SALT LAKE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Room 126 of the City & County Building
451 South State Street, Salt Lake City, Utah
A roll is being kept of all who attended the Planning Commission Meeting. The meeting was called to order at 6:02:56 PM. Audio recordings of the Planning Commission meetings are retained in the Planning Office for an indefinite period of time.
Present for the Planning Commission meeting were: Chairperson Emily Drown; Commissioners Angela Dean, Michael Gallegos, Carolynn Hoskins, Marie Taylor, Matthew Wirthlin and Mary Woodhead. Vice Chair Clark Ruttinger and Commissioner Michael Fife were excused.
Planning Staff members present at the meeting were: Wilford Sommerkorn, Planning Director; Michaela Oktay, Planning Manager; Joel Paterson, Zoning Administrator; Nick Britton, Senior Planner; Doug Dansie, Senior Planner; Casey Stewart, Senior Planner; Maryann Pickering, Principal Planner; Michelle Moeller, Senior Secretary; and Paul Nielson, City Land Use Attorney.
FIELD TRIP NOTES:
A field trip was held prior to the work session. Planning Commissioners present were: Emily Drown, Michael Gallegos, Carolynn Hoskins, Marie Taylor and Mary Woodhead. Staff members in attendance were Joel Paterson, Michaela Oktay, Doug Dansie and Maryann Pickering.
The following locations were visited:
• Broadway Park Lofts-Staff gave an overview of the project and a summary of the issues.
• Butcher Conditional Use- Staff gave an overview of the project and a summary of the issues.
• McClelland Planned Development- Staff gave an overview of the project and a summary of the issues.
REPORT OF THE CHAIR AND VICE CHAIR 6:03:30PM
Chairperson Drown stated she had nothing to report.
REPORT OF THE DIRECTOR 6:03:34 PM
Mr. Wilford Sommerkorn, Planning Director, stated he had nothing to report.
BREIFING 6:03:40 PM
Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan – As part of the planning process for the Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan, staff from the Transportation and Planning Divisions will brief the Planning Commission on the status of the plan, the public engagement process, the organization and content of the plan and the remaining steps for its finalization. (Staff contact: Nick Britton at (801) 535-6107or nick.britton@slcgov.com)
Ms. Rebecca Roolf, Transportation Division, reviewed the Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan as outlined in the memo (located in the case file). She stated the plan would be reviewed, updated then brought to the Commission for further review and approval.
Mr. Dan Bergenthal, Trails Coordinator, introduced himself.
The Commission and Ms. Roolf, discussed the following:
• If the island on 200 South could it be used as a bike corridor.
• The islands are too narrow to work as a bike way.
• The design of bicycle boulevards, versus regular bike lanes.
• Offering the plan in multiple languages.
• Using 200 South and 300 South corridors as connections to downtown from the West side.
• The main connection routes through the city.
• A bike track on the abandon rail track and connecting it to the existing trails.
UNFINISHED BUSINESS 6:37:30 PM
Century Link ground mounted utility box Conditional Use Request at approximately 503 E. First Avenue - Ralph Vigil, representing CenturyLink, requested approval from the City for a ground mounted utility box in the public right-of-way at the above referenced address. On October 23, 2013 the Planning Commission denied the Conditional Use request. The applicant appealed that decision to the Appeals Hearing Officer. On January 13, 2014, the Appeals Hearing Officer’s reversed the Planning Commission’s decision and approved the conditional use. He also remanded this issue back to the Planning Commission to consider reasonable conditions that may be imposed on the use to mitigate reasonably anticipated detrimental effects as per the Salt Lake City Zoning Ordinance. The subject property is within the RMF-35 (Moderate Density Multi-Family Residential) zoning district. The site is located in Council District 3 represented by Stan Penfold. (Staff contact: Michaela Oktay at (801) 535-6003 or michaela.oktay@slcgov.com). Case number PLNPCM2013-00319
Mr. Paul Nielson, City Attorney, stated due to the nature of the petition and the Appeals Officer’s decision a Public Hearing may not be appropriate. He stated the Appeals Hearing
Officer did not give the Commission the option to deny the petition as presented and the issues were regarding conditions only.
Ms. Michaela Oktay, Planning Manager, reviewed the petition as presented in the Staff Report (located in the case file). She stated Staff’s was recommending the Planning Commission approve the petition with the conditions listed in the Staff Report.
The Commission and Staff discussed the following:
• How to address the second condition regarding the Applicant and Property owner working together to solve the issue of screening the box.
o It was determined that the Applicant should work with the Planning Director to resolve the design/screening issues rather than the Property Owner.
The Commission discussed if they should open the public hearing and the comments that should be considered if the Public Hearing was opened.
Mr. Sommerkorn reviewed the Appeals Hearing Officers decision and the role of the Planning Commission in approving the petition.
The Commission and Staff discussed if the Commission could deny the petition and the findings needed to support the denial of the petition. They discussed the options for approving the petition and that the Appeals Hearing Officer indicated there was previous testimony and substantial evidence in the record proving the detrimental effects of the box could be mitigated. The Commission and Staff discussed if the Applicant or Neighbors need to agree to the conditions placed on the petition. Staff stated the box was to be located on City property therefore the City was the one that had to agree to the conditions.
The Commission discussed opening the Public Hearing and limiting the comments.
MOTION 6:48:58 PM
Commissioner Dean motioned to open the Public Hearing with the limitation that comments be restricted to the conditions of approval. Commissioner Woodhead seconded the motion. Commissioners Hoskins, Woodhead and Dean voted “aye”. Commissioner Wirthlin, Taylor, Gallegos voted “nay”. Chairperson Drown voted “aye”. The motion passed 4-3.
PUBLIC HEARING 6:50:33 PM
Chairperson Drown opened the Public Hearing.
The following individuals spoke in opposition of the petition: Mr. John Mask, Ms. Mary Mark, Mr. Phillip Carroll, Ms. Pat Lawrence, Mr. Mike Lawrence and Mr. Ray Ownbey.
The following comments were made:
• Make the box into vault instead of an above ground utility box.
• Minimize the visual impact and size impact on the corner.
• Condition to require that the foundation of the box be maintained.
• This was a Historic District therefore, conditions should be more restrictive.
• The box was visually and environmentally detrimental to the neighboring property.
• Century Link had not worked with the neighbors to make the proposal work for the area.
• Proposal may negatively affect the existing tree.
• The box should be located on a site that was less visually significant
• Delay the issue to allow further study on the mitigation of the box.
• Boxes should be scrutinized the same as new houses.
• More attention should be paid to how these items were approved and made to fit the area.
Chairperson Drown closed the Public Hearing.
DISCUSSION 7:00:47 PM
Staff recommended requiring Century Link to work with the City Arborist regarding the tree prior to final approval.
Ms. Georganna Weidenback, Torry Sommers, and Ralph Vigil, Century link, introduced themselves.
The Commission and Applicants discussed the following:
• If a vault could be used in the area.
o The Applicant stated a vault was not practical in the area.
• Protecting the tree and how Century Link addressed issues with putting boxes next to existing trees.
• The depth and size of the concrete pad.
• How the tree would be accommodated regarding running wiring to the box.
• The necessary clearance from the utility pole and if the box could be located on the other side of the pole away from the tree.
o The Applicant stated they did not want to create a problem with not meeting the Conditional Use if certain conditions were required.
• If it was possible to use a smaller box than proposed.
o A smaller cabinet could be used but would need to be changed or another added at a later date.
The Commission and Staff discussed what conditions could be placed on the petition regarding the following:
• Size of the box.
• Location and if it could be varied from the proposal.
• Spacing.
• Varying the setbacks and if it would mitigate the visual impacts.
• Screening.
• Design of the box.
• Views (site distance).
• The Commission and Staff discussed the following
• The process for a Certificate of Appropriateness to be issued.
• The proposed site plan and the need for more accurate demensions shown on final.
• Requiring a plan from the Arborist regarding the tree.
• If these items could be addressed by the Planning Director or if the petition needed to return to the Planning Commission for approval.
• Landscaping for the park strip, the limitations, maintenance and City standards for park strips.
• If the Arborist decided the tree would be damaged how it would be addressed.
MOTION 7:24:50 PM
Commissioner Woodhead stated regarding PLNAPP2013-00319, the Century Link Conditional Use – Ground Mounted Utility Box Appeal, she moved that the Planning Commission grant the Conditional Use based on Staff Report, the reports of the various Public Hearing and Administrative Hearings on this matter, the input from the Petitioner and the discussion among the Planning Commission with conditions of approval one through five, listed in the Staff Report, except with condition number two altered to read that the Applicant will work with the Planning Director to determine what, if any, landscaping shall be planted to screen the box from view, a sixth condition that the Applicant and the Planning Director would meet with the City Arborist to determine that the tree was appropriately protected. Commissioner Gallegos seconded the motion. Commissioners Dean, Woodhead, Hoskins, Gallegos and Wirthlin voted “aye”. Commissioner Taylor voted “nay”. The motion passed 5-1.
Mr. Nielson reviewed the appeals process.
PUBLIC HEARINGS 7:27:53 PM
Broadway Park Lofts Conditional Building and Site Design Review for Additional Height at approximately 360 West 300 South - Warren Lloyd, representing Clearwater Homes and a potential purchaser, is requesting conditional building and site design approval from the City for additional height on the existing structure located at 360 West 300 South. The proposal is to alter the function of the stairway exit to provide an expanded roofline to provide more shading and a rooftop porch. The building is already constructed with stair exits onto the roof/patio. Elevator bulkheads, stair exits and flagpoles, etc. are exempt from the height restrictions. The height is not actually increasing beyond the height of the stairway exit, however since the exit is being used for purposes beyond the scope of the height exception, it is being routed through the building and site design review process. The building is located in the D-3 (Downtown Warehouse/Residential) District. Buildings are allowed to be seventy five feet (75') tall. Buildings taller than seventy five feet (75') but less than ninety feet (90') may be authorized through the conditional building and site design review process, provided the additional height is supported by the applicable master plan, the overall square footage of the buildings is greater than fifty percent (50%) residential use. Currently the land is being developed as a residential mixed-use property including live/work spaces with retail business on the ground level. The subject property is within Council District 4, represented by Luke Garrott. (Staff contact: Doug Dansie at (801) 535-6182 or doug.dansie@slcgov.com.) Case number PLNPCM2014-00006.
Mr. Doug Dansie, Senior Planner, reviewed the petition as presented in the Staff Report (located in the case file). He stated Staff was recommending the Planning Commission approve the petition as presented.
Mr. Micah Peters, Developer, reviewed the additional height for the proposal. He discussed the success of the project and asked the Commission to approve the petition.
PUBLIC HEARING 7:32:45 PM
Chairperson Drown opened the Public Hearing, seeing no one in the audience wished to speak to the petition; Chairperson Drown closed the Public Hearing.
MOTION7:33:14 PM
Commissioner Taylor stated regarding the 360 West 300 South Conditional Building and Site Design Review, PLNPCM2014-00006, based on the findings listed in the Staff Report, testimony and plans presented, she moved that the Planning Commission approve the Conditional Building and Site Design Review to allow additional height for a building located at approximately 360 West 300 South with the condition that the plan meet all other zoning and building requirements. Commissioner Hoskins seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously.
7:34:29 PM
The Commission took a short break.
Commissioner Dean left for the evening.
MOTION 7:41:59 PM
Commissioner Wirthlin moved to hear item number seven listed on the agenda as the Sugar House Street Car surplus property next. Commissioner Taylor seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously.
7:42:48 PM
Sugar House Streetcar Surplus Property at approximately 968 East Sugarmont Drive - Mayor Ralph Becker is requesting approval from the City to declare city-owned property as surplus and remove the property from the Open Space Lands Program. The land is commonly known as the Fairmont Park Tennis Courts and is currently used as a community garden and community center and the property is zoned as OS (Open Space). This type of project must be reviewed as a Surplus Property petition. The subject property is located in Council District #7, represented by Lisa Ramsey Adams. (Staff contact: Maryann Pickering at (801) 535-7660 or maryannpickering@slcgov.com.) Case number PLNPCM2014-00003.
Ms. Maryann Pickering, Principal Planner, reviewed the petition as presented in the Staff Report (located in the case file). She stated Staff was recommending that the Planning Commission forward a favorable recommendation to the City Administration regarding the petition as presented.
The Commission and Staff discussed the following:
• Could the recommendation of approval be contingent on the City identifying and developing tennis courts and a community garden on another site in Sugar House.
• The actual weight the Planning Commission’s recommendation would have on the Mayor’s final decision regarding the petition.
• The time table for approval of the petition and its relation to the proposed land use regulations.
PUBLIC HEARING 7:50:21 PM
Chairperson Drown opened the Public Hearing.
The following individual spoke in favor of the petition: Mr. Rinaldo Hunt.
The following comments were made:
• Proposal would take the Boys and Girls club into consideration.
• Development promoted the use of the Street Car.
The following individuals spoke in opposition of the petition: Mr. Ed Dierrnger, Mr. Thomas Spereta, Mr. Burton Brown, Mr. Chris Brockert, Mr. Topher Hosman, Ms. Aimee Horman, Ms. Misty Vrieze, Ms. Dagny Healey, Ms. Tamerin Smith, Ms. Linda Collins, Mr. George Chapman, Mr. Wayne Halverson, Ms. Elizabeth Halverson, Mr. Brad Diforio, Mr. Paul Atkinson, Mr. Matthew Stankevitz and Ms. Melody Murdock.
The following comments were made:
• Sugar House Community Council had not discussed the petition.
• There was a previous motion to leave the property as open space.
• There was not surplus of open space and Sugar House needed to protect open space.
• Tennis courts needed to be fixed and be returned for public use.
• Proposal was not a proper use of the area.
• City needed to recognize the historic nature of the area.
• Area should be made into some kind of sport court.
• Do not want apartments built next to owner occupied personal property.
• Traffic was already a problem and the apartments would add to that issue.
• Boys and Girls Club benefited the area and should remain.
• Proposal was a land grab.
• Open Space should remain open.
• Why was it so important to develop the property now since it had been open space for over a hundred years.
• What did the fire department think about the project.
• Proposal would be a detriment to the surrounding neighborhoods.
• Impacts to the area would be great and could not be mitigated to be positive.
• Never sell open, trail or park space.
• Planning Commission had a great influence on the Mayor and their opinion should be expressed.
• Please ask the Mayor to look at the proposal and slow the process to study and better accommodate the area.
• Tennis courts were used when they were maintained.
• Proposed structure would be too tall for the area.
• There were other areas that would work better for this proposal.
• Would never get the open space back once it was gone.
Chairperson Drown read the following comment cards:
Ms. Marie Hendrickson - Everyone loves Sugar House adding and adding apartments will take away what is great about Sugar House, no room to drive and park.
Mr. Rick Vrieze - We, as stewards of the earth should never yield green space to business interest.
Ms. Mary Roberts - I am opposed to the property on the corner of 9th East and Sugarmont being surplused and a four story apartment complex being built. We need to keep it open as green space.
Mr. Ricky Roberts - I am opposed to the tennis courts property being surplused and a four story apartment being built there. There are plenty of new apartment being built within a few blocks. I don’t see what good one hundred and four more units would benefit the area.
Ms. Janet Atkinson - Too many apartments in Sugar House, too much traffic already on 900 to 2100 South and 700 East. We like a small community not a “New York” style of living, streets being used for parking now and the regular tenants and owners will have no where to park.
Mr. Phillip Carlton - Open Space owned by City should not be disposed of unless it is replaced in another location.
Mr. Richard Sutliff - One of the biggest pros for moving to Sugar House was the small, friendly feel. There are already several high rises going up in more agreeable areas. Having a high rise put in a more neighborhood area than business area detracts from the feel of Sugar House. The space would be better used, as it is a community garden. I believe that with all the demand for quality garden space it will spike.
Ms. Carole Quilter - I am completely opposed to the sale of any designated open space in the city. Many other options, extremely opposed to building on open space, vehicle
congestion since opening the S Line has increased dramatically. I used to brag of the fact I never had to go farther than two blocks north or south of 2100 South for my daily needs, food and entertainment, now I rarely walk to the library it is a congested crazy mess. Why add more than the mass that has been built in the heart of Sugar House. I am opposed to the sale of or building on this space.
Ms. Geraldine Storbeck – I am in opposition of removing the property from open space- due to the tremendously high amount of building and addition of rental property in the area. We need open space more than ever. We also need open space to help with our air quality. Sugar House is becoming a high density area with the need for maintaining the community gardens and open space is more important than ever.
Ms. Maberly Brown – The Plan reduces green space in Salt Lake City, there have been residences and apartments available in our area with the additional units at the 21st development, who will live here, providing parking garages does not encourage the use of the “Trolley” by the residents of the proposed structure. It boarders a historic district, “Forest Dale” neighborhood, and does not fit with the homes in the area, where would Boys and Girls club go? Having a family friendly community activities within walking distance of each other is important, (youth City, Fairmont Pool, Wasatch Community Gardens, the Playground), vehicle traffic on Simpson Ave between 7th and 9th is bad, gotten worse with Trolley and there are not enough resources to control it now.
The following people were in opposition of the petition but did not wish to speak: Mr. William Kushner and Ms. Daphne Perry.
Chairperson Drown closed the Public Hearing.
8:35:01 PM
Mr. Ryan McFarland, Salt Lake City Property Manager, and Ms. Nichol Bordeaux, Deputy Director of Housing and Neighborhood Development introduced themselves.
The Commission and Mr. McFarland discussed the following
• Process for replacing open space.
• If property was being looked at for future open space and what the property would offer.
• The park was considered an asset when other developments were being proposed for Sugar House.
• There would be a need for park space and amenities for recreational use.
• How the demand on the park affected the development of the area.
• Why had this location been deemed inappropriate for park use.
• What would be done if the plans for new open space fell through.
• The fact that further action could not be taken to acquire new open space until this process had been gone through.
DISSCUSSION 8:41:19 PM
The Commission discussed the following:
• Forwarding a negative recommendation.
• What could be done to replace the open space in the area.
• It was premature to recommend disposing of the open space.
• Other options for increasing housing in Sugar House.
• The notion that open space should never be disposed of.
• Who owned the property and building that the Boys and Girls club was on/in.
Ms. Bourdeaux stated the final development plan had not been determined nor had it been committed to anyone.
MOTION 8:45:06 PM
Commissioner Woodhead stated regarding Declaration of Surplus Property, PLNPCM2014-00003, based not on the findings in the Staff Report but on the information provided in the Staff Report, the public hearing, field trip and the previous hearings on the Sugar House Street Car Zoning and property, she moved that the Planning Commission not declare the property surplus and forward a negative recommendation to the City Administration with regard to disposing the property based on the fact that the property is valuable open space and there is no apparent substitute for the open space on the table currently. Commissioner Wirthlin seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously.
8:47:23 PM
The Commission took a short break.
8:53:37 PM
McClelland Court Planned Development and Preliminary Subdivision at approximately 1019 East 2700 South - Ivory Development, LLC. is requesting approval from the City to develop a three lot planned development subdivision at the above listed address. Currently the land is used for a single-family residence and the property is zoned R-1/7000 (Single Family Residential District). This type of project must be reviewed as a planned development and minor subdivision. The subject property is within Council District 7, represented by Lisa Adams. (Staff contact: Everett Joyce at (801) 535-7930 or everett.joyce@slcgov.com.)
a. Planned Development - A request for a three lot development with lots that do not front a public street that are accessed through a shared driveway. The request is also for a modification to the zoning standards required for the front yard setback for Lot 1 fronting on 2700 South Street and for the rear yard setback and tandem parking for Lot 2 which is retaining an existing single family residence. Case number PLNSUB2013-00407.
b. Minor Subdivision - A request to subdivide a 0.52 acre lot into three single family lots. Case number PLNSUB2013-00752.
Mr. Doug Dansie, Senior Planner, reviewed the petition as presented in the Staff Report (located in the case file). He stated Staff was recommending that the Planning Commission approve the petition as presented.
The Commission and Staff discussed what conditions needed to be outlined in the motion.
Mr. Skyler Tolbert, Ivory Homes, stated he agreed with the statements in the Staff Report.
The Commission and Applicant discussed if special considerations were given for handicap accessibility and if the proposed homes were build to suit or as spec homes.
PUBLIC HEARING 8:59:56 PM
Chairperson Drown opened the Public Hearing
Mr. Ed Dieringer, Sugar House Community Council, Community Council stated they would like to keep the historic feel of the district. He stated Ivory Homes was hiding a historic home within the development and had disregarded the concerns of the Community Council. Mr. Dieringer stated the proposal would cause them to lose the historic and aesthetic features of the district and the existing home. He stated there are other ways to address the property and keep the historic aspects intact.
The Commission and Mr. Derringer discussed the concerns that were not addressed such as roof lines, garages and porches.
The following individuals spoke in opposition of the petition: Ms. Annette Hansen and Mr. Aaron Hansen.
The following comments were made:
• Residents are in opposition to the development.
• Home values will diminish.
• Existing house’s character was tied to the lot it was on.
Chairperson Drown read the following cards:
Mr. Phillip Carlson- Flag lots do not fit in the Sugar House Master Plan. This may be an ideal location for a new accessory dwelling unit which I would love to add, both population and a diversity of housing types to the community.
Chairperson Drown closed the Public Hearing.
Mr. Tolbert stated they are mindful of the suggestions from the Community Council and addressing their concerns.
The Commission and Applicant discussed the layout, height, and design of the proposal. They discussed the people that would purchase the existing home versus the new homes. The Commission and Applicant discussed how the homes would be sold and methods of
making the buyer aware of the homes configuration and easement agreement and the renovations that would be done to the existing home.
DISCUSSION 9:13:38 PM
The Commission, Staff and the Applicant discussed the following:
• If the driveway could be made to meet City standards.
• The proposal was not a street it was a driveway.
• Could the Planning Commission require all doors be ADA accessible.
• That was not something the Planning Commission could require.
• Could a condition be made that the roof line could not be higher than the existing home.
• Staff explained how a planned development worked and that the existing home was not protected as is done in local historic districts.
• Commission expressed their concern that the existing house would be torn down in the end as no one would want to buy it.
• Applicant discussed the plan, design and how height restrictions would make the quality of the home, less desirable and that they really want to protect the existing home.
• Offers that had been made on the existing home.
The Commission discussed the options for the property.
MOTION 9:21:00 PM
Commissioner Taylor stated regarding the 360 West 300 South Conditional Building and Site Design Review, PLNPCM2014-00006 based on the findings listed in the Staff Report and the testimony heard, she moved that the Planning Commission approve the McClelland Court Planned Development and Minor Subdivision with the conditions one through three as listed in the Staff Report. Commissioner Wirthlin seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously.
9:22:56 PM
Butcher Conditional Use at approximately 920 S Gale St - Lisa Butcher is requesting approval from the City to develop an impound lot at the above listed address. Currently the land use is a vacant residential structure and the property is zoned CG (General Commercial). This type of project must be reviewed as a conditional use. The subject property is within Council District 5, represented by Erin Mendenhall. (Staff contact: Everett Joyce at (801) 535-7930 or everett.joyce@slcgov.com.) Case number PLNPCM2013-00992.
Mr. Doug Dansie, Senior Planner, reviewed the petition as presented in the Staff Report (located in the case file). He stated Staff was recommending that the Planning Commission approve the petition as presented.
Ms. Lisa Butcher, Applicant, reviewed the proposal and asked the Commission to approve the petition.
The Commission and Applicant discussed the fencing for the proposal and if a better material could be used. Applicant stated the proposed fence was very well made and would be kept up. They discussed if barbed wire would be on the front part of the property and the city code regulating barbed wire.
PUBLIC HEARING 9:29:33 PM
Chairperson Drown opened the Public Hearing.
The following individuals spoke in favor of the petition: Mr. Hank Kennedy and Mr. Cory Fox.
The following comments were made:
• Property owner was in favor of selling the property and it being used for the proposed purpose.
• Use fit with the area.
Chairperson Drown closed the Public Hearing.
DISCUSSION 9:31:54 PM
Staff stated barbed wire was allowed in the CG zone but could not be in the required front yard and read the materials that could be used for fences in the area.
Commissioner Taylor stated the addition of more tow yards, removing all the trees and adding the large amount of concrete would be detrimental to the street and would be an impact that could not be reversed.
MOTION 9:35:18 PM
Commissioner Wirthlin stated regarding The Butcher Impound Lot Conditional Use, PLNPCM2013-00992, based on the findings listed in the Staff Report and the testimony heard, he moved that the Planning Commission approve the proposed Conditional Use with conditions one and two as listed in the Staff Report. Commissioner Gallegos seconded the motion. Commissioners Wirthlin, Woodhead, Hoskins and Gallegos voted “aye”. Commissioner Taylor voted “nay”. The motion passed 4-1.
The Commission stated this was one of the areas that the Master Plan and Zoning were conflicting and should be clarified.
9:37:31 PM
Surplus Property Declaration at approximately 1226 S 1100 East – Ryan McFarland, Salt Lake City Real Property Manager is requesting approval from the City to declare approximately 896 square feet of Public Utilities Department-owned property as surplus to allow the property to be conveyed to the abutting property owner at 1234 S 1100 East. The lot owned by the Public Utilities Department is vacant and is traversed by the Jordan and Salt Lake Canal. The declaration of surplus property is
for the southern portion of the lot and will not impact the use or maintenance of canal. The property is zoned as R-1/5,000 (Single Family Residential). This type of project must be reviewed as a Surplus Property petition. The subject property is located in Council District #5, represented by Erin Mendenhall. (Staff contact: Joel Paterson at (801) 535-6141 or joel.paterson@slcgov.com.) Case number PLNPCM2014-00008.
Mr. Joel Paterson, Zoning Administrator, reviewed the petition as presented in the Staff Report (located in the case file). He stated that Staff was recommending that the Planning approve the petition as presented.
The Commission and Staff discussed the four foot access requested by the Engineers and that it had been incorporated into the design.
PUBLIC HEARING 9:42:51 PM
Chairperson Drown opened the Public Hearing.
The following individuals spoke in opposition of the petition: Mr. George Chapman.
The following comments were made:
• Never sell open space.
• Trail path was promised in that area and that was what the community wanted.
• Trail was being built and the proposal would make the trail narrower than what was being developed.
Chairperson Drown read the following cards:
Mr. Phillip Carlson- I’d like the disposition of the property around the canal to comply with the trail plans.
Chairperson Drown closed the Public Hearing.
MOTION 9:45:35 PM
Commissioner Wirthlin stated regarding the Declaration of Surplus Property at 1226 South 1100 East, PLNPCM2014-00008 based on the findings listed in the Staff Report and the testimony heard, he moved that the Planning Commission declare surplus approximately 896 square feet of property located at 1226 S 1100 East as presented and forward a recommendation to the City Administration to dispose of the property in a manner consistent with Section 2.58 of the Salt Lake City Code. This recommendation was subject to the conditions listed in the Staff Report. Commissioner Gallegos seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously.
9:47:36 PM
Zoning Ordinance Fine Tuning for Fences, Park Strips, TSA and R-MU Setbacks - A request by Mayor Ralph Becker to make minor clarifying amendments to four items in the City's zoning ordinance: namely front yard fence height in non-residential districts, rear yard building setbacks in the TSA and R-MU districts and concrete pads in park strips for bus stop shelters and bike share stations. The proposed amendments will generally affect sections 21A.40.120 Regulations of Fences, Walls and Hedges; 21A.24.170 R-MU Residential/Mixed Use district; 21A.26.078.G TSA Transit Station Area district development standards. Related provisions of Title 21A Zoning may also be amended as part of this petition. The area affected by these changes is city-wide. (Staff contact: Casey Stewart at (801) 535.6260 or casey.stewart@slcgov.com.) Case number PLNPCM2013-00291.
Mr. Casey Stewart, Senior Planner, reviewed the petition as presented in the Staff Report (located in the case file). He stated Staff was recommending that the Planning Commission transmit a favorable recommendation to City Council regarding the petition.
PUBLIC HEARING 9:55:14 PM
Chairperson Drown opened the Public Hearing, seeing no one in the audience wished to speak to the petition; Chairperson Drown closed the Public Hearing.
MOTION 9:55:42 PM
Commissioner Gallegos stated regarding the Fine Tuning Zoning Amendments, PLNPCM2013-00291 based on the findings listed in the Staff Report and the additional Staff recommended changes, testimony heard, he moved that the Planning Commission transmit a favorable recommendation to the City Council for approval of the requested zoning text amendments. Commissioner Woodhead seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously.
The meeting adjourned at 9:56:30 PM