SALT LAKE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
In Room 326 of the City & County Building
451 South State Street, Salt Lake City, Utah
Present from the Planning Commission were Chair Jeff Jonas, Tim Chambless, John Diamond, Arla Funk, Prescott Muir, Laurie Noda, and Jennifer Seelig. Kay (berger) Arnold, Robert “Bip” Daniels, and Peggy McDonough were excused.
Present from the Planning Staff were Planning Director Louis Zunguze; Deputy Planning Directors Brent Wilde and Doug Wheelwright; and Planners Janice Lew, Jackie Gasparik, and Greg Mikolash.
A roll is being kept of all who attended the Planning Commission meeting. Mr. Jonas called the meeting to order at 5:45 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.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES from Wednesday, January 8, 2003
Motion
Prescott Muir moved to approve the minutes as written. Tim Chambless seconded the motion. Mr. Chambless, Mr. Diamond, Ms. Funk, Mr. Muir, Ms. Noda, and Ms. Seelig vote “Aye.” Ms. Arnold, Mr. Daniels, and Ms. McDonough were not present. Jeff Jonas, as chair, did not vote. The motion carried.
CONSENT AGENDA - Salt Lake City Property Conveyance Matters:
a. Chevron Pipeline Company and Salt Lake City Public Utilities Department - Request by Chevron to allow the relocation of existing crude oil pipelines from the current location into the existing County roadway (Parley’s Canyon Highway) right-of-way upon Salt Lake Public Utilities Department Watershed Property. The location is approximately 10502 East 952 South, in unincorporated Salt Lake County, on the south side of Interstate Highway 80 just west of the Summit County line at the top of Parley’s Canyon.
b. Snyderville Basin Special Recreation District and Salt Lake City Public Utilities Department - A request for the Salt Lake Public Utilities to grant a special utility permit for a public trail in Summit County, across Public Utilities owned Watershed property. The trail will be part of the Mid-Mountain Trail, located in the vicinity of the Canyons Ski Resort and Murdock Peak, which is located at the east end of Lamb’s Canyon, south of Parley’s Canyon, in Section 27, Township 1 South, Range 3 East.
c. Construction Recycling Inc. and Salt Lake City Property Management - Request to accept the portion of Construction Recycling Inc.’s property which lies within the Delong Street 66 foot right-of-way. The property lies between 500 South and Indiana Avenue.
d. Miller Sandy Property, L.C. and Salt Lake City Public Utilities - Request by Public Utilities to enter into negotiations with Miller Sandy Property, L.C. to exchange future deeds and easements to facilitate the construction of a Box Culvert to contain the existing open canal for a portion of the Jordan and Salt Lake Canal, which bisects Miller Sandy’s property north to south. The property is located at approximately 8850 South State Street in Sandy City. It is contemplated that the future agreements would allow Miller Sandy Properties, L.C. to use the surface of the box culvert for automobile parking.
Ms. Seelig stated for the record that she had made an inquiry of Public Utilities based on Item a., Chevron Pipeline Company. Her question was whether there would be impacts associated with the pipe being abandoned in place. The response from Public Utilities was that there would be more damage from excavating the pipe than if the pipe were left in its existing location. Ms. Seelig stated that her question was answered, and she was satisfied with the explanation. She also submitted a copy of the E-mail correspondence that transpired.
Motion
Arla Funk moved to accept the Consent Agenda as outlined in the agenda and in the staff report. Laurie Noda seconded the motion. Mr. Chambless, Mr. Diamond, Ms. Funk, Mr. Muir, Ms. Noda, and Ms. Seelig voted “Aye.” Ms. Arnold, Mr. Daniels, and Ms. McDonough were not present. Jeff Jonas, as chair, did not vote. The motion carried.
OTHER BUSINESS
a. Request for an extension of time for Petition No. 410-562, by Construction Recycling Inc., a conditional use approval to develop a concrete and asphalt crushing, recycling and sale facility located at approximately 620 South Delong Street (2350 West). The property is located in a Light Manufacturing “M-1" and a Heavy Manufacturing “M-2" zoning district.
Planner Janice Lew stated that she was prepared to answer questions regarding the request to extend this approval for another year.
Chair Jonas recalled that no public comment was given when this item was originally approved.
Motion
Laurie Noda moved to grant the request for a one-year extension of time for Petition No. 410-562. Arla Funk seconded the motion. Mr. Chambless, Mr. Diamond, Ms. Funk, Mr. Muir, Ms. Noda, and Ms. Seelig voted “Aye.” Ms. Arnold, Mr. Daniels, and Ms. McDonough were not present. Jeff Jonas, as chair, did not vote. The motion carried.
b. Continued from January 8, 2003, meeting - Request to reopen View City Plat A Amendment, by the Highland Park Plaza Condominium Association, requesting to modify the property lines of Lots 8, 9, & 10 of Block 2 of View City Plat B located at 1955 and 1977 South 1300 East. The properties are zoned Residential/Office RO. The existing duplex at 1977 South 1300 East will have a reduction in lot size, and the Highland Dental Center Building will gain the area currently used as a parking lot.
Planner Jackie Gasparik recalled that the Planning Commission requested an interpretation from Lynn Pace at the last Planning Commission meeting, and that response was included in the packet. The packet also contains a letter from the applicant’s attorney requesting that the Planning Commission reopen the matter. Ms. Gasparik stated that the Staff did not have a recommendation on this issue.
Chair Jonas recalled that an allegation was made by the applicant’s attorney that the applicant was not afforded due process in the ability to rebut some of the public comments. Chair Jonas was not certain that the applicant had made that request during the meeting, but this has led to the policy providing applicants an opportunity to rebut at the end of the public hearing. Since the Planning Commission has decided to start doing that as a course of process, he believed it would be appropriate to allow this applicant the same opportunity.
Motion
Arla Funk moved to schedule this item for a future Planning Commission meeting to allow the applicant an opportunity to make whatever comments he wishes to make in response to the public comment; however, this opportunity should be limited to the applicant. Tim Chambless seconded the motion with the request that Ms. Funk specify a period of time. Ms. Funk amended the motion to include a time limit of ten minutes or less. Tim Chambless accepted the amendment in his second.
Chair Jonas asked Lynn Pace to comment. Mr. Pace stated that, if the Planning Commission is concerned that the applicant was not given an opportunity to rebut, they can reopen the public hearing to anyone or limit it to the applicant for the purpose of rebuttal. Mr. Diamond asked if the rebuttal would be limited to the applicant or whether it could include his representative. Ms. Funk believed it could be either one.
Ms. Seelig stated that she disagreed with the motion. She believed everyone had ample opportunity to supply comment, and she was satisfied with what occurred at the meeting and with the documentation from the previous public meeting and letters from all the parties involved. Ms. Funk agreed but felt it would be simpler to reopen the matter. Mr. Chambless agreed with Ms. Seelig but stated that he was concerned with procedural due process. Ms. Noda agreed with Ms. Seelig and felt that all parties were afforded the same opportunity. From a legal standpoint, she did not believe this was a due process issue. She believed the applicant had an opportunity to speak and the public responded. She did not favor re-opening the proceedings.
Mr. Chambless, Mr. Diamond, and Ms. Funk voted “Aye.” Mr. Muir, Ms. Noda, and Ms. Seelig voted “Nay.” Ms. Arnold, Mr. Daniels, and Ms. McDonough were not present. Mr. Jonas, as chair, voted “Aye.” The motion carried.
Chair Jonas introduced and welcomed Louis Zunguze, the new Planning Director for Salt Lake City. Mr. Zunguze stated that he was happy to be in Salt Lake City and looked forward to working with the Planning Commission and the general population.
Mr. Wilde commented on discussions regarding an increase in the height limit in the M-1 Industrial area from 65 feet to 85 feet which would provide flexibility, specifically with one property where they have been trying to resolve some issues. He requested that the Planning Commission initiate a petition to study the maximum height allowed and to consider increasing the height in the M-1 zone.
Prescott Muir initiated the petition as requested by Mr. Wilde.
LONG RANGE PLANNING ISSUES - Discussion with David Oka, Redevelopment Agency Director
Chair Jonas introduced David Oka, Director of the Redevelopment Agency.
Mr. Oka provided a brief background of his experience. He discussed some of the Redevelopment Agency’s goals. He explained that he was asked to get Main Street up and going, which is the primary goal of the Mayor and the City Council. Recently, funding approval was given by the RDA Board to help complete a deal with KUTV Channel 2 to occupy the ground floor of the Wells Fargo Center. The Channel 2 people are looking at a format similar to the Today Show using Main Street as the backdrop. Mr. Oka believed such projects would help downtown and the redevelopment areas. He stated that he would be coming to the Planning Commission for changes in the sign ordinance to help Channel 2. They plan to use a Jumbotron on the outside with a reader board across the bottom to help with public interaction.
Mr. Oka stated that a major goal for redevelopment agencies is to remove blight and upgrade and clean up neighborhoods. They do not take a holistic approach to neighborhoods but look at projects that might be done by the private sector which may need a little help. This can be done through assembling land or funding. They try to look at projects that will create synergy and give incentives to other developments, and Mr. Oka believed the RDA had been successful in doing so. Some tools they use include eminent domain, which is rarely used, and property taxes collected from the development. He stated that they strictly follow and adhere to the master plan and try not to get into situations where they dictate the market. They also support development that is consistent and harmonious with surrounding existing developments. The agency supports transit-oriented development and walkable communities. The RDA is willing to work with the Planning Commission and other agencies to achieve the goals of building a better community.
Chair Jonas thanked Mr. Oka for meeting with the Planning Commission. He explained that the Planning Commission held a retreat several months ago, and one of the frustrations discussed was a lack of communication between the Planning Commission, the RDA, and the RDA Board which is the City Council. Monthly meetings have been initiated with the City Council which have been helpful in understanding their respective roles. He understood the City Council’s and RDA’s frustration with lack of Planning Commission support on earlier projects, but he believed they were communicating better and that things would improve in the future.
Ms. Funk commented on a previous suggestion that a Planning Commissioner sit on the RDA advisory board so stumbling blocks would be avoided when a project comes to the Planning Commission. By the time a project reaches the Planning Commission, it is almost too late to correct the problems. If Planning Commissioners sat on the advisory board, the issues could be reviewed and corrected before they are finalized. Mr. Oka stated that the RDA is trying to work more closely with the Planning Staff, because they are an important link between the Planning Commission and the agency. He encouraged the Planning Commissioners to contact him at any time to discuss issues.
Chair Jonas asked where the focus is directed besides Main Street and what the Planning Commission could do to help. Mr. Oka replied that a few projects are in the West Capitol Hill area in the commercial node on 500 North and 300 West. He stated that they are having challenges with the Marsh Auto Sales Building. It is in a historic district, and some issues need to be resolved with the Historic Landmarks Commission. He referred to the Morrison Meat Pie property on Reed and 300 West and commented on problems related to the Smoke Shop on the corner, with neighbors complaining that illegal activities are taking place. The agency is willing to assemble the properties for demolition and bring in a developer who would be willing to put in something more conducive to the neighborhood. Mr. Oka stated that they are also looking at housing projects on West Pugsley and more development toward the Gateway. Currently they are looking at development in the area of 900 South and State Street, and the agency will be looking to the Planning Department for help with master planning that area.
Mr. Muir asked if the majority of projects in the West Capitol area are affordable housing. Mr. Oka replied that they are trying to get market rates with an affordable element in the project. He felt that home ownership and condominium-type projects would be best for the area.
Mr. Jonas asked about the remaining life of the RDA. Mr. Oka replied that each redevelopment area has its own life, and they are limited to 25 years. The Central Business District, which includes the main core of downtown, will expire in 2008. They are looking at extending the time because there is much more work to be done in that area.
Mr. Chambless commented on the amount of quality affordable housing in the downtown area and asked if the RDA envisioned other areas suitable for affordable housing to help revitalize Main Street and downtown. Mr. Oka replied that they are talking with a developer about putting 40 units between the Heber Wells buildings and the City Center building on 200 East Street. The developer is willing to make the majority of the units market rate with an affordable component. Mr. Oka believed the range that would sell in downtown was between $120,000 and $160,000, depending on the unit size. An agreement has been entered into to purchase property on State Street between 200 and 300 South over a three-year period. He believed that was a good place for downtown housing, but that project is further down the road.
Ms. Funk asked what would be the earliest time they could anticipate that housing would be constructed and available for purchase or rent. Mr. Oka replied that the projects in the downtown area are two years away and commented that he was unsure if the demand was there now. Ms. Funk did not think the demand was there and was concerned with having it built too soon.
Chair Jonas stated that everyone was interested in seeing more housing and more people living in the downtown area, and he offered the Planning Commission’s help as these projects move forward.
PUBLIC HEARING - Perry’s Hollow Subdivision #3, Mr. Amir Cornell is seeking preliminary subdivision approval of a 0.35-acre lot, located at 1085 East North Bonneville Drive in a Foothill Residential FR-3 zoning district. The Planning Commission is the approval body for all foothill subdivisions.
Ms. Gasparik noted that before the meeting each Commissioner received a copy of the staff recommendation and conditions that should have been included in the staff report. The Staff recommended that the Planning Commission approve this foothill subdivision based on the staff report and the findings of fact and conditions of approval.
Chair Jonas asked Ms. Gasparik to review the proposal and the related issues. Ms. Gasparik explained that the parcel consists of 0.35 acres that was originally in the Perry’s Hollow subdivision and was removed by the Planning Commission back in 1983. The applicant recently purchased the property, and the Planning Commission previously held an issues-only hearing to identify issues on the property. At that time, the Nielsen’s requested that fencing not prohibit wildlife from passing through the property. There was also discussion about access to the Bonneville Trail which has been accessed through this private property. It was suggested that signage be placed to direct trail users to the designated trailhead area. A third issue related to the architecture of the home. Other issues include a letter from Lynn Pace explaining that this item was removed from the November 7 agenda due to a conflict between the Site Development Ordinance and the Foothill Ordinance, and the Planning Commission is being directed to disregard the planned development review process as being necessary to reduce the minimum lot size. A planned development in this zone requires a minimum 5-acre site, and this parcel is 0.35 acres. The applicant has agreed to comply with all requirements, but is asking for special consideration as to the transitional area required between the rear of the house and the un-buildable area restriction. Chair Jonas clarified that the Planning Commission has addressed the issue of the property having less than five acres, but it has not been addressed by the City Council yet. Ms. Gasparik requested that the Planning Commission read the ordinance and exclude that portion of the sentence.
Mr. Diamond asked what precedent this exception would set for other cases in the FR Foothill Zone. Mr. Pace recalled that a minimum 10-foot distance was required with an average of 20 feet. Mr. Wheelwright noted that the averaging requirement has been in the zoning ordinance since 1994. They have had some experience administering the Foothill regulations, and they require non-buildable areas on lots with steep slopes. They have platted the lots showing the non-buildable area, but people have built their house right against the non-buildable area, causing some damage to the non-buildable area, and people have been asking to re-grade the area to control drainage around the house. The ordinance was changed to prohibit building up to the no-build line. The ordinance has two parts; one that is applied as part of platting the lot and one requires that the average building setback be 20 feet from the non-buildable area. The 20-foot setback can only be determined in the site plan, and the Planning Commission has not been involved in administering that. The permit staff determines whether the building is set back an average of 20 feet. Mr. Wheelwright explained that, in this case, because the subdivision approval has been packaged with the building proposed for this unique lot, they are at the point of determining the average setback of the building. After working with the designer, it was determined that, if no portion of the house were to come within 20 feet of the lot line, there would be a building depth of approximately 10 feet, and the utility of that would be extremely limited. Therefore, it was suggested that the applicant will not build some of the width of the house (otherwise possible) in exchange for the interpretation of average setback. Regarding the omission of language in the ordinance, Mr. Wheelwright felt it was a typographical exclusion, because it is included in all other districts. The applicant was informed that the City does intend to apply that standard because of the typographical error, and the City has initiated a petition as part of fine tuning to correct that error.
Based on the background provided by Mr. Wheelwright, Mr. Pace felt there was a difference between saying this does not comply but they will approve it and regarding it as substantial compliance. Oftentimes there may be a setback requirement of 10 feet, but what is built on the lot is at 9'6". The City considers this substantial compliance with meeting the 10-foot setback and allows the building to be finished. However, if an applicant presented plans with a nine-foot setback, the City would require ten feet. Mr. Pace stated that the Planning Commission is obligated to follow the ordinance, and there is a slight discrepancy between the text of the ordinance and what is believed was intended. In addition, an ordinance amendment was initiated to review whether to continue to process foothill subdivisions as planned developments. Mr. Pace believed the Planning Commission had the latitude to make the discretionary decisions discussed. If the Planning Commission does not believe the compromise substantially complies with the ordinance, they should not approve it.
Mr. Diamond asked about the encroachment area indicated on the east end of the site map, the dotted line referred to as offset, and the patio shown as going beyond the setback area. Mr. Wheelwright explained that patio grade changes are allowed within the transition area, and the concept is that the setback is for buildings on the side and rear. Limited ground use is allowed in a setback area but not a structure. He noted that the Planning Commission has the discretion to decide whether the patio use is appropriate. In the transition area between the non-buildable line and the building, porches, decks, and on-grade patios could be allowed.
Amir Cornell, the applicant, stated that he has lived in Salt Lake for 28 years and in this neighborhood for 5-1/2 years. Two years ago he purchased this property, and the City told him he must follow an ordinance to build his home. He was informed that this was an unusual property and that he should find an architect who could design a house to work with the property. In the last two years, he and the architect have had 29 meetings with Ms. Gasparik and Mr. Wheelwright trying to find a way to make this property work. Mr. Cornell stated that his property is currently being used by bicyclists, even though they could access the Bonneville Trail at any time (from the trailhead on Richland Drive). He identified problems that could be resolved if he were allowed to develop his property. He reported that he had contacted six of his seven neighbors, and they all supported him. In 2001, he attended the Avenues Community Council meetings, and Richard Smiley, who was chairman at the time, wrote a letter of approval. One of his neighbors expressed concern about wildlife, and Mr. Cornell had assured him that he had no intention of putting up a fence. He noted that he had built another house in the neighborhood six years ago, which was too big, and he wanted to build one about half that size on this property.
Mr. Diamond recalled his comment from the September meeting about the design and its relationship to the site and context. He noted that the proposal presented this evening shows exactly the same drawings, and he had the same concerns about how the house is fitting on the hillside. He believed the design of the house was combative with the environment. Building a structure on the lot would be a good thing, as it would move the bikes to the trailhead and keep them from going behind other properties. However, he believed more care should be given to the design of the house and that the design should be subordinate to the environment.
Greg Larson, the designer, stated that when he started the design of this project, he met with Ms. Gasparik and Mr. Wheelwright to discuss the parameters and concerns related to foothill homes. They developed a plan that would work within the footprint parameters and two or three exterior elevation concepts with the intent of obtaining feedback from Ms. Gasparik and Mr. Wheelwright. Their reaction was that any of the elevations would be appropriate as long as the applicant met the requirements. It then became a matter of what the owner wanted. Mr. Larson noted that this home was designed for the owner, not based on conditions for a Planning Commission recommendation. Mr. Larson stated that he understood Mr. Diamond’s concerns and that he would prefer a flat roof. However, Mr. Cornell prefers a home with gables and a pitched roof. Mr. Larson stated that the design meets all the requirements for height limitations, setbacks, and grade changes. The plan has not been through plan check review, but he was confident that it would comply.
Mr. Diamond clarified that the flat roof was not the issue. He recalled that discussion at the September meeting identified the need for an architectural subcommittee for foothill properties, and this was a good opportunity to form that subcommittee. The minutes attached to the staff report verify that discussion and the comment from Stephen Goldsmith that the subcommittee be established. Mr. Diamond did not believe the design was appropriate for the site even though it meets all the guidelines. He also had concerns about maximizing development on the site as it relates to the footprint. He suggested to the Commissioners that when they look at these types of properties in the future, they should help direct the Planning Staff to work with the environment and be responsible to the neighbors.
Chair Jonas stated that he appreciated Mr. Diamond’s concern, but after 29 meetings, it seemed inappropriate to request those changes now. It has been pointed out that in the future the Planning Commission should initiate a subcommittee on these foothill issues, which should alleviate the problem of having an applicant spend a lot of time and money on something that might be unacceptable to the Planning Commission.
Mr. Diamond asked about the next step in the preliminary subdivision approval process. Ms. Gasparik replied that preliminary approval is given at a public hearing, and the final plat is an administrative approval. The applicant’s engineer will prepare a plat which will be signed off by all City department heads. They must also sign subdivision agreements and bond for the required improvements, and the City Attorney’s office will review the plat. Ms. Gasparik stated that she would review the plat for the Planning Department to be sure that the Planning Commission approval date and conditions of approval are on the plat to assure information is provided to future owners. Mr. Diamond verified with Ms. Gasparik that this was the last time the Planning Commission would see this item. Mr. Wheelwright noted that, in the past, the Planning Commission has sometimes required that the final plat in foothill situations come back for Final approval, and the Commissioners have that discretion with this application.
Chair Jonas opened the public hearing.
James DiSario, a resident on the lot adjacent to Mr. Cornell’s at 1099 North Bonneville, distributed a letter addressing significant issues. He stated that the slope restriction zoning ordinance was established to prevent development on small lots with steep slopes. It appeared that Mr. Cornell’s property was what the ordinance was designed to prevent from being developed. The ordinance requires a 12,000-square-foot buildable area, which means the slope must be less than 30% for that 12,000 square feet. According to records from the previous meeting, Mr. Cornell’s property has 1,700 square feet of buildable area, and the proposed house size is 1,700 square feet. If this proposal were approved, it would be a defacto nullification of the ordinance and would allow any property in the zone to be built on. Mr. DiSario stated that there are also secondary concerns. The design problems have been referred to as a non-typical but minimally functional house on this difficult lot. The historical trail issue persists because the trail at the end of the street is not appropriate for bicycles, and Mr. DiSario believed cyclists would continue to use private property between houses. He believed development of this property would add traffic to the neighborhood, because people who have parked along the open stretch of land to use the historic trail will now drive through the neighborhood where there is no parking. He stated that non-compliance with setbacks is a concern for a house that occupies 100% of the buildable area. If the Planning Commission intends to nullify the ordinance, Mr. DiSario asked that it first go through the planned development review process. Mr. Muir asked if Mr. DiSario was arguing for a smaller house on that parcel or no house at all. Mr. DiSario replied that the ordinance is clear that a property such as this one would not be appropriate for building a house.
Robert Gunther, a real estate broker, stated that he was the agent for the owner of the property when Mr. Cornell purchased it. Mr. Gunther stated that throughout this process he has had a sign on the property, and he disclosed that Mrs. DiSario contacted him about purchasing the property. He told Mrs. DiSario that the property was under contract, and if something changed he would speak with her about purchasing the property. He stated that he hoped Mr. DiSario’s comments did not come from their desire to purchase the property themselves.
Lynn Stillman, a neighbor, stated that he only received notice of the hearing yesterday. He stated that he wholeheartedly concurred with Mr. DiSario’s remarks. Mr. Stillman stated that he built his house in 1993 when it was one of the few houses built on the street. When he purchased the lot, he was presented with reasonable restrictions placed on his building, and he built a single-floor house with a flat roof. The problems on the down slope area were significant, even though it was not steep. While building his home, several other homes were built, and variances were requested in nearly every instance. He believed each variance chipped away at the restrictions of the foothill building zone. He stated that he would like to see the slope restriction enforced and believed it was important to the neighborhood and to people and animals who use that part of the City. He believed that people who seek to build in a neighborhood should abide by the City’s restrictions and others who participate in the process. Mr. Stillman agreed with the traffic issues raised by Mr. DiSario. He did not believe a house should be built on that particular slope because it is extremely steep and narrow. There is no sidewalk on that side of the street and no room for the appropriate use. Mr. Stillman commented that the plats which are presented and approved are seldom what is built, and although as-built drawings may be submitted, something always comes up later.
Wayne Petty, a resident at 1016 North Bonneville Drive, stated that he had not studied the ordinance referred to this evening but wanted to speak to the notion from another side. If an applicant makes a proposal that meets all the requirements for development, the applicant should be granted an approval. There is a history of sensitivity about the foothills, and he wanted that to continue on an administrative level and in the neighborhood. He knew that the trail was to be abandoned, and the City took the position that it was not to be used as it invades the privacy of the homes immediately east of this property. An alternative trailhead was built at the end of Richland Drive which was to provide a replacement access. Mr. Petty stated that he appreciated the care the Planning Commission was taking with this proposal and reiterated his opinion that, if the applicant can satisfy the requirements, approval should be given.
Mr. Cornell stated that he was concerned about the slope when he purchased the property. At that time, the property was surveyed, and it was determined that the slope was the same grade as the slope he had built his house on five years previously. That was one reason he proceeded with work to build on the property. Mr. Cornell stated that Mrs. DiSario asked him over a year ago if he would be interested in selling them this property, and he told her the property would be too small for a large family. Mrs. DiSario mentioned that she had a friend who was interested in buying the property, and she had an architect who could design a home. He told Mrs. DiSario that he was interested in building a smaller home for himself because he liked the neighborhood.
Chair Jonas closed the public hearing.
Mr. Diamond asked Mr. Wheelwright to address Mr. DiSario’s comment that the ordinance prohibits development on Mr. Cornell’s lot. Mr. Wheelwright stated that he did not believe the ordinance prohibited development. Ms. Funk noted that Mr. DiSario states that the ordinance requires a 12,000-square-foot minimum lot. Mr. Wheelwright replied that the letter from Lynn Pace contained in the staff report addresses that issue. Chair Jonas noted that the Planning Commission decided that the proviso that it must go through planned development which previously required 5 acres was also unrealistic and did not apply to a number of situations.
Mr. Pace noted that his letter dated January 15, 2003, was drafted with respect to the issue in general and not specifically to this property. When the City’s foothill ordinance was revised, it stated that the un-developable area of a lot cannot be included in meeting the minimum requirement for the lot area unless the Planning Commission approves it through a planned development. What no one brought to his attention at the time was that the planned development process was intended to require a minimum of two lots. The FR-3 zone requires a minimum of five acres, and the FP zone requires a minimum of 32 acres. When he became aware of that, his concern was that in the foothills it most likely impossible to find a 16-acre lot that does not have some un-developable land. If both of those ordinances were applied and laid on top of each other, it would create 16-acre lots, but they would not be flat enough to build on. Mr. Pace stated that the purpose of his letter was to explain that those two ordinance taken together in the wrong setting might create a takings argument. A petition has been initiated to amend the ordinance, and in the interim he recommended that the ordinance be applied saying that area cannot be included in your lot unless it is approved by the Planning Commission. This means that the minimum acreage of the planned development does not necessarily have to be met. The purpose in doing that is to protect someone who might have plenty of flat land to build on but not enough flat acreage to meet the minimum lot size. Mr. Pace noted that the Planning Commission has looked at the facts, history, and topography, and they have been on the field trip. It is up to them to decide whether it is appropriate in this case, and they do not need to be bound by the five-acre minimum of the planned development process.
Chair Jonas stated that he did not believe that allowing a home on this property would slap the ordinance in the face as suggested by Mr. DiSario. The Planning Commission is bound by the ordinance, but they have the ability to make amendments where appropriate in individual cases. After visiting the site on the field trip, it did not appear that this lot was appreciably different than a number of other lots on the street, including the applicant’s current home.
Mr. Pace explained that there is an interplay of two ordinances, the zoning ordinance drafted in 1995 and the site development ordinance amended in 2001. The concept behind the site development ordinance was to give public notice as to what areas are generally buildable and what areas are not. The foothills are very sensitive, and for that reason the zoning ordinance was designed to require every foothill subdivision to receive case-by-case approval by the Planning Commission.
Mr. Muir took exception to the applicant’s argument that this is a modest house. It has five bedrooms, not to mention what is planned for the basement. However, he was not sure it would be in the best interest of the neighborhood for the site to be underbuilt. He believed the plan complied with the ordinance, and he was not prepared to deny it.
Ms. Noda agreed with Mr. Muir. She understood Mr. Diamond’s concerns, and the fact that the applicant went through so many meetings points to the benefit of forming a subcommittee when dealing with homes proposed in the foothills. She believed the plan substantially complied and was willing to follow the Staff’s recommendation.
Mr. Chambless asked Mr. Pace if he believed the plan comprised 100% of the footprint and asked if it would not have to go before the Board of Adjustment. Mr. Pace replied that the Planning Commission should consider the minimum acreage for the lot size and whether the property compromise and modified house footprint complies with the ordinance. He explained that the Planning Commission is obligated to apply the ordinance, and if they feel that this plan substantially meets the ordinance, they are free to approve it. If they feel it does not meet the ordinance, they can deny it and Mr. Cornell would have to redesign the house.
Motion for Perry’s Hollow Subdivision #3
Based upon the findings of fact set forth in the staff report, Laurie Noda moved to approve the Cornell subdivision with the eight conditions of approval set forth by Staff, including the Staff’s recommendation that the City allow construction to begin prior to recording the final plat to accommodate the owner’s construction schedule. Prescott Muir seconded the motion.
Findings of Fact
A. The proposed subdivision is in compliance with the Avenues Community Master Plan.
B. The Avenues Community Council, Chair Richard Smiley, has told Planning Staff that they support the proposal.
C. The proposed subdivision is in compliance with the Subdivision Zoning Ordinance.
D. The proposed foothill subdivision is in compliance with the Site Development Ordinance.
E. The proposed subdivision is in compliance with all Zoning Ordinance requirements of the FR-3 zone, using the square foot for square foot of buildable area averaging method to determine the 20 feet average building setback from the non-buildable area line. The proposed compromise of 333 sq. ft. buildable area for 244 square feet of area required for the average 20' setback is an acceptable trade that Staff believes is in compliance with the intent of the ordinance.
F. The subdivision plat delineates the development limit line and the buildable area, which is in conformance with the ordinance requirements (see attached preliminary plat).
G. All City Departments/Divisions have reviewed the proposed subdivision and recommend approval subject to the conditions listed in this staff report and attached letters and memos.
H. While the petition is being processed to review and amend the foothill zoning ordinance and the site development ordinance, City staff recommends that the Planning Commission interpret and apply section 18.28.30.B.c of the site development ordinance to delete the requirement for planned development approval, as follows:
- Undeveloped area shall not be used to determine the minimum lot size as required by the underlying zone, unless specifically approved by the Planning Commission.
I. The Planning Commission finds that in general the proposed development is in compliance with all applicable standards of the Foothill Protection reports and requirements of the City’s Site Development Ordinance as identified and discussed in this report and as discussed at the hearing.
Conditions of Approval
1. Planning Commission design review conditions as may arise from the public hearing and commission discussion.
2. The applicants needs to install directional trail signage and revegetate the trail as identified in this staff report.
3. The Commission limits fencing as identified in the foothill ordinance.
4. Public Utilities wants a note on the final plat that no new trees are allowed to be planted outside of the property line limits because there is a water main located approximately 2 feet behind the curb line.
5. An open space and vegetation easement must be dedicated to Salt Lake City for the non-buildable area of the property. This must also be designated on the final plat that will be recorded at Salt Lake County Recorder’s Office.
6. The final plat and all development on the subject property must be in conformance with the geotechnical report prepared by ASMEC Earth and Environmental, Inc., and must comply with the recommendations and development approval requirements.
7. Final plat approval is delegated to the Planning Director or his designee.
8. Subject to all other conditions of Division/Departments and relevant Codes and ordinances (see attached letters/memos).
Ms. Funk, Mr. Muir, Ms. Noda, and Ms. Seelig voted “Aye.” Mr. Chambless and Mr. Diamond voted “Nay.” Ms. Arnold, Mr. Daniels, and Ms. McDonough were not present. Jeff Jonas, as chair, did not vote. The motion carried.
PUBLIC HEARING - Petition No. 400-02-35, by Joseph S. Knowlton requesting that the zoning map for two parcels of property located at approximately 1665 East Kensington Avenue be amended from Open Space “OS” to a Single Family Residential “R-1/5000" Classification.
Mr. Wilde disclosed that David Broadbent had done legal work for him and his family in the past, and their last association with him was several years ago. After learning last week that Mr. Broadbent represents Joseph Knowlton, he conferred with the City Attorney’s office, and it was determined that his association with Mr. Broadbent did not conflict with the Staff’s decision or Mr. Wilde’s ability to participate in this matter.
Planner Greg Mikolash reviewed the petition as contained in the staff report. He referred to a map in the staff report drafted in 1994 which allocated the area of the two properties to be zoned OS from R-2 during the Citywide rewrite in 1995. The property owner contends that this zoning was a mistake because the properties are privately owned. The applicant is also concerned that he was not properly notified of the rezone. The owner, Joseph Knowlton, is requesting that the City administratively handle the mapping error without going through the public hearing process. Mr. Mikolash stated that the City cannot determine whether the parcels were rezoned as a mapping error. Staff could not speak to the intent of the City Council in 1995 and whether they knew the properties were being zoned as open space. Mr. Mikolash noted that in 1995, the only notification required was through the newspaper. In addition, a courtesy notification was sent regarding a public hearing for this blanket re-write. Mr. Mikolash provided a brief background on the diversion dam and flood plain and used a contour survey map to review engineering data on the flood plain. He explained that the Staff does not know exactly where the survey line is or where the 100-year flood plain exists on the properties.
Brad Stewart from Salt Lake City Public Utilities provided background on the FEMA (Federal Emergency Management Agency) and flood rules. In 1968 FEMA started to address development in flood prone areas with the purpose of trying to identify where those areas exist and what to do with construction and development in those areas. Another component of their study was how to provide flood insurance to these properties. In 1983, Salt Lake City completed a study of all potential flood areas within the Salt Lake City boundary, and a map was drawn showing all the floods expected once every hundred years. In 1983, the City Council adopted ordinance language approved by FEMA on how to deal with new construction and existing properties. In exchange for adopting that ordinance, the City bought into the flood insurance program, and properties existing within the identified flood plains received subsidized insurance rates for flood insurance in those zones. The FEMA report and City ordinance contain language regarding exceptions and design criteria for building in the flood zones to address existing properties and commercial construction. Residential construction is precluded below the base flood elevation or the 100-year flood plain. He attempted to transfer the FEMA flood information onto a map showing the topography of the Knowltons’ property but had to make several assumptions, which makes it only an estimate. It would take an engineer with flood data and survey instruments on the property to arrive at a precise line that describes the non-buildable area on that property. Such numbers are available and accurate and were validated in the early 1990's with the FEMA Flood Data.
Mr. Chambless asked Mr. Stewart if the City Council adopted the city ordinance (Floodplain Hazard Ordinance) before or after the 1983 floods. Mr. Stewart was unsure of the exact month of adoption, but the language was suggested by FEMA, and modifications were made to fit Salt Lake City’s conditions. The changes were submitted to FEMA for approval and taken to the City Council for adoption. Changes have been made once since 1983, and any changes must be reviewed by FEMA. Mr. Chambless asked if the flood conditions of June 1983 were a factor in this decision. Mr. Stewart explained that the study was a 15-year study that started well before the flooding of 1983. The flood in June 1983 was a coincidence but was a motivator to obtain flood insurance.
Chair Jonas asked if facilities that have gone into the park have affected the existing flood plain. Mr. Stewart replied that nothing habitable and nothing mechanical is allowed at or below the flood hazard elevations. Chair Jonas confirmed with Mr. Stewart that the construction standards do not apply to new residential construction. Chair Jonas asked if someone could build a new residential structure in the flood plain if the lowest floor, including the basement, were elevated above the base flood elevation, which is the 100-year line. Mr. Stewart replied that they could if the habitable floor is at or above that elevation. In the case of the Knowlton property, there is not a gravity sewer available to the property because it sits so much lower in elevation than the sewer on Kensington. A sewer lift station will be needed, and the bottom of the lift station must be above the flood elevation, which will cause the houses to sit a few feet higher than they otherwise would.
Ms. Funk asked if the fill previously placed on the property affects the flood plain and if it was considered stable. Mr. Stewart stated that he could not speak to the stability of the fill, and a geo-technical study would be required. The fill does reduce the volume of the flood plain but probably does not affect it greatly. Under today’s rules, no additional fill is allowed in floodplain corridors. Mr. Stewart felt that scraping out the fill would do more damage than leaving it in place.
Mr. Muir referred to a subdivision drawing from Great Basin Engineering in the staff report and clarified that the subdivision is not before the Planning Commission this evening. He felt that including the drawing in the staff report was misleading to the public, and he wanted them to understand that the subdivision was not a topic for discussion.
Mr. Diamond asked if other properties exist that share the same zoning issues. Mr. Mikolash replied that these properties are fairly unique. The Staff reviewed open space properties that may have been along other riparian corridors, and there are a few, but they are not developable because of their size and orientation. This property is unique because it can be built upon with the exception of the flood plain issue.
Ms. Seelig asked if a permit was issued for the fill. Mr. Mikolash stated that a permit would be necessary, but the only records he had available were the building services records, and he could not find one. He also added that he was not sure if a permit was applied for the fill – though required.
Mr. Muir stated that, normally when an applicant comes to the Planning Commission to plat a new subdivision, land-locked parcels like these with no direct connection to a public right-of-way are not permitted. The Commission could insist that the property be re-platted as part of the rezone to compensate for the land-locked configuration. Mr. Wheelwright explained that the City does not control recording of deeds at the County Recorder’s Office, nor does the County Recorder insure that a deed complies with local government land use regulations. Therefore, parcels are created without approval or knowledge. The control point in State law and City ordinance is building permit review when the Staff compares the ownership lot record and insures that it complies with zoning. At that point, they evaluate and sort out those lots considered to be legal non-conforming, those that have gone through an approval process, or those where an approval process is needed. Mr. Wheelwright explained that as part of building permit regulation, they find sites that consist of multiple parcels, and part of the building permit process is to force those parcels to be combined into one tax ID number. Mr. Muir asked why the Staff was not suggesting that these properties be consolidated into one lot. Mr. Wheelwright explained that they are not into developability approval. Due to the Knowltons’ request, they are only forwarding a re-zone issue to the Planning Commission and City Council. Mr. Muir asked if consolidation could be a condition of approval. Mr. Wheelwright stated that the City also has a priority to not split-zone zoned parcels. They try to make the zone boundaries follow the lot and vice versa.
Chair Jonas felt that Mr. Wheelwright implied in his comments that recording these deeds may have been improper. Mr. Wheelwright replied that the City did not approve the deeds, and no subdivision approval was given which is required by State and City law. Chair Jonas stated that he understood the parcels were not part of any previous subdivision and only existed as metes and bounds descriptions.
Mr. Mikolash reviewed the Staff’s recommendations contained in the staff report.
Joseph Knowlton, the applicant, requested that his time for comment be given to David Broadbent, an attorney he had retained to represent him. Mr. Broadbent stated that he had reviewed the staff report, and he felt it was important to go back to 1995 when the Knowltons’ property was changed from residential zoning to open space zoning. The Staff had admitted that the inquiry taking place tonight was not undertaken at that time. A review of the Staff’s record indicated that there was no examination of thoughtful process or other consideration. The Knowltons first learned of the zone change while trying to sell their property. They contacted Mr. Buhler from the City Council and contacted the Mayor’s office stating that the zoning was a mistake and that the property was probably thought of as part of Wasatch Hollow Park. An administration fix was suggested. If it was implied that the Knowltons were trying to avoid a public hearing, it was because this was considered to be a mistake that could be fixed administratively. However, the City was determined to go through a more lengthy process to resolve the issue. Mr. Broadbent noted that the Knowltons learned of the rezone recently and had not had an opportunity to review or respond. He stated that the issue is whether the zoning is correct and whether the change was correct. The Knowlton’s would like to return to the zoning that existed prior to 1995 or to something compatible with the surrounding neighborhood. Mr. Broadbent believes much of the discussion in the staff report would be more properly addressed in terms of assessing the viability of a particular project when presented. He noted that the drawing referred to by Mr. Muir is a concept drawing prepared by the party who wants to buy the property from the Knowltons. He stated that the property owner believes he was dealt an injustice when the zoning that would have permitted development was taken away. If the Knowltons are successful in selling the property, they did not want to go through the proper building permit and approval process with the cloud of open space zoning. Mr. Broadbent stated that the City does not have a practice of designating developable property as open space. Placing an open space designation on property that can be developed takes away from a property owner’s valuable and important rights. At some point the issue of developability should be addressed, but not in the context of showing a particular project at the same time. The discussion about flood plain evidences that the property can be developed even if it is within the flood line. Mr. Broadbent referred to a letter from Great Basin Engineering addressing the flood plain issue. At the time development would be proposed, the Knowltons acknowledge that identification of the flood plain corridor should be accomplished. Great Basin, which has been working on the property, has performed field work to determine the elevations of the flow line of Emigration Creek and the flood control structure located down stream. Mr. Broadbent turned the remainder of his time over to Ed James and Randy Green.
Mr. James, a principle architect in the firm of EPJ Associates, stated that he was asked to look at several factors as to the property’s viability. In his experience in Sandy and Draper in sensitive hill overlay areas that include flood plain, slope, and seismic issues, he believes this property had realistic solutions that could be developed through engineering techniques to fit within the City’s ordinances.
Randy Green, a resident at 1459 Emerson Avenue, stated that he is a registered architect and real estate developer. He stated that he came voluntarily this evening because he felt the work done in 1995 was inappropriate and unfair to the Knowltons. Their land is developable in his opinion, and they had lost half the value of their land with the down-zone. Mr. Green believed it was inappropriate to allow the OS zone to remain. He stated that a competent developer and responsible designers could develop the land in a way that would be beneficial to the neighborhood.
Chair Jonas opened the public hearing.
Beth Bowman, Chair of the Wasatch Hollow Community Council, stated that the Community Council heard from the potential developer over a period of several meetings, and the first time it was presented as a development. She was unsure about the process of only addressing the issue of the rezone. Since most of these cases depend on the development, the developer’s plan makes a difference. She stated that a lot of work goes into drafting the master plans, and they should have some power or purpose. The East Bench area master plan identifies the Emigration Corridor, and she understood that it was general and did not specifically address private property. However, she believed it would behoove the City to look at these issues when it comes to zoning. In addition, there was some question as to whether the open space zone was legal, but if it is, the City should stand behind that decision.
Lynne Olson, representing the Sugar House Community Council, and chair of the trails and parks committee, stated that the committee studied this issue for several months before it was discussed at a Community Council meeting earlier this month. The Community Council decided to oppose the zoning change based on policies that have been articulated in the Sugar House community master plan, which include the need to protect sensitive areas, particularly those that have special habitat qualities and that would affect water quality. The trails and parks committee and the entire Council voted to oppose this petition for rezoning. Ms. Olson stated that the Knowltons invited the committee to visit their property, and they had an opportunity to walk the site and see the preliminary development plans. This provided a better picture of what was happening but confirmed their opinion that this is a special place. Standing on the edge of Emigration Creek enjoying the wildlife and understanding the connection to the open space also confirmed that this special place deserves special protection. Ms. Olson noted that with the population growing in Salt Lake, open space is scarce. Riparian open space is even more scarce, and it is sad to offer any of it for development.
Kent Alderman, a resident at 1681 Emerson, stated that the zoning on this property should remain intact and the zoning map amendment request should be denied. He noted that he grew up in this neighborhood and has lived there much of his life. He believed the staff report supported the existing zoning. He noted that the enabling statute for zoning comes from the State of Utah and requires municipalities to develop plans. This plan was developed for the Planning Commission and adopted by the City Council and identifies this area as open space. The main master plan was implemented further by the 1995 rezoning, and this property was properly zoned at that time with proper notice. Mr. Alderman commented on the presumption of validity of the actions taken by the Planning Commission and the City Council.
Robin Marcus, a resident at 1643 Kensington, echoed Ms. Olson’s sentiments. She understood that the value of this property depended on the developability of the property. She stated that she and others have made purchasing and remodeling decisions for their homes based on this being zoned open space. She felt there were two issues, one that the subject property is currently zoned open space, and the other was based on a previous statement by Mr. Wilde that public property zoned open space is zoned as such because it has been deemed undevelopable. She stated that was what they had all been led to believe. She stated that she felt so strongly about living adjacent to this open space that she has invested substantial resources in her property. The land is a riparian area, and she encouraged the Planning Commission to explore every opportunity to find alternatives to rezoning this property.
Chair Jonas referred to Ms. Marcus’s reference to a statement made by Mr. Wilde and clarified that this property is not public property but rather private property that was zoned open space. Ms. Marcus stated that she understood this was private property, and her comment came from the staff report. Mr. Wilde agreed that he made that comment, but this interpretation was not his intent. In the correspondence he sent, the statement would have been that legal justification for open space zoning is a determination that it is not developable. Ms. Marcus reiterated her comment that people in the neighborhood have invested in their properties based on the land being zoned open space.
David Thompson, a resident at 1638 Kensington, did not wish to speak but submitted the following written comment which was read by Chair Jonas. Mr. Thompson understood that the property was rezoned as open space because it was undevelopable. Not only is it in a flood plain, but he had invested in his property based on the open space zoning. He chose his property and continued to develop it because of its adjacency to a riparian area. Few portions of streams in the valley are above ground, providing exceptional habitat for birds and other wildlife that help put a damper on urban noise and density. Losing this open space could be a shame and irreversible. If the zoning change to open space was a mistake, that mistake should have been identified and challenged at the time, not when the Knowltons are leaving, having enjoyed the open space while there.
Tim Komlos, a resident at 1664 Emerson, opposed the rezoning. He stated that a person might want to know what good open space is in a neighborhood. The answer is that animals depend on it, residents enjoy it, and the value of the property around it is enhanced by its presence. He explained that Emigration Creek is an important riparian corridor that Mr. Knowlton has loved for nearly 40 years. Mr. Knowlton started caring for the property when it was common to see wildlife wander from the mountains. Last week Mr. Knowlton told him the creek was dead. He agreed that it probably did not look the same as when Mr. Knowlton first moved in, but last summer he and his children had tried to catch the fish they saw in the creek. It is a riparian habitat because it supports a diversity of animals in their natural environment. In the nine years he has lived there, they have seen bobcat, porcupine, deer, and coyote come down the corridor on their way to other habitable areas. Mr. Komlos believed this green belt was important to the animals and to those who live and work in Salt Lake City because it gives them a chance to be close to nature. Mr. Komlos stated that it is too late for cities in the East Europe, Japan, and other places around the world, but it is not too late to preserve open space in the West. In Salt Lake City, with its close proximity to the mountains, there is a unique opportunity to preserve the wild heritage their children can cherish as they grow old.
Allison Leishman, a resident at 1835 East 900 South, stated that she currently has this property under contract pending the zoning and development issues. She stated that she plans to live there and she would not propose any development she would not want to live in herself. She believed the development she would propose would be an asset to the community. She has no intention of ripping out trees and wanted the area to remain as natural as possible. She noted that the Wasatch Hollow Community Council commented on a meeting where everyone voted against this petition. She reported that she attended a meeting and presented her idea in August and held a special meeting at her home to address any concerns or issues. After speaking with Ms Bowman, she was informed that there was no reason for her to attend another community council meeting because they would not be voting on the issue. She was not notified of another meeting and later learned that the Council held a meeting in October and voted without all sides being represented. Ms. Leishman commented that a City planning meeting was held without notifying her or the Knowltons. She believed that, if public forums are held on this issue, it was important to include everyone. She would have no problem if people had other issues and wanted to compensate the Knowltons for the difference in the value of their property, but no one has come up with any other solutions. She believed the Knowltons deserved to receive proper value for their property and should be compensated for the land they have taken care of for 40 years. Chair Jonas asked about the planning meeting for which Ms. Leishman did not receive notice. Ms. Leishman replied that a meeting was held on September 25, and she heard about it because someone in the neighborhood mentioned it to Mrs. Knowlton. Mrs. Knowlton called the realtor so he could attend. Chair Jonas explained that the meeting was not a public hearing and did not require public notice. Ms. Leishman noted that the Wasatch Hollow Community Council was a public hearing, and she was not notified of the meeting that was held when they voted on the rezone.
Michael Bradley, a resident at 1246 East Roosevelt Avenue, stated that he is the broker who represented Allison Leishman in the contract with the Knowltons. He felt that people were misinformed about the open space. He explained that this is private property which is fenced, and the public does not use the property. Open space is generally designated for parks, golf courses, and cemeteries and not designated for privately owned property. If the property is non-developable, that is an issue that should take place in a development and planning meeting with Staff. Zoning is a separate issue, and the Knowltons’ property should be designated as residential zoning. Mr. Bradley discussed the actions of the Wasatch Hollow Community Council and not informing them of the voting meeting. He noted that the open space adjacent to everyone’s home is the 12-acre Wasatch Hollow Park.
Penny Green, a resident at 1459 Emerson Avenue, did not wish to speak but submitted the following comment read by Chair Jonas. Ms. Green favored development of three homes on the property and supported returning the zoning to R-1/5000.
Dan Duggleby, a resident at 1650 East Kensington, felt strongly that this rezone should not be allowed to proceed. He believed there may be evidence to support that this zoning was not a mistake, and he had provided detailed communication with Mr. Wilde. In talking with the Planning Commissioners, they were aware that private properties were being considered for zoning to open space. They also unanimously stated that it would be difficult to believe that this was a zoning mistake. He felt that the Knowltons had adequate opportunity to know about the zoning when it occurred since it was a lengthy public process. All legal notifications were made, and courtesy notices were sent out. Mr. Duggleby questioned whether the noticing mattered. If the appropriate zoning classification is open space, it makes no difference. If the staff report is correct and this property is not developable, the appropriate zoning designation is open space. It is in a riparian designated corridor in a sensitive area of the City and should be kept that way. Mr. Duggleby stated that if the Planning Commission contemplates returning this open space to residential, because it is not developable anyway, they have already heard testimony that the next battle will be over a site plan to build houses in the flood plain. He urged the Planning Commission to head off the fight now.
Andrew Briefer, a resident at 1575 South 1600 East, expressed opposition to the rezone. His concerns were the precedent this might set with regard to other parcels designated as open space and his value of the open space which was a significant factor when he purchased his property. He believed the zoning accurately represented the values of the community, and the Knowltons had shared those values in the stewardship of the land. It seemed that, as they leave the community, they are willing to compromise those values. Mr. Briefer urged the Planning Commission to deny the request to rezone and to maintain the open space zone designation in honor of the Planning Commission’s historic efforts to accurately represent the community’s values.
Amy Geroso, a resident at 1650 Kensington Avenue, opposed a zoning change from open space to residential. She stated that the Knowltons have been friends and neighbors over the past 10 years, and she would like to see them receive fair compensation for the value of their property. However, the property was only on the market for a matter of days before there was conversation with the developer. Ms. Geroso hoped the Knowltons would find an individual who would value their home and land for what it is, a quiet and peaceful open place with trees along a stream and park. She stated that she and her daughter spend time several days a week at Wasatch Hollow Park, and she and other parents oppose development along the stream and borders of the park. She acknowledged the effort the City went through to establish the open space master plan and believed it was invaluable to the neighbors and the ecosystem it protects. She urged the Planning Commission to sustain this natural setting for the good of the neighborhood and the community.
Paula Pinkham, a resident at 1800 Logan Avenue, did not wish to speak but submitted the following comments read by Chair Jonas. Ms. Pinkham opposed rezoning of this property. The open space is used and appreciated by many in the area, including herself, her family, and her neighbors. She noted that this is a flood plain area. Many people in the community visit the ravine on a regular basis to walk dogs, bird watch, kid play, watch for trout, and experience a bit of privacy only found in a natural setting. Open space and its preservation is crucial for the enjoyment of the many. Changing zoning to benefit the few would be irresponsible and short sighted. Ms. Pinkham hoped that the open space designations would not be threatened by situations like the one posed at 1665 Kensington. The public wants to believe that open space will always be open space.
Christine Madsen, a resident at 1636 Emerson Avenue, supported the rezone. She stated that she attended a number of community council meetings and asked her neighbors about their concerns. She did not understand some of the responses, and she tried to see the other side of the issue. She understood some of the concerns associated with the rezone but felt that the bigger picture might be somewhat lost. In her opinion, it looked like what had happened was a taking of private property. She believed some of the inherent rights given by the founders of this country were more important than looking at an extra roof top or two. She believed this was the bigger issue and had nothing to do with how much money the Knowltons have or how many people have enjoyed the land over the years. It is the Knowltons’ property, and it appeared that there was a government taking. Ms. Madsen believed the Planning Commission should approve the rezone.
Thomas Meyer, a resident at 1709 Bryan Avenue, did not wish to speak but submitted the following comments read by Chair Jonas. Mr. Meyer lives on the east side of Emigration immediately opposite the planned development. The prospect of rezoning the property to allow development into multiple home sites raises a number of concerns. The gully containing Emigration Creek tends to magnify sounds, and people speaking in the bottom of the gully have awakened him on a number of occasions late into the night. Additional noise related to multiple houses with associated traffic, etc., would be untenable. In the winter, he looks directly down onto the property now zoned as green space and large, oversized housing is not an appropriate change for the current use. He noted that the development is within the creek flood plain.
Laurie Goldner, a resident at 1709 Bryan Avenue, did not wish to speak but submitted the following comments read by Chair Jonas. Ms. Goldner opposed the rezoning of the Knowlton property to allow development of multiple home sites. She lives directly across the Emigration Creek gully from the Knowlton property and believed development of the property into multiple home sites would impact her directly through additional noise and visually because, in winter, they look directly down into the Knowlton property. Ms. Goldner was concerned that the proposed development is inconsistent with the existing master plan and green space allotments. It appeared that some of the proposed home sites would be located in the flood plain for Emigration Creek. She did not believe rezoning should be allowed, and to her knowledge, the Knowltons had not tried to sell their property under the existing zone.
Dave Winters, a resident at 1623 Blaine Avenue, stated that he looks across 1700 South into the park and the Knowltons’ property. He favored the rezone and disclosed his professional interest as the Knowltons’ realtor in the purchase with Mr. Bradley. He recalled that Mr. Bradley and Mr. Green had discussed diminishing the value and was pleased that all the people who commented were concerned about the value of the Knowlton’s property, because the only way they could realize that value was for the property to be rezoned. They all seemed to be happy to be the Knowltons’ neighbors, and he asked what would happen if the shoe were on the other foot and this was their land. Mr. Winters stated that he was at odds with how passionate people are about use of the land and stated that, since he has been privy to the land over the past two years, it has always been fenced, and he had never seen people on the property fishing. He stated that there are plenty of other accesses to the public open space, and it is not through the Knowltons’ driveway.
Dave Richards, a resident at 1749 Kensington, opposed building on the property. He identified the corridor and Wasatch Hollow and stated that flooding is a major problem. He was interested in the letter from the Fire Department, but he wanted the Planning Commission to look at the bigger picture. He stated that he walks his dog through the area every other day. It is a beautiful place, and it would be a shame to lose sight of its uniqueness by focusing on the technicalities. He stated that there are technical reasons to oppose it. He understood they could hook up a geotechnical life support system and perhaps make it work, but this is not Draper or Sandy. It is a unique place 10 minutes from downtown Salt Lake and is one of the few places left in the City that is unique. Mr. Richards urged the Planning Commission to keep the zone as it is. Although this is private property, everyone who lives around it has to look at it. There are reasons why he cannot put a billboard on top of his house, and those same reasons affect the aesthetics and quality of this area.
Kandy Richards, a resident at 1749 Kensington, did not wish to speak and submitted the following comments read by Chair Jonas. Ms. Richards opposed the request for a zoning change and did not wish further development of the Hollow. She wanted to keep as much open space as possible. She was concerned about water quality and preservation of the riparian area. She was also concerned that this would set a precedent for future development.
Kathleen Warner, a resident at 1745 Kensington, did not wish to speak and submitted the following comments read by Chair Jonas. Ms. Warner opposed rezoning the two lots for development. If this starts in this canyon, it will open the way for others to sell off their property for development and the canyon would be ruined. Many people, like her, who purchased their property backing on the canyon for the open space would lose it.
Robert Volker, a resident at 2169 Roosevelt Avenue, addressed the sentimental issue, stating that he played in the neighborhood and knew the gully, and it was a beautiful place to grow up. If they lose this, it will be lost it forever. He appealed to the sentimentality of the Planning Commission regarding woods, streams, elbow room, and contiguous open space. He agreed that there are private property issues, but investments in the economy are risky. People deserve just compensation, but that is a different debate. He wanted the Planning Commission to catch the vision of open space for their children’s children’s children in this city of beauty.
Jonathan Gunnip, a resident at 1705 Bryan Avenue, did not wish to speak and submitted the following comment read by Chair Jonas. Mr. Gunnip stated that he wanted to learn about the process, but he felt that every reasonable effort should be made to preserve this unique open space in the City.
Katie Treiber, a resident at 1705 Bryan Avenue, did not wish to speak and submitted the following comment read by Chair Jonas. Ms. Treiber opposed the rezone and believed this should remain as open space.
Anne Cannon, a resident at 1647 Kensington Avenue, immediately adjoining the Knowlton property, stated that her family purchased the property where she now lives in 1925. At that time there were no homes across the gully, and there were only one or two on the street. The land has changed over the years, and the remaining portion that the Knowltons now live on and manage is enjoyed in memory and in vision. That is all they have because the use of the property is private. In their decision and need to move, she appreciated the fact that the Knowltons would like to get appropriate compensation. However, part of that is the legacy of the land, which is all that remains of a beautiful land that has changed many times.
Karen McCreary, a resident at 1681 Emerson Avenue, opposed the Knowltons’ request for a zoning map amendment. The current open space zoning has been in place eight years, and sufficient legal notice was given, and she believed any contention of a mistake should have been made long ago. Ms. McCreary stated that the staff report highlights many problems that support the conclusion that a rezone is inappropriate. The Knowltons insist on rezoning without further review of the proposed development because they say they are not developing it. Ms. McCreary believed this was both disingenuous and duplicitous since it is known that the petitioners have accepted an offer to sell their land contingent on its being developed. The staff report states the proposed amendment cannot be evaluated according to the five criteria due to insufficient information. Ms. McCreary believed they were putting the cart before the horse, and that at this point there was insufficient information to proceed and the amendment should not occur. It was clear that most of the land is zoned open space because it is a flood plain, and in 1952 and 1975 those parcels were under water. Ms. McCreary stated that she is a member of Wasatch Presbyterian Church which donated its land along 1700 East to help start the park. The Church considered other uses for its land and had even created models of proposed development, but one reason it did not proceed was the understanding that it was a flood plain.
Larry Ann Castle-Fericks, stated that she is not a member of the neighborhood but is a member of Wasatch Presbyterian Church. She opposed the rezoning because of the criticality of riparian open space in the valley and reliance on the master plan which can only be changed with serious consideration once open space status has been given to properties. The master plan has been in place for eight years, and many people in the area and surrounding communities have relied upon that designation in making decisions, including the church congregation when they decided to give church land to the City to develop Wasatch Hollow Park. The congregation relied upon that area’s open space corridor, recognizing that the flood plain caused the space to be undevelopable. At the time, the Church had considered a retirement center and other uses as part of their outreach to the community. Ms. Castle-Fericks encouraged the Planning Commission to honor the master plan which was duly and rightly proposed by the City Planning Commission at the time.
Russell Fericks stated that he is the scoutmaster of Troop 38 which meets at Wasatch Presbyterian Church and frequently uses the Wasatch Hollow Park. He confirmed that when the property along 1700 South was donated to facilitate the building of Wasatch Hollow Park, the area defined by the flood plain was a paramount consideration for giving the land to the City so the park could be built. Recognizing that a portion was private property, nevertheless it was included in the park concept and was part of the overall amenity and facility for that property. He noted that the Knowltons have recognized an increase in the value of their property as a result of the park being there, and the park is there partly because of the reliance the Church gave that property. He encouraged the Planning Commission to move forward and not backward. If there has been a taking, there are appropriate procedures to compensate the Knowltons fairly. Based on past history, Mr. Fericks believed the property was properly zoned because it cannot be developed without circumventing the flood plain plan.
Bruce Baird could not stay for the public hearing and submitted the following comment read by Chair Jonas. Mr. Baird felt that the rezoning and proposed development plan must be tied together. It did not make sense to rezone just to open the way for unapprovable development.
Donald Brown did not wish to speak and submitted the following comments read by Chair Jonas. Mr. Brown believed that it is the open spaces in the heart of a City that create value and beauty for the residents. This is one of the finest features of Salt Lake City, and he did not believe it should be given up simply for development’s sake. This area was declared open space for good reason, and those reasons have not changed.
Brian Fox, 1626 Kensington, did not wish to speak and submitted the following comments read by Chair Jonas. Mr. Fox opposed the rezone of open space in this area. He purchased his home last year, and the areas of open space and Wasatch Hollow Park were what made the area desirable. A rezone would be an injustice to all the people in the area who have purchased or improved their property.
Erin Fox, a resident at 1626 Kensington Avenue, opposed the rezone of the open space. She believed the Knowltons’ property could be just as valuable to another buyer if such an offer could ever be considered. She encouraged the Planning Commission to take a different route.
Barbara Bean, a resident at 1651 Emerson Avenue, did not wish to speak and submitted the following comment read by Chair Jonas. Ms. Bean favored maintaining the original open space plan for Emigration Creek published in 1992.
Lori Komlos, a resident at 1664 Emerson Avenue, did not wish to speak and submitted the following comment read by Chair Jonas. Ms. Komlos was opposed to residential development on this open space and flood plain area and asked the Planning Commission to preserve this beautiful land.
Elizabeth Bowman, a resident at 1359 South 1600 East, expressed concern that this meeting was a deviation from the standard practice where there is no plan for development when they all know that development is the game plan. She was concerned that the Knowltons’ position permeated the staff report, yet there is no support for the belief that this was mistakenly zoned. The staff report refers to the possibility of a mapping error that was never defined, but no one knows what that is. It does not appear that noticing was inadequate. Ms. Bowman was concerned about the criteria the City Council must eventually weigh. Four out of five criteria listed in the staff report indicated that there was inadequate information to make a decision. Ms. Bowman read the criteria and felt these were concerns that would prevent this body or any other body from making an adequate determination because they do not have all the information. She believed the petition should be denied and that the land should remain open space. She disagreed that the only way the Knowltons’ could get their value was to rezone, because this has not been marketed as open space property. It was marketed and quickly snatched up by someone who thought they could develop it. Denying the rezone would not prevent the Knowltons from getting their money but would prevent the rest from getting things that are irreplaceable.
David Broadbent, representing the applicant, was provided an opportunity to make final comment. He confirmed that the Knowltons were not invited to the community council meeting where a vote was taken. They were invited to one meeting that they attended, but the community council held two other meetings to which they were not invited. Mr. Broadbent referred to comments about a wildlife corridor and stated that this ignores the fact that the Knowlton property has been enclosed by a 6-foot chain link fence with two wires on top and that this area has not been available as a public park or wildlife corridor. He remarked that the Emigration Corridor plan included in the staff report indicates that development along the creek may be difficult but not impossible. He explained that the Knowltons did not object to the open space zoning years ago because they did not find out about the zoning until the prospective purchaser checked into it. In response to comments about water, Mr. Broadbent stated that the area has never been under water the entire time the Knowltons have owned the property. He referred to comments about Wasatch Presbyterian Church relying on the open space designation when the property below Wasatch Hollow Park was contributed and believed that was impossible because the open space designation was adopted in 1995 and the land was contributed in 1990 and 1991. Mr. Broadbent stated that he loves open space, and the Knowltons are in favor of open space. That is the reason Wasatch Hollow Park was formed, and he was one of the members who formed the park. A lot of work was done with the City, and land was obtained due to the generosity of Wasatch Presbyterian Church. County funds helped put in a flood control basin and make improvements. He commented that is how a community gets open space and parks, not by taking someone’s private property.
Chair Jonas closed the public hearing.
Mr. Muir stated that the Planning Commission cares very much about the master plan and the call for Emigration Creek corridor and other urban trail initiatives. They cannot hope to someday implement that unless the City abides by due process for compensation of property, and he believed they had an opportunity this evening to correct some past wrongs. He did not believe designating this land as open space was an error, but the error was in aligning the boundary of open space with the parcels as opposed to the flood plain. The actual flood plain boundary is to be determined, but a FEMA designation can be demonstrated. He believed another error was the carrying forward of non-comforming parcels. He could not support the recommendations of Staff without including a consolidation of the property to create a conforming parcel and move forward from there. He was unsure how to accomplish this and requested input from Mr. Pace.
Mr. Pace commented on the subdivision issue and referred to the map designations of Parcels 2 and 3. It appeared that Parcels 1 and 2 were combined and subsequently divided. Research needs to be conducted to determine whether that subdivision required City approval and whether it met the requirements of State and City law when it was done. The record shows that Parcel 3 was always an independent parcel purchased by the Knowltons from the Department of Corrections. Apparently the Department of Corrections was taking water from the site for the State Penitentiary at Sugar House Park. If the question is how to address the rezoning and request that these parcels be combined, he felt the Planning Commission could recommend rezoning all or part of the property conditioned upon the consolidation of all the lots into one lot. Mr. Muir asked if that could be done if Parcel 1 is not part of the application, noting that Parcel 1 is key because it is the only one with direct access to a public right-of-way. Mr. Pace stated that Parcel 1 appears to have access to Kensington Avenue. Since they are commonly owned, it would not be difficult for the owners of Parcels 2 and 3 to obtain access. Mr. Pace stated that the Planning Commission has discretion over zoning recommendations, and if they are only willing to recommend rezoning, they can make that recommendation as part of the motion. It will get sorted out by the City Council as to whether it is essential.
Chair Jonas asked whether they could join the parcels as a subdivision amendment prior to City Council action on the rezone, because the parcels would be zoned differently. Mr. Pace was unsure if the Planning Commission had authority to initiate an involuntary subdivision amendment or consolidation. If the Planning Commission sends a recommendation to the City Council for a rezone provided the lots are combined and that package is enacted by the City Council, they would have an ordinance rezoning the property conditioned upon the property owners combining the lots. If the owner did not combine the lots, the ordinance would not take effect and the rezone would not become effective.
Ms. Funk stated that she did not understand the advantage of following Mr. Muir’s suggestion. Mr. Muir explained that whether or not this property is developed, they would have at least created a conforming situation. Chair Jonas replied that this allows an opportunity to do some housekeeping, but it has not been noticed, so that is not something the Planning Commission can take action on this evening.
Ms. Seelig noted that creating a parcel that conforms to what was originally intended would be the right thing to do.
Chair Jonas expressed his personal wish for the Knowltons to sell their property as an existing home with a large lot, but that is not the issue being addressed. He discussed noticing requirements and commented that the average person might not know that something was happening that could affect them if they are not involved in the City’s processes.
Ms. Funk stated that she was troubled that they were only looking at rezoning, which is a step that may not need to be taken, but that will not be known without a development plan. She hoped the petitioners realized the difficulties of coming in later for a development plan. The staff report indicates that the Staff stated their preference for combining the processes. She felt that would have been a more desirable procedure, but based on the information presented tonight, she believed there appeared to be a possible taking that the Planning Commission should look at carefully.
Mr. Diamond recalled that he had asked whether there are other properties similar to the one being discussed, and it appears that there are several private properties with an open space designations. This is an important issue to discuss, and he believed it was inappropriate for the City to apply open space to private property. He asked if R-1/5000 is the only option for the rezone. Mr. Wheelwright replied that the master plan would not call for any other designation, and there is no other higher density development zoning in the vicinity. Mr. Diamond stated that he was not suggesting higher density. He felt R-1/5000 was not appropriate for a 55,000-square-foot lot and asked what the Planning Department would suggest. Mr. Wheelwright explained that R-1/5000 sets a minimum lot size, and there is no maximum lot size. Through a planned development process, they would use R-1/5000 density of one house per 5,000 square feet of developable area. Mr. Diamond felt the issue for development was whether it is appropriate to have 10 homes on the property. Half of the property is dissected by flood plain, so obviously 10 homes would not be allowed. The issue for dialogue was how much is appropriate.
Mr. Wheelwright noted that the petitioner has requested R-1/5000. Chair Jonas asked if they could approve a different zone. Mr. Pace replied that the property owner has indicated that open space zoning is not appropriate and has asked for R-1/5000. The Planning Commission is being asked to determine the appropriate zoning for the property and make a recommendation to City Council, and Mr. Pace believed the Planning Commission had latitude in deciding what that is. Chair Jonas did not believe R-1/5000 was appropriate and suggested that it be more like R-1/12,000. Mr. Wheelwright explained that the FR-3 zone allows 15,000 square feet, and the FR-2 allows 20,000 square feet, or a half acre. FR-1 is one acre, and FP is 16 acres. Mr. Diamond did not think they could appropriate the foothill restrictions on this property because it does not have the issues of a foothill sloping lot. Chair Jonas noted that R-1/12,000 is the largest they can go without a foothill overlay, and he did not favor an overlay. Mr. Muir suggested that they preclude a consolidation by having three different zones. The only way to consolidate the three parcels would be to use a zone similar to Parcel 1, which is R-1/5000.
Ms. Funk asked if R-1/12,000 would be considered spot zoning since there are no other R-1/12,000 properties in the area. Mr. Muir stated that R-1/5,000 allows the Planning Commission the discretion under a PUD to decide what is appropriate. He did not see much advantage in changing the zone from R-1/5000 as requested.
After discussing the options, Mr. Muir suggested tabling the matter and remanding it to Staff to determine the exact location of the flood plain line and provide a calculation of the underlying developable density. Ms. Funk referred to a letter from Great Basin Engineering indicating that they are in the process of defining the flood plain. The square footage of Parcels 2 and 3 is approximately 39,000 square feet, so R-1/12,000 zoning would allow three homes. Mr. Broadbent felt that R-1/12,000 would be a workable zone.
Chair Jonas asked about the slope. Mr. Wheelwright explained that slope prohibitions exist only in the Foothill Zoning District. The slope would not rule out any of the property as developable. Chair Jonas asked if it would be possible to put conditions on R-1/12,000 zoning to prohibit development over a certain slope. Mr. Pace replied that the City ordinance does not have those provisions. Overlay zones provide an additional level of review, but the City does not have the same provisions as the County to address slopes. He felt the Planning Commission needed to address the issue of appropriate zoning and whether the property is buildable.
Chair Jonas stated that Parcel 1 is zoned R-1/5000, and that will not change with their recommendation this evening. He suggested zoning Parcels 2 and 3 R-1/12,000 and make the steep slopes open space. Ms. Funk did not believe the Planning Commission had any basis for making the steep slopes open space. Mr. Muir supported Ms. Funk’s concern. Instead of imposing a slope restriction, he preferred to see what the developer comes back with.
Motion for Petition 400-02-35
Prescott Muir moved to forward the request to amend the zoning map from Open Space to Single Family Residential R-1/12,000 to the City Council, recommending approval of a residential zoning classification of R-1/12,000 for the area of land located above the base flood elevation of FEMA 100-year flood plain as determined through survey by a licensed engineer to reconcile the conflicting data and including the potential exceptions A, B, and C to that determination and based upon findings A through E as outlined in the staff report:
Exceptions
A. Grant approval to fill and elevate the land through an Administrative FIRM amendment.
B. Determine, after further examination, that the Flood plain elevation is, (1) incorrectly depicted.
C. An exception is granted to construct in the Flood plain in accordance with City Code 18.68 and FEMA regulations.
Findings
A. Whether the proposed amendment is consistent with the purposes, goals, objectives, and policies of the adopted general plan of Salt Lake City.
The finding being that it is in compliance with those general goals, purposes and objectives.
B. Whether the proposed amendment is harmonious with the overall character of existing development in the immediate vicinity of the subject property.
In reference to the adjoining parcel to the north, the finding is that it is very much harmonious with the density of that parcel.
C. The extent to which the proposed amendment is adversely affected by adjacent properties.
It will have no adverse impact upon adjacent properties.
D. Whether the proposed amendment is consistent with provisions of any applicable overlay zoning, which may impose additional standards.
No overlay zoning applies.
E. The adequacy of public facilities and services intended to serve the subject property, including but not limited to roadways, parks and recreational facilities, police and fire protection, schools, storm water drainage systems, water supplies, and waste water and refuse collection.
There are adequate public facilities to service the properties subject to verification through engineering studies.
John Diamond seconded the motion.
Mr. Muir referred to Exception A and asked for clarification. He was concerned about someone filling the area to bring it above the flood plain which would destroy the vegetation. Mr. Stewart replied that Public Utilities would be opposed to that, and it would be difficult to circumvent the City ordinance to cause that to happen.
Mr. Muir amended his motion to exclude Exception A. Mr. Diamond seconded the amendment.
Mr. Chambless noted that he had expressed concern about the context of the sloping grade and asked if Mr. Stewart was expressing the same concern regarding water. Mr. Stewart replied that there is a strong sense to keep people out of harm’s way in the flood hazard area, and that includes building on fill to make a property developable if it currently is not.
Ms. Funk referred to Finding E and asked if they should eliminate that finding as a reason for approving the rezone because they are not prepared to say whether the facilities are adequate.
Mr. Muir amended his motion to eliminate Finding E. Mr. Diamond seconded the amendment.
Amended Motion for Petition 400-02-35
Prescott Muir moved to forward the request to amend the zoning map from Open Space to Single Family Residential R-1/12,000 to the City Council, recommending approval of a residential zoning classification of R-1/12,000 for the area of land located above the base flood elevation of FEMA 100-year flood plain as determined through survey by a licensed engineer to reconcile the conflicting data and including the potential exceptions B and C to that determination and based upon findings A through D as outlined in the staff report:
Exceptions
B. Determine, after further examination, that the Flood plain elevation is, (1) incorrectly depicted.
C. An exception is granted to construct in the Flood plain in accordance with City Code 18.68 and FEMA regulations.
Findings
A. Whether the proposed amendment is consistent with the purposes, goals, objectives, and policies of the adopted general plan of Salt Lake City.
The finding being that it is in compliance with those general goals, purposes and objectives.
B. Whether the proposed amendment is harmonious with the overall character of existing development in the immediate vicinity of the subject property.
In reference to the adjoining parcel to the north, the finding is that it is very much harmonious with the density of that parcel.
C. The extent to which the proposed amendment is adversely affected by adjacent properties.
It will have no adverse impact upon adjacent properties.
D. Whether the proposed amendment is consistent with provisions of any applicable overlay zoning, which may impose additional standards.
No overlay zoning applies.
John Diamond seconded the motion.
Mr. Chambless, Mr. Diamond, Ms. Funk, Mr. Muir, Ms. Noda, and Ms. Seelig voted “Aye.” Ms. Arnold, Mr. Daniels, and Ms. McDonough were not present. Jeff Jonas, as chair, did not vote. The motion carried.
The Salt Lake City Planning Commission meeting adjourned at 9:45 p.m.