SALT LAKE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
In Room 326 of the City & County Building
451 South State Street, Salt Lake City, Utah
Present from the Planning Commission were Chairperson Chambless, Vice Chairperson Laurie Noda, and Commissioners Babs De Lay, John Diamond, Craig Galli, Peggy McDonough, Kathy Scott, Jennifer Seelig, and Prescott Muir.
Present from the Staff were Alexander Ikefuna, Planning Director, Doug Wheelwright, Deputy Planning Director, Ray McCandless, Principal Planner, Doug Dansie, Principal Planner, and Maggie Tow, Planning Commission Secretary.
A roll is kept of all who attended the Planning Commission Meeting. Chairperson Chambless called the meeting to order at 5:49 p.m. Minutes are presented in agenda order and not necessarily as cases were heard by the Planning Commission. A compact disc recording of the meeting will be retained in the Planning Office.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES FOR WEDNESDAY, September 28, 2005.
(This item was heard at 5:49 P.M.)
Chairperson Chambless asked for a motion to approve the minutes of September 28, 2005. Commissioner Scott moved to approve the minutes. Commissioner Diamond seconded the motion. Commissioner Diamond, Commissioner McDonough, Commissioner Muir, Commissioner Noda, and Commissioner Scott, voted “Aye”. Commissioner De Lay and Commissioner Seelig abstained. The minutes of September 28, 2005 were approved.
REPORT OF THE CHAIR AND VICE CHAIR
(5:50 P.M.)
None
REPORT OF THE PLANNING DIRECTOR
(This item was heard at 5:50 P.M.)
Mr. Ikefuna reported that the first meeting for the Research Park Transportation Issues group was scheduled for October 13, 2005 at 5:30 p.m. The second meeting was scheduled for October 24, 2005.
Mr. Ikefuna reported that Petition No. 410-758, Mamas Productions Inc., was approved at the September 28, 2005 Planning Commission meeting. Mr. Michael Marriott had completed the outdoor patio without obtaining the required permit and the approval of the Planning Commission. Mr. Ikefuna stated that at the request of the Planning Commission he had reviewed the procedures and actions taken by Mr. Marriott and found that Mr. Marriott had attended a Development Review Team (DRT) meeting and received favorable comments. Mr. Marriott had assumed that was the approval he needed to proceed with his outdoor patio project. Mr. Ikefuna said that the Permits Department had doubled the building permit fee as the penalty for violation of the required ordinance.
Mr. Ikefuna reminded the Planning Commission that an election for a new chair and vice-chair was past due and a vote was needed by the end of the meeting.
Mr. Ikefuna announced that two dates were available for the Planning Commission Retreat: Wednesday, November 16th or Wednesday, December 7th at 5:00 p.m. He recommended December 7th, thus giving time to schedule an out of state facilitator. The Planning Commissioners did not come to a decision on the date. Staff was asked to survey Commissioners by e-mail as most would not be available for December 7, 2005.
Mr. Ikefuna asked Mr. Doug Dansie to speak to the Planning Commission regarding an emergency request from Westminster College proposal to modify previously approved Alumni House plans. The charge before the Planning Commission was to decide if the request to modify a previously approved petition should be administratively approved or if the petition should be re-heard at a public hearing.
Mr. Dansie said that in January, 2003, a rezone and planned development was approved for Westminster College. The original plan was to renovate the Alumni House. As time progressed the College realized it would be more costly to renovate the building than to tear it down and build a new Alumni House. The major change would be the addition of a sub-grade basement, which would not require any adjustment to the exterior appearance. He asked the Commission if they wanted staff to approve the change as an administrative decision or if they wanted to advertise the action and bring it back to the Planning Commission as a public hearing.
Commissioner Diamond, Commissioner McDonough, Commissioner Noda, Commissioner Scott, and Commissioner Seelig voted for a public hearing. As this was a majority, the request will be scheduled for a future meeting.
PUBLIC NOTICE AGENDA – Salt Lake City Property Conveyance Matters
(6:03 P.M.)
None
PUBLIC HEARINGS
Petition No. 400-05-23, - by Greggory Savage, representing Mr. Chris Drakos/Montana Brand Trucking requesting that Salt Lake City close and declare as surplus property, 1500 North Street between Beck Street and Hot Springs Street (745 West), in a Light Manufacturing (M-1) zoning district.
At 6:04 p.m. Chairperson Chambless introduced Petition No. 400-05-23 and Ray McCandless, Principal Planner. Mr. McCandless stated that the applicant requested that Salt Lake City close 1500 North Street between Beck Street and Hot Springs Street (745 West). The applicant also requested that the City declare the closed street portion surplus property, and allow the applicant to purchase it at fair market value and that it be incorporated together with the petitioner’s abutting property. Mr. McCandless stated that the street property requested for closure consisted of 13,200 square feet and measured 66 feet wide by 200 feet in length. The site is located in the M-1 “Light Industrial” zoning district.
Chairperson Chambless asked for questions from Staff. Commissioner De Lay asked what the fair market value was on the property. Mr. John Spencer, Real Property Agent with Salt Lake City Property Management, stated that full property value, as stated by the County Assessor, would be about $35,000.
Chairperson Chambless opened the public hearing and asked the petitioner to come forward. Mr. Greggory Savage and Mr. Drakos addressed the Planning Commissioners. Commissioner Scott asked whether the fuel tanks on the property were still in use. Mr. Savage stated that the fuel tanks were currently in use and they may or may not be removed when a new facility is constructed. Mr. Lynn Pace, City Attorney, further stated that the tanks were an environmental issue and any standards or conditions added by the Commissioners would not change the effect of the existing law or the rules already in place. He said the decision before the Planning Commissioners involved closing a road and the fuel tanks would not change the liability or risk in that respect.
Chairperson Chambless asked for representatives from the Community Council or anyone else from the public that wished to speak on this matter. No response was heard. Chairperson Chambless closed the public hearing and asked for discussion and/or a motion.
Motion for Petition No. 400-05-23:
Commissioner De Lay moved that the Planning Commission approve Petition No. 400-05-23, based on the analysis and findings outlined in the staff report with the following conditions:
1. That all applicable City Codes and Salt Lake City departmental requirements be met, including providing the necessary easements for any existing or future utility infrastructure.
2. That the street closure ordinance be conditioned upon payment to the City of fair market value of the street property, consistent with Salt Lake City Code 2.58.
Commissioner Noda seconded the motion. Commissioner De Lay, Commissioner Diamond, Commissioner McDonough, Commissioner Muir, Commissioner Noda, Commissioner Scott, and Commissioner Seelig voted “Aye”. There was none opposed. The motion passed.
Petition No. 400-05-20, by Salt Lake City Council, requesting that properties located at approximately 405 West 2300 North on the high Lake Bonneville Bench Area east of Beck Street be rezoned from an Open Space (OS) zoning district to a Natural Open Space (NOS) zoning district.
At 6:14 p.m., Chairperson Chambless introduced Petition No. 400-05-20 and Ray McCandless, Principal Planner. Mr. McCandless gave a brief history of this area. He stated that last year the City reviewed a request by the City of North Salt Lake to voluntarily adjust the boundary around an 80 acre piece of property located on the Lake Bonneville Bench Area. He said that from 1927 to 1977, the subject property was zoned for single family residential land uses at low densities. From 1977 to 1995, the property was zoned Foothill Preservation (P-1). The zoning was changed to Open Space (OS) as part of the 1995 Zoning Rewrite Project.
Mr. McCandless stated that to the south of the North Salt Lake owned property is a 20 acre parcel of vacant land that was formerly owned by the Bates/Hunter family. This twenty acre parcel was the last of the Bates/Hunter family owned properties that originally extended North and West to Beck Street dating back to the late 1800's. The property was incrementally purchased by various gravel excavation companies, and the most recently sold properties were purchased by Staker Paving and Hughes (Lakeview Rock Products) for gravel extraction operations in the mid 1980's. Following the Zoning Rewrite Project of 1995, the Bates/Hunter family filed an inverse condemnation lawsuit (case 99-0910566) against Salt Lake City. The law suit was dismissed February 18, 2005 for lack of prosecution. Staker Paving recently purchased the 20 acre Bates/Hunter family parcel.
Mr. McCandless said that the request for a voluntary boundary adjustment was denied by Salt Lake City. Following that action, the City of North Salt Lake filed a petition to disconnect the property from Salt Lake City. This request was also denied by the City Council. The public hearing for the disconnection was held on May 31, 2005. At that hearing, as part of their motion to deny the request, the City Council voted to adopt a legislative action initiating a petition that would: 1) Create a zoning district limiting land uses to natural open space and 2) Consider the rezoning of the North Salt Lake property, the adjacent Hunter/Bates property, and portions of the Lakeview and Staker properties as Natural Open Space. He said it had been requested that the Planning staff draft a new Open Space zoning ordinance that was limited to natural open space uses. The Natural Open Space zoning district ordinance was reviewed by the Planning Commission on August 24, 2005 and has since been forwarded to the City Council for their consideration. That ordinance has not been adopted to date. He stated that the second part of the Council’s legislative action was now being considered; rezoning properties. Five pieces of property were named.
Parcel A Mary Clark
Parcel B Hughes Investment
Parcel C Salt Lake City Corporation
Parcel D North Salt Lake City Corporation
Parcel E Hunter/Bates – now owned by Staker
Mr. McCandless stated that the subject properties were currently zoned Open Space (OS), allowing limited development such as community and recreation centers, cemeteries, country clubs, and parks. The difference between the Open Space Zoning and the Natural Open Space Zoning was that the Open Space (OS) zoning allowed buildings and development of man-made recreational amenities, whereas the proposed Natural Open Space (NOS) zone would require that the property be left in its natural state. Mr. McCandless stated that uses in the proposed Natural Open Space (NOS) zoning district were limited to natural open space, conservation areas, and nature preserves/conservation areas, public and private. Given the unique and unusual characteristics of these properties and the recent pressures to develop portions of the subject properties, implementation of the Natural Open Space (NOS) zoning district, as initiated by the City Council, was appropriate.
Mr. McCandless said that allowing the zoning to remain as Open Space would allow future development of the property, which would alter the existing visual and physical characteristics of the property. As the property was located within a Groundwater Aquifer Recharge Area, the potential for groundwater contamination would increase with developing the property.
Mr. McCandless stated that the value of the property was in its pristine open space condition. It was one of the last undeveloped portions of the ancient Lake Bonneville Bench in close proximity to the urbanized areas in and around Salt Lake City. It was a unique example of the Lake Bonneville Bench. In light of the unique characteristics of the property, the long-term best interests of the community, and as supported by the adopted master plans for open space use, the proposed zoning map amendment would be consistent with the purposes, goals, objectives, and policies of the adopted general plans of Salt Lake City.
Mr. Lynn Pace, City Attorney stated that one issue brought to the attention of the public at the Open House and at other meetings was the concern that if privately owned property was zoned Natural Open Space (NOS), owners would not be able to use the property. Mr. Pace stated that if the entire property was zoned Natural Open Space, like Parcel “E”, the owner would not be able to do anything with the property and that some kind of public acquisition of that property would be in line.
Mr. Pace said that another issue had not been addressed in the Staff report because it was not germane at the time it was written, but that the issue had since become relevant. He stated that in parcels “A” and “B”, owned by Mary Clark and Hughes Investment (Lakeview Rock Products) there was a North-South Zoning boundary line that bisected both parcels. In 1995, the property west of the line was zoned Extractive Industries (EI) and property east of the line was zoned Open Space (OS). Mr. Pace said the gravel pit operators objected to the 1995 boundary and over time, with the adoption of the Beck Street Master Plan, the parties had agreed to a “Contoured Zoning Line”, rather than a straight North-South zoning district boundary. However, an agreement was never reached to shift the zoning district boundary to the contoured zoning line for these two properties.
Given this petition to rezone their property, Mr. Pace stated that the owners of parcels “A” and “B” were no longer willing to participate in discussions, even though they had excavated beyond the line of agreement. He suggested that to resolve the problem, a petition would need to be initiated to decide where the line ought to be, and then decide whether or not the Open Space property located east of that new line should or should not be zoned Natural Open Space.
Chairperson Chambless asked for questions of Mr. Pace. Commissioner McDonough asked if parcel “A” was adjacent to the Extractive Industries property as well. Mr. Pace stated the eastern portion of parcel “A” was zoned Open Space. The western portion was zoned Extractive Industries and owned by Mary Clark. That parcel straddled the County line. He stated that to his knowledge there had not been any excavation work on that property, and he did not have first hand knowledge regarding the current property use being different from the intended use.
Commissioner Scott asked if it would be possible for the Planning Commissioners to exclude some portions from their discussions and recommendations and separate parcels “A” and “B” from “C”, “D”, and “E”. Mr. Pace responded that he felt that it was a viable recommendation. He stated that a recommendation on the Hughes and Mary Clark property, given the current zoning line, appeared to be in conflict with what had occurred on the ground. He said that making a recommendation at this meeting for those two properties would be premature and he suggested that a decision on parcels “A” and “B” be tabled until further study had been done to decide where that line ought to be.
Commissioner Scott asked about a “critical” date coming up in December. Mr. Pace stated that the City Council initiated the ordinance May 31, 2005. The initiated ordinance had a six month window of time for the City to act. If the ordinance was not acted on during that six month window, land owners could proceed under the existing zoning.
Commissioner Muir asked if precedence had been established showing that an acquisition of the property would follow. He stated that in reality this was private property and an owner could fence it off and deny public use unless there was a prescriptive access to the various uses. Mr. Pace replied that Commissioner Muir was correct.
Mr. Pace said there were two reasons why the government would need to pay for property based upon its regulation:
1) Public use: The City would show an implicit public use and an acquisition of the property would follow by eminent domain. He stated that was not happening in this case.
2) A property owner was denied all economic use of the property, even though it remained in private hands. That was a taking and the owner would or could be compensated.
Mr. Pace stated there could be a legitimate use of Natural Open Space property by a governmental entity. Parcel “D” was owned by North Salt Lake and parcel “C” was owned by Salt Lake City. He stated that in the past, Salt Lake City had acquired Natural Open Space, paying a great deal of money for it, because the property had value for Salt Lake City. He said there was also a question on parcels “A” and “B”. Those parcels would not be entirely zoned as Natural Open Space. Only a portion of each parcel would be Natural Open Space.
Chairperson Chambless asked if there were any more questions for Mr. Pace or Mr. McCandless. No response was heard. Chairperson Chambless opened the public hearing and asked if anyone wished to speak to this matter.
Bruce Baird, with the firm of Hutchings, Baird and Jones asked to speak. He stated that he was counsel for Staker Paving, owner of Parcel “E”, formerly the Bates/Hunter parcel. Mr. Baird stated that this action would constitute a regulatory taking. He said his clients had a prospectively valuable use in their property and would object strongly to any potential uses taken from them without compensation. He said his clients would strenuously object if the City or others tried to use this Natural Open Space zoning or other zoning techniques to artificially devalue the property, either for purposes of compensation or trade.
Chairperson Chambless asked if there were questions for Mr. Baird. No response was heard. Chambless asked if anyone else in the audience wished to speak to this matter.
North Salt Lake City Mayor, Kay Briggs, stated that he represented the people of North Salt Lake. He felt that to vote on the issue and make a recommendation to go forward before the mitigation meeting on Friday, October 14th, with Salt Lake City’s Mayor and City Council, was in bad taste and bad spirit. He stated it was a “taking” and it was his plea to the Planning Commission to vote no on this issue and not change the zoning.
Chairperson Chambless asked if there were questions for Mr. Briggs. No response was heard.
Greg Simonsen, legal counsel for Lakeview Rock Products and Mary Clark, property owner, stated that Lakeview Rock Products owned parcel “B” and had a contract on parcel “A”. They had not entered into an agreement on parcel “B” because they felt that the existing zoning was a “taking”. He stated that he would support the recommendation that parcels “A” and “B” be tabled to give additional time to the possible adjustment of the boundary lines.
Chairperson Chambless asked if there were any questions for Mr. Simonsen. Commissioner De Lay asked that Mr. Simonsen verify that he was referring to parcels “A” and “B” when he supported the recommendation to table the rezoning of the area. Mr. Simonsen gave that verification.
Cindy Cromer, interested citizen and long time supporter of this area, recommended and asked that the Planning Commission not take action on parcels “A” and “B”. She said that regardless of who prevailed on the other land use decisions regarding parcels “C”, “D” and “E”, parcel “B” was critically important, and as that excavation proceeded beyond the boundary that was anticipated in the Beck Street Reclamation Plan, it would affect whatever else transpired.
Chairperson Chambless asked if there were any questions for Ms. Cromer. No response was heard.
Bob Fisher, a representative of Utah Property Rights Association, stated that he was in favor of parcels “A” and “B” being set aside and more consideration given to possible solutions, such as a land trade.
Chairperson Chambless asked if there were questions for Mr. Fisher. No response was heard.
Georg Stetzenberger stated that he was the Vice Chair and representative of the Capitol Hill Community Council. He stated that there was a Capitol Hill Master Plan and an agreement with Salt Lake City to adopt that plan, showing that the area would be preserved as an Open Space and a Natural Open Space area. As a representative of the Capitol Hill Community Council, Mr. Stetzenberger strongly recommended and gave his support of a zoning change to Natural Open Space for parcels “C”, “D”, and “E”. He further stated that he had concerns regarding parcels “A” and “B”, which had a gravel pit encroachment into areas zoned open space.
Chairperson Chambless asked if there were questions for Mr. Stetzenberger. No response was heard.
Bill Wright stated he was an Urban Planner and resident of North Salt Lake City. He gave a brief zoning history of parcels “A”, “B”, “C”, and “D” and stated the petition was filed for a regulatory taking to enable Salt Lake City to purchase the parcels at a lower value. Mr. Wright stated that the City Council and Salt Lake administration had filed an eminent domain action on these parcels and the purpose of the public hearing was to lower the value of the parcels in a way that would be inconsistent with other similarly situated properties in Salt Lake City. Mr. Wright listed properties that he felt had been private properties but were now being used by the City for public uses.
Chairperson Chambless asked if there were questions for Mr. Wright. No response was heard. Chairperson Chambless closed the public hearing.
Mr. Lynn Pace asked if he could address some issues raised by Mr. Wright. Mr. Pace stated that Salt Lake City had filed a condemnation action on the northern portion of the property and if that condemnation action went forward, Salt Lake City would be required by law to pay fair market value on the property on the date that action was filed. He stated that any recommendation made by the Planning Commission would not influence or make a difference in the property value, because the value of the property was set on the date that action was filed. Mr. Pace said one of the principles of the law asked “was it real property” and “was the property unique”. The Planning Commission had the right to consider what they felt was unique about the property, or if they felt the property was unique.
Commissioner Muir asked Mr. Pace to clarify Planning Commission’s purview. Mr. Pace stated that Planning Commission purview did not include economic issues or a determination if a recommendation constituted a taking or not. He said that the Planning Commission’s responsibility was to give a policy recommendation only on the right land use for the parcels being considered. There could be consequences if that land use recommendation was implemented, but that was for others to decide.
Chairperson Chambless asked it there were any questions for staff or public. No response was heard. Chairperson Chambless closed the public hearing. He asked for discussion and/or a motion. Commissioner Galli stated that he would recuse himself from the matter as it pertained to North Salt Lake and would not vote or participate in the discussion.
Commissioner McDonough felt strongly that the rezoning was appropriate because of the geological status and the value of the Natural Open Space to the City. She stated that this area of land had far more than economic value. She felt it would be appropriate to zone the land Natural Open Space.
Commissioner Muir felt that the boundary between North Salt Lake and Salt Lake was a political and not an environmental boundary of any significance. He said that a cemetery or some of the other uses allowed in Open Space zone, would be an appropriate transition from development to the natural habitat. He stated that he could support the petition if the northern parcel were separated out. He felt a reasonable line for distinction would be an apparent wetland about midway through the North Salt Lake property and could envision a transition between Open Space on the north side and the Natural Open Space on the south side.
Commissioner Noda stated that after the field trip she had been convinced that this area had uniqueness, including the views and the geological antiquities. She stated that Salt Lake City had certain parks, but felt the parks were different. The areas being addressed were historic in nature and were one of the last corridors that had natural indigenous vegetation to this valley. She felt that it was a duty to preserve the area and she supported it being designated Natural Open Space. Commissioner Seelig agreed with Commissioner Noda and Commissioner McDonough. Commissioner Diamond had no comment.
Motion for Petition No. 400-05-20:
Commissioner Scott moved that the Planning Commission approve Petition No. 400-05-20, based on the comments, analysis and findings outlined in the staff report with the exception of parcels “A” and “B”, which would be tabled due to legal issues. Commissioner Noda seconded the motion. Commissioner Diamond, Commissioner McDonough, Commissioner Noda, Commissioner Scott, and Commissioner Seelig voted “Aye”. Commissioner De Lay and Commissioner Muir voted “Nay”. Commissioner Galli recused himself and abstained from this vote. The motion was approved.
Commissioner Scott moved that the Planning Commission initiate a petition to determine the appropriate boundary line between the Extractive Industry (EI) and the Open Space (OS) Zoning Districts through the Hughes property and Mary Clark property.
Petition No. 400-04-25, by Boyer Company/Gateway Association requesting a modification to the sign ordinance portion of the zoning ordinance regarding open air malls.
At 7:16 P.M. Chairperson Chambless introduced Petition No. 400-04-25 and Doug Dansie, Principal Planner. Mr. Dansie stated that the petition was primarily driven by signage issues within the Gateway Mall, but other applicable situations were found within Salt Lake City. He stated that Gateway was basically like all malls except it did not have a roof on it.
Mr. Dansie gave a brief history of the sign ordinance, saying that signage within enclosed malls had historically been administered as being exempt from the sign ordinance. Signage within fully enclosed and gated roofless spaces (such as Franklin Covey Field) had historically been considered interior signs. Signage within open air malls remained within an ambiguous area of ordinance interpretation.
Mr. Dansie stated that the Sign Ordinance was designed to encourage consistency for signage and not allow one use to have “advantage” over another. However, enclosed or confined spaces had historically not been subject to the sign ordinance because they were not visible from the public street. He stated that this ordinance would attempt to treat open air malls similar to enclosed malls in terms of signage, without creating clutter or an increase of signage that could be visible from the street. The verbiage of the ordinance specifically required the mall to meet the sign ordinance in all aspects, unless a Sign Master Plan Agreement was specifically approved administratively or by the Planning Commission to regulate the signage not visible from the street. This agreement was required to assist enforcement officers in distinguishing general signage from that which was interior to the open air mall.
Chairperson Chambless opened the public hearing.
Kim Fletcher, with the Boyer Company, stated that with the current signage criteria they did not have the latitude they needed on the inside of their shopping center with regards to placing signs outside of the shops. Ms. Fletcher requested that the Gateway Mall be considered the same as an enclosed mall with the same signage requirements.
Tracey James, with Inland Southwest Management, stated that the shops at Gateway are currently not meeting the ordinance criteria when signs are placed on the sidewalk outside of their shops. Mr. James requested that the Planning Commission review the Gateway Association Master Plan, which he said is well defined and conforms to the design the Planning Commission wants to see.
Chairperson asked if anyone had questions for Ms. Fletcher or Mr. James. No response was heard.
Mr. Dansie answered the Planning Commissioner’s questions regarding signage set-backs, which business would or would not have to meet the requirements in relation to public streets, and portable signs. He gave examples of different situations pertaining to signage.
Chairperson Chambless asked if there was anyone from the Community Council or community that wished to talk about this matter. No response was heard. Chairperson Chambless closed the public hearing and asked for discussion and/or a motion.
Motion for Petition No. 400-04-25:
Commissioner De Lay moved that the Planning Commission transmit a favorable recommendation to the City Council to approve Petition No. 400-04-25, based on the comments, findings and analysis in the staff report to clarify the requirements for signage with the enclosed but roofless spaces. Commissioner Seelig seconded the motion. Commissioner De Lay, Commissioner Diamond, Commissioner Galli, Commissioner McDonough, Commissioner Muir, Commissioner Noda, Commissioner Scott, and Commissioner Seelig voted “Aye”. There was none opposed. The motion passed.
UNFINISHED BUSINESS
At 7:34 P.M. Mr. Ikefuna asked the Commissioners to list some issues for discussion at the retreat. He would give the list to the facilitator. Mr. Ikefuna introduced Doug Wheelwright and said he would talk to the Planning Commissioners about a new program that would preserve the minutes from each Planning Commission meeting.
Doug Wheelwright said that at the last meeting a comment was made regarding the prior set of minutes and the boiler plate language that stated “the secretary would keep tapes of the meeting for one year, after which they would be destroyed”. The Planning staff realized that technology had changed and today the minutes were electronically preserved on a FTR system, within the City’s computer system, that recorded all comments made through the microphones. He said the FTR system had active and recording web capabilities. Beginning with the October 12, 2005 Planning Commission meeting, a CD would be burned from the FTR recording after each meeting and be retained in the Planning Commission Minutes of Meeting binder as a permanent record of the Planning Commission. Anyone wishing to obtain a CD recording of the meeting could do so. A transcript could be produced from that FTR record if a legal challenge or lawsuit resulted from any Planning Commission meeting activities.
Mr. Wheelwright stated that recording and burning a CD could then result in briefer minutes, moving away from the compulsion to summarize everything that was said in the meetings. Over time, a transition would be made away from the detail now included in the minutes.
Chairperson Chambless asked for questions for Mr. Wheelwright. Commissioner McDonough asked that if the minutes became significantly briefer and omitted a lot of commentary on how the motion had been decided, how a judgment would be made that would be relevant in the future to the cases and petitions. Mr. Wheelwright gave examples of some of the guidelines that would be used when the minutes were transcribed.
Commissioner Seelig thanked the staff for the initiative and innovation that resulted in the new process. Commissioner De Lay stated that for legal reasons, the public should be made aware that hearings were recorded. She said boilerplate language should be added on the bottom of the agendas. Commissioner Scott commended the Planning Commission Secretary on the job that she had been doing.
Chairperson Chambless asked for discussion and/or a motion for a new chairperson and vice-chairperson. Commissioner De Lay moved that Commissioner Noda be nominated for Chairperson and Commissioner McDonough be nominated as vice-chairperson. Commissioner De Lay, Commissioner Diamond, Commissioner Galli, Commissioner McDonough, Commissioner Muir, Commissioner Noda, Commissioner Scott, and Commissioner Seelig voted “Aye”. The motion passed. The Planning Commission elected Laurie Noda as the new chairperson and Peggy McDonough as the new vice-chairperson for the Planning Commission with their terms beginning October 26, 2005.
The Planning Commission meeting was adjourned at 7:48 P.M. by Chairperson Chambless.