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, Arla Funk, Robert “Bip” Daniels, John Diamond, Jennifer Seelig, Tim Chambless, Prescott Muir, Laurie Noda, Peggy McDonough and Kay (Berger) Arnold.
Present from the Planning Staff were Planning Director Louis Zunguze; Deputy Planning Directors Brent Wilde and Doug Wheelwright; and Planning Program Supervisor Cheri Coffey.
A roll is being kept of all who attended the Planning Commission Meeting. Mr. 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.
CONSIDERATION OF CORRESPONDENCE FROM PLANNING COMMISSION MEMBER TIM CHAMBLESS
Mr. Jonas said he was troubled by the events leading up to Mr. Chambless’ correspondence. Mr. Jonas had spoken to Mr. Chambless prior to this meeting and had expressed his disappointment that Mr. Chambless had not announced his affiliation with the ACLU at the April 9, 2003 meeting. Mr. Jonas, as Chair, had then consulted with Ms. Funk, as Vice Chair, regarding the matter. They felt it was necessary to deal with the issue in public. Since speaking with Mr. Chambless by telephone, Mr. Jonas had become much more disappointed in both the Mayor and Mr. Chambless. Mr. Chambless’ response to the Commissioners showed little respect for their positions. The Mayor’s comments that the matter was “no big deal” were clearly a slap in the face to those who had put in a very long and thoughtful meeting. Mr. Jonas took exception to Mr. Chambless’ characterization of the matter as a “non-issue” in his correspondence. He was offended by Mr. Chambless’ comments that during his time on the Commission he had never heard anyone come forward to talk about any conflict of interests, other than when people walked out of the room. Mr. Jonas gave the example of the approval of the March 26, 2003 minutes, in which Mr. Jonas started a case by saying he had previously met with Vasilios Priskos, but felt he had no conflict of interest. Mr. Jonas said numerous other people have brought up dental relationships and all kinds of other things. Mr. Jonas said the minutes for the April 9, 2003 minutes could not be dealt with until the Commission had finished talking about this issue.
Ms. Funk then said she was also very disturbed by the matter. She told Mr. Chambless that he had spent many years on various boards in the city, and believed he was well aware that the procedure for a conflict of interest is to present it to the Board or Commission at the time the case is taking place. That is the appropriate time and body to whom any possible conflict should be relayed. Mr. Chambless’ justification for not doing that was that he had presented his affiliation with the ACLU to the Mayor and City Council when he made application for the job. Ms. Funk did not consider that adequate. She felt Mr. Chambless was asking her to believe that he was unaware of the proper procedures. She believes Mr. Chambless to be a very bright and thoughtful person, and found it very difficult to believe that he was not aware that a declaration of his affiliation was appropriate and proper. The ACLU is one of the main players in the Main Street Plaza ball game. She felt Mr. Chambless had made a decision that was not his to make. He told the wrong people at the wrong time. Ms. Funk felt that Mr. Chambless had damaged the reputation of the Planning Commission as a result. The Planning Commission has now been left open to criticism that they are not to be trusted. She wondered what the Commission’s future credibility will be.
Ms. Funk was also concerned with how vocal Mr. Chambless was at the previous meeting, knowing that he had a conflict, because he took as many opportunities as possible to direct the discussions toward a First Amendment issue. Mr. Pace, City Attorney, had indicated at the beginning of the meeting that the issue was a land use issue. First Amendment rights were not the appropriate points of the discussion. The charge of the Planning Commission, according to Ms. Funk’s understanding, is to determine whether it is proper land use. The discussion went far a field from that, and much of it could be attributed to Mr. Chambless’ questions.
Ms. Funk was upset that Mr. Chambless had not acknowledged any mistakes or made any apologies. She felt he had put up a smoke screen to justify his actions. She asked Mr. Chambless to respond to her comments, as well as Mr. Jonas’ comments.
Mr. Chambless believed he was as specific, precise and accurate as he could have been in his statements, both during the public meeting on April 9, 2003 and in his subsequent correspondence. The correspondence indicated that in retrospect, Mr. Chambless believed it might have been more apropos to declare his affiliation with the ACLU. He did not think about it at the time.
Ms. Funk reiterated that she found it very difficult to believe Mr. Chambless did not understand that there was a possible conflict of interest that should have been declared when the meeting was started. Mr. Chambless said he had served 13 years on two city boards and had only had to declare a conflict of interest once. Ms. Funk said nevertheless, Mr. Chambless was aware of procedure.
Mr. Jonas was concerned about not only an actual conflict of interest, but also any appearance of a conflict of interest. He felt Mr. Chambless would surely have been aware of that. Citing court cases to find justification was not what the Commission was about. It is about giving the people who come before the Commission a fair hearing. Mr. Jonas found it incredible that Mr. Chambless had only declared a conflict of interest one time in 13 years. Many on the Commission had gone out of their way to not give an appearance of a conflict. The Commission does not want people to walk away from a meeting with a concern that there may have been bias on anyone’s part.
Ms. Seelig then asked what the purpose of the discussion was so that she could formulate her own questions or comments. She asked what the discussion was trying to achieve.
Mr. Jonas said they were trying to decide what to do in this matter.
Ms. Arnold stated that she had watched the video of the April 9, 2003 meeting. She asked Mr. Pace to clarify if the lawsuit was between the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints and the City. Mr. Pace said the lawsuit was filed by the First Unitarian Church and other similarly interested parties. Their legal counsel was the ACLU. They initially filed suit against the City. The LDS Church filed a motion to intervene, which was granted.
Ms. Arnold then said it would appear to her that the people who needed to be recused from the case would be anybody that works for the City, or anyone that is a member of the LDS Church. She felt the City Council was different because they were elected officials. However, the Commissioners were an appointed body. Mr. Pace did not believe he could give a definitive response on a specific hypothetical. He did offer this distinction: there is a difference between having membership in or an affiliation with an organization, as opposed to having decision making authority in an organization. A member of the LDS Church certainly has no decision making authority over their land use purchases and sales. Mr. Pace had asked Mr. Chambless how much decision making authority a member of the board of the ACLU has.
The other level of distinction is a matter of appearance. Mr. Pace said that was the level where someone declared a possible conflict, albeit believing it was not an issue, for appearances sake. If any fellow board members believed the conflict to be an issue, they have the right to bring it up. Mr. Pace believed this level of distinction was the issue that needed to be discussed tonight. He was not prepared to tell the Commission whether or not this was a substantive conflict or not. He did believe there was certainly an appearance issue. He told Ms. Seelig he felt this was the purpose of the discussion. If there is something that gives the appearance of a conflict of interest, that matter is to be disclosed to the Commission. If they feel it is a matter of any substance, they have the right to vote on whether the disclosing Commission member should be able to participate in the case.
Ms. Arnold has no recollection of that happening in the past. Mr. Pace said that may be true, nevertheless the Commission has the right to ask a member not to participate on a case, even if the member believes there is no conflict of interest.
Mr. Jonas addressed Ms. Seelig and Ms. Arnold, saying in his opinion it was a matter of respect to the other members of the Planning Commission to bring any possible conflicts forward. He also had never seen a conflict of interest discussion brought to a vote in the past, but believed there would have been serious discussion had Mr. Chambless disclosed that he was the Vice President of the Utah Chapter of the ACLU. He did not think anyone who had participated in the meeting would disagree with that.
Ms. Seelig asked if the purpose of the discussion was to state individual feelings on the matter and then vote on whether there was a conflict of interest. Mr. Jonas said that was clearly what the Commission needed to do. He said that numerous people had stated that the issue should not be rehashed. But he believed the Planning Commission could make their own decision on how to deal with it.
Ms. Funk asked how the Planning Commission and Mr. Chambless felt about him participating in the vote at the April 9, 2003 meeting. Mr. Chambless said he addressed it in the April 11, 2003 letter. Ms. Funk asked him what he thought should be done at this point. He said they could get a consensus from their colleagues on the Commission. Ms. Funk said in order for this to be brought up and re-voted on in the next meeting, someone who voted in the majority had to make that proposal. She asked Mr. Chambless if he would be willing to do that. Mr. Chambless said no, he did not want to have to revisit the matter because the Commission was advisory and not sovereign.
Mr. Jonas asked if Mr. Chambless continued to believe that this was a non-issue as stated in his correspondence. Mr. Chambless said it was certainly an issue now. Mr. Chambless said the real issues before the Commission were what was discussed at the previous meeting for five and a half hours in terms of trying to understand the substantive questions that came before the Commission. His association with the ACLU did not involve the matter that is now in the courts.
Mr. Jonas said that much of the discussion during that meeting was directed by Mr. Chambless towards the First Amendment issues. Mr. Jonas was unsure of how people might have voted had Mr. Chambless not been a part of the meeting, and had the discussion focused on land use issues. Mr. Chambless clearly stated several times that his issue was really the First Amendment issue, to the point that Mr. Pace had pointed out during the meeting that it was unfortunate that the meeting had focused on free speech rights. It was not intended to be the primary purpose of the petition.
Mr. Chambless said that in context, four years ago it was not envisioned by the Commission or City Council that the First Amendment was going to be a matter that was ultimately going to be litigated and appealed to the 10th Circuit Court. Mr. Chambless had pointed out that the judges, who were the ones who needed to be persuaded, focused entirely on the First Amendment and not upon land use matters. Mr. Chambless was also concerned with land use questions. He continually tried to address the question of what the impact would be when there was a land use change on Main Street that essentially separated or impacted the Downtown Central Business District from the Capitol Hill area. He also addressed the possibility that the Main Street Plaza could be physically altered.
Ms. Noda liked Mr. Pace’s comments about to what extent Mr. Chambless may have been involved in the decision making process at the ACLU. She said Mr. Chambless had already indicated he was not involved in the decision making process at that level in terms of the lawsuits that were filed. She said a conflict of interest in that sense is not significant to her. She then disclosed that the Attorney General’s Office had filed a case supporting the City in the case that is going up now to the United States Supreme Court. At the April 9, 2003 meeting, Ms. Noda was unaware of the Attorney General’s Office position on the case. Had she known, she would have declared it, since she is an attorney with the Attorney General’s Office. She believed her position was like Mr. Chambless’, in that she does not have decision making authority in the Attorney General’s Office to make a decision about filing in the United States Supreme Court case.
Ms. Noda reiterated that the issue before the Commission was to what extent Mr. Chambless was involved in the decision making process. She felt he was fair in his decision making process, and did not necessarily guide his questions to get a particular result. He was simply trying to get information to help him make a decision. Ms. Noda does not see a conflict of interest with Mr. Chambless’ affiliation with the ACLU. He had no financial interest, which would clearly be a conflict of interest. Ms. Noda did not see a need to re-vote the case.
Ms. Funk asked Ms. Noda if she felt there was no perception at all of a conflict of interest with Mr. Chambless. Mr. Pace had addressed a perception of a conflict. Ms. Noda said that arguably he probably should have disclosed. She did not know that conflicts of interest had to be declared on a micro level. Ms. Funk asked if Ms. Noda thought this was micro level. Ms. Noda said in terms of an appearance, perhaps it should have been disclosed. She did not know that it would have made any difference in the final analysis for her. She would not have asked him to recuse himself. He did not have a hand in making the ACLU decisions, and he was able to be fair.
Mr. Daniels stated that he believed and accepted what Mr. Chambless had written in his correspondence that he felt it might have been more appropriate to declare his affiliation with the ACLU. Mr. Daniels did not believe Mr. Chambless made a conscious decision to hide anything. Mr. Daniels thought it was simply a lapse of judgment. Mr. Daniels had told Mr. Chambless that he would have declared himself in the same situation to eliminate any semblance of impropriety. He did not believe Mr. Chambless did anything for his own self interests. Mr. Daniels would vote in favor of keeping Mr. Chambless’ vote in the April 9th meeting, because he voted in a sense of fairness. If the Commission wanted to talk about what should happen because Mr. Chambless did not declare himself, that was another issue. Mr. Daniels did not believe it was important to take it to that level.
Mr. Muir believed the fundamental question was that it was not Mr. Chambless’ choice to make. It was the Commission’s choice to make and the members were denied the choice. Thus, the Planning Commission was discredited by Mr. Chambless’ oversight. Mr. Muir had talked with numerous people in the community on both sides of the issue, and there was considerable sadness for the deliberative process and the City. Every Commission member knew the Main Street Plaza debate was under incredible scrutiny. All members should have gone to great lengths to expose any potential conflict, and not to do so was inexcusable. For the record, Mr. Muir wanted it brought to a vote as to whether or not Mr. Chambless’ omission constituted a conflict of interest.
Ms. Funk asked whether Mr. Muir wanted a vote on a conflict of interest or whether the Commission members should have made a decision about Mr. Chambless. Mr. Muir wanted a vote on a conflict of interest.
Mr. Jonas clarified to Mr. Chambless that he was not saying Mr. Chambless did or did not have a conflict of interest, or that he did something devious. His concern was that Mr. Chambless had written a five page correspondence justifying why he did not have a conflict, and another three page letter saying it was a non-issue. Mr. Jonas found it disturbing that Mr. Chambless did not see the enormity of the issue. He asked Mr. Chambless how he thought the many people who had spoken out in favor of the proposal felt to discover that he did not disclose his affiliation with the ACLU and showed no remorse for it after the fact.
Mr. Chambless replied that he had lived in the community for 32 years and had recognized many people in the meeting. There is no conflict of interest in knowing people. He was appointed to the position of Vice President of the ACLU in 2002 and has never dealt with the Main Street Plaza issue.
Mr. Jonas again stated that was precisely why Mr. Chambless should have declared that at the beginning of the meeting so the Commission could have made a decision.
Ms. Arnold asked if a motion to vote would have to come from one of the four people who voted in the majority. She asked Mr. Jonas to ask the four if they were willing to make a motion. If no one was willing, she wanted to move on.
Mr. Jonas asked Mr. Pace for clarification. Mr. Pace said the bylaws indicate that a matter may be reconsidered upon the motion of anyone who voted on the prevailing side, if the majority of the body then votes to reconsider and bring it up at the next meeting. Mr. Pace said there had been a belated disclosure of an apparent conflict. What the Planning Commission was debating was whether that is an actual conflict that should require recusal, or whether it is an apparent conflict that does not require recusal, in which case they would just go forward. If a majority of the Commission tonight decides that this apparent conflict is in fact an actual conflict, and that there should have been recusal, that would have to be decided by majority vote. If there is not a majority vote to do that, the vote on April 9th stands, the minutes can be approved and the Commission moves forward.
Ms. Arnold asked if she and Ms. McDonough would be allowed to vote on the motion, even if they were not there for the April 9th meeting. Mr. Pace said all members present were qualified to vote. Mr. Pace then instructed the Commission that someone needed to make a motion and a second.
Motion
Mr. Muir moved that the Commission vote on the apparent conflict of interest of Mr. Chambless concerning his vote on the Main Street Plaza issue of the April 9, 2003 meeting.
Mr. Daniels asked for some clarification. Mr. Jonas asked if the motion could be adjusted to say either Mr. Chambless should or should not recuse himself.
Amended Motion
Mr. Muir moved that the Commission vote to ask Mr. Chambless to recuse himself, relevant to the apparent conflict of interest on the Main Street Plaza issue of the April 9, 2003 meeting. Ms. Funk seconded the motion.
Mr. Chambless cited the memo from the City Attorney, Ed Rutan, dated April 17, 2003, which indicates that Mr. Chambless’ position with the ACLU had no specific role other than to be involved with the Board. The memo stated that Mr. Rutan said it appeared to him that Mr. Chambless had no involvement in the decision making with respect to the Main Street Plaza matter.
Ms. McDonough asked if those who vote “Aye” on the motion are effectively saying that Mr. Chambless had an actual conflict of interest. Mr. Muir said it would be an actual or apparent conflict of interest. In other words, Mr. Chambless should have recused himself. Ms. McDonough said she would feel differently voting on whether he had an actual conflict, or an apparent conflict. The apparent conflict may not have constituted recusal.
Mr. Pace said he believed the motion on the table is asking if there is a conflict such that Mr. Chambless should have recused himself.
Ms. Funk asked Mr. Muir if he wanted to reconsider the motion, because to her it seemed the Commission should be voting on whether Mr. Chambless should have made this known to the Commission and allowed them to vote on it. Mr. Jonas said perhaps the vote could be in two parts.
Mr. Pace said Mr. Chambless has already indicated that in hindsight he should have disclosed. The debate is if the Commission would have voted to ask Mr. Chambless to recuse himself had he disclosed at the beginning of the April 9th meeting. He asked the Commission to consider whether Mr. Chambless’ involvement on the Board of the ACLU was such that he should recuse himself.
Mr. Jonas asked if Mr. Chambless could vote on the motion. Mr. Pace said he would respectfully suggest that Mr. Chambless should abstain on the vote, although he felt Mr. Chambless was entitled if he wanted to.
Mr. Jonas called for a vote. Ms. Funk and Mr. Muir voted “Aye”. Mr. Diamond, Ms. Arnold, Ms. Seelig, Ms. Noda, Ms. McDonough and Mr. Daniels voted “Nay”. Mr. Chambless abstained. Mr. Jonas, as Chair, did not vote. The motion failed.
Approval of the Minutes from Wednesday, April 9, 2003
Ms. Funk requested the following changes to the minutes:
Page 6, third paragraph, second sentence shall be corrected to read, “The impacts of the extinguishment would be that there would be no legal”, etc.
Page 16, ninth paragraph, second sentence shall be corrected to read, “Mr. Paterson said”, etc.
Page 17, fifth paragraph, fourth sentence shall be corrected to read, “The staff report mentions that it is not uncommon to have conflicting statements”, etc.
Page 21, first paragraph, third sentence shall be corrected to read, “He said that peace was not always an absolute good.”
Page 26, fifth paragraph, last sentence shall be corrected to read, “Because the expanded community improvement is the critical driver of why the City is willing to consider extinguishing the easement, the Planning Commission has to make the linkage by looking at the entire proposal.”
Page 29, last paragraph, first sentence shall be corrected to read, “Ms. Funk ask Mr. Rutan his opinion of the time frame”, etc.
Page 30, seventh paragraph, last sentence shall be corrected to read, “That was protected”, etc.
Page 32, fourth paragraph, third sentence shall be corrected to read, “The City’s view of the severability clause is that the only part of the City’s original transaction that was found to be unenforceable”, etc.
Page 32, fifth paragraph, last sentence shall be corrected to read, “That is one of the fundamental authorities the Commission”, etc.
Page 34, second sentence shall be corrected to read, “Mr. Pace said ordinances closing streets contain a declaration that the property is not necessary for use by the public.”
Page 42, fifth sentence shall be corrected to read, “There were actually three proposals from the Administration.”
Page 43, third paragraph, first sentence shall be corrected to read, “For the record, Mr. Jonas read a statement from Ray Whitchurch”, etc.
Ms. Seelig requested the following change to the minutes:
Page 32, third paragraph, first sentence shall be corrected to read, “Ms. Seelig asked Mr. Rutan to explain in lay terms what the severability clause”, etc.
Mr. Muir requested the following change to the minutes:
Page 33, sixth paragraph, third sentence shall be corrected to read, “The City will also look at the benefit”, etc.
Mr. Jonas requested that all references to John Huntsman be corrected to read Jon Huntsman.
Mr. Diamond requested the following change to the minutes:
Third paragraph, first sentence shall be corrected to read, “Mr. Jonas felt the Commission had received direction”, etc.
Motion
Mr. Daniels moved that the minutes be approved as corrected. Mr. Diamond seconded the motion. Ms. Seelig, Ms. Funk, Mr. Diamond, Mr. Chambless, Mr. Muir and Mr. Daniels voted, “Aye.” Ms. Arnold and Ms. McDonough abstained. Ms. Noda was not present. Mr. Jonas, as Chair, did not vote. The motion carried.
REPORT OF THE DIRECTOR
Mr. Zunguze reminded the Commission of their upcoming retreat on April 30, 2003 from 12:00 to 2:00 p.m. He asked the Commissioners to forward any items they wanted to have put on the agenda for discussion at the retreat.
Mr. Zunguze informed the Commission that an appeal had been filed by the Smith Corporation regarding the conditional use denial on their property located at 900 East and 2100 South. The appeal will be heard on May 5, 2003, after which Mr. Zunguze will inform the Commission of the results at their next meeting.
Ms. Arnold then stated for the record that she believed the issue with Mr. Chambless was dealt with inappropriately. She was embarrassed. She believed several Commissioners had discussed the matter beforehand without inviting her. She felt the issue should have been discussed at the end of the meeting to avoid the public. She felt it was a character assassination and said she was appalled. She also did not like that the approval of the minutes was postponed to the end of the meeting.
Ms. Funk asked that Planning Commission policies and procedures be added as an agenda item for the April 30th retreat. Specifically, she wished to discuss the possibility of the Commission Chair being allowed to vote. She believed it was appropriate to allow the Chair to vote, and said another solution could be decided upon to deal with a tie.
Mr. Jonas expressed concern that perhaps there would not be enough time at the retreat to discuss all the items of interest. Mr. Chambless agreed, and said he would need to leave the retreat 15 minutes early to attend a 2 p.m. meeting at the University.
Mr. Zunguze said however much time the Commission felt was needed could be allocated.
Mr. Daniels suggested another item for the agenda. He wished to discuss how best to handle a situation similar to the situation regarding Mr. Chambless. He expressed concern about the incident and how it was handled in a public manner. He did not believe current policies and procedures identified how to deal with situations like that.
Ms. Funk then addressed Ms. Arnold, telling her that it was never Ms. Funk’s intention to do a character assassination. She reminded Ms. Arnold that the information about Mr. Chambless came from the public. Therefore, Ms. Funk and Mr. Jonas felt that the issue needed to be responded to in public. She said she and Mr. Jonas had talked about the issue before tonight’s meeting, and acknowledged that Ms. Arnold was not included, but that Ms. Arnold had not been at the meeting involving the Main Street Plaza in the first place. Ms. Funk said certain persons had called Mr. Jonas to discuss the issue, but that there had been no deliberate intention to leave people out or to include them in the discussions.
Ms. Arnold reiterated that her concern was with the appropriateness of how the issue was handled.
Ms. Seelig seconded Mr. Daniels’ request for an agenda item to discuss policy and procedure in situations similar to tonight’s issue with Mr. Chambless. She felt it important that the Commissioners have their responsibilities regarding public communication and participation identified. She believes the Commissioners have an obligation to act in a way that is inviting to people in the public, as well as to those who may wish to participate as board members in the future.
Mr. Zunguze asked the Commissioners to consider starting the meeting on April 30th earlier.
Ms. Arnold said respect was important within their group, and also towards the public. She said it took a lot of courage for anyone from the public to address the Commission. Ms. Arnold believed it was important for the Commissioners to have an understanding of how they are viewed by the public.
Mr. Diamond expressed his desire to open a dialogue within the Commission about respect towards each other.
Mr. Muir defended the actions of the Chair and Vice Chair, saying it was completely appropriate for them to have a dialogue independent of the Commission body to set up an agenda. That is their job, and he supports them in that. The Chair also has the right to conduct the meeting as he sees fit, and Mr. Muir did not believe it appropriate to challenge the Chair in that matter.
Ms. Funk suggested the Commission table the discussion for another time. Mr. Jonas said they could talk more about it at the retreat. However, as far as he was concerned, the particular issue regarding Mr. Chambless had been dealt with and they could move on.
Mr. Daniels reiterated that he did not wish to rehash the issue of how they dealt with Mr. Chambless. He wished to talk about appropriate procedures for dealing with any future issues.
CONSENT AGENDA – Salt Lake City Property Conveyance Matters:
Tom Stewart Construction for STS Properties, LLC and Salt Lake City Public Utilities – Requesting Salt Lake City Public Utilities to issue a revocable permit to STS Properties, LLC for two 15 inch storm drain connections and a Railroad spur line, across the City’s easement for the Little Goggin Drain, located at approximately 421 North John Glen Road, in the Industrial M-1 zoning district in the area west of the Salt Lake International Center.
Motion
Ms. Seelig moved to approve the property conveyance matter as outlined in the agenda and the staff report. Ms. Funk seconded the motion. Mr. Diamond, Ms. Arnold, Mr. Chambless, Ms. Seelig, Mr. Muir, Ms. Funk, Mr. Daniels, and Ms. McDonough voted “Aye”. Ms. Noda was not present. Mr. Jonas, as Chair, did not vote. The motion carried.
Mr. Chambless then asked that the reference to “John Glen Road” be corrected to read “John Glenn Road”.
LONG RANGE PLANNING ISSUES
None to report.
PUBLIC HEARINGS
Petition No. 400-01-07, by Jim Barnett et.al, requesting the City annex properties currently within the unincorporated area of Salt Lake County. The proposed Mountair Annexation area is located generally between 3000 South and 3300 South and between 1100 East and 1700 East Streets. The Planning Commission will make a recommendation to the City Council to amend the Sugar House Community Master Plan and Zoning Map with the appropriate master plan policies and zoning for this area if it is annexed into the City. The Commission will only hear issues related to the master plan policies and zoning of properties.
Mr. Jonas clarified to the public that the Planning Commission was not a body that will make a determination on whether this property is annexed. The Commission will only be receiving input on zoning matters. A map has been prepared by the staff that delineates different zoning classifications for different areas in this zone. The public will have an opportunity to deal with the City Council on the whole issue of annexation.
Planning Program Supervisor Cheri Coffey reviewed the petition as written in the staff report. She referred to three maps showing a proposed general land use plan, Salt Lake County existing zoning, and proposed Salt Lake City zoning maps. The area involves 157 acres, 116 businesses, and 1,200 residents. The master plan for the area talks of protecting low density single family homes and having businesses that are more pedestrian friendly. Ms. Coffey referred to the maps to explain how those objectives were being achieved. The Sugar House master plan, of which this area would be a part, says that annexations to the south of the existing Sugar House area should become their own planning communities. Staff does not agree with that in this case, because the existing City boundary goes to 3300 South, and they believe it is a logical extension to include the annexation area within the Sugarhouse master planning community.
In terms of the zoning ordinance, there are five criteria to consider:
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 provisions 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 waste water and refuse collection.
Ms. Coffey explained that the proposed zoning is consistent with what is already in place just north of the area within the City boundaries.
Staff recommends that the Commission forward a favorable recommendation to the City Council to amend the Sugar House Master Plan to include this area, as well as the Sugar House community zoning map to include this area as proposed on the maps in the event the City Council votes to annex the area into City. In addition, Staff recommends that the City Council do the following:
1. Upgrade the circulation and drainage infrastructure in the area.
2. Allocate the funds for clean up services.
3. Allocate the funds to address the public safety needs.
Ms. Funk asked if the Elgin Avenue area would be rezoned to SR-1. Ms. Coffey said that was correct. Ms. Funk asked if it wasn’t more appropriate to re-look at part of the street. The east end of the street appeared to be all single family dwellings until about half way, then the duplexes start. Ms. Funk wondered if the large lot adjoining the street should not also be zoned an R-1-7000. She felt the single family homes ought to be preserved.
Mr. Chambless asked when the Brickyard Plaza was annexed in 1977 if any consideration was given at the time to annex the adjoining properties. Mr. Wheelwright said the City responded to the petition for annexation, known as the “Cherry Stem” Annexation. State law was amended after that occurred. Mr. Wheelwright said his guess was that no consideration was given to annexing the properties.
Mr. Pace said the City has adopted master annexation policies that projected the annexation of the area, but under State law, annexation can only proceed upon petition from the property owners, with certain other limited exceptions. The City was interested in annexing the area, but did not have the ability to do so because no petition had been filed.
Mr. Jonas asked if the applicant would like to speak to the issue. The applicant had no comment at this time.
Mr. Jonas opened the hearing to the public and asked anyone from a community council to address the Commission next. No one came forward.
Ms. Delores Painter, 1215 East Elgin Avenue spoke next. She and her husband own the largest piece of property on Elgin Avenue. She was concerned about the zoning change. Her family has owned the property since 1929. They plan to subdivide the property for duplexes. She said there were 20 to 30 duplexes on Elgin and around the corner. She asked the Commission to consider not changing the zoning. She said the County had informed them that the zoning would remain the same.
Mr. Jonas asked what zoning she would like to keep, and she said, “R2-6.5”.
Mr. Cash Delehunty, 1583 East 3115 South, spoke next. He was also concerned with the proposed rezoning because of the difference it will make on his property taxes. He said the reason for the annexation of Brickyard to the City was to get water to promote their project.
Mr. Robert Atkinson, Redondo Beach, California, spoke next. His family has owned the northeast corner of 3300 South and Highland Drive for the last 50 or 60 years. The City is proposing the most favorable zoning of CB in that area. There are significant differences, however, between that zone and the County’s C3 zone. They require beautification and setbacks which are unique to the CB zone. As the City expands it is taking a ”one size fits all” approach, asking for the same building heights, setbacks, etc. He urged the Commission to caution Staff to find some flexibility and not impose on the property owners that have been there for many years. He did not want to be part of Sugar House. Some of the new rules will force lot combinations. He believes Staff recommendations should be reconsidered as they apply to new territories and circumstances. Mr. Atkinson thanked Cheri Coffey for being thoughtful and cooperative. He was not happy to be annexed into the City under the present circumstances.
Mr. Jonas referred to the correspondence between Mr. Atkinson and Ms. Coffey that was included in the staff report. He asked Mr. Atkinson if he felt he had a preferred zoning because he allowed the County to take some of his land. Mr. Atkinson said the County widened Highland Drive and 3300 South. The zoning was previously C2 on the two corner lots. The two interior lots were C3. As part of the settlement, the County did not want to buy the setback, so agreed to zone his properties C3. Mr. Jonas asked Mr. Atkinson what zoning he would prefer. Mr. Atkinson said at present the City did not have a better zone, which is why he asked for some flexibility under the circumstances.
Mr. Jonas asked Ms. Coffey if there was some flexibility with some of the Sugar House business district zones that might be more helpful to Mr. Atkinson. Ms. Coffey said she wasn’t sure that any were more flexible. Ms. Funk asked if Mr. Atkinson could do a PUD and gain anything. Ms. Coffey said she did not know that he could get more height under a planned development scenario. Mr. Wilde said the plan development did not allow the Planning Commission to grant more height. Through the planned development process, they could waive setback requirements. The Sugar House zone does not require setback, but to put that zoning on an isolated property would be somewhat out of character. All of the other commercial zones require some minimal landscape setbacks.
Mr. Jonas asked what businesses Mr. Atkinson owned on the property. He said there was an apartment house, the Flower Patch, Highland Pharmacy and Patagonia. He expressed concern that the buildings were getting old and new zoning would require parking setbacks and beautification. He asked if the City could waive that on a conditional use permit.
Mr. Wilde clarified that the landscaping requirements were not imposed unless someone was pursuing building permits. They are not retroactive on existing developments.
Mr. Lyle Warner spoke next. He owns the property north of the Patagonia, called Highland Drive Mini Storage, at 3211 South Highland Drive. Ms. Coffey had informed him that his property would become nonconforming. He has a C3 zone. His business has been there ten years. The business services people in the immediate area. He said he would be in trouble if the zoning were changed. He did not wish to be part of Sugar House. He was opposed to changing any zoning.
Mr. B. Thomas Colemere, 2061 Delmont Drive, Salt Lake City, 84117, spoke next. He owns property on the northwest corner of 1530 East 3300 South. It is approximately 2/3 of an acre and zoned C2, with the exception of one small piece that is RM. The property has been in his family for about 40 years. They intend to develop it into something better and more profitable. There are three buildings on the property, four residential units and one business unit. He believed it would be reasonable and fair that those people who have owned property for years and plan future development should remain whole. There should not be less right to develop the property. He opposes the annexation because of the potential for down zoning his property, which would be a great detriment to him and the value of the property.
Mr. Jonas asked Mr. Colemere what future plans would be so adversely affected by rezoning. Mr. Colemere said he wanted to build an office building or multiple units. The setback requirements under the City would be more stringent. A City representative had informed him that the proposed zone for his property would require some type of mixed use, meaning some type of commercial use mixed with residential. He did not know if that was the best use for the property and in his best interest.
Mr. Gerald Hardle, spoke next. He owns the commercial property at 1270 East Elgin Avenue. It is one of the two automotive facilities in the area. He has been in the business for 30 years. For 20 years he operated within the City limits, encountering numerous conflicts with residents to do that kind of service. On several occasions he was invited by various Planning Commission members to leave the City. He found a C3 zone property in Salt Lake County, where he also resides and owns several other residences. He was concerned that he was about to lose the flexibility to develop a substantial unused portion of his property and become nonconforming. He felt he would lose his livelihood. He urged the Commission to consider that. The change in property taxes would be significant and passed on to the retail consumer. He does not wish to be part of Sugar House.
Mr. Ralph Morelli, 1527 East Woodland, Salt Lake City, Utah 84106, spoke next. He is a single dwelling resident in an R1 zone. He asked the Commission if there would be a cost to him to conform to the City’s R1 zone. For example, Woodland Avenue has no sidewalks. He wanted to know if the City would require sidewalks and if that would be a cost to him. He said his property was south of Mountair, he did not wish to be a part of Mountair, and did not want to be a part of Sugar House. He had a business in Sugar House that went out of business when the beautification district was started.
Mr. Wheelwright said there was a distinct possibility that eventually sidewalks would be extended into the area. It was not because of zoning, but because the property would then be in the City. It was reasonable to expect that there would be some participation in the cost by the property owner.
Mr. Chambless asked about Mr. Morelli’s failed business. The beautification project in Sugar House had a very negative effect on his business, as well as several other merchants. They originally wanted curbs and gutters. Mayor Wilson made a proposal for a matching grant. If the merchants would abide by the grant, the City would provide beautification. Most of the merchants lost about 10 percent of their parking, and for about eight months during the beautification project they were literally without business. Mr. Chambless then pointed out that the beautification project was supposed to enhance the community and it actually had a detrimental effect.
Mr. Avard Fairbanks, Elgin Avenue, spoke next. He said Elgin Avenue did not have sidewalks or curb and gutters. He asked for a better explanation as to the participation that would be required of property owners. Mr. Wheelwright said the most likely scenario for installation of sidewalk and curb would be through a process called “special improvement district”. The property owners would pay for the cost of the improvements, the City bonds for those expenditures, and the property owners pay the City back over a period of time – usually five years. It is paid as part of a property tax bill. The City does absorb about 25 percent of the cost in a typical SID.
Mr. Jonas reminded everyone that the Commission was only proposing zoning at this meeting.
Ms. Madelyn Meier, co-sponsor of the petition, spoke next. She supported the way the Sugar House master plan has been laid out. They gathered signatures for their petition and found that 70 percent of the neighborhood is interested in the annexation. They feel the master plan would benefit the community and increase traffic into the businesses. Mr. Jonas asked if she had any comment on what Staff had proposed. She said at least the residential side supported the proposals. Mr. Muir asked if any businesses had signed their petition. Ms. Meier said yes, but was unsure of the percentage.
Mr. Lyle Warner returned to ask a question. He wanted to know if his property was made nonconforming would it be grandfathered with C3 zoning. He also wanted to know if he could apply and receive a variance if he wanted to expand in the future. Mr. Wilde said it was grandfathered as long as it was there legally. Additions or extensions, depending upon the magnitude, would likely trigger compliance with City standards.
Mr. Cash Delehunty returned to speak. He said the people in his area had white water or ditch water as their water supply. Consequently, water shares were deeded with the property when it was purchased. He asked what would happen to them if the zoning changed. Mr. Jonas said that would not be a zoning issue, but an annexation and City issue. Mr. Pace said the annexation or zoning would have no impact on the water.
Mr. Jonas closed the public meeting and brought it back for discussion to the Commission.
Mr. Diamond asked Ms. Coffey if the zoning they approved tonight would be final and applied to every piece of property. Ms. Coffey said Staff recommended a comprehensive look and the proposed zoning would nonconform some of the properties. She believed overall the CB zoning is more in line with the master plan for Sugar House and allows for most of the uses that are already in the area.
Mr. Diamond asked how Ms. Coffey would address the impact on the automotive uses, specifically how it would impact selling the business in the future. Ms. Coffey said as long as it continued as an automotive business, the City did not look at who owned it. If they tried to expand, they would have to comply with City standards. If the business is left vacant for over a year and the owner cannot prove he has been actively trying to keep the same use in the location, he could lose the nonconforming rights.
Mr. Jonas asked Ms. Coffey to clarify how the County’s R2-6.5 zone compared to the City’s SR-1 and R-2. Ms. Coffey said R2 zoning needs 8,000 square feet, which is different from the County’s 6,500 square feet. SR-1 zoning allows everything to be a duplex as long as it has an 8,000 square foot lot. R2 zones limit the number of duplexes per block face.
Ms. Funk asked if the SR-1 required 6,500 square feet. Ms. Coffey said a duplex required the 8,000 square feet. Mr. Jonas asked if some of the properties with deeper lots could allow for more duplexes in the rear. Ms. Coffey said yes through the planned development process of they meet the lot size requirements.
Mr. Jonas wondered at the attempt to characterize the commercial area between Highland Drive and Richmond Street as creating a walkable commercial community. He felt that was a very unwalkable area of the city. Ms. Coffey said the master plan calls for light rail in the future running along Highland Drive. The master plan calls for that commercial area and the area to the north as a low intensity mixed use area with a more walkable approach.
Ms. Seelig asked if the comments in the staff report concerning service levels and costs were based on the proposed density of the area. If density was increased, she asked if the costs of those services would also increase. Ms. Coffey said yes. For instance, the Police department looks at the city-wide population and averages out how many people would be serviced by each police officer. They like to keep the service at a certain level. If density was increased, the Police Department would likely request more money for more officers. Ms. Seelig asked if there were any other costs that could increase. Ms. Coffey said she did not know how to predict that. Staff had approached different City departments showing them the proposed acreage and density, and asked if they had the resources to support the area.
Mr. Muir asked what administrative headaches would be created if the area was designated as its own planning community, or another planning community other than Sugar House. Mr. Zunguze said Staff tried to minimize as much as possible any land use conflicts. Given the zoning classification and current direction from a land use master planning process, he felt this was the best overall zoning classification. Only about four properties will be affected negatively.
Mr. Muir said the attitude of the Sugar House zone would not necessarily transfer across the City, even though the proposed annexation has common boundaries. There is a different dynamic there and may be appropriate to a TOD down the road. To group them in with the same planning agenda as Sugar House would be problematic.
Mr. Zunguze said land use is always evolving. In the annexation process, there is a requirement by law to provide some direction from a land use and zoning standpoint to the City Council. From a long range planning standpoint, the choice of continuing with the Sugar House master plan or changing to another specific plan for the area can be made later.
Mr. Jonas asked if the other areas going east along 3300 South were in the City’s annexation master plan. Mr. Pace said they are. The most recent adopted plan shows the City boundaries extending as far south as the City’s water service district or to Creek Road. Under State law, annexation depends upon the initiative of the property owners.
Mr. Pace replied to Mr. Muir, saying that in order to do a zoning analysis Staff felt they had to deal with the master plan issue as well. Currently, the only master plan in that portion of the City is Sugar House. This is the easiest way to say how the area should be zoned. The Commission can create a different master plan area, however he did not believe any of the zoning being discussed tonight was Sugar House zoning but rather zoning that is found throughout the city.
Mr. Chambless asked how soon light rail would be brought to Sugar House and the proposed annexation area. Ms. Coffey said she believed that was over 30 years away. Mr. Chambless asked if the existence of light rail would be expected to increase the population of the area significantly. Ms. Coffey said she thought even the Brickyard Plaza may be reconfigured in a way to make it more of a mixed use development. If light rail came down Highland Drive, the City would encourage more density in the area.
Ms. Funk said she also did not necessarily believe it should be configured as the Sugar House master plan. However, she felt that what had been proposed were good planning guidelines. She expressed sympathy for the business owners whose property might be downzoned. She said there was no guarantee that property would remain the same. Though this was not the best of all possible worlds, it still allows for development of the area. The CN neighborhood zoning is a delightful zoning.
Motion
Ms. Funk moved to approve Petition No. 400-01-07 for the zoning as has been outlined in the Staff report and based on the findings that have been reported therein; and to forward a recommendation to the City Council to accept the zoning changes in the proposed annexation and that it be incorporated into Exhibits A and B as approved in the staff report with the three recommendations as outlined. Ms. Noda seconded the motion.
Ms. Coffey asked that the motion specify that it is a master plan amendment as well.
Amended Motion
Ms. Funk moved to approve Petition No. 400-01-07 for the zoning as has been outlined in the Staff report and based on the findings that have been reported therein; and to forward a recommendation to the City Council to amend the Sugar House Master Plan Future Land Use Map and Sugar House Community Zoning map to incorporate the subject area as identified in Exhibit A and B, with the three recommendations as outlined. Ms. Noda seconded the motion.
Mr. Jonas said again that the roads in the area do not encourage walkable communities, and wondered how appropriate it was to have references in the staff report about pedestrian orientation given that light rail was more than 30 years away. He suggested striking any findings that talked about walkable communities.
Mr. Muir wondered how that could be done because it is in the master plan. The only way to eliminate that criterion, which will apply to all conditional use deliberations would be to exclude it from the Sugar House master plan. Mr. Jonas said since the Commission was making an amendment to the master plan anyway, a text amendment could be made as well.
Mr. Diamond asked why talking about a walkable community created a negative impact. Mr. Jonas cited the case of Smith’s Food and Drug, who could not meet the criteria for a walkable community.
Mr. Zunguze reminded the Commission that the transit oriented development ordinance, as well as the walkable communities ordinance, would be coming back to the Commission. He said Staff was also looking at the Sugar House small area master plan. He saw no harm in moving forward at this point. The master plan is only a guide, and then there are substantive ordinances which will give direction. There is nothing wrong with selecting portions within any particular master plan and prescribing respective ordinances that delineate and still maintain the walkable notion. He saw no conflicts within the staff report, provided the issues are addressed when the two ordinances come back to the Commission.
Mr. Jonas said that would work as long as no development occurred before the ordinances were put in place. Mr. Zunguze said the Commission could attach a corresponding recommendation to City Council that the petition is approved, but that the Commission would like Staff to look at the Sugar House master plan with a notion for amending it to address these concerns.
Mr. Diamond believed that to create a more positive impact on that community people needed to be able to walk. He felt that taking out the walkable references would be a loss.
Mr. Jonas called for a vote. Mr. Diamond, Ms. Arnold, Mr. Chambless, Ms. Seelig, Ms. Funk, Mr. Daniels, Ms. Noda and Ms. McDonough voted “Aye”. Mr. Muir voted “Nay”. Mr. Jonas, as Chair, did not vote. The motion carried.
Findings of Fact:
1. Whether the proposed amendment is consistent with the purposes, goals, objectives, and policies of the adopted general plan of Salt Lake City.
Findings: Incorporating the Mountair annexation area within the Sugar House planning community is a logical extension of the planning community boundary. The master plan policies proposed for the annexation area are consistent with the Sugar House Community Master Plan. The proposed master plan and zoning amendments are 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.
Findings: The majority of properties in the vicinity have been developed for residential and commercial uses. The proposed zoning classifications for the area are consistent with the current Salt Lake County zoning for the area except for the parcel currently zoned M-1 which is proposed to be zoned SR-1 and the proposed R-B parcels east of 1575 East on 3300 South. In addition, the proposed zoning will non-conform four existing businesses and a vacant business. Overall, the proposed zoning is harmonious with the overall character of existing development in the vicinity of the subject property.
3. The extent to which the proposed amendment will adversely affect adjacent properties.
Findings: Overall, the CB zoning district is consistent with most of the commercial development in the subject area and will be more in keeping with the policies of the Sugar House Master Plan of providing pedestrian oriented mixed use development. The proposed zoning classifications will not adversely affect adjacent properties but will non-conform the uses of four existing businesses and a vacant business which once included a major auto repair.
4. Whether the proposed amendment is consistent with the provisions of any applicable overlay zoning districts which may impose additional standards.
Findings: The standard is not applicable to this petition.
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 waste water and refuse collection.
Findings: Much of the cost to service the area can be absorbed in existing City budgets. The proposed annexation will also provide additional revenue to the City to help offset additional service costs. However, the existing circulation and drainage infrastructure does not meet City standards and will need to be brought up to the City standards over time. Additional money will also need to be allocated to provide the annual clean up and urban forestry types of services to the area. The Police Department is also recommending that money be allocated to hire two additional sworn officers in order to maintain the same city-wide service level with the annexation of this area into the City. Public school services will be provided by the Granite school district.
Recommendations:
1. Upgrade the circulation and drainage infrastructure in the area.
2. Allocate the funds for clean up services.
3. Allocate the funds to address the public safety needs.
Ms. Noda left the meeting at this point.
Petition No. 410-613, by Luis Argueta requesting a Conditional Use/Planned Development approval for a one story office building at 179 North Redwood Road. The office building will include an accountant’s office as well as other leased office space. The property is zoned Community Shopping (CS). All uses in this zone are required to be approved as a planned development conditional use, and have a 60,000 square foot minimum lot size unless it is approved as a pad site.
Mr. Jonas reminded the Commission that this case had been heard on March 26, 2003 and was tabled to give the interested parties a chance to come to an agreement. At the March 26th meeting, Mr. Jonas disclosed a potential conflict, and did so again at this time.
Planning Program Supervisor Cheri Coffey said the proposed developer of the larger shopping site (Mr. Priskos) has submitted a couple of different conceptual layouts of what the shopping center would look like, and where Mr. Argueta’s property is in conjunction with that. The Planning Director and Ms. Coffey met with the applicant, his contractor and Mr. Priskos. At the time, it looked like they may have been able to find another piece of property for the applicant to locate his office to. However nothing had come of it and no agreement had been made.
In the event that the Commission decided to approve the petition, the applicant has also submitted some photographs of an existing building that is very similar to what they are proposing to build. Ms. Coffey passed those photographs to the Commissioners.
Mr. Jonas opened the hearing to the public and asked the applicant or his representative to speak to the issue.
Mr. Dean Erickson, 125 North 640 West, North Salt Lake, Utah, spoke next. He works for Badham Construction and is helping Mr. Argueta to develop the property. He said a decision to approve the project would not preclude a future developer from coming in and discussing design or purchasing the building. Mr. Argueta wishes to move forward with his plans to build. He wishes to use the property in a way that he believes is in accordance with the intent of the zoning in the area. Ms. Coffey asked him to design it in a way that it could be considered a pad site. It would look as if it belonged in any future mall development. Mr. Argueta would agree to any cross easements on the property and that his access could become the main entrance to the mall if necessary. He is not unwilling to sell the property. Badham Construction had looked at alternative properties for Mr. Argueta and sent the addresses by registered mail to Mr. Priskos. According to Mr. Erickson, Mr. Priskos has not responded to phone calls and failed to meet with them about this.
Mr. Erickson stated the local community was happy with the idea of something being developed on the property. Mr. Argueta is a respected minority business owner and provides a vital service to his community.
Mr. Daniels asked how many times Mr. Argueta met with Mr. Priskos. Mr. Erickson said he knew of two occasions, one on April 14th and one directly after the March 26th meeting. Multiple communications have gone to Mr. Priskos with no response.
Mr. Jonas asked if anyone from the community council wished to speak to the issue. None were forthcoming. Mr. Jonas then invited the Mr. Priskos to speak.
Vasilios Priskos, 51 East 400 South, Suite 210, Salt Lake City, Utah, spoke next. He expressed surprise at the applicant’s claims. He acknowledged receiving correspondence from the applicant. He received a fax on April 2nd, identifying two properties and a hard copy sent by certified letter on April 10th. He met with the applicant on April 14th to discuss the letter. The letter identified two homes that needed to be rezoned. Mr. Priskos was willing to do that and asked how long it would take. The properties are not on the market for sale right now. They both concluded it would take too long. He suggested to the applicant the First Security Building on North Temple, a Seven Eleven on Redwood Road and a Carl’s Jr. on North Temple. He claimed he had not received a message from them. He said if they had called a hundred times and did not leave a message, he had no way of knowing. He had not been ignoring them. He’s been speaking with the owners of the First Security Bank and the Seven Eleven. He has tried, but it is difficult to find suitable property in 30 days. He offered to pay for an appraisal of the applicant’s property and said he would pay the appraised value of the property plus 20 percent. The offer stands. The price the applicant gave him was considerably higher than anything that has sold or is currently for sale in the area.
Mr. Priskos said the proposed office building would prohibit his plans for future development. He has relied on the City to stick with the existing zoning and ordinances. He believes the applicant’s property does not meet the ordinance requirements for a pad, and that the applicant knew that when he bought the property. He disagreed that he and the applicant were at an impasse. He felt there were still some properties that might work. He urged the Commission to deny the applicant’s request and said he would continue to work with the applicant.
Ms. Arnold asked if a value had been established on the replacement property. Mr. Priskos said First Security was listed at approximately $400,000. If the applicant had wanted that property, Mr. Priskos would have bought it. The applicant would then have to have his own property appraised. If it was less than the $400,000 he would have to give Mr. Priskos the difference before the deed was transferred over to him.
Ms. Arnold said property could be mean more than a dollar amount, and be more valuable to someone depending on their perspective. She suggested the two get into mediation since they weren’t getting anywhere. Mr. Priskos had no problem with that.
Mr. Jonas said this was a land use issue. A decision had to be made on Mr. Argueta’s proposal.
Mr. Jonas invited Mr. Erickson to rebut. Mr. Erickson said they would happily sell the property, and repeated much of what he had said earlier. Mr. Argueta does not wish to refurbish the existing homes on his property. He said any modern mall would have outbuildings sitting right next to the road.
Ms. Arnold said the Grand America had left Neff Floral on the corner. She asked Mr. Priskos why he felt he could not co-exist with Mr. Argueta. Mr. Priskos said the applicant would be right in the middle of the parking. Retailers do not want that.
Mr. Jonas closed the public hearing and brought it back to the Commission for discussion.
Mr. Jonas said that Staff’s recommendation of Mr. Argueta’s petition was for approval. In order to do that, there are a number of zoning issues related to the CS zone that the petition does not comply with. Findings would have to be made that it is appropriate to vary from those, including the minimum lot size, the frontage, side yard, etc.
Mr. Diamond asked why Staff had recommended approval. Ms. Coffey said it was a legal lot, and does not need to have 60,000 square feet for development. In addition, he has development rights on the legal lot of 74 feet, and is therefore not required to get 150 feet of frontage. He cannot meet the access of 150 feet. The Commission could require him to meet the setbacks.
Mr. Diamond asked how this would reflect on land use. Ms. Coffey said the sticky issue was the legal lot issue. The master plan clearly identifies this as the proposed or encouraged area for the community shopping center for the Northwest and West Salt Lake areas. But the applicant does have development rights because it is a legal lot.
Mr. Muir asked if denial of this petition would constitute a taking. Mr. Pace said it does not mean this project has to be approved. It does mean that there had better be something the Commission is willing to approve on that lot. The difficulty is that there is an existing lot that does not meet the 60,000 square feet, nor does it fit into a shopping center plan. Because the applicant has a small lot, he needs a planned development. The Commission can require certain changes in his development plan, but at the end of the day he has to be allowed to do something with his lot. The Commission does not have the ability to deny all development because it happens to be a small, nonconforming lot.
Mr. Muir asked if he could convert the existing residence into a business. Mr. Pace said that he supposed it could be done. Mr. Diamond said that question had been asked at a previous meeting and the applicant said the residences were not salvageable.
Mr. Chambless said the property was located in a prime area between downtown and the airport. He asked how close the property would be to any future light rail extensions. Ms. Coffey said it would be right on the line. Mr. Chambless stated that this area would have great potential.
Mr. Jonas thought it was significant that the master plans in the area also suggest this area as a community shopping center. He believed any applicants wanting to develop there should be asked to comply with the zoning to the extent they can.
Mr. Pace said the Commission could not deny all economic use of the property. That does not mean this particular proposal has to be approved.
Mr. Muir talked about an experience with Alta. They approved over an 8 or 10 year period, a planned development incrementally – lot by lot. It was the worst thing the town of Alta ever did. The Commission gave up all their tools of master planning. Mr. Muir felt that by approving the petition tonight, the Commission would be going down the same road.
Mr. Jonas agreed. He said some direction needed to be given to the applicant to work on and bring back to the Commission. He suggested the applicant comply with the side yard requirements, driveway requirements and front and rear setbacks.
Motion
Mr. Muir moved to deny Conditional Use 410-613 179 North Redwood Road. Ms. Seelig seconded the motion.
Mr. Pace said some findings were needed as the basis for the motion.
Mr. Daniels asked what possibilities were left for the applicant to develop something on his property if this petition were denied. Mr. Zunguze said he did not know. He said they approached the request by trying to keep the shopping center in mind. Anything of an office or commercial nature was consistent with a shopping center. Shopping centers do have pads. The dilemma was that it was a legal lot of record so something had to be approved.
Ms. Arnold asked if Mr. Argueta could simply replace the homes on the property. Mr. Zunguze said he did not know what condition the existing homes were in and the potential costs to renovate. The houses would be considered nonconforming because they are not in the spirit of the shopping center. Ms. Coffey said that currently single family homes were not allowed in the CS zone. An ordinance change to allow legally conforming single family homes in commercial districts has not yet been adopted by the City Council.
Mr. Chambless asked if the City had any legal exposure in this situation. Mr. Pace said he did not know enough about the dimensions of the property. The City does have exposure if all economic use has been denied. That does not appear to be happening tonight. He said the Commission could go ahead and make a land use decision without worrying about litigation.
Mr. Muir asked how long the area had been zoned for a shopping center. Ms. Coffey said the master plan for the area was adopted in 1991 and talked about a commercial shopping center at that corner. In 1994 Sutherlands was built, and the whole area was rezoned in 1995. Mr. Muir stated that if in 20 years the land use was not supported by the marketplace, something could be done about rezoning it to suit the marketplace. Ms. Coffey said the City Planners chose the area because it was right in between the two residential communities and right by the state employment centers.
Ms. Funk asked what setback requirements the applicant did not meet. Ms. Coffey said he did not meet the access requirement, the interior side yard on one side, and the setback on the south. Ms. Funk did not think what the applicant was proposing for his lot was a bad plan.
Ms. Arnold asked Mr. Argueta if he had tried to market his property to the public. Mr. Argueta said he had once. The broker said the commercial value was $20 per square foot. He never got an offer.
Mr. Muir wished to amend his motion to include a finding of fact that there are deficiencies in meeting minimum lot area, minimum lot width, front yard setback and interior side yard requirements as indicated in the staff report. Ms. Seelig accepted the amendment.
Amended Motion:
Mr. Muir moved to deny Conditional Use 410-613 179 North Redwood Road, based on the findings of fact as listed in the staff report. Ms. Seelig seconded the motion.
Mr. Diamond, Ms. Arnold, Ms. Seelig, Mr. Chambless, Mr. Muir, Mr. Daniels, and Ms. McDonough voted “Aye”. Ms. Funk voted “Nay”. Ms. Noda was not present. Mr. Jonas, as Chair, did not vote. The motion carried.
Findings of Fact:
A. The proposed development is in harmony with the general purposes and intent of this Title and is compatible with the implementation and planning goals and objectives of the City, including applicable City master plans.
Commission Finding: The proposed development is not in harmony with the general purposes and intent of this Title and is not compatible with and implements the planning goals and objectives of the City, as related to a shopping center zoning. Further, there are deficiencies in meeting minimum lot area, minimum lot width, front yard setback and interior side yard requirements as indicated in the staff report.
B. The internal circulation system of the proposed development is properly designed.
Commission Finding: The internal circulation system of the proposed development is not appropriate for a shopping center use.
C. Appropriate buffering is provided to protect adjacent land uses from light, noise and visual impacts.
Commission Finding: The appropriate buffering is not adequate for the conditions of a shopping center zone.
D. The proposed conditional use or, in the case of a planned development, the permitted and conditional uses contained therein, are compatible with the neighborhood surrounding the proposed development and will not have a material net cumulative adverse impact on the neighborhood or the City as a whole.
Commission Finding: The proposed conditional use is not compatible with the intended neighborhood shopping center zoning and detracts from the ultimate proposed development.
UNFINISHED BUSINESS
None to report.
There being no further business to discuss, the Planning Commission meeting adjourned at 9:00 p.m.