October 22, 2003

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 Chair Jeff Jonas, Vice-Chair Prescott Muir, Tim Chambless, Bip Daniels, John Diamond, Craig Galli, Peggy McDonough, Laurie Noda, Kathy Scott, and Jennifer Seelig. Babs DeLay was excused.

Present from the Planning Staff were Planning Director Louis Zunguze; Deputy Planning Director Doug Wheelwright; Planning Programs Supervisor Cheri Coffey, Senior Planner Joel Paterson; Planning Commission Secretary Kathy Castro; and Assistant City Attorney Boyd Ferguson.

A roll is being kept of all who attended the Planning Commission Meeting. Chair Jonas called the meeting to order at 5:45 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 the minutes from Wednesday, October 8, 2003

The Planning Commission made revisions to the minutes. Those revisions as stated are reflected in the October 8, 2003 ratified minutes.

Commissioner Daniels made a motion to approve the minutes as corrected. Commissioner Scott seconded the motion.

Commissioner Chambless, Commissioner Daniels, Commissioner Diamond, Commissioner Galli, Commissioner Muir, Commissioner Noda, Commissioner Scott, and Commissioner Seelig voted “Aye”. Commissioner McDonough abstained. Jeff Jonas as Chair did not vote. Eight Commissioners voted in favor, one Commissioner abstained, and therefore the motion was approved.

REPORT OF THE DIRECTOR

Mr. Zunguze referred to Petition No. 400-99-49 which the Planning Commission reviewed and approved in March of 2000. The petition was a request to change the zoning of the properties located between 400 and 500 West and between North Temple and 500 North from Light-Manufacturing “M-1” to Residential Mixed Use “RMU 35 and RMU-45” for a housing project. He said that the petition has not proceeded because the housing project was withdrawn. He referred to a subsequent discussion among Staff and the Planning Commission during a dinner meeting and said that the question raised at that time was whether the Commission still supported the two new zoning classifications even though the housing project had been withdrawn. The Commission indicated that they would like to continue to move forward with the new zoning classifications “RMU-35 and RMU-45”. With that understanding Staff presented the petition to the City Council. In the process of reviewing the said petition, by the City Council Staff, assurances have been sought regarding a formal directive from the Planning Commission, to proceed with that petition even though the project has been withdrawn.

Commissioner Scott clarified that Staff is requesting the Planning Commission to support a transmittal to the City Council which would sustain the Planning Commission’s decision in March of 2000.

Mr. Zunguze answered that is correct.

Ms. Cheri Coffey said that the properties were originally associated with a development by Prowswood Development Corporation, which proposed a mixed use housing project. At the time of the proposal, the two new RMU zoning districts were developed. Prowswood withdrew their petition for a map amendment, and they no longer have access to those properties. Staff still believes that the two new RMU zoning districts are appropriate in various areas of the City. Staff is recommending that the Commission make a positive recommendation to the City Council to adopt the two new RMU zoning districts; however, not to map them at this time.

Motion

Commissioner Daniels made a motion to forward a positive recommendation to the City Council regarding Petition No. 400-99-49. Commissioner McDonough seconded the motion.

Commissioner Chambless, Commissioner Daniels, Commissioner Diamond, Commissioner Galli, Commissioner McDonough, Commissioner Muir, Commissioner Noda, Commissioner Scott, and Commissioner Seelig voted “Aye”. Jeff Jonas as Chair did not vote. All voted in favor, and therefore the motion was approved.

Mr. Zunguze referred to the Planning Commission Policies and Procedures and stated that that document requires the Planning Commission to elect a Chair each year in September. He said that it was time for the Commission to address that issue and asked how they would like to proceed.

Chair Jonas stated that the Commission typically proposes nominations for a Chair and then they take a vote.

Commissioner Seelig said that electing a Chair is a very important decision which merits a lot of thought. She believed that the Commission should not make a decision until the next meeting. Commissioner Seelig referred to the Planning Commission Policies and Procedures and said that they are not adequately referenced. She said that the Planning Commission Policies and Procedures is a public document which explains the role of the Commission and it is important that the Commission adhere to all of the Policies and Procedures. She noted that some of the Policies and Procedures may need to be changed. Commissioner Seelig worried that if the Commission does not adhere to all of the Policies and Procedures, the public may perceive the Commission as unprofessional. She said that it has been acknowledged that the Commission is late in electing a Chair, and the Policies and Procedures have been referenced. She asked if the Commission could wait until the next Planning Commission meeting to make a decision on a Chair.

Commissioner Daniels asked Commissioner Seelig if she is suggesting that the Commission not open the floor to nominations at this time, but rather wait until the next meeting and discuss it then.

Commissioner Seelig answered that she is suggesting that the vote take place at the next Planning Commission meeting.

Commissioner Muir nominated Jeff Jonas to continue as the Chair. He said that he respected Commissioner Seelig’s remarks and felt that it would be fair to wait to vote at the next meeting.

Commissioner Chambless nominated Commissioner Diamond as Chair. Commissioner Diamond declined the nomination.

Commissioner Noda nominated Commissioner Muir as Chair.

Commissioner Scott asked if nominations could be left open until the next meeting. She said that she would like to discuss this with a Commissioner before nominating them.

Motion

Commissioner Scott made a motion that the Planning Commission accept the nominations that have been received thus far and leave the nominations open until the vote takes place at the next meeting which is the Long Range Planning Issue Meeting scheduled for Tuesday, October 28, 2003. Commissioner Noda seconded the motion.

Commissioner Chambless asked to amend the motion that the vote take place at the next regularly scheduled Planning Commission meeting which is November 12, 2003.

Commissioner Scott accepted the amendment. Commissioner Noda accepted the amendment as well.

Commissioner Seelig referred to the Planning Commission Policies and Procedures and asked if the Planning Commission could schedule them for review as part of the next Long Range Planning Issues Subcommittee meeting. She felt that some of the language in the document is not workable with respect to how the Commission operates.

Chair Jonas suggested that perhaps a subcommittee be formed to deal with just that issue if Commissioner Seelig feels that the current policies are giving the public an unfavorable perception of the Planning Commission. This is a rather specific issue and the Long Range Planning Issues Subcommittee has been formed to deal with issues that are more long term in nature.

Commissioner Seelig agreed with the Chair’s suggestion.

Mr. Zunguze presented a list of the Planning Commission subcommittees. He said that the Long Range Planning Issues Subcommittee was assembled from the Commissioners that are not currently serving on at least two other subcommittees.

Chair Jonas added that there will be another subcommittee formed which will deal with the Downtown Master Plan. He said that a few Planning Commissioners will need to serve on a third subcommittee if they are willing to do so.

Commissioner Daniels recommended that the Planning Commission Chair and Vice-Chair give the Commission a brief update as to their meetings with the City Council Chair and Vice-Chair.

Commissioner Seelig agreed and said she felt that that would be helpful.

Chair Jonas said that the last Planning Commission and City Council Chair and Vice-Chair meeting focused on the Gateway rezone petition and the Nordstrom issue.

There was a discussion regarding the Commissioners who were on different Planning Commission Subcommittees and after much deliberation, the Planning Commission worked out a list of Subcommittees and responsibilities.

Chair Jonas noted that he received a letter from Kevin Young from the Transportation Division regarding the petition initiated by the Planning Commission at the last meeting to close Main Street between North and South Temple. On October 6, 2003 the Transportation Advisory Board approved a motion recommending that Main Street be removed from the Salt Lake City Major Street Plan and they will act on that at their November 3, 2003 meeting.

PUBLIC HEARINGS

Petition No. 400-03-18, by the Salt Lake City Planning Commission, requesting staff to analyze the appropriateness of amending the Northwest Community Master Plan to identify the properties on the northeast section of the intersection of 700 North and Redwood Road, as commercial rather than low density residential. The properties include those between 726 and 766 North Redwood Road and the properties between 1612 and 1640 West 700 North.

This hearing began at 6:25 p.m.

Planning Programs Supervisor Cheri Coffey presented the petition as written in the staff report. She described the eight properties that will be affected by the Master Plan Amendment. Staff has met the Master Plan notification procedures which are regulated by the Utah State Code. This petition only relates to a Master Plan Amendment and does not propose to rezone the properties. She stated that there is not a current development proposal for the properties. The Rose Park and Westpoint Community Councils are in favor of the proposed amendment. The Jordan Meadows Community Council was not in favor; they wanted to wait for a specific development proposal. She said that the Jordan Meadows Community Council was concerned that there would be vacant store fronts. They were also concerned about the impacts to students at Backman Elementary School and asked that Staff contact the Salt Lake City School District, which did not have any objections to the proposal. Ms. Coffey described the applicable Northwest Master Plan policies which address creating more commercial development. The location of commercial properties needs to be appropriate to service the future development patterns and demands. The subject property is located within the hub of commercial development in the Northwest Community. Staff does not believe that this is a viable place for low density residential development. Staff is recommending that the future land use map be amended to identify these properties as commercial rather than residential, and that text of the Master Plan also be amended to insure compatible development and direct future development. She referred to the existing Housing Mitigation Ordinance, which states that a rezoning request that removes existing housing requires the Applicant to mitigate the removal of the housing by providing unit for unit replacement or donating money to the City’s trust fund. Unless that ordinance is amended by the time development occurs, the Housing Mitigation will be required. There is an informal City policy to not allow more multi-family residential development in the center of this community because the schools and roadways have been heavily impacted.

Commissioner Muir asked if that policy includes mixed-use housing developments. Ms. Coffey said that she believed so. The community has been very vocal in eliminating the potential for new high density multi-family residential units.

Ms. Coffey stated that Staff is recommending the Commission transmit a favorable recommendation to the City Council to amend the future land use map as well as the text of the Northwest Community Master Plan.

Commissioner Muir asked Ms. Coffey if expanding the retail at this location diminishes the opportunity for the Internet Properties to develop at Redwood Road and North Temple as a regional shopping center. Ms. Coffey answered that she did not think that it does, although she is not a commercial market specialist. She felt the issue with that commercial development is attracting a contributing anchor tenant. Once that development attracts an anchor tenant, other small businesses will follow.

Commissioner Chambless asked if the area has been affected by crime. Ms. Coffey answered that there have been a lot of calls for police to patrol that area. The Police Department response is included in the staff report which notes the frequency of calls.

Commissioner Chambless inquired if the increased lighting in the area is part of the proposal as a way of counteracting crime. Ms. Coffey answered that the lighting of the residential area to the north and east is a separate issue. She said that she could contact the Transportation Division regarding that concern.

Commissioner Seelig referred to the original text of the Master Plan and quoted the portion that mentions conditional rezoning could be a potential tool to help develop in a way to avoid strip malls. She said this encourages the City to pursue conditional rezoning on a State level because it is not allowed under state Statue. Ms. Coffey replied that the City Attorney said that the City does not need to involve the State or seek their authorization. The courts have allowed for the City to rezone properties with conditions attached to them as long as the conditions help promote a public benefit and are voluntary by the applicant. In terms of going to the State for authorization, that is just one tool to implement the policies of the Master Plan. The City Attorney thought that the language should be stricken from the Master Plan because it is just one of many options.

Commissioner Scott referred to the possibility of lag time from when the text amendment is approved and when the property is actually developed. She asked if it is appropriate to attach a Housing Mitigation Implication to this text amendment. Ms. Coffey answered that the Commission could do that as a safeguard; however, she believed the City Council will always require that.

Chair Jonas stated that the Master Plan is a guiding document. It is not the ordinance, and the Housing Mitigation Ordinance is going to make the requirement, not the Master Plan.

Ms. Coffey agreed and said that through the rezoning process, one of the criteria is to look at the Master Plan.

Mr. Zunguze said that he is concerned with tying the Housing Mitigation element to this Master Plan Amendment petition because that is predominantly a City Council decision. He said that the Staff can raise the issue with the City Council whether they want to carry that element throughout the course of this Master Plan Amendment. He added that the Housing Mitigation issue is not strictly a land use issue and may not be a concern to raise in the Master Plan.

Commissioner Seelig referred to the recommendation to strike the limitation to the pedestrian scale and asked how big a sign can be in the R-1/5000 zoning district. Ms. Coffey explained that it is very small in the residential zoning district. The R-1/5000 zoning district is limited to the types of signs as well. Ms. Coffey said that she feels that the language should be removed because three other commercial developments in the area have pole signs. The language states that a sign must be pedestrian and neighborhood oriented which is a smaller scale. It does not seem fair in this area when the other commercial developments all have pole signs.

Commissioner Seelig clarified that the Commission is not changing the zoning, it would remain R-1/5000. Ms. Coffey said that is correct until a commercial development is proposed in which they would have to petition to rezone the property. If the property is rezoned for a commercial development the commercial zoning regulations would govern the type and size of the signage.

Chair Jonas opened the public hearing

No one was forth coming.

Chair Jonas closed the public hearing.

Chair Jonas clarified that the only potential change is striking the language in the Master Plan that refers to the Utah State Code, which is a recommendation by the City Attorney. He referred to the traffic counts and said that this is not a good area for residentially zoned properties. He referred to the comment about the signage and said that due to the high amount of traffic, it is probably not appropriate for a sign to be pedestrian scale. This is a Master Plan Amendment only and a commercial developer would have to propose to rezone the properties and present a commercial development plan before the rezone could take place.

Motion

Commissioner Seelig made a motion in regard to case number 400-03-18, based on the findings of fact listed in the staff report and the discussion this evening. The motion was that the Planning Commission recommend a favorable transmittal to City Council to amend the Future Land Use Map and portions of the text of the Northwest Community Master Plan as identified in the staff report to commercial rather than low density residential. The motion also included recommending that on page four of the existing text of the Northwest Community Master Plan beginning with “conditional rezoning would require that the new commercial property develop closer to more restrictive surrounding districts” and ending with “the recommendation with what the City should do in connection with the State” be stricken. Commissioner Diamond seconded the motion.

Petition No. 400-03-26, by Salt Lake City Administration to amend Chapter 21A.46 of the zoning ordinance, to allow portable signs in certain zoning districts.

This hearing began at 6:48 p.m.

Senior Planner Joel Paterson presented the petition as written in the staff report. He stated that earlier this year, the Administration approached the City Council and requested that they adopt temporary regulations that would allow portable signs to be placed in the public right-of-way. In May of 2003, the City Council adopted those temporary regulations. Under State law the temporary regulations are enacted for a period of not more than six months and the regulations will expire on November 13, 2003. This petition is intended to codify those regulations in the zoning ordinance to ensure the continuous regulation of the portable signs. The definition of a portable sign is a free standing sign located in the public right-of-way, which is defined as the sidewalk or park strip. Portable signs can be a maximum of 4-feet high and 3-feet wide. A portable sign must provide adequate space for pedestrian movement, which is no less than 6-feet in the Downtown area and 4-feet throughout the rest of the City. Portable signs can not obstruct ADA required features. Mr. Paterson said that many other cities throughout the country allow portable signs; however, the regulations vary widely from absolute prohibition to spacing or distance requirements. Portable signs have been prohibited in Salt Lake City since the early 1970’s due to concerns that they would contribute to a cluttered streetscape, and there were no regulations for placing a sign in front of a competing business. He noted that the current petition does not provide those kinds of regulations at this time. As the location of portable signs is proposed to be in the public right-of-way, there are concerns with first amendment rights. It is very difficult to regulate the content of signs. If this petition is approved, a wider range of signs is anticipated because the City does not regulate the content of a sign. The Administration believes that portable signs have provided many small businesses with additional visibility, and contribute to the pedestrian scale and streetscape. Based on the analysis and the findings presented in the staff report, the Staff recommends that the Planning Commission forward a positive recommendation to the City Council to approve Petition 400-03-26 to amend the zoning ordinance text to allow portable signs. The Staff also recommends that the Planning Commission forward a recommendation that the issue of portable signs be considered a temporary or limited remedy until the administration devises a more aesthetically coordinated system of directional signage.

Commissioner Scott referred to the aesthetically and coordinated system of directional signage, and asked if that is a current project. Mr. Zunguze answered that it is a current project that is still being worked on. To develop such a system, the City or business community would need to sponsor such a program. He said that there is a lot more work and negotiation that needs to take place. Staff did not have adequate time to get all of that done before the moratorium lapses. He said that the proposal before the Commission has been in force for the last six months and the City has not seen the negative elements that were anticipated. He said that Staff is working to address the issue associated with the number of signs a business could potentially have. He expects that only the businesses that are concerned with the need to advertise will bother with portable signs. Those businesses are predominantly in the Downtown area.

Commissioner Scott worried that a majority of signs in the Downtown area are advertising signs rather than directional signs.

Mr. Zunguze said that it is difficult to tell a directional sign from an advertising sign, because most do both. He said that ultimately the City does not want to regulate the content of a sign. It is time, place and manner issues that the City intends to address.

Chair Jonas asked for the City Attorney’s view on this issue.

Mr. Boyd Ferguson, Assistant City Attorney, stated that if there is going to be a directional sign program, it will constitute government speech, which is a new and difficult area of the law. The purpose of this petition is to enliven Downtown and help the retailers. The City Council feared that the area may become overrun with political signs if portable signs were allowed. He said that he advised them that if portable signs are allowed, the City can not regulate the content of a sign. He said that the current petition is a good temporary solution.

Commissioner Seelig said that she appreciates the notion of wanting to do it right. She also recognizes some of the concerns that have been raised particularly about the competing businesses. She asked if it is possible to attach a sunset date to the petition to ensure that the Commission would see this again. Mr. Ferguson answered that that is certainly legal.

Commissioner Seelig referred to Section 3, Item B, under the proposed language in the staff report. The last sentence “in addition, any portable sign may not be placed in any location that would obstruct any handicapped feature.” She asked for clarification by including ADA acceptable language.

Commissioner McDonough offered that the language be changed to read “ADA accessible feature”. Commissioner Seelig accepted that.

Chair Jonas asked if the City could regulate the number of signs in an area. He referred to the Mall and the large number of tenants. He said that conceivably with the current ordinance, every Mall tenant could place portable signs in the public right-of-way.

Mr. Ferguson answered that that is a time, place and manner issue which the City can regulate. He asked the Commission how they propose to regulate the number of portable signs, for example, if the limitation was three signs per block face and there are five businesses on the block face; would the limitation be on a first come first served basis.

Mr. Zunguze stated that that is one of the challenges Staff is currently addressing. He noted that Staff has had the benefit of experience with this issue because it has been in place for the past six months. He reiterated that there have not been as many abuses as Staff initially anticipated.

Chair Jonas said that the amount of portable signs is probably not going to increase based on the approval of this petition.

Mr. Zunguze said that he is concerned with attaching a sunset date to this petition because it may amount to a second moratorium.

Mr. Ferguson said that it would not be a moratorium if the sunset date were longer than six months.

Commissioner Seelig said that her intent with the sunset date is to address the issue of the number of signs allowed.

Commissioner Scott offered the scenario of a conditional use or nonconforming use business using a portable sign, and she asked if that business would be in violation because they are not in one of the prescribed areas. Mr. Paterson answered that that is correct. The ordinance only allows portable signs in specific zones.

Commissioner Chambless was concerned that the Downtown area would be overrun with political signs. Mr. Ferguson answered that was expected to be the case for the past six months, but it did not materialize.

Commissioner Daniels asked if this proposal encompasses the sandwich boards that people actually wear and walk around the street to advertise. Mr. Zunguze answered that that is a free speech issue and the City does not currently regulate that.

Commissioner Diamond asked how the appropriate timeline should be determined for the sunset date.

Commissioner Seelig said that she recognizes there are many issues with this ordinance, and she also appreciates the Administration’s effort to study the proposal further. That is why she suggests the sunset date should be six months.

Mr. Ferguson said that that may look like another moratorium.

Mr. Zunguze suggested that the Commission send a separate recommendation to the City Council that would say the Commission would like Staff to address the remaining issues by whatever date the Commission decides, as long as it is more than six months to avoid the impression of a second moratorium.

Mr. Ferguson said that the City Council has done that on other ordinances, and the Attorney’s Office takes that as clear direction that they need to work closely with Staff to get the associated issues addressed.

Commissioner Chambless suggested that the Commission set the date for the second week in November after the election.

Commissioner Scott said that she thought the original regulations were a temporary measure to allow time for Staff to make a priority and carry out the execution of a coordinated directional system. She asked if this is how we want our City to look in the long term.

Chair Jonas clarified that the original regulations were a test to study if portable signs could be beneficial to merchants. He said that the Administration has decided, according to the test, that this has worked in an orderly fashion and that they want to go forward with a long term solution. The Administration is not prepared to present the solution at this point, so they would like to extend the temporary solutions to further study the issues.

Commissioner McDonough clarified the solution that would go beyond this proposal, would come back as an amendment to this petition, and therefore, an ordinance.

Mr. Zunguze said that Staff would be augmenting this ordinance to safeguard against the potential abuses in regard to the numbers of portable signs that should be allowed.

Commissioner McDonough felt that it is reasonable for the Commission to ask for an appropriate date to see the final language and the results of the experiment. She said that it would be informative to extend this for an additional length of time. She felt that five weeks before the election next year would be an appropriate time to see the results.

Commissioner Diamond asked if this is the necessary solution for the merchants or are the other ordinances too stringent for businesses.

Mr. Paterson answered that those are concerns Staff has and those value judgments would be a part of the continuing study.

Commissioner Diamond suggested that Staff look at where the portable signs are being placed. Mr. Paterson agreed.

Chair Jonas suggested that this be an item for the banner signs subcommittee to review and discuss.

Mr. Zunguze said that the Commission’s comments are well received, and Staff will come back and address the Commission’s concerns.

Commissioner Muir asked if the Commission has the time to table this item, the Moratorium expires by November 13, 2003.

Mr. Zunguze said that the City Council is well aware of the issues that the Commission has raised this evening and there is no way that Staff could come back to the Commission and give the solutions prior to the time of the expiration of the current moratorium.

Commissioner Muir said that he recommends the Commission move forward with this petition and assign a sunset date. He added that the merchants are struggling, especially going into the holiday season.

Chair Jonas opened the public hearing.

Ms. Linda Pak, a resident of 507 Heritage Center, addressed the Commission to say that she feels the Staff proposal is a good solution. She feels that portable signs are appealing.

Commissioner Scott asked Ms. Pak if it would be an unpleasant experience if every business displayed portable signs. Ms. Pak said that it does not seem to be a problem at this point, but it would be blight if there were an overwhelming amount along the street.

Ms. Tarah Young, a resident of 932 South 200 West, addressed the Commission to say that the businesses along Main Street need help with advertising. She said that from personal experience, she could see problems arising from placing a sign in front of a competing business, but she supported the continuation of the experiment.

Chair Jonas closed the public hearing.

Motion

Commissioner Scott asked to amend the motion to include the priority that the Administration devises a more aesthetically coordinated system of directional signage.

Commissioner Muir accepted the amendment. Commissioner Galli accepted the amendment as well.

Chair Jonas referred to the discussion of changing the language of ADA accessible features and asked that that be incorporated into the motion.

Commissioner Muir accepted the amendment. Commissioner Galli accepted the amendment as well.

Amended Motion

Commissioner Muir made a motion, based upon the analysis of Staff and the findings presented in the staff report, for the Planning Commission to forward a positive recommendation to the City Council to approve Petition 400-03-26 to amend the zoning ordinance text to allow portable signs, and a subsequent review to augment the remaining issues by November 15, 2004, with the addition that the Administration devises a more aesthetically coordinated system of directional signage, and that language of the last sentence of Section 3 Item B be modified to read “in addition, any portable sign may not be placed in any location that would obstruct any ADA accessible feature.” Commissioner Galli seconded the motion.

Petition No. 400-03-21, by the Salt Lake City Planning Commission, requesting to amend the Salt Lake City zoning map, by changing the zoning of the property located at 622, 624 and 626 South 1100 East from Institutional (I) to Single- and Two-family (R-2) Residential.

This hearing began at 7:32 p.m.

Senior Planner Joel Paterson presented the petition as written in the staff report. He said that this petition is to resolve a zoning error which occurred during the 1995 zoning rewrite process. When the City adopted a new zoning ordinance and remapped the entire City, the properties located at 622, 624 and 626 South 1100 East were included in the Institutional “I” zoning district. He referred to the current zoning map and described the proposed petition area. He said that prior to the 1995 zoning rewrite, the entire block was zoned “R-2” and it was customary that all schools, public and private, throughout the City, public and private be located in the “R-2” zoning district. The 1974 Central Community Master Plan which is the controlling Master Plan for this area, recommends Low Density Residential “RMF-30” for this site. As staff reviewed this petition, it was discovered that the Central Community Master Plan, which is under review by the City Council, reflects the same error in the Future Land Use Map. Mr. Paterson said that Staff has notified the City Council of the error. Prior to 1990, the County sidwell maps identify land use ownership on a block. Staff used the sidwell maps for the land use survey at that time, which identified the southern third of this property as being part of the Judge Memorial Campus although it clearly noted that the owner was Mrs. Barker. It was a mistake and unfortunately it has been perpetuated as Staff has gone through other processes. This petition was reviewed by the East Central Community Council who had no concerns with it, but deferred their decision to the Douglas Neighborhood Association who supports the petition. Staff is recommending that the Planning Commission forward a positive recommendation to the City Council to change the zoning of the subject property from Institutional to “R-2”.

Chair Jonas opened the public hearing.

No one was forthcoming.

Chair Jonas closed the public hearing.

Motion

Commissioner Chambless made a motion, based upon the analysis and the findings of fact and Standards A-E as listed in the staff report, to forward a positive recommendation to the City Council to approve Petition 400-03-21 to amend the zoning map by changing the designation of 622, 624 and 626 South 1100 East from Institutional to Residential “R-2”. Commissioner McDonough seconded the motion.

UNFINISHED BUSINESS

There being no other unfinished business to discuss, the Planning Commission meeting adjourned at 7:38 p.m.