SALT LAKE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION
451 South State Street, Room 126
Present from the Planning Commission were Chairperson Richard J. Howa, Ralph Becker, Jim McRea, Judi Short, Ann Roberts and Aria Funk. Diana Kirk was present for a portion of the meeting. Lynn Beckstead, Kimball Young and Gilbert Iker were not present.
Present from the Planning Staff were Planning Director William T. Wright, Brent Wilde, Doug Wheelwright, Joel Paterson, Craig Hinckley 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 5:30 p.m. by Mr. Howa. 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
Mr. Becker moved to approve the minutes of Thursday, August 10, 1995 as presented. Ms. Roberts seconded the motion. Ms. Roberts, Ms. Funk, Ms. Short, Mr. Becker and Mr. McRea voted “Aye." Mr. Beckstead, Mr. Young, Ms. Kirk and Mr. Iker were not present. Mr. Howa, as Chair, did not vote. The motion passed.
PETITIONS
PUBLIC HEARING - Petition No. 400-95-46 by Young Electric Sign Company requesting that a portion of 400 West Paxton Avenue be closed.
Ms. Margaret Pahl 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. Howa opened the hearing to the public and asked if anyone wished to address the Planning Commission. Upon receiving no response, he closed the hearing and opened it for Planning Commission discussion.
Ms. Short moved to approve Petition No. 400-95-46 based on the findings of fact
and subject to the condition listed in the staff report. Ms. Roberts seconded the motion. Ms. Roberts, Ms. Funk, Ms. Short, Mr. Becker and Mr. McRea voted “Aye." Mr. Beckstead, Mr. Young, Ms. Kirk and Mr. Iker were not present. Mr. Howa, as Chair, did not vote. The motion passed.
PUBLIC HEARING - Review and receive public comment on the proposed Housing Loss Mitigation Ordinance which requires housing mitigation for rezoning or permits for conditional use parking lots in areas containing residential units.
Mr. Brent Wilde presented the staff report outlining the changes that had been incorporated into the proposed ordinance and the staff recommendation, a copy of which is filed with the minutes. Mr. Wilde handed out copies of the Planning Commission's recommended changes for their review, a copy of which is also filed with the minutes.
Ms. Short asked if vandalism would be considered a natural cause of deterioration.
Mr. Wilde stated that it would depend of the efforts of the property owner to protect the property and how secure the building had been left. Mr. Wilde said issues such as this would have to be handled on a case by case basis.
Mr. Becker asked if the staff was comfortable with the $3000 fee to the Housing Trust Fund in Option #3(B).
Mr. Wilde responded in the affirmative.
Mr. Wright said the City Attorney's Office was in support of this proposed ordinance.
Mr. McRea asked how many times per year the staff thought this ordinance might be needed. Ms. LuAnn Fawcett, Director of Housing and Economic Development, stated that there had been five occurrences in the past four years where this ordinance could have been utilized if it had been adopted.
Mr. Wright reminded the Planning Commission that those cases had occurred prior to the adoption of the new Zoning Ordinance in April 1995.
Mr. Howa opened the hearing to the public and asked if anyone wished to address
the Planning Commission.
Councilmember Alan Hardman was present for this portion of the Planning Commission and stated that he was in support of this ordinance and recommended the Planning Commission approve it. Councilmember Hardman added that the City Council was scheduled to hear this matter at their September 19, 1995 meeting.
Ms. Cindy Cromer, a concerned citizen, stated that she felt the changes the Planning Commission had recommended at their last meeting were positive changes. Ms. Cromer suggested that the “Whereas" clauses should include a reference to the adoption date of the new Zoning Ordinance which brought zoning in line with existing land uses as a basis for establishing a benchmark date for the housing mitigation change. She suggested the word “its" on page three of the ordinance at the beginning of Section .020A be changed to “their" since this ordinance applied to developed land in residential zones, not vacant land. Ms. Cromer added that she thought the words “to final action by the City" at the bottom of page three might be too vague because different bodies had approval authority over different kinds of petitions.
Ms. Cromer stated that she felt the basis for figuring the value in Option “B" at the top of page five was not clear. Ms. Funk asked why the City would not require the petitioner to pay the full value of the housing that would be lost. Mr. Wright said that was what Option “A" required. Ms. Funk said she understood that but asked why Option “B" would then be offered. Mr. Wright explained that Option “B" provided needed funds to the Housing Trust Fund which offered different opportunities to the City if a particular area did not offer the type of housing replacement Option “A" dealt with. He added that funds from the Housing Trust Fund could be used anywhere in the City to develop needed housing
Mr. McRea asked what determined which option would be used.
Mr. Wright responded that the petitioner could choose between Options “A" and “B" but added that if they wanted to choose Option “C", they would have to present a plan containing findings on why they should be allowed to utilize Option “C".
Mr. Wright added that the Director of Community and Economic Development would make a recommendation to the City Council or the Planning Commission who would have the final approval authority.
Upon receiving no further requests to address the Planning Commission, Mr. Howa closed the hearing to the public and opened it for Planning Commission discussion.
Motion on Housing Mitigation Loss Ordinance:
Ms. Short moved to forward a favorable recommendation to approve the proposed Housing Mitigation Loss Ordinance and to incorporate the Planning Commission's recommendations as listed on the document Mr. Wilde had distributed at the beginning of this hearing. Ms. Short further moved to incorporate the suggestions by
Ms. Cromer to reference the adoption date of the new Zoning Ordinance and that the word “its" be changed to “their" on page three in Section .020A.
Mr. Wright stated that there might be other editing changes made by the Attorney's Office prior to the finalization of the adoption of this ordinance.
Ms. Roberts seconded the motion. Ms. Roberts, Ms. Funk, Ms. Short, Mr. Becker and Mr. McRea voted “Aye." Mr. Beckstead, Mr. Young, Ms. Kirk and Mr. Iker were not present. Mr. Howa, as Chair, did not vote. The motion passed.
ISSUES ONLY PUBLIC HEARING - Request by Steven Erickson for preliminary plat approval for a one lot single family subdivision located at approximately 1 090 East North Bonneville Drive in a Residential “FR-3" zoning district.
Mr. Joel Paterson informed the Planning Commission that this was an issues only hearing and that no decision would be made at this time. He presented a synopsis of the petitioner's request and issues as identified by the Planning Staff, a copy of which is filed with the minutes.
Mr. Becker asked if the pedestrian easement was actually being used by pedestrians.
Mr. Paterson stated that the evidence indicated it was being used.
Mr. Becker asked if the Planning Commission could require signage be posted for the pedestrian easement as part of the approval process. Mr. Paterson said he would look into that matter.
Mr. Steve Erickson, the petitioner, was present for this portion of the Planning Commission meeting and outlined his plans for the site. Mr. Erickson handed out copies of a blue print for a possible house design that could be constructed on the buildable area of the lot. He stated that they were investigating whether or not there actually was a utility easement running through the property and if so, how it would affect this lot. He addressed the issues of landscaping, drainage, access to the property and possible building size. Mr. Erickson stated that in a worst case scenario, the building would be 20 feet wide at the most narrow point.
Mr. Howa opened the hearing to the public and asked if anyone wished to address the Planning Commission.
Ms. Diane Neilson, a resident of the area, stated that she supported this project and the buildable area lines but expressed concern for the protection of the areas that fell within the unbuildable areas. She requested the protection of the natural vegetation and wildlife be considered in the Planning Commission's review of this project as well as protection during any blasting that might occur during construction.
Upon receiving no further requests to address the Planning Commission, Mr. Howa closed the hearing to the public and opened it for Planning Commission discussion.
Mr. Howa reminded everyone that no decision would be made on this matter at this time.
Ms. Short requested the staff address the issue of drainage in the staff report when this matter was brought back before them.
Public Hearing - Consider a recommendation for rezoning and reclamation plan approval of the Staker/Hughes property from Open Space "OS" to Extractive Industries "EI" zoning districts pursuant to a City Council Motion of Intent and the Transitional Regulations passed as part of the Zoning Rewrite Project on April 4,1995. Subject property is located east of the current Beck Street gravel operations. within the west half of Section 13. T.I.S. RIW. SL B&M.
Mr. Howa stated that he and Ms. Kirk both had conflicts of interest relative to this matter. Mr. Howa stated that under the new Zoning Ordinance, the Planning Commission could not conduct business if a quorum was not present and explained that this meant this matter could not be heard at this time since there would be no quorum when he and Ms. Kirk left the room.
Ms. Kirk explained that Mr. Val Staker was a client of the institution where she was employed and some people might construe that to be a conflict of interest.
Mr. Howa explained that he had a direct contractual relationship with the Staker organization. Mr. Howa stated that this matter would rescheduled for a future Planning Commission meeting and notices would be mailed out prior to that meeting.
There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 7:00 p.m.