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, Jeff Jonas, Tim Chambless, Kent Nelson, Laurie Noda, Arla Funk, Peggy McDonough, Prescott Muir, Kay (berger) Arnold and Andrea Barrows.
Present from the Planning Staff were Planning Director Stephen Goldsmith, Deputy Planning Directors Brent Wilde and Doug Wheelwright, Joel Paterson, Cheri Coffey, Doug Dansie, Everett Joyce and Ray McCandless.
A roll is being kept of all who attended the Planning Commission Meeting. Mr. Daniels 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
Mr. Jonas made a motion to approve the minutes of Thursday, December 6, 2001, subject to the discussed corrections being made as requested.
Ms. Noda seconded the motion. Ms. Arnold, Ms. Noda, Mr. Jonas, Mr. Nelson, Ms. Funk, Mr. Chambless, Ms. McDonough, Mr. Muir and Ms. Barrows voted “Aye”. Mr. Daniels, as Chairperson, did not vote. The motion carried.
Mr. Jonas made a motion to approve the minutes of Thursday, December 13, 2001, subject to the discussed correction being made as requested.
Mr. Chambless seconded the motion. Ms. Arnold, Ms. Noda, Mr. Jonas, Ms. Funk, Mr. Chambless, Ms. McDonough and Mr. Muir voted “Aye”. Mr. Nelson and Ms. Barrows abstained, as they didn't attend the meeting. Mr. Daniels, as Chairperson, did not vote. The motion carried.
PUBLIC HEARINGS
PUBLIC HEARING - Petition No. 400-01-67, by Rocky Brougham of Mascots Parking, to construct a temporary parking lot to be located at 537, 559 and 563 West North Temple in the Gateway Mixed-Use zoning district. The petition requests a planned development and conditional use for an expedited temporary parking lot for use during the 2002 Olympic Winter Games. The proposed temporary parking lot consists of 1.47 acres and would not comply with normally required design standards, including hard surfacing, curb, gutter and landscaping. This petition is being processed under the provisions of Ordinance No. 67 of 2001, which authorizes the City Council to approve temporary parking lots related to the 2002 Olympic Winter Games, which do not comply with the required design standards, after receiving a recommendation from the Planning Commission, through an expedited review process. The Planning Commission will make the final decision regarding the planned development and the conditional approval of the temporary parking lot. The City Council will make the final decision on the request to waive the design standards.
Mr. Paterson presented the staff report. Mascots Parking is requesting approval to construct a temporary parking lot on several vacant parcels adjacent to the frontage road on the south side of the North Temple overpass. The site will provide parking for up to 300 cars and RVs. Unlike the other temporary Olympic parking lots that the Planning Commission has reviewed, this lot will be operated by a private vendor as a commercial venture. The petitioner is requesting approval to operate the commercial parking lot during the Olympic Winter Games and the Paralympic Games. The site can be accessed from 600 West and eastbound North Temple along the one-way (eastbound) frontage road. To exit the site, vehicles must proceed eastbound on the frontage road and proceed under the overpass to go westbound on North Temple or northbound on 500 West.
Ms. Barrows asked if the ordinance allows anyone, other than SLOC, to ask for temporary uses.
Mr. Paterson explained that the property owner is not under the umbrella of SLOC. The City Attorney advised staff that the expedited process cannot just be held to SLOC. Private property owners are allowed to use the same process as SLOC. He explained that under the temporary use ordinance, the petitioner has the same rules and regulations to follow as SLOC does. He stated that as part of the agreement, the City could impose a fine of $100 per day for allowing parking on the property after the Olympics have ended.
Ms. Funk asked why a bond is not required for temporary parking lots.
Mr. Paterson explained that the agreement requires the sites must be restored to the satisfaction of the Planning Director. He stated that the Planning Commission came up with the language requiring an agreement. The Planning Commission could change the language to require a bond. He stated that collecting on bonds requires legal action to enforce them.
Ms. Funk stated that Condition of Approval 1. should require the roto-mill to be compacted, not just imported. She felt that Condition of Approval 5. is inappropriate, as the City enforces the clean-streets ordinance.
Mr. Paterson agreed. He explained that staff recommends restoration of the site be left to the satisfaction of the Planning Director. The site is currently in a state of disrepair and covered with weeds.
Ms. Funk stated the staff report shows no time frame for the end of the temporary parking lot.
Mr. Paterson stated that the petitioner only wants approval for the duration of the Olympics. There is a sunset date included in the temporary use ordinance, of April 30, 2002.
Ms. McDonough asked how tall the light proof fence would be.
Mr. Paterson stated the fence is 6-foot, with barbed wire on the top.
Mr. Daniels invited the petitioner to speak to the Planning Commission.
Glen Scott Rocky Brougham, petitioner, stated he runs 2 special events parking lots in Denver, Colorado. They are only set up and to be used for football games. He feels this temporary parking lot would have quality service and be secure. It would improve the appearance of the property. He would be happy to remove the roto-mill at the end of the Olympics. The traffic flow pattern is designed to keep traffic moving away from the homes. He passed a sample of the material he would be attaching to the 400 feet of fence as a light deterrent.
Ms. Barrows asked how long a person would be allowed to park in the parking lot.
Mr. Brougham explained that parking would be charged by the day. He felt that some businesses would want to use the parking lot for the length of the Olympics.
Ms. Barrows felt that some people might use the parking lot as “campgrounds”.
Mr. Brougham stated that was not the intent of the parking lot. He stated that he can make more money by cars “going in and out”, rather than parking for the entire 2 weeks. He is not parking his RV in this temporary parking lot. He stated he would rather park cars in the parking lot, rather than RV’s. The parking lot is designed for temporary parking only. He would not allow any vehicles that would be parking all night, to park adjacent to the residential property.
Ms. Barrows asked if the ordinance differentiates between a campground and a parking lot.
Mr. Wilde stated that the ordinance does. Camping is not allowed in this zoning district. He stated that the Planning Commission could recommend a restriction of no camping in the parking lot.
Mr. Brougham explained that he was applying for a temporary parking lot. He stated that he would not chase an RV out after the fireworks were over. He would not solicit anyone to park in the parking lot for days. He felt that some people would be drinking throughout the evening, and would not want to move their vehicle. He would charge them for the extra day’s parking.
Ms. Arnold stated she didn’t believe it would make any difference if a car were parked in the parking lot for 2 weeks.
Ms. Barrows stated she was concerned about having people camping in a parking lot in a residential area.
Ms. Arnold felt that some people would not want to relinquish a parking space during the Olympics. She felt it was okay if someone parked and stayed in their car in the parking for the entire 2 weeks.
Mr. Jonas, Ms. Noda and Mr. Nelson agreed with Ms. Arnold.
Ms. Funk felt that if the parking lot would be permanent, there would be a concern of people parking long term. She didn’t feel this was a concern as this is a temporary parking lot.
Mr. Brougham would like the parking lot to be completed and in use by February 1, 2002. The parking lot is going to be upscale and secure.
Mr. Daniels felt that the parking rate would be a deterrent for long-term parking.
Ms. McDonough felt that RV or overnight parking could cause excessive noise for the residents.
Mr. Brougham stated he would position any vehicle that would park for more than one day away from the residential area.
Ms. McDonough stated her concern about the parking lot being a “good neighbor”.
Mr. Brougham felt that people would spend time at the events rather than staying around a parking lot.
Gordon Crofts, property owner, stated he was in support of the petition. He stated the petitioner has followed all City criteria to improve this site and make it an asset to the area.
Mr. Brougham stated that he would place a one-foot dirt berm along the fence line, with a toenail ditch, to drain the property.
Mr. Daniels opened the public hearing.
Sharon Martines, adjacent property owner, stated she is concerned about the noise that would be caused by people staying overnight in the parking lot and the drainage of the property.
Robert Martines, adjacent property owner, stated he is concerned about the party atmosphere, the noise, the traffic impact and the lights. He asked for assurance that the temporary parking lot would be eliminated after the Olympics are over. He stated that the property is currently above grade. He would like the light deterrent material removed from the fence after the Olympics are completed. He asked what kind of lighting would be used on the parking lot.
Mr. Daniels explained that the Planning staff would approve the lighting, so the light would not unnecessarily bother the neighbors.
Mr. Brougham explained that the lights would be attached to a free standing, tripod structure. They would not impact the fence or the neighbors unnecessarily.
Ms. Martines asked who would be responsible for any damage to the fence.
Ms. Arnold explained that the property owner has insurance for the property.
Mr. Chambless asked if there would be around the clock surveillance.
Mr. Brougham explained that there would be security at the property. He felt that transients would leave the area because of the extra security from the Olympics.
Victoria Orme, manager of KOA, stated she is in support of this petition so long as people are not allowed to camp in the parking lot.
Mr. Daniels closed the public hearing.
Ms. Barrows felt that the Olympics would be an inconvenience for the general population of Salt Lake City. She would like the parking stalls to have a buffer between them and the adjacent residences, to cause the least amount of inconvenience for the neighbors.
Motion for Case 400-01-67:
Mr. Jonas made a motion based on the findings of facts, as stated in the staff report, to approve Petition No. 400-01-67, by Rocky Brougham of Mascots Parking, for a conditional use and planned development, to construct a temporary parking lot to be located at 537, 559 and 563 West North Temple in the Gateway Mixed-Use zoning district.
With the following modifications to the G-MU zoning standards:
1. Waiver of the 45-foot minimum height requirement for new development.
2. Waiver of sections 21A.31.010.H.1 and 2 (general guidelines) and 21A.31.020.G (specific guidelines) requiring parking lots located on block corner to be set back 75 feet from the property line and mid-block parking lots to be set back 15 feet.
Conditions of Approval:
1. Road base or roto-mill be imported to the site and compacted to provide a suitable parking surface.
2. Asphalt or similar paving material is installed for the first 100 feet of the entrances/exits to reduce the amount of dirt that will be deposited on City streets.
3. Temporary lighting be installed that provides a minimum lighting output of 2.4-foot candles. The lighting must be shielded to prevent light spillage off-site.
4. Execution of an agreement, in a form acceptable to the City, providing for the restoration of the site after the Olympics. At the discretion of the Planning Director, the road base or roto-mill to remain compacted on the site.
5. Pedestrian walkways must be cleared and barricaded from on-site parking and maneuvering.
6. Additional on-street public way traffic signs shall be installed to guide and control the added vehicular and pedestrian flow generated by this proposal.
7. Planning Director approval of a lightproof fence that must be provided between the proposed parking lot and the adjacent residential properties. The lightproof fencing must be taken down after the parking lot no longer exists.
8. The temporary parking lot must cease the conditional use no later than after the Paralympics are over.
9. No RV parking be allowed along the west portion of the fence line, where there are adjacent residences.
10. A one-foot berm be placed along the fence line, with a toenail ditch to drain the property.
Ms. Funk seconded the motion. Ms. Arnold, Ms. Noda, Mr. Jonas, Mr. Nelson, Ms. Funk, Mr. Chambless, Ms. McDonough, Mr. Muir and Ms. Barrows voted “Aye”. Mr. Daniels, as Chairperson, did not vote. The motion carried.
PUBLIC HEARING - Petition No. 410-566, by the First Vietnamese Baptist Church, requesting a conditional use for an addition to an existing church located at 1235 West California Avenue, in a R-1/7000 zoning district.
Mr. Dansie presented the staff report. This is an expansion of an existing church building. The expansion would bring the structure closer to the corner of California and Concord streets.
Ms. Barrows asked why the 7-foot landscape requirement is not being waived, as it is adjacent to an existing landscaped alleyway.
Mr. Dansie explained that DRT felt that there is plenty of room for the landscaping requirement.
Ms. Coffey stated that the Planning Commission does not have the authority to waive the 7-foot landscaping requirement.
Ms. Funk asked if Phase I and II were being included in this petition.
Mr. Dansie stated that both Phase I and II were included in this petition. He explained that if the Petitioner wanted to make any changes in Phase II, the changes would have to be brought back to the Planning Commission. He stated that Phase I includes the building of the first floor. Phase II has the potential of building a second story. The first story has been designed to handle the weight of the second story.
Mr. Daniels invited the petitioner to speak to the Planning Commission.
Mark Nguyen, petitioner, stated that the congregation of the Church has been growing. There is a need to expand the building to accommodate the congregation. He felt that the plans would enhance the property and community as a whole.
Mr. Nelson asked if there were any plans to repair the cinderblock wall on the east side of the property.
Kimberly Simons, architect for petitioner, stated the cinderblock wall belongs to the neighboring property.
Ms. Funk asked if there were any plans to fence the property line along the alleyway.
Ms. Simons stated there were no plans to fence the property line along the alleyway.
Mr. Daniels opened the public hearing.
There was no public input.
Mr. Jonas felt that the Planning Commission could not recommend that the Petitioner repair the cinderblock fence, as it is not on their property.
Motion for Case #410-566:
Ms. Funk made a motion based on the findings of fact, as stated in the staff report, to approve Petition No. 410-566, by the First Vietnamese Baptist Church, requesting a conditional use for an addition to an existing church located at 1235 West California Avenue, in a R-1/7000 zoning district.
Condition of Approval:
1. The applicant work with the Salt Lake City Transportation Division and Public Utilities Department to resolve any outstanding issues prior to issuance of a building permit.
Ms. Barrows seconded the motion. Ms. Arnold, Ms. Noda, Mr. Jonas, Mr. Nelson, Ms. Funk, Mr. Chambless, Ms. McDonough, Mr. Muir and Ms. Barrows voted “Aye”. Mr. Daniels, as Chairperson, did not vote. The motion carried.
PUBLIC HEARING – Petition No. 410-567, by David Dixon Architects, requesting a conditional use to use the Congregation Sharey Tzedek Synagogue / Veterans of Foreign Wars building located at 833 S 200 East, as an office in an RMF-30 zoning district within the Transitional Overlay District.
Mr. Joyce presented the staff report. The purpose of the “T” Transitional Overlay District is to allow for the redevelopment of certain older residential areas for limited commercial and light industrial uses. This District is intended to provide a higher level of control over such activity to ensure that the use and enjoyment of existing residential properties is not substantially diminished by future nonresidential redevelopment. The intent of this district shall be achieved by designating certain nonresidential uses as conditional uses within the overlay district and requiring future redevelopment to comply with established standards for compatibility and buffering as set forth in this section. Offices are specifically listed as a conditional use in the Transitional Overlay District.
Mr. Muir asked what staff felt about the relationship of the alleyway to the parcel.
Mr. Joyce stated that there is a proposal to close off access from the parcel to the alleyway. The alley would be for access to the adjoining residential properties.
Ms. Barrows asked if there should be a CPTED review as to the close proximity of the residences to this property.
Mr. Joyce explained that conversion would be evaluated through the permit process. He said that a CPTED review could be included in the conditions of approval.
Mr. Daniels invited the petitioner to speak to the Planning Commission.
David Dixon, petitioner, stated the property has some immediate needed repairs. They want to restore the building as close as possible to what it once was.
James McKee, Commander of VFW, stated they feel comfortable selling the property to the petitioner.
Mr. Daniels opened the public hearing.
Keri Sanders, resident, stated that she would like the Planning Commission to approve this petition. She asked that a solid fence be placed along the east property line and have the property and alleyway well lit.
Jim Bryant, resident, stated he would like the alleyway closed. He felt this is a positive use for the neighborhood.
Mr. Dixon explained proposed changes to the property using a map.
Mr. Daniels closed the public hearing.
Mr. Muir felt that the intensive use of alleyways were an asset to the fabric and configuration of the City.
Motion for Case #410-567:
Ms. Barrows made a motion based on the findings of fact, as stated in the staff report, to approve Petition No. 410-567, by David Dixon Architects, requesting a conditional use to use the Congregation Sharey Tzedek Synagogue / Veterans of Foreign Wars building located at 833 S 200 East, as an office in an RMF-30 zoning district within the Transitional Overlay District.
Conditions of Approval:
1. Meet all applicable City codes.
2. The Planning Director or designee approves the final landscape plans. The final plans shall show additional vertical landscaping along the south side yard adjacent to the existing residential use.
3. The provision of a solid fence along the south property line to screen headlights from shining on the residential properties. The CPTED principles be reviewed to recommend the type of fence and landscaping along the east property line.
4. There be DRT and CPTED reviews along the east property line.
5. The petitioner to record a cross over easement between the two parcels.
Ms. Funk seconded the motion. Ms. Arnold, Ms. Noda, Mr. Jonas, Mr. Nelson, Ms. Funk, Mr. Chambless, Ms. McDonough, Mr. Muir and Ms. Barrows voted “Aye”. Mr. Daniels, as Chairperson, did not vote. The motion carried.
PUBLIC HEARING – Petition No. 410-564, by Beck's Sanitation / A.D. Construction, requesting a conditional use to allow an outdoor car wash residue drying structure at 609 South 4050 West in a Light Manufacturing "M-1" zoning district.
Mr. McCandless presented the staff report. The Petitioner is requesting approval to construct a three-bay structure, which will be used to process car wash residue. The structure will be located behind an existing building. The proposed structure will be a sloped concrete pad with angled separation walls between three bays. Liquid residue from car washes will be brought to the site, dried and trucked to the landfill for disposal. The liquid residue is further processed before being taken to the landfill.
Mr. Daniels invited the petitioner to speak to the Planning Commission.
Dan Magana, petitioner, and Jim Perry, contractor for petitioner, stated they would answer any questions by the Planning Commission.
Ms. Barrows asked the petitioner to clarify what they do.
Mr. Magana stated that they dry the car wash runoff and haul the residue to the landfill. He stated that they have about 2 truckloads of residue every 6 months.
Ms. Arnold asked when the petitioner started building the concrete pad.
Mr. Perry explained that the concrete pad was built by mistake by subcontractors. As soon as they saw that the subcontractor had started the job, they stopped him.
Ms. Funk stated that the Planning Commission is greatly disturbed that concrete had been poured without a permit. She stated that verification of interior testing needed to be done to make sure that the concrete is built to City standards. She stated that the residue needed to be tested to ensure that it is not hazardous waste.
Mr. Magana stated that he takes a sample of each truckload to a laboratory to get tested. He stated that the Board of Health checks the load and gives him a processing permit.
Mr. Daniels asked who would know if there was a problem with any of the residue.
Mr. Magana stated that the Board of Health and the site where he hauls the residue to, get results of the tests.
Ms. Barrows asked if the Petitioner has received a permit for this business.
Mr. Magana explained that he cannot receive a processing permit until after the drying facility is built. He stated that he does have a discharge permit.
Ms. Barrows stated she would prefer the residue to be recycled if possible.
Mr. Wheelwright explained that landfill is a way to recycle materials.
Mr. Jonas asked what was an appropriate deterrent to stop building practices without a permit.
Mr. Perry explained that the construction was not started on purpose. He stated there was a mix up with the plans that the subcontractor was using. He stated it would cost $22,000 to remove the unauthorized construction and start over.
Mr. Jonas stated that a message has to be sent to general contractors that they shouldn’t start construction without a building permit.
Mr. Daniels felt that there wasn’t any confusion that the construction was started without a building permit.
Mr. Perry explained that bids were made on the plans before they were submitted to the City. Because of the lengthy time it took to get the original building permit, the plans got modified and mixed up by the subcontractor.
Ms. Barrows asked staff if the Planning Commission could penalize the petitioner for starting construction without a building permit.
Mr. Goldsmith stated it was not within the purview of the Planning Commission to penalize contractors. The Planning Commission could recommend an increase in the building fee and send a letter to the State informing them that the contractor violated the law.
Mr. Jonas felt that the plan did not have adequate landscaping and suggested that the petitioner could increase the amount of landscaping on the south side of the property.
Mr. Perry agreed that the additional landscaping could be included.
Mr. Chambless felt that subcontractors proceed with work that they have been directed to do.
Mr. Muir felt that since the construction was stopped mid-stream, he didn’t see any economic advantage. He felt that it was an honest mistake. He felt uncomfortable penalizing the petitioner in any degree.
Ms. Barrows felt that contractors who build without permits should be penalized.
Mr. Nelson felt that the construction was a mistake.
Mr. Jonas felt it was a honest mistake, but would like to see additional landscaping on the site.
Mr. Daniels opened the public hearing.
Ruth Price, resident, stated she would like to see drought tolerant landscaping used on the site.
Mr. Daniels closed the public hearing.
Mr. Wilde explained that a building official has the discretion to charge a double permit fee in this situation. A letter can also be written to the State.
Mr. Daniels felt that someone has the responsibility to stop the construction. He felt that this was not an honest mistake.
Ms. Barrows felt that the inspectors would not be able to inspect the construction effectively.
Ms. Funk felt that a City inspector cannot verify the quality of the construction at this point.
Ms. Arnold asked if the concrete company had to have a permit to pour the concrete.
Mr. Wheelwright explained that the concrete would be part of the original building permit application. The concrete company does not have to have a permit to pour the concrete. He asked the petitioner if the foundation walls of the building were poured at the same time as the foundation wall for the facility. He felt it was a different time.
Mr. Perry stated he didn’t know when the foundation wall in question was poured. He stated that he had been at the site only once since construction began. Other people are responsible for the site.
Mr. Wheelwright stated that the building inspector could verify if he had inspected the foundation in question. He stated that the Planning Commission could delay action on this until the building inspector was questioned.
Mr. Jonas stated that he didn’t want to be punitive. He felt it was a mistake that was not necessarily malicious.
Ms. Arnold stated she would like further investigation before this petition gets approved.
Mr. Muir felt that the Planning Commission doesn’t have the purview to penalize the petitioner. The building department has to respond to the infraction.
Ms. Barrows stated that the building inspector wouldn’t be able to take a look at the construction that has been done unless a conditional use has been approved.
Mr. Goldsmith suggested that the Planning Commission could approve the petition subject to demonstrating that the concrete had been tested and met the necessary requirements of the Building and Housing Department, to the Planning Director.
Motion for Case #410-564:
Mr. Jonas made a motion based on the findings of fact, as stated in the staff report, to approve Petition No. 410-410-564, by Beck's Sanitation / A.D. Construction, requesting a conditional use to allow an outdoor car wash residue drying structure at 609 South 4050 West in a Light Manufacturing "M-1" zoning district.
Conditions of Approval:
1. Meet all applicable City, County and State codes and ordinances.
2. Resolve all wastewater treatment issues prior to issuance of a building permit.
3. Verification of material testing to ensure that it is not a hazardous waste.
4. Meet all City departmental requirements.
5. Additional landscaping, as proposed by the applicant, be added to the site plan and be drought tolerant.
6. The suitability of the existing structure be demonstrated to the Planning Director.
Mr. Nelson seconded the motion. Ms. Arnold, Ms. Noda, Mr. Jonas, Mr. Nelson, Ms. Funk, Mr. Chambless, Ms. McDonough, Mr. Muir and Ms. Barrows voted “Aye”. Mr. Daniels, as Chairperson, did not vote. The motion carried.
OTHER BUSINESS
Discussion on Emigration Creek issues relative to Petition No. 400-01-39, requesting Salt Lake City to amend the Open Space Master Plan.
Mr. Wheelwright explained that an association of residents and property owners living along Emigration Creek corridor between 1100 East and 1700 East have formed an association called the Emigration Homeowners and Occupants (ECHO). ECHO is requesting that the City’s Open Space Master Plan be amended to relocate creek side pedestrian trails shown on the plan to adjacent public streets / sidewalks. He asked the Planning Commission for direction regarding this issue.
Ms. Barrows asked if there was a consensus from the community on this matter.
Mr. McCandless read the section from the recently adopted Sugar House Master Plan relating to the Emigration Creek. “.The Emigration Creek corridor is unique in that the majority of the stream is bounded by steep banks and runs through the existing residentially developed areas. Many residents live adjacent to the stream, with their rear yards in close proximity of the streambed. Consequently, development of trail way following the streambed, would present challenges when designing the route. Issues such as privacy and safety are of primary concern for many residents. Therefore, public involvement and careful discretion should be employed when planning on specific trail route, with particular regard given to the private property owners adjacent to the creek.” This amendment from the Sugar House Master Plan has the effect of modifying the Open Space Master Plan, specific to this corridor.
Mr. Muir felt that the resident’s fears were unfounded as the section plainly stated that the private property owner’s rights were important.
The Planning Commissioners agreed with Mr. Muir.
Mr. Jonas stated that the Open Space Master Plan should reflect the language in the statement read by Mr. McCandless.
Ms. Barrows stated that the Sugar House Master Plan supercedes the Open Space Master Plan so that the section is automatically adopted in the Open Space Master Plan.
Mr. Wheelwright explained that the Open Space Master Plan has specific recommendations for each corridor. The Master Plan states specifically that any plans for a trail would have to go through a Planning Commission Hearing for approval. Other trails that have been approved through the Planning Commission are within the public way, on nearly adjacent streets. The trail follows the corridor of the street, with no attempt to get in resident’s backyards. The ECHO group is asking for the same consideration.
Ms. McDonough felt that more information was needed on the Open Space Master Plan. She would like more history before she makes a recommendation.
The Planning Commissioners asked for a copy of the Open Space Master Plan.
Ms. Funk felt that the Sugar House Master Plan basically states what the residents are requesting.
Mr. Wheelwright explained that the residents want the Planning Commission to specifically modify the corridor along Emigration Creek, to say that the City would never build a trail in close proximity of the Creek.
Ms. Funk interpreted the Sugar House Master Plan as saying that if a trail would be developed, the trail would be placed on adjacent streets.
Mr. Wheelwright stated that if the City embarked on constructing a new trail, the specific alignment would have to go through a specific advertised alignment public hearing by the Planning Commission.
Ms. Barrows felt that staff shouldn’t devote any more time to the request by ECHO. She would rather have staff educate the Planning Commission on what the Master Plan states.
Mr. Daniels stated he is satisfied with the statement read by Mr. McCandless.
Mr. Chambless agreed with Mr. Daniels.
Mr. Muir asked what was the vehicle for creating trail systems.
Mr. Wheelwright stated the private land on the Shoreline Trail was purchased or donated.
Mr. Muir stated that if a Master Plan is adopted, the City has to have the will to see it through.
Ms. Noda felt that Mr. Muir has a point.
Ms. Arnold felt that the people who like the trails, aren’t the people who have to deal with the problems. The problems are great, when the backyards are shallow and strangers are accessing private property to enter the trail. She stated that she couldn’t agree to developing trails in shallow backyards.
Ms. Barrows stated that the trail has not been developed. The trail is a concept or a vision. When the time comes that the trail is ready to be implemented, a way will be found not to intrude on the property owner’s rights.
Mr. Jonas felt that the will of the people has changed between 1992 and 2001. In 1992, the Open Space Master Plan states that the will of the people want a public process to decide how or if the trail will be developed. In 2001, the Sugar House Master Plan says that the will of the people don’t want a trail in this corridor.
Mr. Muir stated that the Open Space Master Plan is the will of a much larger group of people than the Sugar House Master Plan.
Ms. Barrows stated that ECHO wants to determine where the trail should be now, rather than wait until the City is ready to develop the trail.
Mr. Goldsmith explained that Master Plans are conceptual with a view to the future. There are many things that could happen to a City over 50, 75 or 100 years, such as earthquakes. Corridors could be opened up in entirely different ways.
Mr. Wheelwright stated that staff could agenda this to include public discussion. The Planning Commission could then be briefed on the Open Space Master Plan. The City Attorney could be asked to clarify how the Sugar House Master Plan clarification affects the Open Space Master Plan. He stated there could be 2 hearings. The first one would be to brief the Planning Commission and allow public comment. The second would be to present the staff report with recommendations and have another opportunity for public comment.
Request for an extension of time on Petition No. 410-508 from Ord Properties, requesting a conditional use to construct a residential condominium in a D-4 zoning district, located at the northwest corner of South Temple and 400 West Streets. The petitioner requests a waiver of the 40% glass requirement, alteration of setback requirements, increased height and allowance of residential units at the grounds level. This petition was previously approved, as petition 410-342, however the time limit for construction expired and a new petition was submitted.
Mr. Nelson recused himself from this petition as he has a conflict of interest.
Mr. Wilde addressed the issues. In 1999, the Planning Commission approved a conditional use for this project. The petitioner was under the impression that he had 18 months, instead of 12 months, to work this project, therefore, the approval expired. A new application was approved in 2001. SLOC asked the petitioner not to pursue construction during the Olympics. The petitioner is requesting an additional 6 months extension of time.
Ms. Barrows asked if an extension of time was automatically given to petitioners on request.
Mr. Wilde stated that they are not. The Planning Commission can either approve or deny requests for an extension of time.
Ms. Barrows stated that she thought the petitioner changed their design on the second petition. She asked which design was the petitioner asking for an extension of time on.
Mr. Wilde explained the options that the petitioner was asking for, using a drawing. The Planning Commission can approve whichever option they want. He stated that the Planning Commission could recommend this petition be put on the agenda so they can hear and decide which option to approve.
Mr. Jonas stated that this development would place more housing in the downtown area.
Mr. Wilde stated this building would hold 300 to 340 residential units.
Motion for Case #410-508:
Mr. Jonas made a motion to approve the extension for Petition No. 410-508, to include the flexibility asked for by the petitioner.
Ms. Funk seconded the motion. Ms. Arnold, Ms. Noda, Mr. Jonas, Ms. Funk, Ms. McDonough and Mr. Muir voted “Aye”. Ms. Barrows and Mr. Chambless voted against the motion. Mr. Daniels, as Chairperson, did not vote. The motion carried.
Mr. Nelson returned to the Commission.
Discussion for the Planning Commission to consider initiating a petition to analyze the zoning of two properties on the northwest corner of West Temple and 1700 South.
Mr. Wilde presented the issues. It has recently been brought to staff’s attention that a mapping error occurred on the northern property (1640 S. West Temple) when the zoning boundary was split on this parcel of property. Staff believes that in 1995, both properties were to be zoned CB. However, when the mapping information was transferred from the larger scaled maps to the smaller scaled computer generated maps, an error occurred splitting the parcel at 1640 S. West Temple with two zoning districts (RMF-35 and CB).
Ms. Barrows felt concerned that this might be spot zoning.
Mr. Wilde explained that it was not spot zoning, because it is an extension of an existing zone.
Motion to Initiate a Petition:
Ms. Noda made a motion to initiate a petition to analyze the zoning of two properties on the northwest corner of West Temple and 1700 South.
Mr. Jonas seconded the motion. Ms. Arnold, Ms. Noda, Mr. Jonas, Mr. Nelson, Ms. Funk, Mr. Chambless, Ms. McDonough, Mr. Muir and Ms. Barrows voted “Aye”. Mr. Daniels, as Chairperson, did not vote. The motion carried.
Discussion of receiving testimony in a timely manner.
Mr. Wilde stated that Item 10 that is placed on the back of the agenda in an attempt to get information to the Planning Commission in a timely manner. If a concerned citizen plans to attend a meeting, but something happens on the day before the meeting and they can’t attend it, they need to have the option of having their comments heard at the meeting. He felt that legally, the Planning Commission has to accept all information or testimony from the public.
Ms. Funk agreed with Mr. Wilde. She suggested the language needed to be changed.
Mr. Jonas suggested using the language in Item 9, “Under unique circumstances,” written comments may be accepted within a 7-day period.
Ms. Arnold suggested taking Item 10 off the back of the agenda.
Mr. Goldsmith suggested replacing Item 10 with; “In order for the Planning Commission to have the opportunity to fully review your comments, you are encouraged to submit your comments as far in advance as possible.”
Mr. Daniels stated that when the public brings written testimony, not all of the Planning Commissioners take the opportunity to read it. He felt it was a fundamental unfairness to those people. He felt that Item 10 could say, “Please submit written testimony ahead of time, with as much time as possible.”
Ms. Funk suggested Item 10 says: “Meeting notices are made available 14 days in advance. If persons wish to submit written comments, they should be directed to the Planning Division as far in advance of the hearing as possible to enable Planning Commissioners to consider those written comments.”
Ms. Barrows stated that she didn’t want to encourage the public to submit large amounts of written comments in advance. She felt that written comment is often not helpful.
Mr. Nelson felt that adding “for best results” could be included in the statement.
Mr. Daniels is concerned that some people could be treated unfairly.
Mr. Jonas stated that he liked Ms. Funk’s statement.
Mr. Daniels stated that people are sueing others because of unfair treatment. He would like a statement that is fair to everyone. He felt that Ms. Funk’s statement is fair. He suggested Ms. Funk’s statement replace Item 10 on the back of the agenda.
Ms. Arnold felt that if the testimony of one hearing gets timed, they should all be timed.
Mr. Daniels stated that the timing should be determined by the number of people wanting to testify.
Ms. Arnold felt that every testimony should be timed. This would help to shorten the meetings. She would like Item 10 taken off the back of the agenda.
Mr. Nelson felt concerned that in the Cancer Wellness House petition, staff spoke for 20 minutes and the Community Council’s attorney was allowed to speak for only 2 minutes.
Mr. Daniels stated that the Commissioners also spend a lot of time talking.
Ms. Funk felt that the staff report and petitioner response should also be limited. She favors the limitation of testimony on every hearing. She felt that 2 minutes was not enough time on big issues.
Mr. Goldsmith explained that testimony would vary with the complexity of each issue.
Ms. Funk felt that the Planning Commissioners get carried away with informational types of questions that don’t address the issue.
Mr. Chambless felt that it was important to allow people to say what they want. This could alleviate some litigation. There should be set times for everyone to speak. He stated if the big case is heard first, the Planning Commission could feel more relaxed during the rest of the hearings.
Ms. Noda stated that some people are going to sue whether they get heard at the public hearing or not. It’s important to give people the opportunity to comment on issues. She felt that staff does a good job in giving due process to the public.
Mr. Jonas agreed with Ms. Noda. He stated that people who speak for 2 minutes usually repeat what others have already said.
Mr. Nelson asked if people could give their time to someone else.
Mr. Goldsmith stated that it’s the Chair’s prerogative to make the determination of allowing people to give their time to others. He felt there should be time limits.
Mr. Wheelwright stated that at the beginning of each item, the Chair could ask how many people would like to speak to the Planning Commission. That would give the Chair an idea on how much time to allocate to testimonies.
Ms. Barrows asked if there was a potential for timing petitioners.
Mr. Goldsmith stated that anyone who speaks to the Planning Commission should know what their time limit would be.
Mr. Chambless agreed with Mr. Goldsmith.
Mr. Daniels asked if the consensus of the Planning Commission was to time everyone who speaks to the Planning Commission.
The Planning Commissioners stated “No”.
Ms. Funk stated that on controversial petitions, the person in opposition (possibly the Community Council Chair) should be given more than 2 minutes to express their concerns.
Discussion of options regarding Zoning Ordinance building height regulations and their relationship to Uniform Building Code regulations.
Mr. Goldsmith stated this was an attempt to make the Zoning Ordinance coincide with the Uniform Building Code. He felt that they should coincide.
Ms. Barrows asked if they should be less restrictive than they are and if this would cause additional conditional uses.
Ms. McDonough stated it makes for less confusion and more flexibility for the designer.
Mr. Goldsmith explained that only one building type was being looked at to apply this to. He suggested that a subcommittee be organized to research and bring a recommendation back to the Planning Commission. He suggested that Mr. Muir, Ms. McDonough and Mr. Jonas be included in the subcommittee.
Mr. Muir asked that Roger Evans was included in the subcommittee.
Mr. Muir, Ms. McDonough and Mr. Jonas agreed to be included in the subcommittee.
Meeting adjourned at 9:20 pm.