SALT LAKE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Room 326 of the City & County Building
451 South State Street, Salt Lake City, Utah
Present for the Planning Commission meeting were Chairperson Babs De Lay and Vice Chairperson Frank Algarin; Commissioners Mary Woodhead, Charlie Luke, Michael Fife, Michael Gallegos, Susie McHugh, Angela Dean, Matthew Wirthlin and Kathleen Hill.
A field trip was held prior to the meeting Planning Commissioners present were: Frank Algarin, Vice Chair; and Commissioners Michael Fife, Michael Gallegos, Kathleen Hill, Charlie Luke, and Mary Woodhead.
A roll is being kept of all who attended the Planning Commission Meeting. The meeting was called to order at 5:45 p.m. Audio recordings of the Planning Commission meetings are retained in the Planning Office for an indefinite period of time.
Planning staff members present at the meeting were: Wilford Sommerkorn, Planning Director; Nick Norris, Planning Manager; Casey Stewart, Senior Planner, Ray Milliner, Principal Planner; Mike Maloy, Principal Planner; Wayne Mills, Senior Planner; Katia Pace, Associate Planner; Paul Nielson, City Attorney and Angela Hasenberg, Senior Secretary.
5:46:12 PM
Motion
Commissioner Woodhead made the motion to amend the agenda brining item number four, 5500 West Street Amendment to item number one. Commissioner Luke seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously.
5:46:54 PM
Report of the Director
Mr. Sommerkorn stated he received a letter regarding the Harvard Mercantile at 1234 S 1100 E petition requesting a one year extension. He stated the project was approved several years prior, sold and modifications were made, it was reviewed and approved again approximately eighteen months ago.
5:48:10 PM
Motion:
Commissioner Woodhead made the motion to extend the approval. Commissioner Gallegos seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously.
5:49:17 PM
Public Hearing
5500 West Street Amendment – A request by Paul Anderson for various approvals which would allow the combination of property on both sides of 5500 West Street between 300 South and 700 South, in order to develop the property for a warehouse use. The subject street is located between the CG General Commercial and M-1 Light Manufacturing zoning districts in Council District 2, represented by Van Turner. (Staff contact: Katia Pace at 801-535-6354 or katia.pace@slcgov.com)
a. PLNPCM2009-01389 5500 West Street Closure – A request to close 5500 West Street between 300 South to about 490 South.
b. PLNPCM2010-00085 Major Street Plan Amendment – A request to amend the Major Street Plan and remove 5500 West Street, between 300 South and 700 South, as a collector street from the Major Street Plan map.
Ms. Katia Pace, Principal Planner, reviewed the petition as outlined in the Staff Report (located in the case file). She stated Staff was recommending the Planning Commission approve the petition as presented.
5:53:28 PM
Chairperson De Lay opened the Public Hearing, seeing no one in the audience that wished to speak, Chairperson De Lay closed the Public Hearing None.
Mr. Paul Nielson, City Attorney, clarified that the action would be to forward a recommendation to the City Council on closing the street and that the City Council would not declare surplus property.
5:54:04 PM
Motion
Motion: Commissioner Wirthlin stated regarding PLNPCM2009-01389 5500 West Street Closure, based on the information presented and findings in the Staff Report, he moved that the Planning Commission forward a positive recommendation to the City Council to close the 5500 West Street between 300 to approximately 490 South subject to conditions of approval 1-4 on page one of the Staff Report and regarding PLNPCM2009-00358 Major Street Plan Amendment, he moved that the Planning Commission forward a favorable recommendation to City Council to amend Major Street Plan or remove 5500 West Street between 3rd and 700 South as a collector street. Commissioner Algarin seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously.
5:56:08
PLNPCM2010-00448 & PLNPCM2010-00461 YNC Yalecrest Neighborhood Character Overlay District – A request by the Salt Lake City Council to amend the Salt Lake City Zoning Ordinance and Map. The proposed zoning text amendment will create a new overlay district to limit demolition of homes that define the character of the Yalecrest neighborhood and preserve existing streetscape building setbacks. The proposed zoning map amendment will apply the YNC Yalecrest Neighborhood Character Overlay District to property located approximately between Sunnyside Avenue and 1300 South, and between 1900 East and 1300 East. The property affected is located in Council District 5, represented by Jill Remington Love, and Council District 6, represented by J.T. Martin. (Staff contact: Wayne Mills at 801-535-7282 or wayne.mills@slcgov.com, or Michael Maloy at 801-535-7118 or michael.maloy@slcgov.com)
Mr. Michael Maloy, Principal Planner, reviewed the petition as outlined in the Staff Report (located in the case file). He stated Staff was recommending the Commission review the proposal and give Staff direction on how to continue with the process.
6:09:03
Commissioner Woodhead inquired whether Staff had the desire for the proposal to go forward to the City Council and would a positive recommendation be appropriate.
Mr. Sommerkorn stated there was validity to the comments made, but the proposal was presented because of the pending expiration of the temporary ordinance in September 10, 2011. Mr. Sommerkorn stated because of the time constraints, this issue may not have received as much research and building process that other issues might have had in the past. He stated that it was safe to say Staff did not feel comfortable with the ordinance.
Mr. Maloy stated the proposal addressed a number of desired objectives but created some questions and was aggressive but it met the original intent.
Commissioner Wirthlin asked if this was best possible solution or if there was more time and resources would the product be the same.
Mr. Maloy stated he believed there was merit in the demolition delay provision.
Mr. Sommerkorn explained there were different options to solve the problem however, public input was necessary prior to putting anything in place.
6:13:28
Commissioner McHugh arrived.
6:13:30
Commissioner Woodhead summarized the emails sent to the Planning Commission.
Commissioner Woodhead stated her summary was not exhaustive and not all inclusive but included general themes and comments from what she had read. She stated there were some comments in favor of the ordinance as drafted and some that were not in favor of the ordinance but preferred a Historic District saying the ordinance wasn’t strong enough. Commissioner Woodhead stated there were also quite a few comments in opposition regarding the following:
• The 50 year standard.
• A large amount of remodeling had already occurred in the neighborhood, and it would not be fair to the people that had not remodeled their homes.
• The remodeling in the neighborhood had changed its nature, thereby making the neighborhood no longer historic.
• The definition of demolition should not include 50% percent of the roof.
• The standards were too vague.
• Any ordinance should be in harmony with the prevailing wishes of the homeowners and this ordinance was not.
• The map of the district was wrong.
• The ordinances were anti family by not allowing bigger houses for growing families.
o It was noted that second stories could be added without damaging the character of the neighborhood.
• The ordinance represented too much government inference.
• Appeals for general property rights.
• Set back regulations were too strict.
• The regulations involving the front of the house were too strict.
• The ordinances restricted modernization of homes.
• Too much red tape and a lack of trust in the Historic Landmark Commission as the authority on this ordinance.
Commissioner Fife asked if there were pending demolitions in Yalecrest that would be approved as of September 11.
Mr. Sommerkorn stated as far as the City was aware, there were no pending demolition applications.
Public Hearing 6:19:05
Chairperson De Lay opened the public hearing.
Ms. Barbara Madsen represented Yalecrest Heights, stated that although their area was no longer part of the Yalecrest Historic Designation they were still impacted by the ordinance. She stated that in 1996 an ordinance was passed changing the size of side yards resulting in the monster homes in the area. Ms. Madsen asked for an amendment to revert the side yard requirement making the side yards what they were originally. She stated that their group was in opposition to the demolition ordinance and the local Historic District.
Mr. Ben Winchester, Preservationist for Property Rights, stated they agreed with some of the areas of concern, spoke in opposition to the demolition ordinance and Yalecrest Overlay District.
Mr. Kim Childs spoke in support of the demolition ordinance, although the area might be too large for one ordinance.
Mr. Monty Luker, 1452 E Gilmer, spoke in opposition stating 75% of the people he had spoken to were against the proposal.
Mr. Scott Brown, Michigan Avenue, spoke in opposition stating there were more people against the ordinance, it was a rush job and was too vague.
Commissioner Woodhead asked Mr. Brown if it was his position that there was no need for a new ordinance or new study groups.
Mr. Brown responded that he believed in small groups, but they were unnecessary for a new ordinance.
Mr. James Williams spoke in opposition of the ordinance. He stated many of the homes in the neighborhood were made of unreinforced masonry that would not perform well in earthquakes. Mr. Williams stated the homes could be retrofitted, but would still not compare to new construction and did not conform to current building codes. He stated that upgrades present a false sense of security and an owner should have the right to strengthen the home or replace and protect the life and safety of the family.
Ms. Cindy Cromer spoke in support of the ordinance and stated the City Council had approved Westmoreland as the City’s newest Historic District with no public opposition. She stated the differences between Yalecrest and Westmoreland was that Westmoreland was a small group of homes with a unique design. Ms. Cromer stated it was not necessary for the proposal to be perfect, as it was only an extension for another 180 days.
Ms. Susan Porter, 1601 Yalecrest Avenue, spoke in opposition of the ordinance.
Mr. McKay Edwards 1400 E 900 S, spoke in opposition of the ordinance. He believed in upgrades and modernization of homes in the area.
Ms. Pam Clauson, 1619 Yalcrest Avenue, spoke in opposition of the ordinance. She would like the ability to improve her home to increase the value.
Cindy McDonald suggested four ideas:
1. Virtual reality tours.
2. A Pattern Book for design.
3. Three hours with an architect,
a. Tell the architect what you need and want.
b. Architect tours home.
c. Architect gives historical suggestions.
4. List of approved architects in the area.
Joe Cook, 980 Military Drive, spoke in opposition. He disagreed with the terminology and felt it was underhanded in its description of what demolition was.
Chairperson De Lay closed the Public Hearing.
6:53:36
Commissioner Dean asked about the process. She stated she was unclear as to why the small groups had not been formed six months ago and how the city could attract more public involvement.
Mr. Mills stated this was being handled by the City Council.
Chairperson De Lay stated this process had started many years ago and she believed the intent to help was there.
Mr. Sommerkorn stated the City Council had expressed the Legislative Intent and that there had been discussion in that regard. He said he was unsure how far the process had gone.
Chairperson De Lay stated it seemed that there were a number of working groups in progress.
Commissioner Woodhead stated there seemed to be an inclination to do what the Historic Landmark Commission had done and send a negative recommendation to the City. She wondered if it would be possible to send a negative recommendation with a directive to Staff to re-start the process with a Planning Commission sub-committee and public groups to determine what a better end result would be.
Commissioner Gallegos stated it would be good to know what the structure of the process would be so the Planning Commissioners had better information in which to make a decision.
Commissioner De Lay suggested the proposal be handled in two phases, to vote on the motion and make a recommendation as a secondary part.
Commissioner Luke added he did not want this to go away and was concerned that a no vote would lead to that.
Commissioner McHugh stated it was the idea of a positive recommendation that caused the most interest.
Mr. Mills stated there were two different legislative intents adopted, one was the current proposal, the second was that the groups would form and have six months to come up with ideas regarding the neighborhood.
Commissioner De Lay asked what the time frame was.
Mr. Maloy responded the end date would be January 15, 2011.
Commissioner Wirthlin asked if Mr. Mills and Mr. Maloy were hoping for the Historic Landmark Commission to deny the petition.
Mr. Maloy stated Staff was looking for the best option. He stated they had discussed whether there should be additional design guidelines, but the discussion quickly went toward recommending denial.
Commissioner Wirthlin asked if it would be possible to send a negative recommendation and add a recommendation to start the study or continue on the six month program.
Commissioner Woodhead asked if it would be possible to table the motion with a recommendation that the Planning Commission set up a subcommittee to immediately start reviewing recommendations from the Planners.
Commissioner De Lay said the options were to pass it, pass it with recommended amendments, to deny or to table the proposal.
Mr. Nielson stated they could also initiate their own petition.
Commissioner Hill asked if there was a way to protect the community from the potential harm from a home that did not fit the character of the neighborhood.
Mr. Nielson stated there was nothing under state law the City could do to extend the temporary regulation period. Mr. Nielson added there was only one opportunity and that was by offering the six months.
Mr. Mills stated that if the time frame expired, then the regulation went back to what was previously in place, which was the Yalecrest Compatible Infill Overlay District.
Commissioner Fife stated if this was a Historic District, then it needed to be designated as such with design guidelines and be reviewed by the Historic Landmark Commission. He said if it was not, then Staff needed to maintain the scale and character of the neighborhood.
Commissioner Wirthlin stated the ordinance put the cart before the horse. He said the Yalecrest Infill Ordinance came from the community and there was community input however, this proposal seemed to be a band aid fix and was temporary. Commissioner Wirthlin stated any temporary fix would be bad law and a strong message would be a negative recommendation to the City Council coupled with the Historic Landmarks Commission’s recommendation.
Commissioner Woodhead stated unless a subcommittee was formed, the planning process would go forward without the Planning Commission.
Motion 7:07:52
Commissioner Wirthlin stated regarding PLNPCM2010-00448 & PLNPCM2010-00461 YNC Yalecrest Neighborhood Character Overlay District, based on the evidence, testimony received and Staff Report, he moved that the Planning Commission forward a negative recommendation to the City Council to deny the petitions for Yalecrest Neighborhood Character Overlay District and amend the Salt Lake City Zoning Map as shown in attachment A. Commissioner Algarin seconded the motion. Commissioners Luke, Gallegos, Fife, Dean, Wirthlin, Hill, Algarin and Woodhead voted “aye”, Commissioner McHugh voted “Nay”. The motion passed 8-1.
MOTION 7:10:23
Commissioner Woodhead made a motion for the Planning Commission to form a subcommittee of four members to meet once between August 11, 2010, and the end of September 2010, to address possible solutions regarding the problems of infill and demolitions in the Yalecrest neighborhood, members to be appointed by the Chairperson. Commissioner Luke seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously.
7:10:54 PM
The Commission took a ten minute break.
7:19:49 PM
Solei Cove Planned Development - A request by Craig Anderson, representing Sequoia Development, to construct an eight lot residential planned development located at approximately 2178 East 1700 South. The property is zoned R-1/7,000 Single-Family Residential District. The property is located within Council District 7, represented by Søren Simonsen. (Staff contact: Michael Maloy at 801-535-7118 or michael.maloy@slcgov.com)
a. PLNPCM2010-00154 Solei Cove Subdivision – A request for preliminary approval for an eight lot residential subdivision.
b. PLNSUB2010-00301 Solei Cove Planned Development – A request for a planned development of eight single-family residential lots with one of those lots being a flag lot. Flag lots are only allowed in the R-1/7,000 zoning district through the planned development process.
Mr. Michael Maloy, Principal Planner, reviewed the petition as outlined in the Staff Report. He stated Staff was recommending the Planning Commission approve the petition as presented.
The Commission and Staff discussed the following:
• If the Applicant owned the subject property.
o The Applicant did own the property.
• That the recommended height was 28 feet not 32 feet.
• The park strip and sidewalk dimensions and standards.
• Who would maintain the streets for the proposal.
o The streets would be public streets and maintained by the city not an HOA.
• Would be eight individual home owners that had full control over the landscaping
o An agreement for the landscaping could be put in place by the Developer.
Mr. Kevin Ludlow, Sequoia Development, stated they originally submitted for a minor subdivision application however, the Planned Development Application better suited the proposal.
Mr. Spencer White, Land Planner, reviewed the flag lot and the lot design allowed under the subdivision process. He stated they wanted to produce the best layout and design for the property. Mr. White reviewed the use of the property, keeping the existing trees was a priority, the fencing for the project, and how they would work with the abutting neighbors. He stated it was important to the developer to make the homes fit with the neighborhood. Mr. White discussed the possible design elements for the homes, materials, the elements to meet the fire code and the landscaping proposal.
The Commission and Staff discussed the following:
• What was the reason for the increase in building height.
o The Applicant stated the surrounding homes were approximately 30 feet high and the extra height would allow for flexibility in the height of the proposed homes.
o Staff stated the additional height could not be granted for the proposal due to the restrictions in the ordinance.
• Would there be an HOA for the neighborhood.
o The Applicant stated they were looking at different options regarding what was available and what an HOA would provide for the area.
• Were the proposed houses going to fill the buildable envelope on each lot.
o No the building envelopes were essentially the setbacks and the Developer would be sensitive to the surrounding neighborhood.
• Was fencing an original element for the project.
o No they wanted the development to be part of the neighborhood and fencing should be left to the homeowner.
• Was there a way to protect the side yards on 1700 South from housing fences over four feet in height.
o The developer would put something in the CCR that would prevent six foot fences on 1700 South.
• Both the Applicant and Commission would like to keep as much vegetation as possible on the lots.
• What was Staff’s view on the park strip, curb and gutter for the proposal.
o Staff reviewed the cooling effect of having a planted park strip and the walkability of the area if it had park strips.
Public Hearing 8:08:28 PM
Chairperson De Lay opened the public hearing.
The following individuals spoke in favor of the petition: Ms. Judy Short, Mr. Clark Neilson
The following comments were made:
• Supported the park strip system with nice tree as zero scaping does not provide water for the trees.
• Very impressed by the public comments.
• Neighborhood was generally in favor of the project although there are many concerns.
• Restricted height of the homes was a benefit to the area.
• As the new homes are planned and constructed the neighbors should be informed and made aware of what is happening.
• Property should be used in the best way in order to benefit the neighborhood.
The following individuals spoke in opposition of the petition: Mr. Roger McConkie, Ms. Sheila Prior and Ms. Sarah McConkie.
The following comments were made:
• Not opposed to the development but there should be conditions addressing installation of a fence or wall to shield the neighboring properties from the development of the property.
• If a fence or wall was not part of the development when would it be installed to protect the properties.
• The construction equipment staging area should not affect the neighbors.
• Would like the development to be uniform in regards to the fencing materials and design.
• Should protect the wildlife that was in the area.
• Should not fence the area off.
• Excited for neighbors but not the construction.
• Don’t want the development to infringe on the use of neighboring properties.
Chairperson De Lay read the following comments:
Ms. Marsha Jacobsen stated she felt all buildings should comply with current zoning guidelines where height and distance to property lines were concerned and no concessions should be made. Also had concerns with the length of time the project would take and the impact it would have on the neighbors.
Chairperson De Lay closed the public hearing.
Mr. White stated they had discussed the brick wall issues with the McConkie’s, the construction would be made to complement the neighborhood, they are willing to work with the neighbors regarding the fencing.
The Commission and Staff discussed the following:
• If a fence would be placed along the McConkie property.
• The location of fencing for the subject property and the language that should be included in the Planned Development.
o The Developer should not be responsible to put in a fence, for the neighboring property, just because the property owner could not afford one.
MOTION 8:38:50 PM
Commissioner Wirthlin stated regarding PLNPCM2010-00154, Solei Cove Subdivision and PLNSUB2010-00301, Solei Cove Planned Development, based on the findings listed in the Staff Report, testimony and plans presented, he moved that the Planning Commission approve the petition for the preliminary subdivision comprised on eight lots, for a planned development to allow for a flag lot and modification to the front yard setbacks subject to compliance to conditions one through ten. Amending number two to state that the proposed development shall provide a solid privacy fence around the entire perimeter of the development prior to construction of the first dwelling unit except along 1700 South and provide a brick masonry wall around the McConkie portion of the property. Commissioner Hill seconded the motion.
Commissioner Dean asked if a condition to limit the fence height along 1700 South to four feet would be considered.
Commissioner Wirthlin amended the motion to add a condition limiting the fence height along 1700 South to four feet and a non-solid material. Commissioner Hill seconded the amendment. Commissioners Woodhead, Algarin, Hill, Wirthlin, Dean, Fife and Luke voted “aye”. Commissioners McHugh and Gallegos voted “nay”.
8:42:05 PM
Hatch Family Chocolates Development Project – A request by Steve Hatch for various approvals which would allow for the relocation of Hatch Family Chocolates to the former 8th Avenue Market. The property is located at approximately 376 8th Avenue in Council District 3, represented by Stan Penfold. (Staff contact: Ray Milliner at 801-535-7645 or ray.milliner@slcgov.com)
a. PLNPCM2010-00369 Master Plan Amendment – A request to amend the Future Land Use Map of the Avenues Master Plan. The amendment would change the future land use classification of the property from Low-Density Residential to Mixed Use.
b. PLNPCM2010-00370 Zoning Map Amendment and Zoning Ordinance Text Amendment – A request to rezone property from SR-1A Special Development Pattern Residential to RMU-35 Residential Mixed Use in order to expand and operate an existing nonconforming commercial use on the property. The text amendment would modify Chapter 21A.24.190 Table of Permitted and Conditional Uses for Residential Zones to make a restaurant without drive through facilities a permitted use in the RMU-35 zoning district.
Mr. Ray Milliner, Principal Planner, reviewed the petition as outlined in the Staff Report. He stated Staff was recommending the Planning Commission forward a favorable recommendation to City Council regarding the petition.
Mr. Steve Hatch, Business Owner, stated they love the area and want to expand their business.
Public Hearing 8:47:56 PM
Chairperson De Lay opened the public hearing, seeing no one in the audience wished to speak; Chairperson De Lay closed the public hearing.
The Commission and Staff discussed the following:
• The Use Table and allowing restaurants in more zones.
o Staff was working on updating the Use Tables.
MOTION 8:50:15 PM
Commissioner Fife stated regarding PLNPCM2010-00369, Master Plan Amendment and PLNPCM2010-00370, Zoning Map Amendment and Zoning Ordinance Text Amendment, based on the findings listed in the Staff Report, testimony and plans presented, he moved that the Planning Commission forward a favorable recommendation to the City Council pursuant to the analysis for each application. Commissioner Gallegos seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously.
8:51:15 PM
PLNPCM2010-00300 Sentry Security Systems Text Amendment – A request by Michael Pate for Sentry Security Systems to amend Chapter 21A.40.120 of the Salt Lake City Zoning Ordinance. The amendment would add language to regulate the use of electric security fences in Manufacturing and Commercial zones. Changes would be City wide. (Staff contact: Ray Milliner at 801-535-7645 or ray.milliner@slcgov.com)
Mr. Ray Milliner, Principal Planner, reviewed the petition as outlined in the Staff Report. He stated Staff was requesting direction from the Planning Commission regarding the request.
The Commission and Staff discussed the following:
• Holding a Subcommittee meeting to discuss the issue.
• Adding dog electric fences to the ordinance.
o They are not the same and only affect the collared dog.
Mr. Michael Pate, Sentry Security Systems, explained the reasoning behind the subject proposal. Mr. Pate reviewed the product, why they are used and the standards they follow to regulate the operation of the fences.
The Commission and Staff discussed the following:
• How birds would be affected.
• Why the fence had to be ten feet high.
o Because a perpetrator could not climb the front eight foot fence and jump over the electric fence.
• The detriments it would have to people around the fence.
• The customer base for the product
• If the customers were located in residential zones.
o No, Sentry Security did not install electric fences in residential zones.
• The zoning the fence would be located in.
o They are generally located in zoning such as M1, M2 and industrial areas.
• What happened to the fence when the business moved or went out of business.
o The fence was deactivated but left there in case the next business wanted the service.
• The design and layout of the fence.
• The need for restrictions on electric fences in residential or mixed use zones.
Public Hearing 9:06:17 PM
Chairperson De Lay opened the public hearing, seeing no one in the audience wished to speak; Chairperson De Lay closed the public hearing.
The Commission and Staff discussed the following:
• The concerns over having electric fences abutting residential areas.
• Electrical fences were appropriate in Commercial zones as they are more scattered and mixed in with other uses.
• The types of companies that would use this type of fencing.
• The types of electric fences that were available and how to address them in the ordinance.
• How agriculture fencing differed from the type of fence that was proposed.
9:11:29 PM
The Commission took a five minute break.
9:16:51 PM
PLNSUB2010-00182 Crandall Cove Minor Subdivision – Ivory Development requests preliminary approval for a subdivision plat to create seven lots; one commercial lot for the existing commercial building at 2855 S Highland Drive and six new residential lots accessed from Crandall Avenue. The subject property is located at approximately 2853-2855 S Highland Drive in an R-1/7,000 zoning district, in Council District 7, represented by Søren Simonsen. (Staff contact: Casey Stewart at 801-535-6260 or casey.stewart@slcgov.com.)
Mr. Casey Stewart, Senior Planner, reviewed the petition as outlined in the Staff Report. He stated Staff was recommending the Planning Commission deny the petition as presented.
The Commission and Staff discussed the following:
• If there was a consideration to have five lots instead of six.
• The reason for the hundred foot lot depth.
o Part of the issue was the age of the site development ordinance which required the hundred foot depth.
• The Commissions purview over the street width, lot depth and their ability to change both measurements.
• The lot depth of surrounding lots.
o Roughly 100-150 feet.
• The comments and requirement from the Transportation Department.
Mr. Chris Gamvroulas, Ivory Development, gave an overview of the area and the proposal. He reviewed the design for the property and how the development would work with the area.
Mr. Gamvroulas reviewed the road width, the style of home that would be constructed on the lots and the interested buyers for the property.
The Commission and Applicant discussed the following:
• Was there a minimum frontage requirement for the lots
o It was fifty feet.
• Parking for the proposal and visitors.
o The driveway would provide enough parking for visitors and there would be street parking available.
• Narrow streets did not allow for on street parking.
• The square footage of the proposed homes
o A minimum of 2400 on a rambler, a two story would be around 4000.
• If the Commission would approve the home designs to make sure they fit with the area.
Public Hearing
Chairperson De Lay opened the public hearing.
Ms. Judy Short, Sugar House Community Council Land Use Chair, stated the Community had not officially reviewed the proposal but had discussed the development with the trustee of the neighborhood. She stated the two issues were did it fit the development pattern of the surrounding neighborhood, no it did not as the homes would be double the size of what currently existed and five houses would be better on the site. She stated the reduced street will caused an issue with trash and snow removal.
The following individuals spoke in favor of the petition: Mr. Mark Smith, Mr. Tom Henrod, Mr. Brent Pop, Mr. James McConkie, Mr. Reed Mitchell and, Ms. Kate Winson.
The following comments were made:
• Six single family, large homes would fit in the neighborhood as many existing homes were building additions to make them larger.
• Concerned over parking, garbage and fire trucks.
• Would be a great addition to the neighborhood and take away from the fire hazard currently in the area.
• Community needed this type of development and the plans were in keeping with the character of the surrounding area.
• Would be a great addition to the area.
• The existing trees were trash trees and new trees would be better.
• The Commercial property was in disrepair and not being maintained.
• Proposed homes were consistent with the character of the neighborhood.
• The developer agreed to planting new trees and putting in street lamps.
• Would only like to have single family homes.
• This was the best use of the property.
• The use of the commercial area was a concern.
• Great infill project and use of the property.
• Could not accommodate a grid system because of the layout of the property.
• Should be required to have a four foot sidewalk with four foot park strip.
• Depth of the lot would not matter in four or five years.
• Two car driveway and garages would help with parking and garbage cans.
The following individuals spoke in opposition of the petition: Ms. Sally Beracleff, Ms. Lisa Ashmond and Ms. Helen Peters.
The following comments were made:
• Emergency service access was an issue
• Trash and snow removal would be difficult
• What would happen to the existing trees on the lot.
• Needed to stay in character with the surrounding neighborhood.
• What would happen to the irrigation canal on the east side of the property.
• Number of parcels should be reduced to allow for open space.
• No two story structures should be allowed as those are not in character with the neighborhood.
• Homes should front on Crandall Ave.
• Parking on the street will be an issue.
Chairperson De Lay closed the public hearing.
Mr. Gamvroulas stated the grid pattern would not fit with the property or use it to its best potential. He stated if the lots faced Crandall there would be an increase in vehicles parking there and services using Crandall, but the proposal would take that traffic off of Crandall. Mr. Gamvroulas stated the irrigation canal would remain, the trees would be removed and new trees installed. He reviewed the size, square footage of the homes and the services for the properties.
The Commission and Applicant discussed the following:
• If a PUD was considered.
o No as it gave the developer more room to work with the home builders.
• Why was there an issue with providing the proper turn around for service access.
o Would lose two lots because the radius would be so large that it filled up the center of the property.
o The “T” turnaround was a city standard proposed by Transportation.
• The cottages are downsizing and streets are narrowing to allow for these developments.
• Needed to have restrictions on the home design.
• This would be a good development for a subcommittee to review.
MOTION 10:18:15 PM
Commissioner Algarin stated regarding the Crandall Cove Minor Subdivision Preliminary Plat PLNPCM2010-00182, he moved that the Planning Commission approve a preliminary approval to the proposed plat including Staff recommendations one and two. Commissioner Wirthlin seconded the motion. Commissioners Wirthlin, Algarin voted “aye”. Commissioners McHugh, Luke, Gallegos, Fife, Dean, Hill and Woodhead voted “nay”. The motion failed 2-7.
The Commission asked if the issue could be tabled allowing the applicant to return with more detail and options similar in scale to the surrounding area.
Staff stated the Applicant was allowed to build to the zone and there needed to be separation between the regulations of the zoning district and the regulations in the site developments as they were two separate things. Staff stated the lot layout had to meet the base zoning and was not something that could be considered with the subdivision layout.
The Commission stated they disapproved the proposal because they did not agree with what the Applicant was going to do with the space. They stated if the Applicant was willing to return with different options the Commission may approve the proposal.
Staff stated as long as what the Applicant was willing to do with the space fit the zone it would be permitted.
The Commission and Staff discussed the following:
• The street width and lot depth were the site development issues that needed to be addressed.
• The standard street width in Yalecrest.
• If the issue should be tabled.
MOTION 10:22:40 PM
Commissioner Woodhead stated in regards to PLNPCM201-00182, Crandall Cove Minor Subdivision, she moved that the Planning Commission table the application and allow the Applicant to return with additional information on the configuration of the subdivision including addressing issue relating to the street width and the lot depth. Commissioner Gallegos seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously.
The meeting adjourned at 10:23:41 PM