SALT LAKE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION
451 South State Street, Rooms 126 and 315
Present from the Planning Commission were Chairperson Max Smith, Kay (Berger) Arnold, Andrea Barrows, Robert "Bip" Daniels, Jeff Jonas, Craig Mariger, Judi Short, Stephen Snelgrove and Mike Steed. Arla Funk was excused.
Present from the Planning Staff were Deputy Planning Director Brent Wilde, Doug Wheelwright, Ray McCandless, Margaret Pahl and Bill Allayaud.
A roll is being kept of all that attended the Planning Commission meeting. Mr. Smith called the meeting to order at 5:00 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.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
Ms. Short moved to approve the minutes of Thursday, April 20, 2000 subject to the discussed corrections being made. Mr. Mariger seconded the motion. Ms. Arnold, Ms. Barrows, Mr. Daniels, Mr. Jonas, Mr. Mariger, Ms. Short, Mr. Snelgrove and Mr. Steed voted "Aye". Ms. Funk was not present. Mr. Smith, as Chair, did not vote. The motion passed.
PUBLIC HEARINGS
PUBLIC HEARING – Case No. 410-398 by TCI Cablevision of Utah requesting a conditional use to install a ground mounted electrical equipment cabinet that includes a back-up generator located at approximately 1789 W. New York Street (1405 North) in a Single Family Residential "R-1/7,000" zoning district; AND,
Case No. 410-447 by TCI Cablevision of Utah requesting a conditional use to install a ground mounted electrical equipment cabinet that includes a back-up generator located at approximately 1153 N. Redwood Road in a Low Density Multi-Family Residential "RMF-30" zoning district.
Mr. Ray McCandless 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.
The Planning Commissioners then asked questions of Mr. McCandless relating to each case.
Mr. Steed spoke concerning the site at 1789 West New York Street and asked if the petitioner is planning to move one of the existing boxes off of the park strip. Mr. McCandless suggested that Mr. Steed ask the petitioner because he did not have an answer.
Mr. Brad Groves, representing the petitioner, was present for this portion of the meeting and stated that he was in agreement with the staff recommendation. Mr. Groves then answered Mr. Steed's earlier question by stating that the taller of the two existing boxes will be removed.
Mr. Smith opened the hearing to the public and asked if anyone wished to address the Planning Commission. Upon receiving no response, he closed the hearing to the public and opened it for Planning Commission discussion.
Motion for Case Nos. 410-398 and 410-447:
Mr. Steed moved, based on the findings of fact, to approve Case Nos. 410-398 and 410-447 for the installation of ground mounted electrical cabinets that include back-up generators subject to the following general conditions of approval as listed in the staff report:
1 No propane tanks be used.
2 All City departmental requirements be met including obtaining the applicable building permits from the City's Building Services and Licensing Division, public way permits from the City's Engineering Division or revocable permits from the Property Management Division and resolving any franchise agreement issues with the City Attorney's Office.
3 The cabinets, including the cement pad, be removed within 90 days if they no longer are needed or used and any lease with property owner terminated.
4 A surety bond or cash bond be posted assuring removal of the equipment and pad.
5 All utilities and cables be placed underground.
6 If TCI or its related entities install cabinets underground, or partially underground, in other community, TCI will retrofit this equipment within one year of availability of this technology, provided, TCI shall not be required to retrofit any equipment before the expiration of five years of the date of its approval. When new technology becomes available, the Planning Commission will no longer accept and/or approve above ground cabinets.
7 All lease agreements with property owners shall contain a 'hold harmless' language to sufficiently protect the property owner from liability.
Mr. Steed further recommended the following site-specific conditions:
Case No. 410-398:
1 A lease agreement will need to be signed with the property owner(s). This site is on private property.
2 Landscaping should be installed at the minimum along the north and east side of the cabinet to help screen it from the street.
Case No. 410-447:
1 A lease agreement will need to be signed with the property owner(s). This site is on private property.
2 Landscaping should be installed around the cabinet to discourage graffiti.
Mr. Mariger seconded the motion. Ms. Arnold, Ms. Barrows, Mr. Daniels, Mr. Jonas, Mr. Mariger, Ms. Short, Mr. Snelgrove and Mr. Steed voted "Aye". Ms. Funk was not present. Mr. Smith, as Chair, did not vote. The motion passed.
CONTINUATION OF PUBLIC HEARING – Petition No. 400-00-09 by Glenn McKay requesting a zoning amendment from Commercial "CN" to Commercial "CB" for property located at 1615 South Foothill Drive to allow for the expansion of the Utah State Liquor Store. AND,
Case No. 410-450 by Glenn McKay requesting a conditional use to expand the Utah State Liquor Store from 2,000 square feet to 4,000 square feet located at 1615 South Foothill Drive.
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. Ms. Pahl distributed a letter to the Planning Commission listing several conditions that Mr. George Pingree, part-owner of Lamplighter Square Associates, has agreed upon. The conditions are pertaining to certain demands being made by the Indian Hills Neighborhood Council. Mr. Alan H. Morris, a representative of the Indian Hills Neighborhood, also agreed upon the conditions and has signed the letter. A copy of the letter is filed with the minutes.
The Planning Commissioners then asked questions of Ms. Pahl relating to the case.
Ms. Arnold asked if there was a deadline for the owners of Lamplighter Square to comply with the conditions. Ms. Pahl stated that, generally speaking, all conditions would have to be met prior to the building being occupied. However, if the building were completed in the winter, there is a provision that certain conditions (i.e. landscaping) can be postponed until the weather permits. Ms. Arnold then asked if the liquor store would be closed during the expansion. Mr. Pingree responded in the affirmative. Ms. Arnold then noted that with the liquor store being closed during the expansion, there will be an incentive to finish the project, along with the conditions, as quickly as possible so that the liquor store can reopen their doors.
Mr. George Pingree, part-owner of Lamplighter Square Associates, was present for this portion of the meeting and stated that he was in agreement with the staff recommendation.
The Planning Commissioners then asked questions of Mr. Pingree relating to the case.
Mr. Jonas stated that he feels that the Declaration of Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions is confusing and could potentially cause problems in the future for staff because a liquor store does not appear in the list of allowed uses in the "CN" zone. Mr. Jonas then recommended that liquor store be added to the list of allowed uses. Mr. Wilde stated that the liquor store should not be added to the list of allowed uses in the "CN" zone, however, it could be added somewhere within the document.
Mr. Mariger expressed concern about the condition that states:
"The Owner agrees to modify the signage at the gas station if we are
unsuccessful in getting a new operator to lease the premises by
November 1, 2001."
Mr. Mariger then stated that he is concerned about the above mentioned condition because if the Owner is successful in getting a new operator, the new operator is not required to modify the signage. Mr. Mariger feels that the language should be changed to reflect that the signage at the gas station will be modified whether there is a new Owner or not.
Mr. Smith opened the hearing to the public and asked if anyone wished to address the Planning Commission.
Mr. Alan Morris, representing the Indian Hills Neighborhood Council, stated that he is comfortable with including a liquor store as an allowed use. Mr. Morris then stated that he is also comfortable in making the necessary changes to the conditions to make sure that the improvements are made to the property whether there is a new Operator or not.
Upon receiving no further requests to address the Planning Commission, Mr. Smith closed the hearing to the public and opened it for Planning Commission discussion.
Motion for Petition No. 400-00-09:
Mr. Mariger moved, based on the findings of fact, to transmit Petition No. 400-00-09 with a favorable recommendation to the City Council for the rezoning of the subject properties from "CN" to "CB" subject to the following conditions as listed in the staff report (underlined portions added by the Planning Commission):
1 The owner of the property shall execute a Declaration of Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions for the parcels known as Sidwell Numbers 16-15-258-010 and 16¬15-258-011, a copy of which is attached as Exhibit A of the staff report and incorporated herein by reference.
2 The two parcels, Sidwell Numbers 16-15-258-010 and 16-15-258-011, shall be combined into one legal parcel.
3 The property always be governed by the provisions of the current "CN" zone, including height and uses.
4 That the Owner perform the obligations of the letter of May 4, 2000 addressed to Ms. Margaret Pahl and executed by the Owner of Lamplighter Square and a representative of the Indian Hills Neighborhood Council.
5 Notwithstanding what was stated in the letter mentioned in Condition 4 above, even if the Owner is successful of obtaining a new operator of the gas station by November 1, 2001, the Owner will modify the signage and will resurface the parking lot area.
6 That the Declaration of Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions, Article I, include a liquor store as an acceptable use of the property.
Mr. Daniels seconded the motion. Ms. Arnold, Ms. Barrows, Mr. Daniels, Mr. Jonas, Mr. Mariger, Ms. Short, Mr. Snelgrove and Mr. Steed voted "Aye". Ms. Funk was not present. Mr. Smith, as Chair, did not vote. The motion passed.
Motion for Case No. 410-450:
Mr. Mariger moved, based on the findings of fact, to approve Case No. 410-450 for the expansion of a State Liquor Store subject to the following conditions as listed in the staff report:
1 Final rezoning approval by the City Council.
2 Secure a public way permit to remove the northernmost drive approach.
3 Recording the deed restriction.
4 Prior to issuance of the building permit, submission of a site plan showing new front yard landscaping and screened dumpster locations as part of building permit.
Ms. Barrows seconded the motion. Ms. Arnold, Ms. Barrows, Mr. Daniels, Mr. Jonas, Mr. Mariger, Ms. Short, Mr. Snelgrove and Mr. Steed voted "Aye". Ms. Funk was not present. Mr. Smith, as Chair, did not vote. The motion passed.
Mr. Morris expressed some concern about Condition 2 stating that the northernmost drive approach would be removed. It was his feeling that the northernmost drive approach would remain and one of the others would be removed.
After a short discussion, Mr. Mariger moved to amend Condition 2 for Case No. 410-450 to state the following:
"Secure a public way permit to eliminate one drive approach as
determined by the Transportation Division."
Ms. Short seconded the motion. Ms. Arnold, Ms. Barrows, Mr. Daniels, Mr. Jonas, Mr. Mariger, Ms. Short, Mr. Snelgrove and Mr. Steed voted "Aye". Ms. Funk was not present. Mr. Smith, as Chair, did not vote. The motion passed.
PUBLIC HEARING – Petition No. 410-457 by Allen G. Nel requesting final subdivision and planned development approval of a 102 lot twin-home development located on the northwest corner of 300 South and Montgomery Street (1575 West) in a Low Density Residential "R-1/5,000" and pending Special Development Pattern Residential District "SR-3" zoning district.
Mr. Ray McCandless 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. McCandless stated that the property is bordered by Redwood Road to the west, an active rail line and the I-80 Freeway on the north, multi-family dwellings zoned "RMF-30" to the east and single-family dwellings zone "R-1/5,000" to the south. There is no access to the property from Redwood Road or from the north across the railroad tracks.
The Planning Commissioners then asked questions of Mr. McCandless relating to the case.
Ms. Arnold spoke concerning the proposed plan as opposed to the concept plan. In the concept plan a tot lot was not included whereas it is included in the proposed plan. As a result of the change, the proposal went from public streets that were a 50 foot wide right-of-way to private streets within a 30 foot right-of-way. Ms. Arnold feels that the narrow streets will create a parking problem because the streets are now not wide enough to accommodate street parking.
Mr. John Francis, engineer and surveyor of the proposed project, was present for this portion of the meeting and stated that he was mostly in agreement with the staff recommendation. Mr. Francis stated that he does not agree with staff's finding concerning the proposed berm which is that the berm be "stepped" with landscaping that will grow down over the steps and/or up to hide the retaining wall. Staff has also recommended that the entire berm be fenced to mitigate safety concerns. Mr. Francis stated that his proposal for the berm is that the berm be about 2½ horizontal to 1 vertical and that it be in a slope condition and then allow each individual lot owner along the north tier to customize their portion of the berm with walls to give it a buried look.
The Planning Commissioners then asked questions of Mr. Francis relating to the petition.
Ms. Barrows spoke concerning the berm. She asked Mr. Francis how he will distinguish letting a home owner dig away at the berm. Mr. Francis stated that the berm is going to extend about 15 feet into the northern tier of lots, therefore, the home owners will have access to the first 15 feet of the berm.
Ms. Barrows then asked if the community will be gated. Mr. Francis responded by stating that there will be an entry feature, however, there will be no gates.
Ms. Arnold spoke again concerning the narrow streets. She feels that the homes are too close together and with the streets being narrow she feels that the residents of the community will become enraged because they do not have enough space to live or to park. Ms. Short stated that she too is concerned about the narrow streets and also about the small lot size.
Mr. Smith opened the hearing to the public and asked if anyone wished to address the Planning Commission. Upon receiving no response, he closed the hearing to the public and opened it for Planning Commission discussion.
Ms. Barrows then stated that she feels that the entire project needs to be reconfigured so that are less units, wider streets, and that the tot lot remain as part of the community. Ms. Barrows also stated that she does not like the potential for a gated community, especially in this area.
Mr. Steed would like to see some houses face Montgomery Street because he feels that by having houses facing Montgomery Street it will develop more of a sense of unity. Mr. Steed then stated that the proposed development needs to intermingle with the remaining parts of the neighborhood to encourage development.
Motion for Petition No. 400-98-44:
Ms. Short moved, based on the findings of fact, to deny Petition No. 400-98-44. Ms. Barrows seconded the motion.
The Planning Commission then provided the following reasons for their denial: streets are too narrow, there is no parking for guests, they would like to have houses front on Montgomery Street, they do not want private streets within the community and they want the tot lot kept somewhere within the community.
Ms. Arnold, Ms. Barrows, Mr. Daniels, Mr. Jonas, Mr. Mariger, Ms. Short, Mr. Snelgrove and Mr. Steed voted "Aye". Ms. Funk was not present. Mr. Smith, as Chair, did not vote. The motion passed.
Mr. Mariger indicated that, although he voted in favor of the motion, it does not necessarily mean that he agrees with all of the collective items that were intended as feedback to the developer.
Ms. Arnold noted to Mr. Francis that he may want to look into if FHA will have any concerns providing funding for the project if there is a railroad crossing near the proposed development.
CONTINUATION OF PUBLIC HEARING – Petition No. 400-98-80 initiated by the Salt Lake City Council requesting a City-wide analysis of the areas zoned Community Business “CB” and Neighborhood Commercial “CN” to determine consistency with existing master plans and appropriate zoning. In response to the City Council’s request, the Planning Staff is recommending text amendments to both the “CB” and “CN” zoning districts, map amendments that include changing some “CB” properties to “CN”, and creation of a new Small Neighborhood Business "SNB" zoning district. In addition, Planning staff is recommending the rezoning of a number of residentially zoned parcels that are occupied by commercial uses (called nonconforming uses) to the "CN" or new "SNB" zone, and the creation of a “legal conforming” status that can be applied to those nonconforming uses that are not rezoned.
Mr. Bill Allayaud 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. Allayaud then stated that staff is recommending that the Planning Commission separate the actions on the "CB", "CN" and the commercial nodes text changes from the changes with the nonconforming properties. This recommendation is being made to clean up the issue procedurally and give staff more time to fine tune the list of properties that is being proposed to be nonconforming. Mr. Allayaud continued by stating that staff is also recommending that the Planning Commission initiate a second petition to handle the nonconforming properties.
Mr. Wilde stated that, in response to the concern that the City Council initiated legislative action expanded beyond the original scope, with the addition of the nonconforming properties, it is staff's recommendation that a second petition be initiated. Mr. Wilde then identified three options that the Planning Commission could take: first would be to create the petition and continue to move forward with both petitions as one package, second would be to create the petition and separate the two petitions and the third option would be to not create a second petition regarding the nonconforming properties. Mr. Wilde noted that staff's recommendation is that the Planning Commission create the petition and separate the two petitions (Option 2).
Ms. Arnold stated that she feels that it is very premature to initiate a second petition and she is uncomfortable with making a decision at this time.
Mr. Wilde stated that another option would be to hear from the public before the Planning Commission makes any decision.
Ms. Barrows stated, as a member of the subcommittee for this issue, that she is very comfortable with having the hearing on the language concerning the ordinance. She is also comfortable with creating a petition to start looking at the nonconforming properties.
Mr. Smith then suggested that the Planning Commission first hear from the public and then have a general discussion afterward.
Ms. Arnold stated that she is concerned about the notification procedure identified in the Zoning Ordinance because the ordinance requires that only owners and neighbors should receive a notice. She feels that notices should also be sent to tenants. If notices are not sent to tenants, they are not aware of what is going on and she feels that it is not proper service to the citizens. Ms. Arnold then stated that she does not believe that the people in the community understand, or have been given notice, as to what is going on. The tenants are the very people who will be impacted by the zoning changes and have their livelihoods changed.
Mr. Smith continued the public hearing and asked if anyone wished to address the Planning Commission.
Mr. Don Gren, a concerned citizen, stated that he does not understand why the City is appearing to give people who have a piece of property that is zoned residential, and has a nonconforming use on it, a windfall at the expense of nearby home owners. He feels that allowing that businesses legal nonconforming status is adequate because this allows a business to be rebuilt if it burns down. Mr. Gren does not want to see the legal nonconforming properties be given commercial status because the home owners will suffer.
Mr. Bob Angell, a concerned citizen, stated that he lives in the Douglas neighborhood and he feels that zoning is not the only issue that is impacting his neighborhood. Other issues are traffic and the Douglas school property is in imminent danger of being sold and moving into private hands. These issues are impacting the entire area which is resulting in houses going up for sale. Mr. Angell then stated that he feels that staff is not creating a friendly environment in his neighborhood. He then asked the Planning Commission to please keep the commercial districts where they are because the neighborhoods do not need more commercial. The neighborhoods need to be zoned appropriately for families.
Ms. Cindy Cromer, a concerned citizen, stated that it appears clearer to her at this time, than it did two weeks ago, that the part of the petition dealing with nonconforming businesses was not properly initiated. Ms. Cromer then noted that her silence on the small business zones should not be interpreted as support. She has been too busy dealing with the nonconforming issue to examine the small business zones. Ms. Cromer then addressed her concern regarding the changing recommendations that the Planning Commission is receiving from one week to the next. This only would argue that the Planning Commission is not ready to take action on this petition. Ms. Cromer then stated that she is absolutely livid that her taxpayer dollars have gone down the tubes because this project has cost the City a huge amount of money. She then asked the Planning Commission to proceed with extreme caution and not de facto do something that was not done right two years ago. Ms. Cromer continued by recommending that the Planning Commission establish the business zones in a procedure and include the legal nonconforming status as one of the options.
Mr. Bob Bolds, a concerned citizen, stated that he feels that staff's recommendation is a stabilizing influence on the proposed areas. He does not feel that the money has been ill spent or wasted. Mr. Bolds then stated that he feels that the efforts that are going forth by the proposed petition are not going to create larger commercial areas, the efforts are controlling the commercial businesses in residential neighborhoods.
Mr. Steve Heil, a concerned citizen, asked the Planning Commission to take the time to understand the public hearing and also understand the emotions involved on both sides of the issue. He then recommended that the Planning Commission go against the wishes of the Planning staff and adopt the language and the proposed changes that the Planning Commission has worked hard on and has had numerous opportunities for public input. Mr. Heil also recommended that the nonconforming properties be left as a separate group to be dealt with as individual properties.
Mr. Mike Moore, a concerned citizen, spoke concerning property that he owns in the West Salt Lake area. He stated that his property is zoned "CB" and that he has met with staff regarding the open space requirements. He feels that the required 30% of open space of his property is excessive. He feels that the required percentage should be reduced to at least 20%.
Ms. Holly Decker, a business owner of a legal nonconforming building, stated that her biggest fear is if her business were to burn down and she would not be allowed to rebuild. She then stated that if she could be assured that the legal nonconforming status would be adopted and her business would be appropriate for that status, a lot of her fears would be gone. She then asked the staff and the Planning Commission to consider the nonconforming businesses carefully so that businesses that meet the criteria are not left out.
Mr. Jim Lunbeck, a concerned citizen, stated that he agrees with staff's recommendation that the Planning Commission initiate a second petition and make the proposal a two part process. Mr. Lunbeck then stated that he lives near the 7-11 at 780 South 1300 East and he feels that the interaction of this 7-11 with high school students has become a public nuisance with the amount of garbage that is generated.
Ms. Ann Floor, Director of the Vest Pocket Business Coalition, thanked the Planning staff for all their work on this project. She then asked the Planning Commission to postpone any decision on the rezoning of the neighborhood nodes and the text changes until additional measures are added that would be more supportive of neighborhood businesses.
Mr. Kevin Bowers, a commercial real estate broker, stated that he is speaking in support of one of his clients, Mr. Mike Moore, in his request for the City allowing him to develop his property without taking so much ground for setbacks and open space. Mr. Bowers then stated that he sees Mr. Moore's efforts to improve the area (approximately 1700 South and 900 West) through a commercial development. Mr. Bowers also sees Mr. Moore's efforts being hampered by causing such heavy costs to set so much ground aside, by doing so, he would not be able to generate the rents necessary to produce the project.
Mr. Matt Wolverton, Vice-Chair of the Central City Neighborhood Council, stated that the Neighborhood Council has taken a stance of the small neighborhood businesses being a part of the community. He then stated that he supports the decisions that should be made by the Planning Commission, the Planning staff, the residents living directly close by the small businesses and the small business owners. As Vice-Chair, he has not had the experience of having the negativity by the residents surrounding the small businesses owners brought to him. Mr. Wolverton then stated that he would be happy to meet with anyone and help mediate any disputes that there may be. Mr. Wolverton then asked the Planning Commission to not make a decision at this time so that he can help micromanage the decision that the Planning Commission might eventually make.
Upon receiving no further requests to address the Planning Commission, Mr. Smith closed the hearing to the public and opened it for Planning Commission discussion.
Ms. Arnold reiterated what she stated earlier that the tenants need to be notified. Ms. Arnold then stated that she felt that the staff report was a very difficult document to follow. She feels that the amount of time that the subcommittee spent on the issues is not enough time for a project that is as critical as this. Ms. Arnold then stated that the project needs much, much more discussion and it certainly needs more community involvement.
Ms. Barrows, one of the subcommittee members, spoke concerning the process. She stated that the earliest recollection she has of the process beginning is July of 1998. There was a Planning Commission hearing in December of 1998. When the hearing was held, the room was filled with neighbors who were concerned. Ms. Barrows then reminded the Planning Commission that at the last meeting she encouraged the Planning Commission to comment on issues such as setbacks and hours of operation. Ms. Barrows continued by stating that she is very comfortable with separating the process. She would like to move forward on the text changes. Ms. Barrows then asked Ms. Ann Floor to address what was included in Vest Pocket's letter pertaining to adding text to meet the needs of the businesses because they were never enunciated.
Ms. Floor stated that Mr. Jim Ack would be the best person to answer Ms. Barrows question because he has been an integral part of the process. However, one of the things that Mr. Ack has discussed with her is that the Vest Pocket would like to see additional pieces added to that downzoning of the nodes; not just a restriction on zoning but things such as infrastructure changes. Ms. Barrows noted to Ms. Floor that, unfortunately, zoning is what is under the Planning Commission's purview, nothing else.
Mr. Snelgrove then asked Ms. Floor about the letter and what is meant by "zoning changes more prescriptive and restrictive than those they replace". Ms. Floor responded by stating that the Vest Pocket feels that it would be best to look at each of the nodes independently and not as a group. Each community has a difference, therefore, the nodes need to be addressed differently.
Ms. Short stated that she has been on the Planning Commission a long time, and she finds herself very confused about this whole project. She would like to see the Planning Commission separate some of the processes. She agrees with Ms. Floor and others who have stated that there are differences in the neighborhoods and she feels that it is very difficult to address the entire City at once. Ms. Short would like to have the process brought to the Planning Commission a little bit at a time because the long term impacts are forever once a change has been made.
Mr. Jonas stated that he has not been on the Planning Commission for very long and to see a document, such as this one, is overwhelming to try and assimilate all of the information. Mr. Jonas then stated that he agrees with Ms. Short that the process should be divided up which would make him feel more comfortable with what the Planning Commission is being asked to do.
Mr. Mariger stated that his biggest concern is creating the new classification, Small Neighborhood Business "SNB", because it seems to him that the "SNB" is created only because some residential properties will be moved either into "CN", "CB" or "SNB". If there are no residential properties that are moved, and a legal nonconforming status is created, he feels that "SNB" would not need to be created.
Mr. Daniels stated that his biggest concern is that, by a majority, the citizens of Salt Lake City feel that each rezoning petition should come from an individual business and taken on its own merit rather than making blanket zoning changes to businesses all throughout the town. Mr. Daniels then stated that he agrees with the citizens.
Mr. Snelgrove stated that he too would like to see some of the proposals split up into smaller individual pieces. It would certainly make it a lot easier for him to understand what is going on.
Mr. Steed stated that he too agrees with the other Planning Commission members. There are some parts that he is comfortable with and some parts that he is not comfortable with. He feels that the properties need to be addressed on an individual basis and not just a broad stroke.
Ms. Arnold stated that she agrees with Ms. Short in that all of the neighborhoods are different and all of the neighborhoods have different needs. She would also like to take more time dealing with the issues.
Mr. Wilde suggested to the Planning Commission that in an effort to divide up the issues, perhaps the Planning Commission should begin by reviewing the text for the "CN" and "CB" zones so that the standards can be understood and properties could be identified. After the Planning Commission has done this, then the "SNB" zone can be addressed and analyzed.
Mr. Smith stated that he feels that the "SNB" zone was a tremendous addition to the ordinance. He feels that the Planning Commission has made some steps forward and is now ready to proceed to some point of closure. Mr. Smith then stated that there is a piece of business that needs to be addressed and that is whether the Planning Commission is comfortable with initiating a petition to expand what the City Council initially stated which addresses the nonconforming properties. He then suggested that the Planning Commission step forward and initiate the petition.
Discussion continued on how to proceed with breaking down the different issues and properties. Mr. Smith then suggested that staff prepare an outline on how the Planning Commission will deal with the issues at upcoming meetings in an informational way and a logical means of proceeding to arriving at conclusions.
Mr. Wilde stated that staff will prepare an outline and present it to the Planning Commission under Other Business at the next scheduled meeting, Thursday, May 18, 2000.
Motion to initiate a second petition:
Ms. Barrows moved that the Planning Commission initiate a City-wide petition creating a process to potentially create a legal conforming process to accommodate commercial businesses in residential zones and look at potentially rezoning those properties. Mr. Mariger seconded the motion. Ms. Barrows, Mr. Daniels, Mr. Jonas, Mr. Mariger, Ms. Short and Mr. Snelgrove voted "Aye". Ms. Arnold and Mr. Steed voted "Nay". Ms. Funk was not present. Mr. Smith, as Chair, did not vote. The motion passed.
Motion to continue Petition No. 400-98-80:
Mr. Mariger moved to direct Planning staff to prepare an outline as to how the process can be broken up and that the Planning Commission's discussion be continued until the next scheduled meeting. Mr. Snelgrove seconded the motion. Ms. Arnold, Ms. Barrows, Mr. Daniels, Mr. Jonas, Mr. Mariger, Ms. Short, Mr. Snelgrove and Mr. Steed voted "Aye". Ms. Funk was not present. Mr. Smith, as Chair, did not vote. The motion passed.
OTHER BUSINESS
Initiating a petition to rezone properties in the Northwest Quadrant
Mr. Wilde stated that Ms. Coffey is requesting that the Planning Commission consider initiating a petition to rezone properties in the Northwest Quadrant. This is a follow-up with the adoption of the new Northwest Area Plan.
Motion to initiate a new petition:
Mr. Steed moved to initiate a petition to analyze the appropriateness of rezoning properties in the Northwest Quadrant. Ms. Short seconded the motion. Ms. Arnold, Ms. Barrows, Mr. Daniels, Mr. Jonas, Mr. Mariger, Ms. Short, Mr. Snelgrove and Mr. Steed voted "Aye". Ms. Funk was not present. Mr. Smith, as Chair, did not vote. The motion passed.
There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 8:35 p.m.