SALT LAKE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION
451 South State Street, Room 126
Present from the Planning Con1mission were Ralph Becker, Cindy Cromer, Jim McRea, Kimball Young, Diana Kirk and Ann Roberts. Richard Howa, Lynn Beckstead, Ralph Neilson, Judi Short and Gilbert Iker were excused.
Present from the Planning Staff were Planning Director William T. Wright, Doug Wheelwright, Everett Joyce, Joel Paterson and Margaret Pahl.
The meeting was called to order at 5:00 p.m. by Mr. Becker. A roll is being kept with the minutes of all who attended the Planning Commission meeting. The minutes are presented in agenda order, not necessarily as cases were heard at the Planning Commission meeting. 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
Ms. Roberts moved to approve the minutes of February 9, and February 16, 1995 as presented. Ms. Cromer seconded the motion. Ms. Roberts, Mr. McRea, Mr. Young, Ms. Kirk and Ms. Cron1er voted "Aye." Mr. Howa, Mr. Beckstead, Mr. Neilson, Ms. Short and Mr. Iker were not present. Mr. Becker, as Chair, did not vote. The motion passed.
CONSENT CALENDAR
Historical Landmark Cases
Ms. Kirk moved to ratify the actions of the Historical Landmark Committee on their cases from Wednesday, March 1, 1995 as presented on their disposition of cases, a copy of which is filed with the minutes. Mr. Young seconded the motion. Ms. Roberts, Mr. McRea, Mr. Young, Ms. Kirk and Ms. Cromer voted "Aye." Mr. Howa, Mr. Beckstead, Mr. Neilson, Ms. Short and Mr. Iker were not present. Mr. Becker, as Chair, did not vote. The motion passed.
PETITIONS AND CONDITIONAL USES
INFORMAL HEARING- Request by Melvin Grossgold for Capital Redevelopment Partnership of Salt Lake City for approval for conversion of the Hollywood Apartments to condominiums located at 234 East 1 00 South in a Commercial "C-4" zoning district.
Ms. Margaret Pahl 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. McRea asked when the building had last been occupied.
Ms. Pahl responded that she believed the building had not been occupied for several years.
Mr. Becker asked how their waste would be disposed of. Ms. Pahl stated that their waste disposal would be handled by Waste Management of Utah, Inc.
Mr. McRea asked how the parking problem would be handled since there was no on-site parking. Ms. Pahl said she believed the market would force them to deal with the lack of parking.
Mr. Bruce Manka, representing the petitioner, was present for this portion of the Planning Commission meeting. He stated that he was in agreement with the staff report and requested the Planning Commission approve this request.
Mr. Becker opened the hearing and asked if anyone wished to address the Planning Commission.
Mr. Jean DeBouzek, an adjoining property owner, stated that they continually experienced parking problems with this building and pointed out that as many as 50 cars might need parking places. Mr. DeBouzek said his tenants were constantly forced to have cars from this building towed away for taking their parking spaces. He stated that he was grateful that the building would be upgraded through this process but added that there was also a garbage dumping problem in that tenants of this building often used his garbage dumpster for their waste products which differed significantly from office garbage.
Mr. Becker asked the petitioner how he planned to deal with the lack of parking.
Mr. Manka stated that the parking problem already existed and condominium use would not be much different from the existing rental use. Mr. Manka stated that most residents would be at work during the day time hours and U.S. West was willing to work out a night time parking lease with the tenants who were interested.
Mr. DeBouzek asked if he could have a letter of guarantee that the owners of the condominiums would not use his parking lot or his dumpster.
Mr. Manka stated that he could not provide such a guarantee but explained that they were going to require the condominiums have a 70% owner occupied rate.
Mr. Walt White, a tenant of Mr. DeBouzek's, stated that he was continuously having to call to have violators' cars towed because they were taking his parking stall. He expressed concern that if access to the parking terrace was blocked by a garbage dumpster, there would be no fire protection access.
Upon receiving no further requests to address the Planning Commission, Mr. Becker closed the hearing and opened it for Planning Commission discussion.
Ms. Kirk moved to grant the request for condominium conversion of the Hollywood Apartments based on the findings of fact contained in the staff report. Mr. Young seconded the motion with the suggestion that the two property owners try to resolve their differences. Ms. Roberts, Mr. McRea, Mr. Young, Ms. Kirk and Ms. Cromer voted "Aye." Mr. Howa, Mr. Beckstead, Mr. Neilson, Ms. Short and Mr. Iker were not present. Mr. Becker, as Chair, did not vote. The motion passed.
INFORMAL HEARING- Petition No. 400-95-4 by Amoco Oil requesting Salt Lake City vacate a portion of excess right-of-way of 900 North west of 400 West: and Petition No. 410-165 by Amoco Oil requesting a conditional use to allow a car wash to be located at the northwest corner of the intersection of Beck Street and 400 West in a Commercial "C-1" zoning district.
Ms. Margaret Pahl presented the staff reports outlining the major issues of the cases and the staff recommendations, copies of which are 'filed with the minutes.
Mr. Sid Horsfield, representing Amoco Oil, was present for this portion of the Planning Commission and requested the Planning Commission approve their request.
Mr. Becker opened the hearing to the public and asked if anyone wished to address the Planning Commission. Upon receiving no response, he closed the hearing and opened it for Planning Commission discussion.
Ms. Kirk moved to approve Petitions No. 400-95-4 and 410-165 subject to the conditions listed in the staff reports. Ms. Roberts seconded the motion. Ms. Roberts, Mr. McRea, Mr. Young, Ms. Kirk and Ms. Cromer voted "Aye." Mr. Howa, Mr. Beckstead, Mr. Neilson, Ms. Short and Mr. Iker were not present. Mr. Becker, as Chair, did not vote. The motion passed.
INFORMAL HEARING- Petition No. 400-95-11 by Lance Weekley requesting a plat amendment to the Canyon Road Subdivision. Lot 9. and that excess City property in front of 288 Canyon Road be declared surplus.
Mr. Becker stated that he had a conflict of interest in this matter since Mr. Weekley was his neighbor and he had worked with the City on this issue of behalf of Mr. Weekley.
Mr. Becker left the meeting during the discussion and the vote on this issue.
Ms. Cromer acted as Chair during this portion of the meeting and requested the record reflect this action would need ratification by a quorum at the next meeting.
Mr. Joel Paterson 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. Beth Fitzgerald, representing Mr. Weekley, was present for this portion of the meeting and stated that Mr. Weekley was out of the country and not able to be here at this time. Ms. Fitzgerald briefly explained their proposal and requested the Planning Commission approve this request.
Ms. Roberts asked how they would access the proposed garage.
Mr. Paterson used a briefing board to demonstrate Howaccess would be accomplished.
Ms. Cromer opened the hearing to the public and asked if anyone wished to address the Planning Commission.
Ms. Tommie St. Cyr, a resident of the area and representing Craig Ogan and the Russells, also residents of the area, stated that they did not wish any construction whatsoever to occur on the east canyon wall between the residences on North Canyon Road and "A” Street. Ms. St. Cyr stated that they supported Mr. Weekley being allowed to erect a garage in the same location as the existing garage on his property, and that he be given permission to demolish the existing garage in order to do so. She stated that Mr. Weekley should be allowed to use his own property for the purposes intended and the City should assist him in this process by granting any needed easements. She requested the necessary property lines be adjusted adjacent to the structure in question on Mr. Weekley's property so that he could replace his garage. Ms. St. Cyr requested the City establish, in conjunction with the residents of North Canyon Road, a master plan governing future use of this surplus land adjacent to Memory Grove Park to address extension and preservation of the nature preserve, and maintenance of the general aesthetics of the east canyon wall to mirror the west canyon wall. She stated that their major concern was future land owners capitalizing on the development precedent that would be set if this request was approved.
Mr. Frank Armstrong II, a resident of the area and representing Ms. Ann Rasmussen, also a resident of the area, stated that the area in question was a garbage collection area. Mr. Armstrong said they were in support of what Mr. Weekley was trying to accomplish and stated that Mr. Weekley had greatly improved the neighborhood.
Mr. Ed Mulaney, a resident of the area, stated that he was in support of Mr. Weekley's request. He stated that Mr. Weekley had done a lot to clean up this area and improve the neighborhood.
Ms. Marilyn Neilson, a property owner on "A" Street on the hillside above the area in question, stated that she was concerned that other property owners might request the same consideration and this area would become filled with "ticky tacky" garages and storage buildings. She stated that she would like to see this area cleaned up and remain a nature preserve. Ms. Neilson agreed with the suggestion to master plan this area.
Mr. Dick Snow, an adjacent property owner to the petitioner, stated that he was very much in support of this request and urged the Planning Commission to approve it.
Mr. John Jansen, a resident of the area, stated that he was in support of Mr. Weekley's request and asked the Planning Commission to approve it.
Mr. Alan WaIker, a resident of the area, stated that he was in support of Mr. Weekley's request and asked the Planning Commission to approve it. He stated that he believed this area would be cleaned up if it were privately owned or leased by Mr. Weekley.
Ms. Sydney Fonnesbeck, a resident on the hillside above this area, expressed concern about slope stability if the hill was disturbed as proposed. She stated that this hill was not stable and she did not want to see her house slide off the hillside. Ms. Fonnesbeck stated that she had seen plans for proposed condominiums for the property adjacent to the property Mr. Weekley desired to obtain which showed ski lifts to deliver people to their doorways. She said the neighborhood had always felt safe from such development because the land required to do this was owned by the City. She stated that if this land were now made available for private ownership, plans such as those with the ski lifts could be resurrected. She requested the land be leased to Mr. Weekley on a long term basis rather than declared surplus and sold because of possible future impacts.
Ms. Dee Edmunds, a resident of the area, stated that she strongly supported Mr. Weekley's petition. She added that if the City had any intention of cleaning this area up it would have done so by now.
Ms. Nancy Wallace, a resident of the area, stated that parking in this area was a problem and she strongly supported this request for Mr. Weekley to have secured, off street parking. She stated that any construction in this area would have to go through the Historical Landmark Committee and the Planning Commission review procedures. She urged the Planning Commission to approve this request.
Ms. Leslie Russell, a resident of the area, stated that she did not have a problem with the fence but with the building on the east side of the hill. She stated that she would like to see that area remain as a green open space. Ms. Russell said she was in support of the City granting an easement to both the front and back of the property lines.
Ms. Jane Erickson, a resident around the corner from this area, stated that this area was not a green space, nor was it a nature preserve. She stated that this area was filled with trash trees and trash and there was nothing green about it. Ms. Erickson said she believed the only way this land would be improved would be through private ownership efforts. She stated that any development proposals would have to be approved by the Planning Commission and the Landmark Committee, and therefore, a "tacky" development would not be possible. Ms. Erickson stated that there was a proposed retaining wall for the hillside which should address the concerns raised by Ms. Fonnesbeck.
Upon receiving no further requests to address the Planning Commission, Ms. Cromer closed the hearing and opened it for Planning Commission discussion.
Ms. Kirk asked if the garage would have to go through the Historical Landmark Committee. Mr. Paterson responded in the affirmative. Ms. Kirk asked if a retaining wall would be required.
Mr. Paterson said the site would receive some engineering analysis to determine what would be required because of the slope.
Mr. Wheelwright stated that it was likely that the east, north and south walls of the garage would be constructed as the retaining wall.
Ms. Kirk asked about landscaping and security lighting.
Mr. Paterson stated that the area would landscaped and was already lighted.
Mr. McRea requested a staff response to the suggestions made relative to master planning this area.
Mr. Wheelwright responded that the City Creek Master Plan had already addressed the issues pertinent to this area.
Ms. Roberts asked about the possibility of leasing the property, rather than selling it to Mr. Weekley.
Mr. Wheelwright stated that Mr. Weekley might be okay with leasing the property but added that if he owned the land under the garage it would be easier to sell the property in the future should Mr. Weekley desire to sell it.
Ms. Cromer said it was her understanding that this was the only garage that could be built east of the conduit and asked if that was correct.
Mr. Paterson said that was correct.
Ms. Cromer asked if the City would be amenable to grant leases to the property owners across the alley. Mr. Paterson said he believed Public Utilities would be favorable to that as long as no structures were built over that area so they could access the area when needed.
Ms. Kirk moved to declare the City-owned property surplus for the purpose of selling the property to Mr. Weekley; to grant preliminary subdivision approval for the proposed division of City-owned property and to recommend approval of the proposed amendment to Lot #9, Canyon Road Subdivision, subject to the conditions listed in the staff report. Ms. Roberts seconded the motion. Ms. Roberts, Mr. McRea, Mr. Young, and Ms. Kirk voted "Aye." Mr. Becker, Mr. Howa, Mr. Beckstead, Mr. Neilson, Ms. Short and Mr. Iker were not present. Ms. Cromer, as Chair, did not vote. The motion passed.
Mr. Becker returned to the meeting at this time and resumed the position of Chairperson.
INFORMAL HEARING - Petition No. 400-94-21 by Marion B. Smith requesting permission to purchase City property located in Arlington Hills Plat "J" at 1425 Tomahawk Drive.
Mr. Becker stated that a letter had been faxed to the Planning Office just prior to this meeting stating that the petitioner wished to withdraw the petition at this time and pursue a geotechnical evaluation of the hillside involved. A copy of this letter is filed with the minutes. Mr. Becker stated that to withdraw a petition meant that the petitioner was no longer proposing the action the petition stated and was backing off their request. Mr. Becker said he was not sure that was the intention of the petitioner. He suggested the Planning Commission go ahead and hear the staff report and accept public comment on this matter since there were people present who wished to address the Planning Commission on this issue.
Mr. Joe Baldwin, the real estate agent for the petitioner, stated that he believed the petitioner's intent had been to postpone the Planning Commission decision, not withdraw the petition. Mr. Baldwin stated that he was not actually representing the petitioner but was attending, at the petitioner's request, to make sure the Planning Commission had received her letter.
Mr. Joel Paterson presented the staff report outlining the major issues of the staff report, the findings of fact and the staff recommendation, a copy of which is filed with the minutes. Mr. Paterson stated that the petitioner had met with the staff earlier in the day to discuss this matter and Mr. Paterson had informed the petitioner at that time that based on City policy and the nature of encroachments on this property, the City had no intention of leasing or selling this property to the petitioner. Mr. Paterson stated that they had discussed the option of the petitioner withdrawing the petition, which would result in immediate enforcement on these encroachments. Mr. Paterson said he believed the petitioner's intent with the letter of withdrawal was to request that the Planning Commission hold off on their decision on this matter until they could obtain a geotechnical study to determine the stability of the slope if the encroaching retaining walls were removed.
Mr. Wheelwright said he had explained, to the petitioner, at least three times what the word "withdraw" meant but added that he agreed with Mr. Paterson in that he did not think it was the petitioner's intention to end this process. Mr. Wheelwright stated that the staff did not believe there were slope stability problems and an existing retaining wall three feet inside their property line could either be raised or another retaining wall could be erected at their property line to control slope erosion and runoff problems. Mr. Wheelwright said he had informed the petitioner that the staff would be willing to work with them on resolving this issue. Mr. Wheelwright added that he believed the petitioner desired to provide evidence to the City that the terracing on the encroachment area could not be removed because of slope instability. Mr. Wheelwright said the staff did not agree with that position and had informed the petitioner of that position.
Mr. Becker gave a brief history on the encroachment issues relative to this petition and the times it had been presented to the Planning Commission over the past year or two. He explained that the Planning Commission had studied this matter extensively and had adopted a policy on encroachments onto City property. Mr. Becker stated that the Planning Commission was now faced with making a determination, in the absence of the petitioner, as to what the petitioner had intended to accomplish with the letter since a withdrawal of the petition would put an end to the entire process, not postpone it. Mr. Becker asked if the staff were aware of any history of slope slippage in this area.
Mr. Wheelwright said he had never encountered any of that in this area and explained that he visited this site on a fairly regular basis.
Mr. Becker asked Mr. Wheelwright if he believed there were major geotechnical issues involved here that needed the Planning Commission's consideration.
Mr. Wheelwright responded in the negative. Mr. Wheelwright stated that the City-owned slope would need to be restored to its original grade and the surface then protected from erosion while the grass species, which would provide long term protection, developed. Mr. Wheelwright explained that most of these foothills were bedrock covered by a thin veneer of soil.
Mr. Paterson said he did not believe anything would really be gained by postponing this decision in order to obtain a geotechnical report. Mr. Paterson stated that the petitioner had stated earlier in the day that heavy equipment would be needed to remove the encroachments. Mr. Paterson said the staff had responded that the encroachments had been installed without heavy equipment and could therefore be removed without heavy equipment.
Ms. Kirk asked why the process to remove these encroachments was taking so long and what the Planning Commission could do to move the process along.
Mr. Wheelwright responded that their petition to purchase the property had put this matter into an administrative process and he believed it had been done to prolong this matter. Mr. Wheelwright explained that nobody in the City had ever given the petitioner any indication that the City would be willing to dispose of this property.
Mr. Becker explained that in looking at the encroachments on this property, others had been discovered and the they had realized the policy was not adequate to deal with these encroachments. Mr. Becker added that the City had then adopted a new policy which held up the enforcement on this matter.
Mr. Wheelwright stated that the petitioner had appealed the previous Planning Commission decision to the Mayor who had appointed an administrative hearing officer to hear the appeal. The petitioner then also filed this petition which held up the process of enforcement. Mr. Wheelwright said it was likely the petitioner would also appeal this decision if the petition were denied and once a decision on that appeal had been made by the Mayor or her designee, all of the administrative processes available to the petitioner would then be exhausted. He stated that the petitioner's option at that point would be to appeal to the courts. Mr. Wheelwright added that the staff's workload and the Zoning Rewrite Project had also contributed to the lengthiness of this process.
Mr. Becker stated that if the Planning Commission were to accept the withdrawal of the petition, as clearly stated in the correspondence, the petitioner could start this process all over again with a new petition. Mr. Becker stated that if the Planning Commission were to deny the petition at this time, the petitioner could claim that due process had not been provided. Mr. Becker stated that another option might be for the Planning Commission to rule whether or not a geotechnical study was relevant to their decision and postpone their decision until their March 16th meeting.
Ms. Kirk asked what would happen if, once again, the petitioner did not attend the meeting.
Mr. Becker stated that the Planning Commission would not allow this matter to be carried along in that fashion. Mr. Becker stated that the hearing which had been advertised for this evening could be held and the public comment received but the Planning Commission's decision postponed until the next meeting.
Mr. Wright suggested that the hearing be held at this time since there were people in the audience who wished to address this matter so they would not have to attend a future meeting, that the Planning Commission make a determination on whether they believed geotechnical information was pertinent, and schedule this matter for a decision on March 16, 1995. Mr. Wright said that information could be clearly stated to the petitioner and if she chose not be present, the decision would be made without her but due process would have been provided.
Mr. Becker stated that in the meantime, the petitioner could actually withdraw the petition, if that was her intention, and remove the encroachments.
Mr. McRea pointed out that it was the petitioner who had inconvenienced those in attendance at this meeting, not the Planning Commission.
Mr. Becker opened the hearing to the public and asked if anyone wished to address the Planning Commission.
Mr. Richard Dunlop, representing the Greater Avenues Community Council, stated that they had reviewed the staff recommendation on this matter at a meeting the previous evening, and their vote had been unanimous to support the staff recommendation to deny the sale, transfer or lease of this property to the petitioner. Personally speaking, Mr. Dunlop said the previous owners of this home were personal friends of his and they had never experienced slope erosion problems at this site.
Mr. Joe Baldwin, the petitioner's real estate agent on this property, stated that their interest was in making sure there was a clear title on this property. Mr. Baldwin stated that he was in attendance at this meeting to make sure the Planning Commission had received her letter prior to the meeting.
Mr. Becker asked if it was his understanding that the petitioner really desired a postponement in order to obtain a geotechnical study rather than an actual withdrawal of the petition.
Mr. Baldwin said he had attended the meeting earlier in the day with the petitioner and the staff and it was his understanding that the petitioner’s intention had been to postpone this issue, not withdraw the petition.
Mr. Richard Schwartz, a resident of the area, stated that if the existing encroachers were going to be able to buy this property from the City, they would like to purchase their thirty feet of City-owned property as well. He stated that he really did not believe the City wanted to establish that precedent.
Mr. Baldwin informed the Planning Commission that it had not been the petitioner who had encroached onto the City-owned property, but rather, her son-in-law.
Mr. Becker closed the hearing to the public and opened it for Planning Commission
discussion.
Ms. Kirk asked how soon enforcement could occur on this matter if the Planning Commission were to deny this petition. Mr. Becker stated that the enforcement proceedings had already been started. Mr. Wheelwright stated that the petitioner had been ordered to remove the encroachment and provide a revegetation plan to the City.
Mr. Wright responded that this would become a legal enforcement action.
Mr. Becker asked if a note had been placed on the deed relative to this enforcement action.
Mr. Wheelwright said he was not sure. Mr. Baldwin, the real estate agent, responded that he had not seen anything of that nature on the deed.
Mr. McRea asked how enforcement was being handled on the other encroachment issues on this street. Mr. Wheelwright stated that the City wanted to deal with this matter comprehensively and until this issue was resolved, the others would not be resolved.
Mr. Wheelwright pointed out that this was the only property with a Category “3" encroachment, which was the most extensive type of encroachment.
Mr. Paterson stated that the City could file a notice of encroachment on this property at the County Recorder's Office.
Mr. Baldwin stated that the petitioner was concerned about liability relative to land slides if she were to sell the property and remove the encroaching retaining walls.
Mr. Becker stated that if there was a soil erosion or land slide problem in connection with the removal of the encroachments, that was the petitioner's problem. Mr. Becker said the property owner had created the problem and could deal with remedying the problem; that it was not the Planning Commission's problem or responsibility.
Mr. Baldwin stated that they had sold this property to the petitioner in 1984 and their records indicate that there had been some sliding problems after that sale.
Mr. Wheelwright asked if there was a sale pending on the property at this time.
Mr. Baldwin responded in the negative and stated that he refused to continue to market the property until the problems associated with it had been resolved.
Ms. Cromer said she believed this item would be appealed and the Planning Commission needed to make sure the way they handled this matter could not be criticized. She said she felt they needed to leave this matter open for the petitioner to respond to, that they needed to state their position relative to the geotechnical review and postpone their decision.
Mr. Wright agreed with that position and stated that it could be scheduled, date certain, for March 16, 1995 and that the staff would communicate to the petitioner that the Planning Commission would make their decision on this matter regardless of her attendance at the meeting. Mr. Wright said the Planning Commission could also send the petitioner the message that they did not believe the information a geotechnical study would provide would influence their decision, but rather, only what her options might be relative to needed retaining walls.
Mr. McRea asked if there was anything else that could be done relative to enforcement.
Mr. Wright stated that the Planning Commission could inform the City Attorney's Office that they believed enforcement on this matter was of utmost importance and should be pursued immediately.
Ms. Cromer moved to continue the hearing until March 16, 1995, that the petitioner be notified that the Planning Commission would make their decision on this matter at that time according to City policy and that a geotechnical study was the petitioner's right to pursue but not believed necessary relative to the Planning Commission's action on this matter. Mr. McRea seconded the motion. Ms. Kirk asked if the Planning Commission would make their decision on March 16th, even if the petitioner did not show up. Ms. Cromer responded in the affirmative. Ms. Roberts, Mr. McRea, Mr. Young, Ms. Kirk and Ms. Cromer voted "Aye." Mr. Howa, Mr. Beckstead, Mr. Neilson, Ms. Short and Mr. Iker were not present. Mr. Becker, as Chair, did not vote. The motion passed.
INFORMAL HEARING- Petition No. 410-163 by Irving School House. L.C. requesting
a special exception for a 232 unit residential Planned Development to be located at 1179 East 21 00 South in Commerciai"C-3" and Residentia.I"R-6" zoning districts.
Mr. Everett Joyce 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 O'Leary, representing the petitioner, outlined their proposal using briefing boards and site plans to demonstrate the project. He demonstrated ingress and egress, the retention of the front facade of the building, parking and landscaping.
Mr. Becker opened the hearing to the public and asked if anyone wished to address the Planning Commission.
Mr. Scott Maddox, a resident of the area, stated that he believed this was a great project but added that he was concerned about traffic along 1200 East. He stated that it was currently used as a "speedway" and added that he hoped something could be done to alleviate this problem.
Mr. Becker asked if a traffic study had been done.
Mr. Joyce responded in the affirmative and stated that the findings relative to "trips per day" did not warrant a traffic signal at 1200 East and 21 00 South but did help push the criteria closer to the traffic requirements for a signal.
Upon receiving no further requests to address the Planning Commission, Mr. Becker closed the hearing to the public and opened it for Planning Commission discussion.
Mr. Young moved to approve Petition No. 41 0-163 based on the findings of fact contained in the staff report. Ms. Kirk seconded the motion. Ms. Cromer asked when the best time would be to address the traffic issues and obtain a traffic study of this area in conjunction with the Westminster College traffic issues.
Mr. Wright stated that after the project was completed would be the best time to pursue that since actual figures, not estimates, could be analyzed. Mr. Wright added that this issue might also be addressed in the City-wide Transportation Master Plan. Ms. Roberts, Mr. McRea, Mr. Young, Ms. Kirk and Ms. Cromer voted "Aye." Mr. Howa, Mr. Beckstead, Mr. Neilson, Ms. Short and Mr. Iker were not present. Mr. Becker, as Chair, did not vote. The motion passed.
PLANNING ISSUES
Zoning Ordinance Rewrite Project Update
Mr. Wright informed the Planning Commission that two open houses would be held on the Zoning Ordinance Rewrite Project on Monday, March 13, and Tuesday, March 14, 1995 in the City and County Building at 4:00 p.m. on both days. Mr. Wright stated that brochures were in the process of being mailed out to all property owners within the City limits informing them about the Zoning Ordinance Rewrite and encouraging them to attend the open houses if they had questions regarding this process. Mr. Wright informed the Planning Commission that the City Council hearings on the Rewrite would take place on March 15 and April 4, 1995 at 6:00 p.m. Mr. Wright explained that the sign ordinance portion of the Zoning Ordinance Rewrite would be placed on the next agenda for Planning Commission consideration and adoption.
There being no further business, the n1eeting adjourned at 8:00 p.m.