SALT LAKE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING In Room 326 of the City & County Building 451 South State Street, Salt Lake City, Utah
Present for the Planning Commission meeting were: Chair Michael Fife, Commissioners Emily Drown, Charlie Luke, Michael Gallegos, Susie McHugh, Matthew Wirthlin and Mary Woodhead. Commissioners Angela Dean, Babs De Lay and Kathleen Hill were excused
The Field Trip was cancelled.
A roll is being kept of all who attended the Planning Commission Meeting. The meeting was called to order at 5:45 p.m. Audio recordings of the Planning Commission meetings are retained in the Planning Office for an indefinite period of time. Planning staff members present at the meeting were: Wilf Sommerkorn, Planning Director; Joel Paterson, Planning Manager; Doug Dansie, Senior Planner; John Anderson, Principal Planner; Paul Nielson, Land Use Attorney; and Angela Hasenberg, Senior Secretary.
Work Session
A training session was given by Wilf Sommerkorn regarding Group Decisions and
Briefing and Discussions. Mr. Sommerkorn gave a PowerPoint presentation that was recorded as part of the channel 17 broadcast of the Planning Commission meeting. He discussed the background of the study of group thinking. Wisdom of Group thinking; A brief summary of the presentation follows. Groups on average, make better predictions than individuals or experts.. Does decision making work in Small Groups? Is Dissent Useful? A Single Dissenter can make a difference.
Making Conclusions Independently Is Discussion a Detriment? Making Decisions
A Briefing on the Billboard Ordinance was given by staff Senior Planner Doug Dansie. Mr. Dansie gave a Power Point Presentation that was recorded as part of the channel 17 broadcast of the Planning Commission Meeting, a brief summary of the presentation follows. 1) Existing policy 2) Changes in state law since adoption of 1993 law 3) Specifics of the new petition 4) Conflicting ideologies 5) Criticism of existing law 6) Policy questions
a. Does City still want to keep billboards out of neighborhoods?
b. Does City still wish to keep gateways clean?
c. Does City wish to still prohibit boards in Downtown or Mixed use areas
i. Is a Time Square feasible
d. Does City still wish to reduce overall numbers?
e. Are the regulations for non-electronic boards adequate
f. Should conversion to electronic be allowed?
g. What are appropriate regulations for either on-or off-premise electronic signs
Mr. Dansie asked for direction from the Planning Commission. Commissioner Fife stated that he believed that we did not need electronic billboards or any additional signage.
Commissioner Woodhead asked if it was possible to respond by email. Planning
Director Sommerkorn responded that it was possible to do an online forum.
Commissioner McHugh was concerned that we were starting a creating a problem to
save a problem by moving billboards.
Commissioner Fife stated that the freeway was resembling Las Vegas and changed the view of the City.
Commissioner Gallegos stated that he had difficulty putting harsh restrictions on an existing industry without having a forum.
Commissioner Luke asked what the main objective was, and asked if the Commission was getting rid of billboards because they do not like them. He stated that there were bigger problems with the beautification of the gateways than the billboards.
Mr. Dansie answered that the issues were interrelated. He asked if there was a way to give the billboard industry incentive to change their billboard types.
Commissioner Luke stated it was a legitimate point, but noted that he felt that restrictions would hinder the process and exacerbate the issue.
Commissioner Woodhead added that she was not a great fan of billboards, however, State law created the parameters that made the decision more difficult. She asked how to make the ordinance work in a way that would not be disruptive to development.
Commissioner Woodhead stated that she would like to see a reduction in the number of billboards.
Commissioner Gallegos stated that he felt that there were several steps to this process, and to look at this in preliminary steps and then work together to create a whole ordinance.
Mr. Sommerkorn stated that there were a number of billboards in Salt Lake City and they are not going away. He stated that they decisions need to be made as where to place other billboards, and to create a compromise with the industry.
Commissioner Luke stated that if the new location was not desirable, the industry would not be willing to move their billboards. He stated that visual blight was as important as any issue related to the billboards, and if that was the true issue, it needed to be addressed.
Commissioner Fife stated that the issue was to make better the City.
Commissioner Luke stated that he felt that the City and the Industry proposals are too far apart and without co operation, this argument would be continued year after year.
Commissioner McHugh stated that she would like to the City be able to make money off of billboards using the law of diminishing returns; she suggested that the City needed to make an incentive of enough money to move off the parcels where we could have developments instead of billboards.
Commissioner Drown asked what amount of the ordinance was grandfathered and could not be changed.
Planning Director Sommerkorn stated that many of the billboards we had in Salt Lake City were non conforming billboards and did not comply with our ordinance.
He stated that the idea was to get the billboards out of the areas we did not want them and move them to areas to allow them to go into places that we feel are appropriate. He felt that there would be no change without negotiation.
Commissioner Woodhead stated that the Commission had been notified of what the industry wanted.
Planning Director Sommerkorn stated another big issue was electronic signage, and asked how the City should deal with that. Will we allow electronic billboards and where. He noted that it would probably have to address all types of electronic billboards.
The Commissioners discussed the idea of the forum and stated that they would appreciate it.
Planning Director encouraged interaction in a public, transparent way.
Mr. Dansie added that many cities within the state had opted to say no to billboards and allow the default be state law.
Commissioner Luke stated that he felt that was premature.
Commissioner Fife stated that he believed that the Commission was to represent the interest of the citizens of Salt Lake.
Commissioner Wirthlin stated that although he did not represent any specific area, he was working toward the betterment of the City.
Public Hearing Report of the Vice Chair:
Chairperson Fife had nothing to report.
Report of the Director:
Petitions 410-761 and 490-06-04 Time Extension for Bouck Village Planned Development (now known as Macland Subdivision Planned Development)—a request by Monte Yedlin for a one-year time extension for the approval of the Bouck Village Planed Development and preliminary subdivision. The property is located at approximately 1566 West 500 North in a Single Family Residential (R-1/5,000) zoning district. The project was originally approved by the Planning Commission on May 10, 2006. The last time extension was granted by the Planning Commission on May 26, 2010. This project is located in Council District 1, represented by Carlton Christensen. (Staff contact: Cheri Coffey at 801-535-6188 or cheri.coffey@slcgov.com)
Planning Director Sommerkorn presented the item. He stated that it was a request for an extension of an approval that the Planning Commission gave five years prior. He stated that the financial situation of the applicant were such that he was unable to move forward and requested an extension.
Commissioner Wirthlin stated that given the current economic climate, we should encourage extensions.
The applicant spoke and stated he had not made any changes, but had a letter of intent that would be impacted by the approval.
Motion Commissioner Gallegos moved to approve the extension for two years. Commissioner Wirthlin seconded the motion. Vote: Commissioners Emily Drown, Charlie Luke, Michael Gallegos, Susie McHugh, Matthew Wirthlin and Mary Woodhead all voted “aye” and passed unanimously.
Approval of Minutes:
Motion: Commissioner Woodhead moved to approve with corrections the minutes of May 11, 2011. Second: Commissioner Wirthlin seconded the motion. Vote: Commissioners Emily Drown, Charlie Luke, Michael Gallegos, Matthew Wirthlin and Mary Woodhead all voted “aye”. Commissioners McHugh and Fife abstained. The motion passed with corrections.
Public Hearing:
PLNPCM2010-00782 Zoning Text Amendment, 5 Foot Maximum Rear Setback for Accessory Buildings: A request by Salt Lake City Mayor Ralph Becker for a zoning text amendment to remove the requirement for a 5 foot maximum rear setback for accessory buildings. There would be no change to the minimum setback requirements. The text amendment would affect all R-1 districts, R-2 district and SR districts. (Staff contact: John Anderson at 801-535-7214 or john.anderson@slcgov.com)
Chairperson Fife recognized John Anderson as staff representative.
Mr. Anderson stated that the first public hearing on this issue had not been noticed correctly. Therefore another public hearing before the Planning Commission was required. This hearing had been correctly noticed.
The Commission determined a rehearing of the staff report was unnecessary.
Chairperson Fife opened the public hearing. Seeing no one in the audience chose to speak he closed the public hearing
Motion: Commissioner Wirthlin made the motion that in the matter of PLNPCM2010-00782 Zoning Text Amendment, 5 Foot Maximum Rear Setback for Accessory Buildings he moved that the Commission submit a favorable recommendation of approval of this petition to the City Council.
Seconded by Commissioner Luke.
Vote: Commissioners Emily Drown, Charlie Luke, Michael Gallegos, Susie McHugh, Matthew Wirthlin and Mary Woodhead all voted “aye” and passed unanimously.
Land Use Attorney Paul Nielson stated that in regard to sending emails as a response to the billboard issues the Planning Commission the by-laws state “ the Planning Commissioners shall not have any ex-parte discussions regarding any business before the Commission for the purpose of this Planning Commission policy ex-parte discussions include any communication with either side of any issue coming before the Planning Commission prior to the Planning Commission’s final decision.” He stated that that being the case, there would need to be a change to the current Policies and Procedures that would modify this to allow the Planning Commission in legislative type actions to send in emails and suggested that it be added to a future agenda to change it.
Meeting adjourned