SALT LAKE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
In Room 315 and 126 of the City & County Building
451 South State Street, Salt Lake City, Utah
Present from the Planning Commission were Chairperson Robert “Bip” Daniels, Kay (berger) Arnold, Arla Funk, Jeff Jonas, Peggy McDonough, Prescott Muir, Kent Nelson, and Laurie Noda. Andrea Barrows and Tim Chambless were excused.
Present from the Planning Staff were Planning Director Stephen Goldsmith, Deputy Planning Directors Brent Wilde and Doug Wheelwright, and Planners Ray McCandless and Greg Mikolash
A roll is being kept of all who attended the Planning Commission Meeting. Mr. Daniels called the meeting to order at 5:50 p.m. Minutes are presented in agenda order and not necessarily as cases were heard by the Planning Commission. Tapes of the meeting will be retained in the Planning Office for a period of one year, after which they will be erased.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES from Thursday, March 21, 2002
Ms. Funk referred to page 5, paragraph 3, and asked for clarification that the appearance of the parking lot would be considerably more desirable from the street. She noted that Page 7, first line at the top of the page, contradicts a previous statement by Mr. Wilde. Mr. Muir suggested that the sentence state that it would accommodate mixed use. Ms. Funk asked that the second sentence of the third complete paragraph on page 9 start with “Mr. Muir” rather than “he.” On page 11, she suggested that the first word be “joining” rather than “adjoining.”
Referring to page 4, first full paragraph, Mr. Muir asked that the transcriber avoid using words such as “argued.” He stated that he did not believe he argued the point but that he was making a comment. He did not believe the word “affordable” should be used in the last paragraph, third sentence of page 8, because Mr. Miller was not proposing affordable units; he was proposing market-rate units. Mr. Muir referred to page 16 and stated that he did not recall voting against the motion as indicated in the minutes.
Motion
Kent Nelson moved to approve the minutes of March 21, 2002, with the corrections stated. Kay (berger) Arnold seconded the motion. Ms. Arnold, Ms. Funk, Ms. McDonough, Mr. Muir, Mr. Nelson, and Ms. Noda unanimously voted “Aye.” Mr. Jonas abstained from the vote as he did not attend the March 21 meeting. Ms. Barrows and Mr. Chambless were not present. Mr. Daniels, as Chairperson, did not vote. The motion carried.
PUBLIC HEARINGS
PUBLIC HEARING - Petition No. 410-571, by VanCott, Bagley, Cornwall & McCarthy Profit Sharing requesting a Conditional Use for a 6-unit Residential Planned Development approval in an “RMF-45" Moderate/High Density Multi-Family Zoning District, consisting of multiple buildings on the site and less than the required frontage on the dedicated street, located at approximately 910 South Donner Way on 1.12 acres of property.
Chair Daniels thanked the individual who had provided documents immediately prior to the meeting and explained that, at such a late date, the Planning Commission would not be able to review them. He explained that, due to the number of people present wishing to speak, time limitations would be placed on comments. He announced that Staff, the Petitioner, and Community Council leadership would be allowed 10 minutes each to speak, and other interested parties would be allowed a maximum of 3 minutes each to speak.
Planner Greg Mikolash reviewed the staff report and explained that this Planned Development requires Planning Commission approval because there are two principal structures on the site in an RMF-45 zone. Planning Commission review is also required because there is only 32 feet of frontage, and the requirement in the zone is 80 feet. He explained that the parcel is on a very steep slope directly east of Rotary Park and is a remnant parcel of the original Donner Place Condominiums. He presented the plat originally recorded in 1977. The entire parcel was originally submitted to the Board of Adjustment, but at the time of recordation of the Condominium plat, the lot was split. The Donner Place portion was recorded with a legal description, leaving the subject parcel as a remnant owned by Donner Place. Eventually that parcel was sold to another party. Discussions with Lynn Pace from the City Attorney’s office indicated that the lot was legal, but the question is whether it is buildable. Board minutes from 1977 indicate that the remnant parcel was undevelopable at that time. Mr. Mikolash explained that there is a cross access agreement for Oak Crest Gardens on the site, but it is still under the ownership of the Petitioner’s parcel.
Mr. Mikolash described the structures proposed for the site and explained that the height would be 45 feet. The elevator and stair well would be at 61 feet and could be included as a height exception under Ordinance 38 which allows an additional 16 feet for elevator shafts, stair wells, and bulkheads in this zone. The top of the elevator shaft will be at least one foot below the Donner Crest curb, gutter, and sidewalk. He indicated the access to the site. He commented that there would be a considerable amount of fill and suggested that the architects discuss plans for retainage on the site. He indicated the proposed structure locations on the site. He explained that neighbors had expressed concerns about parking and noted that the proposed development would have 13 parking stalls, 12 required and 1 for visitors. The Fire Department and Transportation Department have indicated that the access area would be adequate for fire truck turnaround. AMEC prepared a geo-technical study of the site in September 2001 and has determined that it is stable enough for development. Mr. Mikolash indicated the limits of disturbance for the site and noted that, if the developer disturbs area outside those limits, it will have to be revegetated. A security bond is required for revegetation, utilities, and site improvements, also a UPDES permit is required to be filed with the site. Mr. Mikolash suggested that Kevin Young from the Transportation Division discuss traffic issues. Although a utilities profile has not been provided, the petitioner has indicated that a dual grinder pump will be needed to pump sewer and stormwater from a basin to the sewer and water manholes. Mr. Mikolash explained that the slope of the lot is very steep and commented that the Master Plan indicates that development on slopes of 40% or greater is not recommended. The Zoning Ordinance calls for a 30% threshold, but that applies to Foothill single-family residential zones only, and this is zoned RMF-45.
Mr. Nelson asked about the parking requirement in the zone. Mr. Mikolash replied that the requirement is two parking stalls per dwelling unit.
Ms. Arnold noted that guest would have to park in the street and that the street already has several cuts for entries. She asked how many cars could be parked on the street. Mr. Mikolash replied that he believed there were four allocated parking stalls in the cul-de-sac, and two would be eliminated by the driveway. He suggested that the Transportation Division address that question.
Mr. Jonas asked how much guest parking was available in the other complexes in the area. Mr. Mikolash replied that he did not know, but Mr. Young might have that information.
Mr. Muir asked Mr. Mikolash to review the relationship between the Master Plan and Zoning Ordinance. Mr. Mikolash explained that the Master Plan is more of a recommendation manual, and the Zoning Ordinance is usually based around the Master Plan. They may not always be compatible, and this is an instance where they are not. In 1995 the Zoning Ordinance was re-written indicating a maximum of 30% slopes for development of single-family zones. Mr. Nelson clarified that the Master Plan is a recommendation, but the Zoning Ordinance prevails if there is a conflict.
Mr. Muir noted that correspondence was received from adjoining property owners indicating that they believed the soil report was based on another site. Mr. Mikolash replied that the September 2001 study was conducted on the subject site.
Kevin Young with the Transportation Division addressed whether the street system could handle the traffic that would be generated by the development. He explained that counts were taken in this area in August 2001. The staff report mentions a Level of Service B for this area, and he explained the Level of Service grades, noting that most signalized intersections operate at peak time at a Level of Service D or E. Level of Service A is very rare, and based on the traffic counts and his experience, it was his estimation that the intersections in this area are at a Level of Service B or better. On Kennedy Drive between Crestview and Donner Way, about 2,100 cars per day use the street. In terms of perception, he explained that a count of 2,500 vehicles per day for neighborhood areas becomes the threshold where people begin to feel that the traffic is too much. He noted that the traffic in this area is spread throughout the day without normal morning and evening peaks.
Ms. Arnold asked how much parking is available in the circle. Mr. Young replied that he had not looked specifically at that and could not provide an exact number.
Steve Swindle, a trustee in the profit-sharing plan which owns the property and representative of the petitioner, reported that the property has been owned by the profit-sharing plan for more than 20 years. They believed they had a fiduciary responsibility to develop the property, and market conditions are right to do so. He stated that thousands of dollars have been spent to design a small and discreet project which they believed would be less intrusive than the other buildings on Donner Way.
Max Smith, architect for the project, presented a computer-generated image of the building’s appearance on the site. He indicated that the building is regressive on the site, and the intent is to revegetate up to the edges of the building. He noted that the ordinance does not limit the slope and that this property is not in the Foothill Overlay District.
Kin Ng, project designer, discussed the building design, noting that the highest portion of the structures will be two feet lower than the adjoining neighbors’ property measured at the deck of the swimming pool. He explained that two buildings were proposed to break up the massing. The neighbors’ views were also considered, and they decided on a flat, gravel-ballast roof with no mechanical units. The mechanical units will be placed underneath and within the structure to eliminate noise generation that might affect the neighbors.
Mr. Muir noted that the Planning Commission’s decision to accept or reject a Planned Unit Development as an alternative development strategy is based on weighing the cost-benefit for the City, and the Commission would look at what the developer gives back before proceeding with the underlying development. He asked how many units the Petitioner would be entitled to under the existing zoning, the number of units proposed, and the amenities that make a PUD appealing to the City and the Commission. Mr. Ng replied that the zoning allows up to 45 units, but based on studies, the lot would sustain 18 units. The Petitioner believed it would be more appropriate to put 6 units on the lot, which significantly decreases density. Breaking the massing into two units makes the development more sympathetic to the site. Building materials will be consistent with neighboring structures, using concrete on the exterior with wood windows. Ms. McDonough asked about the nature of the pre-cast concrete material. Mr. Ng replied that they had not yet decided on a color but wanted to be as sympathetic to neighboring units as possible, and they would use concrete with a textured surface. Mr. Jonas asked about the use of fill on the site. Mr. Ng replied that Bill Gordon would discuss fill related to the geo-technical study. Mr. Ng explained that they would remove 10 or 15 feet of earth in order to anchor the buildings into the hillside.
Bill Gordon, geo-technical engineer for the Petitioner, reported that he was asked to begin studies on the site about a year and a half ago. The first level of study was a reconnaissance of the area and office literature research study. There were no indications from that study that the area had experienced previous landslides or was unbuildable from a geo-technical standpoint. Once the designers developed a concept, more detailed work was done on the site, including boring to a depth of 110 feet, which is below the level in which the structure would be built. A number of analyses were performed under static and dynamic (earthquake) loading. The results indicated that the safety factor under static loading conditions was well in excess of minimum standards. The safety factor was also in excess of accepted values for dynamic loading. The same tests were conducted injecting water levels into the hillside, and the water levels did not affect the failure plane. He noted that the building extends into the hillside a significant distance, and when the soils are excavated, the slope will be unloaded, which makes the safety factor even higher than before the excavation. All the walls that go down into the ground will have a water collection system behind them, so any water which may collect will go into the water collection system. Each wall will be designed as a retaining wall to protect against instability in the shallower portions of the hillside. The design concept will actually improve the stability of the hillside. If the areas where the borings occurred had experienced past ground movements, the bedding would have been inclined in some manner, but there was no evidence of that, indicating that this area has not experienced mass landslide movements.
Mr. Jonas asked if this situation would be different from the existing condominiums in the area. Mr. Gordon replied that it is different because these structures will be built more into the hillside than on the crest of the hill. Mr. Jonas asked if Mr. Gordon was aware of problems with any of the other structures in the area. Mr. Gordon replied that he was not. Mr. Jonas noted that letters from owners of some of the nearby units expressed concern about the driveway and garage being close to their pool area and the possibility of that causing a failure in that area. Mr. Gordon replied that the amount of fill placed for this development would be minimal, and fill would be the only loading that could possibly affect the adjoining structures. Fill loadings could be mitigated by using synthetic materials. Mr. Muir asked how much the 30% limitation related to building on hillsides contained in the hillside ordinances is driven by geo-technical concerns. Mr. Gordon explained that the problem with single-family homes in subdivisions is that the attention to detail which can be given to an individual home is very limited. The steeper the terrain, the greater the potential for geo-technical problems. There is no control over the construction of single-family homes, particularly as related to grading, stack-rock walls, and cuts and fills which cause most of the problems. In this instance, sophisticated and detailed studies of the site can be done, and there is an entirely different realm of engineering control.
Chuck Culp with Culp Construction discussed the construction process and explained that all construction personnel and vehicles will park off site and be shuttled to the site. Any truck traffic will be washed before returning to the street. Hours of work will be restricted to 7:00 a.m. to 3:30 p.m. or 8:00 to 4:30, and there is no intent to work on Saturdays or overtime. Emergency and off-hours notices will be posted indicating where they can be contacted if there is a problem. All construction materials will be kept within the limits of the site. They plan to meet with the neighbors and advise them of the schedule and when additional noise might be anticipated. He stated that the project would be professionally managed.
Rick Dunn, estimator for Culp Construction, explained that the superintendent will take command of the site and be a good neighbor. Deliveries can be controlled, and materials will be quickly removed from the trucks. He noted that they have worked in similar situations, including Main Street in Park City. This situation would be similar to building in the central part of a city, lot to lot, with no staging and no access. Their company has done it before and intends to do it on this site.
Mr. Jonas asked about construction timing. Mr. Dunn stated that the entire project would take a year or maybe 13 months to construct. The most desirable plan would be to start in the early spring of 2003. He explained that they will remove more dirt from the site than they put back. The noisy part of the work will occur through the summer months, and the less offensive work will occur during the fall and winter with completion the following spring. Ms. Arnold asked if they would come onto the property from down below. Mr. Dunn replied that they did not anticipate it. He described the erosion control system that would be established above the limits of disturbance line. The only impact below the property may be minor surface water that has been de-silted. Ms. Arnold stated that she was surprised that the petitioner was willing to implement these measures at such an extreme cost for only six units.
Chair Daniels opened the public hearing.
Greg Simonsen, counsel representing Donner Crest and Oak Crest Condominium Homeowners Association, stated that the residents of those condominiums strenuously opposed the proposed development. Their main concern is the stability and safety of their homes. Most of the residents are retirees who would not have the means to replace their homes if they were lost or damaged. He noted that the hillside immediately adjacent to and northeast of the proposed site started to slide in the wet spring of 1983. The Deseret News reported that the slide came within “mere yards” of the condominiums, and the homeowners lost a portion of their grounds to the slide. He stated that the application is premature and must be denied because this is not a legally existing lot. It has never been platted or recorded as a plat in the City. He noted that the previous owner only recorded the portion of the plat where they proceeded to build condominiums, and the proposed site is not included in the legal description. He believed that in 1977 the developer clearly intended to not have this portion of the property recorded, and the plat clearly indicated that the owner only wanted to record the real property described on the plat. Mr. Simonsen referred to page 4 of the staff report, which states that the recording did not include the legal description and that Staff questioned the legality of the lot. He did not believe that issue could be ignored. He believed the property owner should certainly have realized this was not a legal lot. He stated that the conclusion that this property was not intended to be developed is supported by the General Plan, which states that a 40% slope is the maximum that should accommodate development, and this slope exceeds 40%. He quoted items related to the geo-technical report which were of concern, including the need for a substantial amount of fill, slope stability, and ground water in the lower portions of the slope. He referred again to the slide which occurred in 1983 and quoted from the Salt Lake Tribune that the slide activity was related to instability caused by ground water. He discussed traffic issues and noted that Donner Circle has five driveways which service 199 units with maybe two or three visitor spaces. Based on the statement in the conditional use statute that the use should be compatible with the neighborhood and not have a material net adverse impact on the neighborhood or the City as a whole, he believed the Planning Commission would have to vote against this proposal.
Mr. Jonas noted that Mr. Simonsen referred to two visitors stalls for 199 units and asked if that meant there were currently four visitors stalls for 193 units. He asked if the only visitors stalls for Donner Crest were those in the street. That was confirmed by a member of the public. Mr. Jonas asked if those stalls were created as part of the plat. He stated that it looked like those stalls were part of a public street and that Donner Crest actually has no visitor parking other than that provided on the public street.
Ms. Arnold asked to have each building in the vicinity identified with the number of units in each. They were identified as Canyon Crest with 123 units, Donner Crest with 24 units, Oak Crest with 51 units, Donner Place with 26 units, and Donner Towers with 34 units. Ms. Arnold stated that the Planning Commission should have been given that information, and she commented that each unit has one or two cars, and there are other complexes for a total of 457 units just on the one street.
Other members of the Planning Commission disagreed with Ms. Arnold’s comment that the Planning Commission should have been given more information.
Bill Kleinschmidt, a member of the management committee at Donner Crest Condominiums, stated that they were glad to hear that this development would be less intrusive than many of the others. He stated that the people who live at Donner Crest have always assumed that this lot was their front yard. This misunderstanding has been perpetuated for years, and they feel victimized by the process. He explained that they were concerned about physical damage to their property and swimming pool, noting that the frontage would be within 3 feet of their swimming pool and within 10 feet of their building. He asked what the developers and the City plan to do to mitigate any damage to their building. They are also concerned about parking, emergency vehicle access during construction, the handling of drainage water, environmental damage to the parcel next to them, visual impacts, and slope stability.
Glen Harris stated that most of the soil which washed away in the 1983 flood was fill, and what probably saved Donner Crest is that it was built on a substantial setting. It was his understanding that fill would be used on the upper portion of the property, and if a situation like 1983 occurred again, the fill would probably end up on top of the proposed buildings.
Earl Harmer, Oak Crest Gardens Condominiums, asked the people from each building in the area to raise their hands. He asked if there was anyone in the group who supported the project, and there was no one. He stated that he watched as the Planning Commission made their site visit and noted that they were blocked getting out of the area by a piece of equipment. He explained that happens in the circle all the time, and they have concerns about the traffic coming out of the seven driveways that go into the circle and the two-way traffic that will come out of the proposed project. They will be side by side in the winter time and inevitably in conflict. He commented that it is routine in the winter time for cars to be stuck in the circle and up the slope, which blocks the road. He commented that, if the proposed project does not have heated driveways, the residents will not be able to exit the area.
Ron McKee from the management committee at Donner Crest stated that he lives in the closest unit to the park. He explained that the park is a dog park, and hundreds of people bring their dogs to the park every day. It is very noisy, and he felt sorry for the people who would be buying these expensive units close to the park. He explained that his main concern was water. He noted that, when it storms, all the water from Donner Crest funnels into Donner Way and into the circle, then backs up at the storm drain. He expressed concern about adding more concrete surface area and pumping water from this development into that same storm drain, which is barely adequate, and adding hundreds more gallons of water every time it rains. If the power were to fail and the proposed development were unable to pump water into the storm drain, he did not believe their holding tank would be sufficient to handle all the water. He explained that there is wildlife in the park year round, and the wildlife access to the park will be cut by half with this development. He was concerned that when the deer cannot get down to the park, they will go to the golf course and end up dead on the highway.
Linda Fontenot, representing the homeowners committee of the Canyon Crest Condominiums, presented photographs of the site with the current construction project and the accompanying traffic congestion. She stated that the four parking stalls in the circle are always full, and in winter, that is where the snow plows push the snow. She asked if the proposed development plans to use the street parking and noted that it is now used almost exclusively by Donner Crest. She stated that Canyon Crest opposed this project and questioned how many more buildings would be allowed on Donner Way. She stated that it is the highest density living in the state. She expressed concern about where guests for the proposed development would park. Comments were made about cars sliding down the road every day when the roads are slippery in the winter.
Stewart Harvey stated that issues have been brought up at the meeting that the people in attendance could not have known about, and he believed they were clotured because they did not have advance notice of what would be discussed. He addressed the issue of liquefaction which occurs during earthquakes and noted that it was not addressed by the geo-technical engineer. He stated that the area down the slope from this project which was referred to by Staff as being heavily wooded is not heavily wooded but consists of gamble oak, which becomes extremely dry and is a fire hazard. He believed the proponents of the development were pulling the wool over the Commissioners’ eyes.
Billie Cullum, Donner Way, commented that several emergency vehicles access the area at least once every two weeks due to the age of the people who live in the area. She believed that factor contributed to their concerns.
Chair Daniels closed the public hearing.
Chair Daniels asked whether this is a legal lot. Mr. Nelson commented that is a legal risk which comes with the title report, and if there is an issue regarding legality of the lot, it is up to the property owner to deal with it. He believed it was a legal issue which the Planning Commission is not prepared to deal with. City Attorney Roger Cutler stated that he believed the issue would warrant a formal, written legal opinion. Since he was substituting for Mr. Pace this evening, he had not yet had an opportunity to review the matter and issue a formal opinion. Mr. Goldsmith explained that the Planning Commission could proceed to approve or deny subject to receiving that opinion.
Ms. Arnold stated that she was disappointed that the Planning Commission did not have good information on traffic, that it would not have been difficult to find out how many units are in the area, and that was information the Commissioners should have had. She believed that information was crucial to understanding the transportation issues. She commented that the Commissioners were stuck at the site today because of a truck, and she did see that there were some issues.
Mr. Jonas stated that the issues to be addressed by the Planning Commission relate to land use, not whether the lot is legal. The same is true of traffic, engineering, and utility issues, and the Commissioners must rely on the experts to make the determinations that the use is safe and appropriate with regard to those issues. He commented that the Planning Commission’s issues relate to evaluating the petition based on the standards and making findings based upon the conditional use ordinance and the Planned Development section of the ordinance, which set clear criteria regarding what should be considered. Based on that, the information provided by all the parties gives the Planning Commission the information they need to render an opinion and come to a conclusion on the petition. He noted that one finding that needs to be made is whether the proposal is compatible with the Master Plan in that area. With regard to the geologic limits of developing on 40% slopes, he believed there were numerous examples of development that can occur on slopes greater than 40%, and an engineering expert has offered his opinion that, not only is it possible to do that, but that the development as proposed will increase the stability of the area. He noted that the neighborhood has serious problems because of the number of units that already exist. The fact that Donner Crest was not developed with visitor parking is a problem which they have tried to resolve by developing parking stalls in the cul-de-sac, but that was not the intent of the original development. Development of these six units would probably exacerbate the problem only slightly. He believed the applicant had gone to extraordinary means to be sensitive to the neighbors, especially in terms of siting the buildings and addressing construction impacts. He discussed development amenities and commented that using elevators to allow the garages to be higher on the site and placing the dwelling units lower down where they will not have to built on fill and would maintain the view corridors was definitely an amenity.
Mr. Muir stated that he supported Mr. Jonas’s thoughts, although he had not come to a decision without considerable anguish. Part of the decision is based on dealing with the law and what it affords a property owner and the mitigating circumstances. He was uncomfortable with the idea of building on a steep slope, but he had great respect for Mr. Gordon, and Mr. Muir was not in a position to refute the engineer’s judgment. Mr. Muir noted that the ordinance allows for construction on a site with this slope. He believed the issues of concern were visitor parking and imposing something on this project that was not imposed on the previous projects; however, since the project does not have the required frontage, he believed they were in a position to impose something additional on this project, and he suggested imposing .5 stall per unit for visitor or temporary parking. He was also concerned about snow removal and believed it would be intolerable to push the snow down into the gorge, export it across the public right-of-way, or push it onto adjoining properties. He believed that issue should be dealt with. He stated that he appreciated the other property owners’ concerns, and he believed that each resident in the area had hoped theirs would be the last development. He encouraged the neighboring property owners to welcome their neighbors and accept the fact that legal properties have the right to build and bring other people into the neighborhood. He noted that the proposal is for a modest number of units compared to what the owners would be entitled to in the underlying zone zone.
Ms. McDonough stated that she agreed with Mr. Muir and Mr. Jonas. She believed there were some mitigation issues that the owner and contractor seemed willing to address. She asked that it be mentioned specifically, if a positive recommendation is made, that there should be no staging in the circle. She suggested that some visual barrier be used to differentiate between the two driveways. She also asked that the issue of drainage and the size of the holding tank be addressed so that it does not become an open, irreparable area in terms of landscape being re-installed next to the building.
Chair Daniels commented that this is a situation where the property owners have a right to build on the property they own if they follow all the rules and regulations. He noted that the neighborhood also has a vested interest in how the applicant goes about the process. He commended the developers for trying to take into consideration everything that could hurt the neighborhood, and he did not believe they were leaving any room for damage to be done or create any disruptions that could not be controlled.
Motion
Jeff Jonas moved to grant preliminary approval for Petition 410-571 by VanCott, Bagley, Cornwall & McCarthy for Conditional Use approval of a 6-unit Residential Planned Development located at approximately 910 South Donner Way based upon the findings of fact given in the staff report, and the additional findings of fact by the Planning Commission, which are as follows:
Findings - Standards for Conditional Use
1. A Planned Development is allowed as a Conditional Use in this zone.
2. The proposed development is in harmony with the general purposes and intent of the Standards for Conditional Uses and is compatible with and implements the planning goals and objectives of the City, including applicable City master plans. It is not impossible from a geological standpoint or of a geologic concern to build on this slope and, in fact, it is found that the development, if built as engineered by Bill Gordon, will increase the geologic stability of a portion of the area.
3. Streets or other means of access to the proposed development are suitable and adequate to carry anticipated traffic and will not materially degrade the service level on the adjacent streets.
4. The internal circulation system of the proposed development is properly designed. The visitor parking stalls shall be increased to three for this six-unit development.
5. Existing and proposed utilities are or will be adequate for the proposed development and will not have an adverse impact to adjacent land uses or resources.
6. Appropriate buffering is provided to protect adjacent land uses from light, noise, and visual impacts, and responsibility will be delegated to the Planning Director to assure that the necessary buffering occurs.
7. Architecture and building materials are consistent with the development and compatible with the adjacent neighborhood, and responsibility will be delegated to the Planning Director to work with the architect to assure that materials are compatible.
8. Landscaping is appropriate for the scale of the development, and responsibility will be delegated to the Planning Director to assure that it is appropriate.
9. The proposed development is compatible with the surrounding neighborhood and will not have a material net cumulative adverse impact on the neighborhood or the City as a whole.
10. The proposed development complies with all other applicable codes and ordinances.
Findings - Planned Development
The Planning Commission finds that the following standards of the Planned Development section of the Zoning Ordinance will be met:
1. Creation of a more desirable environment than would be possible through strict application of other City land use regulations.
2. Promotion of a creative approach to the use of land and related physical facilities resulting in better design and development, including aesthetic amenities.
3. Combination and coordination of architectural styles, building forms, and building relationships.
4. Preservation and enhancement of desirable site characteristics such as natural topography, vegetation and geologic features, and the prevention of soil erosion.
5. Use of design, landscape or architectural features to create a pleasing environment.
6. Inclusion of special development amenities.
Conditions of Approval
1. Compliance with all departmental comments and the recommendations.
2. Compliance with the geotechnical report as submitted by AMEC Earth & Environmental, Inc., dated September 28, 2001, including additional pre-construction testing as recommended.
3. That a detailed landscape plan be submitted to the Planning Department outlining the areas of vegetation preservation, delegating final approval to the Planning Director, with special emphasis on creating buffering for the neighboring projects, especially the pool area.
4. That final plat and development approval authority be granted to the Planning Director.
5. Future Administrative consideration for Condominium approval.
Additional Conditions added by the Planning Commission
6. Consistent with the plans of the contractor, no staging be allowed in the circle area.
7. Approval is subject to the opinion of the City Attorney that the lot is a legally subdivided lot or, in the alternative, that before the applicant can build, they must obtain appropriate subdivision and platting approval.
8. That a snow removal plan be submitted that will not impinge upon adjoining properties or the natural habitat or the natural stream channel, nor require exporting snow off of the property.
9. That on site visitor parking stalls be increased to three stalls for this six unit development.
10. Architecture and building materials must compatible with the adjacent neighborhood and the Planning Commission delegates responsibility to the Planning Director to assure that the design and materials are compatible.
11. This project must be designed and built as engineered by Bill Gordon and as described in the hearing by Chuck Culp.
Mr. Nelson seconded the motion.
Ms. Funk stated that she has great concern when the Planning Commission does not follow the Master Plan, but the Master Plan has been in effect for a number of years, and there is a duty on the part of the community to be sure the Master Plan fits the zoning. Unfortunately, sometimes that is not realized until it is too late. She stated that it troubles her that there is a conflict between the Master Plan and the zoning, and she wished that were resolved. She reiterated that the zoning takes precedence, and there has been an opportunity in the past to make the two compatible. She stated that it also troubles her when the community is against a project which the Planning Commission may approve and explained that the Planning Commission is very cognizant of the public’s feelings and likes to be able to respond to them. She stated that the Planning Commission has a responsibility to approve a sensitive project, and she believed the proponents of the project had proved that it is.
Mr. Muir added that, if the community feels there is too much density in the neighborhood, it is their right to petition for a re-examination of the zoning which could affect future projects.
Mr. Muir amended the motion to include a condition that final approval is conditioned on the applicant developing a snow removal plan or strategy that will not impinge upon adjoining properties or the natural habitat or the natural streamways nor require exporting of snow off of the property.
Mr. Jonas accepted the amendment to his motion. Mr. Nelson accepted the amendment in his second.
Ms. Arnold asked about Mr. Cutler’s comment regarding legality of the lot. She asked if it was his intent that, if this is found to not be a legal lot, he would plat it and make it legal. Mr. Cutler replied that the City would not proceed to plat it, but before the project could go forward, it would be required that the lot be a legal lot, and the applicant would have to obtain that legal status before they could proceed to obtain a building permit. Mr. Jonas stated that he did not believe the legalities of whether the applicant can build on the property as presented were for the Planning Commission to decide. He had made the motion to approve the project because he was convinced that there was probably not a better way to design a project on this lot in terms of number, design, location, and siting of units. He believed the land use was appropriate for this parcel, and the legalities must be decided by someone else.
Ms. Funk, Mr. Jonas, Ms. McDonough, Mr. Muir, Mr. Nelson, and Ms. Noda voted “Aye.” Ms. Arnold voted “Nay.” Ms. Barrows and Mr. Chambless were not present. Mr. Daniels, as chairperson, did not vote. The motion carried.
OTHER BUSINESS
Discussion of the Salt Lake City Open Space Master Plan and work program for Petition #400-01-39 by Emigration Homeowners and Occupants (ECHO) requesting an amendment to the Salt Lake City Open Space Master Plan for the Area along Emigration Creek between 1100 East and 1700 East Streets.
Planner Ray McCandless recalled that the Planning Commission had asked Staff to provide a briefing on the Open Space Master Plan. He noted that Staff has provided for the Planning Commission the educational introduction, a copy of the Open Space Master Plan, comments from the staff report relative to the Plan, and Map # 5.
Deputy Planning Director Doug Wheelwright explained that he was project manager for the Open Space Master Plan, which was the first City-wide master plan prepared in about 20 years. This occurred when there was great interest nationally in linear park planning, which influenced the project. A consulting firm was hired to develop the plan, and after several years of preparation, the Planning Commission took nearly a year to consider and adopt the Plan. There was an extensive exhibit and comment period, including the largest public hearing before the City Council that he had witnessed during his tenure with the City. He believed this had the broadest general support of any master plan ever adopted in the City. It was anticipated that the implementation period for the plan would be very long range, between 50 and 100 years. He commented that probably the most notable thing to come out of the plan was the Bonneville Shoreline Trail which was embraced by the entire Wasatch Front. The consultants identified linkage opportunities, and the organizing element of the plan was recognition of what had historically linked land forms, which were streams flowing from the mountains to the Great Salt Lake, and that became a basis for recognizing corridors. Some man-created corridors were also identified, such as canal corridors. Sixteen corridors were identified and mapped in detail, and the maps were included in the plan. Each map contains a note that the map is an illustrative concept of the corridor and is not intended to be a specific trail alignment proposal. He noted that the Bonneville Shoreline Trail actually deviated significantly from the concept illustrated in the plan. It was anticipated by all parties to the plan that, before a trail is built, an additional planning process would be required in each corridor. The plan identified the concept of corridor keepers who would coordinate volunteer efforts, and the City would partner with them to create an actual trail project as they did with the Bonneville Shoreline Trail. Mr. Wheelwright noted that the plan identified implementation strategies, and very little of the plan has been implemented.
Mr. Wheelwright discussed the amendment request from a group opposed to the Emigration Creek corridor which would like the City to amend the Plan to the extent of committing to never put a trail along the creek because they were there first. They have concerns about the City developing a trail which is incompatible with their interests that would bring the public into their back yards. He explained that recognizing the corridor does not mean that the City has to build a public trail.
Mr. McCandless explained that the Staff would like to follow up on any directives from the Planning Commission, schedule meetings with the affected Community Councils sometime in May, and target a public hearing before the Planning Commission in June, with a City Council briefing and public hearing in July.
Ms. McDonough asked if there is a document or plan that contains more specific information than the Sugarhouse Master Plan illustrates in terms of how the trail would be executed. Mr. Wheelwright explained that the drawing which illustrates the corridor includes an illustration of a trail, but a footnote is included which states that the trail illustration is only conceptual, and a process would have to be gone through to actually identify and implement a trail. Ms. McDonough asked when identification of the trail would actually occur. Mr. Wheelwright replied that it would be when the City decides to implement a trail construction or a citizen’s group or corridor keeper identifies themselves and brings a proposal to the City. Mr. Goldsmith explained that the City has no plans to develop a trail.
Mr. Jonas asked how Miller Park was developed. Mr. Wheelwright explained that Miller Park is owned by the City, and people have pioneered that trail through use. Mr. Jonas commented that trail is an example of how a trail should work, because it is segregated from people’s yards. He believed the 1100 East to 1700 East portion of the corridor should be held, because that is the one area where there is the potential for significant development at some time in the future where a trail could be incorporated. He did not think they would want to remove it from the Plan when that could become an amenity to something that might be built there in the future.
Mr. Goldsmith stated that he believed identification of the corridor was a legitimate and important function of the Planning Commission, which is the strength of the Open Space Plan. He believed it may have been an illustrative error to place a hypothetical line for a trail, and perhaps that conceptual line could be removed from the Emigration Creek corridor map but maintain the corridor as identified.
Chair Daniels commented that there are already natural trails that people in the area use, and he believed the fears of people who live in the area are that their land might be taken to build a trail that no one wants.
Ms. Arnold stated that she believed the concern was accessing people’s property. She was aware that the yards on Garfield Avenue are very shallow, and she believed they should be sensitive to some of those issues.
Mr. Muir commented that he believed the trail strategy was important to the community and that it distinguishes it as a place. The Bonneville Shoreline Trail was a wonderful idea, and he did not see how they could implement that and then let someone opt out of one of another trail systems as that would be inconsistent. This particular trail may never be implemented, but he believed the intent was to enhance the corridor and provide access to these unique corridors through the City. He did not understand why the City should give up on that intent or allow people to opt out of sections of the corridor.
Ms. Funk believed what was proposed, including the suggested time plan, was very reasonable. She would favor eliminating the word “trail” from the vocabulary regarding Emigration Creek and calling it the Emigration Creek Corridor. She agreed that the Bonneville Shoreline Trail was wonderful, but she was not certain that a trail was feasible for all of the area the Emigration Creek Corridor would cover.
Chair Daniels asked for comments from the public.
Ruth Price, representing Allen Park, stated that all the birds in Tracy Aviary and Hogle Zoo came from Allen Park Drive. She stated that the land was given to three families, including her grandfather, from their property to 1700 South in perpetuity, never to be developed, and it has been developed. She stated that they have a beautiful amenity that her family has preserved, there are no established trails, and their property has never been open to the public. She claimed that Mr. McCandless prepared a map for the Sugarhouse Community Council last month showing alternative routes, and it was not presented this evening. Those routes were shown as being on public property from 1600 East to the east, with 55 feet on either side of the stream being owned by the City. She stated that she supported that, and that their petition asks to eliminate only the private property. She commented that the Sugarhouse community has the greatest number of parks, and if the City took their family home, it would be a rotten thing to do to people who have preserved the property and given to the community. She claimed that it would write her family out of the history of the area. She stated that they had every intention of keeping their home and keeping their property as it now exists, which is pristine in nature. She stated that they have offered the City first right of refusal on the property. She discussed the work her family put into the property and stated that any income from the property is put back into it. She noted that it is private property, and they do not receive services from the City such as trash collection or snow plowing. She claimed that putting an overlay zone on the area or creating a trail easement would downzone the property, and the property would not be worth anything if anyone wanted to buy it. She asked that trails be put where people want them, and if people along Emigration Creek do not want a trail, she asked that it not be forced into areas with 90-year-old homes and a heritage like they have. She noted that they are only 3.5 block from the Parley’s trail, which connects to the Bonneville Shoreline Trail, to Hidden Hollow, and to the Sugarhouse Business District. She asked that the City take care of the parks they already have and work on trails where they are needed. She claimed that people in the Sugarhouse Master Plan area are being held hostage and that the title to their property is being clouded. She asked that they be taken off the map.
Judy Short explained that this is a very volatile issue in Sugarhouse, and they had reached an agreement to separate the trail alignment from the Sugarhouse Master Plan. She believed taking the trail line off the Open Space Master Plan map would be a good idea, but she agreed with Mr. Jonas’s point that the area is a great legacy, and there would be some merit to leaving it on the open space map. She did not believe the City had money to build trails, and she did not think this was an imminent threat. She suggested that the City might wish to identify two or three alternatives and consider amending the Open Space Master Plan showing those alternatives. She stated that she did not want to see this beautiful piece of land turned into a parkway. Mr. Muir asked if Ms. Short disagreed with acknowledging the waterways through the City on the Master Plan. Ms. Short replied that she did not. Mr. Muir stated that, if that is the basic concept, then it needs to be done across the board or have a compelling reason why one of the waterways should be excluded from the Master Plan.
Mr. Nelson stated that he believed there needed to be a degree of connectivity, and this plan enhances that. The issue of privacy is difficult and is part of the implementation process. He believed connectivity issues could be resolved as it is worked at piece by piece, but the Master Plan should continue to contain the corridor.
Paddy Campos, a member of the Sugarhouse Community Council trail committee, stated that he is adamantly opposed to this proposed thoroughfare. He referred to the environmental degradation that would happen to the stream when a trail is developed. He stated that there is no comparison between the Emigration stream corridor and the Bonneville Shoreline or Jordan River. He sees this as a social justice issue, and that it is not right to take people’s private property for something like this. He stated that Ruth and her friends are the keepers of the corridor and have maintained it in pristine condition for over 80 years. Mr. Nelson asked if Mr. Campos had any suggestions for resolving the issues of the corridor or open space connectivity other than just not putting it through this property. Mr. Campos urged the Commissioners to look at alternative routes, because they already follow existing bicycle and pedestrian routes. He noted that the Emigration corridor is so close to the Parley’s corridor that it would be easy to link up with the Parley’s corridor following some of the already established routes. He noted that Emigration Stream has such steep banks and is so sensitive that the concept of a thoroughfare would destroy the very thing of which it wants to be a part.
Ms. McDonough agreed that it is a sensitive environmental question, and she believed using a word like thoroughfare might be a vision of the absolute worst that could happen. She asked if what is created in the Allen Park area would not be a valuable lesson for people who do not know anything about it and how that information might be shared with people. She stated that she would not want to do anything to commercialize or destroy that area, but she questioned whether there might be a way to share it with the City. She believed one reason they are seeking to access natural corridors is to teach people something. Mr. Campos replied that he could not reply for people who own property along the stream, but he believed some of those lessons could be achieved in places along the corridor that are already publicly owned and more accessible. Ms. Price suggested using areas that are deteriorating to create other beautiful natural environments like that in Allen Park in order to teach people.
Cindy Cromer stated that she had promised Mr. Campos that she would go back through the public record and try to determine the mind set of the Planning Commission when the Open Space Master Plan was approved. She noted that there are various levels of access to the seven canyons in the area, and she suggested that the Commissioners consider the reasons why access is restricted in some canyons, which may provide a model for this land use issue.
Lynn Olson with the Sugarhouse Community Council and chair of the trails committee noted that the Community Council chose not to support the ECHO petition but recommended going through a process of separating the physical corridor from the trail and determining where the trail would be to resolve the issue once and for all. The trails committee is offering to do the research to gather local data about the incidence of crime and physical security related to being on a trail and develop criteria for decision making related to trails. She reported that statistics are available showing that trails are wanted, and now they need to be able to show why people’s fears may be ungrounded.
Susan Cutler, a member of the Sugarhouse Community Council trails committee, explained that their recommendation was based on wanting to reinforce the Emigration Creek corridor as an open space corridor. They were concerned that, if the City starts to amend the maps, it would compromise not only that corridor but the integrity of the entire Open Space Master Plan. They recognized the differentiation of Emigration Creek as an open space corridor and any potential trail which may not necessarily follow the alignment of the entire creek.
Mr. Wheelwright suggested other ways that the corridor could be recognized other than removing it from the map, such as placing restrictions on grading and accessory uses along the corridor, donation by individual property owners of a preservation easement for tax purposes, vegetation preservation easements which would require a permit before disturbing the vegetation, identifying the corridor with remote signage, limiting generation of pollution adjacent to the creek, and addressing issues of sewer, stormwater drainage, etc.
Ms. Arnold suggested caution in placing restrictions within a specific distance of the creek. In areas like Garfield Avenue, if something were to happen to the homes, the people would not be allowed to rebuild them.
Ms. Noda stated that she liked some of the ideas proposed by Mr. Wheelwright. She believed the Bonneville Shoreline Trail was a step in the right direction toward a broader vision of open space. She recognized community concerns about impacts on the creek and suggested that Staff be given time to explore some of the ideas suggested. She noted that there is an entirely different concept of common law property in the East than there is in the West. In the East, almost any property along a streambed is considered to be common property, which leads to a different sense of space. She believed the City should look at what makes the City livable and what can be done to share the environment and connectivity with each other.
Mr. Goldsmith commented that in some cases changes will come from the outside in, such as from the EPA. The City can either anticipate that and make amenities or suffer the consequences with the EPA.
Motion
Laurie Noda made a motion to direct Staff to look at alternatives on the Open Space Master Plan as described by Mr. Wheelwright. Arla Funk seconded the motion. Ms. Arnold, Ms. Funk, Mr. Jonas, Ms. McDonough, Mr. Muir, Mr. Nelson, and Ms. Noda unanimously voted “Aye.” Ms. Barrows and Mr. Chambless were not present. Mr. Daniels, as Chairperson, did not vote. The motion carried.
Discussion of proposed East Central Neighborhood Plan update
Mr. Goldsmith referred to the memorandum distributed to the Planning Commissioners and noted the four items included in the memorandum. He believed that, if they proceed with those recommendations, the fundamental desires of the East Central Neighborhood would be accomplished.
Motion
Jeff Jonas moved to direct staff to proceed with the East Central Neighborhood Plan as proposed by the Staff. Arla Funk seconded the motion. Ms. Arnold, Ms. Funk, Mr. Jonas, Ms. McDonough, Mr. Muir, Mr. Nelson, and Ms. Noda unanimously voted “Aye.” Ms. Barrows and Mr. Chambless were not present. Mr. Daniels, as Chairperson, did not vote. The motion carried.
Policies and Procedures
Chair Daniels asked if the items on which the Planning Commission had asked for a legal opinion had received legal review. Mr. Wilde replied that Mr. Pace has reviewed the document and approved the language as drafted.
Ms. Arnold asked that the staff reports be delivered to the councils. She believed the councils were at a disadvantage when they arrive at a meeting and do not have the ability to prepare in advance. Some of the issues which they believe are a problem might not be an issue if they had the staff report ahead of time. Mr. Jonas noted that her concerns are addressed in the first item of the revised Policies and Procedures. It was noted that the information will be available to the public the Monday before the Planning Commission receives their packets. Mr. Wilde noted that Mr. Pace had informed Staff that information which comes in late cannot be rejected, but if it comes in late, there is no guarantee that it will be read.
Mr. Wheelwright asked if the Planning Commission would be interested in forming a subcommittee to be involved early in the design development process for planned developments. He referred specifically to the RDA project presented at the last Planning Commission meeting.
Mr. Muir stated that he did not think the Planning Commission was getting enough information on PUD’s. He suggested allowing developers of a PUD to come to the Planning Commission in a preliminary stage to get a sense of the Commission’s opinion. At the approval stage, he would like to see color boards, materials, floor plans, and other details.
Mr. Goldsmith commented that a means is needed to enhance the urban design, particularly when the RDA or some other City agency holds property where the level of design can be enhanced. He suggested a two-stage process with some sort of preliminary review.
Mr. Jonas noted that RDA proposals receive review by the RDA Board, and he questioned why they would ignore the design standards. Mr. Nelson commented that he had not sensed that RDA was getting involved in the design process. In the case of the Brooklyn project, they seemed to be more concerned that they had someone who would buy the place and would support almost anything the developer wanted to do.
Ms. Arnold commented that she was concerned about City Departments that sign off on the staff reports. She believed the Transportation Division should have provided the exact number of people in the area of the proposed project on Donner Way which was reviewed this evening. She stated that the information was very incomplete.
Mr. Jonas stated that he agreed with the idea of subcommittee review, but he believed reviewing floor plans was beyond the Planning Commission’s scope. Ms. McDonough explained that reviewing the floor plan would help the Commissioners understand the internal workings of the plan to get a feel of the entire dynamics of the development. Mr. Nelson noted that the design of the Brooklyn proposal did not address functionality, and he suggested that a series of questions might be developed to address those issues.
Mr. Goldsmith asked Mr. Muir, Ms. Funk, and Ms. McDonough to serve on a subcommittee to develop a more effective PUD process. Mr. Muir suggested setting up some sort of safety net for the developers to work with them and give them some direction. He stated that the RDA should not expect the Planning Commission to rubber stamp anything they propose, and the proposals need to go through due process.
Ms. Arnold suggested that the Planning Commission needs to define its purpose, and she hoped that purpose was not to approve things that would be ghettos in the future.
Chair Daniels commented that the Planning Commission deals with land use, and they need the right information to help them make land use determinations.
Mr. Nelson and Chair Daniels discussed the need to look at what projects could become in the future.
Mr. Wilde explained that the ordinance does outline a preliminary review process for planned developments, but it has not normally been used. He believed projects could come in to the subcommittee, and the applicant and subcommittee could decide whether the project should come through a preliminary step.
Ms. Noda believed it was incumbent on the Planning Commission to look at the petitions, study them as much as possible, and call Staff with any questions. She agreed with the two-step process. She wanted to have a clean process where the Planning Commission gets as much information as possible and works with the developers so everyone feels they are getting due process and input to the Staff and Commissioners.
Chair Daniels questioned why the RDA was asking market price for their property. He believed they should be trying to build communities at the lowest price possible and maintain the highest quality possible. Mr. Muir suggested creating a better dialogue with the RDA. Mr. Goldsmith suggested that the head of RDA be invited to an upcoming meeting where RDA concerns could be addressed. Chair Daniels asked Mr. Goldsmith to make those arrangements.
Ms. Funk commented that one of the driving forces is profitability, and it was her observation that some RDA projects are inappropriate for the area. She believed RDA needed someone with actual business experience in dealing with properties. She believed the City Council should look at who sits on the RDA advisory board so they would have people with some practical street smarts on developing their properties. Ms. Funk expressed concerns about some of the language in the draft. She suggested that the statement “but there is no assurance that the Planning Commissioners will have time to read it” be reworded to state it in a less offensive way. She stated that the information about abstentions was not clear to her. With regard to hearing procedures, she noted that it may not always be a Community Council, but it could also be an organized opposition or proponent. She stated that the information regarding the makeup of the Planning Commission is clear in the Code as written, and she did not believe it needed to be reiterated in this document.
Mr. Wilde offered to place the Policies and Procedures on a future agenda for a public hearing.
Mr. Wheelwright reported that a request had been received from the administration for the Planning Commission to initiate a petition to make changes to the portion of the zoning ordinance relating to the appeals board. That board is having to meet more frequently than in the past, and the ordinance requires three members and two alternates. Currently they have only two members and one alternate, and it will be difficult to convene a quorum if any one of those three people are unable to meet. It is suggested that the board consist of five members and two alternates, with a quorum of three to allow a larger pool of people to meet.
Motion
Kent Nelson made a motion to initiate a petition to amend the land use appeals board based on the recommendation of Staff. Prescott Muir seconded the motion. Ms. Arnold, Ms. Funk, Mr. Jonas, Ms. McDonough, Mr. Muir, Mr. Nelson, and Ms. Noda unanimously voted “Aye.” Ms. Barrows and Mr. Chambless were not present. Mr. Daniels, as Chairperson, did not vote. The motion carried.
Mr. Wheelwright reported that two items were appealed to the land use appeals board two weeks ago. The appeals board upheld the Planning Commission’s decision on the Iverson Madison Estates #3. The applicant for the Colonial Flag denial did not attend, and there may have been some confusion on his part as to when the meeting was scheduled, so that hearing was postponed.
Mr. Wheelwright stated that Staff objects to the comments made in the public hearing this evening about the adequacy of the traffic information. He suggested that what was presented was adequate. It may have been a different methodology than some would choose, but he believed that methodology made more sense than just looking at the number of people who live in the area. He noted that they had an actual current traffic count and then projected the additional traffic which would be generated by the unoccupied and proposed projects. He stated that he was personally offended by the comment made in the public hearing. Ms. Arnold responded that, as a Commissioner, she has a right to ask the question. She stated that she was told that there had not been a count on some of the area on Kennedy. She believed the fact that no one could tell her what would happen to parking in the circle, when she could tell just by looking, was inadequate. She stated that she wanted an adequate count, and in her opinion she did not get it. She believed Staff could have provided the Commissioners with information about how many occupants are in the buildings.
Mr. Jonas commented that he did not believe it mattered how many occupants there were if they had a traffic count.
Mr. Wheelwright stated that, not only was it offensive, he believed Ms. Arnold’s comment laid the basis for an appeal. He explained that such comments are not helpful.
Ms. Funk asked whether Ms. Arnold read the figures in the staff report prior to the meeting, because she thought they were more clearly defined in the staff report. She commented that it may be inappropriate to criticize another department in front of the public in Planning Commission meetings, and she believed it would be more appropriate to bring up the need for other information privately rather than before the public. Ms. Arnold stated that they were making a decision. She did not believe she had the information to make a decision, and she believed she had a right to ask for it. Mr. Jonas commented that there is a difference between asking for additional information in order to make a decision and stating that the staff report is inadequate. Ms. Funk agreed and stated that she believed the information was adequate, although Ms. Arnold may have wanted a different form of information. Ms. Funk suggested that perhaps Ms. Arnold should have asked for it before the meeting started. Ms. Arnold stated that it was information given by the public comment that stimulated some of the questions. She apologized if her requests were considered to be criticizing, but if she has to make a decision, she has to ask questions.
Ms. Cromer suggested that the Commissioners discuss the type of feedback they are getting and offered to discuss things she has observed and about which she has concerns.
Meeting adjourned at 10:05 p.m.