SALT LAKE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
In Room 126 of the City & County Building at 451 South State Street
Present from the Planning Commission were Chairperson Robert
Bip" Daniels, Kay (berger) Arnold, Kent Nelson, Prescott
Muir, Peggy McDonough, Laurie Noda, Andrea Barrows. Tim
Chambless, Jeff Jonas and Arla Funk were excused
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
Mr. Muir made a motion to approve the minutes of Thursday, January 31, 2002 subject to the discussed corrections being made as requested.
Peggy McDonough seconded the motion. , Kay (berger) Arnold, Kent Nelson, Prescott Muir, Peggy McDonough, Laurie Noda, Andrea Barrows voted aye. Robert "Bip" Daniels, as chair did not vote.
PUBLIC HEARINGS
Petition No. 410-573. Gold Cross Ambulance
requested a conditional use to allow a temporary 118 foot
Communicator antenna during the 2002 Winter Olympics.
Property is located 762 South Redwood Rd. CC Commercial
Corridor zone.
Ray McCandless presented the staff report. Gold Cross is requesting a conditional use approval to operate a 123 foot antenna. This is for a temporary communication antenna that will be operated during the 2002 winter games. This petition is processed under ordinance 67 of 2001. It allows the Planning Commission to approve temporary conditional uses related to the winter games through an expedited process.
25 Mr. Daniels asked if there were any questions.
Andrea Barrows questioned Ray about the bonds. Should the questions be directed to the petitioner?
Ray McCandless answered yes.
Kent Nelson asked if the tower would be permanent rather than a temporary one. Are there sufficient safeguards that the city can enforce in the event they choose it to be permanent and who can enforce the time constraints?
Ray McCandless explained that right now they are looking at a temporary facility for the duration of the Olympics. There is a 180 day setup period, 30 day operational period and 30 day take 16 down period.
Kent Nelson asked if that's part of the law to be operating under these temporary provisions?
Ray Mc Candless explained it is under ordinance 67-2001. So they would be required to come back in to procure a permanent location, and that would require approval by the Planning Commission.
Kent Nelson asked about the power to use the bonds.
Ray McCandless feels they could.
Andrea Barrows states that normally when someone has a temporary ordinance, there is a bond and signed agreement. There was a mention of a verbal commitment, is there anything in writing that says they are going to take this down at the end of the time or do they use their rights to take it down themselves?
Ray McCandless stated there is a bond in place that would guarantee it's removal and relocation.
Andrea Barrows asked about the bond, because it doesn't quite say that.
Doug Wheelwright stated that the bond establishes the cost.
Andrea Barrows agreed.
Doug Wheelwright thought it would be good to have the
petitioner address that issue.
Andrea Barrows agreed.
Doug Wheelwright explained they have made the application for the location in one of the districts and it's being processed now. They will move the equipment probably in one day, once they have the towers up. This is their only operational antenna systems.
Andrea Barrows asks if it is normally 60 days after the end of the Paralympics for temporary use.
Ray Mc candles stated it's a 30 day operational period.
Andrea Barrows asked if it was thirty days total?
Ray stated 30 days total, meaning 30 days taken whenever.
Andrea Barrows replied okay.
Doug Wheelwright stated that their interpretation is that they would have the permanent conditional use site to use 20 to 30 days in March.
Mr. Daniels invited the petitioner to speak to the Planning Commission.
R. Gene Moffitt, President and CEO of Gold Cross Services Inc. 1717 South Redwood Road, Salt Lake City Utah, 84104. Gold Cross Services operates Gold Cross Ambulances in Salt Lake City, Salt Lake County and the State of Utah. August of 2001 was over 30 years in one location. There was a need to move the building to a larger facility. They didn't want to do this, with the Olympics, but the landowner wanted a long-term agreement, and they didn't. That put them under a short time frame to move a critical dispatch center. It was located originally on 754 West 1700 South. The tower was there on the smaller building, with the same number of antennas with a slightly different configuration. Because of the short time frame, we purchased a new building at 762 South Redwood Road. We hired the architect of Evans and Butler to draw up our plans to conform with the ordinance. The tower originally was to operate two antennas. The 800 Mega hertz system is a new radio system, which is basically the state of Utah. Salt Lake City has a separate 800 Mega hertz system that allows interagency communications from all agencies. That was evident in the year of the tornado where we found we could not communicate with everybody. That determined that we needed an 800 up and operating so that everybody was working. That is the four antennas on the side, but we need an additional 450 megahertz antennas on the top. We submitted the appropriate regulatory request to the Federal Communication Commission and the FAA. We received their approval to move the tower. The tower was put up in September and later went up higher to accommodate the other antennas. The Planning and Zoning did mention there was an Olympic approval process of the ordinance that had been approved. In our conversation with them we felt that was not the correct use on our thing and proceeded another way. But now we believe that we should have used the Olympic permission. This business provides emergency medical services to about 90 percent of Salt Lake county. We also communicate for the State of Utah to the ambulances moving in and out of Salt Lake valley. Salt Lake, being a regional medical center, has many ambulances from Wyoming, Idaho, that are not on 800 megahertz. In order for them to communicate with the hospitals they dispatch through our center. The fire chief has submitted letters in support of our function. There is also documentation, in your packet, from the engineer with the State Bureau of Medical Services. I can give written documentation with regard to our intent to go forward with the conditional use permit and move the tower. The bond was requested by the city attorney. With regards to painting the pole, we can look to the manufacturers to see if it effects the radiation of the antenna.
Andrea Barrows states the bond is based on a permit to relocate. What if the permit is denied? What were you trying to get in the way of the bond?
Mr. Moffat stated he was told to provide a bond, with no suggestion from the city attorney on the bond. We could obtain whatever bond the city might desire to have there. The insurance company needed the bond for the amount. There was a bid from Utah communications to move the tower and that's the bond that's provided. There was no suggestion or recommendations to the form or content.
Andrea Barrows states they may not have been aware of the zoning ordinances, but were they aware of the permitting process? The ordinance says when you build something you need a permit.
Mr. Moffat states that they had the permit process for the inside of the building. He was not aware of the permit process on the antenna until later. In the front yard of the building there is an existing 75 foot cellular antenna that was there previously and other antennas in the area. Utah Communications did not indicate to us that there was permitting for that. We later found that out and are conforming to that now. We apologize. There was no intent of harm, but there was a need for communication.
Andrea Barrows states that she agrees, but there are ways of doing it appropriately. She agrees that this temporary ordinance use 67 is not the appropriate use for the antenna. This antenna is going in for health and safety reasons not the Olympics.
Mr. Daniels agrees and also wants to agree here and now to come up with an appropriate bond structure. Mr. Moffat explains that they were given the form of the bond and can meet that without any problems.
Mr. Daniels opened the public hearing.
There was no public input.
Kay Arnold explains the problem is Utah Communications. Maybe there should be something imposed to follow the rules.
Andrea Barrows states that she has concerns about the permit and the tower going up and not coming down. She wants assurances that there are no assurances regarding the towers.
Kay Arnold states these things won't happen if the people are penalized.
Andrea Barrows states they don't have the means.
Kay Arnold states that the nonsense would stop if the people that were causing the problem would be dealt with.
Kent Nelson asks what the penalty or remedy is and the costs of the permit?
Doug Wheelwright states they doubled the permit fee, but it isn't a lot of money.
Kent Nelson asks if there is a letter sent to the contractor?
Doug Wheelwright states the state code provides remedies to sue for damages. Our principle method of code enforcement is the building permits. Ninety-five percent of the enforcement is through what we'll issue a permit on and what we won't. It does remove our main tool when that process is sidestepped.
Andrea Barrows wants to find a better way on the city's aspect.
Doug Wheelwright states the main goal is to gain compliance with the zoning ordinance A long term solution has been reached, but it depends on the Planning Commission. The staff feels that shifting the tower to the west, even though it is a slight distance, is going to be much more justifiable in the westerly location than it is where it currently is.
MOTION FOR CASE #410-573
Mr. Nelson made a motion based on the findings of fact, as stated in the staff report, to approve Petition No. 410-573 to grant a conditional use under ordinance 67, to re-direct the city attorney to provide what the law allows us to say except maybe for quotes or cash in the bonds, in the event under the conditions of ordinance 67. Further, if it's necessary we could have them sign an agreement to that effect and cash in on the bonds.
Prescott Muir states the issue is they have to remove it not move it. Removing it is part of the conditional use. So they have to remove it.
Andrea Barrows states to change the move to remove. She would second that. What about it being painted?
Kent Nelson states it's in the recommendations to be painted.
Mr. Daniels asks if there's a need to paint it?
Kay Arnold states it probably doesn't need to be painted for just the 60 day period.
Mr. Daniels agrees.
Mr. Nelson suggests making a part of the motion that the Planning Commission have a strong recommendation that the state officials sanction, not necessarily the petitioner, but the construction people, who know better than to get in projects such as this without proper building permits.
Kay Arnold feels that this is a separate situation.
Mr. Daniels states it has been seconded and calls for the question. All in favor? Everyone voted for, no one opposed.
The motion carried.
Kay Arnold makes a recommendation that the small committee stay with this process with the state on taking some very heavy action against any contractors that operate without permits. What the state needs to realize is when they tap somebody on the hands, the neighbors in the neighborhoods don't have a part of the process that's done socially. There's not an understanding about the problems of people not getting permits. Financially, and otherwise, the consumer is duped into believing they've had things done properly and it may not be.
Andrea Barrows has concerns about Kay wanting the state to act on these individuals working without a permit.
Kay Arnold states the problem as she sees it, the city has never come forward and made a claim against a contractor working without a permit. The point is to form a committee, get very aggressive, serious, and do what we have to with the local and state staff.
Andrea Barrows states that the first step is to get the city administration to support pursuing the action against contractors who build without appropriate permits.
Kent Nelson states another step is a letter notifying the licensing department that contractors they gave licenses to are basically acting without permits. Then the licensing board can take their license away. That's more important than fining them money.
Kay Arnold states the city has found a remedy around the problem. There was something built under ordinance 67.
Kent Nelson states to have the city be aggressive.
Andrea Barrows states that the Commission should deny anything without a permit.
Mr Daniels makes recommendations.
Doug Wheelwright asks if there is a vote on that. Yes, it's unanimous.
Mr. Nelson is concerned about the tower being taken down and losing communication with all emergency services.
Mr. Moffat states the 800 megahertz system have numerous sites throughout the valley. If one of those sites goes down then we can utilize the other sites for the communication.
Petition No. 410-579, Bridge Stone/Fire Stone, requesting a conditional use approval for temporary commercial parking lot during 2002 Olympic Winter Games.
Elizabeth Giraud states she is filling in for Joel Paterson. She then presented the staff report.
Mr. Daniels asks for any questions.
Prescott Muir asks about the cars backing across the sidewalk.
Elizabeth Giraud states it would become a parking enforcement issue for people parking on the sidewalk.
Prescott Muir states not parking on the sidewalk, it's backing across the sidewalk.
Elizabeth Giraud states the customers drive around there right now.
Brent Wilde states that the zoning administration viewed this and since there was no modification of the site, they would let this go. The only change is that they are going to charge for parking.
Doug Wheelwright states there is probably less turnover with this than with servicing the cars.
Andrea Barrows asks what's in place that's going to force them back into a customer parking area. Also, are they closed down so that there is no retail need for parking?
Elisabeth Giraud answers yes, the business will be closed.
Andrea Barrows asks what will happen if they are still operating a parking lot after 60 days?
Elizabeth Giraud states if they are still charging for parking then they're not meeting the requirements of the conditional use, because the conditional use approval is only during the Olympics. She assumes they would go back to their retail business and not continue to charge when they need the space for the business.
Andrea Barrows states this conditional use is different than any other conditional use. She also wants to know, what mechanism do we have?
Brent Wilde states that they're asking for approval through February 24 and the condition of the Commission's approval is that they revert back to the store parking lot by the 25th. If they refuse to obey they're subject to enforcement.
Andrea Barrows states there is nothing setup like that.
Brent Wilde states that approval of the condition of use with that time limit is part of the motion, and will result in enforcement to the time limit is violated.
Mr. Daniels states in the agreement these parking lots should revert back to the original condition.
Brent Wilde states those parking lots with agreements were different because all of those had a site restoration that was signed.
Mr. Daniels invited the petitioner to speak.
Ken Dinsmore, 9160 South 300 West, Sandy, states that they are one of the only businesses that won't capitalize from the Olympic Games with regular retail business. The reason for this permit is to offset our losses that they would have for the next two weeks. They will revert back to our retail business on the 25th of February.
Andrea Barrows asks if there is any relationship with Salt Lake Organizing Committee and do they know people will park there?
Ken Dinsmore states he doesn't see that they'll be doing any regular retail business, unless other people come in for minor stuff using our parking lot to park all day.
Andrea Barrows asks if there will be security around the clock?
Ken Dinsmore states there will be.
Mr. Daniels opened the public hearing.
There was no public input.
Brent Wilde asks if there will be a business license for parking?
Ken Dinsmore answers yes.
Andrea Barrows asks if a letter can be sent to that effect to every commercial parking lot?
Brent Wilde states they all need building permits.
Kent Nelson states the ones with a business license are legal, it might be a way of enforcement, ask them to get a business license to park there.
Andrea Barrows states they can't do any enforcement.
Kent Nelson states maybe the Commission shouldn't do it, but there is a benefit of the business license.
Andrea Barrows states it's a different process, but people 11 still need a business license.
Kay Arnold states Garff has a sign up and didn't get a 14 license from the Commission.
Brent Wilde states that's an enforcement issue. 18 Kay Arnold states enforcement should be notified that Garff cannot rent his car lot out by day.
Motion for Petition 410-579:
Andrea Barrows made a motion based on the findings of fact, as stated in the staff report of Petition No. 410-579, I recommend we grant approval for a temporary conditional commercial parking lot through the ordinance 67, including the condition that this use will cease on February 26, 2002.
Kent Nelson seconds the motion. The motion passed.
Petition No. 400-02-15, request by Park Tower, LLC, for conditional use approval to operate a temporary commercial parking lot at 404 West 400 South on 1.56 acres in the D-3 Downtown Warehouse/Residential district.
Elizabeth Giraud presented the staff report. She wanted to bring attention to a letter from the Wasatch Homeless Health Care Incorporated, the Fourth Street Clinic at 404 South 400 West. They are stating opposition to it because of the increased traffic and their fear a lot of dirt will get turned out onto the road. An engineer has considered the standard requirement for these temporary parking lots that the entrances to the parking lot be paved for a 100 feet in from the street, so there isn't lot of debris onto the street.
Kent Nelson asks which is the best way to get on and off the site? 400 West or Rio Grand? The traffic will be heavier on 400 West, it might be better to make the entrance off of Rio Grand.
Mr. Daniels asks what's the better access? Rio Grand or 400 West?
Patrick Struse states either could work. Rio Grand is the first choice.
Andrea Barrows asks Elizabeth if she has had any other response to this?
Elizabeth Giraud states no and neither has Joel.
Mr. Daniels asks if there are questions from staff? He now invites the petitioner to speak.
Patrick Struse, partner of Park Tower, LLC, asks for questions.
Mr. Daniels asks if they have given any thought to having the Rio Grand side of the parking lot for exit?
Patrick Struse states there is a lot of homeless traffic walking along that area. They wanted to keep traffic out of that pedestrian area.
Mr. Daniels states that 400 West should be an entrance and the Rio Grande as an exit.
Patrick Struse states they considered that, but it is very hard to tell people what way to go when they leave. We'll man somebody for people coming in, but not out.
Andrea Barrows asks if there will be security and help if somebody's car won't start?
Patrick Struse states there will be somebody there 24 hours a day.
Mr. Daniels opened the public hearing.
John Francis, Vice Chair Community Council, states he has a strong support for this lot.
Andrea Barrows asks if John has seen the letter from, the 4th Street Clinic? Are you aware of what they wrote?
John Francis states no, he did not see a copy of that letter.
Mr. Daniels closed the public hearing.
Andrea Barrows stated she has a concern about the parking lot having so much traffic around a health facility at a time where their use is going to be quite high.
Kent Nelson states there is a large amount of traffic. It is hard to cross the street and the Olympics isn't even here yet.
Peggy McDonough states she doesn't see any convincing argument to show this is actually going to make the situation worse. It might actually take cars off the street.
Mr. Daniels states he doesn't know if a parking lot this size would make it worse at all. He strongly recommends to the petitioner that they have a separate entrance and that might lessen any grid-lock that that parking lot might cause.
Kay Arnold agrees, however, she thinks people who use these lots are not going to be locals and it is worrisome with the amount of pedestrian traffic on Rio Grand.
Kent Nelson states that area is congested and a lot of times you can't see, so you have to be careful.
Mr. Daniels asks if that would be the case on Rio Grande and also 4th West?
Peggy McDonough states 4th West has a lot of traffic and people use the crosswalks there. Rio Grande has such little traffic that people just wonder.
Andrea Barrows agrees, but will the homeless traffic continue in same patterns that it has been?
Kent Nelson states he believes so.
Kay Arnold agrees. People will still be in need of the homeless shelter.
Andrea Barrows states her concern of the health and safety issue. She doesn't think this is the best location during these two weeks.
Peggy McDonough states there is no reason to believe it will be a negative impact.
Laurie Noda doesn't agree with Peggy.
Kay Arnold is concerned with the one entry and one exit.
Prescott Muir states it might be better to have more than one exit.
Kay Arnold, Prescott Muir and Kent Nelson discuss the directions of the entrances and exits of the parking lot.
Mr. Daniels re-opens the public hearing for James Roberts to speak.
James Roberts, Real Estate Broker, 244 West 400 South. He does not support this parking lot. His concerns are in the evenings it is very difficult for his tenants to get out on 4th South. Sometimes from 3rd West to 2nd West it is a solid line of traffic. He is also concerned if it is paved or not.
Peggy McDonough asks if the tenants are keeping their schedule during the Olympics?
James Roberts states they are because they counsel mentally ill people and they need that counseling available.
Kay Arnold states she doesn't think there will be movement in and out. She thinks people will park their car and leave it there until the latest possible hour.
Laurie Noda agrees with Kay.
Robert James states his concern, they are having a difficult time getting in and out of that lot now.
Mr. Daniels closed the public hearing.
Kent Nelson states the traffic is backed up because the traffic signal on 4th South is red. He doesn't understand how this is going to back it up any more.
Motion for Petition No.400-02-15:
Laurie Noda made a motion based on the findings of fact, as stated in the staff report, to approve Petition No. 14 400-02-15, to operate a temporary commercial parking lot at 404 West 400 South, with the appropriate entrance and exit. Peggy McDonough seconds the motion.
Andrea Barrows states a concern about an end to the parking lot
Kent Nelson state since it's under ordinance 67 that it automatically has a termination.
Andrea Barrows states in the discussion with Fire Stone that when they have a building permit they have to sign to an end date.
Laurie Noda states it terminates February 26.
All in attendance voted "Aye", Andrea Barrows opposed.
Petition No. 410-565, Iverson Homes, L.C. requesting final approval of the conditional use for a reduced width public street and a planned development for a 27 lot, single-family residential subdivision, located at 1650 West California Avenue. The proposed subdivision will be located on a 4.90 acre site, which is currently zoned R-1/7000, a single-family zone that requires at least 7,000 square feet per lot.
Greg Mikolash states this came in for a preliminary approval of the December 6, meeting. It's back because of certain conditions set upon by the Planning Commission. The Petition is back today with the revised plans showing those changes. Greg Mikolash then presented the staff report.
Kent Nelson asks if you were to turn the dwellings to a twin home and straddle the lot line, and you did that consistently, how far would it be between neighboring dwellings.
Greg Mikolash states there is no difference, it's an attachment.
Kent Nelson asks instead of six feet, it would be twelve between homes and two homes would be together.
Greg Mikolash states you could also connect the driveways.
Brent Wilde wants to clarify that to have two units per structure would require a zoning change.
Greg Mikolash states the reduce widths lots on the island area are almost exactly the same, reduced from 50 feet to 40 feet, which was part of the original request. He presented page three of the staff report.
Andrea Barrows asks Greg why he made the distinction between public and private open space?
Greg Mikolash states the state and the county will still maintain portions for what will be in the (canal) Levy Road. We tried to make a difference between dark green and light green.
Doug Wheelwright states they tried to make a point of this when they had this in for preliminary. The Planning Commission focused on providing the playground as the amenity, that was the quid proquo of them accepting this publicly owned land that would be maintained and dedicated, prepared as open space by the projects. That's one of the reasons why they're making a differentiation, if they didn't accept the publicly owned opened space, that would mean a reduction in the number of lots to meet the zoning.
Andrea Barrows stated her concern is more from a language consideration through the public at large. Those that are deemed private are exclusive and they are unable to use them. We're not dealing with a private gate, it's all public street.
Prescott Muir states as part of procedural clarification to go back to the conditions of the previous review of this project. We can legally strike item number 4. That should not be a consideration tonight. Page one recaps the conditions from our previous approval. It directs the applicant to look at a zero lot line as part of the PUD approval.
Doug Wheelwright states they have complied with that because this is a zero lot line on one side and that's what was proposed.
Prescott Muir states his thought was common wall zero lot line and maybe didn't understand the terminology. It technically reads that we cannot leave it in there.
Andrea Barrows asks does it meet one of the objectives they had?
Prescott Muir answers no, he was thinking common wall. He thinks the problem is the six foot side yards. Close the buildings and allow some decent space between them. He doesn't know if the Planning Commission can initiate an investigation of a zone change, but he would like to put that on the petition.
Kent Nelson states he would like that flexibility, but it's another issue.
Mr. Daniels asks for questions.
Peggy McDonough asked a question about the floor plans of the homes, and elevations. Is this an example of the typical unit home to be repeated throughout?
Greg Mikolash understood from the last meeting that the Planning Commission did not want any protruding garages beyond the face.
The Planning Commission wanted the garage flush with the porch.
The petitioner didn't get revised elevations because he didn't think it was a requirement.
Peggy McDonough states the only point of confusion is the conflict with the plan. So the intent of the plan is governing in terms of the relationship between the garage.
Greg Mikolash states that the intent was to not have the garage be a predominant feature.
Peggy McDonough asks if this is a plan that is going to be repeated?
Greg Mikolash states that the second elevation drawing is a typical home seen in Phase #1 and #2 which is not what they wanted in this subdivision. There is flexibility on what could be done architecturally and it could be discussed with the petitioner.
Kent Nelson asks if the plans and elevations are the same now as they were when it was first presented?
Greg Mikolash answers yes.
Mr. Daniels invites the Petitioner to speak.
DeeWayne Iverson, Petitioner, Iverson Homes, states they've attempted to solve everything that was asked of them. The issue they recall from last December was the lot that extend from Utah Street back to the open green space, where the lots that were asked to have the garages set back. The discussion was that the porch set out even with the garage, but it was never clarified that all the homes would have the garages behind the front of the houses. They complied with the request to connect the Utah Street to High Street and everything that was asked they tried to accommodate.
Prescott Muir asks what models are going to go where and numbers of each model?
DeeWayne Iverson states market trend determines placement of homes. Some homes with double garages sit back from the house. They've re-drawn the home differently so the roof is different, but the floor plan is the same.
Prescott Muir asks if the left elevation is to the right, facing the street?
DeeWayne Iverson answers yes.
Kent Nelson asks if it's modified so you don't see the garage?
DeeWayne Iverson states the porch is pulled out to the front, adding that the porch will be flush with the garage, but the front door will be set back. One of Mr. Iverson’s plans may need to be abandoned.
Kent Nelson asks how many models are there?
DeeWayne Iverson states there are four different home plans and 27 lots.
Peggy McDonough asks if it can be modified?
Deewayne Iverson answers yes, with a full front porch.
Peggy McDonough asks how lot 17 is accessed? What model and how's that oriented?
John Francis states lot 17 has an existing house on it and accesses off California Ave. There are currently two houses on the site and it's going through a common access with the car wash that adjoins it on the west.
Peggy McDonough asks if the intent is to have the garage flush with the porch, the porch becoming a more prominent feature?
Deewayne Iverson states the request was for the lots on Utah Street. There was not a consensus among the Planning Commission that that's what they wanted. That's why they didn't change the packet.
Mr. Daniels stated that it was the consensus of the Planning Commission to have the porch be out in front of the garage.
Peggy McDonough states they didn't stipulated those particular lots.
Kent Nelson states Mr. Goldsmith might have led them in a certain way, using certain elevations as examples.
Kay Arnold states they did stipulate design criteria; look at the last two pages of the packet where Arla made her motion.
Andrea Barrows states they prefer porches prominent rather than garages.
Kent Nelson states they don't want them all the same either.
Andrea Barrows suggests to go on to the hearing and then discuss this further.
DeeWayne Iverson states they have completed all the requests, unless there is something that has been overlooked.
Andrea Barrows asks if they ever got in touch with the Army Corps of Engineers or the County to see if they were going to do anything about cleaning up and providing something more attractive for the neighborhood?
John Francis states the county will let them use any landscaping with no restrictions. No trees. They want everybody to be responsible for maintenance.
Andrea Burrows asks to include that in a landscaping plan.
Deewayne Iverson states no trees between the Levy Road and the canal.
Andrea Barrows asks if there are going to be any amenities for the neighbors directly involved?
DeeWayne Iverson states in Phase I the kids love to play soccer, but his fear is little children get hit by other children on the swings and the slides. He would rather have an open field with trees rather than an amenity on a swing or a sandbox.
Andrea Barrow asks if there are no amenities at this point?
DeeWayne answers no.
Andrea Barrows states there are additional sub area amenity, like a water fountain and a bench.
DeeWayne Iverson asks what kind of fountain?
Andrea Barrows states the city has guidelines on how the water is getting paid for, etc.
DeeWayne Iverson asks if the zero lot line issue is resolved?
Prescott Muir answers yes. He then asks if they understand the preponderance of cell phone antennas and transmission towers is a detriment to the marketing ability of residential property?
John Francis answers yes.
Kay Arnold states it is the resale of the homes that is hurt by the antennas.
Mr. Daniels opens the public hearing.
Mary English states she lives of Utah Street. She's concerned about opening Utah Street and making more traffic. 10 The other thing is the fences along the canal. Also Wasatch Commons rent out their club house and the visitors park on Utah Street. If there are homes there they will lose parking.
Andrea Barrows asks if they want the southern end open space to now be a parking lot?
Mary English states now that they have given space for the children, all the neighbors would like more parking.
DeeWayne Iverson states the road is narrow now and it will be wider than it is.
David Lykins states his concerns are with safety, noise, pollution, and practical issues. It will have a serious impact on the quality of life.
Frances Lykins states she counted the children on the street and there are 28. It measures 30 feet from curb to curb. The children play on that street. They were promised ten years ago by the last Planning Commission that the street would never be opened. They're also concerned about criminal activity increasing.
Janis Maestas states she lives on High Avenue at the end house. Her house, kids, dog, fence, is in the most danger of an accident.
Jessica Lykins states she lives there too and not just 28 kids play there because they bring their friends. Sometimes semi trucks come down that street and they will go faster.
Michael Polacek states he lives across Utah Street. He wants to thank everybody for listening to the concerns of the people and hopefully everything comes together for a good place to live.
Kay Arnold asks how often is the club house used?
Michael Polacek states about every two weeks or one or two times a week.
Kent Nelson asks what is the average number of people that attend?
Michael Polacek states it could vary around 50 or 60 people, but usually 15 to 25.
Lynne Robison states she is against having the street open.
Kay Arnold wants to clarify the parking. Currently people park in the dirt at the side, narrowing the right of way doesn't leave any place for cars to be, except in somebody's yard.
Doug Wheelwright states the street being restricted on parking is the Loop Street to the west, not Utah Street. Utah Street would still have parking, unless it was a problem, then it could be removed. The cars parked along the street will psychologically and physically narrow the road. That should help keep the speed down.
Kent Nelson asks if there were two cars parked on both sides of the street, could you still have two cars pass?
Doug Wheelwright states you could, but it would be tight.
Mr. Daniels closes the public hearing.
Kay Arnold states she is not concerned with the parking, she is concerned with the extra traffic and can not see one positive reason to open that area. People who own homes there have a right to keep it the way it is.
Andrea Barrows states the staff's recommendation was not to open it and to do a pedestrian access. Her concern is did the Commission promise there would never be a connection there?
Doug Wheelwright states he doesn't remember the exact proposal, but the Planning Commission looked at it before about 15 years ago.
Andrea Burrows states that you can't turn west off of that street and they want it to be a community that is accessible.
Peggy McDonough states traffic issues is something with the traffic department, but when people feel this strong about their street, it can not go unheard. She also feels it is more dangerous for a semi to get stuck at the end of a road and have to back up, than it is to go straight through.
Prescott Muir states he supports the recommendation of staff.
Kay Arnold asks if the people on High Street understood from the previous meeting that that street was going to be open? If not, it was unfair.
Andrea Barrows doesn't agree. Once they've advertised they're having a hearing, they have the authority to hopefully make something better.
Greg asks Doug to explain the noticing that was done at the meetings.
Doug states the notices would have informed everybody within 300 feet of the boundary in that subdivision, of the preliminary and the final. He also did a memo along High Street and Wasatch Commons, letting them know High Street will be connected to Utah Street. He notified them three times.
Kent Nelson states the first plat map that was put out had a cul-de-sac and that was distributed for the first meeting. If they didn't come to the meeting, then they learned later that there's not a cul-de-sac.
Greg stated he had mailed a memo to tell people there was another public hearing coming up that's going to entail the connection of Utah Street with High Street. They were not required to do that.
Laurie Noda states what the vision is an open and connecting community. They understand that the community likes the private street, but the Planning Commission has to look at the overall community.
Kent Nelson states the concern of the citizens is increased traffic of people that don't live in the area. Perhaps speed bumps can help.
Prescott Muir states 15th East is a good example.
Laurie Noda agrees.
Andrea Barrows states there is no traffic there yet, so maybe put a time frame on it.
Laurie Noda agrees. There are no traffic studies to back up the comments of thinking traffic is going to be a huge problem. Perhaps make a possible condition to look at it in a year.
Prescott Muir concurs with Laurie that the overall objective of the Planning Commission and the City is to tie the neighborhoods together.
Andrea Barrows asks with the garages being so prominent, does the Commission feel that it meets their objectives?
Kent Nelson states he shares the concern. The lots aren't big enough to have anything but a straight on garage.
Andrea Barrows states she's not satisfied with the design of the homes. And asks if the designs are going to be left to be tweaked with the planning director?
Prescott Muir states he's not sure the designs as submitted reflect the recommendations of staff. So if they go with the recommendations, would they get what they hope for?
Mr. Daniels states Mrs. Funk made a comment that she was in favor of design consideration, such as having porches extend beyond the garages. He heard the developer say he was going to bring the porch out to the garage.
Andrea Barrows states that Mr. Jonas asks if the front porch is to be the focal point of the house? It is at the discretion of the Planning Director. That was the motion that was passed. She thinks leaving it to the Planning Director is important.
Kent Nelson asks if it is better to have one style or have some with the porch and some with the garage?
Brent Wilde states he wouldn't be opposed to adding a condition that there be variables.
Mr. Daniels agrees and states Mr. Iverson has proven he's trustworthy.
Motion for Case #410-565
Prescott Muir made a motion based on the findings of fact, as stated in the staff report, to approve Petition No. 410-565, requesting approval of the conditional use for planning a subdivision. Also encourage the variability of design, including the variability of front yard setbacks as appropriate and proportional to the lot depths.
Greg asks to clarify that for a building permit, is that side by side as well as front yard setbacks?
Prescott Muir answers yes.
Greg then asked about a 20 foot setback to a 40, or up to 5 feet in the front yard?
Prescott Muir states given the tightness of the street, you want to be able to park a car in front of the garage door.
Greg asks if they should start at a maximum of 20 and then go back from there?
Prescott Muir answers a minimum of 20.
Andrea Barrows states she'll second it after she states something. Is it the staff's recommendation of #2 that the word "all homes" is bolded?
Greg states he put that in there because he thought that was the intent of the Planning Commission.
Conditions of approval
1. That appropriate, aesthetic fencing be installed by the developer along the west side of the Subdivision (at the base of the levee) to secure a safety buffer between the Surplus Canal/Open Space and the newly created rear lot lines. The Planning Director shall approve the fence style and type.
2. That the developer designs the front of “ALL HOMES” in the Subdivision to eliminate the garage as a protruding, predominate feature of the home, making the porch area “usable and occupiable”.
Combination and coordination of architectural styles, building forms and building relationships.
3. Indicate what the lowest recommended floor elevation is to be as per the Geotechnical Investigation Report, and the 500-year flood plain of the Surplus Canal.
4. The lots 9 through 16 be allowed to have one side-yard with a zero lot line. (The opposite side shall allow for a 10 ft. side-yard setback.)
5. No building permit for any structure within the Subdivision shall be issued prior to the recording of the final plat with the Salt Lake County Recorders Office. A detailed landscape plan for all common open space areas (private and public) shall be submitted to the Planning Director for approval.
7. That final plat and development approval authority be granted to the Planning Director
Andrea Barrows states she would like to add to number six, the landscaping that is being allowed by Salt Lake County be incorporated and you can reference that which was mentioned specifically by the Petitioner. And then number eight, open space amenities be included, but not limited to, a trash can, water fountain, bench, as agreed to by the Petitioner.
Prescott Muir states he accepts the amendments.
The motion has been moved and second. Everybody voted Aye.
Kay Arnold opposed. The motion was carried.
Other Discussions
Kent Nelson states there is a possibility to consider twin homes or single lot lines with homes attached to be included in the conditional use.
Andrea Barrows states you have to define the lot line.
Kent Nelson states you can put a twin home right on the lot line. It would minimize the protrusion.
Brent Wilde states they could possibly pursue that.
Kent Nelson moved to make a motion to direct Planning Staff to prepare a petition to look at a single lot line between homes. There could be a twin home to straddle a lot line.
Prescott Muir seconds. Everybody votes Aye. The motion carried.
Kent Nelson states they want to accomplish to get more people downtown without cars. So that would mean park-in-rides.
Prescott Muir states perhaps a conditional use that's a complimentary use of a commercial lot as a retail lot as a
commercial lot in complimentary arrangement.
Kay Arnold states there is an example lot on 9th East and 4th South.
Andrea Barrows states that lot is TOD. Eventually they don't want that big lot there. There was a problem with the K-mart lot that UTA didn't want to go on private land for a pickup.
Kay Arnold states it doesn't have anything to do with UTA. It allows Office Max to lease that in parking.
Andrea Barrows states she would hesitate to do it in that lot, because that is not zoned for the future to make it a big parking lot.
Kay Arnold states it's to allow a use now.
Andrea Barrows states if you allow the use you may never get rid of it.
Prescott Muir asks if by use of the lot, we impede the progression towards TOD?
Andrea Barrows answers yes. If you start allowing this as a use, then you change the master planning.
Peggy McDonough states the master planning is the key. You need to be aware of the intensions of the transits outlook. The intent of TOD is to create small hubs.
Kent Nelson states if a park-in-ride is provided it will be beneficial.
Mr. Daniels states people on the west side of town, it's not that they want commercial on the west side, it will bring jobs to the community and better city services.
Peggy McDonough states it would be helpful if it showed where intended TOD areas are.
Kent Nelson states to start with bring the information. It might be beneficial to allow some of our existing asphalt to be used for park-in-ride.
Prescott Muir states to maximize the asphalt that's all ready on the ground, not to get additional asphalt. We want to eliminate asphalt and turn it into housing.
Peggy McDonough states they don't want that to backfire by making that existing asphalt be such a financial asset. It is a careful battle.
Kay Arnold states there is a lot of rent paid for places like Office Max, that doesn't have 20 customers a day. When there is cement out there all ready, there has got to be a way to deal with this.
Kent Nelson asks how they allow ZCMI Mall and Crossroads Mall to charge for parking and not Office Max or somebody else?
There is a share parking table in the ordinance. There can be share ratio where certain amount of parking stalls can be used.
Brent Wilde states the objective is to get more people in and out of downtown without problems.
Kent Nelson states the traffic department has an update of the transportation master plan.
Doug Wheelwright states that's great, but we need to move on this issue.
Mr. Daniels states he wants an update on the light rail to the airport. Is there any hope for that?
Andrea Barrows asks if it's under them?
Mr. Daniels states they can include it as something the Planning Commission is interested in. It's an appropriate time to discuss rule 26.
Kay Arnold asks about the convention in Chicago, how many staff people are going?
Mr. Daniels answers one.
Meeting adjourned at 8:30 pm.