SALT LAKE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION
451 South State Street, Room 126
Present from the Planning Commission were Ralph Becker, Diana Kirk, Jim McRea, Judi Short, Aria Funk, Fred Fife and Max Smith. Kimball Young and Gilbert Iker were excused.
Present from the Planning Staff were Planning Director William T. Wright, Brent Wilde, Everett Joyce, Doug Dansie, Joel Paterson, Ray McCandless and Margaret Pahl.
A roll is being kept with the minutes of all who attended the Planning Commission meeting. The meeting was called to order at 5:00 p.m. by Mr. Becker. Minutes of the meeting are presented in agenda order, not necessarily as cases were heard at the Planning Commission meeting. Tapes of the meeting will be retained in the Planning Office for a period of one year after which they will be erased.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
Ms. Kirk moved to approve the minutes of Thursday, August 1, 1996 as presented. Mr. Smith seconded the motion.
SUBDIVISIONS
PUBLIC HEARING - Petition No. 400-96-57 by Donald Wallace representing SorTech. LLC. requesting the vacation of 900 South from approximately 3800 West to 4000 West in an Industrial 11M-1 " zoning district.
Mr. Ray McCandless presented the staff report outlining the findings of fact and the staff recommendation, a copy of which is filed with the minutes.
Mr. Becker asked if this street alignment had existed when the subdivision had been approved.
Mr. Wright responded in the affirmative and stated that the final platting of this subdivision was being handled in phases. Mr. Fife asked if there were utility easements involved. Mr. Wright said there were and added that they would have to be relocated as part of the subdivision process or granted an easement in the final subdivision plat for their present location.
Mr. Don Wallace, the petitioner, was present for this portion of the Planning Commission meeting. Mr. Wallace stated that the Utah Power easement was about 17.5 feet wide and fit along their proposed property line and they hoped to be able to leave it where it was currently located. He stated that they were negotiating to purchase the property they needed which was currently owned by several third parties. Mr. Wallace informed the Planning Commission that if those negotiations were not successful, they would provide adequate access to those parcels. Mr. Wallace explained that since those negotiations were not complete, they agreed, if necessary, to postpone this decision, until those negotiations had been completed.
Mr. Becker opened the hearing to the public and asked if anyone wished to address the Planning Commission.
Mr. Nile Fox, representing one of the abutting third-party property owners, stated that they were not opposed to this proposal but were concerned that they retain adequate access to their own property. He suggested the Planning Commission postpone making a decision on this matter until negotiations with the petitioner were completed. Mr. Fox stated that the third-party abutting property owners had until September 30, 1996 to respond to the petitioner's proposal.
Mr. Becker asked if this piece of property involved wetlands.
Mr. Fox said he didn't believe they were wetlands but added that salt had percolated to the top of some of the land.
Mr. Wallace stated that the Corps of Engineers had determined earlier by aerial photographs, but the actual determination had identified only a few spots
on the Sorenson land that were actually wetlands. Mr. Wallace stated that a
drainage detention basin, designed by Salt Lake City Public Utilities, encompassed about twelve acres, most of which was located on the Sorenson property.
Mr. Hendrik Pater, one of the abutting third-party property owners, stated that he did not believe they would have any problem reaching an agreement with the
petitioner.
Upon receiving no further requests to address the Planning Commission, Mr. Becker closed the hearing to the public and opened it for Planning Commission discussion.
Mr. Wright stated that if the petitioner and the third-party property owners could not reach an agreement on the property ownership, as part of the conditions of approval, the petitioner would have to plat a new road to provide access and street frontage to whatever parcels remained.
Ms. Kirk moved to approve Petition No. 400-96-57 based on the findings of fact and subject to the conditions listed in the staff report. Mr. McRea seconded the motion. Mr. Wright stated that the Planning Staff could postpone forwarding this matter to the City Council for their consideration until the negotiations between the various property owners had been completed. Mr. Fife, Ms. Funk, Mr. McRea, Ms. Kirk, Ms. Short, and Mr. Smith voted “Aye”. " Mr. Young and Mr. Iker were not present. Mr. Becker, as Chair, did not vote. The motion passed.
PETITIONS
PUBLIC HEARING - Petition No. 41 0-194 by JM Consulting Group for Western PCS II Corporation requesting a conditional use for a 1 95 foot telecommunications lattice tower located at 1497 South 700 West in an Industrial 11M-1" zoning district.
This item was postponed until a future Planning Commission meeting.
PUBLIC HEARING- Petition No. 410-231 by Kreg VanStralen for “central Park" requesting a conditional use for a commercial planned development of a drive thru restaurant as a pad site at 171 North Redwood Road in a Commercial 11CS" zoning district.
This item was postponed until a future Planning Commission meeting.
PUBLIC HEARING - Petition No. 400-96-61 by the Utah Division of Parks and Recreation requesting to rezone approximately 8.2 acres of property located at the southeastern corner of 1000 North and Redwood Road from an Open Space “OS" to a Residential ''R-1 /7000" zoning district. The petitioner is also requesting preliminary plat approval for 35 single family lots. In conjunction with the above proposal by the Utah Division of Parks and Recreation. Ivory Homes is requesting preliminary plat approval for a 16 lot subdivision located on the east side of Redwood Road at approximately 900 North in a Residential "R-1/5000" zoning district.
Mr. Wright stated that a technical correction needed to be made to the agenda. Mr. Wright stated that the land proposed for rezoning was currently zoned Public Lands, not Open Space.
Ms. Margaret Pahl presented the staff reports outlining the findings of fact and the staff recommendations, a copies of which are filed with the minutes.
Ms. Kirk asked if the Police Department had reviewed the gate issue.
Mr. Wright stated that this type of gate existed in another development in this area and he was not aware of any problems it had created.
Ms. Kirk asked if the Planning Commission could require a home owners association as part of the approval process to ensure maintenance of the grounds.
Mr. Wright said the Planning Commission had that authority but added that enforcement was difficult.
Mr. Jim Davis, a consultant for the State Division of Parks and Recreation and Ivory Homes, stated that if they discovered a conservation easement would better protect the 2.5 parcel of open space than the zoning, they might return to the Planning Commission to request such an easement.
Mr. Becker read a letter from Mr. Carlton Christensen, Vice Chair of the Rose Park Community Council, requesting the money from this sale be directed to help maintain the improvements made to develop the Jordan River Parkway or that the Parkway be turned over to the City with the proceeds from the sale so the City could operate in on a long term lease basis. A copy of the letter is filed with the minutes.
Mr. Davis stated that he could not speak for the State without consulting them on this matter but pointed out that their policy was that moneys be applied to their general fund in order to maintain projects on a State-wide basis. Mr. Davis said he would be happy to forward that request to the State Parks Board if the Planning Commission desired.
Mr. Terry Green, Assistant Director of the State Parks and Recreation Division, stated that he believed there would be some funds available to direct into this area but added that he believed the funds from this particular project had been earmarked for another area.
Mr. David Wolfgramm, representing Ivory Homes, asked if Ms. Pahl had been referring to a wrought iron fence when she suggested a transparent fence.
Ms. Pahl suggested the fence be wrought iron or something similar to wrought iron that was not a solid fence.
Mr. Wolfgramm stated that people usually wanted privacy in their back yards which made it difficult to deal with the fencing issues. Mr. Wolfgramm said a home owners association could be beneficial relative to grounds maintenance.
Mr. Becker opened the hearing to the public and asked if anyone wished to address the Planning Commission.
Mr. Mike Steed, Chairperson of the West Pointe Community Council, stated that they had discussed this matter several times. Mr. Steed said they supported the development of housing in this area but added that they were concerned about open space, fencing issues, particularly relative to graffiti problems, and traffic on Riverside Drive. Mr. Steed said they were opposed to a solid fence running the length of this project. He said they felt an entrance on Redwood Road would help relieve the traffic problems since they did not feel Riverside Drive had been designed to handle this much traffic.
Mr. Peter Lassig, the landscape architect for the library in this area, stated that the designs for the library could be extended to this project. Mr. Lassig said he agreed with Mr. Carlton Christensen's request relative to the ·funds from this sale being allocated to this area. Mr. Lassig said he was currently using his personal water to maintain 100 trees they had planted along the Jordan River Parkway.
Mr. Becker explained that there were federal controls over the proceeds from this sale. Upon receiving no further requests to address the Planning Commission, Mr. Becker closed the hearing to the public and opened it for Planning Commission discussion.
Mr. Wright stated that a public lands zoning would allow a public entity to construct a building on the 2.5 acre parcel. Mr. Wright stated that an open space easement could be placed on that parcel to prevent future development or the Planning Commission could recommend to the City Council, that as part of this rezoning, that parcel be zoned open space rather than public lands. Mr. Wright stated that the open space easement was the only way to guarantee that no development would allowed on that parcel.
Ms. Kirk asked if the City would then be responsible for the maintenance of that parcel.
Mr. Wright stated the ownership and maintenance issues needed to be resolved before this matter was transmitted to the City Council.
Ms. Kirk moved to approve Petition No. 400-96-61 based on the findings of fact
and subject to the conditions listed in the staff report with an added condition that as part of the subdivision approval, a home owners association be established, that the parking strip be designated as common property to be maintained, irrigated and landscaped by the home owners association, that the fencing, as recommended by the Planning Staff, be approved by the Planning Director, and that, if at all possible, the proceeds from the sale of this property, the State look at reinvesting in this area. Ms. Kirk further moved that the 2.5 acre parcel be zoned open space and its ownership and maintenance issues be resolved on the 2.5 acre parcel prior to this matter being forwarded to the City Council. Mr. McRea seconded the motion.
Ms. Short asked if the Planning Commission could request the State to install a water meter close to the open space area. Ms. Kirk stated that resolution to the maintenance of the open space land was part of the motion. Ms. Short said she was concerned about the maintenance of the 100 trees that had been planted.
Mr. Wright said that could be handled as a letter under Mr. Becker's signature to the State stating that the Planning Commission had become aware of the maintenance needs for this area during this hearing. Mr. Wright said the letter could request better maintenance for this property by the State, City and community working together.
Ms. Kirk amended her motion to include the suggestion that a letter as proposed above be included in the motion. Mr. McRea accepted the amendment to the second. Mr. Fife, Ms. Funk, Mr. McRea, Ms. Kirk, Ms. Short, and Mr. Smith voted “Aye”. Mr. Young and Mr. Iker were not present. Mr. Becker, as Chair, did
not vote. The motion passed.
Ms. Kirk moved to grant preliminary subdivision plat approval to Ivory Homes for a 16 lot subdivision located on the east side of Redwood Road at approximately 900 North. Mr. McRea seconded the motion.
Mr. Wright stated that all of the findings, conditions and requirements for the State Parks petition also applied to this request.
Ms. Kirk amended her motion to include those items; Mr. McRea seconded the amendment. Mr. Fife, Ms. Funk, Mr. McRea, Ms. Kirk, Ms. Short, and Mr. Smith voted “Aye". Mr. Young and Mr. Iker were not present. Mr. Becker, as Chair, did not vote. The motion passed.
Ms. Kirk moved to grant preliminary plat approval for a 35 lot, single family subdivision located at the southeastern corner of 1 000 North and Redwood Road subject to the findings, conditions and requirements as the two previous requests. Ms. Kirk further moved to direct the Planning Staff to continue to study the Riverside Drive improvements, as an off-site impact, with the developer, the City Engineer and the abutting property owners, and that those improvements not be required of this subdivision if it is determined that it is not feasible to be developed at this time. Mr. McRea seconded the motion.
Mr. Becker asked how that would affect the traffic and the load capacity issues of 1 000 North as their only entrance into the subdivision. Mr. Wright responded that the subdivision would have the ability to enter onto 700 North but that it would not be as improved as the staff would like. Mr. Becker asked if a connection to Riverside Drive would be made. Mr. Wright responded in the affirmative and added that the staff did not recommend an access at 900 North. Mr. Fife, Ms. Funk, Mr. McRea, Ms. Kirk, Ms. Short, and Mr. Smith voted “Aye”. " Mr. Young and Mr. Iker were not present. Mr. Becker, as Chair, did not vote. The motion passed.
PUBLIC HEARING Petition Nos. 400-96-58. 400-96-59 and 410-233 by Wasatch Co-Housing requesting development/conditional use approval for a 25 unit residential planned development to be located at approximately 1400 South Utah Street. The proposed development requires rezoning from a Residential “R 1/7000"
to a Special Residential IISR-3" zoning district. amendment of the Utah Southern
Addition Subdivision and condominium approval.
Mr. Max Smith declared a conflict of interest on this matter and left the room. He did not participate in the discussion or the vote.
Ms. Donna Abe representing Wasatch Co-Housing, presented slides demonstrating other co-housing projects and gave a brief history of this type of project.
Mr. John Major, also representing Wasatch Co-Housing, stated that they would prefer to make the majority of their comments following the public comment.
Mr. Joel Paterson presented the staff report outlining the findings of fact and the staff recommendation, a copy of which is filed with the minutes. Mr. Paterson
suggested another condition of approval be added to the staff report. He suggested the rezoning of this land be conditional upon this particular project being built; that if this project were not constructed, the zoning would revert to its current Residential //R-1 /7000" zoning classification.
Ms. Kirk pointed out that the zoning would allow 31 units but the petitioners were only requesting 26. Mr. McRea asked how much parking they were proposing.
Mr. Paterson responded that they were proposing 48 parking stalls.
Mr. Becker opened the hearing to the public and if anyone wished to address the Planning Commission.
Mr. Mark Elkins, representing the West Salt Lake Community Council, presented a letter to the Planning Commission outlining their concerns relative to this project, a copy of which is filed with the minutes. Those concerns include traffic impacts and safety issues related to traffic, problems experienced with other multi-housing projects, insufficient parking and setting a precedent for other multi-housing projects. Mr. Elkins stated that he had spoken with members of the Wasatch Co-Housing group and explained that they did not feel this project would bring undesirable people into their community, but added that they were concerned because of problems they had experienced with some of the multi-housing projects in their community. Mr. Elkins said they were concerned about possible short term residents the impacts they would have. He said they were also concerned that the project be well maintained and a benefit to the area.
Mr. Paterson explained that maintenance issues for condominiums were regulated by State law which required the City review the condominium bylaws prepared for this project and that sufficient funds be set aside to provide maintenance for the project.
Mr. McRea asked if there was a perception that this project was a rental project.
Mr. Elkins said they realized it was not a rental project but added that some people were concerned with the term //co-housing" and what that lifestyle might entail.
Ms. Kirk asked why people would be concerned about the lifestyle of people cooking and eating together.
Mr. Elkins said there were some people who were concerned about that. Mr. Elkins stated that the word that kept coming up which caused concern was 11COmmune". Mr. Elkins said he, personally, did not feel this was a bad project but added that he was concerned about setting a precedent for other multi-housing projects.
Mr. Becker explained that any person could petition the City for a change in zoning for property they owned and added that he did not believe approval of this project would set any kind of precedent for multi-housing projects in this community.
Mr. Kelly Edwards, a resident of the area, stated (in what appeared to be a facetious manner) that he was excited about this zoning change because he wanted to build three fourplexes on property he owned in this area. He expressed concern relative to access to this project and traffic safety on the ''hump" on California Avenue that was a hazard. Mr. Edwards stated that he had obtained 120 signatures on a petition expressing opposition to this project which he had turned over the chair of their community council, Mr. Van Turner, at their last meeting.
Mr. Edwards said they had also obtained another thirty signatures tonight expressing opposition to this project. Mr. Becker asked if they were going to turn those petitions in at this meeting. Mr. Edwards stated that the 1 20 signatures had been turned into Mr. Turner and he did not know where they were at this time, but added that the petition with the thirty signatures would be turned in at this time.
Mr. Jim Fisher, a resident of the area, stated that the petitioners had shortened his property by eight feet, which would remove his dog run. He asked how it was possible for them to do that. Mr. Paterson stated that they were going by the deed of the property they owned. Mr. Paterson stated that the dirt driveway providing access to the single family home would be moved to the north side of the telephone pole and would not affect Mr. Fisher's property. Mr. Paterson
demonstrated the access point on a briefing board. Mr. Fisher expressed concern about increased traffic and safety issues relative to school children.
Mr. Paterson explained the number of additional trips per day at peak traffic hours and how that traffic would be distributed around the project and the community.
Mr. Fisher stated that four children had been killed in traffic accidents in this area.
Mr. Tom Brasher, a resident of the area, stated that he was opposed to this project. Mr. Brasher said he did not believe the density would not be any greater for this project since his calculations did not agree with what the staff claimed could be developed on this site. He said the density of this project was nearly double what would be allowed in single family residences of normal lots. He said the perception that this project would not increase density was false. Mr. Brasher said he was concerned because the developer had a history of making misrepresentations to them. He stated that the petitioner had claimed he would not have to change the zoning to develop this project, though the fact that the petitioner was seeking rezoning demonstrated the petitioner's claims had not been true. Mr. Brasher expressed concern that a publicly supported company would be funding this project. Mr. Brasher stated that this community had been a stressed community for the twenty years he had lived there and added that if this project did not work out, the area's problems would be compounded.
Ms. Arlene Gordon, a resident of the area, stated that whatever was built on this site would have a great impact on her property. Ms. Gordon stated that they had been promised no more multi-housing projects would be allowed in this area. She said she had been informed that the City was now willing to remove the 11hump" on California Avenue as a safety measure and asked why the City wouldn't consider removing it a year ago for the already existing residents of the area. Ms. Gordon said she was concerned the people who would live in this project lived in "La La Land" after listening to them talk about what they would and would not do relative to this project. She said she expected to find everyone in the project tiptoeing around with flowers in their hair. Ms. Gordon stated that any more traffic on Cheyenne Street would make it nearly as bad as California Avenue. She suggested a bridge be built from the “hump" on California Avenue over to Redwood Road instead of into their subdivision. Ms. Gordon said she was opposed to additional parking lots because all they did was breed crime. She said she felt the developments presented in the slide show looked like ghettos with too many people crammed into too little space.
Mr. Jerry James, a resident of the area, stated that his major concern was that the petitioners were proposing a community within an already existing community. He expressed concern relative to fire hazard and the proximity of these homes to each other. Mr. James asked how this project would handle service trucks and emergency vehicles. He also expressed concern about an increase in traffic and asked the Planning Commission to consider whether or not they would like this project to be developed in their neighborhood. He asked why a regular cul-de-sac with regular single family homes was not being proposed. Mr. James said he believed that the underlying factor of this proposal was money.
Ms. Francis, Likens, a resident of the area, expressed concern at an increase in traffic and the safety hazards that increase would impose. She said removal of the “hump" would cost approximately two million dollars and said she found it interesting that the City would not remove when they had requested it be removed but was now willing to remove it.
Ms. Likens asked how close the proposed parking lots were to the houses facing Cheyenne Street.
Mr. Paterson used a briefing board to demonstrate where the parking lots were located.
Mr. Becker said there would be a setback on the proposed project as well as the setback of the abutting properties.
Mr. Paterson measured the distanced from the parking lot to the Cheyenne properties and estimated that it would be about 60 feet.
Ms. Likens stated that emergency vehicles had to back out of their dead-end streets because they could not turn around. She stated that the City's plans had left their community in a quagmire; that they could not have buses access their area because of how it had been designed.
Mr. Robert Vatsord, a resident of the area, expressed concern relative to traffic problems and stated that his mother had been crippled because of having been hit by a car in this area. Mr. Vatsord also expressed concern about a potential increase in barking dogs who would need to be cleaned up after. Mr. Becker stated that the Planning Commission had to concern itself with land use issues, not enforcement issues. Mr. Vatsord said the petitioners had originally claimed that they would only building 14 units and were now proposing 26. He stated that he did not trust what they were proposing because he believed it would change.
Ms. Lynne Robison, a resident of the area, asked if any health issues were involved with this proposal relative to how many people would be eating together. She expressed concern about a lack of parking if she chose to invite people over for a barbecue and stated that her street was already a parking lot.
Ms. Carrie Fisher, a resident of the area, expressed concern for the wildlife that currently existed on this site and how close this project would be to surrounding houses.
Mr. Becker reminded everyone that this parcel was privately owned and explained that any property owner had the right to petition the City to develop their property.
Ms. Kristine Pinkerton, a resident of the area, asked what kind of lighting was proposed for the project. Mr. Matthew McQuarrie, representing Max Smith and Associates, the project architects, used a briefing board to demonstrate the lighting plan.
Mr. Becker asked if the lighting would be directional.
Mr. McQuarrie responded that it would designed so as not to intrude on surrounding properties.
Ms. Pinkerton said her biggest concern was traffic and pointed out that this area was sandwiched between 1-1 5 and 1-21 5.
Ms. Patricia Golightly, a resident of the area, asked if the irrigation canal by California Avenue would be removed. Mr. Kevin Young, representing the City Transportation Division, stated that the ''hump" was now proposed for possible removal because of a collapse in the canal system near the ''hump". He stated that the canal no longer worked and the "hump" could now be removed because the system no longer worked, not because a different group of people were involved.
Mr. Young stated that the City had looked at removing the "hump" several years ago but since the canal had been functional at that time and the City did not own all of the property, that had not been feasible. Mr. Becker asked if it would cost two million dollars to remove the "hump". Mr. Young stated that according to the Engineering Division, the cost would be closer to $100,000.
Mr. Fife stated that a child had been killed by an automobile in this area.
Mr. Young stated that the City had met with school officials and community representatives for a six month period to figure out how to increase pedestrian safety for this area, particularly for the children. Mr. Young stated that traffic problems were increasing every where but added that the streets in this area could handle the increase that would occur if this proposal were approved.
Ms. Golightly stated that she was opposed to the “hump" being removed and the canal being closed because she was a water user. Mr. Young stated said that was an issue that would have to be worked out with the irrigation company.
Mr. Ralph Anderson, a resident of the area, stated that the petition containing more than 1 00 signatures had been lost through a change in the community council administration. Mr. Anderson gave the Planning Commission a petition signed by 37 residents of this area who were opposed to this project, a copy of which is filed with the minutes. Mr. Anderson said he had received a notice from the petitioners that his property lines were about twenty feet off. Mr. Anderson stated that the petitioners had not checked this out properly. He stated that the petitioners showed that Utah Street had a right-of-way into High Avenue which was not true. Mr. Anderson said he had lived in this area for fifty years and that the surface canal right-of-way embankment blocked it off. Mr. Anderson said he had been an official in the canal company for many years and the reason the canal flume had not been improved was because the City and the County had lost their agreement with the canal company to install and maintain the flume through perpetuity. He stated that the canal flume had collapsed because of age in the early fifties. Mr. Anderson said the City and County had had a contract to rebuild the flume which had now blown off the pilings. He said he had tried to warn the City and the County that it did not appear the new flume would hold up as long as the old one, and added that he had been correct. Mr. Anderson said the City Engineer needed to conduct their own survey of these properties instead of accepting someone else's word relative to property lines. Mr. Anderson stated that he had counted cars on Cheyenne Street on August 5th and many more cars had traversed the street than the staff's numbers reflected. He said the claim that the alley into the High Street subdivision He suggested the City check its facts since the facts presented had not been accurate.
Mr. Steve Graham, a concerned citizen, stated that he knew many of the petitioners, one of whom was his brother, and said he had never known any of them to wear flowers in their hair. Mr. Graham said these people were wonderful, thoughtful and upstanding people. He stated that no one was making a lot of money of this project, that they were struggling to make this project happen and would be responsible for making their own mortgage payments to make this work. He stated that this proposal would create a lot of green space for the area and requested the Planning Commission approve this request. A resident of High Avenue expressed concern about traffic and safety issues.
Mr. Don Berg, a resident of the area, asked if the residents of this project would gain access to their project through the alley. Mr. Berg said he wanted a barricade on the alley because he did not want to be liable for someone trying to access California Avenue from the alley and being killed. He also asked if sewer provisions had been made. Mr. Berg said he agreed with all of the objections that had been made by others at this meeting.
Mr. Paterson stated that the alley, created in the original subdivision, would not be used for development access to the project and was not recognized as a street. Mr. Paterson said it was only recognized for access to the rear portions of the abutting properties. He stated that when alleys were vacated, the City deeded the property to the abutting property owners. Mr. Paterson stated that if the alley were used for access, the City would not vacate the alley unless all of the property owners could create their own private right-of-way agreement. Mr. Paterson stated that the section of the alley that was owned by Wasatch Co- Housing could be vacated, but the remainder of the alley would not be vacated. Mr. Paterson stated that the portion of the alley Mr. Berg had said had been closed off and gated had not been vacated by the City and the gate was not there with permission from the City. He added that the City Council would probably be willing to vacate that portion of the alley if the property owners created a right-of-way agreement in order to keep the general public from accessing the alley.
Mr. Tom Brasher said an experimental housing project for single family housing would work if ample, vacant land was available. He stated that when such a project could only be developed through a rezoning petition, it was tenuous at best.
Mr. Robert Vatsord asked if the petition with more than 1 00 signatures could be included in the record for this meeting. Mr. Becker stated that it would have to be presented to the Planning Commission at this meeting in order to be included in the record.
Mr. Anderson stated that the estimate he had received from the City Engineer to
remove the ''hump" was $750,000, not $100,000.
Mr. Fife asked if the $750,000 had included replacing the canal beneath the streets.
Mr. Anderson responded in the affirmative.
Mr. Fife stated that the $100,000 proposal at this time was to eliminate the canal.
Upon receiving no further requests to address the Planning Commission, Mr. Becker closed the hearing to the public and opened it for Planning Commission discussion.
Mr. John Major, representing Wasatch Co Housing, stated that this property was going to be developed and the question for the community was did they want more neighbors or fewer neighbors. Mr. Major stated that other developments might not offer the amount of open space they were proposing. He reminded everyone that the residents of this project would be living in this project and would be as concerned about the neighborhood issues just like the existing residents, such as parking and traffic. Mr. Major said they had been required to submit a legal survey of their property with their application to the City and if it were wrong, that would have to be cleared up with the surveyor.
Mr. Major said they were not interested in seeing through traffic to High Street. He encouraged any of the neighbors who had concerns to contact them to discuss them. He said they were including some affordable housing units in this project because they felt it was the right thing to do but added that they would be very concerned about the nature of the tenants for those units. He explained that those units would be lease-to-own units, not just rental units. Mr. Major stated that in other cities, when cohousing projects were built in high crime areas, the crime decreased. He said he believed the residents of this area would find them to be allies in their neighborhood concerns and that their property would be open to the surrounding neighborhood.
Mr. McQuarrie demonstrated the location of the garbage dumpsters on the briefing board.
Mr. Paterson addressed the concerns raised about fire hazards and stated that the project was being designed to allow access to emergency vehicles and that fire hydrants would be installed as required by the Fire Department.
Motion on Petition Nos. 410-233. 400-96-58 & 400-96-59:
Ms. Kirk stated that from a land use perspective, this was a great project and she did not understand the reservations of the community.
Ms. Kirk moved to approve Petition Nos. 41 0-233, 400-96-58 and 400-96-59 based on the findings of fact and subject to the conditions listed in the staff report, with the understanding that the Special Residential 1/SR-3" zoning classification was for this specific project and would revert to the Residential “R-1 /7000" zoning classification if this project were not developed. Ms. Short seconded the motion.
Mr. McRea said he viewed this project as a condominium project and seemed traditional considering Utah's history which is based on communal living and he also had a difficult time understanding the community's resistance.
Ms. Funk said she felt it was important that the Planning Commission understand the concerns of the community and be sensitive to those concerns. Ms. Funk said she agreed that this was a good project but added that she supported the concerns of the community.
Mr. Fife stated that any time a radical project was proposed, it caused concern. Mr. Fife said he was in support of this project and believed it was a good land use project.
Ms. Funk, Mr. Fife, Ms. Short, Mr. McRea and Ms. Kirk voted “Aye”. Mr. Young, Mr. Smith and Mr. Iker were not present. Mr. Becker, as Chair, did not vote. The Motion passed.
PUBLIC HEARING - Petition No. 400-96-60 by the Salt Lake City Planning Division to amend the text of the Residential “RB” zoning district amending the design standards for additions or expansions Qf nonresidential uses and to provide a maximum lot size.
Mr. Everett Joyce and Mr. Doug Dansie presented the staff report outlining the findings of fact and the staff recommendation, a copy of which is filed with the minutes.
Mr. Wilde stated that issues that have City-wide ramifications were typically presented to the community council chairpersons at their monthly meeting with the Mayor. Mr. Wilde stated that their July meeting had been canceled and, therefore, this matter had not been presented to them. He explained that they had discussed this with it with the East Central and Sugar House Community Councils and had incorporated some of the suggestions made at those meetings. Mr. Wilde stated that the staff had not yet discussed this proposed ordinance with affected property owners and they felt there should be one more meeting with community council members, property owners and City staff before this matter was forwarded to the City Council.
Mr. Becker opened the hearing to the public and asked if anyone wished to address the Planning Commission.
Mr. Ron Reaveley, a property owner in Sugar House, stated that part of the reason for this ordinance amendment was due to an application of his to expand his business. Mr. Reaveley stated that when had purchased his property, it had been zoned Business 11B-3" and he had not been aware that it was going to be rezoned in the Zoning Ordinance Rewrite Project. Mr. Reaveley said none of the property owners he had spoken to in this area had been aware of the Rewrite Project and that their properties were going to be downzoned. He stated that he supported the proposed amendment to the Residential “RB” zone because a pitched roof would not work well with the existing design of his flat roofed building.
Mr. Reaveley stated that he wanted to demolish the house he had purchased at 1521 South 11 00 East. He said he needed to expand his business and if he couldn't demolish that house, he would have to relocate his business. He stated that the house was vacant at this time and no one would be displaced. Mr. Reaveley said he was slightly uncomfortable with the 1 0,000 square foot limit. He stated that he wanted to be able to expand his business in a manner that could be compatible with the existing neighborhood, but not through a flawed ordinance.
Mr. Wilde stated that demolition of residential structures had and would continue to require conditional use approval and if Mr. Reaveley desired to demolish the house at 1521 South 11 00 East, he would have to receive conditional use approval to do so.
Mr. Mark Bunce, Acting Chair of the East Central Liberty Community Council, stated that they were interested in preserving the residential character of structures in the City. He suggested guidelines be developed to retain and preserve the residential integrity of structures. Mr. Bunce said they recognized the need for the business component of a community but added that it needed to exist in the community in a friendly manner.
Mr. Rawlins Young, Chairperson of the Sugar House Community Council, likened
the proposed ordinance to a 11Wolf in sheep's clothing." Mr. Young pointed out that this zoning classification had been placed in the residential section of the Zoning Ordinance and asked who had ever heard of a residential zone in a 100% commercial strip. Mr. Young stated that issues relative to the inability to develop modern structures on residentially platted land had not been resolved by the ordinance. He stated that the master plans called for nodes and sufficient expansion that viable neighborhood businesses could be development. Mr. Young said the strip development in this area did not provide the appropriate goods and services to the surrounding neighborhood.
Mr. McRea asked Mr. Young to define appropriate goods and services".
Mr. Young said he did not know how many neighborhoods needed engineering firms, whereas they might need small
restaurants.
Mr. Young said he did not believe zoning should be project driven. He stated that if the strip zoning issues needed to be reconsidered, those issues should not just be “tweaked" but the whole issues fully studied. Mr. Young said he had already requested the commercial zones related to commercial strip zoning be reexamined since these commercial strips were not providing what the communities had hoped they would provide. Mr. Young stated that 1100 East, a residential street, 900 South, a collector street, and Main Street, an arterial street all had the same zoning. He stated that strip zoning denigrated the transportation system and the impacts of that denigration were more severe on residential streets than on arterial streets.
Mr. Young stated that strip zoning had negative effects on the residential uses always found on the back side of the commercial strip. He stated that little details, such as public alleys between the two kinds of uses, were not taken into consideration. Mr. Young stated that when strip zoning had been developed in Salt Lake City, it was imposed upon an already residential platting.
Mr. Young stated that the 125 foot deep lots on 1100 East had Residential “RN" zoning superimposed on them, whereas, Commercial JJCC" zoning had been placed on the same kinds of lots along other streets even though they had the same platting underneath. He said the City needed to make sure no further denigration of the transportation system occurred, that clean air standards were not be further compromised, and a determination needed to be made whether this type of strip zoning provided any benefit in the kinds of uses and goods they provided. Mr. Young suggested the Planning Commission reexamine all of the commercial strip zoning classifications.
Ms. Cindy Cromer, a concerned citizen, stated that she was very pleased with the reduction of maximum lot size. Ms. Cromer stated that the date, relative to maximum lot size, on Page 2 needed to be April 1 2, 1 995 or the date the Planning Staff filed this petition. She requested it not be a future date. Ms. Cromer suggested that language needed to be added to the ordinance stating that the applicant needed to bear the burden of proof on why a residential structure should be demolished under Section 12-15.9 on Page 3. Ms. Cromer also suggested the same section should state that a residential structure, proposed for demolition, does not make a material contribution, based on its location, its scale, or the modification of the original architecture, rather than just stating that the residential structure does not make a material contribution to the residential character of the neighborhood. Ms. Cromer requested the Planning Commission reexamine the effects of this ordinance in a few years to make sure it was working as they had intended.
Mr. David Dalton, a property owner in the Sugar House area, stated that he had not received any notice that this area was going to be downzoned in the Zoning Ordinance Rewrite Project. Mr. Dalton said his observation that businesses often took better care of their property than residential uses. Mr. Dalton stated that he did not agree that businesses were bad for neighborhoods. He stated that he believed the improvements Mr. Reaveley wanted to make to his existing building would be an improvement to the area.
Mr. Wilde explained that the City had mailed out a notice of the Zoning Ordinance adoption process to every property owner of record and had placed several notices in the local newspapers. Mr. Wilde stated that the City had surpassed the legal requirements relative to notification of the ordinance changes.
Mr. Joseph Beesley, a property owner in the Sugar House area, stated that he felt the efforts to correct the problems associated with the old Business “B-3" zoning for this area had gone too far in the opposite direction. Mr. Beesley said this would be a great opportunity to go back and take a good look at the commercial strip zones. He suggested a process involving less “red tape" for applications for property improvements. Mr. Beesley stated that the new development projects on 21 00 South would have a great impact on the surrounding streets in the area and might prevent some of the surrounding residential properties from developing. He suggested the zoning for these areas be opened up to eliminate some of the rental properties and the dead-beat landowners. Mr. Beesley said he believed some of the residential properties along 11 00 East were better suited to business use than residential use.
Mr. Gary York, a property owner in the Sugar House area, stated that several attempts to downzone this area had not been successful because the property owners had received notification of the proposed zoning changes in time to organize their efforts to prevent that downzoning prior to the Zoning Ordinance Rewrite Project. Mr. York stated that 11 00 East was not a residential street, it was a high traffic, commercial street. He stated that if business properties were downzoned, the property owners should be compensated for their loss in value. Mr. York stated that 11 00 East should be designated for business use and the surrounding areas designated for residential use. He stated that he was in support of Mr. Reaveley' s desire to expand his business and the proposed ordinance change.
Upon receiving no further requests to address the Planning Commission, Mr. Becker closed the hearing to the public and opened it for Planning Commission discussion.
Mr. McRea said he agreed with the suggestion to set a specific date, that is not a future date. Mr. McRea said he believed the businesses in these areas needed to be supported and these areas needed to be looked at as a whole unit, not on a structure by structure basis.
Mr. Smith stated that the businesses along streets such as 11 00 East had a great impact on the residential properties behind them and a balance between both uses needed to be found.
Mr. Wilde stated that these were some of the most difficult types of issues for the Planning Staff and the Planning Commission to deal with. Mr. Wilde stated that the intent of the Residential ''RB" zone was to protect the small-scale, residential integrity of the commercial strips while not nonconforming the businesses.
Mr. Wilde stated that by making demolitions a conditional use, there was an opportunity to control demolitions. Mr. Becker stated that while streets like 1100 East were largely commercial strips, they had the look and feel of residential streets which the City desired to retain. Mr. Becker stated that the City also wanted to maintain a smaller scale for commercial uses on these streets in order to protect and maintain the surrounding residential uses. Mr. Becker stated that when businesses needed to significantly expand, they might need to look at relocating to an area more compatible with large scale business uses.
Ms. Funk stated that there was a lot of truth to the statements that many of the businesses maintained their properties better than some of the residential uses.
Ms. Funk said she felt the City was negligent in their enforcement efforts to keep properties properly maintained. She asked if something could be done to increase enforcement efforts. Mr. Wilde responded that the City had just recently implemented the citation process for zoning enforcement and was just in the early stages of that process.
Mr. Fife asked if the “node zoning" referred to by Mr. Rawlins Young, would
protect the mixed uses. Mr. Wilde said that idea could be looked at but added that that type of zoning had its own problems. Mr. Becker stated that the community input was definitely needed before this matter was decided. Ms. Kirk moved to table Petition No. 400-96-60. Ms. Short seconded the motion. Ms. Funk, Mr. Fife, Ms. Short, Mr. McRea, Ms. Kirk and Mr. Smith voted “Aye". Mr. Young and Mr. Iker were not present. Mr. Becker, as Chair, did not vote. The motion passed.
Mr. Reaveley said he had been working with the City on his request for about nine months and it was difficult to deal with how long this process was taking.
Ms. Funk and Mr. Smith volunteered to work with the staff and the community to examine the issues involved before this matter was brought back to the Planning Commission for action.
PUBLIC HEARING - Petition No. 41 0-237 by Reaveley Engineers and Associates. Inc. requesting a conditional use for demolition of a residential structure located at 1521 South 1100 East in a Residential IIRB'' zoning district.
This item was postponed until a future Planning Commission meeting.
OTHER BUSINESS
Report on the Downtown Design Enhancement Committee on light rail design issues.
Ms. Kirk stated that the Downtown Design Enhancement Committee met weekly to discuss different aspects of light rail design in the Downtown area.
Mr. Becker stated that he had received a letter from Mr. Steve Meyer, representing Sear Brown, relative to the possibility of permanently closing Main Street between North Temple to 100 South Street to vehicular traffic. Mr. Becker stated that this issue would require a Planning Commission public hearing and recommendation to the City Council.
Mr. Doug Dansie stated that the LDS Church was ready to proceed with construction of their underground parking lot and the type of above-ground use determined how that underground parking lot would be constructed. Mr. Dansie stated that the block between North Temple and South Temple would more than likely be sold, at fair market value, to the LDS Church and the block between South Temple and 100 South Street would likely remain in City ownership.
Mr. Becker stated that the LDS Church was interested in tying their properties on both sides of Main Street together. Mr. Dansie stated that even though the closure would only encompass two blocks, the impact would affect many of the surrounding blocks.
There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 10:30 p.m.