SALT LAKE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION
451 South State Street, Room 126
Present from the Planning Commission were Chairperson Richard J. Howa, Ralph Becker, Ralph Neilson, Cindy Cromer, Diana Kirk, Judi Short, Ann Roberts and Gilbert Iker. Lynn Beckstead, Jim McRea and Kimball Young were excused.
Present from the Planning Staff were Deputy Planning Director Brent B. Wilde, Everett Joyce and Doug Dansie. Planning Director William T. Wright was excused.
A roll is being kept with the minutes of all who attended the Planning Commission meeting. The meeting was called to order at 5:00 p.m. by Mr. Howa. Minutes of the meeting are presented in agenda order, not necessarily as cases were heard at the Planning Commission meeting. 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. Becker moved to approve the minutes of April 6, 1995 as presented. Mr. Iker seconded the motion. Ms. Roberts, Ms. Short, Ms. Kirk, Mr. Becker, Mr. Neilson, Ms. Cromer and Mr. Iker voted "Aye." Mr. Beckstead, Mr. McRea and Mr. Young were not present. Mr. Howa, as Chair, did not vote. The motion passed.
DESIGNATION OF LANDMARK SITES & CONDITIONAL USES
PUBLIC HEARING - Historical Landmark Case No. 007-95 by Bill and Tom Heers. represented by Burke Cartwright. reguesting to amend the Salt Lake City Register of Cultural Resources by designating the Salt Lake Brewing Company building at 460 South 1 000 East as a Landmark Site.
PUBLIC HEARING - Petition No. 41 0-171 by Bill and Tom Heers. represented by Burke Cartwright. requesting a conditional use for a bed and breakfast establishment at 460 South 1 000 East in a Commercial “CN" zoning district. This item was postponed until the next Planning Commission meeting due to lack of community council review.
PUBLIC HEARING - Petition No. 41 0-1 72 by Joseph & Yvonne Supinger requesting a conditional use for a bed and breakfast establishment at 941 East 500 South in a Landmark Site. the Aaron Keyser-Matthew Cullen House. in a Residential "RME-35" zoning district.
This item was postponed until the next Planning Commission meeting due to lack of community council review.
PETITIONS
PUBLIC HEARING - Petitions No. 400-95-002 and 41 0-158 by Sun Tree Properties for annexation and planned development approval of a subdivision consisting of 16 single family lots located at 2850 South 2000 East in a Residential "R-1/7000 zoning district.
Mr. Everett Joyce 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. Joyce requested two additional conditions of approval that were not contained within the staff report: 1) that the landscape plan be submitted to the Planning Director for approval, and 2) that the front yard areas along Preston and 2000 East be restricted from use for accessory buildings and parking.
Mr. Ken Anderson, representing the petitioner, was present for this portion of the Planning Commission meeting. Mr. Anderson stated that they were familiar with the staff report and in agreement with the staff recommendation. He outlined their plans relative to sidewalk locations and installation, landscaping, and the community council's preference to not allow pedestrian access from Preston to 2000 East Street. Mr. Anderson stated that they could provide access from Preston to 2000 East if required to do so but added that a lot of concerns relative to such an access would need to be addressed.
Mr. Howa opened the hearing to the public and asked if anyone wished to address
the Planning Commission.
Ms. Ulla Sponbeck, a resident of the area, handed out copies of a petition containing approximately 50 signatures of property owners in the area who were opposed to this project due to the impact this project would have on existing water and sewage problems. The signed petition is filed with the minutes. Ms. Sponbeck added that they were also concerned about additional traffic on 2000 East and only one entrance/exit to the project. She stated that the recent rains had flooded the ditch adjacent to this project and flooded several homes in the area since there were no drains installed in the ditch to handle excess water. She stated that the existing problems needed to be rectified before additional development was allowed in this area. Ms. Sponbeck stated that they were not opposed to the homes but to their construction without resolution to the existing problems. She stated that the notice of this hearing was the first notice she had received relative to this matter even though reference had been made to earlier meetings with people from the neighborhood. She added that if she had known about those meetings, she would have attended in order to express her opposition.
Ms. Pamela Sewell, a resident of the area, stated that she had attended community council meetings where the developer had been asked to make several changes which had been done. She stated that she had never had any problems accessing 2000 East relative to traffic issues and did not understand how 16 additional homes would create additional traffic concerns. Ms. Sewell stated that adding 16 homes would not be adding water to the ditch, that would required acts of nature. Ms. Sewell stated that she was strongly opposed to including another access to this project on Preston Street.
Mr. Becker asked if Ms. Sewell would be opposed to the pedestrian access through the project.
Ms. Sewell responded that she was not opposed to it.
Mr. Marvin Stewart, a resident of the area, stated that he had shares of water on a lateral that comes off of this and his basic concern was that it remain accessible.
Mr. Terry Seiter, one of the petitioners, stated that they would be retaining all of their own water.
Mr. Wilde stated that all drainage issues would be reviewed during the final approvals of this project and the public's concerns would be passed along to the Engineering Department.
Upon receiving no further requests to address the Planning Commission, Mr. Howa closed the hearing to the public and opened it for Planning Commission discussion.
Ms. Cromer asked if any of the property involved in the annexation request belonged to any property owners other than the petitioners.
Mr. Joyce pointed out a parcel that was owned by the LDS Church and portions of Preston Street and Mary Dott Way would also be annexed into the City.
Mr. Becker asked if the staff had explored creating a boundary that was more linear than jagged.
Mr. Joyce responded that this annexation would help straighten up the existing jagged boundary line between the City and the County.
Mr. Becker moved to approve Petitions No. 400-95-002 and 410-158 based on the findings of fact and subject to the conditions contained in the staff report as well as the following additional conditions: 1) that sidewalks be installed on both Preston Street and 2000 East Street; 2) that the ditches be preserved in the development and the storm water issues associated with the ditches and the development as a whole be evaluated by Public Utilities/Engineering and be carefully controlled in terms of storm run-off; and 3) that access be preserved for pedestrians on the Preston Street side of the development, through the development and into the interior street system so that pedestrians can work their way through the subdivision from 2000 East to Preston Street. Ms. Short
seconded the motion.
Ms. Cromer asked if the motion included the additional conditions Mr. Joyce had referred to during the presentation of the staff report relative to accessory buildings and the landscaping plan.
Mr. Becker responded in the affirmative. Ms. Short seconded the motion.
Mr. Neilson stated that he objected to the idea of providing pedestrian access through the property. Mr. Neilson stated that the Planning Commission had traditionally provided pedestrian access to trailheads in foothill developments but added that this was a private development and he could not see any good public purpose that would be served by providing a potential for intrusion into the development.
Mr. Becker stated that his rationale had been that 2000 East was a collector street supporting mass transit and he felt this service should be offered to the residents of Preston Street since this was a fairly long block.
Ms. Kirk suggested having the police review the pedestrian walkway for safety issues if it were approved.
Mr. Joyce stated that the Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design {CPTED) principles could be utilized to determine the safest way to handle this issue.
Mr. Becker said he felt this was not the same as a walkway through a school which had a high amount of usage by school children and he did not want to see the City abandon pedestrian access for this neighborhood. Ms. Cromer stated that she felt the walkway would promote jaywalking by children and encourage children to cross at unsafe places. Mr. Becker stated that he believed the pedestrian walkway was necessary and added that he was not willing to change his motion to eliminate the condition of the walkway.
Ms. Kirk asked if he would be willing to accept an amendment to the motion to add a requirement for the CPT ED review of the walkway. Mr. Becker and Ms. Short accepted the amendment to the motion and the second. Ms. Roberts, Ms. Short, Ms. Kirk, Mr. Becker, Mr. Neilson, Ms. Cromer and Mr. Iker voted "Aye." Mr. Beckstead, Mr. McRea and Mr. Young were not present. Mr. Howa, as Chair, did not vote. The motion passed.
PLANNING ISSUES
PUBLIC HEARING - Receive public comment on the Beck Street Visionary Gateway Plan for the area between 600 North and the Davis County boundary and between 1-1 5 and the Wasatch Mountains.
Mr. Doug Dansie gave a brief history of the decision to create a "Beck Street Visionary Gateway Plan" for the area between 600 North and the Davis County boundary and between 1-15 and the Wasatch Mountains. Mr. Dansie explained that there was a difference between visionary plans and master plans. He stated that visionary plans were basically an attempt to get people to view particular areas in a different manner than had been done in years past.
Mr. Stan Postma, representing CH2M Hill, and Mr. Richard Chong, representing Richard D. Chong and Associates, were present for this portion of the Planning Commission meeting. Using briefing boards, Mr. Postma and Mr. Chong gave a presentation on the Beck Street plan. They outlined the preferred land uses with and without the railroad, existing zoning and land uses, reclamation issues, major property ownership, urban design constraints and various ways to deal with the severe foothill damage that has been caused by the gravel excavation in this area. They outlined the traffic issues, the possibility of residential components for this area, market analyses for the area and how the various options might be implemented.
Mr. Howa opened the hearing to the public and asked if anyone wished to address the Planning Commission.
Mr. Val Staker, a property owner in the area, asked what the time frame was for implementation and adoption of the master plan.
Mr. Howa explained that the implementation time frame was not definite and probably involved the next twenty to forty years.
Mr. Dansie stated that this was not a master plan, but rather a visionary plan and explained that the Capitol Hill Master Plan, which included this area, would probably be adopted within the next few years and would involve an extensive public review process.
Mr. Staker asked what coordination had occurred with Davis County on this matter.
Mr. Postma stated that representatives from Davis County had served on the steering committee.
Mr. Melvin Hiller, representing Hiller Bindery, stated that he felt this was a great plan and was in favor of it.
Mr. Don Lewan, a member of the committee who had reviewed this visionary plan, said he was in favor of this plan, that implementation should be worked on immediately, and that he believed the residential proposal was excellent. He stated that he owned a business in the Swede Town area and that this area was in desperate need of housing. Mr. Lewan stated that the homes in this area had to operate with septic tanks due to the lack of a sewer line which he felt was disgusting. He stated that the City needed to take care of the existing areas and bring them up to decent living standards. He strongly urged that the sewer line be extended to service this area.
Mr. Howa explained that he needed to bring those issues up to the Public Utilities and Engineering Departments since the Planning Commission dealt with land use issues.
Mr. Lewan rebutted that without good sewer systems, land use policies were lacking.
Mr. Becker stated that the staff could forward this recommendation to the Public Utilities Department.
Mr. Ed Rogers, a concerned citizen, asked who would be paying for the implementation of this plan. Mr. Howa asked what Mr. Rogers thought of the plan. Mr. Rogers said he thought it was a lot of “fluff" and was a method for the planners to get the changes they wanted to the Beck Street area.
Mr. Don Lewon stated that he had believed this plan was just a lot of “fluff" upon first examination of it but added that after more analysis of the number of trains running on these tracks on a daily basis and how often they had to slow down for the residential and business components in the area, it was not really unreasonable to envision those railroad tracks being relocated and this plan being implemented.
Mr. Ferrell Peterson, a concerned citizen, expressed concern that a remedy was needed to reduce the impacts of traffic from Davis County.
Mr. Postma stated that the traffic impacts were not as negative as they may appear and added that possible future access into Davis County from the west side of 1-15 was being analyzed since a Bountiful Boulevard east of the freeway was not desirable to the City.
Mr. Becker asked what the reclamation plans were for the gravel pits.
Mr. Staker stated that they had a plan that when they were finished with the property, the property would be reclaimed to a certain standard including the steep hillsides. Mr. Staker stated that the slopes would be revegetated with grasses but added that some of the area contained vertical rock beds. Mr. Wilde indicated that the City had agreed to work with Mr. Staker to review a proposal to provide zoning to expand the extraction activities on his property. Mr. Wilde added that this agreement would involve approval of a detailed reclamation plan for that property.
Mr. Rogers said he would like to see several things implemented within the next eighteen months to two years: 1) curb and gutter installed in the area; 2) a ten to twenty-foot parkway on both sides of the road; and 3) the establishment of a street sweeping system.
Mr. Val Staker stated that they had just recently implemented a street sweeping policy in conjunction with some of the other property owners in the area.
Upon receiving no further requests to address the Planning Commission, Mr. Howa closed the hearing and opened it for Planning Commission discussion.
Mr. Iker said he believed it was important for each of the gateway plans to be tied together.
Mr. Howa pointed out that this plan was still in the draft format and not yet ready to be 'finalized. A short discussion followed including reclamation issues, sewer line inadequacies, market forces and probabilities, the advantages and disadvantages of envisioning a residential component in this area, and the railroad line and whether or not it would ever actually relocate. Mr. Becker suggested the short range and long range issues be split in the plan. The Planning Commission made several recommendations relative to the size of the document, editing that needed to be done, and some of the text being converted to graphics and tables.
There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 7:45 p.m.