SALT LAKE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION
451 South State Street, Room 126
Present from the Planning Commission were Chairperson Judi Short, Andrea Barrows, Robert "Bip" Daniels, Arla Funk, Diana Kirk, Craig Mariger, Vice-Chairperson Max Smith and Mike Steed. Stephen Snelgrove was excused.
Present from the Planning Staff were Planning Director William T. Wright, Deputy Planning Director Brent Wilde, Cheri Coffey, Craig Hinckley, Margaret Pahl, Joel Paterson and Bill Allayaud.
A roll is being kept of all that attended the Planning Commission meeting. Ms. Short called the meeting to order at 5:20 p.m. Minutes are presented in agenda order, not necessarily as cases were heard by the Planning Commission. Tapes of the meeting will be retained in the Planning Office for a period of one year, after which, they will be erased.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
Mr. Smith moved to approve the minutes of Thursday, August 19, 1999. Ms. Barrows seconded the motion. Ms. Barrows, Mr. Daniels, Mr. Mariger, Mr. Smith and Mr. Steed voted “Aye”. Ms. Funk, Ms. Kirk and Mr. Snelgrove were not present. Ms. Short, as Chair, did not vote. The motion passed.
MASTER PLAN ISSUES
Continuation of Discussion and Final Decision – Petition No. 400-98-18 – The Salt Lake City Planning Commission will review changes and consider recommending approval of the Capitol Hill Community Master Plan.
Ms. Cheri Coffey presented pages from the Capitol Hill Community Master Plan showing proposed changes by the Planning Commission, staff and community, which staff agreed with, a copy of which is filed with the minutes.
The Planning Commission members commended Ms. Coffey and the community for doing a great job on the Capitol Hill Community Master Plan.
Motion for Petition No. 400-98-18:
Mr. Steed moved to transmit Petition No. 400-98-18 with a favorable recommendation to the City Council to adopt the draft Capitol Hill Community Master Plan with the inclusion of the proposed changes as presented. Mr. Daniels seconded the motion. Ms. Barrows, Mr. Daniels, Mr. Mariger, Mr. Smith and Mr. Steed voted “Aye”. Ms. Funk, Ms. Kirk and Mr. Snelgrove were not present. Ms. Short, as Chair, did not vote. The motion passed.
PUBLIC HEARINGS
PUBLIC HEARING – Case No. 410-348 by National Self Storage requesting a conditional use for an outdoor RV parking facility located at 350 South Redwood Road in a Commercial Corridor "CC" zoning district.
Mr. Craig Hinckley presented the staff report outlining the major issues of the case, the findings of fact and the staff recommendation, a copy of which is filed with the minutes. Mr. Hinckley then stated that in reviewing this proposal with the City's development review team, a question was raised as to whether or not there is "street frontage" on the north and northeast portions of the property which would result in a requirement for additional landscaping. Staff has researched this question and found that the "notch" in the northeast corner was originally a separately described lot which was apparently acquired by UDOT at the time the overpass on Redwood Road was constructed to provide room for the embankment resulting from elevating the road bed. The overpass also cut off access to several properties west of Redwood Road. In order to restore access, a driveway was constructed across the lot, around the north end of the property now owned by National Self Storage, and west along rear property lines (not within a public right-of-way) to Orange Street. Mr. Hinckley then stated that staff believes that the UDOT property constitutes a parcel between the north end of the petitioner's property and Redwood Road; that "street frontage", as that term is defined in the Zoning Ordinance, does not exist because access from the petitioners property to the driveway is restricted; and therefore, additional front yard and corner side yard landscaping is not required.
The Planning Commission members concluded that landscaping should be required on the northeast portion of the property. Various landscaping options were discussed.
Mr. A. Wayne Baker, Senior Manager over the Salt Lake area for National Self Storage, was present for this portion of the meeting and stated that he was in agreement with the staff recommendation.
Ms. Kirk arrived to the Planning Commission meeting at this time.
Mr. Mariger asked Mr. Baker if it would be burdensome to landscape the northeast portion of the property. Mr. Baker stated that he would landscape the northeast portion
of the property if he were required to, however, it would cost him a considerable amount of money to do it.
Ms. Short opened the hearing to the public and asked if anyone wished to address the Planning Commission. Upon receiving no response, she closed the hearing to the public and opened it for Planning Commission discussion.
Motion for Case No. 410-348:
Ms. Barrows moved, based on the findings of fact, to approve Case No. 410-348 for an outdoor RV parking facility subject to the following conditions as listed in the staff report with one addition:
1. Compliance with all elements of the site plans submitted by the petitioner.
2. Removal of asphalt from the Redwood Road parkway and planting of street trees, as approved by the City's Urban Forester, and vegetative groundcover. One tree shall be provided for each 30 feet of the parkway which is over 36 inches in width. Where the parkway is less than 24 inches wide, brick or concrete pavers may be used in lieu of landscaping.
3. The eight rules for operation of the RV storage facility, as outlined by the petitioner, shall be conditions of this approval. The rules are:
1. The RV, boat or pick-up truck must be parked in a specific, designated, marked area in the facility, thus allowing for neat, orderly rows of similarly-sized equipment.
2. Renters are not permitted to live in stored units. Indeed, they may not even remain in them overnight. When our security system is turned on each night at 9:30 p.m., there can be no one on the premises.
3. We do not permit the parking of vehicles (except for boats) that must be towed in. All vehicles must be driveable.
4. We require owners of vehicles to furnish us with copies of registration so that stolen or borrowed equipment never enters the property.
5. We do not permit large flat-bed trailers with unsightly loads to enter our premises.
6. All RV parking contracts are for at least a one month period of time.
7. Gate hours for access are the same as for our present covered facility, presently 7:00 a.m. to 9:00 p.m. seven days a week; closed for 6 major federal holidays.
8. Our managers live on-site at our present facility. They are required to make several inspection trips each day throughout our facility to maintain neatness, security and to make certain owners are not using the property as a repair facility. We permit none of our tenants to perform anything except minor maintenance on their equipment while on our property.
4. The petitioner coordinate with UDOT to landscape the frontage from the UDOT right-of-way and that final approval of landscaping plans be delegated to the Planning Director. (underlined portion added the Planning Commission)
Mr. Mariger seconded the motion. Ms. Barrows, Mr. Daniels, Mr. Mariger, Mr. Smith and Mr. Steed voted “Aye”. Ms. Kirk abstained. Ms. Funk and Mr. Snelgrove were not present. Ms. Short, as Chair, did not vote. The motion passed.
PUBLIC HEARING – Case No. 410-363 by Jensen Haslem Architects requesting a conditional use to allow additional building height for the new ARUP facility located at 546 Chipeta Way in a Research Park "RP" zoning district.
Mr. Mariger disclosed that he provides legal representation to Jensen Haslem Architects and also that his firm has provided legal representation to a joint venture of which one entity is the Boyer Company. Having disclosed this, Mr. Mariger feels that this will not preclude his providing unbiased opinions during this proceeding.
Ms. Kirk disclosed that she has a similar conflict with regards to the Boyer Company. Having disclosed this, Ms. Kirk feels that this will not preclude her providing unbiased opinions during this proceeding.
Ms. Margaret Pahl presented the staff report outlining the major issues of the case, the findings of fact and the staff recommendation, a copy of which is filed with the minutes.
Mr. Jon Erdmann, the petitioner, was present for this portion of the meeting and stated that he was in agreement with the staff recommendation.
Ms. Short opened the hearing to the public and asked if anyone wished to address the Planning Commission. Upon receiving no response, she closed the hearing to the public and opened it for Planning Commission discussion.
Motion for Case No. 410-363:
Mr. Smith moved, based on the findings of fact, to approve Case No. 410-363 to allow additional building height for the new ARUP facility subject to the following condition as noted by Mr. Wilde:
1. That the Planning Director have final approval authority for grade changes. (underlined portion added by the Planning Commission)
Mr. Mariger seconded the motion. Ms. Barrows, Mr. Daniels, Ms. Kirk, Mr. Mariger, Mr. Smith and Mr. Steed voted “Aye”. Ms. Funk and Mr. Snelgrove were not present. Ms. Short, as Chair, did not vote. The motion passed.
PUBLIC HEARING – Case No. 410-364 by Mr. Craig Mecham requesting a conditional use and a planned development to construct a six-story, 90,000 square foot office building located at 2170 South 1300 East in a Commercial Sugar House Business District "CSHBD" zoning district. Underground parking for 214 vehicles is also being requested.
Mr. Bill Allayaud presented the staff report outlining the major issues of the case, the findings of fact and the staff recommendation, a copy of which is filed with the minutes. Mr. Allayaud stated that this is the third time this project has been submitted and the second time it has been considered by the Planning Commission. The first application, Case No. 410-271, was for a larger building which was denied by the Planning Commission on June 18, 1998. The central concern cited by the Planning Commission in their denial was that the proposed building was too large and would have a negative visual impact on the area due to a combination of its scale and architectural design. After that denial, the petitioner reduced the size of the building by about 8,000 square feet and reapplied (Case No. 410-326). However, he withdrew that application when it became apparent that there was still considerable opposition. Mr. Allayaud continued by stating that after exploring options, the petitioner had decided to further reduce the building mass and make substantial changes in the architectural style. The redesigned project was presented to a subcommittee of the Planning Commission and to the Sugar House Community Council. The Community Council has written a letter in favor of the project, but the letter also expresses some reservations and conditions about the possible approval. The staff recommends conditions that address some of their concerns; other concerns are beyond the issues that can be addressed in this planned development.
Mr. Mariger asked if there is any pedestrian access between Wilmington Avenue and 2100 South. Mr. Allayaud responded that there is not a pedestrian access at this time, however, the Community Council would like to see a north/south pedestrian access.
Mr. Craig Mecham, the petitioner, and Mr. Fred Babcock, the architect, were present for this portion of the meeting were present for this portion of the meeting and stated that
they were in agreement with the staff recommendation. Mr. Mecham presented his project to the Planning Commission. He stated that he feels that the proposed project is a much more efficient building because it is 40% smaller, it contains more brick and less glass, and it has substantially less parking stalls. Mr. Mecham would also like to see a linkage from his project to the Commons. Mr. Mecham then stated that he feels that the advantages have not been lost even though the building has been reduced in size. He also feels that the building will vitalize and stimulate the whole economy of Sugar House.
Ms. Barrows asked Mr. Mecham if he would be willing to grant an irrevocable surface pedestrian easement for the east/west connection across the plaza. Mr. Mecham stated that he would be in favor of an east/west pedestrian easement because the people will be an asset to his project.
Ms. Barrows then asked about the restaurant which is proposed to be located on the lower west side level of the building. Mr. Barrows asked if the space would always be used for retail. Mr. Babcock responded by stating that the proposed restaurant space is intended to remain retail, however, if retail fails, Planning Staff has suggested that the space be used for a small professional office. Mr. Mecham then stated that his hopes are that the space will always be used for a restaurant.
Ms. Short opened the hearing to the public and asked if anyone wished to address the Planning Commission.
Ms. Helen Peters, Chair of the Sugar House Community Council, stated that an issue still remains to be resolved between Mr. Mecham and UDOT regarding vehicle access from 1300 East to the project's proposed underground parking. The Sugar House Community Council voted to approve the proposal on condition that this issue is resolved in a satisfactory manner. Ms. Peters then stated that there is still some concern among certain trustees as to the height of the building. There are many other issues still unresolved concerning the proposed development. The Sugar House Community Council appreciates Mr. Mecham's willingness to continue to work with the Planning Commission Subcommittee. The Community Council encourages Mr. Mecham to have ongoing discussions with the chair of the Sugar House Community Council regarding the status of the project to make sure all community concerns are addressed. (Ms. Peters submitted a letter detailing the Sugar House Community Council's concerns, a copy of which is filed with the minutes.)
Mr. Scott Kisling, speaking as a concerned citizen, stated that he likes the design of the proposed project. However, he is concerned because the square footage of the building is twice the recommended size for this area. He then stated that the Planning Commission should be comparing the proposed size to the master plans, not the original proposed size. Mr. Kisling then stated that it would be easier for him to accept the proposed size of the building if he knew that there was a very strong mixed-use and pedestrian orientation design. Mr. Kisling continued by stating that he is concerned with the increased amount of traffic that this project will bring to the area. He then
suggested that there be some thought as to where the bicycle parking should be placed so that it gets used. Mr. Kisling then asked where the garbage dumpster will be located.
Mr. Mecham responded that the garbage dumpster will be on the north side of the building between the proposed building and the abutting parking lot and that it will be accessed through the parking lot. Mr. Smith then asked staff to follow-up on the location of the garbage dumpster with the petitioner.
Mr. Armand Johansen, of Johansen Thackeray who is the co-owner of the Commons along with the Boyer Company, spoke in favor of the proposed project and stated that Mr. Mecham's development is ideal for this location. Mr. Johansen then stated that he feels that between the Commons and Mr. Mecham's proposal, a very high standard of development is being created.
Mr. Dale Brewster, Sugar House Chamber of Commerce, stated that he agrees with Mr. Johansen's comments. He then stated that it has been the Chamber's vision to have Sugar House a destination. The Chamber supports Mr. Mecham's project because we believe that it goes with our vision.
Mr. Richard Shaughnessey, a retail business owner in the area, stated that one thing he has noticed over the past 11 years is the unusually disproportioned amount of retail space vs. professional occupation oriented offices. Mr. Shaughnessey feels that Mr. Mecham's project addresses this issue in a way that will benefit the community by bringing people into the Sugar House area. He then stated that he strongly recommends that this proposal be approved so that Mr. Mecham can begin building.
Upon receiving no further requests to address the Planning Commission, Ms. Short closed the hearing to the public and opened it for Planning Commission discussion.
Mr. Mariger excused himself from the Planning Commission meeting at this time. Mr. Mariger submitted some notes to Mr. Steed for consideration of the Planning Commission members.
Ms. Short stated that she has some concerns about the remaining parcels that are along 1300 East and 2100 South. She wonders if all of the business owners in this area could meet to talk about future plans so that current development is an asset to the future of Sugar House. Ms. Short then stated that she does not want to delay Mr. Mecham's project if these meetings do occur.
Mr. Mecham stated that he intends to work with the other business owners because it is to everyone's benefit. He agrees with Ms. Short's comment that any future meetings will not delay the proposed project.
Mr. Steed commented that he commends Mr. Mecham on his patience and perseverance. Mr. Steed then stated that he is more comfortable with Mr. Mecham's current proposal then he was with Mr. Mecham's original proposal.
Motion for Case No. 410-271:
Mr. Steed moved, based on the findings of fact, to approve Case No. 410-271 for a planned development subject to the following conditions (underlined portions added by the Planning Commission):
1. Prior to issuance of a building permit, the applicant shall submit for the review and approval of the Planning Director a detailed plan or evidence for each of the following:
a. Improvements for the plaza area and stairway connecting 1300 East and Hidden Hollow. This plan shall include, but is not limited to, pedestrian amenities such as benches, landscaping, planter boxes, art, lighting, and paving materials. The stairway shall be a minimum of 22 feet wide at the base and 8 feet wide at the top with at least one mid-landing wide enough for sitting and/or standing off the path of pedestrians. The landing and base area shall include planter boxes or other amenities that increase pedestrian and public interest. The plaza area shall include bollards or concrete planter boxes placed along the eastern edge of the property, including the existing Parkview Plaza parcel, space close enough together to prevent vehicular access onto the plaza.
b. Landscaping plan including details for the landscaping strip along 1300 East from Wilmington Avenue to the project's north boundary and for the berm area on City property. After construction of the parking structure is completed and prior to implementation of any landscaping or berming on the west side of the project, Planning staff shall review the landscaping plan, and in coordination with the applicant, the Redevelopment Agency, City Parks, and the Sugar House Community Council, shall make appropriate adjustments to the final landscaping plan.
c. A financial contribution made to the appropriate agency for mitigation of traffic impacts; the amount of the contribution shall be based on an updated estimate made by the traffic consultant and approved by UDOT.
d. A dedicated, irrevocable easement to allow pedestrian traffic to pass from Wilmington Avenue through the Parkview Plaza building to the northwest corner of the project site.
e. A plan that indicates how the building can be adapted to allow traffic to exit from the northwest corner of the property to access possible future easements that connect the property to 2100 South.
f. Permission in the form of a permanent easement or right-of-way to use the adjacent property to the north (Sidwell parcel #16-20-229-013) for access to the project site from 1300 East Street and to remove the garbage from any dumpster on the north side of the project. (Dumpster location and buffering be approved by the Planning Director.)
g. Approval from UDOT of the driveway access or accesses from 1300 East.
h. Revised site plan that has been approved by City Transportation for the configuration of the entry and exit driveways on 1300 East and the delivery (truck unloading) parking spaces.
i. All utilities be placed underground.
j. A location of at least six bicycle parking spaces be provided.
k. At least 800 square feet of retail space be located on the west side of the project, at the same elevation as Hidden Hollow; this space shall be dedicated to retail or commercial use, preferably a restaurant.
l. That there be an irrevocable easement for pedestrian to cross the property from 1300 East to Hidden Hollow, the width to be at least as wide as the width of the final stairway when it is determined.
m. A line of disturbance for the construction process shall be established by staff and indicated on the final approved site plan; any damage to the resources of Hidden Hollow shall be mitigated by the applicant and guaranteed through a bond.
n. Color and type of exterior building materials including brick and glass.
Ms. Kirk seconded the motion. Ms. Barrows, Mr. Daniels, Ms. Kirk, Mr. Smith and Mr. Steed voted “Aye”. Ms. Funk, Mr. Mariger and Mr. Snelgrove were not present. Ms. Short, as Chair, did not vote. The motion passed.
Mr. Smith excused himself from the Planning Commission meeting at this time. Ms. Funk arrived to the Planning Commission meeting at this time.
PUBLIC HEARING – Case No. 410-366 by Salt Lake City Engineering requesting a conditional use and planned development for the proposed Steiner Recreation Center Ice Sheet located at 645 South Guardsman Way in an Open Space "OS" zoning district.
Ms. Margaret Pahl presented the staff report outlining the major issues of the case, the findings of fact and the staff recommendation, a copy of which is filed with the minutes. Ms. Pahl stated that the new parking is located across the property and zone boundary
and that there is not enough space to develop the required parking stalls or provide the required landscaped setback. However, the community was opposed to the addition of the required parking.
Mr. Gaylord Smith, of Salt Lake City Engineering, was present for this portion of the meeting and stated that he was in agreement with the staff recommendation. Also present were Mr. Rick Johnston, Deputy City Engineer, and Mr. Louis Ulrich, architect.
Mr. Ulrich presented a model of the proposed Steiner Recreation Center Ice Sheet. Discussion followed as the Planning Commission members asked questions of Messrs. Smith, Johnston and Ulrich regarding parking, operating hours and proposed materials.
Ms. Short opened the hearing to the public and asked if anyone wished to address the Planning Commission. Upon receiving no response, she closed the hearing to the public and opened it for Planning Commission discussion.
Mr. Steed stated that he is in favor of the proposed planned development, however, he is concerned about the parking situation because there is not adequate parking on Guardsman Way in this area. Ms. Funk stated that the community would rather struggle with the parking then have the required parking stalls.
Motion for Case No. 410-366:
Ms. Kirk moved, based on the findings of fact, to approve Case No. 410-366 for a planned development subject to the modifications to the standards in the Zoning Ordinance as described in the staff report. Mr. Steed seconded the motion. Ms. Barrows, Mr. Daniels, Ms. Funk, Ms. Kirk and Mr. Steed voted “Aye”. Mr. Smith, Mr. Mariger and Mr. Snelgrove were not present. Ms. Short, as Chair, did not vote. The motion passed.
PUBLIC HEARING – Petition No. 400-99-27 and Case No. 410-367 by James J. Bowden requesting that a 37.87 acre parcel located at 1816 North and 2200 West be annexed into Salt Lake City from unincorporated Salt Lake County. The parcel will be recommended for Business Park "BP" zoning district. Planned development approval is also requested for a six building office park.
Ms. Margaret Pahl presented the staff report outlining the major issues of the case, the findings of fact and the staff recommendation, a copy of which is filed with the minutes.
Mr. Steed asked if the developer has considered purchasing the old 1700 North road and moving the development further south. Ms. Pahl stated that the developer is currently in discussions with UDOT and is hoping to purchase the old 1700 North road.
Ms. Short asked about a statement in the staff report which reads "The Northwest Community Master Plan identifies this area as having high limitations to development, describing it as seasonally saturated land. Ms. Pahl responded by stating that although it is mentioned in the master plan, she has been told that there are no wetlands in the subject area.
Ms. Short opened the hearing to the public and asked if anyone wished to address the Planning Commission.
Mr. Guy Young, an abutting property owner, spoke concerning the parking lot which abuts his backyard. He stated that he is concerned that if the proposed business park is open 24 hours, he will have parking lot lights shining into his home all night long. Mr. Young then stated that he is against the proposed development.
Mr. James Gautier, representing the petitioner, was present for this portion of the meeting and stated that he was in agreement with the staff recommendation. He then stated that his company has prided themselves in being able to work with the community around our developments.
Ms. Funk asked Mr. Gautier if he has attempted to buy the residential properties that are located at the northwest corner of his property. Mr. Gautier stated that everyone in the community has either received a letter or has been approached in person to let them know of the proposed development. At this time, however, the company is focusing on developing the proposed parcel to be annexed before attempting to acquire additional acreage.
Ms. Linda Hill, an abutting property owner, presented a petition signed by 27 neighbors in the community who are against the proposed annexation and development, a copy of which is filed with the minutes. Ms. Hill then stated that every Spring there is flooding that occurs. She is also concerned about increased traffic and the widening of 2200 North because her home is close to the road now.
Ms. Funk asked Ms. Hill how close her home is to the current road. Ms. Hill stated that her home is approximately 10-15 feet from the road.
Mr. Daniels asked Ms. Hill if she or any other neighbors have had any discussions with the developer. Ms. Hill stated that she has not been approached, and she is not aware of any of her neighbors being approached.
Mr. Jesse Sugden, a property owner to the north of the proposed development, stated that he is concerned with the increased traffic and the increased hazards that will exist on 2200 North. There are accidents regularly on 2200 North, accidents will increase if the proposed development is approved. Mr. Sugden then stated that if Mr. Gautier has a reputation of working with the community, then he should be doing so by addressing the community's concerns.
Mr. Clark Olsen, a property owner in the area, stated that he is opposed to the proposed project. He then spoke concerning Mr. Gautier's reputation of working with the community and stated that he is not aware of anyone that has been contacted. Mr. Olsen continued by stating that if this project is approved, it will increase traffic considerably and he is concern about the safety of his children. Mr. Olsen then stated that between Southwest Airline Reservations across the street that is open 24 hours and if this development is approved and open 24 hours, he will have car and/or parking lights shining in his house (front and back) all night long. It has been his experience that the buffering from the Southwest Airline Reservations does not work.
Ms. Leslie Bond, a property owner to the north of the proposed development, spoke concerning her livestock. If this project is approved, Ms. Bond wonders if the people in the business park will start complaining about the smell and the insects that livestock create. Ms. Bond also asked if her livestock will create a health hazard some time in the future? She then asked the Planning Commission to consider the concerns of the community and their future and to not approve this development, especially since the owners of the proposed development have not been working with the community. Ms. Bond also noted that there are water issues that should be considered.
Upon receiving no further requests to address the Planning Commission, Ms. Short closed the hearing to the public and opened it for Planning Commission discussion.
Mr. Steed is concerned for the residents of this community because the proposed project, if approved, will be a huge impact. Some of the residents have been in the community for over 30 years. Although the master plan identifies this property for business park zoning, Mr. Steed feels that there are better opportunities for this property then a 400,000 square foot business park. Whatever is developed on this property should be something that will not be detrimental to the community's future. Mr. Steed then stated that he cannot support the annexation of this property based upon the proposed project.
Ms. Barrows stated that she is not opposed to annexing the parcel because then the City would have the control over the affected community and how the parcel is developed. Ms. Barrows then stated that she is, however, opposed to the proposed development.
Ms. Funk asked if the annexation could be approved without approving the proposed development. Mr. Wheelwright stated that the Planning Commission would need to send their recommendation concerning the annexation of the parcel and a zoning classification to the City Council for their final approval. The planned development approval is strictly under Planning Commission's jurisdiction. Therefore, the annexation could be approve without approving the proposed development.
Ms. Pahl then stated that the master plan identifies this parcel to be zoned business park. Therefore, if the Planning Commission believes that the parcel should be zoned something other than business park, the master plan would need to be amended.
Mr. Wright stated that it is in the City's annexation policy to annex this portion of Salt Lake County, therefore, the City declares their willingness to consider annexation of this parcel. It is likely that this parcel will annex into Salt Lake City. Mr. Wright then stated that once the parcel is annexed, what is the correct land use? The Northwest Community Master Plan identifies this parcel to be zoned business park. Mr. Wright advised the Planning Commission to table this Petition for further study and to ask the developer to meet with the community.
Ms. Funk stated that she is concerned about the fact that the developer has not directly worked with the community to try to mitigate the impact of the proposed development or to try to buy their property. Ms. Funk then stated that she is in favor of the annexation and opposed to the proposed development.
Ms. Short stated that she is concerned about the widening of 2200 West and how much right-of-way it will take away from the homes. Ms. Pahl stated that the developer will only be required to widen the street in front of his property, not in front of the homes to the north of his property.
Motion for Petition No. 400-99-27 and Case No. 410-367:
Ms. Kirk moved to table Petition No. 400-99-27 and Case No. 410-367 for further study and to allow the developer time to meet with the surrounding neighbors. Ms. Funk seconded the motion. Ms. Barrows, Mr. Daniels, Ms. Funk, Ms. Kirk and Mr. Steed voted “Aye”. Mr. Mariger, Mr. Smith and Mr. Snelgrove were not present. Ms. Short, as Chair, did not vote. The motion passed.
PLANNING ISSUES
Continuation of Discussion and Final Decision – Petition No. 400-99-41 – The Salt Lake City Planning Commission will review the proposed changes to Salt Lake City's Sign Ordinance (Section 21A.46) which will allow for painted wall signs in additional zones.
Mr. Joel Paterson stated that this petition was initially reviewed by the Planning Commission on August 5, 1999. The Planning Commission's motion recommended that the City Attorney be directed to draft an ordinance in light of the discussion that took place and have the draft ordinance return to the Planning Commission for further review and action. Mr. Paterson then presented the proposed modifications to the sign ordinance regarding painted wall signs, a copy of which is attached.
The Planning Commission briefly discussed deleting "painted" from the definition for murals because there are other types of materials and/or art work. The definition for murals reads as follows:
"Murals. All or any portion of painted art work or murals which would not constitute a sign under this chapter."
After their discussion, the Planning Commission considered rewording the definition to include "other typical materials used in murals". After further discussion, the Planning Commission decided to leave "painted" in the definition to avoid shrink wrapping buildings. Other types of materials such as tiles and brick patterns can be dealt with as building materials for the mural.
Motion for Petition No. 400-99-41:
Ms. Barrows moved to forward a favorable recommendation to the City Council for Petition No. 400-99-41 to modify Salt Lake City's Sign Ordinance (Section 21A.46) which will allow for painted wall signs in additional zones. Mr. Steed seconded the motion. Ms. Barrows, Mr. Daniels, Ms. Funk, Ms. Kirk and Mr. Steed voted “Aye”. Mr. Mariger, Mr. Smith and Mr. Snelgrove were not present. Ms. Short, as Chair, did not vote. The motion passed.
OTHER BUSINESS
Mr. Brent Wilde asked the Planning Commission to initiate a petition to reevaluate the zoning on the south side of North Temple at approximately 1900 West. The property is currently zoned Commercial "CC" and is too deep for commercial uses. The recommended zoning is either Business Park "BP" or Light Manufacturing "M-1".
Ms. Funk moved to initiate a petition to reevaluate the zoning on the south side of North Temple at approximately 1900 West which is currently zoned Commercial "CC" and consider rezoning the property to either Business Park "BP" or Light Manufacturing "M-1". Mr. Steed seconded the motion. Ms. Barrows, Mr. Daniels, Ms. Funk, Ms. Kirk and Mr. Steed voted “Aye”. Mr. Mariger, Mr. Smith and Mr. Snelgrove were not present. Ms. Short, as Chair, did not vote. The motion passed.
There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 9:00 p.m.