SALT LAKE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION Minutes
451 South State Street, Room 126
Present from the Planning Commission were Chairperson Max Smith, Judi Short, Kay (berger) Arnold, Andrea Barrows, Robert "Bip" Daniels, Jeff Jonas, Mary McDonald, and Craig Mariger. Arla W. Funk was excused.
Present from the Planning Staff were Planning Director Stephen J. Goldsmith, Deputy Planning Director Brent Wilde, Ray McCandless, Margaret Pahl, Doug Wheelwright, and Doug Dansie.
Minutes are presented in agenda order, not necessarily as cases are 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.
A roll was kept of all that attended the Planning Commission meeting. Mr. Smith called the meeting to order at 5:00 p.m.
Mr. Goldsmith apologized to the Commission for his having to leave the meeting early to give a lecture on “Ethics” at a University Geography class for Planners. Mr. Goldsmith stated that, as a result of the last Planning Meeting discussion on the McCune Mansion, the Mayor, and others, realized that there was a safety concern regarding an individual who felt very uncomfortable after the meeting. He then went on to explain that she felt insulted by the petitioner, and while a verbal disagreement was witnessed by one of the Commissioners, the said Commissioner did not feel the need to call for a security guard. It was then recommended by Mr. Goldsmith that even the perception of threat should warrant a call for security. From this point on, Max will announce at the beginning of meetings that a security guard is available for anyone who would like to be accompanied to their car, or off the building grounds. This information will also be posted at the bottom of agendas, and near the sign-in sheet. Security will be notified of Planning Commission meetings, and commissioners were asked to be aware of instances involving altercations, verbal or otherwise.
Christine Wade was introduced to the Planning Commission, as the new, temporary Planning secretary.
A document was passed around regarding “conflicts of interest.” Mr. Goldsmith
reviewed this issue, and presented to the Commission the Disclosure Ordinance, which outlines protocol used in these situations. Commissioners are expected to use their own judgment and acknowledge a conflict, or the appearance of a conflict, (be it financial of otherwise), and excuse themselves from further deliberation. It is the prerogative of every Commissioner to raise the question of a conflict of interest, but Commissioners are not obligated to recuse themselves, just because another feels that there is a conflict. Mr. Mariger stated that he is uncomfortable with just a disclosure, and would like to see a strengthening of the ordinance. Nothing in the ordinance requires a council member to disclose their conflict, and then leave the meeting. Ms. Barrows asked if this ordinance takes precedence over the current bylaws. Ms. Arnold felt that the commission needs to set rules on any financial, or potential conflict which may arise. Margaret Pahl made copies of the Code of Ethics document for the Commissioners review, and the matter is currently under the discretion of each individual Commissioner.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
Thursday, November 2, 2000
Ms. Short made a motion to approve the minutes with the revisions. Mr. Daniels seconded the motion. Mr. Jonas, Ms. Short, Ms. Arnold, Mr. Mariger, Ms. Barrows, Ms. McDonald and Mr. Daniels voted “Aye”. Mr. Smith, as Chairperson, did not vote. The motion passed.
PUBLIC HEARINGS
PUBLIC HEARING – Case No. 410-500 by Cricket Communications requesting a conditional use to install wireless telecommunication antennas on an existing monopole and associated electrical equipment located at 23 East 2100 South in a Corridor commercial “CC” zoning district. (Staff: Ray McCandless at 535-7282)
Mr. Ray McCandless presented the staff report outlining the history of this case, the findings of fact and the staff recommendations, a copy of which is filed with the minutes. The case involves the installation of flush-mounted wireless telecommunications antennas in the existing non-conforming monopole antenna. The monopole is 60’ high. The proposed antennas will be installed at the 50’ level.
Ms. McDonald asked whether landscaping was appropriate around the electrical equipment, because of nearby housing. Mr. McCandless felt that the space was too limited behind the restaurant for additional landscaping. The utility pole is existing and the additional antennas would not significantly increase visual impact of the existing pole.
Ms. Barrows asked if Mr. McCandless was aware of any complaints from the community regarding this pole, and how long it had been there. Mr. McCandless replied that it had been there prior to April, 1996.
Mr. Smith asked if the petitioner was present. Mr. Charlie Bennetts addressed the Commission, bringing to their attention a letter from the Community Council, stating that the council unanimously voted in favor of the project. Mr. Bennetts then asked for the Commission’s approval.
The Planning Commissioners then asked questions of Mr. Bennetts relating to the case.
Ms. Barrows wanted to know the height of the cabinet used for equipment. Mr. Bennetts replied that the cabinets were 54 inches high and the existing Air Touch building is 8 feet tall.
Mr. Smith opened the meeting to the public. No one wished to speak, so Mr. Smith closed the public hearing. Mr. Mariger made the motion to approve the conditional use subject to the conditions set forth from the Planning staff report. Ms. Short seconded the motion. The case was then opened for discussion.
Ms. Barrows asked if anyone felt that the need for landscaping might be appropriate in this situation. Mr. Mariger stated that he felt the addition of the antennas caused no greater impact than the original pole. Mr. Mariger then revised the motion to include landscaping at the discretion of the planning director. Mr. Daniels seconded this amended motion.
Ms. Arnold, Ms. Barrows, Mr. Mariger, Mr. Jonas, Ms. Short, Mr. Daniels, and Ms. McDonald, voted “Aye”. Mr. Smith, as Chairperson, did not vote. The motion passed.
The Commission then moved on to Petition No. 410-495.
PUBLIC HEARING – Petition No. 410-495 by VoiceStream Wireless requesting a conditional use to install a 100 foot high wireless telecommunication monopole antenna and associated electrical equipment in a Utah Power & Light corridor located at approximately 1350 South 3600 West in a Light Manufacturing “M-1” zoning district.
Mr. Ray McCandless presented the staff report outlining the proposal, the findings of fact and the staff recommendations, a copy of which is filed with the minutes. The applicants have requested to temporarily install their own 100 foot high wood pole while waiting for a steel pole to be manufactured and installed. The recommendations are for approval based on the painting of antennas and mounting equipment a flat medium gray color; the replacement pole be painted to match the existing wood poles; the access road leading to the facility should be concrete or asphalt; a temporary pole be allowed now but removed when the replacement pole arrives; minimal antenna bracing be used; and meeting all applicable departmental requirements.
Mr. Daniels asked if recommendation could be written as stating a time limit on the placement of the temporary pole.
Mr. Jonas asked if the 80 foot poles are wood, and the steel poles are 120 feet.
Ms. Barrows questioned the painting of the wood pole, and Mr. McCandless gave an example of steel poles painted brown near the Knudsen Corner golf course at 6200 South and I-215. Ms. Barrows wondered if the language regarding supplemental conditions on page 5 of the staff report, should be changed. Mr. McCandless answered that he could change that.
Mr. Smith asked if the petitioner was present. Mr. Jerry Moore of VoiceStream Wireless reiterated that the application lines would be on the steel pole.
Ms. Arnold asked Mr. Moore if the poles must be higher. Ms. Barrows pointed out that this height increase far exceeds the ordinance allowance of sixty (60) feet, and asked for transmittal distance. Mr. Moore explained that while he wasn’t sure how far they, VoiceStream), could transmit, he knew that they had more area to cover, (existing area, up to Redwood Road), than was possible with a pole found nearby.
Ms. Barrows asked for comparison of the circumference of the base of existing poles, and the base of the new pole. Mr. Moore didn’t know information regarding the new pole, but existing poles have a 3 ½-4 feet circumference at the base.
Mr. Smith opened the meeting to the public. Mr. Derrick Larm asked how tall the other poles are. He felt that a taller pole (120 ft.), with flush mount would be preferable over an 80 ft pole.
Ms. Shannon Downey asked if this pole will only serve VoiceStream purposes.
Ms. Arnold asked if it will be co-locatable, eventually? Mr. Moore indicated “No”. Mr. Mariger asked if VoiceStream is at the minimal distance needed to be away from the high tension voltage lines. Mr. Moore answered that they are at the recommended distance of 10 feet, while arms are out 5 feet.
Ms. Barrows expressed a desire that VoiceStream build in one place as much as possible. Mr. Moore answered that VoiceStream prefers higher poles in order to accommodate other carriers.
Ms. Shannon Downey asked Mr. Moore how many poles they have in the city at present with more than one carrier. Mr. Moore didn’t have a definite answer to this question.
Mr. Smith closed the public hearing.
Mr. Mariger again expressed his concern regarding minimum distance required by the engineers. He thought that higher voltage required more distance. Ms. Barrows discussed the issue of 10 feet for separation, in comparison with 20 feet, and admitted that she didn’t like the idea of the big array. She thought that a taller pole with more potential was worth looking into.
Motion for Case Nos. 410-495: Mr. Jonas made the motion that the Commission grant a conditional use to install a 100 foot high monopole at said location, based on conditions one through six, as enumerated by the staff, which includes the temporary pole being allowed while waiting for the replacement pole. Mr. Mariger asked for a one year restriction on how long the temporary pole is allowed. Mr. Jonas agreed. Ms. Short seconded Mr. Jonas’ motion.
Ms. Arnold, Ms. Barrows, Mr. Mariger, Mr. Jonas, Ms. Short, Mr. Daniels, and Ms. McDonald, voted “Aye”. The motion passed.
PUBLIC HEARING– Petition No. 410-498 by Cricket Communications requesting a conditional use to install wall and roof mounted cellular telecommunication antennas and associated electrical equipment on an office building (formerly the Regency Theater) at 2749 East Parley’s Way in a Community Business “CB” zoning district.
Mr. McCandless recommended conditional use approval based on the following conditions:
1 Painting the wall antennas to match the building and the roof antennas and mounting equipment a flat medium gray color.
2 The screening wall around the electrical equipment match the existing building.
3 No accessory building be constructed.
4 Minimal antenna bracing be used.
5 The roof antennas be set back at least 10 feet from any roof edge.
Mr. Jonas had a hard time accepting the antenna mounting design presented.
Mr. Smith invited the applicant to speak. Mr. David Drake, with Liberty Wiring Star, expressed a concern that this particular area is very sensitive to roof top pipe mounts. He explained that 5 different revisions of the plan were made to reduce the visual impact, and this plan was the least offensive to the eyes, in all categories.
Ms. Barrows asked about the possibility of putting the antennae behind bushes.
Mr. Drake disagreed with this option, but assured the Commission that the equipment would be housed, and not visible.
Mr. Jonas asked about a reason equipment can’t go on the roof. Mr. Drake answered
that the roof is structurally unsound in terms of accommodating the weight.
Mr. Smith then opened the hearing to the public.
Mr. Zak Coverston expressed a concern that no effort is being made to blend this project into the environment. He asked if the Commission is the only committee accountable for city designs. Mr. Jonas answered this question by stating that the Commission deals primarily with land issues. Mr. Coverston also and if it would be possible to mount this equipment to the wall, and yet have it sitting on the roof. Mr. Drake explained that the equipment boxes weigh about five thousand pounds, and that this is rarely taken into consideration when designing a roof.
Mr. Derrick Wilson wanted to know what reaction residents on the east side of the foothill had to this plan. Mr. Smith pointed out that 2 committee councils, (Sugarhouse Community council, and Arcadia Heights), were not opposed to the plan.
Mr. Jerry Moore stated that he lived within a direct line from the building and he was in favor for the plan.
Ms. Short explained that when the building was built, there was never any other building more micromanaged by the community, than that building. There has always been a very active interest.
Mr. Bryce Moulton was concerned about the weight of the antennas on the wall.
Ms. Barrows explained that the equipment would be kept on the ground.
Mr. Wilde explained that petitioners have to satisfy staff that proper engineering has been done before they bring it to the Commission.
Mr. Smith added that the commission had no say in what antennae can do to the architecture of the building, and expressed his opinion that putting them on the side of the building could be disastrous. Mr. Drake stated his sensitivity regarding the community.
Motion for Case Nos. 410-498: Ms. Barrows made the motion on petition 410-498, based on staff report, that the commission go ahead and approve the case subject to the conditional list. Ms. McDonald seconded the motion.
Ms. Arnold, Ms. Barrows, Mr. Mariger, Mr. Jonas, Ms. Short, Mr. Daniels, and Ms. McDonald, voted “Aye”. The motion passed. Other issues regarding this Petition will be attended to at a later date.
DINNER BREAK
PUBLIC HEARING FOOTHILL DEVELOPMENT ISSUES ONLY – Petition 400-00-29 and Case No. 410-507 by Scott Turville requesting annexation, zoning, planned development and subdivision approvals for a 6 lot residential foothill subdivision, located on a private street at approximately 1977 South 2800 East in the unincorporated Salt Lake County. The Planning Commission will not take action on this request at this meeting.
Mr. Smith stated that consideration of this request is an “issues only” public hearing.
Ms. Barrows stated for the Commission that she lives on Lakeline Dr., which is continuous with this development. Mr. Brent Wilde, and Commissioner Mariger
excused themselves from these proceedings by declaring a “conflict of interest,” and were not present.
Ms. Margaret Pahl outlined this residential development proposal and identified the issues involved. Several actions will need to be approved before the Petition is finalized. Considerations apply toward the following:
1. Annexation and Zoning of six lots—number of lots, and design. Master Plan of 1998 targeted this area for four lots. Layout has been changed.
2. Sewer lines and drainage need to be reviewed because of the proposed unique line situation.
3. Fire protection. Lots exceed the Fire Dept. guidelines.
4. City Services. No problems.
5. Significant steep slopes.
6. Private streets—street grade design changes.
7. A Gated community –to prevent off road driving.
8. Bonneville Shoreline Trail—optional gate raises questions about trail access.
Mr. Smith informed the public that security escorts are available. Mr. Scott Turville, the petitioner, spoke on the history of this case. Ms. Barrows asked if property owners shown on plat were in agreement with the annexation. Mr. Smith then turned the time over to the public.
Mr. Dave Mortensen detailed the Arcadia Heights Master plan, and expressed concerns regarding the private road, and the flag lot. Distortion of the Master Plan is feared. Ms. Short asked about the flag lot, and Mr. Wheelwright explained that anything beyond that flag lot is open space, and will be deeded to the city.
Mr. Jonas asked for details on why the unrestricted pedestrian path needed a gate. Mr. Turville explained that the proposed gate was only for the roadway, and that access to the trail would not be gated.
Mr. Bruce Cohane of Arcadia Hts/Benchmark Comm. Council expressed opposition to the annexation.
Mr. Shawn McMillan, of the H-Rock Community council, expressed concerns relating to the city street vs. private street issue. The council is concerned about estate-sized lots not being consistent with other parts of the neighborhood. They also feel that a gate would deter people from ever using the trail, because a gate would suggest private property. The council is committed to the Master Plan, and feel that sticking with it is of primary importance.
Mr. Dave Silvers was opposed to the gated community.
Mr. Ron Roe is concerned about how close the property is built up to the trail line. He feels that excess pedestrian traffic will cause problems for the residents.
Mr. Vince Rampton of Jones, Waldo, Holbrook & McDounough spoke on behalf of Victoria Hanson. Ms. Hanson owns property close to the proposed lots and would like to renew her subdivision application and emphasize that if Lakeline Dr is terminated as proposed, access to her property would be completely lost.
Ms. Alyssa Kirtland was concerned about the wildlife in the area. She felt that development in this area would cause wildlife to seek food in the valley, causing disruption to traffic, as well as starvation among the animals if food wasn’t found. Mr. Smith explained that a considerable amount of open space is available in the lower elevations.
Mr. Brigham Smith expressed concern regarding the water run off in this area. Ms. Pahl explained that “typical” run off would be piped.
Ms. Shawna Jacoby was opposed to this development because of its proximity to the Shoreline trail. The presence of a development would compromise the experience people have on the trail, and impede the enjoyment of that area. A gate would be quite unwelcoming and cause people to feel uncomfortable entering the area.
Jeff Schindewolf was opposed to the development because of the visual eye sore that may occur. He felt that more control is needed over what is built on these lots. He agreed that a gated community is unwelcoming.
Dave Richards questioned issues with regard to lot 4. He didn’t understand why the guest parking is there, and so close to Susi Kontgis’ lot. He then addressed a need for an outfall sewer line.
Cards were submitted by the following individuals:
Curt Leetham wished to hear more about the sewer line. He was concerned about the deterioration of earth because slopes greater than 30 percent lend a greater risk of erosion, and risk of landslide into lower properties.
Chamonix Wilson wondered how the open space is to be used. I.e. What rights do you leave a resident of another part of the city to gain access to the mountains in the area? She also felt that if a gate was implemented it gives property owners the idea that they own their land, and the means to get into the natural landscape. Ms. Wilson questions the need for development of this area.
Curtis Livingston felt that the Shoreline Trail would be cut off by a gate.
Mr. Smith closed the public hearing and brought the matter back to the Commission.
Judi Short asked about Mrs. Hanson’s property.
Mr. Wheelwright answered that because of the 40% to 30% slope change, and various other ordinance changes, the Staff and Commission will have to address the question of access to her property during consideration on this annexation and subdivision approval.
Ms. Arnold expressed her opposition regarding gated areas, monstrous housing, and garbage pickup procedures on private roads.
Ms. Barrows verbalized a safety issue regarding the distance that a house sits from the road and the access to that house in the case of an emergency. She questioned why the cul-de-sac couldn’t be moved nearer to the extra lot, in order to prevent the gated community. Ms. Short suggested that the road extend to the last lot, instead of putting in a cul-de-sac. Mr. Turville explained why the cul-de-sac would not work in that area visually.
Mr. Jonas didn’t think that a gate would prevent pedestrians from going to the trail, and he felt that the petitioner had been sensitive to the level of disturbance created. He also questioned the possible requirement of a road on top of the sewer line.
Ms. Pahl stated that safety, fire dept. and garbage constraints as well as engineering changes will be addressed at a later date. Fire sprinkling options are addressed in the report.
Ms. Barrows wondered how the Commission would justify not following the Master Plan. She would like to hear opinions from the other Commissioners.
Ms. McDonald stated that the gated community concept could send the message to property owners that the public trail was their own property. She expressed her desire to stick to the Master Plan.
Motion for Petition No. 400-00-29: Mr. Jonas made the motion to close this discussion. Ms. Short seconded the motion.
PUBLIC HEARING– Petition No. 400-00-52 from the Salt Lake City Administration regarding parking in front of commercial buildings, between the building and the street, within all neighborhood oriented commercial zones (RB Residential Business, RMU Residential Mixed Use, MU Mixed Use, CN Neighborhood Commercial, CB Community Business, CS Shopping Center, CC Commercial Corridor, SHBD Sugar House Business District). The petition requests eliminating parking in the front yard (between the front property line and the building) and to adopt other neo-traditional town planning concepts to encourage a more walkable community throughout Salt Lake City.
Mr. Jonas is a managing member of a company that owns some RMU Zone property, and disclosed this information to the Commission. After some discussion, the Commission felt that the presence of Mr. Jonas was acceptable in the situation.
Mr. Doug Dansie described that in order to encourage walkable communities, the Administration is requesting that all new commercial developments within neighborhood oriented commercial zones follow neo-traditional design principles and not be designed as traditional strip malls have been generally designed in the post World War II era. Neo-traditional development patterns favor commercial development located near the street, with the entry oriented to the street and the parking be generally located behind the primary building.
The Commission then asked questions of Mr. Dansie relating to the case:
Ms. Barrows asked whether this petition prevents any parking lot from ever being built at the street line. Mr. Dansie replied “No.”
Ms. Arnold asked for the area where this petition would apply. Mr. Dansie replied, “basically 2nd East, to 4th West.”
Ms. McDonald addressed the problem of parking lot lights. Mr. Dansie explained that restricted lighting rules will apply because of the nearby housing.
Mr. Jonas asked about the “interior side yard” concept. Mr. Dansie explained an “interior” yard meant interior to the block, with private property, not a street on each side.
Ms. Arnold questioned minimum yard requirements listed at 21A.26.030 CB Community Busines District, E. The sentence should read, “No minimum yard is required.”
Mr. Jonas questioned 21A.26.050 C Corridor Commercial District, D., 6.
Mr. Dansie clarified that the first sentence should read “(35%).”
Ms. Arnold expressed a need for back entrances to stores. Mr. Jonas pointed out that more doors lead to more problems with security, etc. Mr. Smith used the Oasis Restaurant as an example of how security problems were dealt with. Ms. Arnold agreed, and added that glass should be present in the back as well as front.
Mr. Smith asked about trash disposal problems. Mr. Daniels described how this arrangement worked in an area of Sugar House.
Mr. Wilde expressed the theory that diagonal street parking slows down traffic.
Ms. Arnold wondered why shoppers couldn’t angle park in the center of the street.
Mr. Smith opened the meeting to the public.
Ms. Kadee Neilson, of the West Point City Council, expressed concerns regarding difficult traffic at the corner of 9th and 9th, because of the angled parking. She was concerned about how this planning would eventually affect the West side of the City. She opposed the back parking idea because of shoplifting problems. She wondered how the back parking would affect handicapped individuals, and shoppers at night. She felt that the concept would be very unappealing, and inconsistent with buildings already present.
Ms. McDonald asked Ms. Neilson if she’d ever seen the area of Sugar House Commons. Ms. Neilson had not experienced the shopping in that area, and Ms. Arnold then asked her where she goes to shop. Ms. Neilson replied that she goes to Valley Fair Mall, and Bountiful City.
Mr. Jeff Schindewolf was opposed to parking in the back of shops. He suggested using parking in the center of shops, to enable the walkabout feeling. He felt that Salt Lake City is a commuting city, and people are constantly driving into, and around the city, instead of parking somewhere and walking around. He expressed a concern regarding street width.
Ms. Short answered Mr. Schindewolf’s question about street length, adding that
everything being discussed this evening is only a part of the entire plan.
Ms. Chamonix Wilson disagreed with the comments stating that people don’t shop in the downtown area. She felt a need to investigate what Planning can do to promote downtown shopping, and expressed an example of how she feels unsafe walking from Barnes and Noble over to a nearby store. She suggested pedestrian connections which would make walking around downtown easier.
Mr. Smith closed the public hearing and turned the discussion over to the Planning Commission.
Ms. Barrows asked a question about opt out features which are available to builders. She was concerned that specific locations may be prime examples of why this should not be done, and worried that getting architects to plan in these areas may be more difficult than its worth. Mr. Dansie detailed how, with the building up of the west side, this area would be identical to the east side, and more suitable for this type of design.
Ms. Barrows wondered if Redwood Rd was such an area where this design would falter. Mr. Smith brought up the point that significant housing is being built up on Redwood Rd.
Ms. Arnold agreed that a store such as Target would draw more crowds in outlining areas, than in downtown, and Mr. Smith argued that this is true for how we presently view Target stores. He then went on to describe a Target store plan involving housing above the store, and how this design could eventually occur in the future.
Ms. Arnold added that while she wouldn’t go downtown at lunch right now, the addition of a light rail near her office would allow her to do so very easily.
Mr. Mariger couldn’t see how any major downtown changes, such as putting tracks down North Temple, could affect Redwood Rd. He disagreed with the concept of applying these ideas on a zone wide basis. He felt that this regulation did not apply to every Commercial Corridor.
Mr. Smith wanted to approach this issue another way. He felt that very few places exist where this plan would not work, and that maybe the Commission needed to sit down and investigate all possibilities.
Mr. Jonas accepted these regulations, but was under the impression that many of them will not be used in the near future.
Mr. Mariger acknowledged that this plan would not work for all downtown planning.
Ms. Arnold made the motion to accept the recommendation, except for CC zoning.
Mr. Daniels proposed an amendment regarding CS zoning. Ms. Barrows expressed a desire to give Staff guidelines on the other two zones. Ms. Short seconded the motion.
Ms. Arnold, Ms. Barrows, Mr. Mariger, Mr. Jonas, Ms. Short, Mr. Daniels, and Ms. McDonald, voted “Aye”. Mr. Smith, as chairman, did not vote. The motion passed.
Mr. Dansie wondered if he should forward this petition onto the City Council, or hold it. The Commission decided to hold onto it now and come back to it after the first of the year.
A ten minute break was issued by Mr. Smith.
OTHER BUSINESS
a. Consideration of a request by Robert Strang for a one year time extension for Petition #410-359 by King's Point LLC for conditional use approval for a 12 lot residential subdivision with a reduced width public street, located at 1379 N. Redwood Road in a residential R-1, 5,000 zoning district, originally approved on October 8, 1999.
Ms. Pahl explained the history of the petition outlined in the staff report, which is included in the minutes.
Mr. Smith allowed Ms. Kadee Nielson a change to express her concern regarding the renovation of two houses in conjunction with the storm drain. These houses have deteriorated to a great extent, and Ms. Nielson doesn’t understand why renovation needs to take place. She felt that tearing down the houses and redesigning the layout of the lots would be a better solution.
Ms. Barrows asked about the houses, and it was decided that such renovation would occur in the aftermath of present issues.
Mr. Jonas moved to approve the one year extension. Ms. Short seconded the motion.
Motion for Petition No. 400-00-52: Ms. Arnold, Ms. Barrows, Mr. Mariger, Mr. Jonas, Ms. Short, Mr. Daniels, and Ms. McDonald, voted “Aye”. Mr. Smith as Chairman, did not vote. The motion passed.
b. Update on proposed amendments to the Site Development Ordinance relating to slope interpretation.
Mr. Wilde reviewed a memo from Craig Hinckley regarding council concern about the last sentence of Section 18.28.30.B.11.a. The Planning Division has completed a reevaluation of the language used, and suggests Alternative A, listed in the memo.
Mr. Mariger asked about the context in which this sentence appears. He felt that the language places unintended restrictions on the development of limit lines.
Mr. Jonas made the motion to pass on to the City Council Alternative A to replace existing language. Ms. Short seconded the motion.
Ms. Arnold, Ms. Barrows, Mr. Mariger, Mr. Jonas, Ms. Short, Mr. Daniels, and Ms. McDonald, voted “Aye”. Mr. Smith as Chairman, did not vote. The motion passed.
Continued discussion of Petition No. 400-00-56 by the Salt Lake City Olympic Committee (SLOC) requesting that the Planning Commission consider making recommendations to the City Council to accommodate Olympic signage alternatives by creating a temporary Localized Alternative Sign Overlay District. The district will generally cover the Downtown area (from 200 East to I-15 and North Temple to 900 South [street and off ramp]) and a corridor, extending 50 feet on each side of the street right-of-way, along North Temple (from the Airport to Downtown), 300 West (from 600 North to Downtown) and 400 South/500 South/Foothill Boulevard/Guardsman Way (from Downtown to the University of Utah/Steiner Aquatic Center). (Staff: Doug Dansie at 535-6182)
Mr. Wilde explained that this discussion would be on hold. He than reminded the Commission that they are invited to a field trip, Tuesday, November 21, 2000.
The meeting adjourned at 10:00 p.m.