May 26, 2004

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 Chair, Prescott Muir, Tim Chambless, Bip Daniels, Babs De Lay, John Diamond, Craig Galli, Peggy McDonough, Laurie Noda, Kathy Scott and Jennifer Seelig.

Present from the City Staff were Planning Director Louis Zunguze; Deputy Planning Director Brent Wilde, Deputy Planning Director Doug Wheelwright; Principal Planner Jackie Gasparik, Principal Planner Greg Mikolash; and Planning Commission Secretary Kathy Castro.

A roll is being kept of all who attended the Planning Commission Meeting. Chair Muir called the meeting to order at 5:46 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 from Wednesday, May 12, 2004

The Planning Commission made revisions to the minutes. Those revisions as noted are reflected in the May 12, 2004 ratified minutes.

Commissioner Scott made a motion to approve the minutes as amended.

Commissioner Diamond seconded the motion.

Commissioner Daniels, Commissioner Diamond, Commissioner Galli, Commissioner McDonough, Commissioner Noda, Commissioner Scott and Commissioner Seelig voted “Aye”. Commissioner Chambless and Commissioner De Lay abstained. Prescott Muir as Chair did not vote. Seven Commissioners voted in favor, two Commissioners abstained and therefore the motion passed.

REPORT OF THE CHAIR AND VICE CHAIR

Chair Muir noted that the Planning Commission Chair and Vice Chair have not recently met with the City Council Chair and Vice Chair. He requested an update from the Banner Signs Subcommittee which met May 19th.

Commissioner De Lay stated that Staff presented information regarding different types of banners and where they are allowed. She said that Staff is compiling more information and the Banner Signs Subcommittee will be meeting again soon.

Chair Muir requested that the Banner Signs Subcommittee explore the issue of special event banners. He referred to the Delta Center as an example noting that the large banners which are used during playoffs are not in compliance with the ordinance. He felt that those banners are appropriate at facilities such as the Delta Center and other cultural facilities throughout the City.

Mr. Zunguze indicated that there was an agreement on the Banner Signs Subcommittee that there is a need for banners to be allowed, the question is how the City should appropriately regulate them. He stated that Staff is looking at the entire scope of banners and will prepare a draft ordinance for that Subcommittee to review.

REPORT OF THE DIRECTOR

This item was heard at 5:51 p.m.

Mr. Zunguze referred to the Planning Commission retreat which will be held at that end of June. He asked the Commission if they would prefer that the retreat occur during the week or weekend and if they would prefer a morning or afternoon meeting.

The Commission agreed that a weekend would be more accommodating.

Mr. Zunguze stated that Ms. Pat Cameral the retreat facilitator will be contacting the Commissioners to get a feel for the issues that they would like to discuss at the retreat.

Commissioner Diamond suggested that Staff prepare a summary of the last Planning Commission retreat. Mr. Zunguze agreed that Staff will do so.

CONSENT AGENDA – Salt Lake City Property Conveyance Matters:

This item was heard at 5:53 p.m.

a. Huish Detergents and Salt Lake City Public Utilities Department – Huish Detergents is requesting that Salt Lake City Public Utilities allow a private driveway crossing of the Lee Drain right-of way to allow the warehousing development of two properties that Huish owns which are divided by the Lee Drain. The proposed crossing of the Lee Drain is located just north of 3400 West and 1820 South in the Centennial Industrial Park, which is zoned Manufacturing “M-1”. The proposed grant of access would be either a permit/easement or a lease, depending upon the ownership of the Lee Drain right-of-way property.

Motion

Commissioner Daniels made a motion to approve item A noted on the consent agenda.

Commissioner Scott seconded the motion.

Commissioner Chambless, Commissioner Daniels, Commissioner De Lay, Commissioner Diamond, Commissioner Galli, Commissioner McDonough, Commissioner Noda, Commissioner Scott and Commissioner Seelig voted “Aye”. Prescott Muir as Chair did not vote. All voted in favor, and therefore the motion passed.

b. Salt Lake City Board of Education and Salt Lake City Public Utilities Department – The Salt Lake City Board of Education is rebuilding the Indian Hills Elementary School at its current location at 2496 East Saint Mary’s Drive, zoned Public Lands “PL”. The City School District is requesting that the Salt Lake City Public Utilities Department grant easements for buried utilities and surface use landscaping, across the existing easement for the “Parley’s Lower Conduit”, a water transition line which bisects the school site property.

Motion

Commissioner Daniels made a motion to approve item B noted on the consent agenda.

Commissioner Scott seconded the motion.

PUBLIC HEARINGS

Petition No. 490-04-14, by Westminster College, requesting to amend a portion of the Perkins 1st Grand View Addition Subdivision located between 1200 & 1300 East Street and 1700 South Street & Westminster Avenue (approximately 1900 South Street), in an Institutional “I” and a Single-Family Residential “R-1/5,000” (pending rezone) zoning district. The purpose of this proposal is to consolidate existing residential lots in a subdivision into one complying lot associated with Westminster College’s institutional uses, as required by Planned Development Petition No. 410-653. Amending a portion of the subdivision will eliminate all residential parcels, vacated streets and alleys now associated with portions of the old subdivision plat, which are under ownership of the College.

This item was heard at 5:55 p.m.

Mr. Zunguze asked the Commission to address the letter submitted by Mr. Peter Hoodes requesting that the Planning Commission delay the Westminster Petition due to the fact that Mr. Hoodes legal council is unable to attend the public hearing this evening.

Commissioner Scott felt that regardless of the outcome of the property dispute, she did not see how the status of the proposed plat amendment would be affected.

Chair Muir noted that the Commission does not typically delay duly notified public hearings because a member of the public can not attend.

Commissioner Scott made a motion that the Planning Commission is aware that there is a boundary dispute and the Attorney for one of the parties involved can not be present tonight, but that the Commission proceed in considering the matter at hand, the matter at hand being the request to amend a portion of the Perkins Grand View Addition Subdivision.

Commissioner Chambless seconded that motion.

Chair Muir noted that the Planning Commission received copies of a letter addressed to Peter Hoodes from Mr. Vaughn E. Butler of the Salt Lake County Surveyors Office rendering an opinion concerning the property dispute.

Deputy Planning Director Doug Wheelwright noted several clarifications in the staff report. He stated that this matter is before the Planning Commission this evening because it was imposed as a condition of the Planned Development approval for the Westminster Wellness Center Building which was reviewed by the Planning Commission January 14, 2004. He noted that the subdivision may have been reviewed through an Administrative Hearing; however, Staff decided to bring the issue before the Planning Commission this evening because of their knowledge of the property dispute.

Chair Muir clarified that the request is relevant to the internal boundaries only which are proposed to be eliminated. He noted that the Planning Commission discussion this evening is not germane to the peripheral boundaries.

Mr. Wheelwright noted a number of changes to the staff report and exhibits. He stated that the agenda was amended to clarify that the proposed subdivision amendment is one lot rather than four lots which was indicated in the original agenda. He said that the original submittal from the Applicant’s surveyor noted three other parcels that the College owns which are not zoned Institutional. Mr. Wheelwright stated that the correct name for the subdivision involved is the “Perkins Grand View Addition Subdivision”. He noted that the subdivision involved is only the north subdivision which is the earlier subdivision recorded in February 1890. This proposal does not include the second subdivision which was approved later in the year of 1890. Mr. Wheelwright presented a new subdivision plat with the correct acreage calculation and legal description of the site. He indicated that the new subdivision plat only deals with the lot lines and vacated streets and alleys as they were created in the original north 1890’s plat of the Perkins Grand View Addition Subdivision. Mr. Wheelwright referred to the private boundary dispute noting that the Planning Commission is not able to resolve the boundary dispute nor is any City Official able to resolve the boundary dispute.

Chair Muir felt that the Planning Commission should render judgment as to whether or not they feel there was adequate notification regarding the above mentioned modifications. He said that the agenda was amended and the only issue which was not notified was the accurate description of the subdivision. Chair Muir felt that the intent of the Staff is obvious.

There was a consensus among the Planning Commission to proceed with the review of the proposal.

Principal Planner Greg Mikolash presented the petition as written in the staff report. He reiterated the location of the proposed subdivision boundary. He noted that the preliminary map reflects the previous request to vacate the alley behind Blaine Avenue which was reviewed by the Planning Commission on January 14, 2004, and will be reviewed by the City Council. He stated that the final plat will reflect the out come of the City Council decision whether or not to vacate the alley.

Commissioner Diamond asked why the south side of the creek was not included in this proposal and if there will be another subdivision to include that area.

Mr. Mikolash replied that, knowing that there is a property dispute it is not the intent of Staff to delay Westminster with their development to accommodate a condition of approval which was imposed by the Planning Commission. That condition requires the removal of the lots within the original subdivision, which what is reflected in this proposal.

Chair Muir noted that there are critical setbacks associated with the creek and asked how the Applicant may proceed with things that are triggered by those setbacks. Mr. Mikolash stated that the Applicant can proceed with the Wellness Center; however, they can not proceed with the parking structure supporting the new soccer field.

Mr. Mikolash stated that based on the findings of fact, Staff recommends that the Planning Commission approve the proposed amendment to the Perkins Grand View Addition Subdivision, consolidating the former lots, and vacated streets and alleys within the Westminster College campus, into a single lot as the Westminster College Subdivision, subject to the conditions as stated in the staff report with possible amendments to condition numbers four because the new map has eliminated any grounds for dispute. He also stated that condition number six should be amended to delete the language following “Wellness Center”. Mr. Mikolash noted that condition number six in the staff report indicates that the parking facility is underground which is not correct. (The parking facility will be constructed at the existing grade with a roof structure over it, which will support a soccer field on top of the roof.)

Chair Muir opened the public hearing.

Mr. Tom Ellison with the Law Firm of Stoel Rives representing Westminster College and Mr. Steve Morgan Vice President of Westminster College addressed the Commission. Mr. Ellison restated that the purpose of the proposal is to eliminate unnecessary interior lot lines and by reducing the area covered by the plat amendment to the exact 1890 boundary as shown on the 1890 plat, no external boundaries will be changed. Mr. Ellison referred to Finding F as shown in the staff report. He disputed that of Staff’s finding which states that Westminster believes that they are preserving the boundary dispute. He said that they believe that the Commission should make a Finding which states that with respect to the deletion of all of the interior residential lot lines no material injury will be caused to anyone. He said that Westminster has no intention this evening in discussing the dispute or to try to resolve the dispute. Mr. Ellison stated that Westminster is not waiving their claims as to where the actual boundary lies by submitting the proposed subdivision area. He referred to condition two of the Staff recommendation and asked that that be limited to all departmental comments that relate to the Perkins Grand View Subdivision Amendment area. Mr. Ellison stated that Westminster feels it would be inappropriate to include condition number four of the Staff recommendation because Westminster is not attempting to address a boundary dispute this evening. He referred to condition number six and stated that the proper way to reflect the intent would be to delete the words “and underground parking facility”. He said that the end of the sentence is still necessary. He asked that the Commission approve the proposed request.

Mr. Peter Hoodes a resident of 1173 Garfield Avenue addressed the Commission. He referred to the information he submitted to the Planning Commission regarding the property dispute. Mr. Hoodes referred to page seven of the staff report which references the movement of the creek to the north. He said that there is evidence that indicates that the location of the creek seems to have moved to the south. The placement of the football stadium in 1949, he believed, changed the location of the creek to the south rather than the north. Mr. Hoodes asked if the County map showing the subdivision area represents a second phase. He stated that the County map incorporates Lot 22 which is area of the property dispute. He said that it seems the expanded area seems to be an attempt to incorporate additional property.

Mr. Zunguze stated that Staff and Westminster College have both presented the area which is proposed for subdivision amendment this evening. He stated that Staff is not going to comment regarding the College’s intentions for the future.

Chair Muir asked hypothetically if the College were to proceed with the parking structure, would they have to come to the Planning Commission and include parcel 22 in the lot consolidation.

Mr. Zunguze stated that if there is not a dispute those matters are handled administratively.

Commissioner De Lay asked if the area proposed for the subdivision this evening includes Lot 22.

Mr. Ellison stated that the County map is solely for informational purposes showing the existing County plat. He stated that the location for the plat amendment which the College seeks today, includes the south boundary of Lot 22 as it is shown in the 1890 plat, reserving the Colleges right to assert additional planning with respect to the land to the south. There is a dispute regarding how far Lot 22 should go for title purposes. He stated that the County Sidwell Map is not what the Planning Commission is voting on this evening.

Mr. Hoodes stated that based on that information the Hoodes family does not dispute the proposal this evening.

Ms. Susan Malony a resident of 1131 East Wilson Avenue addressed the Commission. She said that she and a number of her neighboring residents did not receive notice of this public hearing. She said that she noticed the sign which was posted at the site. She asked if the approval this evening would allow the Applicant to be able to obtain building permits for the Wellness Center.

Chair Muir stated that the Applicant will be able to proceed if the subdivision amendment is approved.

Ms. Malony stated that she does not support the parking structure and it will impact her neighborhood directly. She felt that there is a public notification issue.

Mr. Zunguze asked if Ms. Malony received notice of the public hearing for the planned development for the Wellness Center, and if she is within the required area for notification.

Ms. Malony stated that she received notice of the first meeting but did not attend. She was not sure if she is within the required area for notification.

Mr. Zunguze stated that the issue of the parking structure was reviewed at an earlier meeting. That will not be coming back for Planning Commission review.

Ms. Adrienne Charvoz, an adjacent resident of the proposed site addressed the Commission. She felt that there is little notice for projects in this area. She said that the impact of the parking structure on her family will be huge. She noted several changes that have happened at the campus that have impacted her. She said that she attended the previous meeting for the parking structure but did not speak. She mentioned several concerns with the planned development for the parking structure.

Chair Muir stated that at the previous public hearing for the planned development the Planning Commission approved the configuration and the conditions of that subject to the approval of the lot consolidation.

Ms. Charvoz stated that she opposed the subdivision proposal.

Mr. Mladen Maric a prospective buyer of an adjacent property addressed the Commission asking the specific information regarding the height and appearance of the parking structure.

Chair Muir stated that information is available in the Planning Office. There was a public hearing for the parking structure and the information approved at that meeting is available to the public.

Mr. Zunguze stated that the actual renderings of the structure have not yet been submitted to the Planning Office. The Planning Office has what the Planning Commission reviewed and approved.

Ms. Barbra Spark a resident of 1134 East Wilson Avenue addressed the Commission. She mentioned concern with the quality of the neighborhood. She asked if the proposal will open access to Wilson Avenue.

Mr. Zunguze stated that access to Wilson Avenue will not be opened up, as a result of the project.

Mr. Ellison responded to the public comment saying that there was a question of whether the College has adequate parking. He stated that the comments that have been made do not change the College’s view. The subdivision does not create material harm or injury to anyone. He reiterated that the proposal shows the 1890 subdivision boundary but the College is preserving the right to contest the property ownership boundary with Mr. Hoodes which will occur elsewhere in court and outside of this body.

Commissioner Chambless asked if the structure will meet the needs for the College for the next few decades.

Mr. Steve Morgan Vice President of Westminster College replied that they feel the elevated field is a creative solution and will meet the needs of the college.

Commissioner Chambless referred to the traffic flow and congestion along 1300 East and asked how the College would like to see 1300 East modified.

Mr. Morgan stated that the primary entrance would still remain on 1700 South given the way the campus is configured.

Chair Muir closed the public hearing.

Commissioner Scott referred to the Engineering review of the proposal which requires that the curb and gutter is raised to the elevation of the street. She asked who will be responsible for that improvement. Mr. Mikolash replied that the Applicant will have to work that out with the Transportation and Engineering Divisions and that improvement responsibility of any abutting sidewalks, curbs, and gutters go to the applicant.

Commissioner Seelig asked if there is a decision regarding the proper notification.

Mr. Mikolash stated that Staff obtained the mailing list from the County records. The ordinance requires notification of property owners within 300 feet of the proposed area, and Staff’s policy is to notify 450 feet. He stated that the reasoning behind posting the notices on the property is precisely to notify the surrounding property owners if there is an error in the notification system.

Commissioner Daniels asked if Staff agrees with the Applicant’s suggestion regarding condition number six. Mr. Mikolash stated that he agreed as well.

Motion for Petition No. 490-04-14

Commissioner De Lay made a motion regarding Petition No. 490-04-14, based on the findings noted in the staff report that the Planning Commission approve the proposed amendment to the Perkins Grand View Addition Subdivision, consolidating the former lots, streets and alleys within the Westminster College campus, into a single lot as the Westminster College Subdivision, and subject to the following conditions:

1. Should the City Council not approve the requested alley vacation, the Applicant shall redraw the subdivision boundary to reflect that decision.

2. The Petitioner shall address and adhere to all departmental comments, Salt Lake City Corporation Ordinance standards, Salt Lake County Engineering & Flood Control regulations, and the Utah Code as it relates to the recording of an amended subdivision plat.

3. Show the required access easement areas and the minimum setback line from the creek as required by Salt Lake County Engineering & Flood Control.

4. That the Applicant address any boundary dispute areas on the final mylar plat, which will potentially allow for the Planning Director’s final approval authority.

5. That the final plat approval authority for the subdivision amendment be granted to the Planning Director.

6. That the Applicant be allowed to commence with construction of the Wellness Center and underground parking facility prior to the recordation of a final plat for the amended subdivision.

Commissioner Noda seconded the motion.

Commissioner Scott noted that the correct name of the subdivision is “Perkins Grand View Addition Subdivision”.

Commissioner Galli asked to amend Finding F of the staff report to read that the proposed subdivision amendment is beneficial to the City, based on the clarification given by Mr. Ellison, legal counsel for Westminster College.

Commissioner De Lay referenced that the correct map of the proposed subdivision area is dated May 26, 2004.

Commissioner Galli suggested that the Commission include a finding that the Planning Commission took note of the fact that there were concerns regarding the public notice; however, during the public hearing those that raised concerns did not raise issues regarding the petition which is before the Commission this evening. He felt that the Commission should proceed with good conscience that the issues raised were not regarding the petition as amended.

Commissioner Diamond asked to amend the motion to include the request by the Applicant that condition number two be amended to read that all of the departmental comments that relate to the Perkins Grand View Subdivision Amendment area.

Commissioner De Lay accepted that amendments.

Commissioner Noda accepted that amendments as well.

Amended Motion

1. Should the City Council not approve the requested alley vacation, the Applicant shall redraw the subdivision boundary to reflect that decision.

2. The Petitioner shall address and adhere to all departmental comments that relate to the Perkins Grand View Subdivision Amendment area, Salt Lake City Corporation Ordinance standards, Salt Lake County Engineering & Flood Control regulations, and the Utah Code as it relates to the recording of an amended subdivision plat.

3. Show the required access easement areas and the minimum setback line from the creek as required by Salt Lake County Engineering & Flood Control.

4. That the final plat approval authority for the subdivision amendment be granted to the Planning Director.

5. That the Applicant be allowed to commence with construction of the Wellness Center prior to the recordation of a final plat for the amended subdivision.

Commission Finding F: The proposed subdivision amendment is beneficial to the City, based on the clarification given by Mr. Ellison, legal counsel for Westminster College.

Additional Finding: The Planning Commission took note of the fact that there were concerns regarding the public notice; however, during the public hearing those that raised concerns did not raise issues regarding the petition which is before the Commission this evening.

Commissioner Noda seconded that motion

Petition No. 400-03-19, by BFI/Burbs LLC, requesting the street closures of a portion of Bellflower Street (3130 West) between the railroad right-of-way and 700 South, and a portion of 700 South Street, between Fulton Street and Bellflower Street (approximately 3000 West).

Petition No. 410-663, by BFI/Burbs LLC, requesting conditional use approval to construct a solid waste transfer station located at 675 South Gladiola Street, at the rear of the existing BFI recycling center.

Chair Muir noted that the two petitions will be heard concurrently.

This item was heard at 7:18 p.m.

Principal Planner Jackie Gasparik presented the street closure petition as written in the staff report. She described the area for the street closures. In 2002 BFI relocated their main facility to the City’s only Heavy Industrial Manufacturing “M-2” zoning area with the support of the Salt Lake City Administration. As part of their site development master plan BFI hopes to add a private rail line across lots one and two of the proposed area. Ms. Gasparik stated that due to the length of the trains and the close proximity of Fulton Avenue, BFI was required to provide access to the residents to the south of the site. Ms. Gasparik stated that at the September 10, 2003 Planning Commission meeting Mr. Brundle an adjacent property owner raised concerns that closing 700 South would deny him access to his property. Since that hearing BFI and Burbs L.L.C. have purchased Mr. Brundle’s property. In light of this information and based upon the analysis and findings of fact noted in the staff report, Staff recommends that the Planning Commission approve a motion to favorably recommend the street closures, to the City Council based upon the conditions noted in the staff report. Ms. Gasparik noted that the proposal satisfies the Utah State Code and Salt Lake City Ordinance for processing and determining public street closures. Ms. Gasparik noted that the Applicant has been in contact with the Salt Lake City Property Management Division to settle on a price appropriate for the purchases of the streets proposed to be closed. Ms. Gasparik noted that Ms. Cecilia Grigg an adjacent property owner has been in contact with Ms. Gasparik regarding the proposal. Ms. Grigg lives in Arizona and I don’t think has ever been to the site but is concerned that the street closure will devalue her property. She submitted a letter to the Planning Commission which states her concerns. Ms. Gasparik stated that Ms. Grigg asked about being “bought out” and Ms. Gasparik has since put Ms. Grigg in contact with the Applicant.

Chair Muir stated that the private property owner negotiations have no bearing on the decision this evening.

Ms. Gasparik presented the conditional use petition as written in the staff report. She stated that the Applicant is requesting conditional use approval to construct a recycle/solid waste transfer station. She stated that the request meets all of the City’s requirements and will be run entirely in doors which will mitigate enforcement issues associated with waste. Ms. Gasparik stated that the relevant City Departments support the project. Ms. Gasparik stated that based upon the analysis and findings noted in the staff report, and subject to the Departmental conditions, Staff recommends that the Planning Commission pass a motion to approve the requested Conditional Use Permit as designed and reflected in the proposed site and elevation drawings.

Commissioner Scott referred to the construction of the water mains which will have to be put in prior to the spur line. She asked if that has been discussed with the Applicant.

Ms. Gasparik stated that the Applicant is aware of that and is revising their drawings.

Commissioner Scott asked if the cost of the frontage improvements will be borne by the City or the Applicant. Ms. Gasparik stated that when the subdivision was approved the Applicant entered into a special improvement agreement with the City. The City will be putting in the improvements.

Mr. Wheelwright stated that with the special improvement agreement the cost is generally born by the property owners.

Commissioner Scott asked if there is other access from Fulton Avenue other than Gladiola Street. Ms. Gasparik stated that the only property to be developed as part of this petition will access off Gladiola Street.

Commissioner Daniels inquired if the Planning Commission needs to include language in their recommendation to City Council regarding the letters in the staff report that indicate that there will be no adverse impact to the 900 South rail line in the future.

Ms. Gasparik replied that there have been past petition dealing with the 900 South rail line and because BFI relocated to this site that was discussed early with their project. BFI has committed that their commodities would not be going down the 900 South rail line.

Mr. Wheelwright stated that the Applicant has assured Staff that they will not impact the 900 South rail line and Staff does not have a problem with that becoming a condition of the conditional use.

Commissioner Diamond clarified that the Planning Commission’s focus this evening is only on lot number one. He asked why lot number two was not included.

Ms. Gasparik replied that the Applicant has not submitted plans for that site at this point.

Chair Muir clarified that the western-most lot is lot number two.

Commissioner Diamond referred to the rail lines that service the proposed conditional use site and felt that both lot number one and number two should be included in the conditional use.

Mr. Wheelwright replied that for the conditional use the focus should be on the use within the building.

Commissioner Chambless asked if BFI serves only Salt Lake City or other municipalities as well. Ms. Gasparik deferred to the Applicant to answer that.

Mr. Robert Schmidt with Great Basin Engineering; Mr. Kory Coleman with BFI and Mr. Dave Burbidge property owner addressed the Commission in support of the staff report. Mr. Burbidge stated that they convinced BFI to locate at the site and they have met every requirement necessary. He said that they feel that they have greatly improved the area.

Commissioner Chambless asked if BFI serves only Salt Lake City or other municipalities as well. Mr. Schmidt replied that a majority of the Salt Lake County operations are serviced out of this site. He added that the largest customer is Salt Lake City.

Commissioner Chambless referred to the growth of Salt Lake County and asked if the proposed site will be able to serve the entire County in the future.

Mr. Schmidt replied that they have a site at the south end of the Valley and they expect that site to serve the majority of the County in the future.

Mr. Schmidt stated that the second lot which is not proposed for development this evening is used for container and truck storage and they do not anticipate developing that site.

Chair Muir opened the public hearing.

No one was forthcoming.

Chair Muir closed the public hearing.

Commissioner Seelig referred to the discussion regarding applying a condition to ensure that there is no adverse impact on the 900 South rail line and asked if the Commission should tie that condition to the building or the land.

Mr. Wheelwright replied that the conditional use of the building would be tied to the condition that they will not impact the residential 900 south extension line.

Motion for Petition No. 410-663

Commissioner De Lay made a motion regarding Petition No. 410-663, based upon the analysis and findings noted in the staff report, and subject to the Departmental conditions, that the Planning Commission approve the requested Conditional Use Permit as designed and reflected in the proposed site and elevation drawings and with the following condition: that the said conditional use shall not have a negative impact on the 900 South rail line.

Commissioner Daniels seconded the motion.

Motion for Petition No. 400-03-19

Commissioner De Lay made a motion regarding Petition No. 400-03-19, based upon the analysis and findings of fact noted in the staff report, that the Planning Commission forward a favorable recommendation to the City Council to approve the proposed street closures with the following conditions:

1. The property be sold at fair market value as approved by the City's Property Management Division.

2. The City retaining deed to the city-owned property until conveyed in accordance with City Code 2.58.

3. Reservation of an avigation easement for the former street property area.

4. Dedication and construction of a cul-de-sac turnaround on the south end of Fulton Street and other Departmental recommendations.

Commissioner Noda seconded the motion.

Commissioner Scott asked if the Commission should include language regarding the frontage improvements. She suggested that the words and other Departmental recommendations to condition number four.

UNFINISHED BUSINESS

There being no other unfinished business to discuss, the Planning Commission meeting adjourned at 7:45 p.m.