SALT LAKE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION
451 South State Street, Rooms 126 and 315
Present from the Planning Commission were Vice-Chairperson Max Smith, Kay (berger) Arnold, Andrea Barrows, Robert "Bip" Daniels, Jeff Jonas, Diana Kirk, Craig Mariger, Stephen Snelgrove and Mike Steed. Chairperson Judi Short and Arla Funk were excused.
Present from the Planning Staff were Planning Director William T. Wright, Deputy Planning Director Brent Wilde, Everett Joyce, Bill Allayaud, Cheri Coffey, Margaret Pahl and Doug Wheelwright.
A roll is being kept of all that attended the Planning Commission meeting. Mr. Smith called the meeting to order at 5:00 p.m. 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, January 20, 2000. Mr. Jonas seconded the motion. Ms. Arnold, Ms. Barrows, Mr. Daniels, Mr. Jonas, Ms. Kirk, Mr. Mariger, Mr. Snelgrove and Mr. Steed voted "Aye". Ms. Funk and Ms. Short were not present. Mr. Smith, acting as Chair, did not vote. The motion passed.
Mr. Snelgrove moved to approve the minutes of Thursday, February 3, 2000. Mr. Steed seconded the motion. Ms. Arnold, Ms. Barrows, Mr. Daniels, Mr. Jonas, Ms. Kirk, Mr. Mariger, Mr. Snelgrove and Mr. Steed voted "Aye". Ms. Funk and Ms. Short were not present. Mr. Smith, acting as Chair, did not vote. The motion passed.
PUBLIC HEARINGS
PUBLIC HEARING – Petition No. 400-00-01 by the Boyer Company asking the City to declare 15 square feet of its land "surplus" so that it can be traded by the City to the Boyer Company for 720 square feet of land owned by the Boyer Company. Both parcels of land are part of the Sugar House Commons project located northeast of the intersection of Wilmington Avenue and 1100 East.
Ms. Kirk disclosed that the Boyer Company is a client of her bank and she has not been involved with the Boyer Company on this particular matter. Having disclosed this, Ms. Kirk feels that this will not preclude her providing unbiased opinions during this proceeding.
Planning Commission Meeting February 17, 2000
1
Mr. Everett Joyce 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.
The Planning Commissioners then asked questions of Mr. Joyce relating to the petition.
Mr. Armand Johansen, representing the petitioner, was present for this portion of the meeting and stated that he was in agreement with the staff recommendation.
Mr. Johansen then stated that the actual partnership that owns the parcels of land is the Boyer Company and Johansen Thackeray as the Commons at Sugar House LLC.
Ms. Barrows then asked Mr. Johansen if he would be agreeable to tie the request for surplus property specifically to the trade and also include that the Boyer Company help the Sprague Branch Library install a walk path on the south side of the Library.
Mr. Johansen stated that the Boyer Company and Johansen Thackeray has agreed that the City will be given their parcel in fee and then the City will give their parcel to the Boyer Company and Johansen Thackeray in fee. Mr. Johansen then stated that he previously had agreed to construct a public landscaped walkway along the southern side of the Library and he still plans on doing that.
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 Petition No. 400-00-01:
Mr. Jonas moved, based on the findings of fact, to forward a favorable recommendation to the City Council to declare the subject parcel as surplus property so that the City Property Manager can sell or exchange the parcel for valuable considerations. Ms. Barrows seconded the motion. Ms. Arnold, Ms. Barrows, Mr. Daniels, Mr. Jonas, Ms. Kirk, Mr. Mariger and Mr. Snelgrove voted "Aye". Mr. Steed abstained. Ms. Funk and Ms. Short were not present. Mr. Smith, acting as Chair, did not vote. The motion passed.
Briefing of the Salt Lake City Community Housing Plan
Ms. Deeda Seed, Director of Housing and Neighborhood Development, was present for this portion of the meeting to brief the Planning Commission on the Salt Lake City Community Housing Plan, a copy of which is filed with the minutes. She stated that this document represents a combination of work conducted over the last four years by a wide variety of citizens concerned with housing issues. The effort to develop a new Community housing Plan for Salt Lake City began in 1996 when the City Council approved funding for the project. The City Council felt there was a need to update the existing Salt Lake City Housing Policy, which was adopted in 1990. In the years after the policy was adopted, the housing market in Salt Lake City changed dramatically with the affordability of housing declining rapidly for a significant percentage of households in Salt Lake City. After reviewing the work of two consultants, the City Council decided to establish a Housing Policy Subcommittee. The Subcommittee met several times from October 1998 to July 1999 to develop final housing policy statements and implementation strategies. In December 1999, the City Council approved a Resolution adopting the Council's Housing Policy statements.
Ms. Seed then presented the document by briefly identifying the policy statements and implementation strategies. During the presentation, the Planning Commission members asked questions of Ms. Seed relating to the specifics of the document.
The Planning Commission members commended Ms. Seed for compiling a great document. Ms. Seed then asked the Planning Commission members to contact her with any other comments as they continue to review the Salt Lake City Community Housing Plan.
PUBLIC HEARING – Petition 400-00-02 – The Salt Lake City Planning Commission will consider recommending approval of the draft Northpoint Small Area Plan. Zoning recommendations and amendments to the Major Street Plan, consistent with the draft small area plan, will also be considered. The area is roughly bounded by 1900 North and 3500 North and between I-215 and 3400 West.
Ms. Cheri Coffey 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. Ms. Coffey then stated that the community met and decided that the future land use plan that was shown in the staff report would allow for more homes on the west side of 2200 West. Since traffic is the community's number one concern, they did not want to accommodate more homes. Therefore, the new proposal includes retaining the Business Park zoning on the property north of 2600 North on the west side of 2200 West but restricting business park development from accessing 2200 West in this area. The proposal also requires a landscaping buffer, with a berm, to visually screen the business park developments from the agricultural and residential land uses. Ms. Coffey continued by stating that the plan is also different on the south side of 2200 North where staff is proposing that the entire area be eventually zoned Airport.
Ms. Coffey then stated that staff's proposal to minimize land use conflicts with the Airport includes rezoning the majority of the property Business Park, increasing the lot size of agricultural uses to minimize the number of new residential uses and requiring central air-conditioning rather than allowing evaporative coolers on new residential dwellings in the Airport Influence Zone B. In order to protect the agricultural life-style, staff is proposing to eliminate the idea of the agricultural use as a holding zone, require larger minimum lot sizes to ensure that they are primarily used for agricultural purposes, require houses to be built near the roads and right-of-ways so the City can provide better services to the homes, create a maximum residential building size to ensure that agricultural uses are the primary use in the agricultural zones, amend the major street plan to keep 2200 West as a local rural road, move the Airport Influence Zone A/B boundary west at approximately 3100 North to allow for some new residential development on the west side of 2200 West, prohibit business park development from accessing 2200 West and require the landscape buffer.
Mr. Smith opened the hearing to the public and asked if anyone wished to address the Planning Commission.
Mr. Christopher Swaner, a resident at 2691 North 2200 West, stated that he feels that the revised plan addresses the legitimate concerns of the neighborhood relating to access to the business park, buffer zones, etc. Mr. Swaner also feels that the revised plan allows him the potential to develop his property as a business park sometime in the future.
Mr. John Edward, an owner of property with County jurisdiction, asked a few questions. He asked how the Northpoint Small Area Plan relates to County controlled property. Mr. Wright responded by stating that until there is an annexation of his property from the County to the City, the Northpoint Small Area Plan will serve as a recommendation to the County Planning Commission and County Commission for land use. It is not the City's intent to ask the County to change the agricultural zoning on that property. Mr. Edward then spoke concerning the restrictive use of the current road to the west of his property where it will be limited from industrial and commercial traffic to only residential and agricultural traffic. He then asked if he were to request a zone change of his property to industrial or business park with the County, would he be restricted from using the road. Mr. Wright then stated that when a zoning change is requested, for property immediately adjacent to the City's boundary, the County will ask the City for their input. The Northpoint Small Area Plan would then be taken to the County and they would be encouraged to abide by the policies. In fact, if the zoning is being changed for development, the City would request that the County not approve the development and require the property be annexed to the City. Mr. Edward then spoke concerning the new road that would access the industrial and commercial properties and asked about the process of its development. Mr. Wright responded by stating that business park developments of significant size will usually have a subdivision process that determines the best way to lay out the streets to provide access. Mr. Wright then stated that if Mr. Edwards property were annexed and rezoned into the City, the City would explore the alternatives for providing access to his property.
In an effort to move forward with the public hearing, Mr. Smith suggested that Mr. Edward's contact the Planning Staff to discuss his concerns. Mr. Smith then noted that it is not the intent of the Northpoint Small Area Plan to deny access to his property or any other property.
Mr. Mack Zahler, a resident at 3215 North 2200 West, spoke concerning 2200 West as the road that services his property. He stated that he feels that 2200 West needs to be preserved to preserve the integrity of the agricultural zoning and the lifestyle that exists. He does not feel that the two lane road should be upgraded to a four lane road because it will make it impossible to get in and out of driveways.
Mr. Rudy Vallee, representing the Owens family, stated that the 54 acre property owned by the Owens family (located on the northeast corner of 2200 West and 2200 North) is currently in the County and asked about its annexation. Mr. Wright responded by stating that the Northpoint Small Area Plan was prepared so that there would be a comprehensive view of how the area could develop. The Plan was not restricted to just areas in the City. The City also tried to plan for areas that are currently in the County that may annex into the City and develop sometime in the future.
Mr. John Romney, representing the Keith Romney Family, spoke concerning the potential demand for commercial services in the area. He stated that given the potential demand for commercial services in the Northpoint area, the Planning Commission should consider how and where such uses should be developed over the long term. Mr. Romney believes that there should be a concentrated, cohesive development with a central location at 2200 West and 2200 North; the only four-way intersection in the area with freeway access. He then stated that he recommends a sensible planning approach that designates the intersection of 2200 North and 2200 West as the preferred location for commercial development in the Northpoint Small Area Plan. (A copy of Mr. Romney's statement is filed with the minutes.)
Mr. David Hinckley, a property owner in the County, stated that the development of this area is mainly a benefit to the people who have been survivors and have been able to get through life. Mr. Hinckley then stated that he feels that the Northpoint Small Area Plan proposals are impacting the possibilities of his offspring and his family for any development potential that will be afforded them for having survived. He then stated that the proposal to close 2200 North is ludicrous because it limits the choice of direction for everyone who lives on that road. He is opposed to a cul-de-sac on 3300 North because he feels that 3300 North and 3200 West needs to be utilized.
Mr. Lynn Jensen, a resident at 3286 North 2200 West, stated that if there becomes a lot of traffic on 2200 West he will be through living and having agriculture in that area.
Ms. Faye Jensen, a property owner in the area, asked for clarification as to what could be developed on her property and whether it was more appropriate for her property to be zoned business park since her property is adjacent to business park on two sides. Ms. Jensen stated that she is planning to live on the lot with her animals but wonders if, from a financial standpoint, it wouldn't be more prudent to have the property zoned business park.
Mr. Steve Domino, Planning and Environmental Programs Director for the Salt Lake City Airport, was present for this portion of the meeting. He stated that in general, the Airport supports the proposed land use plan. He feels, however, that there are still a few refinements that need to be worked out with the community.
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. Mariger asked why a decision was made not to have any commercial outside of the business park planned developments. Mr. Wright responded by stating that the issue of the need for commercial and where it would be best located was discussed during the community meetings. Mr. Wright then stated that his understanding was that there was not a lot of support to identify a specific location for a commercial center. Staff is proposing to amend the Business Park zone so that on a parcel of 10 acres or larger there can be stand alone commercial uses brought before the Planning Commission as part of the planned development. Mr. Wright continued by stating that there was a reluctance to identify the intersection of 2200 North and 2200 West as an area for commercial, specifically in this plan, because there was a concern that it may develop into a strip commercial area.
Ms. Coffey then stated that staff surveyed the property owners in Northpoint in December 1999. The results of the survey showed that approximately 80% to 90% of the people did not want commercial development. Therefore, targeting a specific area for strip commercial goes against the wishes of the community which is to remain more of rural area.
Mr. Mariger then stated that he believes that there will eventually be a need for some type of commercial development at the intersection of 2200 North and 2200 West. Mr. Wright stated that staff understands that need. The question is what is the vision of how it is developed and whether commercial development will lead the business park development or will the commercial development come with the business park development.
Mr. Steed commended Ms. Coffey and staff for doing an excellent job with involving the community and compiling the Northpoint Small Area Plan. Mr. Steed then stated that he has some concerns. One of which is that the property owners of new residential homes should have the choice on the type of air-conditioning unit used, either the evaporative cooler or the central air unit. Mr. Steed continued by stating that he is also concerned about maintaining the integrity of 2200 West because he feels that 2200 West is the key to maintaining the community. The buffer zone for business park development has always been controversial, however, he feels that it is a good compromise in the long run. He wants to make sure that the language is written well so that if there was a development along 2200 West the buffer will be a quality buffer for the community.
Mr. Jonas stated that whatever is decided, he wants to make sure that the Planning Commission is responsible in trying to protect the Airport and he feels that the Plan does that. Mr. Jonas also shares Mr. Mariger's concern about the commercial development. The current language has a 10-acre minimum which he feels may need to be reconsidered and made smaller. Mr. Jonas then asked if an option could be created for some of the property owners west of 2200 West to change the zoning on their property from agricultural to business park if a living could not be secured under the agricultural zone.
Mr. Wright stated that staff believes that showing that property as agricultural is responding to the prime use of property that has been expressed by the property owners. If, in the future, that were to change, there would need to be a master plan amendment and a rezoning process. The fact that those properties are bordered by business park on both the south and west, and depending on the development of new roadways, the option to rezone to business park would exist.
Mr. Jonas spoke about expediting the process and wondered why the option to rezone to business park could not be written in the document at this time.
Mr. Steed responded by stating that he has some concern with doing that because there are some existing neighbors to those properties. It needs to be understood that there are some housing units that sit on the north and south of this property and the Planning Commission needs to be careful so that the housing units are not surrounded by business park development.
Ms. Barrows added to Mr. Steed's comment by stating that one of the goals of the Plan is to preserve and enhance the agricultural lifestyle and to remove the agricultural land use from being a holding zone. Therefore, she would like to see the properties retain the agricultural zoning.
Motion for Petition No. 400-00-02:
Mr. Steed moved, based on the findings of fact, to transmit Petition No. 400-00-02 with a favorable recommendation to the City Council subject to the following conditions:
1. Adopt the draft Northpoint Small Area Plan with the proposed changes including revisions to the language relating to the number of new homes on the west side of 2200 West, percentage of agricultural v. business park land uses, size of the landscaped buffer between business park and agriculturally zoned property and location of the Airport Influence Zone A/B boundary.
2. Adopt Future Land Use Map as presented at tonight’s public hearing including: • Retain existing Business Park Zoning on west side of 2200 West • Support Airport zoning on south side of 2200 North • Prohibit business park development access onto 2200 West north of approximately 2400 North.
3. Amend the Northwest Community Zoning Map to conform to the Northpoint Small Area Plan future land use map.
4. Amend the Airport Influence Zone A/B boundary line to shift west at approximately 3100 North as shown on the Future Land Use Map.
5. Amend the Major Street Plan to identify a new industrial road through the business park development to service new business park development and commuter traffic. Remove 2200 West from the Major Street Plan north of approximately 2400 North.
6. Amend the text of the Zoning Ordinance including changes to the Agricultural Zone, Business Park Zone, and Definitions.
7. Allow agricultural uses in the Business Park zoning district as a conditional use.
8. Remove the language that requires stand alone commercial uses to serve primarily the employees of the business park.
9. Allow planned developments in the Agricultural zoning districts.
10. Amend the Business Park zoning regulations to require a one-hundred foot setback for buildings and a fifty-foot setback for parking and to require a fifty-foot landscaped buffer with a minimum five-foot berm from the property line when the property abuts or is across the street from agriculturally zoned properties.
11. Amend the language relating to buildable area for principal dwelling in the proposed "AG-2" and "AG-5" language from 198 feet to 200 feet.
12. Adopt the Lowlands Conservancy Overlay Zone in areas of Northpoint as shown on the future land use map.
13. Allow new residential home owners the option of having either an evaporative or central air-conditioning unit.
Mr. Snelgrove seconded the motion.
Mr. Mariger, as well as Mr. Jonas, would like to see the language modified because they feel that a 10-acre minimum for a planned development which includes a commercial use is too big a size particularly for the 2200 North and 2200 West intersection. Mr. Mariger then recommended that the size be reduced from a 10-acre minimum to a 5-acre minimum.
Ms. Coffey stated that the business park zone is in more places than the Northpoint area. There is currently a list of how much acreage is needed for all of the different types zones which states that there is a 10-acre minimum for the business park zone. In addition, the language states that if there is a commercial use, it cannot be a stand alone; it needs to be hidden somewhere in the building. Staff's proposed amendment loosens the current language to allow stand alone commercial uses.
Mr. Mariger stated that he did not understand that there could be stand alone commercial, he thought that it still had to be hidden within the building. Therefore, he is now more comfortable with the language.
Ms. Arnold, Ms. Barrows, Mr. Daniels, Mr. Jonas, Ms. Kirk, Mr. Mariger, Mr. Snelgrove and Mr. Steed voted "Aye". Ms. Funk and Ms. Short were not present. Mr. Smith, acting as Chair, did not vote. The motion passed.
PUBLIC HEARING – Reconsideration of Petition No. 400-99-27 and Case No. 410-367 by Cottonwood Realty requesting that a 37.87 acre parcel located at 1816 North and 2200 West be annexed into Salt Lake City from unincorporated Salt Lake County. The parcel will be recommended for Business Park "BP" zoning district. Planned development approval is also requested for a six building office park.
Mr. Mariger declared a conflict of interest for this proposal, recused himself from the Planning Commission and left the room.
Ms. Margaret Pahl stated that the Cottonwood Airport Center annexation and planned development was previously considered by the Planning Commission on September 9, 1999. The rural residential property owners abutting the project expressed their concern and opposition to the project. The Planning Commission tabled the request and directed the applicant to work with the immediate neighbors in search of a solution.
Mr. James Gautier, representing the petitioner, was present for this portion of the meeting and stated that he was in agreement with the staff recommendation. Mr. Gautier used a power point presentation to describe the project and address what Cottonwood Realty has done to address the earlier concerns of the community. Mr. Gautier noted that Cottonwood Realty has made offers to purchase the homes of the three property owners abutting the northwest corner of the project. All three property owners have decided to sell their property and they are currently reviewing their contracts.
The Planning Commissioners then asked questions of Ms. Pahl and Mr. Gautier relating to the case.
Ms. Barrows asked why the office space has increased since the first time this project was presented to the Planning Commission. Ms. Pahl responded by stating that Cottonwood Realty has increased the square footage of office space to help defray the costs of adding a 20,000 square foot lot that was acquired between the time that the project was tabled and now. If the Planning Commission recommends approval, and all three property owners sell, the numbers could change again. Also, the layout of the buildings are likely to change as a result of acquiring the additional square footage and working with the Planning Director to respond to individual tenants desires.
Ms. Barrows stated that she is not so much concerned about the actual square footage. She is concerned about the amount of asphalt being proposed for parking. She feels that with the possible square footage and layout changes that there should be less parking and more open space.
Mr. Gautier responded by stating that the users need a lot of parking which has been a challenge because Cottonwood Realty has been requested to supply a great deal more parking than what is being proposed.
Mr. Wright spoke concerning the parking ratio by stating that the project is currently above the Zoning Ordinance minimums right now. However, depending upon how Cottonwood Realty tenants the spaces they may not be as much above the minimums as it appears right now because of different requirements for different tenants.
Mr. Jonas asked Mr. Gautier if there has been any thought to putting a stand alone restaurant somewhere within the project. Mr. Gautier responded by stating that there is not specific plans for a stand alone restaurant, however, when an opportunity arises, the petitioner will come back to the Planning Commission for a conditional use approval.
Mr. Smith opened the hearing to the public and asked if anyone wished to address the Planning Commission.
Ms. Kattie Nelson, Chair of the West Point Community Council, addressed the Planning Commission with several concerns. Her concerns include increased traffic, the number of parking stalls being proposed and not enough open space. She feels that a four-story building is too big for the area and that the project is not within the personality characteristics of the community. Ms. Nelson stated that she is against the name of the project ("Cottonwood Airport Center") because the area is not Cottonwood, it is Rosepark or Northpoint. She does not agree with having a stand alone restaurant. If there becomes a need for an eating establishment, she feels that a cafeteria within the buildings should be made available for the employees.
Ms. Nickie Sugden, a nearby resident, stated that her main concern is the width of the road. She then asked about the future plans for 2200 West between 1700 North and 2200 North. Ms. Pahl responded by stating that Cottonwood Realty will expand the northbound land of 2200 West to two lanes in front of their project. To prevent bottlenecking, the eastern most lane will be striped as a deceleration right turn lane and an exceleration heading north lane. Ms. Pahl then stated that the proposed solution is temporary until a developer comes in north of the Cottonwood Realty project and extends the two lanes.
Ms. Sugden then stated that she feels that with the increased traffic going in front of her house that she will feel as though she is in the middle of a city. If she is going to be in the middle of a "city", she feels that Cottonwood Realty should bring in "city" accommodations such as water and sewer lines.
Mr. Clark Olson, one of the three property owners considering to sell, stated he and the other two property owners would not like the project to be built unless their homes are purchased by Cottonwood Realty because it would be impossible to live next to the proposed development.
Mr. Snelgrove asked if there has been any consideration to putting some drought resistant plants. Mr. Gautier stated that there are several places within the project where there will be drought resistant plants.
Ms. Pahl stated that the City requires that 80% of all landscaping, in any project, to be drought tolerant.
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.
Ms. Barrows stated that she is concerned for the three property owners if the sale of their property does not go through because she feels that the buffer may need to be larger. Ms. Barrows also spoke concerning why the project seems very conceptual. Ms. Pahl responded by stating that the applicant feels that they need to first identify the tenants and maintain some flexibility in order to respond to the potential tenants needs. Ms. Pahl then stated that there is a maximum square footage of office space that could be developed, given the number of parking stalls that they feel they will need and the required open space. The proposal being presented at this time shows the maximum square footage that this parcel size could support.
Ms. Arnold stated that she is not comfortable with the three abutting property owners not having something certain. Somehow, she would like to have the approval tied to some assurance for the three families.
Ms. Kirk stated that this project is being forwarded to the City Council. Ms. Kirk feels that if the developer has not done what they have said, then the City Council will not approve the project.
Mr. Wright stated that although final approval is sometimes delegated to him, as the Planning Director, he always has the authority to bring the changes back to the Planning Commission if he is not comfortable with the direction of the final planned development.
Discussion followed between Mr. Wright and the Planning Commission members as to the direction that the Planning Commission should take for their recommendation to the City Council.
Mr. Steed then spoke concerning the wells in the area. He would like to see the properties north of this project monitored so that changes to the project are made if necessary to mitigate the impacts to their lifestyle.
Ms. Pahl stated that there is a waterline in 2200 West in front of the Sugden's property, however, they cannot utilize the line because they are not annexed into Salt Lake City. The City can encourage the Sugden's to annex their property and help them through the process in order to utilize the waterline.
Motion for Petition No. 400-99-27 and Case No. 410-367:
Ms. Kirk moved, based on the findings of fact, to forward Petition No. 400-99-27 requesting annexation of the 37 acres with a Business Park "BP" zoning to the City Council with a favorable recommendation. Ms. Kirk further moved to approve Case No. 410-367 for a preliminary planned development and the zoning modifications described in the staff report subject to the following conditions (underlined portions added by the Planning Commission):
1 Final landscaping and fencing design approval delegated to the Planning Director.
2 Final building layout approval delegated to the Planning Director.
3 Departmental conditions and technical corrections.
4 Final parking plan approval, based on the need of the project, be delegated to the Planning Director.
5 The developer be aware that the Planning Commission has a strong desire that the properties be obtained, if possible. If it is not possible, then there should be additional buffering on the south side of the residential properties with final approval of the buffering delegated to the Planning Director.
6 If the three homes are purchased, the Planning Commission has a strong desire to include the parcels as part of the annexation to Salt Lake City.
Ms. Barrows seconded the motion. Ms. Barrows, Mr. Daniels, Ms. Kirk, Mr. Snelgrove and Mr. Jonas voted "Aye". Ms. Arnold and Mr. Steed voted "Nay". Mr. Mariger was recused. Ms. Funk and Ms. Short were not present. Mr. Smith, acting as Chair, did not vote. The motion passed.
Mr. Mariger returned to the Planning Commission meeting at this time.
PUBLIC HEARING – Petition No. 400-00-07 by Jim Gee requesting preliminary subdivision approval to amend Lot 205 of the Capitol Park Planned Development Phase 2 to reduce the rear yard setback from 35 to 25 feet located at 305 & 315 East 11th Avenue in a Foothill "FR-3" zoning district.
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. She stated that this petition is a proposal to amend the Capitol Park Planned Development. This Planned Development subdivision includes defined buildable areas on each of the lots. These buildable areas were established in order to save the mature trees that were on the property. In reference to Lot 205, the buildable area was in consideration of three large trees that were in the rear yard. These trees were knocked down during the tornado last summer. With the trees no longer on the property, the option to shift the buildable area is available.
Ms. Pahl continued by stating that a building permit for Lot 25 was issued in error, and the footings were poured prior to the mistake being noticed. A "stop work" notice was issued and the builder was notified of the error. The builder then applied for a plat amendment. The plat amendment still retains the spirit of the Capitol Park Planned Development in that it does maintain the required total setback of 55 feet. Therefore, staff is recommending approval.
The Planning Commissioners then asked questions of Ms. Pahl relating to the petition.
Mr. Jim Gee, the petitioner, was present for this portion of the meeting and stated that he was in agreement with the staff recommendation.
Mr. Smith opened the hearing to the public and asked if anyone wished to address the Planning Commission.
Mr. Robert Bauer, a property owner in the planned development, wanted to know how this mistake happened and wants to make sure that it does not happen again.
Mr. Smith stated that what happened was a mistake. Mr. Wright stated that the City will admit that there was a mistake at the permit counter in terms of reviewing the buildable area of the plat with the buildable area on the construction drawings. Mr. Wright then stated that there was also, apparently, some misunderstanding with the Home Owners Architectural Design review process.
Mr. Bauer responded by stating that there is not much of an Architectural Design Review group remaining due to people moving in and out. Not having an Architectural Design Review group within the planned development is something that the home owners are trying to resolve. Mr. Bauer then stated that another concern that he has is he wants to make sure that the height of the house is compliant.
Ms. Barrows stated that she feels that there needs to be another mechanism, other than tearing out footings because these mistakes are made too often. Views and heights are a sensitive issue on the foothills, therefore, she feels that there needs to be a monetary penalty in addition to tearing out footings.
Ms. Diane Lanza, a property owner in the planned development, presented the original drawings for Lot 205 to the Planning Commission. She then stated that the Capitol Park Planned Development has very detailed specifications on how the homes are to be built. Mr. Gee has built other homes in the development and is very aware of the specifications. A lot of people are moving out of this area because the builders are not paying attention to the guidelines. Ms. Lanza continued by stating that unfortunately he has poured the foundations for Lot 205, however, there are certain setbacks that she feels need to be met. She is concerned that if Mr. Gee is able to continue to build on the current foundations, than other builders may try to get away with not meeting the specifications.
Mr. Ross Morgan, a property owner in the planned development, stated that he feels that the height which would have been required by the original building footprint should remain for this new footprint if it is approved by the Planning Commission.
Mr. Wayne Newton, a property owner in the planned development, stated that he is the one who discovered the error and brought it to the City's attention. He then stated that he does not feel that Mr. Gee should be penalized because there are a lot of different errors. However, he wants to make sure that this type of error does not occur with the other vacant lots in the planned development.
Mr. Bauer spoke concerning the Architectural Design Review group and wants to know how the group will ensure that what has been submitted to the City is the same plans that were reviewed and approved by the Architectural Design Review group.
Mr. Mariger stated that he has been through the same issue as a member of an Architectural Control Committee in his neighborhood. As a member of that Committee he was told by the Permit Counter that they would not condition the issuance of a permit on the stamp of the Architectural Control Committee. The Permit Counter will, however, advise the person submitting the plans that there is an Architectural Control Committee in the neighborhood.
Mr. Wright then stated that because this is a planned development, there was a condition of Architectural Review Committee approval on the plat and the City is requiring that approval be submitted with the plans. Mr. Wright then stated that the developer of the subdivision that is signing on these plans is apparently representing the Architectural Review Committee. The home owners do not have this same perception and should try to resolve this concern with the developer.
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.
Ms. Arnold noted that Mr. Newton brought the error to the City's attention prior to the footings being poured. She then asked Mr. Newton what happened when he mentioned the error to the City.
Mr. Newton responded by stating that when he first came to the City, prior to the footings being poured, the City Permit Office could not find the plans. Then his wife went to the City a week later, which was the same day that the footings were poured. After about an hour of searching for the plans, the Permit Office was finally able to locate them.
Mr. Wright then noted that obviously there were errors made in the Permit Office. He believes that when Mr. Newton first went to the City, the Permit Office was unable to locate the plans because they were with the inspector. Mr. Wright then explained that once a permit is issued, the plans are given to the inspector and are generally not available to the Permit Office after construction has started.
Mr. Mariger stated that he feels that the issue is whether anyone was harmed. If anyone gets harmed by this, he believes that the Planning Commission would not approve a plat amendment. There would have to be a diminution in value to one of the properties because the setback was changed. Mr. Mariger then stated that most courts would not require the foundations to be removed unless there was an intentional violation.
Motion for Petition No. 400-00-07:
Mr. Steed moved, based on the findings of fact, to grant preliminary subdivision approval to the proposed plat amendment (Petition No. 400-00-07), subject to compliance with departmental requirements. Mr. Steed further moved to require that the maximum elevation of the roof, in the revised buildable area, remain the same as it would have been in the original buildable area. Mr. Mariger seconded the motion. Ms. Arnold, Mr. Daniels, Mr. Jonas, Ms. Kirk, Mr. Mariger, Mr. Snelgrove and Mr. Steed voted "Aye". Ms. Barrows voted "Nay". Ms. Funk and Ms. Short were not present. Mr. Smith, acting as Chair, did not vote. The motion passed.
OTHER BUSINESS
There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 10:00 p.m.