to be 20 feet wide and 100 feet long resulting in 2,000 square feet of area. The lease term is proposed for 5 years with two 5-year renewal options. The City would receive fair market based compensation for the lease. A permit to work in the public way will also be required to install the private sewer line under the roadway pavement. Property Management staff intends to approve the lease request.
Mr. Wheelwright stated that he had been advised that the term “lease”, as referred to in this notice, may be more of an “easement”, and asked that the term easement be substituted for lease. Chairperson Chambless asked if a formal motion was needed and Mr. Wheelwright replied that it was informational only.
b. Stephen M. Rosenberg and Salt Lake City Public Utilities Department – Mr. Rosenberg is requesting approval of an equal area exchange to relocate by approximately 20 feet, the City’s existing easement for the Jordan and Salt Lake City Canal, which bisects the old Dairy Queen restaurant property at 1247 South 1100 East. The actual canal pipe will remain in its current location, with just the easement being shifted in location to facilitate the redevelopment of the property, which is zoned Neighborhood Commercial CN. Public Utilities staff intends to approve the re-configuration of the easement.
Commissioner De Lay said that Item B had come before the Planning Commission before and wanted to know why it was on the agenda again. Mr. Wheelwright explained that both item “B” and “C” had been on a prior agenda, but they were removed at the suggestion of the Planning Director. Some issues had been raised by the MOSAC group, who had since been disbanded. The replacement group is the Open Space Lands Advisory Board and when Mr. Wheelwright met with them at their first meeting last month they advised him that they did not feel ready to advise the Planning Commission on land use matters at this time. It was agreed that their involvement would be deferred to some point in the future when they were ready to comment.
Commissioner Seelig asked what were MOSAC’s concerns. Mr. Wheelwright replied that Jordan/Salt Lake City Canal had been identified in the Salt Lake City Master Plan as a potential pedestrian corridor as well as its function as a canal and that over the years they had developed a policy of being opposed to any encumbrances of the Jordan Canal. Mr. Wheelwright stated that it is on the Public Notice Agenda now and the Planning Commission could either offer a comment or hear any public comment. Any comments made would be forwarded to Public Utilities.
c. Rebecca McConnell and Salt Lake City Public Utilities Department – Ms. McConnell is requesting that Public Utilities approve a standard revocable permit to allow her to landscape and use as part of her yard, a portion of the Jordan and Salt Lake City Canal property, located at 6776 South 700 East Street in Midvale City. Public Utilities staff intends to approve the revocable permit.
Chairperson Chambless asked if there were any other questions, comments or concerns with regard to the three items on the Public Notice Agenda. He reported no response.
PUBLIC HEARINGS
Petition No. 400-05-10 – A request by the Salt Lake City Planning Commission for a zoning map and a master plan amendments to correct the zoning designation of four properties in the 9th and 9th area. The petition includes the following addresses: 916 South 900 East, 909 South 900 East, 932 East 900 South, and 919 South Lincoln Street. The properties are zoned R-1/5000, Single Family Residential, or R-1/5000 and CB, Community Business. The purpose of the petition is to correct zoning map errors resulting from the 1995 Zoning Rewrite by changing the zoning designations of the subject parcels to CB, only.
At 5:55 P.M. Chairperson Chambless noted that Petition No. 400-05-10 was postponed. Ms. Coffey explained that the petition was postponed because Master Plan Amendments require newspaper notification. Staff sent the information to the newspaper and the newspaper failed to publish it. The petition will be considered on the August 10, 2005 or August 24, 2005 agenda. Property notice will be made.
Petition No. 400-05-22 – A request by Michael Kearns for the Revocation of the Designation of a Landmark Site from the Salt Lake City Register of Cultural Resources. The Landmark Site is the “Malcom A. Keyser” home, located at 381 East Eleventh Avenue. The site was listed on the City Historic Register in 1978.
Commissioner Galli arrived at 6:15 P.M. during the presentation of the staff report of Petition No. 400-05-22
At 5:59 P.M. Ms. Coffey presented the staff report by outlining the major issues of the case, the findings of fact, and staff’s recommendation. A copy of the staff report was filed with the minutes. Ms. Coffey said that the Planning Division believed that this was the first ever request for Revocation of a Designation of a Landmark Site from the Salt Lake City Register of Cultural Resources.
The following is an overview of the petition:
In 1977, a professional survey was conducted creating an architectural inventory of the structures in the Avenues Neighborhood relating to architectural significance and integrity. This information was used to determine the boundaries of the Avenues Historic District. The subject structure was included in Group A of the inventory. Group A structures were identified as the finest historic buildings to be found in the area, based upon an unusual visual or cultural contribution. Such buildings have reached a level of significance at which no more data needs be discovered to identify them as worthy of preservation efforts.
When the proposed boundaries of the Avenues Historic District were drawn, there were four properties that were proposed for listing as individual Landmark Sites and the Malcolm A. Keyser home was one of the four. It was included in the same ordinance that adopted the Avenues Historic District. A copy of the ordinance accompanied the staff report and filed with the minutes of this meeting. There was no recorded opposition to the site being individually listed on the Salt Lake City Register of Cultural Resources. However, the City does not have documentation of property owner notification at the time the Avenues and the other three sites were designated as a district and individual Landmark Sites.
Although required at the time to be published in the newspaper, there is no written evidence that the property owner at the time of designation was or was not notified of the proposed designation of the structure by mailed notification.
The house was listed as an individual Landmark Site as part of a larger project to designate the Avenues Historic District. The City does not have a mailing list from 1978 for this project.
In 1987, the City adopted the Avenues Master Plan. The master plan includes a list of Landmark Sites located within the Avenues Community. The subject property is listed in the master plan.
The Historic Landmark Commission reviewed the case on July 6, 2005. There are specific criteria in Section 21A.34.020(D)(3) of the Salt Lake City Zoning Ordinance relating to revocation of a Landmark Site on which the Historic Landmark Commission focused.
Those criteria are:
a) The property has ceased to meet the criteria for designation as a Landmark Site because the qualities that cause it to be originally designated have been lost or destroyed or the structure has been demolished.
b) Additional information indicates that the Landmark Site does not comply with the criteria for selection of a Landmark Site, as outlined in the zoning ordinance.
c) Additional information indicates that the Landmark Site is not of exceptional importance to the City, State, region, or nation.
There were several issues raised by the property owner at that meeting, such as the due process and notification to the owner at the time the structure was designated. The Historic Landmark Commission responded to each issue as outlined in the staff report.
Although all structures in an historic district have the status noted on their title, the same is not true for Landmark Sites. Given the implication of designation, it is important that a similar notice is now extended to Landmark Sites.
Alterations are allowed on buildings designated as Landmark Sites as long as they are compatible with the historic structure. Many people seek to purchase structures because they are designated historic as this adds prestige to the structure.
Most structures that are locally designated also have National Register Designation, which does afford the opportunity for tax credits. Also, the opportunity for additional uses, such as Bed and Breakfasts, Reception Centers, and Offices in Landmark Sites, through the conditional use process, is not afforded other properties that have similar underlying zoning.
The Historic Landmark Commission stated that the site would meet today’s standards and if the request were made today, the Commissioners would recommend the site be designated.
The Historic Landmark Commission made a motion recommending that the City Council deny the request based on public comment and the criteria listed in the zoning ordinance. In addition, the Historic Landmark Commission made a recommendation to the Planning Commission that a process be developed by which landowners are properly notified when such designations are made in the future.
In approving a request for the Revocation of the Designation of Landmark Site, there are three specific criteria for the revocation and five general criteria relating to a zoning map amendment. The Historic Landmark Commission made findings relating to the specific criteria. The Planning Commission should rely on the Historic Landmark Commission’s motion regarding the specific criteria by reaffirming the Historic Landmark Commission’s findings.
In the instance of zoning map amendments, the Planning Commission should make a recommendation to the City Council, which is the decision-making authority for map amendments. The Planning Commission must make a recommendation to the City Council based on findings in accordance with the standards discussed in the staff report.
Ms. Coffey summarized staff’s findings, as outlined in the staff report.
Ms. Coffey stated that Staff has concluded that the Keyser house retains sufficient historic and architectural significance, as well as physical integrity, to merit listing on the Salt Lake City Register of Cultural Resources. Therefore, the Planning Division Staff recommended that the Planning Commission transmit a negative recommendation to the City Council regarding the revocation of the designation of the property as a Landmark Site.
Ms. Giraud said that she had nothing to add to Ms. Coffey’s presentation.
Chairperson Chambless asked if there were any questions of staff.
Commissioner De Lay noted that the Planning Commission received a copy of a letter from the Utah Heritage Foundation, and a draft copy of the minutes from the Historic Landmark Commission of July 6, 2005, which should be entered into the record. Chairperson Chambless so noted.
Commissioner De Lay inquired about the due process at the time of designation. Ms. Coffey said that the requirement was that the affected property owners were notified, as well as the notice in the newspaper. Ms. Coffey said that the staff has not found the records verifying that the property owners were notified. She pointed out that Mr. Lynn Pace, the Deputy City Attorney, was in attendance and could comment on the due process of notice.
Chairperson Chambless invited Mr. Pace to come forward and address the Commission.
Mr. Pace stated that the ordinance at the time of designation required notice be published in the newspaper and that any affected property owners be notified by mailed. He said that because the ordinance involved four potential Landmark Sites, all of the Avenues Historic District, and all of the South Temple Historic District there would have been thousands of pieces of mail. Mr. Pace verified that no document has been found that shows that a notice was sent. He added that the City Attorney’s Office is still trying to substantiate due process. Mr. Pace stated that the City Attorney has been asked for a legal opinion regarding this issue. He pointed out that the Planning Commission’s purview is not to render a legal decision, but to make a policy decision on the designation of the subject property as a Landmark Site. He said that the City Attorney’s Office would sort out the legal issues before the City Council votes on this matter.
Commissioner De Lay was curious why the Planning Commission was reviewing the petition. Mr. Pace stated that the petition before the Planning Commission was a petition to revoke the current Landmark Site designation and that required a recommendation from the Planning Commission.
Chairperson Chambless thanked staff and Mr. Pace for their presentations.
Ms. Coffey mentioned that Mr. David Fitzsimmons, who is a member of the Historic Landmark Commission, was present at this meeting. Chairperson Chambless invited Mr. Fitzsimmons to come forward to address the Commission.
Mr. Fitzsimmons stated that he was present at the Historic Landmark Commission meeting where this petition was reviewed. He said that the Historic Landmark Commissioners were sympathetic with the possibility that the petitioner might have a problem with due process, but that meeting was not the forum to consider that issue. Mr. Fitzsimmons indicated that the Commissioners agreed with staff’s recommendation.
Commissioner De Lay said that landmark designations needed to be on public record, so the designation would shows up in a title search. Mr. Fitzsimmons said that the Historic Landmark Commission was in agreement with that idea and as part of the motion made by the Historic Landmark Commission they recommended that a process be developed by which landowners are notified properly when such designations are made in the future.
Since there were no additional questions, Chairperson Chambless thanked Mr. Fitzsimmons for his comments and invited the petitioner to come forward to address the Commission.
Mr. Michael Kearns, the petitioner, stated that he owns the subject property. He said that this matter at hand was a due process issue and not a landmark designation matter. Mr. Kearns queried if the property owner had been treated fair and just.
Mr. Kearns made the following statement: “Anything that encumbers a property, restricts a property, in a legal and physical way such as an easement, right-of-way, common utility easements, historical preservation, or use-restricting zoning should be a matter of public record so that full disclosure is made, which affects any owner of the property, presently or in the future. Landmark status of this home is thought to have occurred in 1978. There are no records showing the process by which landmark status was accepted or opposed by the Snows. The City has no paperwork.” Mr. Kearns said that there is likelihood, based on testimony by family and friends of the Snows, the owners of the property at the time of designation, that they did not receive notification of the landmark status at the time. If the Snows had received notice Dr. Snow would have rejected the status.”
Mr. Kearns pointed out that many permits had been issued on the subject property through the years, and there had been no mention of the landmark designation. He spoke of the “restrictions” on a property of landmark designation. Mr. Kearns stated that he would not have purchased the property if he had known it was a designated Landmark Site. He said that he had been affected by “this action” because his potential buyer for the property backed away due to the “restrictions” on the property. He also said that his ability to sell the property in the future has been damaged.
Mr. Kearns restated his position by declaring that there are no records on the landmark status on this property. He said that there are no inherent benefits of a property designated as a Landmark Site; no tax benefits. Mr. Kearns questioned the authenticity of the historical records of ownership.
Chairperson Chambless asked if there were questions for the petitioner.
Commissioner Seelig referred to the letter that was circulated by the petitioner. Mr. Kearns said that E. Ronald Gushue, architect, who is a preservationist, submitted the letter. A copy of the letter was filed with the minutes of this meeting. Mr. Kearns said that local architects were concerned that there might be retribution if they came to the Planning Commission supporting his position that the house had changed so dramatically that it has lost its original identity. Commissioner Seelig inquired if Mr. Kearns was arguing against the criteria of the designation. Mr. Kearns said that he was challenging the due process and the preferential treatment the other potential Landmark Sites had during the process of designation.
Chairperson Chambless asked questions of Mr. Kearns and learned that Mr. Kearns purchased the property in December of 1999 and only found out about the landmark status in June of 2005 after his potential buyer contacted the Utah Historic Preservation Office regarding the possibility of receiving tax benefits. Mr. Kearns talked about the improvements he had made to the house.
There were questions about the original ordinance only being published in one local newspaper.
Commissioner Scott made reference to the fact that she lives in an historical home and she made it her business to find out about landmark status. She said that when she realized that her home had a landmark designation at the local level, it was more attractive to her. Commissioner Scott stated that she went through the process to have her home on the National Register so she could take advantage of the tax credits. She stated that a landmark status is of public interest because it gives character and fabric to the community to enjoy. Mr. Kearns said that he and his family have provided much support for historic preservation. He cited a comment in the staff report submitted to the Historic Landmark Commission that “the City should control the decision and regulation of a property and not relinquish that decision to a property owner”. Mr. Kearns said that statement caused him much concern.
Commissioner Galli said that there was always tension when private property rights are impacted by variances or ordinances. He said that there has been much discussion about due process rights, the failure to publish in both newspapers, and whether there was certified mail or not. Commissioner Galli read a portion of the ordinance 1976 Zoning where it stated that the notice was to be published in a newspaper of general circulation and mailed to owners of the property proposed to be so designated. Mr. Kearns again said that the property owners were not informed.
Commissioner De Lay disclosed the fact that the Press interviewed her as a Real Estate broker regarding the general effect that historic designation has on property values. She said apparently an article was published, which she has not seen. Chairperson Chambless asked if Commissioner De Lay could be a fair juror in this matter. Commissioner De Lay said that she totally could be fair, because the conversation was general and not specific to this property and would have no affect on her decision.
Since the Commission had no further questions or comments for the petitioner, Chairperson Chambless asked if there was a representative from the Community Council in the audience. Seeing none, Chairperson Chambless invited members of the public to address the Commission.
Ms. Karel McDonough made a statement before she realized she was making a presentation for the wrong petition and excused herself.
Ms. Cindy Cromer expressed her concern about the fairness of this petition. She said that the way Mr. Kearns went “to the front of the line” is unconscionable, while her project waits because the efforts of the Planning Staff were focused on Mr. Kearns’ property. Ms. Cromer said she was attending this meeting to complain about the administrative process that has allowed this petition to go forward so quickly.
Mr. Rob White, Executive Director of the Utah Heritage Foundation and author of the letter, which contained formal comments discussed earlier in the meeting, stated the structure was one of the first in the city to receive landmark designation and has a special significance. He encouraged the Planning Commission to follow the criteria in the zoning ordinance when a decision on this property is rendered. Commissioner De Lay asked if Mr. White was aware of any other revocations in the city. Mr. White said that he had not heard of any other revocation case.
Chairperson Chambless asked the petitioner if he had any other questions or comments.
Mr. Kearns stated that he appreciated Mr. White’s concerns but believed he is affected by his position with the Utah Heritage Foundation. He said again that this has to do with due process. He said that the City “can’t change the rules”. The discussion continued regarding the matter at hand.
Chairperson Chambless closed the public hearing, as there were no additional questions, and stated that he would entertain a motion.
Commissioner Scott pointed out that the staff report was a very thorough report and completed in record time. She commended staff for a job well done and found that it was self-explanatory as she read through the material. Commissioner Scott said that she found the architectural value and integrity of the subject structure, as described in the report, compelling. She said that the old adage “buyer beware” applies in this case.
Commissioner De Lay believed that the question of due process could be a court matter. She said that she had many concerns on both sides of the issue, but she believed the policies should be upheld. She talked about the difficulty of tracking records to find out about a landmark status of a property and appreciated the City recognizing that problem.
Commissioner Galli noted that there was no evidence provided of failure to notice pursuant to the ordinance, and the Planning Commission could consider that matter.
Commissioner Noda mentioned that Mr. Pace indicated that there was a separate due process matter outside of the issues confronting the Planning Commission. She also talked about the staff report concluding that there is historic significance to the home and based on staff’s recommendation, Planning Commission could make a decision on whether or not the landmark designation is appropriate for the subject property. Commissioner Noda believed that the petition met those criteria. She pointed out the historic homes with landmark designations in the area in which she resides that improved not only the individual homes, but also the entire neighborhood. Commissioner Noda believed that the property owner could work with staff and the Historic Landmark Commission regarding the advantages of a property that has landmark designation.
Ms. Coffey stated for the public record that anyone could get information from the City regarding the landmark status of a piece of property.
Motion for Petition 400-05-22:
Regarding Petition No 400-05-22, based on the analysis and findings of fact outlined in the staff report, Commissioner Scott moved that the Planning Commission transmit a negative recommendation to the City Council regarding the revocation of the designation of the property at 381 E. Eleventh Avenue as a Landmark Site. Commissioner Noda seconded the motion. Commissioner De Lay, Commissioner Galli, Commissioner Muir, Commissioner Noda, Commissioner Scott, and Commissioner Seelig unanimously voted “Aye”. Commissioner Diamond and Commissioner McDonough were not present. Chairperson Chambless did not vote. The motion passed.
Petition No. 400-05-01 – A request by Richard Lether requesting that Salt Lake City close a portion of Navajo Street (1335 West) at approximately 100 South. The petitioner is also requesting that the City declare the closed street portion surplus property to allow the petitioner to purchase it at fair market value. The property is to be incorporated with his abutting property. The site is located in the M-1 Light Industrial Zoning District.
At 7:01 P.M. Mr. Joel Paterson, Planning Programs Supervisor, presented the staff report by outlining the major issues of the case, the findings of fact, and staff’s recommendation. A copy of the staff report was filed with the minutes. Mr. Paterson displayed a map showing the boundaries of Mr. Lether’s property and the adjoining property that Mr. Lether is requesting to purchase from the City. Mr. Paterson stated the problems Mr. Lether has dealt with in the past, including illegal dumping, vandalism to private property, gang activity and drug use in the right-of-way. The petitioner has worked with different City agencies in an attempt to control the activities that occur in this area. Mr. Lether has installed different security measures and has even patrolled the area himself on different occasions. He believes that securing the additional surplus property and fencing some of the area will enable him to better control access to the property.
Chairperson Chambless stated that this petition was reviewed by the Popular Grove Community Council which submitted a letter in support of this petition. The letter was included in the Planning Commission’s packet. He stated that the petition had been reviewed by various City Departments; all of which support the petition. He also stated there were some issues raised by this process. The City Transportation Division and the Fire Department requested that there be a publicly owned turn-around for emergency vehicles. The original recommendation was a cul-de-sac with an 80-foot radius. This does not fit in this area so both departments recommended and approved the design of the turn-around shown on the map. The design is called a hammerhead turn-around. There are no street improvements such as curb and gutter on Navajo Street and there was a recommendation that the Petitioner enter into a Special Improvement District waiver agreement (SID) with the City in case the City chooses to create a special improvement district sometime in the future on this street. Mr. Lether agreed not to protest that process. Union Pacific Railroad currently has access to the rail corridor at the end of the right-of-way and the City recommends an easement be recorded to allow Union Pacific Railroad to continue that access to the rail corridor in this location. The property must retain 80 feet of frontage along the public street to meet zoning requirements and the proposal has shown that the petitioner has accomplished that.
Mr. Paterson stated the Planning Commission must declare the property surplus and then forward the recommendation to the City Council for the street closure. As staff reviewed this, they have made a finding that it is consistent with the City Master Plans. The Transportation Plans do not envision an extension of this street to the North because of the rail corridor and the private property configuration to the north of this. All abutting property owners will retain access to their property from the public street. The closure does not have a negative effect on traffic circulation in the immediate area nor does it affect the City’s ability to deliver emergency services.
Mr. Paterson stated that based upon the findings, staff is recommending the Planning Commission declare the property surplus and forward a recommendation to the City Council recommending closure of this portion of the street. Further staff recommends that the petitioner enter into a Special Improvement District waiver agreement (SID), an easement be recorded with the Union Pacific Railroad, and that the property be sold at a fair market value to the petitioner.
The Planning Commission addressed questions to Mr. Paterson regarding frontage footage, setback issues, lot consolidation, and other conditions.
Chairperson Chambless invited the petitioner, Mr. Richard Lether, to address the Planning Commission.
Mr. Lether, gave a brief history of his business. He stated he is a good landowner and felt he could make this property more attractive and safer for the community if it was under his control. In answer to questions from the Planning Commission, he said he would be fencing the property and would not have outside lighting. He said that he had security cameras and other security items on site to make the property safer.
Motion for Petition No. 400-05-01:
Regarding Petition No. 400-05-01, based on the analysis and findings of fact outlined in the staff report, Commissioner Scott moved that the Planning Commission transmit a positive recommendation to the City Council regarding the request by Richard Lether that Salt Lake City close a portion of Navajo Street (1335 West) at approximately 100 South, subject to the following conditions:
a) That the existing public and private utility infrastructure be properly disconnected or removed from the street area acceptable to the City’s Public Utilities Dept;
b) That the street closure ordinance be conditioned upon payment to the City of fair market value of the street property consistent with Salt Lake City Code 2.58; and
c) That the end of Navajo Street be reconfigured to create a turn-around acceptable to the Salt Lake City Fire Department and the Transportation Division.
Commissioner De Lay seconded the motion. Commissioner De Lay, Commissioner Galli, Commissioner Muir, Commissioner Noda, Commissioner Scott, and Commissioner Seelig unanimously voted “Aye”. Commissioner Diamond and Commissioner McDonough were not present. Chairperson Chambless did not vote. The motion passed.
Petition No. 400-03-34 – A request by the Salt Lake City Planning Commission to address zoning text amendments relating to a proposed conditional use process allowing the enlargement and/or intensification of nonconforming uses. This analysis is being done at the request of the City Council, which adopted regulations relating to the reconstruction of nonconforming uses and noncomplying structures on April 19, 2005. The City Council wanted the Planning Commission to review additional refinement of the ordinance guidelines and criteria to further address neighborhood impacts and concerns relating to the enlargement and/or intensification of nonconforming uses.
At 7:30 P.M., Chairperson Chambless announced that Petition No. 400-03-34 would not be heard at this meeting, but would be carried to the August 10, 2005 or August 24, 2005 meeting. He explained that the Planning Commission would lose a quorum and a quorum must be present to do official City business.
UNFINISHED BUSINESS
There was no unfinished business.
Chairperson Chambless announced that Planning Commission Secretary Shirley Jensen was retiring and he expressed the Planning Commission’s thanks for her work and said that she would be missed. Chairperson Chambless then welcomed Maggie Tow, the new Planning Commission Secretary. The meeting was adjourned at 7:40 P.M. by Chairperson Chambless.