SALT LAKE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION
451 South State Street, Rooms 126 and 315
Present from the Planning Commission were Chairperson Kimball Young, Max Smith, Aria Funk, Judi Short, Jim McRea, Andrea Barrows, Gilbert lker, Fred Fife and Carlton Christensen. Diana Kirk was excused.
Present from the Planning Staff were Planning Director William T. Wright, Brent Wilde, Ray McCandless, Joel Paterson and Elizabeth Egleston.
A roll is being kept of all who attended the Planning Commission meeting. The meeting was called to order at 5:05 p.m. by Mr. Young. 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. lker moved to approve the minutes of Thursday, April 3, 1997 subject to minor changes being made. Ms. Barrows seconded the motion. Mr. Christensen, Ms. Funk, Ms. Barrows, Ms. Short, Mr. Fife, Mr. lker and Mr. McRea voted "Aye". Ms. Kirk and Mr. Smith were not present. Mr. Young, as Chair, did not vote. The motion passed.
PLANNING ISSUES
Discussion of Cellular Antenna regulations including landscaping. abandonment and impact fees.
Mr. Ray McCandless 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. McCandless first addressed the landscaping issue. He stated that the existing provisions of the Zoning Ordinance give the Planning Commission adequate authority to require vertical landscaping as needed. According to the conditional use standards in the Zoning Ordinance, the Planning Commission must find that there is appropriate buffering provided to protect adjacent land uses from visual impact and that the landscaping is appropriate for the scale of the development.
Mr. Fife asked if landscaping would be required for cellular antennae requests that did not need to be filed as a conditional use. Mr. Wilde stated that landscaping would not be required for cellular antennae that were not conditional uses. Mr. Wilde then stated that the Planning Commission could make an ordinance clarification to state that vertical landscaping is required whether or not it is a permitted or conditional use application.
The Planning Commissioners discussed the types of landscaping and height issues.
Mr. Wright stated that although the landscaping may not completely reach the height of the pole, it would be beneficial from the pedestrian level. Mr. Wright also stated that the landscaping requirements will differ with each request and that the Planning Commission could put a minimum height criteria in each approval.
Mr. McCandless then addressed the abandonment of monopoles or lattice tower
antennae with the possibility of implementing a performance bond or other means to financially guarantee the removal of the poles. Mr. McCandless described the seven different options, listed in the staff report, that the Planning Commission could consider. The options include: 1) No change to the existing Zoning Ordinance; 2) Escrow Account; 3) Certificate of Deposit; 4) Irrevocable letter of credit; 5) Salvage value; 6) Performance Bond; and 7) Property owner agreement. Mr. McCandless stated that if the Planning Commission desires financial assurance for monopole and lattice tower removal, they should approve Option 2, 3, 4 or 6. If the Planning Commission does not feel financial assurance is necessary, they should approve Option 1 or 7. In addition, the Planning Commission may choose any combination of the options presented.
Mr. McRea asked if the new ordinance modifications would be retroactive to existing poles. Mr. Wilde stated that Planning Staff's recommendation would be to make the ordinance modifications retroactive to all existing poles and that the City Attorney's Office has agreed that that could be done. Representatives from the various companies that have a need for monopoles and/or lattice tower antennae were present for this portion of the meeting. The Planning Commissioners had an open discussion with the company representatives. It was stated that the Performance Bond option (Option 6) was preferred by the company representatives who were present.
Mr. McRea stated that not all companies are being represented tonight and that the Performance Bond option may not be preferred by all companies. Mr. McRea feels that the Planning Commission should approve several options and then allow the companies to choose which option they would like to participate in. Mr. McRea also stated that the Planning Commission should make a decision tonight. However, the most important decision should be to lift the moratorium and begin to process conditional use applications again.
Ms. Funk asked what options the Planning Staff recommends. Mr. Wilde stated that the Planning Staff could work with any option that has been identified and that we should try to give the companies some flexibility. However, the Performance Bond and the Escrow account options will probably be the easiest for the companies to work with.
Mr. McCandless then addressed the final issue of impact fees. He stated that the City Attorney's Office concluded that the imposition of impact fees on monopoles and lattice towers would be difficult because visual impacts are not quantifiable. Motion on Cellular Antenna regulations including landscaping, abandonment and impact fees:
Mr. McRea moved to make the following changes to the existing Telecommunication
Ordinance:
1. That vertical landscaping be required as needed.
2. That a landscaping plan be required with every future monopole request.
3. That the following options be conceptually approved subject to making sure that there is a way to process each option that is acceptable to the City Attorney's Office:
a. OPTION 2: Escrow Account
b. OPTION 3: Certificate of Deposit
c. OPTION 4: Irrevocable Letter of Credit
d. OPTION 6: Performance Bond
4. That there be no reliance on impact fees.
5. That the removal cost of a 60 foot monopole be rounded up to $4,000.
Mr. McRea further moved to allow staff to initiate the ordinance revisions and that conditional use applications can be processed again subject to compliance with the proposed changes mentioned above and that the ordinance changes be retroactive to all existing poles. Ms. Funk seconded the motion. Mr. Christensen, Ms. Funk, Ms. Barrows, Ms. Short, Mr. Smith, Mr. Fife, Mr. lker and Mr. McRea voted "Aye". Ms. Kirk was not present. Mr. Young, as Chair, did not vote. The motion passed.
PETITIONS
PUBLIC HEARING - Petition No. 400-97-20 by former City Councilmember Sam Souvall requesting an amendment to the Capitol Hill Community Master Plan and amendment to the Zoning Map for the property at approximately 259 N. Almond Street (the vacant property owned by Watts Corporation). The request is to amend the master plan and rezone this property from Residential "RMF-45" to a Residential "SR-1" zoning district.
Ms. Elizabeth Egleston 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. She stated that the parcels zoned "RMF-45", that are being considered for rezoning, include 1.39 acres, with Mr. Russ Watts owning 1.18 acres of this total and Mr. Butler owning 0.21 acres. After presenting the staff report, Ms. Egleston stated that the Planning Staff recommends that the Planning Commission make a determination of the appropriate land use policy for this site and then choose an appropriate zoning classification to fit the desired land use classification. Ms. Egleston then noted that the Zoning Ordinance states that the Planning Commission shall consider the following five standards when the zoning classification of a parcel is proposed to be amended:
1. Whether the proposed amendment is consistent with the purposes, goals, objectives and policies of the adopted general plan of Salt Lake City.
2. Whether the proposed amendment is harmonious with the overall character of existing development in the immediate vicinity of the subject property.
3. The extent to which the proposed amendment will adversely affect adjacent properties.
4. Whether the proposed amendment is consistent with the prov1s1ons of any applicable overlay zoning districts which may impose additional standards.
5. The adequacy of public facilities and services intended to serve the subject property, including but not limited to roadways, parks and recreational facilities, police and fire protection, schools, storm water drainage systems, water supplies and wastewater and refuse collection.
Ms. Barrows asked what criteria was considered in determining the level of service (LOS) which is currently LOS A. Mr. Wright stated that traffic engineers look at the intensity of the land use, traffic volume, capacity allowance on each of the streets and the turning movements. Mr. Paterson noted that the LOS also takes into account the function of the ease or the difficulty of travel in the travel lane. Nearby intersections were also studied taking into consideration the period of time that a vehicle waits at the intersection. Based on the anticipated number of increased trips that the proposed development would create, it was concluded that the existing level of service (LOS A) would not increase.
Mr. Souvall, the petitioner, was not present.
Mr. Russ Watts, representing Watts Corporation (property owner of the 1.18 acres on Almond Street), was present for this portion of the meeting. Mr. Watts stated that he has been involved with this development since August 1995 and he is aware that there are differing opinions as to what is appropriate for the proposed site. Mr. Watts then stated that in March 1996 the Planning Commission approved a 34-unit planned development which required many design variations and zoning variances. The community council appealed this concept and Mr. Watts presented another concept, that was a substantial change from the first concept, working out the concerns of the City and concerned people in the neighborhood. As a property owner, if the area is downzoned, Mr. Watts will be required to start over with a new development for the new zoning classification. Watts Corporation has invested approximately $840,000 to this point. Mr. Watts then stated that as owners of the property, Watts Corporation wants to be able to develop a community that will contribute to the lifestyle and the value of the surrounding neighborhood. He hopes that the Planning Commission will take into consideration the amount of effort and time that has been engaged with the City to find an agreeable project. Watts Corporation is willing to communicate with the City to find an agreeable development and consider adjustments and/or some compromises to the development which now stands at 50 units. Mr. Watts noted that they have also considered donating funds for affordable housing in the City. (Mr. Watts submitted a detailed letter, a copy of which is filed with the minutes.)
Ms. Barrows and Mr. lker spoke concerning the elevation of Almond Street Mr. lker asked what would be the outcome if the property would be downzone. Mr. Watts stated that due to the change of elevation, if one level of units were to be removed from the project, the pedestrian view at the highest point would be looking out over roof tops about three to four feet about the project.
Mr. Dale Butler, property owner of approximately 0.21 acres immediately south of Mr. Watts property, was present. He stated that if the property is downzoned it will limit him from developing his land the way he had hoped to, and it will decrease the value of the land. He has spoken with the neighbors between 200 North and 300 North and between Almond Street and State Street, he has not found anyone who is opposed to the development being proposed by Mr. Watts. Mr. Butler stated that he is in favor of the proposed development.
Mr. Young asked how long Mr. Butler has owned his land. Mr. Butler stated that he has owned it for approximately five or six years. Mr. Young then asked Mr. Wright to explain what has been happening in reference to the moratorium on the proposed parcels of land, and the compromises being proposed by Mr. Watts.
Mr. Wright stated that his understanding is that Mr. Watts will be in discussions with the City Council to analyze his options. The City Council placed the moratorium on the property and they are the group that will make the final decision on the zoning of this property and/or any negotiated settlement having to do with the release or expiration of the moratorium. The Planning Commission should be aware that there has been an indication of a reduction in the number of units from the original proposal of the Watts property. There is a number of options that the Planning Commission can consider. This petition has been legally calendared and has met the 14 day notice for the May 1st Planning Commission meeting. Therefore, if the Commission would like to continue the deliberations until May 1st, that option is available. Another option is that the Planning Commission can make a decision at tonight's meeting.
Mr. Young asked about the vesting court case. Mr. Wright stated that a law suit was filed against the City in a general nature trying to make an expression that this project was vested. There has been a lot of research done and discovery of evidence. There was a hearing for summary judgment held before a court approximately ten days ago. The judge decided that he would not rule on this case in a summary judgment fashion and that he would not rule until the legislative process had expired and a determination had been made of either the moratorium ending or until a decision is made about zoning by the City Council. Mr. Young opened the hearing to the public and asked if anyone wished to address the Planning Commission.
Mr. Eric Jergensen, chair of the Capitol Hill Historic Neighborhood Association, spoke concerning the proposed development and the proposed rezoning. He stated that the issue tonight is zoning. What is the appropriate zone for this particular parcel of land?
Mr. Jergensen stated that the 1980 master plan for this area suggests that this property be zoned for low to medium density housing. In 1994, the Zoning Ordinance Rewrite was performed, and the City determined that this property should be zoned for moderate to high density multiple family residential ("RMF-45"). The Marmalade Hill neighborhood and other Capitol Hill District residents are quite unanimous in thinking that "RMF-45" zoning allows for a density that would be extremely detrimental to our neighborhood. Mr. Jergensen stated that he agrees with the zoning recommended by the master plan which is a density of 15-20 units for this property. The property owners in the neighborhood also need to be included in any discussions or compromises that are being considered between the City and Mr. Watts. The neighborhood is for a good development, they are against the high density zoning.
Ms. Michelle Snow, a resident in the neighborhood, spoke in favor of the rezoning of the property. Ms. Snow feels that the high density zoning will cause traffic congestion, additional parking problems and deterioration of the quality of life in the neighborhood. Progress is defined as a gradual steady improvement. Ms. Snow also feels that any high density proposal will not improve anything in this neighborhood except the monetary worth of a few individuals. She would like the property to be zoned "RMF-30"or below.
Ms. Cindy Cromer, a concerned resident from the East Central Neighborhood, spoke in favor of proposed rezoning of the Watts property. She feels that mistakes were made during the Zoning Rewrite process and she hopes that the Planning Commission will fix this one by downzoning the property. Ms. Cromer also addressed land use processes.
Mr. Mike Mitchell, a resident in the neighborhood, spoke in favor of the rezoning of the property. He feels that the current zoning is not appropriate for the proposed property. The neighborhood is extremely unique and the property needs to be zoned appropriately for the neighborhood.
Mr. Joe Pitti, a resident in the neighborhood, spoke in favor of the rezoning of the property. Mr. Pitti feels that a high density development will create traffic problems that affect the neighborhood in many ways. He stated that the desired zoning for the neighborhood would be "SR-1" allowing for a maximum of 15 units. Mr. Pitti also noted that looking out over roof tops would not change the neighborhood because there are already many roof tops that are seen.
Mr. Mark Chambers, a resident in the neighborhood, spoke in favor of the rezoning of the property. He stated that he was a part of the Capitol Hill Historic District Task Force. The task force looked at the design standards for Salt Lake City in trying to maintain the quality of life that is in the neighborhood. Mr. Chambers feels that the best zoning for this property is "SR-1". He also feels that the traffic and parking are still issues that need to be considered.
Ms. Robin McLall, a representative of the Capitol Hill Historic Neighborhood Association, spoke in favor of the rezoning of the property. Ms. McLall read a letter to the Planning Commission that addressed issues such as traffic and parking. We need the "SR-1" zoning that would encourage a development that is in harmony with Historic Preservation and master plan guidelines. Ms. McLall continued reading by stating that another massive development added to the existing ones on the block to east would finish overwhelming the historic homes to the north and south, cut them off from each other and create a barrier between the pioneer era Capitol Hill Historic District and the Temple Square/downtown area. She then stated that a vital question as we enter the new century will be "How do we maintain or create neighborhood which support an adequate quality of life and a growing population?" The answer is not to jeopardize the existing workable growing population. If the rezoning issue is considered from the viewpoint of "the whole", then the only solution is to downzone this land. (A copy of the letter is filed with the minutes.)
Ms. Marie Dalgleish, a resident in the neighborhood, spoke in favor of the rezoning of the property. She stated that she has lived in the Marmalade District for the past 17 years, her home is one block north of the proposed development. There needs to be a value instilled in children toward the preservation of not only buildings and communities, but also in the integrity that has gone there before. Ms. Dalgleish stated that she has seen and/or been involved in almost every type of crime. This area cannot be easily watched over by law enforcement, because of this, the neighborhood is responsible to protect themselves. Ms. Dalgleish then stated that if a high density development is approved for the proposed property, it will create a wall into the Capitol Hill Historic District which will prohibit people from entering into the district. She also spoke of traffic and parking concerns.
Ms. Regina Peery, a resident in the neighborhood, spoke in favor of the rezoning of the property. Ms. Peery presented photos to the Planning Commission that demonstrated the parking problems that currently exist in the neighborhood. If a high density zoning is approved, the type of development that could be built will worsen the illegal parking problem that already exists.
Ms. Kris Hoffenbeck, a resident in the neighborhood, stated that she has lived in the area for about three years. She chose to live in this neighborhood because it is such a diverse area. Ms. Hoffenbeck stated that she is concerned that the parking and traffic problems will worsen, especially with the new LOS Assembly Hall being built one block away. She feels that Mr. Watts could benefit financially if he builds less units and makes them higher priced.
Ms. Polly Hart, a resident in the neighborhood, spoke in favor of the rezoning of the property. Ms. Hart feels that the "RMF-45" zoning is inappropriate for the neighborhood. She then stated that the neighbors do not want a high density development, they want the property downzoned which will help clean up the
neighborhood.
Mr. Jerry Tertocha, a renter in the neighborhood, spoke in favor of the rezoning of the property. He stated that if there is a large rental development, it will bring in renters who will not take care of their property which will negatively impact the neighborhood.
Ms. Rela Wardle, a resident in the neighborhood, spoke in favor of the rezoning of the property. She is concerned that if the development has too many units, the emergency and service vehicles will have a difficult time accessing the individual units. Ms. Wardle stated that she would prefer to see some single family units and some open space.
Mr. Kimball Young stated that five cards had been received 'from people who did not wish to speak but whose comments would be entered into the record. They are all in favor of seeing the proposed property downzoned.
Upon receiving no further requests to address the Planning Commission, Mr. Young closed the hearing to the public and opened it for Planning Commission discussion.
Mr. lker asked if the units being proposed by Mr. Watts will be rented or owned.
Mr. Watts stated that it will be an ownership condominium project.
Ms. Barrows stated that she feels that the zoning should follow what has been
recorr1mended in the master plan. Now that the Capitol Hill Master Plan is being
revised what zoning is being recommended for this area? Ms. Barrows also stated that it seems like the vision of the community was ignored when the property was being considered for rezoning during the Zoning Ordinance Rewrite project.
Mr. Wright stated that the 1980 Capitol Hill Master Plan did recommend 15-20 units per acre, it also mentioned that it be medium to high density. Therefore, there was a semantic issue of whether the medium to high density really is a 15-20 unit per acre numerical translation. Mr. Wright continued by stating that there have not been any conclusions made for this property in the current revision of the Capitol Hill Master Plan. The Planning Staff is currently in the process of working with the community and analyzing what zoning would be the best for this property. The community council's desire is a 15-20 unit per acre density. Former Councilmember Sam Souvall knew that the revised plan would not be completed prior to any decisions that would be made concerning the Watts property. Therefore, he intervened with a moratorium so that the property could be studied and reviewed by the Planning Commission and the City Council as to what the proper density and zoning should be for this area.
Mr. lker stated, after analyzing the surrounding density's and zones, that if "SR-1" were approved for the proposed property, it would be a significantly lower zoning classification and change from the general character of the area. Mr. lker also noted that the "SR-1" zoning classification is a lower density then what is recommended in the 1980 Capitol Hill Master Plan and it is also lower than what the community council has recommended.
Mr. McRea asked, for clarification, what zoning and density the community council recommends. Ms. Mclall stated that the con1munity council voted and agreed upon "SR-1n zoning which would allow for a maximum of 13 units. Mr. McRea then asked if the community has discussed their concerns about the parking and traffic issues that the new LOS Assembly Hall which will be about a block away.
Mr. Pittie stated that the community is very concerned about the parking and traffic impact that the new hall will create.
Mr. McRea asked how many interior parking spaces per unit is being proposed for the Watts project. Mr. Watts stated that there will be approximately 2.2 parking stalls per unit. Mr. Wright pointed out that the traffic and parking study, that was completed by the community, mentions that there is a great difference in the parking ratios depending on the area. The study determined that the parking ratio for the proposed area was 1.9 stalls. Mr. Wright continued by stating that there is a wide range of parking that has been provided in the general neighborhood with much less parking provided in the area north of 300 North Street.
Mr. lker stated that he understands the concerns of the comrnunity and that he also has some concerns. He feels that the Planning Commission will be making a mistake if they were to arbitrarily make a decision tonight in regards to zoning, knowing that Mr. Watts is still in negotiations with the City. Mr. lker also feels that a "SR-1" zoning classification is an inappropriate density for the area. Mr. lker then asked if the City Council could overrule a decision from the Planning Commission.
Mr. Wright stated
that the Planning Commission's roll is to provide a recommendation to the City Council
and the City Council is the body that will have the final decision of the petition.
Ms. Barrows asked how the parking requirement is determined. Mr. Wright stated that the parking requirement for developing in the current zone, "RMF-45", is one parking stall for any one bedroom unit and two parking stalls for units that have two bedrooms or more. Ms. Barrows then asked if this requirement would assure that all parking will be contained within the development. Mr. Wright stated that it does allow for some visitor parking, but it would not allow enough stalls if someone were to have a situation where several visitors would be invited. That is why the parking is an issue for the community.
Mr. Young stated that the Planning Commission has been asked to make a recommendation to the City Council concerning the land use policy and the proper zoning classification while new and recently continued negotiations are going on with the City. There is also a court case that has a moratorium in place. These issues have put the Commission in a difficult situation as to whether or not a decision should be made tonight.
Ms. Funk stated that she feels that a mistake was made in the Zoning Ordinance Rewrite project as far the zoning classification for this property is concerned. She also feels that "SR-1" and "RMF-45" are not appropriate zoning classifications for the property. Ms. Funk also stated that she feels that the land costs would continue to make the Watts development a viable project, on the basis of the territory, if the zoning were to be lower than "RMF-45". The high density classification does not fit in with the neighborhood.
Mr. McRea agreed with Ms. Funk.
Motion on Petition No. 400-97-20:
Mr. lker moved to deny Petition No. 400-97-20, to rezone the property to "SR-1", based on the testimony given and to defer a decision on if the property should be rezoned to a "RMF-30", "RMF-35" or "RMF-45" zoning district until the May 1, 1997 Planning Commission meeting and pending any new information that may be available prior to that meeting. Mr. Smith seconded the motion. Mr. Christensen, Ms. Barrows, Ms. Short, Mr. lker, Mr. Fife and Mr. Smith voted "Aye". Ms. Funk and Mr. McRea voted "Nay". Ms. Kirk was not present. Mr. Young, as Chair, did not vote. The motion passed.
OTHER BUSINESS
There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 8:35 p.m.