SALT LAKE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION
451 South State Street, Room 126
Present from the Planning Commission were Chairperson Judi Short, Robert "Bip" Daniels, Arla Funk, Craig Mariger, Stephen Snelgrove and Mike Steed. Andrea Barrows, Gregory DeMille, Diana Kirk and Vice-Chairperson Max Smith were excused.
Present from the Planning Staff were Planning Director William T. Wright, Deputy Planning Director Brent Wilde, Cheri Coffey, Doug Dansie, Robert Glessner and Elizabeth Giraud.
A roll is being kept of all that attended the Planning Commission meeting. Ms. Short called the meeting to order at 5:15 p.m. Minutes are presented in agenda order, not necessarily as cases were heard by the Planning Commission. Tapes of the meeting will be retained in the Planning Office for a period of one year, after which, they will be erased.
Ms. Short welcomed Robert "Bip" Daniels as a new member of the Planning Commission.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
Mr. Steed moved to approve the minutes of Thursday, June 17, 1999. Ms. Funk seconded the motion. Mr. Daniels, Ms. Funk, Mr. Mariger, Mr. Snelgrove and Mr. Steed voted “Aye”. Ms. Barrows, Mr. DeMille, Ms. Kirk and Mr. Smith were not present. Ms. Short, as Chair, did not vote. The motion passed.
PUBLIC HEARINGS
PUBLIC HEARING – The Salt Lake City Planning Commission will hold a public hearing to receive public comment and consider recommending approval of the Capitol Hill Community Master Plan. (Petition 400-98-18) The area is roughly bounded by North Temple Street and the north City limits and between Interstate-15 and Canyon Road. The purpose of the Master Plan is to provide direction concerning future growth and development in the Capitol Hill Community.
Ms. Cheri Coffey presented the staff report outlining the major issues of the master plan, the findings of fact and the staff recommendation, a copy of which is filed with the minutes. Ms. Coffey then stated that her recommendation in the staff report was that the Planning Commission forward a favorable recommendation to the City Council for adoption of the Capitol Hill Community Master Plan. Ms. Coffey is now recommending that a decision be postponed until the August 19, 1999 Planning Commission meeting
which will allow the community council the opportunity to review the plan one more time. Ms. Coffey then stated that the main concern for the Capitol Hill community is traffic. Other issues of concern include preserving the historic integrity of the neighborhoods, alleviating development pressures and accommodating commercial businesses. Ms. Coffey then addressed key concepts of the master plan. Community wide policies include parks and recreation, historic preservation, urban design and transportation. Ms. Coffey continued by addressing some of the contentious issues in the Plan. The contentious issues include the most appropriate access on 300 North across the rail lines, whether the North Temple viaduct should be reconstructed or an underpass be constructed in its place, relocation of residential land uses in Swedetown, East Capitol Boulevard improvements and how to calm traffic on East Capitol Boulevard, commercial node & Arctic Court and several issues relating to the West Capitol Hill Neighborhood Plan.
Mr. Steed stated that he was concerned about the safety of students at West High School who are sandwiched between 300 and 400 West Streets. He was not convinced that 400 West should be the primary route for commuters since it does not extend south of the Central Business District.
Ms. Short opened the hearing to the public and asked if anyone wished to address the Planning Commission.
Mr. Eric Jergensen, chair of the Master Plan Advisory Committee, stated that the City and the neighborhood have worked hard and diligently to get the master plan into the final draft. Mr. Jergensen then stated that he feels that the master plan is a good expression of the principles and the philosophy of the neighborhood. Mr. Jergensen is pleased that the Planning Commission will not be taking action at this time because he feels that there are still some outstanding transportation and zoning issues.
Ms. Bonnie Mangold, a member of the Master Plan Advisory Committee, stated that she has been involved in the entire planning process of the Capitol Hill Community Master Plan. Ms. Mangold stated that she is pleased that the Planning Commission will not be taking action at this time because the community wishes to present their list of unresolved issues, with their rationale behind them, to the Planning Commission for their review prior to a decision being made. Ms. Mangold then stated that she believes that the master plan should reflect the optimum plans for the community. She believes that there could be some difficulty in bringing about some of what is in the master plan, however, the master plan needs to state the ideal.
Mr. Christopher Robinson, a property owner in the area and developer, stated that he is concerned about the language in the master plan which seems to not favor future development. If the master plan is going to influence future policies, he would like the plan to be somewhat favorable to further development. He expressed his concern with the land use designation of Foothill/Residential on his property located at approximately 700 to 900 North at the North end of Desoto Street. Mr. Robinson also expressed his
opposition to any expansion of the extractive industry line to the east which would impact residential development.
Ms. Raven Rivera, a resident in the community, stated that she is representing the Guadalupe Neighborhood, the Capitol West Boys and Girls Club and Neighborhood Housing Services. She then stated that she appreciates the fact that Staff recognizes that a vehicle overpass and/or an underpass is not wanted in her neighborhood. However, the community would not mind having a pedestrian/bicycle overpass. The community's main concern is keeping drugs and prostitution out of the neighborhood. Ms. Rivera continued by stating that there is also a need for traffic calming in the area.
Mr. Don Lewon, President of Utah Metal Works located in Swedetown, stated that he has worked in Swedetown for many years and feels that he has not seen enough changes. Basic services, such as a sewer system, are needed in this neighborhood. Mr. Lewon stated that he is in favor of the redevelopment of Swedetown to ensure basic infrastructure is provided in this area. He also stated that Beck Street is not a pleasant entrance into the City and improvements should be made. He encouraged the City to take action soon to improve this area of the Community.
Mr. Wright noted that one of the recommendations of the Capitol Hill Community Master Plan is to develop a small area master plan for Swedetown.
Mr. Brian Hutchinson, a resident in the community, spoke concerning traffic calming in the area of 600 North and 300 West and the need to protect the residential community from Davis County commuters. Mr. Hutchinson discussed the need for a traffic diverter at 300 West and 600 North as discussed in the 1981 Capitol Hill Master Plan.
Ms. Menta Brandon, Trustee of the area in which Mr. Hutchinson was speaking, stated that no one likes crowded streets. Ms. Brandon then stated that, as a trustee of the area, she is very aware and concerned about the traffic problems. Increased traffic is a result of progress, and progress is inevitable. Ms. Brandon stated that a lot of people want the temporary diverter at 300 West and 600 North removed.
Upon receiving no further requests to address the Planning Commission, Ms. Short closed the hearing to the public and opened it for Planning Commission discussion.
Motion for Petition No. 400-98-18:
Mr. Steed moved to postpone Petition No. 400-98-18, giving the Capitol Hill Community Council one more opportunity to discuss the unresolved issues and concerns, and then have it brought back to the Planning Commission for their recommendation to the City Council. Mr. Daniels seconded the motion. Mr. Daniels, Ms. Funk, Mr. Mariger, Mr. Snelgrove and Mr. Steed voted “Aye”. Ms. Barrows, Mr. DeMille, Mr. Iker, Ms. Kirk and Mr. Smith were not present. Ms. Short, as Chair, did not vote. The motion passed.
PUBLIC HEARING – The Salt Lake City Planning Commission is considering Petition 400-99-8, initiated by the Planning Commission, requesting an amendment to the Capitol Hill Community Zoning Map and Guadalupe Master Plan. The petition includes rezoning the commercial properties on the block between North Temple and 200 North and between Interstate-15 and 600 West. As proposed, Commercial Corridor "CC" zoning will be maintained on the properties on the north side of North Temple, from the north right-of-way line of North Temple, northward 165 feet. Properties north of that, which are owned by the Utah Department of Transportation and are being used as part of the reconstruction of Interstate-15, are proposed to be zoned Residential "SR-3". All of the existing commercial properties will be zoned Commercial Corridor "CC".
Ms. Cheri Coffey 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. Short opened the hearing to the public and asked if anyone wished to address the Planning Commission.
Mr. John Robinson, an abutting property owner, stated that he is in favor of the proposed rezoning of commercial properties from Commercial Corridor "CC" to Residential "SR-3". Mr. Robinson noted that he would prefer to see the properties rezoned to Residential "SR-1", however, he feels that the "SR-3" is a good compromise.
The Planning Commission discussed the issue raised in the UDOT letter claiming the rezoning is compensable. Lynn Pace, Deputy City Attorney addressed this issue in a letter to the Planning Commission stating that compensation for a rezoning is not legally founded.
Upon receiving no further requests to address the Planning Commission, Ms. Short closed the hearing to the public and opened it for Planning Commission discussion.
Motion for Petition No. 400-99-08:
Mr. Snelgrove moved, based on the findings of fact, to transmit a favorable recommendation to the City Council for Petition No. 400-99-08 to amend the Capitol Hill Community Zoning Map as follows:
1. Retain the Commercial Corridor zoning on the property fronting the North Temple right-of-way northward to a depth of 165 feet.
2. Rezone the balance of the Commercial Corridor property (165 feet north of the North Temple right-of-way) from "CC" to "SR-3".
Mr. Snelgrove further moved to recommend to the City Council that the future land use map of the Guadalupe Target Area Plan be amended to identify less of the property commercial and more of the property residential to reflect the existing land use patterns of the North Temple street frontage. Mr. Steed seconded the motion. Mr. Daniels, Ms.
Funk, Mr. Mariger, Mr. Snelgrove and Mr. Steed voted “Aye”. Ms. Barrows, Mr. DeMille, Mr. Iker, Ms. Kirk and Mr. Smith were not present. Ms. Short, as Chair, did not vote. The motion passed.
PUBLIC HEARING – Case No. 410-354 by David Rohovitz, representing the First United Methodist Church, requesting a conditional use for a parking lot located at approximately 203 South 200 East in a Downtown "D-1" zoning District.
Mr. Doug Dansie presented the staff report outlining the major issues of the case, the findings of fact and the staff recommendation, a copy of which is filed with the minutes.
Mr. David Rohovitz, representing the petitioner, was present for this portion of the meeting and stated that he was in agreement with the staff recommendation.
Ms. Short asked what type of access gate is being proposed. Mr. Rohovitz stated that the entry access gate on 200 East will have an automatic arm that will remain up during the day and down at night for safety reasons. The exit access gate on 200 South will remain in the down position and will go up when a car approaches to exit.
Ms. Short opened the hearing to the public and asked if anyone wished to address the Planning Commission.
Mr. Matt Wolverton, representing the Central City Neighborhood Council, was concerned about the proposed parking lot not being used by vehicles and that it may become a waste of space. However, he has taken time to further evaluate the situation and he feels that the parking lot will be used to its potential. The First United Methodist Church is a building with historic and cultural value within the immediate downtown area. Therefore, Mr. Wolverton has recommended to Reverend Sewell and the members of the First United Methodist Church to petition to add their place of worship to Salt Lake City's Historical Landmark Sites.
Ms. Marjorie Geertgens, a Trustee of the First United Methodist Church, spoke in favor of the parking lot. Ms. Geertgens then stated that the Church is need of the parking lot because there is not enough existing parking in the area to accommodate their needs, particularly for the disabled.
Upon receiving no further requests to address the Planning Commission, Ms. Short closed the hearing to the public and opened it for Planning Commission discussion.
Motion for Case No. 410-354:
Mr. Steed moved, based on the findings of fact, to approve Case No. 410-354 for a parking lot at 203 South 200 East subject to the following conditions:
1. The Planning Director have final design, materials and site plan approval authority.
2. The automatic gate be reviewed by the City Transportation Division. Final design of the automatic gate be given final approval by the Planning Director. (underlined portion added by the Planning Commission)
3. The removal or rearrangement of parking meters to accommodate the curb cut be coordinated with the Transportation Division.
4. The project satisfy all other City requirements.
Mr. Mariger seconded the motion. Mr. Daniels, Ms. Funk, Mr. Mariger, Mr. Snelgrove and Mr. Steed voted “Aye”. Ms. Barrows, Mr. DeMille, Mr. Iker, Ms. Kirk and Mr. Smith were not present. Ms. Short, as Chair, did not vote. The motion passed.
PUBLIC HEARING – Case No. 410-353 by Gerry Tulley of Palladian Development requesting a conditional use for a residential planned development located at approximately 833 East 400 South in a Residential Multi-Family "RMF-75" and Corridor Commercial "CC" zoning districts.
Mr. Doug Dansie presented the staff report outlining the major issues of the case, the findings of fact and the staff recommendation, a copy of which is filed with the minutes.
Mr. Gerry Tulley, the petitioner, was present for this portion of the meeting and stated that he was in agreement with the staff recommendation. He noted that final design and exterior material selection will occur after the basic approval of the project.
Ms. Short opened the hearing to the public and asked if anyone wished to address the Planning Commission. Upon receiving no response, she closed the hearing to the public and opened it for Planning Commission discussion.
Motion for Case No. 410-353:
Ms. Funk moved, based on the findings of fact, to approve Case No. 410-353 for a planned development at 833 East 400 South subject to the following conditions:
1. The Planning Director have final building design, materials and site plan approval authority.
2. The project satisfy all other City requirements.
Mr. Steed seconded the motion. Mr. Daniels, Ms. Funk, Mr. Mariger, Mr. Snelgrove and Mr. Steed voted “Aye”. Ms. Barrows, Mr. DeMille, Mr. Iker, Ms. Kirk and Mr. Smith were not present. Ms. Short, as Chair, did not vote. The motion passed.
PUBLIC HEARING – Case No. 410-355 by KCPW Radio requesting a conditional use for a rooftop antenna installation which exceeds the height limit located at approximately 299 South Main in a Downtown "D-1" zoning district.
Mr. Doug Dansie presented the staff report outlining the major issues of the case, the findings of fact and the staff recommendation, a copy of which is filed with the minutes.
Mr. Chris Eisenberg, representing the petitioner, was present for this portion of the meeting and stated that he was in agreement with the staff recommendation. Mr. Eisenberg then stated that the antenna will allow KCPW to get a stronger signal to areas that the radio station already covers.
Ms. Short opened the hearing to the public and asked if anyone wished to address the Planning Commission. Upon receiving no response, she closed the hearing to the public and opened it for Planning Commission discussion.
Motion for Case No. 410-355:
Mr. Steed moved, based on the findings of fact, to approve Case No. 410-355 for an exception to the height limit to allow a transmitter/antenna at 299 South Main Street. Ms. Funk seconded the motion. Mr. Daniels, Ms. Funk, Mr. Mariger, Mr. Snelgrove and Mr. Steed voted “Aye”. Ms. Barrows, Mr. DeMille, Mr. Iker, Ms. Kirk and Mr. Smith were not present. Ms. Short, as Chair, did not vote. The motion passed.
PUBLIC HEARING – Petition No. 400-99-32 by Reaveley Engineers & Associates, Inc. requesting a zone change from Single Family Residential "R-1-5000" to Residential Business "RB" located at 1120 East Avenue.
Case No. 410-352 by Reaveley Engineers & Associates, Inc. requesting a conditional use for a 5 stall off-site parking lot and a 400 square foot accessory structure on an accessory lot located at 1120 East Kensington Avenue in a Residential Business "RB" zoning district.
Mr. Robert Glessner 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. Glessner then stated that the subject property is located adjacent to a north/south alleyway and is located east of Reaveley Engineering's office building and west of a single-family residence. The property was originally subdivided as a 25-foot
wide lot, recorded in 1891. The property owner performed a title search on 1120 East Kensington Avenue and verified that a structure was never built on the lot by any of the previous property owners.
Mr. Reaveley, the petitioner, was present for this portion of the meeting and stated that he was in agreement with the staff recommendation. Mr. Reaveley stated that his proposal for an accessory structure and a five stall off-site parking lot will beautify the property, take five cars off of the street and make good use of a piece of property that has been vacant for 108 years.
Ms. Short opened the hearing to the public and asked if anyone wished to address the Planning Commission.
Ms. Shelly Teuscher, a nearby resident to Reaveley Engineers, stated that the neighbors that are immediately adjacent to the vacant property are very supportive of the zoning change and the proposed use of the property. The neighbors that are in favor of the proposed use of the property are interested in seeing the project approved because they would like to see some cars moved off of the street into the parking stalls that will be provided. Ms. Teuscher then stated that she believes that the lot is too narrow to be built on.
Ms. Effie Yates, a resident in the immediate area, stated that she has lived in this area for 61 years. She recalls somebody starting to build on the lot, which was eventually halted because it was discovered that the lot was too small. Ms. Yates continued by stating that the lot has not been useful until now with Mr. Reaveley's proposal for an accessory structure and a five stall off-site parking lot. She believes that getting five cars off of the street will make a big difference because the corner can get very congested at times.
Mr. Don Brooke, Chair of the East Central Community Council, stated that Mr. Reaveley's proposal was discussed at their March 10, 1999 meeting. After an extensive discussion, a community council member offered a motion that the present zoning, Residential "R-1-5000", be retained. The vote on the motion was 17 in favor, 4 against and 5 abstaining. Mr. Brooke then stated that he believes that the proposed zoning change is considered spot rezoning that is in violation of general principles behind the zoning boundaries. Mr. Brooke continued by stating that he is troubled because different people have come up with different estimates for the width of the property. What is the actual width of the property?
Mr. Wright responded by stating that Mr. Glessner's information is coming from the legal description of the property. Mr. Wright also noted that the abutting alley is legally a little bit narrower on the south end then it is on the north end. Which is why there may be some discrepancies.
Ms. Cindy Cromer, a concerned citizen, stated that she is opposed to proposed zoning change. Ms. Cromer gave a brief history on issues related to Reaveley Engineering
and the expansion of business uses next to residential districts. (Ms. Cromer has submitted a letter describing the history, a copy of which is filed with the minutes.) Her opposition to this proposal has to do with her overall sense of what happens when businesses get very successful up against residential areas. Ms. Cromer is concerned about the "RB" zone because businesses are bigger than she expected to see, building materials are being used that are inconsistent with the historic residential area and there is encroachment of parking into residential areas. She then asked Staff to take a look at the outcomes of the changes that were agreed to when the "RB" zone was established.
Ms. Marianne Fraser, a resident in the area, stated that she is opposed to the proposed zoning change. She then stated that both the East Central Community Council and the Sugar House Community Council have voted on this issue. The combined votes from both councils are as follows: 21 members oppose the zoning change, 9 members are in favor of the zoning change and 8 members abstained. The numbers indicate that the community surrounding the Reaveley Engineering building is opposed to a zoning change. Although the point has been made that six people from the immediate neighborhood are supportive of the zoning change, it is very important to stress that the entire community will be impacted by the Planning Commission's decision. Ms. Frassr then encouraged the Planning Commission to uphold the integrity of the community's "R-1-5000" zoning and oppose the zoning change.
Ms. Mary Lou Watchell, a resident in the community, stated that she is in favor of the zoning change because she feels that the vacant lot is an eyesore to the community. Ms. Watchell then stated that she believes that Mr. Reaveley's proposal for an accessory structure and a five stall off-site parking lot will be an improvement to the neighborhood.
Ms. Arla Eiser, East Central Community Council representative, stated that she is opposed to the proposed zoning change. She then stated that she believes that a residential structure could be built on this narrow piece of property. Ms. Eiser then presented some pictures to the Planning Commission of homes that she feels could be built on the 25-foot lot. She then urged the Planning Commission to not change the zoning and to give residential a chance.
Mr. Ryan Miller, the abutting property owner to the east of the vacant lot, stated that he is in favor of the zoning change because the lot has been an eyesore for several years. He then stated that one of the factors for buying the home that he did was because there was not a house on the abutting property. Mr. Miller feels that a residential structure could not be built on the vacant lot because it is too small.
Ms. Diana Herz, a resident in the area, read a letter from Mr. Russell C. Fericks who was in opposition of the proposed zoning change. (A copy of the letter is filed with the minutes.) Ms. Herz then stated that she has lived in the area for 13 years and in that amount of time, traffic has dramatically increased due to businesses on 1100 East and commuters. Ms. Herz continued by stating that she has seen cars park on the streets
and there have empty stalls at Reaveley Engineering's current parking lot. Since the existing parking is not being used, she feels that the parking does not need to be expanded in this area. Mr. Herz concluded by stating that she is opposed to an accessory structure and that the lot should be used for open space. If Reaveley Engineering is in need of more space, perhaps they should relocate to an industrial area.
Ms. Gloria Fuller, a resident in the area, stated that if parking is an issue, is there an employee incentive to use other forms of transportation such as the bus system or car pooling. If Reaveley Engineering continues to grow, how long will an additional five parking stalls meet their needs. She would like to see the vacant lot used for open space, not commercial.
Mr. Tom Fuller, a resident in the area, stated that he is concerned about the precedent that this could set in the neighborhood. He does not want to see more businesses in this residential neighborhood. He feels that the lot should be used for open space. Mr. Fuller also stated that if Reaveley Engineering is in need of further expansion, perhaps they should move to a light industrial area.
Mr. Reaveley made a few concluding statements. He stated that his facility is not an industrial facility. He feels that if he is not granted the zoning change to allow for an accessory structure and a five stall parking lot, the lot will remain vacant and an eyesore for another 108 years. He is willing to put forth the money and the effort to upgrade this property into a good community use. Mr. Reaveley then stated that he seeks the community's support to improve the neighborhood.
Upon receiving no further requests to address the Planning Commission, Ms. Short closed the hearing to the public and opened it for Planning Commission discussion.
Mr. Mariger asked how many other lots in this area are comparable to the 25-foot wide vacant lot. Mr. Glessner stated that there was one other lot which was 24 feet wide and it has a parking lot on it. Mr. Mariger stated that he is concerned that if this proposal is approved that it will set a precedent all along 1100 East. Mr. Glessner responded by stating that the vacant lot in question is the only lot that can be incorporated into the "RB" zoning district without having an impact to an existing residential structure.
Mr. Daniels stated that a single family residence could be built on the 25-foot vacant lot. However, he questions the livability and the feasibility of building a single family residence on such a narrow piece of property particularly at this location.
Ms. Funk commended Mr. Reaveley for the way that he takes care of his property and for being a good neighbor. However, Ms. Funk feels that Mr. Reaveley's business is too large for the commercial area that has been established on 1100 East. Ms. Funk also has some concerns about letting his business cross the alley. She feels that it is spot zoning and that it will encroach on the residential neighborhood. Ms. Funk is also concerned about the precedent it could set for other businesses to go across the alley.
Motion for Petition No. 400-99-32 and Case No. 410-352:
Ms. Funk moved, based on the findings of fact, to deny Petition 400-99-32 and Case No. 410-352. The motion failed for lack of a second.
Mr. Steed stated that he disagrees with Ms. Funk because he does not feel that approving the zoning change will set a precedent. He also stated that the adjacent neighbors are in favor of Mr. Reaveley's proposal and have agreed that Mr. Reaveley has been a good property owner and neighbor. Mr. Steed continued by stating that he is in favor of the request because Mr. Reaveley is going to be making an improvement on a lot that has not seen an improvement in 108 years.
Mr. Snelgrove asked Mr. Reaveley if he has asked his employees not to park on residential streets. Mr. Reaveley responded by stating that he has. Mr. Snelgrove then asked Mr. Reaveley to reiterate to his employees that they should not park on residential streets. Mr. Snelgrove then stated that there were several people who spoke in opposition to the proposal because they wanted the property preserved as open space. Mr. Snelgrove noted that with the exception of five parking stalls, the proposal will be adding open space to the neighborhood. Mr. Snelgrove continued by stating that he does not believe that this proposal would set a precedent because there is not a large inventory of lots where this could occur elsewhere along 1100 East.
Motion for Petition No. 400-99-32:
Mr. Steed moved, based on the findings of fact, to recommend approval to the City Council of Petition No. 400-99-32 to change the zone designation from "R-1-5000" to "RB" and to amend the zoning map and master plan. Mr. Snelgrove seconded the motion. Mr. Daniels, Mr. Mariger, Mr. Snelgrove and Mr. Steed voted “Aye”. Ms. Funk voted "Nay". Ms. Barrows, Mr. DeMille, Mr. Iker, Ms. Kirk and Mr. Smith were not present. Ms. Short, as Chair, did not vote. The motion passed.
Motion for Case No. 410-352:
Mr. Steed moved, based on the findings of fact, to approve Case No. 410-352 for an offsite parking lot and an accessory structure on an accessory lot subject to the following conditions as listed in the staff report:
1. Detailed landscape plan shall be required prior to building permit issuance and subject to the approval of the Planning Director.
2. The public utility easement must be verified prior to building permit issuance. Necessary design amendments due to public utility easement must be addressed prior to building permit issuance.
3. The accessory structure shall not be converted to a principal use structure.
4. The accessory lot shall remain accessory to the principal lot. If termination of the accessory lot use occurs, the City shall initiate action to rezone the subject parcel to a Residential "R-1-5000" zoning classification.
5. City Council approval of the zoning change. (underlined portion added by the Planning Commission)
Mr. Daniels seconded the motion. Mr. Daniels, Mr. Mariger, Mr. Snelgrove and Mr. Steed voted “Aye”. Ms. Funk voted "Nay". Ms. Barrows, Mr. DeMille, Mr. Iker, Ms. Kirk and Mr. Smith were not present. Ms. Short, as Chair, did not vote. The motion passed.
OTHER BUSINESS
Consider a request by Nancy Saxton for an extension of time regarding Case No. 410-316 requesting a conditional use to use the James Freeze House as a reception center located at 734 East 200 South in a Residential “RMF-45” zoning district.
Ms. Elizabeth Giraud 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. Giraud stated that Nancy Saxton is requesting a time extension because of financing considerations.
Ms. Nancy Saxton, the petitioner, was present for this portion of the meeting and stated that she was in agreement with the staff recommendation.
Motion for Case No. 410-316 time extension:
Mr. Daniels moved to approve a one-year time extension for Case No. 410-316 for a reception center located in the historic James Freeze house. Mr. Mariger seconded the motion. Mr. Daniels, Ms. Funk, Mr. Mariger and Mr. Steed voted “Aye”. Mr. Snelgrove abstained. Ms. Barrows, Mr. DeMille, Mr. Iker, Ms. Kirk and Mr. Smith were not present. Ms. Short, as Chair, did not vote. The motion passed.
Ms. Funk addressed Planning Staff by stating that the "Economic Hardship" language in the Zoning Ordinance needs to be clarified.
Mr. Wright stated, in response to Ms. Funk’s comments, that the Historic Landmark Commission has been working on a revision which will be presented to the Planning Commission shortly.
Resignation of Gregory DeMille
A letter has been submitted by Mr. Gregory DeMille stating his resignation from the Planning Commission due to unexpected family medical problems. (A copy of his letter is filed with the minutes.)
There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 9:10 p.m.