SALT LAKE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION
451 South State Street Room 126
Present from the Planning Commission were Chairperson Ralph Becker, Richard J. Howa, Jim McRea, Kimball Young, Judi Short, Ann Roberts, Gilbert Iker and Aria Funk. Diana Kirk was excused.
Present from the Planning Staff were Deputy Planning Director Brent B. Wilde, Doug Dansie and Margaret Pahl. Planning Director William T. Wright was excused.
A roll is being kept with the minutes of all who attended the Planning Commission meeting. The meeting was called to order at 5:00 p.m. by Mr. Becker. Minutes of the meeting are presented in agenda order, not necessarily as cases were heard at the Planning Commission meeting. 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
Mr. Young moved to approve the minutes of October 19, 1995 as presented. Ms. Roberts seconded the motion. Ms. Funk, Ms. Roberts, Mr. Young, Mr. Howa and Mr. Iker voted "Aye." Mr. McRea, Ms. Kirk and Ms. Short were not present. Mr. Becker, as Chair, did not vote. The motion passed.
PLANNING ISSUES and PETITIONS
PUBLIC HEARING - Request by Rick PI ewe. for Sotempco Assoc. Ltd. for approval of the 838 East South Temple Condominiums in a Residential “RMF-35" zoning district.
Ms. Margaret Pahl presented the staff report outlining the major issues of the case and the staff recommendation, a copy of which is filed with the minutes.
Mr. Rick Plewe, the petitioner, was present for this portion of the Planning Commission meeting and gave a brief outline of their proposal. Mr. Plewe informed the Planning Commission that they had studied many other condominium projects in order to create a project that would be a success with a long term maintenance reserve. He stated that they were in agreement with the staff report and requested the Planning Commission approve this request.
Mr. Howa asked if the bylaws were incorporated in the Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions.
Ms. Pahl responded in the affirmative and added that she had carefully reviewed them.
Mr. Becker opened the hearing to the public and asked if anyone wished to address the Planning Commission. Upon receiving no response, he closed the hearing to the public and opened it for Planning Commission discussion.
Mr. Howa moved to approve the request for condominium conversion based on the analysis in the staff report. Ms. Short seconded the motion. Ms. Funk, Ms. Roberts, Mr. Young, Ms. Short, Mr. Howa and Mr. Iker voted “Aye." Mr. McRea and Ms. Kirk were not present. Mr. Becker, as Chair, did not vote. The motion passed.
Mr. Richard Allen, attorney for the project, asked at what time the approval of this
request could be considered final. Mr. Wilde stated that the staff would review the
ordinance on that issue and let him know.
PUBLIC HEARING - Petition No. 400-95-79 by Salt Lake City Community and Economic Development Department requesting Salt Lake City to amend the Salt Lake City Zoning Ordinance to allow a temporary jail facility in an Industrial “M-1" zoning district.
This item was canceled and pulled from the Planning Commission agenda.
PUBLIC HEARING - Receive public comment on revisions to Chapter 23 of the Zoning Ordinance. Sign Regulations.
Mr. Wilde stated that on October 11, 1 995, the staff had held a very thorough briefing with the sign industry and identified several areas where Planning Commission direction was desired. Copies of these issues and the staff's recommendations were handed out to the Planning Commission, a copy of which is filed with the minutes. Mr. Wilde explained that areas of significant change had been highlighted in yellow.
Mr. Doug Dansie stated that the handout indicated that the sign industry's concerns had been resolved relative to pole signs as listed in Item #1 but added that Mr. Kirk Brimley, representing the sign industry, had informed him that they still had concerns about the lack of pole signs. Mr. Dansie stated that an additional item, street frontage on freeways, needed to be added to the list. He stated that the staff felt the ordinance would not allow a freeway to be considered frontage due to lack of access and stated that the definition in the ordinance needed to be modified in order to allow pole signs on the freeway side of a property.
A discussion followed on whether or not freeway signage should be allowed and the freeway considered street frontage, whether or not other signs should be reduced in size to compensate for a sign being added to the freeway frontage, whether or not freeway-oriented signs were signs or served more as advertising, a concern about the size of freeway-oriented signs that would be allowed for large properties and whether or not a cap or maximum size needed to be established, and a concern about creating a massive pole sign similar to a billboard for each property with freeway street frontage.
A discussion also took place on whether or not pole signs for private schools should be allowed since most of the schools were located in residential districts.
The discussion included the fact that the City did not have the authority to regulate the public schools, many of which had large pole signs.
Mr. Becker opened the hearing to the public and asked if anyone wished to address the Planning Commission.
Mr. Keith Baker, representing Impact Signs, stated that they were receiving more requests for pole signs for Junior High and Elementary Schools. He requested the Planning Commission keep the needs of the business community in mind when making their decision on freeway-oriented pole signs. He stated that the sign industry was in agreement with the majority of the ordinance but requested the option be available to examine this ordinance in the future after everyone had had the opportunity to work with it. Mr. Wilde stated that the ordinance could be amended in the future if a problem occurred consistently but added that it would not be amended simply because a particular request for a permit would have to be denied.
Mr. Richard Wilson, representing Twentieth Century lights, stated that he felt the staff had done a good job and that he endorsed what had been done to this point. Mr. Wilson said that business owners should not be penalized just because they owned property with two frontages.
Mr. Iker stated that the Planning Commission did not intend to penalize property owners with multiple street frontage but felt that if a pole sign was erected on the freeway side of the property, the signage on the additional street frontage did not need to be as large as the freeway-oriented signage.
Mr. Wilson stated that few people realized how expensive large pole signs were and size became a very restrictive item.
Mr. Julio Garreaud, owner of Electrical Sign Systems and a member of the Intermountain Sign Association, stated that it needed to be made clear that this ordinance did not relate to billboards. Mr. Garreaud stated that he believed Salt Lake City's ordinance was the best sign ordinance in the state of Utah.
Mr. Richard Gillies, representing Gillies Signs, asked what the City intended to do about people who worked on and installed signs without the proper licensing to do so and how the ordinance could correct that problem.
Mr. Wilde stated that the ordinance made specific reference to the State licensing requirements.
Mr. Howa stated that that problem was not unique to the sign industry and explained that the ordinance could not guarantee that people installing signs had the proper license to permit them to do that.
Upon receiving no further requests to address the Planning Commission, Mr. Becker closed the hearing to the public and opened it for Planning Commission discussion.
Mr. Wilde stated that the staff had made a recommendation on every item with the exception of Item #3, “ Sign Removal within 30 Days", on which the staff was requesting Planning Commission direction. A discussion followed including a recommendation from the Attorney's Office to remove it due to lack of enforcement, whether or not it should be retained for those instances when it might be desirable to enforce, and the possibility of fining property owners in violation of the ordinance.
Mr. Young moved to retain the ordinance as it is currently written. Mr. McRea seconded the motion. Ms. Funk, Ms. Roberts, Mr. Young, Ms. Short, Mr. Howa, Mr. McRea and Mr. Iker vote “Aye." Ms. Kirk was not present. Mr. Becker, as Chair, did not vote. The motion passed.
Mr. Becker asked the Planning Commission if anyone disagreed with the staff recommendations on the remainder of the sign ordinance issues.
Mr. Iker suggested the Planning Commission address Item #4, “Pole Signs for Schools in Residential, Institutional and Public Lands Districts". A short discussion followed on the impacts of pole signs on residential neighborhoods, the fact that the City does not have the authority to regulate pole signs for public schools and whether the private schools should have the same opportunity to erect pole signs.
Mr. Howa disclosed the fact that he was a football coach at Judge High School and that his children attended Rowland Hall School and asked if anyone believed that constituted a conflict of interest. The Planning Commission agreed they did not feel Mr. Howa had a conflict of interest on this matter. Mr. Howa moved to not allow pole signs in Residential, Institutional and Public Lands districts. Ms. Roberts seconded the motion. Ms. Funk, Ms. Roberts, Mr. Young, Ms. Short, Mr. Howa, Mr. McRea and Mr. Iker vote “Aye." Ms. Kirk was not present. Mr. Becker, as Chair, did not vote. The motion passed.
Mr. Howa addressed Item #9 and stated that there was a difference between construction and new development signs and stated that new development signs might be posted for a longer period of time than construction signs. Mr. Howa moved to retain the current separate definitions of these two signs. Mr. Young seconded the motion. Ms. Funk, Ms. Roberts, Mr. Young, Ms. Short, Mr. Howa, Mr. McRea and Mr. Iker vote “Aye." Ms. Kirk was not present. Mr. Becker, as Chair, did not vote. The motion passed.
Mr. Young moved to accept the staff recommendations on the remaining sign ordinance issues to include Items #1, #2, #5, #6, #7, #8, #1 0, #11, #12, #13, and #14. Mr. Howa seconded the motion. Ms. Funk, Ms. Roberts, Mr. Young, Ms. Short, Mr. Howa, Mr. McRea and Mr. Iker vote “Aye." Ms. Kirk was not present. Mr. Becker, as Chair, did not vote. The motion passed.
It was agreed the additional issues, Item #1 5 II Allowing Freeways to be Considered as Street Frontage", as identified by the staff at this meeting, and the issue of whether or not a maximum size allowance was needed, would need further study and would be brought back to the Planning Commission at their next meeting for a decision.
Mr. Howa moved to adopt Chapter 23 of the Zoning Ordinance, Sign Regulations, as presented to include the corrections handed out to the Planning Commission and the incorporation of the above sign ordinance items, acknowledging that the freeway street frontage and maximum size issues would be brought before them at their next meeting during the “fine tuning" process. Ms. Roberts seconded the motion. Ms. Funk, Ms. Roberts, Mr. Young, Ms. Short, Mr. Howa, Mr. McRea and Mr. Iker vote “Aye." Ms. Kirk was not present. Mr. Becker, as Chair, did not vote. The motion passed.
Update on status of major planning projects and master plans.
Mr. Wilde reviewed the master plan and project status handout that had been provided to the Planning Commission, explaining the status of each item. A copy of this handout is filed with the minutes.
Update on fine tuning of Zoning Ordinance Rewrite Project.
Mr. Wilde stated that the City Council would need to take action on this matter before the end of the year. He stated that a public hearing for the Planning Commission had been scheduled for November 16, 1995. Mr. Wilde requested the Planning Commission review the materials handed out to them for the hearing scheduled for their next meeting. Mr. Wilde stated that a briefing would be held on November 8th to answer any questions the public might have to accept public input. He added that the staff would also be working with the City Attorney's Office relative to their comments and any changes that might need to be made. Subcommittee report on communication tower issues.
Mr. Fred Brown, representing JM Consulting, and Mr. John Bristol, representing Western Wireless Communications, were present for this portion of the Planning Commission meeting.
Mr. McRea stated that their subcommittee had met on November 1st and additional community council representatives, Mr. Fred Fife and Mr. Jerry Bergosh, had been in attendance. Mr. McRea stated that a general rule of thumb was that the more the industry expanded, the less need there was for absolute height of equipment. He stated that they would be providing a photographic presentation of the equipment used in the industry and a planning report briefings and hearings on this matter prior to the end of this year.
OTHER BUSINESS
Mr. Wilde informed the Planning Commission that the City Council had requested a briefing on the light rail issues on November 14th. He stated that if that briefing resulted in any changes, the matter would come back to the Planning Commission for their recommendation.
There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 7:15 p.m.