SALT LAKE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION Minutes
451 South State Street, Room 315
Present from the Planning Commission were Chairperson Max Smith, Vice-Chairperson Judi Short, Diana Kirk, Gilbert lker, Fred Fife, Andrea Barrows, Craig Mariger and Mike Steed. Aria Funk was excused.
Present from the Planning Staff were Planning Director William T. Wright, Deputy Planning Director Brent Wilde, Craig Hinckley, Ray McCandless, Doug Wheelwright and Cheri Coffey.
A roll is being kept of all who attended the Planning Commission meeting. The meeting was called to order at 5:10 p.m. by Mr. Smith. Minutes are presented in agenda order, 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
Mr. Steed moved to approve the minutes of Thursday, August 6, 1998. Mr. Fife seconded the motion. Ms. Short, Ms. Kirk, Mr. lker, Mr. Fife, Ms. Barrows, Mr. Mariger and Mr. Steed voted "Aye". Ms. Funk was not present. Mr. Smith, as Chair, did not vote. The motion passed.
PETITIONS
JOINT HEARING WITH THE PUBLIC UTILITIES ADVISORY COMMITTEE -The Planning Commission and the Public Utilities Advisory Committee will receive public comment and consider making recommendations to the City Council on the "Salt Lake City Watershed Management Plan '98".
Mr. Ralph Becker of Bear West, the consultant who developed the draft of the Salt Lake City Watershed Management Plan '98, was present for this portion of the meeting. He stated that the seven major canyons of the Wasatch Mountains represent the primary water source for approximately 400,000 people in the Salt Lake Valley. These canyons include City Creek, Emigration, Red Butte, Parley's Millcreek, Big Cottonwood and Little Cottonwood. In order to protect this valuable watershed, Salt Lake City first developed and adopted a formal watershed management plan in 1988. Mr. Becker continued by stating that in the Fall of 1997, the City began a process to review the plan. The purpose of this review is to determine if the recommendations of the original plan are still valid, address changes that may have occurred in the canyons and identify and address any new issues affecting the watershed that may have arisen over the past 10 years. Mr. Becker then noted that all of the jurisdictions have been working together with Salt Lake City in the development of this Plan. The Plan has focused on a number of areas for recommendations such as watershed education, enhancing the Public Utilities Watershed Protection Fund (provides funding to acquire ground in the canyons) and looking at the various activities in the canyons and how they are affecting the water quality in the canyons today and possibly in the future.
Mr. Smith opened the hearing to the public and asked if anyone wished to address the Planning Commission.
Mr. John Veranth, a concerned citizen, stated that he supports the Plan, especially the camping permit system and the emphasis on education. Mr. Veranth feels that the Plan should include back country toilets. He then stated that he feels that there are some inconsistencies in the Plan that should be restudied.
Mr. Veranth then stated that the Plan should reflect that there are generic federal requirements that require all surface waters to be treated, regardless of quality.
Mr. Jeff Streba, a concerned citizen, stated that he feels that the Plan lacks hard scientific data to support the recommendations that are being proposed. There seems to be a lot of restrictions on people and activities in the back country yet it is not supported with facts and figures of scientific data. Throughout the document, there are items mentioned (i.e. badly maintained toilets, fertilizers, septic tanks, commercial development) that "may impact the water quality". When the Plan talks about dispersed recreation users, the wording used leads the reader to believe that this is a definite problem with water quality. Mr. Steba feels that this is prejudice against the dispersed recreation user and that the Plan should reflect that dispersed recreation users "may impact the water quality".
Mr. Tom Stephens, a concerned citizen, stated that he very strongly supports a camping permit system and back country toilets. He then stated that we should not lose sight of the continual pressure for development by the ski resorts. Construction activities and maintenance sheds create a large amount of industrial run off and vehicle usage run off that effects the quality of the water.
Mr. Wes Odell, a concerned citizen, stated that he believes that Salt Lake City's Department of Public Utilities has done the best job of any of the agencies responsible for protecting the watershed. He then stated that the Plan is an impressive document however, he feels that it is too loose and that it needs more data and facts.
Mr. Frank Grover, a concerned citizen, stated that he has been proud of the actions of Salt Lake City's Department of Public Utilities in preserving the quality of water for delivery to the users in Salt Lake City. He then stated that he has carefully reviewed the draft Plan and has some concerns. Some concerns are the evaluation of possible causes of water quality declining is very inadequate; there is no mention of soil loss and reservoir filling as a measure of watershed quality; and the use of the word 'impact' is improper. Mr. Grover also stated that he feels that the recommendation section of the document, which includes about 90 recommendations, is not workable. Many of the recommendations have already been discarded or failed to be implemented because of the lack of agency funding. Mr. Grover continued by stating that without a better plan, water will need to be treated more and more to maintain a usable standard.
Mr. Bob Fisher, a concerned citizen, stated that people need to realize that the watersheds and streams that come out of the canyons are the most precious thing to this valley. The adults need to be the ones to educate the children that the streams need to be kept clean in the canyons as well as in the valleys.
Mr. Fisher then stated that if the areas are protected where the water runs, it will last a lifetime.
Mr. Onno Wieringa, a concerned citizen, stated that he feels that the document is too loose and vague, however, it addresses some great issues. Mr. Wieringa spoke specifically about fee stations and that the Plan does not define the objective and capacity.
Upon receiving no further requests to address the Planning Commission, Mr. Smith closed the hearing to the public and opened it for Planning Commission discussion.
Mr. lker asked how much money is collected at the fee station in Millcreek Canyon and how the money is used.
Mr. Jack Vanderberg, representing the Forest Service, stated approximately $250,000 per year is collected. Of the $250,000 per year, about 15% goes toward the operation of the fee booth. The remainder of the money goes towards seasonal forest service workers who patrol the canyon and improvements to the canyon.
Mr. Vanderberg then stated that he feels that the fee system has been very successful.
Further discussion followed regarding the concerns expressed during the public hearing, specifically, fee permit systems, water quality and watershed education.
Ms. Florence Reynolds, a representative from Public Utilities, stated that the community needs to remember that there will always be a need for water and as the community grows the need for finding sources of good drinking water will continue. As a consequence, all watershed areas need to be protected so that the source can be used if necessary.
The Planning Commission will receive public comment and consider making recommendations to the City Council regarding proposed amendments to the Salt Lake City Subdivision Ordinance. The goals of these amendments are to:
1. Create an ordinance that allows routine and uncontested lot line adjustments between two lots be reviewed and approved administratively.
1 Change the process for subdivision amendments that are reviewed legislatively by only forwarding subdivision amendments involving alterations or changes to streets to the City Council.
2 Refine the Administrative Hearing/Planning Commission review of new and amended subdivisions.
Mr. Ray McCandless presented the staff report outlining the major issues of the case, the findings of fact and the staff recommendation, a copy of which is filed with the minutes. Mr. McCandless stated that staff has reviewed the existing subdivision ordinance requirements and has determined the following regulations will need to be amended:
1 Standardize the review process and application fees for subdivision plat amendments.
2 Reduce the complexity and time required to process applications.
3 Create a process by which routine lot line adjustments can be approved administratively.
4 Clarify the fee structure and simplify applications.
5 Reduce the current workload of the City's administration and City Council.
Mr. Mariger noted some inconsistencies within the proposed amended Subdivision Ordinance. A brief discussion followed between the Planning Commission members and staff concerning these issues.
Mr. Smith opened the hearing to the public and asked if anyone wished to address the Planning Commission. Upon receiving no response, he closed the hearing to the public and opened it for Planning Commission discussion.
Motion for the proposed amendments to the Salt Lake City Subdivision Ordinance:
Ms. Short moved, based on the findings of fact, to approve the proposed amendments to the Salt Lake City Subdivision Ordinance (Title 20) and forward a positive recommendation for adoption to the City Council subject to the condition that staff work with Mr. Mariger to correct the inconsistencies that are in the draft. Ms. Kirk seconded the n1otion. Ms. Short, Ms. Kirk, Mr. lker,
Mr. Fife, Ms. Barrows, Mr. Mariger and Mr. Steed voted "Aye". Ms. Funk was not present. Mr. Smith, as Chair, did not vote. The motion passed.
Petition No. 410-312 by Primary Children's Medical Center requesting a conditional use to add three levels to an existing parking structure located at 100 North Medical Drive in an Institutional "I" zoning district.
Mr. Craig Hinckley presented the staff report outlining the major issues of the case, the findings of fact and the staff recommendation, a copy of which is filed with the minutes.
Mr. Bill Barnes, representing the petitioner, was present for this portion of the meeting and stated that he was in agreement with the staff recommendations.
Mr. Smith opened the hearing to the public and asked if anyone wished to address the Planning Commission.
Dr. Frank Gibbs, an abutting property owner, stated that he has a major concern regarding the aesthetics of the parking structure. Mr. Barnes stated that the structure will be faced to match the hospital and will be about 1 Y2 stories lower than the hospital.
Upon receiving no further requests to address the Planning Commission, Mr. Smith closed the hearing to the public and opened it for Planning Comrr1ission discussion.
Motion for Petition No. 410-312:
Ms. Kirk moved, based on the findings of fact, to approve Petition No. 410-312 for an expansion of the Primary Children's Hospital parking structure subject to the following conditions:
1 The applicant should consult with UDOT in regards to potential impacts on streets in closer proximity to the site.
2 Additional handicap and bicycle parking spaces shall be provided to meet the standards established in Chapter 21 A.44 of the Zoning Ordinance.
3 Parking conditions during construction should be closely monitored to insure that there are no impacts on City streets.
4 Final plans shall comply with all applicable building codes and development standards.
Ms. Short seconded the motion. Ms. Short, Ms. Kirk, Mr. lker, Mr. Fife, Ms. Barrows, Mr. Mariger and Mr. Steed voted "Aye". Ms. Funk was not present. Mr. Smith, as Chair, did not vote. The motion passed.
Continuation of Petition No. 400-98-23 by Councilmember Joanne Milner requesting to change the current zoning on the property located at approximately 1595 South 900 West from a moderate density multi-family residential "RMF-35" to a commercial or low density residential zoning district.
Mr. Wright declared a conflict of interest, recused himself and left the room.
Mr. Brent Wilde stated that this hearing is a continuation from a previous Planning Commission hearing which was held on Thursday, August 6, 1998. Mr. Wilde then briefed the Planning Commission by giving some background information, the major issues of the case and staff's recommendation. At the August 6th meeting, the Planning Commission decided to continue the hearing and appointed a subcommittee consisting of Mr. lker, Mr. Fife and Mr. Steed. There have been two subcommittee meetings with representative from the property owner, the developer and the neighborhood.
Mr. Ray McCandless gave an overview of what was discussed at the August 61h Planning Commission meeting in relation to zoning. He stated that staff did not feel that commercial zoning would be appropriate for this site because of its narrow lot frontage and its mid-block orientation. Mr. McCandless then stated that the residential options that staff feels are most appropriate for this property are either "RMF-30" or "SR-1 ". Staff's preference is the "SR-1" because it is the most consistent with the 1994 West Salt Lake Community Master Plan which discourages additional zoning that would accommodate multi-family development.
Mr. lker gave a summary of the subcommittee findings. He stated that the concern of the community and the Planning Commissioners is that a dense population of rental units in the area with a semi transient population who do not have a stake in the community are not going to be beneficial to the community. Mr. lker then stated that after a considerable discussion, the idea of a commercial zone was rejected as well as single family homes because homes are economically unfeasible and probably just as difficult in terms of control of a transient population. The three Planning Commissioners (Mr. Fife, Mr. Steed and Mr. lker) agreed that the best zoning would be to remain with the current "RMF-35" zoning district which would in effect deny the petition by Councilmember Joanne Milner.
Mr. Wilde clarified that tonight's hearing is for a rezoning request not a development proposal. The Planning Commission's ultimate action is to forward a recommendation to the City Council. Mr. Wilde further clarified that all of the proposals that have been presented thus far on this property requires a planned development process because the buildings have been proposed without street frontage. A planned development process would ultimately come back to the Planning Commission for their consideration.
Mr. Smith opened the hearing to the public and asked if anyone wished to address the Planning Commission.
Mr. lker stated that the chairman of the community council mentioned that he had no objection to the current developer's proposal and has asked Mr. Mike Moore to speak for him with regard to this specific area of that community.
Mr. Mike Moore, a resident in the area, stated that the community has had several meetings in relation to the rezoning request and that each meeting the developer seems to speak first concerning the proposed project. Mr. Moore then stated that the hearing was never intended to consider projects. The community feels that the developer should not be allowed to bring their project to the table because this is a zoning issue. Mr. Moore continued by stating, on behalf of the community, that they feel that the zoning should be changed to Residential "R-1-5000". This zoning will give a potential developer more latitude and it also takes away the threat of apartments being placed on the property.
Mr. Smith stated that the property owner and/or developer has as much right to speak at the public hearing as anyone else in the community. Mr. Wilde stated that he agrees with Mr. Smith's comment and added that with the moratorium in place, the City will not receive or process a.n application for a project that is inconsistent with the intent of the moratorium. There is not a provision that precludes a developer from going to the community council. Mr. Wilde then stated that the City's involvement in this rezoning request thus far has been a Planning Commission hearing on August 6th and two subcommittee meetings. Mr. Wilde then noted that the Planning Staff has had no intent to give the property owner and/or developer preferential treatment. Staff feels like the process has been balanced.
Ms. Ruth Little, an abutting property owner, stated that she is against a condominium project for the property in question. She then stated that she would like to see this piece of property used for commercial or single family residential homes.
Mr. Neils Little, an abutting property owner, stated that he is also against a condominium project and that he would like to see this piece of property used for commercial or single family residential homes.
Mr. Marvin Marler, a resident in the area, stated that he would prefer to have homes on the property.
Mr. Jim Webster, a landscape architect and a concerned citizen, stated that he feels that the purpose of planning, in general, is to provide for an orderly living environment and an orderly environment where various land uses are mixed. This particular area has existing residential uses and industrial uses. He feels that this situation is not entirely broken and that the zone that is in place is a good transition zone and that it provides for a transition from low density residential to industrial uses. Mr. Webster then noted that that ever since zoning was first used, its purpose was to provide land planning, master planning and zoning to protect the relationship between land uses and to provide a transitional land use. The current zoning will provide a transitional land use between low density residential and the liquor warehouse. Mr. Webster then stated that he feels that this property is not feasible for commercial development. He also feels that single family detached residences would not provide for a transition zone between the existing single family and the industrial that surrounds it on two sides. Mr. Webster continued by stating that the issue of protecting a view corridor to the mountains was dealt with because the developer has agreed to reduce the size of the project a considerable amount which would enhance the available green space and protect the corridors.
Mr. Webster then stated that he is speaking on behalf of the land owner because he has been placed in a position where he has had to defend his position and deal with a number of issues that have come unannounced from a third party and have potentially created a situation where it may not be feasible to develop the property at all. He feels that the vested interest that would cause the existing zoning to be changed certainly are not the interests of the developer and that in the long term it will not be in the best interest of the neighborhood and the community.
Mr. Don Parker, land owner of the property along with Mr. Adam Nash, stated that the developer, Magna Energy Systems has been invited to participate in the hearings and meetings because he wanted the community and the City to get a feel for the quality developer that has been chosen. Mr. Parker feels that it will be an excellent project under the current zoning and that it will be a benefit for everyone involved. He then asked the Planning Commission to allow the zoning to stay the same.
Mr. Greg Probst, of Magna Energy Systems, stated that he was invited to participate in this process by the land owners. He believes that the subcommittee meetings were a very informal, fair process that allowed ample opportunity for all representatives to express their concerns. Mr. Probst then stated that he will not be doing any development on this property until a development agreement has been signed. Magna Energy Systems has expressed their willingness to work with the Planning Division Staff and to make sure there are provisions in the agreement that bind them to have owner occupancy units only. He then stated that he has taken the proposed project to the community council and they voted in favor of the project.
Ms. Kirk, whom was not present at the August 6th meeting, just realized that she has a conflict of interest for this proposal, recused herself from the Planning Commission and left the room.
Ms. Margaret Little, an abutting property owner, noted to the Planning Commission members that when Mr. Probst's proposed project was presented to the community council, all of the voting members lived west of the property.
Upon receiving no further requests to address the Planning Commission, Mr. Smith closed the hearing to the public and opened it for Planning Commission discussion.
The Planning Commission discussed the possibilities that would be available to a developer based on the different zoning classifications that would be feasible for the property. The Planning Commission members mainly focused on the "RMF-35" and "RMF-30" zoning classifications.
Mr. Fife stated that under the "RMF-35" zoning classification, the owner is currently proposing a 40 unit development instead of the maximum units allowed (approximately 73 units). If the Planning Commission recommended that the "RMF-35" zone remain, what is the guarantee that the development would not exceed the 40 units? Mr. Wilde stated that a development agreement would need to be entered into between the owner of the property and the City in-which the Planning Commission could establish more restrictive criteria.
Mr. lker feels that changing the zone to "RMF-30" may create an unfeasible situation for the developer. He then stated that he feels that the zone should remain at "RMF-35" and that the Planning Commission then recommend that a development agreement be written that would limit the total number of units to 40 and that would require the developer to come back to the Planning Commission for final design approval.
Mr. Wheelwright stated that development agreements are typically between the property owner and the administrative side of the government (Mayor). The Planning Commission will have some involvement with what to include in the agreement. Mr. Wheelwright then stated that because of the nature of the moratorium, this particular development agreement would need to be a three party agreement which would also include the legislative body.
Mr. Wilde recommended to the Planning Commission that the development agreement be put in place prior to Planning Staff briefing the City Council so that they will have an opportunity to see the proposal. Mr. Wilde also suggested that the Planning Commission recommend a change of zoning if the City Council decides against a development agreement. This would give the City Council one of two options. The first option would be to leave the "RMF-35" zoning in place with provisions clearly stated in a development agreement. If the City Council was uncomfortable with those provisions, a second option would be the Planning Commission's recommended change of zoning. Mr. Wilde then noted that the City Council is the ultimate decision maker and would have the final say as to the provisions in a development agreement if they choose that option.
Motion for Petition No. 400-98-23:
Mr. lker moved, based on the findings at the hearing, that the Planning Commission forward Petition No. 400-98-23 to the City Council with the recommendation that the zoning remain "RMF-35" at approximately 1595 South 900 West with the following conditions:
1 That the City enter into a development agreement with the property owner that limits the total number of units to no more than 40 units.
2 To encourage owner occupied units, the agreement should also include a provision that any particular individual or company can own only one unit in the development.
3 That there be a Homeowner's Association arrangement established so that the internal management of the development can be controlled by the owner's of the individual units.
4 That the any development of the property be a planned development.
If the City Council does not approve the development agreement, the Planning Commission recommends that the zone should change to "RMF-30" and that the City Council instruct the property owner that the City property not be used as a dedicated street without this project coming back to the Planning Commission for approval. Mr. Steed seconded the motion. Ms. Short, Mr. lker, Mr. Fife, Ms. Barrows, Mr. Mariger and Mr. Steed voted "Aye". Ms. Kirk recused. Ms. Funk was not present. Mr: Smith, as Chair, did not vote. The motion passed.
Briefing on the Capitol Hill Community Master Plan Update.
Ms. Cheri Coffey briefed the Planning Commission regarding the major highlights of the Capitol Hill Community Master Plan Update. ("Capitol Hill Community Master Plan Update -Summary" handout is filed with the minutes.) Ms. Coffey then stated that a public hearing is scheduled before the Planning Commission at their Thursday, September 3rd meeting.
OTHER BUSINESS
There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 9:40 p.m.