SALT LAKE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
In Room 126 of the City & County Building
451 South State Street, Salt Lake City, Utah
Present from the Planning Commission were Chairperson Robert “Bip” Daniels, Kay (berger) Arnold, Andrea Barrows, Arla Funk, Jeff Jonas, Peggy McDonough, Prescott Muir, Kent Nelson, and Laurie Noda
Present from the Planning Staff were Planning Director Stephen Goldsmith, Deputy Planning Directors Brent Wilde and Doug Wheelwright, Janice Lew, Marlynn Lewis, and Kathy Castro.
A roll is being kept of all who attended the Planning Commission Meeting. Mr. Daniels called the meeting to order at 5:10 p.m. Minutes are presented in agenda order and 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.
Deputy Planning Director Brent Wilde introduced Karen McLaws from The Secretarial Source whose company produces planning commission minutes. He explained that her services will be utilized for the next few meetings to determine how that process will work. He also introduced Kathy Castro, a temporary secretary in the Planning Office. If the situation works out well with The Secretarial Source, a receptionist position may be created on a permanent basis. Marilynn Lewis, a new environmental planner, was also introduced. Mr. Wilde explained that the agenda for this meeting is open for the Commissioners to discuss issues they wish to discuss regarding the process for their meetings, ant other policies and procedures.
Planning Director Stephen Goldsmith reported that he would have to leave this meeting to attend the City Council meeting where library square issues will be discussed. He invited the Commissioners to visit the planning exhibit on the fourth floor. He suggested that this meeting be used to work on some of the more awkward issues, one of them being how and when they receive information from the community. He explained his position that information should be received up to the point when the meeting is held. If the Commissioners believe too much
information has been received to move forward, they could always continue a hearing to another date.
Ms. Barrows thanked Mr. Goldsmith for obtaining invitations for the Commissioners to the Cultural Olympiad seminar.
Mr. Goldsmith reported that Alan Jacobs, former Planning Director for the City of San Francisco, now a professor at the University of California at Berkeley, and author of the book Great Streets, will be in Salt Lake at 3:00 p.m. on Tuesday, March 5, at the library to discuss how the City might look at its wide streets and make them more functional as social space. The City has $1.2 million from the RDA to redesign 300 South between 400 West and West Temple. He believed it would be worthwhile for the Planning Commissioners to attend that presentation.
Mr. Daniels stated that he would like to start with the issue of how the Planning Commission receives information and testimony up to and during Planning Commission meetings. He believed they should be fair to everyone. Some people submit information at the time of the meeting, and others have read the information that has been distributed on how to submit information and as a result have not been giving information which they may have wanted to. One suggestion has been that, if information is received just before the meeting, perhaps the person who has submitted it or the Chair could read it. He believed limits should also be placed on how much can be received from an individual.
Ms. Barrows felt that individuals who submit a large document at the time of the meeting run the risk that the Commissioners may or may not read it. She did not want to have documents read to her but wanted to be able to look at them and focus on key points.
Mr. Daniels felt the process needed to be fine tuned so all information would be treated fairly.
Mr. Jonas commented that, if the Chair reads letters that people hand him the day of the meeting, that will have higher priority than something submitted two weeks ahead of time. He believed people would start handing in letters at the last minute so they would be read, which would not be fair.
Ms. Barrows did not believe members of the community would write a letter to the Planning Commission until they knew whether they were in favor of or against what the staff is presenting. Since individuals cannot have access to the staff report until Friday afternoon, they
are unable to read the staff report and get a letter to the Commissioners in time for it to be reviewed in a timely fashion.
Mr. Jonas asked if it would be possible to post staff reports on the web. Mr. Wilde replied that it would, but they would not be available earlier than Friday. Mr. Goldsmith stated that he believed that was a good idea, but it would have to go through IMS, and how quickly it could be posted would depend on their workload.
Ms. Funk stated that she believed if the public had the staff report on Friday, they would have plenty of time to respond using fax, e-mail, or a telephone call. Ms. Barrows replied that the information would come to the secretaries, and the Commissioners might not receive it until Thursday or until they come to the meeting. Mr. Wilde stated that, if information arrives in time to be included in the packet, it is included in the packet. If it comes later, there have been times when it has been held until the time of the meeting. He agreed that correspondence could be faxed or e-mailed to the Commissioners the day it is received. Ms. Funk commented that people know an issue is coming up and probably have an opinion before reading the staff report. They probably then fine tune their comments relative to the staff report. If they choose to provide comment the day of the meeting, they take the risk that it might not be considered. She stated that she did not want to sit and listen to anyone read letters to her.
Mr. Muir stated that, in his experience with his clients, it was highly unusual to not have a cut-off date. If the cut-off date is missed, the issue is addressed on the next agenda.
Ms. Noda discussed the federal and state governments’ guidelines regarding cut-off dates for filing testimony. They limit the number of pages, and some agencies allow letters to be submitted which are placed in the file but not read into the record except in certain circumstances. She believed they could specify through rules the cut-off date for filing of comments, a limit on the length of comments that will be allowed, and the amount of time each person is allowed for making a presentation at a public hearing.
Mr. Muir believed that, without a definitive deadline, the Commission would be setting itself up for grounds for appeal, because they are not giving due consideration.
Mr. Daniels noted that a deadline is published on the back of the notices, but the Commission and the public are not honoring the deadlines. Ms. Arnold stated that she did not believe what was published was a deadline. It was noted that the statement says “should,” not “must.”
Ms. Barrows commented that there have been several situations where petitioners have handed information to staff on the day of the meeting that staff has not had an opportunity to review, and she believed in that instance the item should be moved to the next agenda. She commented that the Commission wastes a lot of time in that circumstance trying to determine how the new material that is presented is different from what is in the staff report.
Ms. Noda explained that under some specific rules for federal and state agencies, the petitioner has the burden of proof and is required to go first. If they do not meet the deadlines for their cutoff, they are defaulted. She believed it should be specifically outlined as to when the petitions must be submitted to staff to allow appropriate time for review. She explained that the burden is on the petitioner to present their information in sufficient time for staff to look at it. This refers to due process issues, which make it more definable for the public and, in the event of appellate review, to know that the Commissioners made a sound decision based on rules that everyone understood and could live by. If procedures are not in place, decisions are considered to be arbitrary and capricious, and no appellate court will sustain a decision that is made where the public does not have definable limits on when to provide their documents, how items are reviewed, or why findings of fact are made. She noted that the basis for many lawsuits is little procedural errors. It is better to have the rules clarified up front to save the time, money, and energy of having to go back and reconsider an item. Clearly defined rules are like preventive medicine and can save a lot of problems in the long run.
Mr. Jonas addressed the issue of the petitioner coming in with changes and noted that the petitioner may or may not have known how staff would respond to their petition. If the petitioner addresses issues raised in the staff report between the time of the submission and the time of the meeting, those may be the same issues the Commissioners would be dealing with in their meeting, and he believed there could be some leniency in that instance. Otherwise, he believed staff could make a recommendation to postpone the item if the changes are too complex to deal with on a short-term basis.
Mr. Daniels asked if the Planning Commission could set limits on when and how much testimony they receive from the public. Mr. Goldsmith replied that they could. Mr. Daniels asked by what guidelines they might do that. He believed they should take into consideration that the Commissioners need time to digest the information, but they also need to be as fair as possible to the public.
Mr. Wilde commented that a different standard may be needed for the applicant than for the public. The public may need a little more time to respond once they can rely on a deadline from the applicant. He explained that the hearing notice is sent out two weeks in advance. The Commissioners may want the petitioner’s deadline to be prior to the notice so staff would know they have all the information before the notice is sent. The public might be given until the Monday after the Friday staff report to provide their comment, which would give them the weekend to review the information. Staff could then get the information to the Commissioners late Monday or Tuesday.
Mr. Nelson questioned whether the public would have time to respond to the staff report unless the deadline is moved back.
Mr. Jonas asked if it would be possible to give each Commissioner an e-mail address so the public could respond by e-mail.
Mr. Muir stated that he saw no need to rush the process. He saw no problem with inserting another week into the process so all the information could be sent to the Commissioners on Friday, and nothing would be accepted after that. He believed the Commissioners needed several days to review the material.
Mr. Wheelwright commented that, if the Planning Commission felt they could not get through all the information, they should take a more liberal approach to tabling items. He explained that, once an item has been placed on the agenda and noticed, it does not have to be noticed again. In the past there has been an effort to not table items.
Ms. McDonough stated that she would not want to table issues, because the Commissioners would always be trying to catch up, and the meeting agendas would get longer and longer.
Mr. Nelson suggested that the staff report be available on Monday, responses to the staff report be due by Friday, and the Commissioners would have from Friday until Thursday to review everything. The Commissioners discussed his suggestion.
Mr. Wheelwright explained that there are no filing deadlines for the Planning Commission, but often the developers would like to see a filing deadline. He reviewed the current process for setting agenda items.
It was the consensus of the Planning Commissioners that a deadline should be set for receiving information from the public and the petitioners.
Mr. Wheelwright stated that he believed what the Commissioners would establish would be guidelines on how staff would react to and try to forward information. He believed it was a problem to say they would not hear information just before the hearing, and staff could provide copies of information received up to the time of the hearing. Mr. Daniels replied that such a process creates a problem, because the Commissioners are expected to read information while they are trying to listen to other people give testimony. The Commissioners concurred.
Mr. Wilde stated that he believed the idea was to create a policy to establish guidelines for information deadlines, and the Commissioners would need to decide on reasonable deadlines.
Ms. McDonough suggested two deadlines, one for receiving the majority of responses on Friday, and perhaps responses in reaction to the staff report on Monday. She expressed concern that, if the deadline is extended to Monday for the public, much of the packet would not be distributed until Monday, and the Friday distribution would diminish. If the deadline were extended to Monday, she believed people would wait until the last deadline. Ms. Barrows believed the public would want to know staff’s position before writing a letter, and since the meat of the packet is the staff report, she did not believe it would diminish in size. Ms. McDonough explained that, where there is a considerable amount of communication from a neighborhood or a community council, she would like to receive it in the Friday packet, not on Monday or the night of the meeting.
Ms. Funk stated that she did not consider Monday to be a good deadline, because realistically it would probably be Tuesday before the information could be reviewed.
Mr. Daniels asked if the Commissioners believed that receiving information the Tuesday before the Planning Commission meeting would give adequate time for review. The Commissioners indicated by a straw vote that they did not believe that would be adequate. Mr. Daniels asked if they believed receiving all information, including public testimony, by the Friday before the Planning Commission would be adequate.
The Commissioners discussed moving the deadline for the staff report to the Monday of the week previous to their meeting and indicated that they would not mind the public having the staff report prior to the Commissioners receiving it in their packets. The Commissioners believed it would be reasonable to have the staff report produced by Monday, with a deadline for public comment by Friday of the week before the Planning Commission meeting.
Mr. Wilde suggested that this be put in a policy format and presented to the City Attorney to be certain that he is comfortable with it. It would then be brought back to the Planning Commission for final approval prior to implementation.
Motion
Arla Funk made a motion to move the deadline for the staff report to Monday and to set a deadline for receipt of public comment on Friday of the week before the Planning Commission meeting. Jeff Jonas seconded the motion. Ms. Arnold, Ms. Barrows, Ms. Funk, Mr. Jonas, Ms. McDonough, Mr. Muir, Mr. Nelson, and Ms. Noda voted “Aye.” Mr. Daniels, as Chairperson, did not vote. The motion carried.
Mr. Jones stated that he believed there was also a consensus that the Planning Commission would also like to see the staff reports on line.
Ms. Barrows asked about the policy regarding City Attorney participation in Planning Commission meetings, noting that she had just learned that a member of the City Attorney’s Office should be an ex officio member of the Planning Commission. She felt there had been several times when the Planning Commission needed legal guidance in order to move an item forward and would like to have had more participation from the City Attorney.
Mr. Muir commented that he Currently sits on the Alta Town Planning Commission, and their counsel attended every meeting.
Ms. Arnold felt that having someone from the City Attorney’s Office attend meetings would save a lot of time and worry about procedure and reversal.
Mr. Daniels stated that he believed the Commissioners agreed that, if a person abstains from voting, it is an abstention rather than a yes or no vote. He believed it would be good to have a legal opinion on that matter. He asked if a motion was necessary to instruct staff to pursue setting up a web site for the Planning Commission.
Motion
Jeff Jonas moved to direct staff to pursue setting up a web site for the Planning Commissioners. Arla Funk seconded the motion. Ms. Arnold, Ms. Barrows, Ms. Funk, Mr. Jonas, Ms. McDonough, Mr. Muir, Mr. Nelson, and Ms. Noda voted “Aye.” Mr. Daniels, as Chairperson, did not vote. The motion carried.
Ms. Arnold stated that she was impressed with the visual presentations available at Salt Lake County Planning Commission meetings, and she could not believe that their audio/visual capabilities were so much farther ahead of this Planning Commission. Mr. Wheelwright explained that is one of the Planning Director’s priorities as a budget issue. Ms. Barrows noted that the Commission has the authority to request the means that they deem necessary.
Mr. Daniels stated that he would like to find a way to monitor the Planning Commission’s decisions to follow their recommendations all the way through the process. He believed some enforcement was needed.
Ms. Arnold recalled that at the HABB Board one time staff had provided an update at each meeting showing the progress of each project. She believed accountability was very important.
Mr. Wilde explained that it would be easy to report at each meeting which items had been considered by the City Council or the Land Use Appeals Board. Tracking and monitoring the construction process is more difficult, however. The Planning Department does not sign off on the Certificate of Occupancy. Mr. Wheelwright noted that the Planning Division’s involvement is in building permit issuance. Mr. Wilde explained that staff used to participate in the CO process, but they were spending half of their time in the field, and at some point they decided to allow the building inspector to follow through. However, the building inspectors are more focused on building codes, and they cannot seem to get them to focus on zoning issues also.
Ms. Funk stated that she believed enforcement in all areas in the City was inadequate, and she believed any motion should include all kinds of enforcement.
Mr. Wheelwright acknowledged that problem and explained that the Community Development Director is talking to the administration about improving the inspectors’ reports. Besides focusing on UBC issues, the inspectors also need to address zoning and approval issues.
Ms. Funk stated that even when a citizen calls and reports something, usually nothing is done, and that is why she wanted the motion to be all encompassing. She believed enforcement was a problem at every level.
Mr. Daniels stated that he would not like to bite off more than the Planning Commission could chew. He wanted to address an issue that they could handle and would like some enforcement on some of the issues the Planning Commission deals with.
Ms. Funk stated that she did not understand why they could not make a motion that would call for a revamping of the enforcement system in the City. She suggested that the Chair write a letter and ask that the Mayor and City Council look at this issue as being an area that needs improvement.
Ms. Arnold believed that nothing would be done if the recommendation were too broad. She believed they should be specific in their request.
Mr. Daniels felt that, if they request that their recommendations be followed up on, it would become obvious that certain other things are not being done, which would be an improvement.
Mr. Wheelwright explained the process that is followed in issuing building permits. The permit staff works with planning staff to be certain that the plan reflects the conditions the Planning Commission required, and then it is turned over to the building inspectors. The link from what is on the plan to what is built in the field is sometimes not present.
Ms. Funk asked if the conditions could be attached to the plan in a way that they could not be missed so the builder would have to look at them. Mr. Wheelwright explained that this is done, but it does not make a difference.
Ms. McDonough explained that the construction process is such a changing process that what the Planning Commission thinks is a priority can easily be shifted to the back burner. If a building inspector is not looking for things all along, the contractor will not think they are important.
Mr. Wheelwright explained that the issues need to be watched during the construction process. Enforcement of zoning issues must be integral to the construction process and cannot just be addressed after construction is complete. He explained that there is no continuity between the different inspectors who inspect the site, and each one looks at different parts of the process.
Ms. McDonough questioned whether the Planning Commission should tell the Planning Director how to organize the staff. She suggested that a motion address the issue of approving or inspecting for a CO and that staff come back to the Planning Commission and explain how they plan to resolve the issue.
Motion
Peggy McDonough made a motion to request that the Planning Department propose a mechanism for inspecting planning and zoning requirements for a Certificate of Occupancy for all projects and that the Planning Department return to the Planning Commission and present a proposed method of accomplishing such enforcement. Kay Arnold seconded the motion. Ms. Arnold, Ms. Barrows, Ms. Funk, Mr. Jonas, Ms. McDonough, Mr. Muir, Mr. Nelson, and Ms. Noda voted “Aye.” Mr. Daniels, as Chairperson, did not vote. The motion carried.
Mr. Daniels stated that he would like to receive a status report on everything that is approved by the Planning Commission. Ms. Barrows concurred but stated that she was concerned about staff having to prepare a report for each meeting. She suggested that the information be transmitted through electronic media so it will be available if the Commissioners want to access it based on their interest in specific projects. Ms. Funk suggested that a report would not be necessary weekly or monthly but rather when something is happening with a project. Ms. Arnold agreed with posting the information on electronic media.
Mr. Wilde explained that projects are tracked on the Outlook program, which provides an abbreviated printout. He offered to check to see if the Commissioners could access the Outlook program. He also suggested that City Council agendas could be circulated before each meeting, or a brief report on City Council actions could be provided at the beginning of each Planning Commission meeting.
Mr. Nelson requested that the Planning Commission look at the subdivision ordinance and consider requiring that developers provide sprinkling systems in the front yards of homes as the front landscaping is often where deterioration begins to occur in a neighborhood. Ms. Barrows commented that a certain amount of landscaping is required, but it comes down to an enforcement issue. Ms. Arnold commented on the sporadic enforcement which occurs with regard to landscaping. Ms. Barrows explained that enforcement is usually citizen initiated. Mr. Wheelwright explained that a subdivision creates the lots and the infrastructure, but the developer does not necessarily build the house. A sprinkling system cannot be required until the lot has an owner who is signed up for a water meter, and a lot could exist for years without being built on.
Ms. Funk asked to discuss fairness in public hearings and referred to the decision on the Cancer Wellness Center. She did not believe there was fairness in that public hearing. The staff spoke for 40 minutes on their position, and there was an organized opposition that received no time to respond. She believed where there is an organized opposition to the staff report, they should be given equal time to make their presentation. Ms. Barrows suggested that such input be limited to organized community councils and that the staff report be shorter.
Mr. Muir stated that he believe the staff report was being portrayed in the wrong light. The staff report should be an objective response, and he believed the opposition time should be equivalent to the applicant’s time as those are the two opposing parties.
Ms. Barrows reiterated that she believed the staff report should be shorter. She believed that in some cases it would be worthwhile to have two different opinions from staff when there is not a strong reason for a decision one way or another on a petition.
Mr. Nelson agreed with the position that the staff is neutral and that the petition and organized opposition should have equal time.
Ms. Noda stated that she believed the staff report was a useful tool for the Commissioners, and receiving it earlier as proposed would allow the Commissioners plenty of time to call staff with any questions they might have. That would place the burden on the Commissioners to be fully familiar with the staff report. She believed staff has been coming to the meetings being very careful about what they present because they have not had any feedback from the Commissioners, and they know the Commissioners will base their decision on the reasoning presented in the staff report. If the Planning Commission decides against the staff recommendation, she believed they should be very careful in spelling out why; otherwise they could be overturned in their decision. She believed receiving the staff report would help with that situation. She believed if staff had a particular issue that has arisen since the staff report was produced, they should be given additional time for presentation in the meeting. She agreed with allowing the petitioner and the public, especially the community council chair, equal time of approximately 10 to 15 minutes. She did not want to see staff limited to that extent, because a major problem may have come up that the Commissioners need to fully understand.
Ms. Funk stated that she did not believe it would take unlimited amounts of time for staff to provide new information. She suggested that staff reports be no longer than 15 to 25 minutes.
Mr. Wheelwright commented that staff is not neutral. They make a recommendation on all petitions and are being paid for their professional opinion. However, it is an opinion, and the Planning Commission can deviate from it, particularly if new information is received.
Mr. Wilde stated that they would be comfortable with generally limiting staff presentations to 10 to 15 minutes with the understanding that, if the issue is bigger than anticipated, staff will request additional time from the Planning Commission before starting their presentation.
Mr. Daniels believed allowing 10 minutes for the staff report was a generous amount of time.
Ms. Barrows asked about the obligation to the public to provide sufficient information for them to know what is being approved if they have not had access to the staff report. She did not believe the petitioner and opposition needed to have an equal amount of time to the staff report, but she supported their having equal time with each other.
Ms. Arnold stated that she would like to receive certain information from the community council chairmen when they speak, such as attendance at the meeting related to an issue and the vote count. She suggested that be addressed procedurally along with the time limits. Mr. Muir felt that would place the Planning Commission in a position of judging the community council chair’s credibility. If their constituents have a problem with how their representatives are voting, that is a problem between the representative and the constituents.
Ms. McDonough and Mr. Nelson asked to be excused from the remainder of the meeting.
Mr. Wheelwright reported that the current City ordinance regarding the Planning Commission requires two meetings per month. There are times when the schedule has been adjusted to one meeting per month, and he suggested that they consider asking the City Council to amend the ordinance to allow some flexibility if adjustments are needed.
Motion
Jeff Jonas moved to request that City Council consider amending the ordinance regarding the Planning Commission to allow some flexibility in their meeting schedules. Arla Funk seconded the motion. Ms. Arnold, Ms. Barrows, Ms. Funk, Mr. Jonas, Mr. Muir, and Ms. Noda voted “Aye.” Mr. Daniels, as Chairperson, did not vote. The motion carried.
Mr. Wilde stated that he believed this forum had been helpful, and if the Commissioners wished to have a meeting such as this again in the future, that could be done.
Mr. Daniels stated that he appreciated the attendance and interest of the people from the public who had attended the meeting this evening.
Ms. Funk noted that the City ordinance states there shall be a balanced representation of appointments to the Planning Commission, and that is not currently the case. She believed there was an imbalance and very few neighborhood community appointments. She noted that there are two architects, two real estate people, two developers, and three community people on the Commission, and she believed that imbalance should be considered as future appointments are made.
Mr. Wilde referred to the Sugarhouse zoning change in the Sugarmont area. An updated analysis of the area will be done, and he suggested that it be done for the larger Sugarhouse area. The Commissioners objected to discussing this item at this time and asked that it be placed on the agenda for a future meeting. Mr. Wilde suggested that staff proceed with the petition based on the Planning Commission motion, and if staff felt strongly that it should be handled otherwise, it would be placed on the agenda for the next meeting.
Meeting adjourned at 6:55 p.m.