SALT LAKE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION
451 South State Street, Room 126
Present from the Planning Commission were Chairperson Ralph Becker, Richard J. Howa, Jim McRea, Kimball Young, Diana Kirk, Judi Short, Ann Roberts and Gilbert Iker. Aria Funk was excused.
Present from the Planning Staff were Planning Director William T. Wright, Brent Wilde, Doug Wheelwright, Doug Dansie, Ray McCandless, Margaret Pahl and Lisa Miller.
A roll is being kept with the minutes of all who attended the Planning Commission meeting. The meeting was called to order at 5:00p.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
Mr. Young moved to approve the minutes of November 16, 1995 as presented. Ms. Short seconded the motion. Ms. Roberts, Ms. Short, Mr. Young, Ms. Kirk, Mr. Howa, Mr. McRea and Mr. Iker voted “Aye." Ms. Funk was not present. Mr. Becker, as Chair, did not vote. The motion passed.
SUBDIVISIONS
PUBLIC HEARING -Lance Goulet for Viking Freight Company requesting Salt Lake City to amend a portion of the Centennial Industrial Park Phase 2 amended subdivision reconfiguring Lot 5A and part of Lot 4A to include the dedication of the 3230 West/Giadiola Street extended approximately 900 feet north from 1820 South Street. located in an Industrial “M-1" zoning district. and including preliminary subdivision approval for one lot.
This item was postponed at the request of the petitioner until a future Planning Commission meeting.
PUBLIC HEARING- Pratezk Industrial Park Subdivision by Marty Irving and Corban Bennion requesting Salt Lake City to approve the development master plan for a 454 acre industrial park subdivision. a phasing plan a request for modified public street right-of-way width standard. and preliminary subdivision approval for phase I. located between the 21 00 South freeway and California Avenue on the east side of 5600 West in the Commercial General “CG" and Industrial “M-1" zoning districts.
Mr. Doug Wheelwright 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. Marty Irving, Jim Lewis and Tom George, representing the petitioner, were present for this portion of the Planning Commission meeting. They gave a slide presentation demonstrating the types of buildings they have constructed, landscaping, signage, dock orientation and parking design for various projects they have completed.
Mr. Becker asked what the buildout time frame was. Mr. Irving said he believed it was about ten years with about 300,000 to 500,000 square feet being built each year.
Mr. Wright stated that he believed the staff had been able to achieve a good balance in the narrowing of the right-of-way negotiations relative to this project.
Mr. Becker 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.
Mr. Young moved to approve the request subject to the conditions listed in the staff report. Mr. Howa seconded the motion. Ms. Roberts, Ms. Short, Mr. Young, Mr. Howa, Mr. McRea and Mr. Iker voted “Aye." Ms. Kirk voted “Nay." Ms. Funk was not present. Mr. Becker, as Chair, did not vote. The motion passed.
PETITIONS
PUBLIC HEARING - Petition No. 410-196 by Hy & Mike's North requesting a conditional use for an outdoor storage facility located at 505 South Redwood Road in a Commercial Corridor /ICC" zoning district.
This item was postponed until a future Planning Commission meeting.
PUBLIC HEARING - Petition No. 400-95-84 by Salt Lake City Transportation requesting Salt Lake City to close a portion of Foothill Drive at 21 00 East in order to make traffic control improvements.
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.
A short discussion took place including the pedestrian crosswalk on Foothill Drive, the location of the new traffic signals, and the timing of the traffic signals in the area.
Ms. Pahl informed the Planning Commission that the staff recommended the Planning Commission choose Alternative #1.
Mr. Becker opened the hearing to the public and asked if anyone wished to address the Planning Commission.
Mr. Jim Byrne, Chairperson of the Foothill Neighborhood Council, stated that the neighborhood had been concerned about the traffic problems in this area for a long time. He stated that the majority of those present at the meetings they had held on this matter had been in favor of Alternative #1.
Mr. Wendall Taylor, a resident of the area, asked how this would impact the Emigration Trail. Mr. Wheelwright explained that the pedestrian crosswalk would facilitate pedestrian access to that trail.
Mr. David Rose, a resident of the area, stated that he was in favor of Alternative #1. He stated that he believed Alternative #1 was the safest option for the residents of the area.
Mr. John Dibble, a resident of the area, stated that he was in favor of Alternative #2 since he believed Alternative #1 would cause an increase of traffic on Yale Avenue where he lived. Mr. Dibble suggested that rather than totally eliminating the left turn into this area, it be restricted, through the posting of signage, during heavy traffic hours.
Mr. Tim Harpst, the Salt Lake City Transportation Engineer, stated that he would have his staff work with Mr. Dibble and the other residents of this area to study
Mr. Dibble's suggestion.
Mr. Rob Reese, a resident of the area, stated that he was in favor of Alternative #1 and he believed it was the most safe option. He informed the Planning Commission that he was a police officer and people who used this area to access Foothill Drive did not pay attention to the traffic regulations. He requested the Planning Commission approve Alternative #1.
Mr. Luke Ong, a resident of the area, stated that many people ended up driving down the wrong side of the road in this area because the set up was confusing.
He stated that he was in favor of Alternative #1 and requested the Planning Commission approve that alternative.
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. Young moved to approve Petition No. 400-95-84 and close a portion of Foothill Drive at the intersection of 21 00 East and forward a positive recommendation for Alternative #1 to the City Council for their approval. Mr. Young further moved to recommend that the signage be pursued on 21 00 East at the intersection with Yale and Princeton Avenues prohibiting left turns from 2100 East going into that residential neighborhood during peak traffic hours. Mr. Young also moved to have a gate installed on the Zion Lutheran Church driveway to prevent it from becoming a quick route into the area.
Mr. Young expressed concern relative to the maintenance of the area that would be closed off. Therefore,
Mr. Young moved that the City work to address the landscaping of this area. Mr. Howa seconded the motion.
At a request from a representative of the Zion Lutheran Church, Mr. Becker reopened the hearing to the public.
Mr. Bob Rice, representing the Zion Lutheran Church, stated that they were in favor of Alternative #1 since they believed it would facilitate their ability to access their parking lot.
Following Mr. Rice's comments, Mr. Becker closed the hearing to the public and opened it for further Planning Commission discussion.
Ms. Roberts, Ms. Short, Mr. Young, Ms. Kirk, Mr. Howa, Mr. McRea and Mr. Iker voted "Aye." Ms. Funk was not present. Mr. Becker, as Chair, did not vote. The motion passed.
PUBLIC HEARING - Petition No. 400-95-77 by Richard Fetzer for Jefferson Improvement Company requesting Salt Lake City to declare surplus and sell. a strip of land in the 200 West Street right-of-way (adjacent to the railroad right-of-way) at approximately 1412-1416 South.
Ms. Lisa Miller presented the staff report outlining the major issues of the case and the staff recommendation, a copy of which is filed with the minutes.
Mr. Richard Fetzer, the petitioner, was present for this portion of the Planning Commission meeting and stated that he was in agreement with the staff recommendation. Mr. Fetzer pointed out that the staff report referred to a distance of 114 feet in one place and 115 feet in another which needed to be corrected.
Ms. Miller stated that the necessary correction would be made.
Mr. Becker 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.
Mr. Howa moved to approve Petition No. 400-95-77 and forward a favorable recommendation to the City Council. Ms. Roberts seconded the motion. Ms. Roberts, Ms. Short, Mr. Young, Ms. Kirk, Mr. Howa, Mr. McRea and Mr. Iker voted “Aye." Ms. Funk was not present. Mr. Becker, as Chair, did not vote. The motion passed.
PLANNING ISSUES
PUBLIC HEARING - Receive public comment on a new Cellular Antennae/Tower
Ordinance.
Mr. Becker explained that the Planning Commission had determined they needed to study the cellular antennae/communication tower industry in order to better understand the needs of the industry and how to meet those needs with the least negative impact to the residential communities of the City. Mr. Becker stated that a subcommittee, chaired by Planning Commissioner Jim McRea, had been established and had met several times with community and industry representatives to identify the issues that needed to be dealt with in this matter.
Mr. Kim Garrig, of AT&T Wireless Services, gave a slide presentation of the various types of cellular antennae and communication towers located throughout the City as well as statistics on the number of cellular telephones being purchased at this time, the market demands and the industry's attempts to meet those market needs. Mr. Garrig also addressed the costs to the industry and the need for towers to be properly located in order to provide adequate service.
Mr. John Bristol, representing PCS, gave a video presentation supporting the slides demonstrated by Mr. Garrig.
Mr. Jerry Bergosh, one of the community representatives on the subcommittee, went through the slides presented by Mr. Garrig and outlined those antennae and communication towers he believed would be suitable or not suitable in residential communities. Mr. Bergosh stated that they were in favor of the ordinance and in agreement with the staff recommendations. He stated that their major concern was that towers that were in excess of 60 feet should be required to go through the conditional use process.
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 demonstrated the areas of anticipated future sites by the industry on a briefing board.
Mr. Brent Wilde reminded the Planning Commission that the monopoles with platforms and the lattice towers were only allowed in the higher density commercial and industrial zones as conditional uses.
Ms. Kirk expressed concern that a lot of monopoles and towers would be constructed, that the wireless technology would change and the City would be left with a lot of unsightly equipment that was no longer necessary. Mr. Wilde stated that an abandonment clause could be added to the ordinance to prevent that from happening.
Mr. McCandless stated that the staff had not made a recommendation on the number of monopoles and/or lattice towers that should be allowed per lot and was requesting Planning Commission direction to make that determination.
Mr. Becker 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.
Mr. McRea thanked all those who had participated in the process on this matter and moved to recommend, to the City Council, adoption of the proposed ordinance, based on the findings of fact and the staff recommendations on Issues #1 through #3 in the staff report and that on Issue #4 relative to spacing, that conditional use requirements criteria be further developed to address the monopole and lattice tower structures. Mr. Young seconded the motion. Ms. Kirk suggested an amendment to the motion to include the development of an abandonment clause. Mr. McRea and Mr. Young accepted the amendment to the motion and the second. Ms. Roberts, Ms. Short, Mr. Young, Ms. Kirk, Mr. Howa, Mr. McRea and Mr. Iker voted "Aye." Ms. Funk was not present. Mr. Becker, as Chair, did not vote. The motion passed.
PLANNING ISSUES
PUBLIC HEARING -Consider an additional revision to the Zoning Ordinance that was adopted in April. 1 995. This revision is a correction to a mapping error on the north side of 900 South between 200 East and Roberta Street. Zoning at this location should be Commercial Corridor “CC" rather than Commercial Neighborhood “CN".
Mr. Doug Dansie presented the staff report and explained that this matter had been a mapping error on the part of the Planning Staff during the Zoning Ordinance Rewrite process. Mr. Dansie requested the Planning Commission agree to the change in zoning of the property between 200 East and Roberta Street on the north side of 900 South from Commercial “CN" to Commercial Corridor “CC". A copy of the staff report is filed with the minutes.
Mr. Becker stated that the Planning Commission had received a letter from Mr. Rose, representing Loftus Novelty and the property in question, requesting the Planning Commission to approve this change in zoning. A copy of the letter is filed with the minutes.
Mr. Becker opened the hearing to the public and asked if anyone wished to address the Planning Commission.
Ms. Evelyn Johnson, Chair of the Central City Community Council, stated that they would prefer this property remain nonconforming and that they were in opposition to the change in zoning to Commercial Corridor. Ms. Kirk asked how many people had attended their meeting. Ms. Johnson responded that there had been about 15 people, about ten of whom were from this specific area.
Ms. Sydney Magid, attorney for the Levines who were abutting property owners, stated that she did not believe Commercial Corridor zoning was the correct zoning for this parcel and that it would result in “Spot zoning". She said this was an up and coming neighborhood trying to get away from some of the commercial zoning. Ms. Magid said she believed a buffer was needed between the commercial and residential uses and the Commercial Neighborhood was the only zoning that would allow the proper buffer. She said it did not make sense to not allow parking on 900 South because of over use of the area but to create commercial corridor zoning for this area. Ms. Magid said she felt this zoning was being put in place to benefit only one business owner while sacrificing the rest of the community. She said she did not believe the entire community should have to change its structure to accommodate Loftus Novelty. She said she did not understand why this property could not remain nonconforming and the only purpose for changing the zoning to commercial corridor would be so that Loftus could do things only allowed under that zoning. She said she did not believe the City believed bus line terminals, flea markets, hotels and motels, which were all allowed in the commercial corridor zoning district, were consistent with this neighborhood. Ms. Magid said there was a lot of commercial corridor land available that could be purchased for the Loftus business. She asked what the possible benefits to this neighborhood could be for commercial corridor zoning. Mr. Becker stated that the Planning Commission had carefully studied this matter several years ago and had determined that any commercial expansion should be directed to the 900 South corridor rather than to the north through the residential neighborhood.
Ms. Magid asked if there was anything else in the neighborhood that was not consistent with the commercial neighborhood zoning.
Mr. Wright stated that there were probably inconsistencies with standards such as setbacks and landscaping but not uses.
Mr. Wright stated that this proposed zoning change was in keeping with the City's Zoning Rewrite policies and the master plan for this area. He stated that it was not okay to leave this property nonconforming when the use was consistent with the City's planning policies. He stated that one of the goals of the Zoning Rewrite Project had been to avoid such inconsistencies.
Ms. Magid stated that it was a small and isolated block that would be zoned commercial corridor.
Mr. Wright responded that this block had been zoned consistent with the commercial corridor district under the prior zoning regulations and the commercial corridor zoning for this parcel was not a case of “spot zoning" because the planning policy was clear that this parcel should be zoned as proposed.
Ms. Magid asked if there would be any buffer other than the ivy landscaping.
Mr. Wright explained that the buffer requirements were seven feet of landscaping between the commercial corridor and the RMF-30 districts. Ms. Magid said she did not believe this action was beneficial to the neighborhood, but rather, only to one property owner.
A property owner at 21 8 and 222 East 900 South stated that he believed the zoning of his property to a residential classification had also been done erroneously. He requested the Planning Staff check into this matter so it could be remedied since both properties had been zoned “8-3" and were commercial uses.
Ms. Cindy Cromer, a concerned citizen and former member of the Planning Commission subcommittee which had studied this matter several years earlier, stated that something needed to be done to ensure the landscaping was done that had been a condition of approval for Loftus Novelty's earlier request but had never been done. Ms. Cromer stated that the landscaping on the front of the business looked great but not at the rear of the property where the wall was to have been covered.
Mr. Scott Clark, a minister at Ebenezer Church of God and Christ at 820 South 300 East, stated that if Mr. Rose were more involved with the community the community would be more willing to work with him.
Mr. Clark stated that Mr. Rose needed to put more into the community.
Mr. Gene Rose, representing Loftus Novelty, stated that the reason the landscaping had not been done was because their first attempts had failed and the right plants would not be available until spring. He stated that as soon as it was possible to do so, he would be happy to comply with all requirements and conditions. Mr. Rose stated that he believed creating a successful business in this area had been a great contribution to the community.
Mr. Bill Meske, an abutting property owner, stated that the landscaping at the rear of Loftus Novelty was better than the majority of the landscaping along Roberta Avenue.
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.
Ms. Kirk moved to agree to the change in zoning of the property between 200 East and Roberta Street on the north side of 900 South from CN to CC. Mr. Howa seconded the motion. Ms. Roberts, Ms. Short, Mr. Young, Ms. Kirk, Mr. Howa and Mr. McRea voted "Aye." Ms. Funk and Mr. Iker were not present. Mr. Becker, as Chair, did not vote. The motion passed.
There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 9:30 p.m.