SALT LAKE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
In Room 126 of the City & County Building
451 South State Street, Salt Lake City, Utah
Present from the Planning Commission were Chair Jeff Jonas, Tim Chambless, Robert “Bip” Daniels, Arla Funk, Prescott Muir, Jennifer Seelig. Kay (berger) Arnold entered the meeting at 6:55 p.m. to ensure a quorum after having been excused from the meeting. John Diamond, Peggy McDonough, and Laurie Noda were not present.
Present from the Planning Staff were Acting Planning Director Brent Wilde; Deputy Planning Director Doug Wheelwright; Planning Program Supervisor Cheri Coffey; and Planners Joel Paterson, Jackie Gasparik, and Ray McCandless
A roll is being kept of all who attended the Planning Commission Meeting. Mr. Jonas called the meeting to order at 5:50 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 Thursday, November 7, 2002
Prescott Muir referred to page 9, second paragraph, seventh line, which states, “This language was written for cities not for their class.” He did not think this made sense and asked Mr. Wheelwright to clarify his intent. Mr. Wheelwright suggested that the language be modified to read, “This language was written for cities not of our class.” Mr. Muir referred to page 25, second paragraph, and requested that the word enclose be changed to propose. The corrected sentence would read, “Ms. McDonough commented that since the Planning Commission has had only one short field trip to the site, it is difficult to propose logical design review conditions.”
Jennifer Seelig referred to page 12, last paragraph, and noted that the questions she asked related to the methodology of the traffic study. She felt this was important to note. Chair Jonas suggested language stating that, “Ms. Seelig asked about the methodology of the traffic study and its thoroughness.” Ms. Seelig asked that this intent be verified with the tape of the November 7 meeting.
Mr. Chambless referred to Page 9, line 1, and noted that Tamara Wharton is the correct name.
Chair Jonas referred to page 4, the motion for Petition 400-02-12, the sentence reading, “Ms. Funk clarified that the Planning Commission needs to declare surplus property and make a recommendation not to close a portion of 500 West.” He requested that the sentence be changed to include Mr. Wilde’s comment on page 5 which reads, “Mr. Wilde clarified that the first motion is a recommendation to the Mayor and the second motion is a recommendation to the City Council.” Chair Jonas felt the motion should be corrected to read, “Ms. Funk clarified that the Planning Commission needs to declare surplus property and make a recommendation to the mayor not to close a portion of 500 West.” He referred to the second motion and noted that it should be revised to read, “Ms. Funk moved that the Planning Commission forward a recommendation to the Mayor to deny the request that the property adjacent to the power substation on 500 West be declared surplus.” Chair Jonas suggested that the language on page 8, second paragraph, about changing the fine structure be clarified. He requested that the last sentence be revised to read, “The fine structure was agreed to be handled as a fine tuning item.” Mr. Daniels questioned use of the word “fine,” and Chair Jonas revised the sentence to read, “The zoning violation fee structure was agreed to be handled as a fine tuning item.” Chair Jonas referred to page 11, third paragraph, and requested that includes be changed to included. The corrected sentence would read, “She noted that the property has a long history, and the Staff included background in the Staff report.” Mr. Muir referred to the bottom of the same paragraph and requested that turning parameters be changed to turning radius. The corrected sentence would read, “.the driveway to the parking lot alley be revised to better accommodate the grade change and turning radius through the public way permit process.” Chair Jonas asked that the reference to re-opening the alley on page 13, top paragraph, be clarified as re-opening the connection to the alley and that the remainder of the sentence be revised to read, “.and no traffic studies were done prior to connection to the alley, so there is no way to know or compare whether the impacts have increased.” He requested that the change regarding the connection to the alley be reflected on pages 14, 15, and any other reference to the alley connection. Chair Jonas requested that the reference to developer on page 26, first line, be changed to read an owner or builder. The corrected sentence would read, “Chair Jonas stated that an owner or builder can generally do whatever he wants if it fits within the requirements of what can be developed on the lot.” He asked that the same change be made to the next sentence.
Mr. Muir referred to the first condition of approval on page 26. He acknowledged that the condition was part of the Staff’s presentation but recalled that the Planning Commission left the design review conditions to be determined by the Planning Director. He requested that the language be changed to read, “Design conditions as they relate to the following items to be determined by the Planning Director.”
Chair Jonas referred to page 27, tenth line from the bottom, and requested that the word air be changed to noise. The corrected sentence would read, “Staff recommended that only A/C units be allowed because noise gets in through swamp coolers.” Chair Jonas referred to page 34, last line of the third finding that begins, “Underdeveloped sites must be positive contributions to the area.” He did not think that sounded like a finding of fact and suggested including a sentence to read, “This site will be a positive contribution to the area.”
Mr. Daniels suggested that the reference to A/C units be changed to central A/C units for clarification throughout the text.
Motion
Robert “Bip” Daniels moved to approve the minutes as corrected. Arla Funk seconded the motion. Mr. Chambless, Mr. Daniels, Ms. Funk, Mr. Muir, and Ms. Seelig voted “Aye.” Ms. Arnold, Mr. Diamond, Ms. McDonough, and Ms. Noda were not present. Jeff Jonas, as chair, did not vote. The motion carried.
PUBLIC HEARINGS
PUBLIC HEARING - Petition No. 400-02-29, by the Salt Lake City Planning Commission, Mr. Bip Daniels Chair, requesting to amend the Salt Lake City zoning map, by changing the zoning of two parcels of the property located at 1135 East 1700 South from Institutional (I) to Residential (R-1-5000).
Planner Joel Paterson reviewed the petition as written in the Staff report. He explained that, prior to 1995, these two parcels and the surrounding residential area were zoned R-2, and the strip along 1100 East was zoned B-3, which is neighborhood commercial shopping district. In 1995, the entire city was rezoned, and it appears that the City made an error in zoning these two parcels. The western parcel has a legal, non-conforming duplex, and the eastern parcel is currently vacant. When one of the property owners came to the City to ask about building a single-family home on the vacant lot, the error was discovered, and the Staff requested that the Planning Commission initiate this petition. Mr. Paterson noted that the surrounding property is zoned R-1-5000, and the Staff is recommending that the zone include these two parcels. He noted that the petition was reviewed by the East Central Community Council and Sugar House Community Council, and both voted unanimously in favor of the petition. Mr. Paterson stated that he has received a number of phone calls from people who were afraid that the institutional zoning would allow other types of uses. Re-zoning the property to R-1-5000 is consistent with the area, and the Staff recommended changing the zoning on these two parcels from Institutional to R-1-5000.
John Janson, the applicant, stated that he and his partner have owned the lots for more than 20 years. He was aware that the property was zoned institutional but thought a single-family home could be built on it, so he did not protest when the property was rezoned in 1995. When he came to the City this summer to discuss building requirements, he found that the institutional zoning would prohibit him from building a home. He stated that he supported the Staff’s recommendation.
Chair Jonas opened the public hearing.
There was no comment.
Chair Jonas closed the public hearing.
Motion for Petition 400-02-29
Arla Funk moved to forward a favorable recommendation to the City Council for Petition 400-02-29 to change the zoning of the property located at 1135 East 1700 South from Institutional to R-1-5000, based on the findings of fact. Robert “Bip” Daniels seconded the motion.
Findings of Fact
A. The proposed zoning map amendment is consistent with the purposes, goals, objectives, and policies of the adopted general plan of Salt Lake City.
B. The proposed amendment is harmonious with the overall character of existing development in the immediate vicinity of the subject property.
C. Changing the zoning of the property at 1135 East 1700 South will generate no adverse effect on adjacent properties.
D. Residential development is consistent with the provisions of the Groundwater Source Protection Overlay. Any new development would be limited to the land uses allowed in the R-1-5000 district and would be compatible with surrounding land uses.
E. Amending the zoning map will have no adverse effect on existing public facilities or the City’s ability to provide public services.
Mr. Chambless, Mr. Daniels, Ms. Funk, Mr. Muir, and Ms. Seelig voted “Aye.” Ms. Arnold, Mr. Diamond, Ms. McDonough, and Ms. Noda were not present. Jeff Jonas, as chair, did not vote. The motion carried.
PUBLIC HEARING - Petition No. 410-561, by Mountainview Landfill, Inc. (Formerly the Bland Landfill), requesting a Conditional Use and Planned Development approval to increase the height of an existing construction debris landfill from 150 feet to 205, and to allow a modification of the approved landscaping plan and waive the 30 foot landscaped buffer requirement along the north and east property lines. The property is located at 6975 West California Avenue (1300 South) in an Open Space “OS”/Landfill Overlay “LO” zoning district.
Planner Ray McCandless reviewed the petition as written in the staff report and reviewed a site map to identify the location of the landfill and surrounding properties. He explained that in 1996, the Planning Commission granted a conditional use which allowed the landfill to expand, and a height of 150 feet was approved. Since then, the landfill has been purchased by a number of companies. Several years ago, Mountainview Landfill, Inc., purchased the landfill. In 1996, the extension was granted with eight conditions that were never completely met, but the current owners have worked hard to bring the site into compliance with those original conditions. All but one have now been met, which is the landscaping, and they would like to modify that condition. The applicants would like to increase the height of the landfill from 150 feet to 205 feet. Their initial plans for the landfill showed a pyramid shape, but after working with the Staff, they have submitted revised drawings showing two knolls to finish the top of the landfill mound. Mr. McCandless noted that in the1996 plan, the Planning Commission required that street trees and landscaping be installed along the 1300 South and 7200 West frontages, but that was never done. The current owners believe it would be hard to maintain any vegetation in that area because of the dust and activity generated by the use. They have requested that landscaping be installed in phases and have provided a landscaping phasing plan. The applicant also requests that the Planning Commission waive the thirty-foot setback requirement along the north and east property lines. The property to the east is owned by the Salt Lake County Landfill, and property to the north is owned by Kennecott, so it is unlikely that the frontage will ever be seen. Mr. McCandless felt it was more important to place emphasis on the frontage along the streets than on interior landscaping. The Staff recommended approval subject to three conditions outlined in the staff report. Mr. McCandless presented photo simulations prepared by the applicant.
Mr. Chambless noted that this is a man-made butte and asked if others are envisioned in the future. He also asked to what extent would there be subsurface placement on site.
Patrick Craig and Leonard Butler represented the applicant. Mr. Butler explained that there is no subsurface excavation. Under State and Salt Lake Valley Health Department regulations, the waste is placed at surface. He noted that the site immediately southwest of this landfill is the Mackey Dump which comes to a pyramid which is currently at 90 feet and still rising. Mr. Jonas asked what the life of the landfill would be if it were capped at 150 feet. Mr. Butler replied that, without approval of 205 feet, the life of the landfill is 4-1/2 years. With approval to 205 feet, the life is 7 years. Mr. Daniels asked Mr. Butler about his opposition to the Planning Office landscaping regulations. Mr. Butler replied that it is a matter of practicality. The roads are not paved, and there is a tremendous amount of dust. From past experience, he knew it was difficult to maintain vegetation in this type of environment. They would like to phase the frontage landscaping in a progression to the west and then to the north. The landscaping on the actual landfill slopes is predicated on completion of side slopes. They will start final coverage of the landfill side slopes next year. It is phased so that incrementally, 15 acres are completed each year. As they start to close the slopes, it can be done without closing the landfill. Mr. Jonas asked Mr. Butler about his preferred option for landscaping. Mr. Butler stated that he would prefer natural grasses. They would be out of compliance with the State and Salt Lake Valley if they put trees and shrubs in the cap, because it would create permeability. Mr. Jonas asked about the rock outcropping. Mr. Butler replied that they talked about the rock outcropping, but it is more difficult to construct and maintain.
Chair Jonas opened the public hearing.
Romney Stewart, neighbor to Mountainview Landfill to the east, stated that they are a great neighbor. He believed it would be beneficial to the public to extend the life of the landfill by increasing the height. Mr. Wheelwright asked Mr. Stewart if he knew the expected life of the County landfill. Mr. Stewart replied that it is 24 or 25 years.
Chair Jonas noted that a subcommittee was formed on this matter. Ms. Funk reported that the subcommittee approved the recommendations made by Staff for the double peak mound shape and grassy replanting.
Chair Jonas closed the public hearing.
Motion for Petition No. 410-561
Arla Funk moved to approve Petition 410-561 for the Mountainview Landfill based upon the findings in the staff report and the testimony heard this evening with the three conditions outlined in the staff report. Prescott Muir seconded the motion.
Chair Jonas clarified that this motion includes increasing the height and waiving the landscape buffers on the north and east.
Mr. Muir asked if they should specify the landscape type. Ms. Funk stated that she assumed it would be natural grasses on the landfill and a clustering of trees on the perimeter, with no rock.
Findings of Fact
A. The proposed development requires conditional use approval by the Planning Commission.
B. The proposed development is in harmony with the general purposes and intent of the Zoning of the Zoning Ordinance and is compatible with and implements the planning goals and objectives of the City, including applicable City master plans.
C. Streets or other means of access to the proposed development are suitable and adequate to carry anticipated traffic and will not materially degrade the services level on the adjacent streets.
D. The internal circulation system of the proposed development is properly designed.
E. Existing or proposed utility services are adequate for the proposed development and are designed in a manner that will not have an adverse impact on adjacent land uses or resources.
F. No significant impacts from light, noise, or visual impacts are anticipated.
G. Architecture and building materials are consistent with the development and compatible with other existing structures in the area.
H. The proposed landscaping is appropriate for the scale of development.
I. The proposed development preserves historical, architectural, and environmental features of the property.
J. The hours of operation are similar to those of adjoining uses.
K. The proposed conditional use is compatible with the neighborhood surrounding the proposed development and will not have a material net cumulative adverse impact on the neighborhood or the City as a whole.
L. The proposed development must meet all applicable City, County, State, and Federal codes and ordinances prior to issuance of a building permit.
Planned Development
1. The proposed facility will achieve the purposes for which a planned development may be approved.
2. The proposed facility will not violate the general purposes, goals, and objectives of this Title and of any plans adopted by the Planning Commission or the City Council.
Conditions
1. Meeting all applicable City, County, and State codes and ordinances.
2. Verification by a professional engineer that the proposed 2:1 slope will remain secure over time so that no adjoining properties are impacted.
3. A phased landscaping plan will be natural grasses on the landfill and a clustering of trees on the perimeter, with no rock, as approved by the Planning Director.
Mr. Chambless, Mr. Daniels, Ms. Funk, Mr. Muir, and Ms. Seelig voted “Aye.” Ms. Arnold, Mr. Diamond, Ms. McDonough, and Ms. Noda were not present. Jeff Jonas, as chair, did not vote. The motion carried.
Time permitted the Planning Commission to discuss other business.
OTHER BUSINESS
Mr. Daniels commented that it is helpful to have Staff stay nearby to answer questions once they have presented their reports. He suggested that they continue to do this as a matter of procedure.
Mr. Wilde referred to a number of items given to the Planning Commission this evening and noted that they are requests for the Planning Commission to initiate petitions. One is a text amendment regarding legal, conforming, single-family dwellings. He explained that the zoning ordinance currently includes a provision for duplexes in R-1 zones to be considered legal, conforming uses. This issue relates to financing and insurance issues. Single-family homes are not allowed on a legal, conforming basis in all commercial zones, and this petition would enable a provision for legal, conforming status to single-family homes in commercial districts where they are otherwise not allowed. Mr. Wilde stated that the Planning Commission is being asked to initiate a petition this evening, and there will be ample opportunity to evaluate the petition when it comes back to the Planning Commission. He noted that another request addresses a mapping area. There is a problem with split zoning, and this petition would consolidate the zoning on the property at 400 South and 900 West. The third item addresses a list of implementation items in the Capitol Hill plan as adopted and would allow zoning amendments to implement the Capitol Hill plan.
Motion
Arla Funk moved to direct the Planning Staff to initiate the studies and petitions outlined in the three reports.
Mr. Wilde clarified that the ordinance states that a Planning Commissioner, a City Council representative, the Mayor, or a property owner can initiate a petition. It does not state that the Planning Commission as a body can initiate a petition. He explained that they could put the petitions in Ms. Funk’s name since she made the motion or in Mr. Jonas’s name as chair. The Commissioners did not have a preference and left it to Staff’s discretion.
Cheri Coffey noted that Staff is currently working on six or seven petitions that were initiated by the Director of CED. According to the ordinance, she cannot initiate petitions, and they will come to the Planning Commission soon. Mr. Wilde explained that the Planning Department accepted the petitions on the basis of the Director representing the Mayor, but that procedure was questioned.
The Commissioners discussed the December schedule and the possibility of holding one meeting in December. The regular meeting on December 5 will remain the same, and if a meeting on the intermodal hub is needed, it will be moved to December 12. Mr. Wilde offered to find out as soon as possible if the intermodal matter can be postponed until January. He noted that the first Thursday in January is January 2, and he asked if the Commissioners preferred to move that meeting to January 9, which would require back-to-back meetings. The Planning Commission agreed to meet on January 2.
Regarding the intermodal hub, Chair Jonas referred to a letter from a concerned citizen asking how construction could start on the intermodal hub when it is in violation of current zoning. He asked the Staff to respond to that letter. Mr. Wilde offered to respond. For benefit of the Planning Commission, he explained that site preparation permits were obtained, and nothing inappropriate is being done.
The Planning Commission discussed the time scheduled for agenda items and the amount of time between items. Mr. Muir suggested that they be more aggressive and tighten the schedule. The Commissioners concurred. Mr. Wilde commented that in the past they have kept it tight, but Ms. Arnold and others were outspoken about being more realistic so the public does not have to wait. The opposite side of that is the time lapses when a matter finishes ahead of schedule. He acknowledged that it is difficult to predict how extensively petitions will be discussed. Ms. Seelig asked why it was necessary to schedules times for each item. Mr. Wheelwright replied that it is not required, but that has been the practice so the public will not have to sit through an entire meeting waiting for the petition they came to hear. People can plan on the petition being discussed at that time or possibly later, but not before. The Planning Commission directed the Staff to be more aggressive with the times for each agenda item.
Mr. Wheelwright reported that he had heard from the City Attorney regarding the Romney lawsuit against the City on the question of annexation. The small area master plan called for six units on a 300-acre parcel. When it went to the City Council, Councilman Tom Rogan made a motion to deny the request, and it passed. There was a scrambled effort to get the City Council to call back their motion, and the Council re-voted the motion and annexed the property. The applicants have used the denial as a basis for a lawsuit against the City because the water policy states that they cannot get water without being in the City unless annexation was denied by the City. The City lost the lawsuit, and the applicant is free to use City water and develop under the County zoning and slope regulations.
PUBLIC HEARING - Petition No. 410-618, Layton Avenue Planned Development Industrial Subdivision, by Mr. Rex Stallings and Mr. Jack Clark, requesting approval for a four-lot industrial subdivision without frontage on a public street, located at 810-900 West Layton Avenue and 1839 South 900 West. The area is zoned Light Manufacturing District “M-1".
Planner Jackie Gasparik reviewed the petition as written in the staff report. She explained that the proposal is to develop two lots left over from a project developed before this project was in the City. In 1966, this property was annexed into the City, and at that time, the small piece of Layton Avenue already existed. Prior to 1995, the Board of Adjustment could approve buildings to be constructed on property that did not have frontage on a public street under the current zoning ordinance, the Board of Adjustment cannot consider new construction on property lacking frontage on a dedicated street. This is a small industrial subdivision which has existed for a long time, and there is not much opportunity for planned development amenities. Because the Staff was unsure how the Planning Commission would feel about this situation, Condition 4 allows the Planning Commission some flexibility. This petition was taken to the Planned Development subcommittee and received permission to move forward with the Planning Commission process. Ms. Gasparik stated that the Staff will do its best to improve development through these two new lots and the buildings. They have talked with the applicant about making the best of the situation by making the street appearance as pleasing as possible. The Staff recommended approval subject to the conditions outlined in the staff report. Ms. Gasparik noted that the applicant is funding the project through the Planning Commission consideration phase and does not want to go through the process only to find that Mr. Stallings will not sell him the lots. Mr. Clark would like to purchase the property to be developed after preliminary approval, then he and Mr. Stallings would apply for final plat together and both sign the final plat as property owners. Mr. Clark requested that the Planning Commission modify Condition 1 to eliminate the language “.before any of the industrial lots can be sold separately.” Ms. Gasparik noted that the applicant is also requesting that a building permit be issued prior to recordation of the final plat, which can be added as Condition 5 if the Planning Commission grants that request.
Ms. Funk noted that Condition 3 refers to ownership and maintenance of Layton Avenue needing to be addressed and asked who is currently responsible for Layton Avenue and whether that would change with this process. Mr. Wheelwright replied that the property is owned by Mr. Stallings and has its own tax number. With this planned development approach, the four lots will be responsible collectively for maintenance of the private street portion of Layton Avenue. Ms. Funk asked if the shared responsibility would be through written agreement. Mr. Wheelwright stated that an association would be formed and bylaws written which would be approved by the Planning Director. Ms. Gasparik explained that the City adopted a planned development ordinance which requires the applicant to prepare a 60-year maintenance plan for any private street area. That plan is recorded with the plat and approved by the City Attorney’s office. A copy is also given to Salt Lake City Engineering. Ms. Funk asked if Condition 2 was adequate or whether language should be added to require an agreement approved by the Planning Director for maintenance of Layton Avenue. Ms. Gasparik replied that the Planning Commission could modify the condition for clarity, but the ordinance is specific about what is required.
Chair Jonas noted that one plat shows .001, .002, .003, .004, and .005, which are the five existing lots. He asked how lot .003 and .002 would compare to proposed lots 1 and 4. Ms. Gasparik explained the location of the lots and noted that they are being split between lots 2, 3, and the new lot 4.
Mr. Muir asked for clarification of the applicant’s request to eliminate language in Condition 1 to allow him to purchase the property prior to recordation of the subdivision. Mr. Wheelwright explained that the property is in Mr. Stallings’s name, so he would finalize the plat and sign the plat as the owner. Once the plat is recorded, he would own all the lots and some or all could be convey to a buyer. Mr. Clark wants to be able to buy the property for the two new lots in the middle and then go through with the final plat. Since he is funding all costs and design to this point, he wants to be sure he gets the benefit. Chair Jonas verified with Staff that Mr. Clark is buying two and a half existing lots, and once the plat is recorded, he will own two lots.
Chair Jonas asked for clarification of the request to add Condition 5. Ms. Gasparik explained that, typically, they sign off on a building permit that does not provide a certificate of occupancy until the final plat is recorded. The building permit counter Staff will check the plans, and she will sign off for the Planning Department, but the permit will be flagged in the computer and the inspectors will be informed that the applicant cannot have occupancy of the building without her clearance. Mr. Wheelwright explained that the general policy of the building permits counter is not to issue building permits until the final plat has been recorded, but exceptions are often requested, and sometimes those exceptions are granted.
Ms. Seelig asked if the certificate of occupancy pertains to the land as well as the building and how it can be insured that people do not occupy their space without a permit. Mr. Wheelwright replied that Utah Power will not sign up a new power customer until they have a certificate of occupancy from the City, which is one control that works well. Ms. Gasparik stated that most lending institutions will not close on a loan without a copy of the certificate of occupancy.
Chair Jonas referred to the fencing on lot 1 and asked if the Commission has any control. Ms. Gasparik felt the Planning Commission could definitely address that issue.
Jack Clark, the petitioner, stated that he would like to buy the property and obtain a building permit as soon as possible. The process has taken a long time, and he would like to move forward. Ms. Funk noted that Mr. Clark owns the property across the street and asked if he intended to keep both properties operating. Mr. Clark replied that he may keep both, or he might rent the old shop because it is too small for his business operation, and that is the reason he would like to build a new shop.
Chair Jonas opened the public hearing.
There was no comment.
Chair Jonas closed the public hearing.
Ms. Arnold entered the meeting at 6:55 p.m.
Ms. Funk asked about the barbed wire on top of the ornamental iron across the street. Mr. Wheelwright stated that the property is not part of this application, but that issue can be turned into zoning as an enforcement issue. Mr. Clark explained that the purpose of the barbed wire is to keep people from breaking in. He stated that he suffered from break-ins at least once a year before the barbed wire was installed, and now he is not bothered. Mr. Chambless asked about lighting. Mr. Clark replied that the lighting is very good, but that sometimes has an adverse affect because those who break in can see better while they are working. Mr. Chambless asked if Mr. Clark had a dog. Mr. Clark replied that he had a German Shepherd guard dog years ago, but he does not currently have a dog.
Regarding the fence, Mr. Wilde clarified that the zoning ordinance allows barbed-wire fences in the M-1 District, but in order to be in compliance, the property must have a 15-foot landscaped setback, and barbed wire is not allowed within that setback area. Therefore, this property is not in compliance and is subject to zoning enforcement. He recommended that the Planning Commission not tie this petition to zoning enforcement. Ms. Funk did not think they should make things difficult for the applicant, but the appearance of the street is bad as a result of the barbed wire. Mr. Muir asked if it would be appropriate for the Planning Commission to ask the Staff to look at CEPTED and security issues. If vandalism and theft is a problem in the entire neighborhood, the City should examine how these businesses can become more secure without looking like a war zone. Ms. Funk stated that she would like to see properties secured in ways that are more visually acceptable. Chair Jonas felt that developing the other side of the street and cleaning up the area would be the best security measure.
Motion for Petition # 410-618
Arla Funk moved to approve Petition #410-618 for the conditional use and planned development and preliminary subdivision approval, based on the findings of fact and recommendations outlined in the staff report with the following changes:
Revise Condition 2 to read, “An Agreement between the property owners for maintenance of Layton Avenue with an easement right to be given to public utilities be approved by the Planning Director.”
Revise Condition 1 to eliminate the final phrase, “.before any of the industrial lots can be sold separately.”
Add Condition 5 to read, “A building permit can be granted before recording of the final plat. ”
Robert “Bip” Daniels seconded the motion.
Chair Jonas asked if Ms. Funk had eliminated the language in Condition 2 as written by Staff and re-written the condition in its entirety. Ms. Funk verified that was correct.
Ms. Seelig stated that she would prefer to address the certificate of occupancy caveat with the building permit as part of the motion. Ms. Funk and Mr. Daniels accepted that amendment to the motion.
Findings of Fact
A. The proposed development is a planned development, which is a distinct category of a conditional use in the M-1 Zoning district, and the site contains more than the required minimum site area of 2 acres for a planned development according to Table 21A.150E2 of the Zoning Ordinance.
B. The proposed development is in harmony with the general purposes and intent of the Zoning Ordinance. In general, the proposed development is compatible with and implements the planning goals and objectives of the City, including applicable City Master Plans.
C. The existing private street, Layton Avenue, will provide necessary access to and from the development.
D. The internal circulation pattern for the proposed development has been reviewed and approved by the City’s Transportation Division.
E. Approval should be subject to recording an easement for the water and sewer lines as required by the Division of Public Utilities.
F. Appropriate buffering is provided to protect adjacent land uses from light, noise, and visual impacts.
G. The architecture and building materials are compatible with adjacent uses.
H. Both the existing landscaping together with the proposed landscaping provides adequate buffering for the proposed development. Installation of the proposed landscaping is required as approved by the Planning Director.
IX. The proposed development does not affect the preservation of historical, architectural, or environmental features.
J. The use and intent of the proposed planned development is compatible with neighboring industrial land uses.
K. The proposed planned development will not have a material net cumulative adverse impact on the neighborhood or the City.
L. The proposed development meets all applicable City codes and ordinances.
Planned Developments
A1. Approval of these four industrial lots without frontage onto a public street is only possible through a planned development process. The other lots and buildings were approved by the Board of Adjustment, but since 1995, the zoning ordinance was changed, and now such developments can only be approved by the Planning Commission as a planned development.
A2. Approval of the proposed development promotes a creative approach to the use of the subject property and its existing facilities.
A3. The proposed development is compatible with the area.
A4. The proposed development does not affect the preservation of natural topography, vegetation, geologic features, or the prevention of soil erosion.
A5. Preservation of historically significant or architecturally significant buildings is not applicable to the proposed project.
A6. The existing development has been designed with similar architecture as the existing buildings in the area and landscaping to complete the existing industrial subdivision.
A7. New landscaping and other amenities will be installed that will create a more pleasing environment than currently exists as required by the Planning Commission and the Planning Director.
A8. The proposed planned development does not involve any blighted structures or incompatible uses.
Conditions
1. The applicant must prepare a final plat for approval and signatures of the various City and County Departments to be recorded at Salt Lake County Recorder’s office.
2. An agreement between the property owners for maintenance of Layton Avenue with easement rights being given to Public Utilities be approved by the Planning Director.
3. Meeting all City departmental conditions.
4. Installation of landscaping as identified on the plan and other amenities as required and approved by the Planning Commission and the Planning Director.
5. A building permit can be issued prior to recordation of the final plat. A certificate of occupancy must be received before occupying the building.
Mr. Chambless, Mr. Daniels, Ms. Funk, Mr. Muir, and Mr. Seelig voted “Aye.” Ms. Arnold abstained from the vote. Mr. Diamond, Ms. McDonough, and Ms. Noda were not present. Mr. Jonas, as chair, did not vote. The motion carried.
PUBLIC HEARING - Petition No. 400-01-37, from Overland Development, represented by Ken Holman, requesting to rezone the properties located at 326-348 South 600 East and 550-558 East 300 South, from RO and RMF-35 to R-MU, Residential Mixed use zoning district.
The petitioner is also requesting approval of revised plans for, Petition 410-584, a Planned Development. The property is generally located on the block from 300 to 400 South and 500 to 600 East, in a Residential Mixed-Use R-MU zoning district.
Due to a conflict of interest, Chair Jonas recused himself from this petition and turned the Chair over to Vice Chair Arla Funk. Mr. Jonas left the meeting.
Planning Program Supervisor Cheri Coffey reviewed the petition as written in the staff report. She indicated the properties owned by the petitioner and noted that he would like to have all the properties zoned R-MU, which is a high-density residential zoning district that allows for a mixture of uses, mainly residential. The City Council looks at five criteria in the zoning ordinance for which the Staff needs to make findings, and Ms. Coffey reviewed each of the criteria. The first criterion is master plan compliance. This property is in East Downtown, and the East Downtown master plan is specific about the height in the area. On this block the height limit is 75 feet. In addition, the property is in the Central City Historic District, and the Landmarks Commission can limit the height further. The Bryant area off the 600 East block is a medium density residential area which calls for a height of 45 feet maximum in keeping with the historic character. It does not allow for new commercial development, so even though the R-MU District would allow for mixed use along that frontage, the master plan does not support it. If the Planning Commission recommends rezoning this portion of the property to R-MU, the Staff requests that the height be limited to 45 feet and that no new commercial development occur on that corridor. Ms. Coffey noted that the Brownstone sub-area of the master plan is a more urban neighborhood, and both Phases I and II are compliant. She stated that the higher density zoning also supports the transportation master plan which encourages higher density to support light rail.
Ms. Coffey stated that the second criterion is whether the rezone would be harmonious with the overall immediate area. The Staff has determined that the surrounding lots are consistent with the R-MU District. In terms of adversely affecting adjoining properties, most of the property on that block contains modern commercial development. The property along 400 South currently zoned CC is before the City Council to consider rezoning for a transit development, 75-foot-high zoning district. Other uses on the block are one-story commercial development.
Compatibility with overlay zones is the third criterion. Ms. Coffey explained why the Staff believed zoning to R-MU was compatible and why they recommended keeping the 15-foot setback and 45-foot height limit. She stated that, in zoning the Phase III area R-MU, they need to be sure the developer does not get the impression that the density allowed in the R-MU district will be allowed in that location, because it is in the Historic District. Even though this petition will come back to the Planning Commission through the planned development process, the Staff recommended that the overall building design review be designated to the Landmarks Commission so the developer does not have to go back and forth between Commissions. In this instance, the Landmarks Commission would have the ultimate say. Ms. Coffey noted that the property is also in the Ground Water Source Protection Overlay Zone – Secondary Recharge District which protects the underlying aquifer, and some allowed uses are regulated to be sure they do not interfere with the aquifer.
Ms. Coffey commented on the adequacy of public facilities. She explained that this petition was reviewed by major departments, and there were no issues. The applicant will be required to meet City standards.
The Staff recommended that the Planning Commission forward a favorable recommendation to the City Council to rezone the properties from RO and RMF-35 to R-MU with the conditions outlined in the staff report.
Mr. Muir recalled a conversation with Roger Evans about adjusting height in the medium density zones from 45 feet to 50 feet and asked what happened after that conversation. Mr. Wilde explained that 45 feet reflects the master plan, and if that becomes 50 feet to reflect building code requirements, that would be reasonable. Mr. Muir felt they could design nicer units if they were allowed 50 feet. He asked if Staff was suggesting that the Landmarks Commission have design review authority and that the Planning Commission accept their decision. He asked if that meant the Planning Commission would waive its rights for review. Vice-Chair Funk replied that the Landmarks Commission would have the final say anyway, so the Staff is trying to streamline the process. Ms. Coffey explained that Phases II and III would come back to the Planning Commission for layout approval. The Landmarks Commission would only have final say on building design.
Prior to taking public comment on the rezoning request, Mr. Wilde suggested that the Planning Commission could have Ms. Coffey review the planned development staff report so the Commissioners’ comments could address both staff reports.
Ms. Coffey reiterated that this project is being proposed in three phases. The first phase was reviewed by the Planning Commission in June, and the applicant is returning because they want to move the parking to the rear of the building rather than under the building. The first phase will have approximately 208 units, and the total development will have approximately 430 units. The first phase meets all zoning requirements except the underground parking structure which will encroach into the rear yard setback. That encroachment will occur in all three phases, so Staff is asking that the Planning Commission modify that rear yard setback in the first phase. Ms. Coffey explained that the amenities for the structure in Phase I will be within Phase I, but for Phases II and III, the amenities will be on top of the parking structure. As part of the approval, for Phases II & III a condition should be included to require the amenities. The maximum height is 75 feet. Ms. Coffey noted that the Landmarks Commission approved the design of Phase I on November 6 and found that it was compatible with Historic District regulations. The Transportation Division has reviewed this petition and finds that access is adequate. The project is required to have 104 off-street parking stalls for Phase I, and the applicant proposes constructing 304 underground parking stalls to meet the parking requirement for the entire development. Cross-over easements to the parking structure will be required for Phases II and III because they will be on separate parcels for financing reasons. As part of Phases II & III, a conditional use will be needed for off-street parking to access the parking in Phase I. The utilities must meet City requirements, and no buffering is required in this zoning district.
Ms. Coffey stated that the Landmarks Commission approved demolition of most of the contributing buildings on the block through an economic hardship review. On November 5, the Landmarks Commission rejected the economic hardship panel’s findings for the Juel Apartments on 600 East and denied the demolition. That decision is currently being appealed. If the applicant is unable to demolish the Juel Apartments, they will be incorporated into the Phase III development. There are no environmental features associated with this site. The Staff believes there will be no net cumulative adverse impact, and the proposal meets the planned development requirements.
Ms. Funk asked when the mid-block way is scheduled for construction. Ms. Coffey stated that she understood it needed to be developed for fire access.
Mr. Chambless asked about the exact problems with the Phase I parking proposal. Ken Holman, representing the applicant, explained that two levels of underground parking were originally designed, but two issues came up. They were under the impression that they could design a building 90 feet tall because they were outside the corridor. As it turned out, they were restricted to 75 feet, and the only way to make that work was to remove a level of parking and drop the building. This process helped with engineering problems because structurally it was easier to deal with some of the issues. Mr. Holman stated that they were trying to look ahead to other phases of the project and could foresee a difficult time meeting parking requirements for the second phase. The parking was designed to accommodate Phases I and II, and they would likely design a more extensive parking structure under Phase III. He commented on mid-block access and stated that they do not need it to address fire issues at this time. Phase I was designed to get all the way around the building and out 300 South or 500 East. This will accommodate any fire protection. The mid-block access will be needed for Phases II and III, and the intent is to build it to 300 South and the end of the building. Mr. Holman expressed appreciation for the time the Planning Department has spent on this matter and stated that the Staff has helped make this a better project. He stated that he accepted all the findings and conditions recommended by Staff.
Mr. Muir commented on the parking structure and encouraged Mr. Holman to make a sidewalk connection in Phase II from the interblock connection that runs east to west to encourage a viable pedestrian connection to 300 South.
Mr. Daniels was delighted that a portion of the housing units were designated to be low-income or affordable units. He asked about the retail portion and asked if there would be any financial deference given to non-profit or community-based organizations. Mr. Holman explained that they felt it was important to open up the mixed-use element in the project by providing retail, and he had not anticipated the type of situation suggested by Mr. Daniels. Retail is part of their financial package, so it would not be space they could donate to the community. Mr. Daniels asked about the square footage of the units. Mr. Holman replied that they will be one- and two-bedroom units ranging in size from 748 square feet to 1,000 square feet.
Vice-Chair Funk was concerned about open space and asked about the width of the proposed courtyard. Mr. Holman replied that the courtyard is 60 feet wide.
Vice-Chair Funk opened the public hearing.
There was no comment.
Vice-Chair Funk closed the public hearing.
Ms. Funk felt the open space was limited based on the number of units. She understood there would be additional open space in Phases II and III, but if something should happen and they are not built, she wondered if they would be happy with the amount of open space in Phase I. Based on the amount of density, Mr. Muir asked if they should consider pocket parks rather than trying to achieve open space on individual parcels. Vice-Chair Funk did not think Salt Lake City had space for pocket parks in this neighborhood. Ms. Seelig referred to the green area in the middle of the Phase I plan and asked if that area was landscaping. Mr. Holman replied that it is landscaping, and landscaping is also proposed around the perimeter of the building. Ms. Coffey noted that the applicant is proposing to add recreational amenities within the building.
Mr. Chambless asked if the project envisions children since a large number of the units are two bedrooms and some may be three bedrooms. Mr. Holman did not anticipate a high number of children, and he believed most would be infants or toddlers. The target market is in the age rangeof low 20's to mid-30's. Mr. Chambless asked if there would be sufficient space for children to play. Mr. Holman felt it was hard to envision what the courtyard would look like, but he believed it will be one-third of the width of a football field and as long as a football field. Mr. Muir asked if they could design the courtyard to invite more use by adding benches. Mr. Holman favored that idea and felt benches would be nice close to the building.
Ms. Arnold asked the exact number of one- and two-bedroom units. Mr. Holman stated that he did not know, but he estimated that it would be approximately 50-50. Ms. Arnold stated that Mr. Holman does not know if there will be children, and that will be driven by the market and what they charge for rent. Mr. Holman stated that, based on fire, life, and safety issues, they would have the ability to regulate the number of children based on the number of bedrooms.
Mr. Daniels suggested that Mr. Holman consider moving the seating area into the mid portion of the courtyard to invite people into the open space and away from tenants’ windows. Mr. Muir felt benches would be appropriate by the street on 500 East near the commercial area.
Mr. Muir questioned how they could resolve the open space concern. Ms. Seelig concurred that open space was an important consideration, but she believed the design shown with landscaping was appropriate. She was curious about the amount of parking near the TRAX line. Mr. Daniels pointed out that a certain amount of parking is necessary if regulated.
Ms. Arnold commented on the parking and used the Brigham Apartments as an example of projects that charge for parking stalls. Mr. Holman stated that each unit will have one free parking space and will be charged additional rent for additional spaces. Ms. Arnold noted that parking is expensive and precious, and rather than paying, people will park in the street, which creates other issues for neighboring areas. She asked if there was any assurance that this would not happen. Mr. Wilde stated that the City’s practice has been to require parking, but they have not restricted the ability to charge for parking. This has been an issue that has been addressed several times over the years. However, since it is easy to absorb the cost of parking into the rent, the City has concluded that it is not practical to regulate a separate fee for parking.
Motion for Petition No. 400-01-37
In the matter of Petition 400-01-37, from Overland Development, Prescott Muir moved to forward a positive recommendation to the City Council to rezone the properties from RO and RMF-35 to R-MU based upon the findings of fact and with Conditions 1 through 5 with the modification to sub-item 3 on Item 2 that the height of buildings on 600 East be adjusted to 50 feet unless the Historic Landmarks Commission approves an alternative height. Tim Chambless seconded the motion.
Findings of Fact
A. The East Downtown Master Plan identifies the property along 600 East for medium density residential development at a 45-foot height limit with no new commercial development. The East Downtown Master Plan, through the update of the 1995 Zoning Rewrite Project, identifies higher densities along 500 East and 300 South. Amending the zoning from RO to R-MU is consistent with the Master Plan. The R-MU zoning district will allow an increase in density and will eliminate the off-site parking issue. Ensuring compliance with the master plan height policies requires limiting the maximum height and prohibiting new commercial development along 600 East if the zoning is changed from RMF-35 to R-MU. Restrictions on both height and commercial activity along 600 East should be required to be consistent with the master plan as part of the rezone approval.
B. The East Downtown neighborhood is the designated high density neighborhood of Salt Lake City. Structures in the immediate vicinity include a mix of low-scale commercial buildings, apartment buildings, and low-density residential buildings. Most of the area in the surrounding blocks consists of medium- and high-density residential as well as commercial zoning.
C. The density and proposed zoning are compatible with the adjacent properties. The proposed residential development is consistent with adjacent land uses. Small scale commercial development fronting on 500 East or 300 South will be consistent with adjacent land uses and will not adversely impact adjacent properties. Commercial land uses should not be allowed to front along 600 East.
D. The subject property is within the Central City Historic District; therefore, the Salt Lake City Historic Landmark Commission has final design authority, including establishing the maximum height of new construction to ensure compatibility with the historic district. The proposed zoning is not necessarily incompatible with the historic district regulations. Due to the importance of 600 East in the Central City Historic District and the policies of the East Downtown Master Plan, the buildings on 600 East should be limited to 45 feet in height, and the front yard setback be a minimum of 15 feet unless the Historic Landmark Commission finds that the proposed building of Phase III would be compatible with the historic district with a higher height less setback.
The project is a Planned Development, and the Planning Commission has authority to review and approve the final design of the buildings in the development. However, since the property is within an H Historic Preservation Overlay Zone and the regulations governing the overlay zone take precedence when there is a conflict between the base zoning and the overlay zone, Staff recommends the Planning Commission delegate final design approval to the Planning Director with the directive that final approval be consistent with the Historic Landmark Commission’s approval.
The subject properties are within the Groundwater Source Protection Overlay Secondary Recharge Area. All uses must comply with the provisions of Section 21A.34.060, Groundwater Protection Overlay Zone.
E. The subject properties are in a developed area of the City. Public facilities and services are already available. The development proposal will have to meet City standards and demonstrate that there are adequate services to meet the needs of the project.
Conditions
1. The project be considered in three phases and the zoning for each phase not take effect until a building permit is issued for that phase.
2. Development along 600 East be approved only with the following stipulations:
- Prohibit new commercial uses along the 600 East frontage;
- Provide a 15 foot landscaped front yard setback along 600 East unless the Historic Landmark Commission approves an alternative design;
- Limit the height on buildings along 600 East to 50 feet unless the Historic Landmark Commission approves an alternative design.
1. The mid-block walkway between 500 and 600 East be improved with landscaping and pedestrian oriented amenities and that the authority to grant approval of the final landscaping plan be granted to the Planning Director.
2. Phase II and Phase III be required to be processed as planned developments with approval by the Planning Commission.
3. Approval of the final design of the buildings is delegated to the Planning Director to be consistent with the Historic Landmark Commission approval.
Ms. Arnold, Mr. Chambless, Mr. Daniels, Mr. Muir, and Ms. Seelig voted “Aye.” Mr. Jonas, Mr. Diamond, Ms. McDonough, and Ms. Noda were not present. Arla Funk, as vice-chair, did not vote. The motion carried.
Motion for Petition No. 410-584
In the matter of Petition No. 410-584, as requested by Ken Holman of Block 38 Associates, and based upon the findings of fact, Prescott Muir moved to recommend conceptual approval for the three-phase residential mixed-use planned development generally located between block 300 to 400 South and 500 to 600 East and final approval for the first phase building being located at approximately 325 South 500 East with the nine conditions proposed by Staff and the modification to Condition 4 that the height limit be changed from 45 feet to 50 feet on Phase II. Robert “Bip” Daniels seconded the motion.
Mr. Daniels referred to Condition 7 and the reference to cross access. During the Staff presentation, Ms. Coffey called it a cross-over access and he asked which it should be. Ms. Coffey explained that it is a cross-over easement.
Findings of Fact
A. The site meets the required acreage for Planned Developments in the R-MU zoning district.
B. Phase I meets all of the zoning requirements for the R-MU zoning district except the rear yard setback. Staff recommends the Planning Commission modify the rear yard setback requirements through the planned development process in accordance with Section 21A.54.150.C.
Phase I of the proposed Planned Development is consistent with the East Downtown and Transportation Master Plans in that it provides high-density residential development in the East Downtown neighborhood near the University Trax Line Station. Final design proposals for Phase II and III must be submitted to the Planning Commission and Historic Landmark Commission for approval. Those future approvals may impact the overall density of the development. The maximum height for buildings in Phase III should be limited to 45 feet with a 15-foot front yard setback or other dimensions compatible with the character of the historic district as determined by the Historic Landmark Commission.
C. The Salt Lake City Transportation Division has determined that access is adequate.
D. The Salt Lake City Transportation Division has determined that internal circulation is adequate. The first phase will exceed the number of required off-street parking stalls. Crossover easements will be required to ensure access to the parking on the lot of Phase I for Phases II and III. A conditional use will be required for off-site parking as part of the approval process for Phases II and III. The final design of the access roads should include differentiated paving materials, landscaping, and pedestrian amenities.
E. Public Utilities are adequate. The applicant will be required to meet all applicable utility codes prior to the issuance of a building permit.
F. Adjacent land uses do not require buffering from the proposed apartment complex. Buffering of the apartments from adjacent land uses is adequate. Retail space in the project should be prohibited along the 600 East frontage.
G. The architecture is different, but compatible with historic high-density housing in the neighborhood. The Historic Landmark Commission has approved the design of the first phase structure and will review future phases. The project is a Planned Development, and the Planning Commission has authority to review and approve the final design of the buildings in the development. However, since the property is within an H Historic Preservation Overlay Zone and the regulations governing the overlay zone take precedence when there is a conflict between the base zoning and the overlay zone, Staff recommends the Planning Commission delegate final design approval of the buildings for Phase II and Phase III to the Planning Director with the directive that final approval be consistent with the Historic Landmark Commission’s approval. The final approved design for Phases II and III may be substantially different than what is shown on the attached schematic drawing.
H. Landscaping may be adequate but may need further review upon final development of the site plan. Staff recommends that the Planning Commission delegate final approval of the landscaping plan to the Planning Director. Staff recommends the maintenance of a 15-foot landscape setback along 600 East as part of the future Phase III development or as otherwise required by the Historic Landmark Commission. Staff recommends the final mid-block walkway design and improvements are subject to Planning Director approval.
I. The Historic Landmark Commission found that an economic hardship would occur if the applicant were required to renovate most of the structures on the block, and therefore, the demolitions were allowed to occur. There are no sensitive environmental features associated with this site.
J. Operating and delivery hours of the commercial land uses must comply with the Salt Lake County Health Department regulations and should not negatively impact adjacent residential land uses.
K. The proposed planned development furthers the goals of the master plan and will implement master plan policies of the City. The final design of Phase II and Phase III will require approval from the Planning Commission as well as the Historic Landmark Commission.
L. The development will be required to meet all applicable codes prior to the issuance of any building permit.
Conditions
1. The Planning Commission modifies the rear yard setback requirements.
2. The final landscape plan and mid-block walkway design be approved by the Planning Director.
3. The 600 East frontage maintain a 15-foot landscaped setback or an alternative as approved by the Salt Lake City Historic Landmark Commission to maintain the historic character of the street.
4. The buildings along 600 East maintain a 50-foot limit or an alternative as approved by the Salt Lake City Historic Landmark Commission to maintain the historic scale and character of the street.
5. New commercial uses are prohibited along the 600 East frontage.
6. Phase II and III be submitted to the Planning Commission for final approval.
7. The applicant grant an easement for Phase II and Phase III to ensure cross-over easements are allowed for parking and access to the amenities on the lot of Phase I.
8. The Planning Commission grant final building design approval to the Planning Director for Phases II and III with the directive that the design be consistent with the approval by the Historic Landmark Commission.
9. The Planning Commission allow the applicant two years to obtain final conditional use approval for Phases II and III.
Ms. Arnold, Mr. Chambless, Mr. Daniels, Mr. Muir, and Ms. Seelig voted “Aye.” Mr. Diamond, Mr. Jonas, Ms. McDonough, and Ms. Noda were not present. Arla Funk, as chair, did not vote. The motion carried.
Mr. Wilde suggested that the Planning Commission make an additional motion to amend the master plan to reflect the 45-foot to 50-foot adjustment. If the City Attorney’s office has concerns because that amendment was not noticed, it can be brought back. If the intent of the Planning Commission is to make an amendment to 50 feet, that can be done acknowledging that, if the City Attorney expects them to re-advertise and come back through the process, the burden would be upon the applicant to pursue that amendment. Otherwise, it would remain at 45 feet. Mr. Muir felt that was reasonable. Ms. Funk felt it would be better to modify the motion to say that the buildings along 600 East maintain not more than a 50-foot height limit. The master plan could then be amended depending upon the outcome. After further discussion, Mr. Muir proposed an additional motion to support the 50-foot height limit.
Motion
Prescott Muir moved to amend the master plan to adopt 50 feet as a limit with the proviso that, if public notification is required, the applicant can proceed under a 45-foot limitation knowing that it has been duly advertised. Tim Chambless seconded the motion. Ms. Arnold, Mr. Chambless, Mr. Daniels, Mr. Muir, and Ms. Seelig voted “Aye.” Mr. Diamond, Mr. Jonas, Ms. McDonough, and Ms. Noda were not present. Arla Funk, as chair, did not vote. The motion carried.
The Salt Lake City Planning Commission Meeting adjourned at 8:05 p.m.