SALT LAKE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
In Room 326 of the City & County Building
451 South State Street, Salt Lake City, Utah
Present for the Planning Commission meeting were Chairperson Matthew Wirthlin, Vice Chair Mary Woodhead, and Commissioners Peggy McDonough, Susie McHugh, Prescott Muir, Tim Chambless, Babs De Lay, Kathy Scott, and Robert Forbis. Commissioner Frank Algarin was excused from the meeting.
Present from the Planning Division were George Shaw, Planning Director; Kevin LoPiccolo, Planning Manager; Marilynn Lewis, Principal Planner; Nole Walkingshaw, Zoning Administrator; Ana Valdemoros, Associate Planner; Casey Stewart, Principle Planner; and Tami Hansen, Senior Secretary. Staff from additional City departments included: Laura Kirwan, City attorney, and Brad Stewart from public utilities.
A roll is being kept of all who attended the Planning Commission Meeting. Chairperson Wirthlin called the meeting to order at 5:45 p.m.
A field trip was held prior to the meeting. Planning Commissioners present were: Tim Chambless, Kathy Scott, and Mary Woodhead. Planning Staff present were: George Shaw, Casey Stewart, and Ana Valdemoros.
APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES from Wednesday, October 24, 2007.
(This item was heard at 5:46 p.m.)
Commissioner Muir made a motion to approve the minutes with noted changes. Commissioner McDonough seconded the motion. All in favor voted, "Aye," the minutes were approved unanimously.
REPORT OF THE DIRECTOR
(This item was heard at 5:49 p.m.)
Downtown Master Plan update.
UNFINISHED BUSINESS
(This item was heard at 5:56 p.m.)
Petition 400-07-19, Amend Conditional Use Regulations (Previous Planning Commission public hearing held on November 14, 2007)—a request by the Salt Lake City Council to amend sections of the Salt Lake City Zoning Ordinance relating to Conditional Uses in general and specifically focusing on the Table of Permitted and Conditional Uses, the criteria by which Conditional Uses are reviewed and approved, and the powers and duties of the Planning Commission relating to Conditional Uses. On July 17, 2007, the City Council passed Ordinance Number 49 of 2007 which placed a moratorium on all Conditional Uses in residentially zoned districts and those abutting residentially zoned areas throughout the City and this petition is in response to that moratorium
Petition 400-05-16, Building and Site Design Review (Previous Planning Commission public hearing held on November 14, 2007)—a request by the Salt Lake City Planning Commission, requesting amendments to the zoning ordinance relating to Conditional Building and Site Design Review. In 2005, the City Council Adopted the Conditional Building and Site Design Review Process as part of the Walkable Communities Ordinance. The proposed text amendment will allow for a review of design related requests, which have been previously approved through the Conditional Use process to be reviewed through the Building and Site Design Review Process. Items that are proposed to be reviewed through the Building and Site Design Review Process, rather than the Conditional Use process, include: additional building height, building façade materials, minimum building setbacks and first floor glass requirements.
Chairperson Wirthlin recognized Nole Walkingshaw as staff representative.
Members of the Commission discussed and made proposed changes to the language of the Conditional Uses Text.
Commissioner McDonough made a motion regarding Petitions 400-05-16 and 400-07-19 that based on the findings listed in the staff report, the Planning Commission forward a favorable recommendation to the City Council with the following changes to the Conditional Uses Text:
1. The question mark be removed in Section 21A.26.080 regarding value retail/membership wholesale, under Permitted and Conditional Uses, by District Commercial Districts, CS1 on page 3.
2. Under 2. Use Compatibility Condition F should read: Detrimental concentration of existing non-conforming or conditional uses substantially similar to the use proposed within a quarter mile radius.
3. Under 3. Design Compatibility, Condition A should read, The architectural character of the community and the surrounding neighborhoods when required by the City’s Compatible Infill Ordinance or standards required by the City’s Historical Ordinance; and the rest of A. should be delete.
4. Under 3. Design Compatibility, condition C which states, the proposed development preserves historical, architectural and environmental features of the property, should be deleted.
Commissioner De Lay seconded the motion.
Commissioners De Lay, Forbis, Scott, McHugh, Chambless, McDonough, Muir, and Woodhead voted, “Aye,” the motion passed unanimously.
(Line by line changes that were made to the Salt Lake City Zoning Ordinance by the Commissioners during the meeting will be included in the final ordinance draft).
Petition 400-07-18, Riparian Corridor Overlay District continuation (Previous Planning Commission public hearing held on November 14, 2007)—on July 17, 2007 the City Council enacted a moratorium and Temporary Land Use Regulations for Non-Ephemeral above Ground Streambed Corridors. The purpose, as stated in this draft zoning regulation, is to minimize erosion, stabilize stream banks, protect water quality, preserve fish and wildlife habitats, as well as preserve aesthetic values of natural watercourses and wetland areas. Planning Staff has created the new draft Riparian Corridor Overlay District to address protection for the streams east of I-215, which will include the Jordan River. Also proposed are minor revisions to the existing Lowland Conservancy Overlay District to remove the Jordan River and focus on streams west of I-215 and the Surplus Canal.
Chairperson Wirthlin recognized Marilynn Lewis as staff representative.
Members of the Commission deliberated the language of the Riparian Corridor Overlay ordinance.
Chairperson Wirthlin opened the public portion of the hearing.
Cindy Cromer (816 East 100 South) urged the Commission to address the City Council in person on January 15. She reminded the Commission that they initiated the legislation although they did not have the authority to impose a moratorium. She asked that the stream studies be prioritized to include Red Butte and Emigration first.
John Straley (2016 Aldo Circle) reminded the Commission that new construction was the focus of the moratorium. He noted that the Public Utilities Department and Urban Forester would be in charge of providing information and educating the public as to what plant species were invasive.
John M. Worlock (2440 East 900 South) stated he was in support of the overlay with amendments to the current overlay document regarding property ownership rights.
Ruth Price (1343 Allen Park Drive) stated she was in opposition to the overlay and would like to be on any future committees regarding this project.
Grace Sperry (SHCC Chair) stated that Parley Historic Park must be included in the ordinance and that the petition should be tabled.
Vince Rampton (170 South Main Street #1500) stated he was in opposition.
Susan Whitney (1739 Rosecrest Drive) stated she was in opposition of the fencing restrictions the Riparian ordinance would put into place, and the fencing being installed next month would require destruction of habitat.
Michael Gottfredson (1989 Browning Avenue) stated he was in opposition.
Ron Woodhead (1938 Sheridan Road) stated that he was in opposition because he felt the City’s noticing was not thorough enough, and this petition should be tabled until everyone affected has a chance to look at the ordinance.
Chairperson Wirthlin closed the public portion of the hearing.
Commissioner Muir made a motion regarding Petition 400-07-18 based on the findings of fact identified in the staff report, the testimony heard tonight, and based on the following revisions in this supplemental memorandum for the proposed ordinance 21A.34.130 RC Riparian Corridor Overlay District and the proposed changes to Section 21A.34.050 LC The Lowland Conservancy Overlay District, which include:
A. That the proposed Zoning Text Amendments are consistent with the Standards listed in the Zoning Ordinance (A—E). The Planning Commission recommends approval based on the following:
B. The proposed amendment is consistent with the purposes, goals, objectives, and policies of the adopted general plan of Salt Lake City.
C. The proposed amendment is harmonious with the overall character of existing development in the immediate vicinity of the subject property.
D. The proposed amendment will not adversely affect adjacent properties.
E. The proposed amendment is consistent with the provisions of any applicable overlay zoning districts, which may impose additional standards.
The Planning Commission forwards a positive recommendation to the City Council. The Planning Commission further recommends that the City Council fund a stream study, through the Public Utilities Department, to gather specific data for each of the streams within the Riparian Corridor Overlay District to develop a guidelines document.
Commissioner McDonough proposed and amended to the motion that the stream study would serve as base line information and be updated annually.
Chairperson Wirthlin proposed and amendment to the motion to include the revisions to the draft Riparian Corridor Overlay District ordinance as presented by Mr. Rick Thornton.
The Commissioners reviewed Mr. Thornton’s revisions line by line to determine whether or not they would accept all of his comments. The minor revisions were accepted, and new paragraphs were created to separate activities allowed and those that would require a permit. The following are the significant passages of that draft addressed by the Planning Commission:
Page 2, I. Riparian Corridor
Stricken = Routine residential gardening is not deemed to be “ground-disturbing” activity.
Page 2, I.a. No Disturbance
Stricken = 5. (new fences and structures as authorized below)
Stricken = 6. (ii) open patios and decks on grade and not greater than 150 square feet each,
Stricken = 6. (iii) open (as opposed to
Commissioner Muir accepted the amendments to the motion.
Commissioner McHugh seconded the motion.
Commissioners Muir, McHugh, Forbis, Scott, Chambless, McDonough, and Woodhead voted, “Aye,” Commissioner De Lay voted, “No,” the motion passed.
ISSUES ONLY PUBLIC HEARING
Petition No. 400-07-27, “Formula Based” Business Ordinance Zone Text and Map Amendment (Previous Planning Commission public hearing held on November 14, 2007)— Salt Lake City Mayor Rocky Anderson has initiated a petition to analyze the appropriateness of amending the provisions of the Salt Lake City Zoning Ordinance, creating a new “Overlay” zone prohibiting “Formula Based” or chain businesses in specific neighborhood business districts (Staff—Kevin LoPiccolo at (801) 535-6003 or kevin.lopiccolo@slcgov.com).
PUBLIC HEARING
Petition 410-07-26, for Qwest Corporation, Foothill Place Apartment Utility Cabinet conditional use—a request by Michael Johnson, representing Qwest, for a conditional use for utility installation of a power pedestal adjacent to existing telecommunication cabinets within a private easement located at the northwest corner of the Foothill Place Apartments at approximately 2200 East Foothill Drive. The property is located in an RMF-35 Zoning District (Moderate Density Multi Family) in Council District Seven.
Chairperson Wirthlin recognized Kevin LoPiccolo as staff representative.
Mr. LoPicollo noted that this petition was heard at an Administrative Hearing on October 18, 2007 and the petition was forwarded to the Planning Commission due to insufficient notice of the Administrative Hearing.
Commissioner Forbis noted that he did not have any issue with this petition and would be willing to make a motion.
Commissioner Forbis made a motion regarding Petition 410-07-20, that the application was found to satisfy the criteria for conditional use approval (21.A.54.080), and recommends that the Planning Commission approve the request by Qwest Corporation for a power pedestal box, subject to the following conditions:
1. Cabinets shall be clearly marked with telephone number identifying the graffiti removal division within Qwest Corporation.
2. Qwest Corporation provides point of contact to the Sugar House Community Council, Salt Lake City Councils Office, Salt Lake City’s Community Development Division and Angie Gererakis (Foothill Place Apartment Manager) to facilitate graffiti removal.
3. No asphalt shall be cut or damaged during installation without consent of property management.
4. All cabinets at site are to receive new paint on all surfaces to coordinate with new cabinet.
5. If cabinets become technically obsolete they shall be removed or replaced immediately.
6. No additional cabinets shall be installed at this site.
Commissioner Woodhead seconded the motion.
Commissioners De Lay, Forbis, Scott, McHugh, Chambless, Muir, McDonough, and Woodhead voted, “Aye,” the motion carried unanimously.
Chairperson Wirthlin recognized Kevin LoPiccolo as staff representative.
Petition 410-06-07, Devine Conditional Use for an Office Use in a Landmark Site—a request by Michael Devine at approximately 1177 East South Temple Street for an extension of time for a conditional use approval to establish an office use in the Armstrong House. This property is a Landmark Site in a SR-1A Zoning District in Council District Three.
Petition 480-07-28, Deville Cliff Condominiums—a request by Drew Neidert, requesting preliminary approval for a 14 unit residential condominium conversion located at approximately 633 East 4th Avenue in an SR-1A (Special Development Pattern Residential) Zoning District in Council District Three.
Chairperson Wirthlin recognized Ana Valdemoros as staff representative.
Chairperson Wirthlin opened up the public portion of the hearing.
Shane Carlson (375 L Street; Greater Avenues Community Council Chair) stated he was in opposition to the project because of parking issues, sanitary waste pick-up is a problem, and this conversion was a change in use.
Commissioner McDonough stated that she did not view this condominium conversion as a change in use.
Cindy Cromer (816 East 100 South) stated that though this project was a good way to preserve the building she was in opposition because it seemed it was a change in use.
Mike Przybyla (36 H Street) stated that he was in favor of the project and that the market should determine the need and pricing of the condominium units.
Austin Haywood (440 East 1100 South) stated he was in support of the conversion because it would provide affordable housing in the area for people of medium income brackets, which should have the opportunity to live in the area.
Mark Jensen (175 East 400 South, Suite 700) stated he was in favor of the condominium conversion.
Brenton Whipple (962 East 500 South) stated he did not see why the Greater Avenues Community Council objected to this condominium subdivision. He stated that he agreed that because of the age of the building different regulations were probably in place than what is currently so, but those were not reasons to impede the subdivision.
Chairperson Wirthlin closed the public portion of the meeting.
Mr. Neidert noted that fixing the trash pick-up issue would not be a problem he could arrange for it to be picked-up twice a week if necessary.
Commissioner Forbis inquired about what the applicant planned on doing to improve the building.
Mr. Neidert stated that there would be a total remodel to the units both interior and exterior, and would be willing to look into preserving historic elements.
Commissioner Scott inquired about the mechanical and water systems in each unit.
Mr. Neidert stated that each unit was self contained.
Commissioner De Lay inquired if the applicant had considered green building.
Mr. Neidert stated they would consider Leeds certification elements when remodeling.
Commissioner De Lay made a motion regarding Petition 480-07-28, that based on the staff report and testimony heard tonight, the Planning Commission approve the request to convert the existing fourteen (14) unit apartment building into fourteen (14) condominium units, which was found to be consistent with Section 20.20.070 of the Subdivision Ordinance and Section 21.A.56.060 (Condominium Approval and Procedure of the Zoning Ordinance) and subject to the following conditions:
1. Approval is conditioned upon compliance with all departmental comments as outlined in this staff report. If during the building permit review process, additional requirements are stipulated by the Building Department, the applicant shall satisfy said requirements prior to the recording of any approved final condominium plat.
2. Upon preliminary approval, the petitioner shall submit for final plat approval with the Salt Lake City Planning Division, which is necessary to prepare a final plat to be recorded in the Salt Lake County Recorder’s Office. The final condominium plat submittal shall conform to the requirements of Chapter 21A.56 of the zoning ordinance—Condominium Approval Procedure.
3. Any future development activity associated with the properties will require that all substandard or absent public improvements be installed in accordance with the departmental comments noted in this staff report. Any future redevelopment shall be subject to the requirements of the zoning ordinance.
4. The execution and recording of the Declaration of Covenants. The Declaration of Covenants must be approved by the Salt Lake City Attorney for compliance with state of Utah and Salt Lake City code requirements.
5. No condominium shall have final approval, or shall said units be sold, until the final plat Mylar has been recorded with the Salt Lake County Recorder.
Commissioner Forbis seconded the motion.
Commissioners De Lay, Forbis, McHugh, Scott, Chambless, McDonough, Muir, and Woodhead voted, “Aye,” the motion carried unanimously.
(Commissioner Muir recused himself from the meeting at 9:17 p.m.)
Petition 490-07-34, Hemingway, Stanley Subdivision Amendment—a request by Mr. and Mrs. Stanley represented by Gary Evershed of Lowell Construction Company for a subdivision amendment to combine two lots into one at approximately 607 North Capitol Park Avenue. The proposed amendment is in the FR-3 (Foothills Residential) Zoning District in Council District Three.
Chairperson Wirthlin recognized Ana Valdemoros as staff representative.
Gary Evershed stated he was representing the Stanley’s and this proposal would create more green space and permanently eliminate the possibility of building another house on the lot, which would preserve the view corridors in the neighborhood.
Vice Chair Woodhead stated she was confused about how this was a benefit to the community.
Mr. Evershed stated that it would be a benefit to the community because there will be landscaped space that will beautify the area, and less traffic, which is a benefit to the environment and community.
Commissioner Chambless inquired about the type of landscaping that would be used as to not block the view corridor.
Mr. Evershed stated that there would be no high growing trees, and the Homeowner’s Association had been contacted and asked to give their input regarding this, which the Stanley’s would follow.
Chairperson Wirthlin opened up the public portion of the hearing.
Shane Carlson (375 L Street) stated that this petition had not been before the Avenues Community Council, and there was concern about the lot combinations because it was three times larger than the lot size allowed by the ordinance.
Wayne Green (371 7th Avenue), Avenues Community Council Chair, stated that the Community Council was opposed to size of this lot in the neighborhood.
Ted Stanley (607 North Capitol Park Avenue), property owner, stated that there seemed to be some confusion regarding the lot size, he noted that that the property that he was splitting with the Hemmingway’s would be a total of two and a half lots and not five.
Commissioner Scott inquired if Mr. Stanley was the neighbored the empty lot to the north or south.
Mr. Stanley stated he was to the north.
Vice Chair Woodhead inquired if there would be fencing around the pool that the Stanley’s were proposing to build.
Mr. Evershed stated that there would be fencing around the pool, but low landscaping around the rest of the property.
Commissioner McDonough stated that if this petition were denied because of the lack of compatibility with the ordinance, it would put restrictions on the footprint. She noted that she would like staff to use a plat map to see if this lot combination was compatible with the surrounding area.
Commissioner De Lay stated she was concerned about the applicants not working together and would like to table this petition to see if it was compatible with the zoning ordinance.
Vice Chair Woodhead agreed that this lot combination was compatible with the block face, but was not sure it was compatible with the rest of the surrounding neighborhood. She noted it seemed to be inconsistent with how the area was zoned and was substantially larger than anything else in the area.
Commissioner McHugh noted that most of the lot was unbuildable, so the Commission should only compare what is buildable, which would make it closer to being compatible with the rest of the area.
Commissioner Chambless stated that it seemed that this petition was compatible with other in the area had done.
Chairperson Wirthlin closed the public portion of the hearing.
Vice Chair Woodhead made a motion regarding Petition 490-47-34 that the Planning Commission deny the request to amend the Hemingway-Stanley Subdivision based on the non-compliance of stipulations 1-3 of Section 21A.24.040(5)(J) of the zoning ordinance which read:
1. The size of the new lot is compatible with other lots on the same block face;
2. The configuration of the lot is compatible with other lots on the same block face; and
3. The relationship of the lot width to the lot depth is compatible with other lots on the same block face.
Commissioner Scott seconded the motion.
Commissioners De Lay, Forbis, Scott, McDonough, and Woodhead voted, “Aye,” Commissioners Chambless and McHugh voted, “No,” the motions passed.
Commissioner De Lay recused herself from the meeting at 9:58 p.m.
Petition 410-07-37, for Rocky Mountain Power Utility Boxes-Marmalade conditional use—a request for approval for a Conditional Use, to install above ground electric utility boxes that exceed height and volume limits at the northeast corner of 500 N 300 W, and both the southeast corner and southwest corner of 600 N 300 W. The site is located within the public way. The project purpose is to convert the overhead power distribution lines in the vicinity to underground lines and provide service to the new Marmalade mixed-use project. Public/private utility structures in residential zoning districts require conditional use review and approval by the Planning Commission. The project is in the RMU-45 (Residential-Mixed Use) Zoning District, in Council District Three.
Chairperson Wirthlin recognized Casey Stewart as staff representative. Representing Rocky Mountain Power (RMP) were Alene Bentley, Mike Carlisle, Salt Lake City Operations Manager; Mickey Beaver, Regional Manager; and Jeff Richards, Council.
Commissioner Forbis inquired of RMP, how the green electric utility boxes were already built without permits.
Ms. Bentley stated that there was a misunderstanding and the contractor got ahead of the public process, but as soon as she was notified the installing process was shut down immediately.
Commissioner McDonough suggested that wireless providers should show approval to RMP before RMP starts construction.
Ms. Bentley stated that she would like to see a more practical approach from the City regarding the approval of conditional uses to install the utility boxes. She stated that it is customers that request and pay for these systems to be converted from overhead to underground power, and converting requires essential equipment such as the proposed boxes.
Mr. Carlisle stated that when the developer asked RMP to convert the overhead lines underground they used an approved project site map to try to determine the best placement for functionality and reliability.
Commissioner Scott inquired why the boxes were located so close to the adjoining sidewalks and not further to the east.
Ms. Bentley stated that among other constraints that Rocky Mountain Power had to deal with, the Marmalade development was being built to the lot line and twenty feet deep, so where the lines and utility boxes were place was in the only tight space left close to the public walkway. She noted that part of the problem with new developments is that the developers do not work with RMP at the beginning so a lot of the times these boxes are not ideally placed because they are being placed wherever they will fit.
Commission Forbis inquired who the contractor, who started the process before being permitted, worked for.
Ms. Bentley noted he was a Rocky Mountain Power contractor.
Commissioner Forbis inquired if RMP would have decided to place the utility boxes in different locations had the developer notified them earlier.
Mr. Carlisle stated that it still would have been too late to come up with additional location option because the developer had already finalized the plot plans when the Marmalade mixed use project was approved by the City.
Commissioner Scott inquired why there were no visible green utility boxes in the downtown area and why other developments could be free of these.
Mr. Carlisle stated that in the zone from 100 North to 600 South and 300 West to 500 East, all of the power was woven under the streets and sidewalks, including the utility boxes which were rather large and very expensive.
Commissioner Scott inquired how much an underground vault cost.
Mr. Carlisle stated that the cost began at $100,000 plus additional costs to take care of issues such as inspecting and keeping water out of them.
Commissioner Forbis noted that in the staff report, staff had recommended that the Commission deny the petition because RMP did not satisfy the criteria for conditional use approval, but staff had proposed that the proposed utility boxes be located in the flowing possible locations:
For those utility boxes located east of 300 West-
• On the Marmalade mixed-use project site near the interior of the project or other location screened by the proposed buildings.
• In the public way further east and away from the prominent intersection of 300 West and 500 North.
For those utility boxes located west of 300 West.
• In the public way further west and way from the prominent intersection of 300 West and 600 North;
Or if no other locations were feasible, then landscaping be used to screen the proposed location.
He wondered why Rocky Mountain Power could not comply with these alternative locations.
Mr. Carlisle stated that there were complications along 500 North that involved sharing space under the sidewalk with public utilities etc. He noted that there was no room to put any other cabling in the area.
Ms. Bentley noted that it would be possible to change the orientation of the utility boxes and use foliage to cover the unpleasing aesthetic aspect of the utility boxes if that was the only reason the Commission was worried about the locations, but that would still be limited.
Chairperson Wirthlin opened the public hearing portion of the meeting.
Polly Hart (355 North Quince Street) stated that the Community Council looked forward to seeing the utility lines buried, and understood that the green boxes were the result of that. She trusted that the Planning Commission would do its best to mitigate visual impacts.
Dru Damico (1355 Perry Avenue) stated he was one of the developers with the Marmalade development and would like to see a win/win situation for Rocky Mountain Power, the developers, and the public.
Commissioner Scott inquired if Mr. Damico had an issue with the utility box size.
Mr. Damico stated that the developers had tried to look at other options with Rocky Mountain Power, but there were very limited options and really not much that could be done.
Commissioner McDonough inquired if the utility boxes could be moved east and the parking more west to mitigate the problem.
Cindy Cromer (816 East 100 South) noted that this was the dark side of walkable communities and developments building out to the sidewalks, which leaves less space. She suggested that the green utility boxes could be turned into art elements that were embraced by the community.
Chairperson Wirthlin closed the public portion of the hearing.
Mr. Beaver stated that realistically the green boxes were everywhere throughout the city and stood out especially at this new development because there was not landscaping yet, but would eventually become part of the landscape.
Vice Chair Woodhead inquired if the Planning Commission had the authority to require the Arts Council to work with these utility boxes as art elements.
Chairperson Wirthlin noted that the Commission could suggest such an inquiry, but not enforce it.
Commissioner McHugh asked if the developer could move the door so the entryway would not be affected by the placement of these utility boxes.
Commissioner Forbis inquired of Rock Mountain Power whether the Marmalade developer could have, in partnership with RMP, utilized the most up-to-date technology for alternative energy resources & provided sufficient energy to have the entire development powered "off the grid?"
Mr. Carlisle replied yes, it was only a matter of money.
Commissioner Forbis made a motion regarding Petition 410-07-37, based on the staff report and testimony heard tonight that the Planning Commission approve the petition based on the following criteria:
• Relocation of the ground sleeve at 500 North to the south project entrance.
• Rotate the switchgear boxes to have an east/west access and allow incorporation of landscaping to be approved by the Planning Director.
Vice Chair Woodhead inquired if she could amend the motion to add that the ground sleeves be leveled and if it could be suggested that Rocky Mountain Power involve the Utah Arts Council to see if they could suggest and artistic element for the utility boxes.
Commissioner McDonough inquired if she could amend the motion to require a follow-up review to be brought before the Planning Commission to see what eventually happened and use it as a learning experience.
Mr. Shaw inquired if she meant that the Commission wanted the final decision or if this petition could be brought back under the Director’s Report.
Commissioner McDonough noted that it could come back under the Director’s Report so the applicant did not need to return, but she wanted a detailed report and a detailed site plan 1/8 scale or greater.
Commissioner Forbis accepted the amendments.
Commissioner Chambless seconded the motion.
Commissioners Forbis, Scott, McHugh, Chambless, McDonough, and Woodhead all voted, “Aye,” Commissioners De Lay and Muir were excused. The motion carried unanimously.
There was no unfinished business.
The meeting adjourned at 11:23 p.m.