SALT LAKE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION Minutes
451 South State Street, Room 126
Present from the Planning Commission were Chairperson Max Smith, Judi Short, Diana Kirk, Andrea Barrows, Fred Fife and Jim McRea. Aria Funk, Craig Mariger and Gilbert lker were excused.
Present from the Planning Staff were Planning Director William T. Wright, Brent Wilde, Cheri Coffey, Ray McCandless, Doug Wheelwright and Margaret Pahl.
A roll is being kept of all who attended the Planning Commission meeting. The meeting was called to order at 5:20 p.m. by Mr. Smith. Minutes are presented in agenda order, 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.
DINNER BREAK DISCUSSION
Discussion of Zoning Ordinance refinements.
Mr. Brent Wilde and Ms. Cheri Coffey led the continued discussion of the Zoning Ordinance refinements during the dinner break. A copy of the zoning issues that were discussed is filed with the minutes.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
Ms. Short moved to approve the minutes of Thursday, December 18, 1997. Mr. McRea
PETITIONS
P
UBLIC HEARING-Petition No. 410-281 by AirTouch Cellular Inc. for a conditional use to allow a 100 foot high cellular telecommunications monopole antenna located at 2015 West Industrial Circle in a Light Manufacturing "M-1" zoning district.
Mr. Ray McCandless presented the staff report outlining the major issues of the case, the findings of fact and the staff recommendation, a copy of which is filed with the minutes. Mr. McCandless then stated that a 100 foot high antenna is not compatible with the height of other adjoining uses in the area. A 60 to 80 foot high monopole would be compatible provided minimal bracing is used, the monopole is co-locatable and vertical landscaping is used to help screen the monopole. Staff feels that all options or combinations of options such as other locations, multiple sites, monopole/ building mount repeaters etc., to make the site less obtrusive and more compatible with the height of adjoining uses, should be thoroughly explored before a 100 foot high monopole is considered.
Mr. McRea asked if a 100 foot monopole is approved, will a second site be eliminated. Mr. McCandless stated that the applicants believe that it would.
Ms. Kirk stated that she is not comfortable with approving an 80 foot monopole because she feels that it is too high for the location.
Mr. Gary Jones, Real Estate Manager, and Mr. Gregory Anderson, Engineer, both representing Air Touch Cellular, were present for this portion of the meeting and stated that they did not completely agree with the staff recommendations. Mr. Jones stated that if the requested height for a monopole, 100 feet, is not approved AirTouch will need to build one additional site and possible two to get the coverage needed. Mr. Jones then stated that this particular site is very unique in terms of network system because it is in an industrial area and it is close to the freeway.
Mr. Anderson reviewed cellular antenna coverage maps (copies of which are filed with the minutes) with the Planning Commission which helped the Planning Commissioners understand why the applicant has requested a 100 foot monopole.
Mr. Smith opened the hearing to the public and asked if anyone wished to address the Planning Commission. Upon receiving no response, he closed the hearing to the public and opened it for Planning Commission discussion.
Mr. McRea stated that he feels that in some cases, such as this one, he would not mind approving one tall tower if it can eliminate the need for two or three small towers.
Ms. Kirk stated that she has a problem with approving a 100 foot tower because she feels that it will add to the obstructed view of the mountains from the freeway. She also feels that there will be other proposals for towers in this area even if a 1 00 foot tower is approved because there is a large demand for the product.
Motion for Petition No. 41 0-281:
Ms. Kirk moved, based on the findings of fact, to deny Petition No. 410-281 for a 100 foot monopole at 2015 West Industrial Circle and recommend that the applicant explore other options to reduce the needed height of the facility.
Ms. Kirk further moved to approve a 60 foot high co-locatable monopole antenna at this site subject to the following conditions as listed in the staff report (deleting condition No. 7):
1 Using a single horizontal 'T' brace if technically possible.
2 Installation of a monopole that is co-locatable.
3 Painting the antennae a flat medium gray color as discussed in the staff report.
4 Landscaping (including 2" caliper trees that will obtain an ultimate height of 60 to 80 feet) be provided within the lease area and a landscaping plan be provided and approved by the City.
5 Implementation of a performance bond, irrevocable letter of credit, cash escrow or certificate of deposit as discussed in the staff report to assure removal of the monopole if it is ever abandoned.
6 The lease area not become a separate parcel of land unless approved by the City.
8 . The climbing pegs from the lower 20 feet of the tower be removed and all utility lines to the antenna and equipment building be underground.
9. Meeting all requirements of the various City departments.
10. The construction drawings be stamped be a registered engineer.
Ms. Short seconded the motion. Ms. Kirk, Ms. Barrows, Ms. Short and Mr. Fife voted "Aye". Mr. McRea was opposed. Ms. Funk, Mr. Mariger and Mr. lker were not present. Mr. Smith, as Chair, did not vote. The motion passed.
PUBLIC HEARING -Petition No. 410-291 by Sprint PCS for a conditional use to allow a wall mounted cellular telecommunications antenna located at 1245 East Brickyard Road in a Residential Office "R-0" zoning district.
Mr. Ray McCandless presented the staff report outlining the major issues of the case, the findings of fact and the staff recommendation, a copy of which is filed with the minutes.
Mr. Dave Holt, the petitioner, was present for this portion of the meeting and stated that he was in agreement with the staff recommendations.
Mr. Smith opened the hearing to the public and asked if anyone wished to address the Planning Commission. Upon receiving no response, he closed the hearing to the public and opened it for Planning Commission discussion.
Motion for Petition No. 410-291:
Ms. Kirk moved, based on the findings of fact, to approve Petition No. 410-291 to allow for wall mounted cellular telecommunications antennae at 1245 East Brickyard Road subject to the following conditions as listed in the staff report:
1. Painting the antennae to match the building.
2. Meeting all requirements of the various City departments.
Mr. McRea seconded the motion. Ms. Kirk, Ms. Barrows, Mr. McRea, Ms. Short and
Mr. Fife voted "Aye". Ms. Funk, Mr. Mariger and Mr. lker were not present. Mr. Smith, as Chair, did not vote. The motion passed.
PUBLIC HEARING -Petition No. 410-296 by Dee's Inc., for a commercial planned development to construct a new 73 room Comfort Inn Hotel located at 2055 South Redwood Road in a Commercial Corridor "C-C" zoning district.
Mr. Ray McCandless presented the staff report outlining the major issues of the case, the findings of fact and the staff recommendation, a copy of which is filed with the minutes. Mr. McCandless addressed the parking spaces being requested by the petitioner. Mr. McCandless stated that if the 3-story option is approved, the Zoning Ordinance would require 65 spaces. The petitioner has requested 182 spaces which is an excess of 117 spaces.
Mr. Russ Naylor, representing the petitioner, was present for this portion of the meeting and he explained that the proposal being presented tonight is a revision of the proposal that was in the staff report. Mr. Naylor used a presentation board to note the differences in the revised plan to the Planning Commission. Mr. Naylor then addressed the excess amount of parking and stated that the petitioner feels that all of the spaces will be needed because there will be more people driving to the restaurant rather than walking.
Mr. Smith opened the hearing to the public and asked if anyone wished to address the Planning Commission. Upon receiving no response, he closed the hearing to the public and opened it for Planning Commission discussion.
The Planning Commission discussed the parking issue specifically the excess amount of parking spaces being requested by the petitioner. After their discussion, it was decided that the Planning Commission would like to see more landscaping and less asphalt and that there needs to be some type of parking plan that would discourage large vehicles.
Ms. Kirk noted that the parking and landscaping plans are in need of further review. She then stated that the motion could reflect that the Planning Director, being aware of the Planning Commission's concerns, have final approval.
Motion for Petition No. 410-296:
Ms. Kirk moved, based on the findings of fact, to approve Petition No. 410-296 for a commercial planned development at 2055 South Redwood Road subject to the following conditions as listed in the staff report (amending condition No.7):
1 The maximum height requirement be modified to accommodate the building as proposed.
2 The requirement for not allowing more than one building on a lot with multiple uses be modified to allow the restaurant and hotel on the same parcel.
3 The applicant be required to use a combination of exterior building materials including brick with final approval authority being granted to the Planning Director.
4 The trash dumpsters be relocated near the hotel.
5 The final development approval authority be granted to the Planning Director.
6 The project be approved subject to meeting City departmental requirements, including the Police Department.
7 An approvable landscaping plan be submitted with final approval authority being granted to the Planning Director and that the Planning Director encourage more trees and landscaping in the parking lot. The Planning Director should also review the parking plan to reduce some of the unnecessary excess parking spaces and that the plan does not encourage large vehicles to use the parking lot.
Ms. Short seconded the motion. Ms. Kirk, Ms. Barrows, Mr. McRea, Ms. Short and Mr. Fife voted "Aye". Ms. Funk, Mr. Mariger and Mr. lker were not present. Mr. Smith, as Chair, did not vote. The motion passed.
PUBLIC HEARING-Petition No. 400-97-83 by Jan and Cheryl Leonard requesting Salt Lake City to allow an amendment of lot 315. Capitol Park Phase 3 Subdivision located at 604 North Capitol Park Avenue in a Foothill Residential "FR-3" zoning district.
Mr. Doug Wheelwright presented the staff report outlining the major issues of the case, the findings of fact and the staff recommendation, a copy of which is filed with the minutes. Mr. Wheelwright stated that the Leonard's are requesting to change the buildable area configuration on Lot 315 by shifting the lot forward. Mr. Wheelwright then stated that the proposed change in the location of the buildable area is really not an "expansion" of the buildable area available on the lot, but really a shifting of the buildable area closer to the street and farther away from the rear lot line.
Mr. Jan Leonard & Ms. Cheryl Leonard, the petitioners, were present for this portion of the meeting and stated that they were in agreement with the staff recommendations.
Mr. Smith opened the hearing to the public and asked if anyone wished to address the Planning Commission.
Mr. Wally Wright, a concerned citizen, stated that he is in favor of the amendment to Lot
315.
Upon receiving no further requests to address the Planning Commission, Mr. Smith closed the hearing to the public and opened it for Planning Commission discussion.
Motion for Petition No. 400-97-83:
Mr. McRea moved, based on the findings of fact, to approve the requested reconfiguration of the buildable area for Lot 315, Petition No. 400-97-83, subject to a final amended plat being prepared, approved by the Planning Director and eventually recorded with the County Recorder. Mr. McRea further moved that a favorable recommendation be made to the City Council on the amended plat request. Ms. Kirk seconded the motion. Ms. Kirk, Ms. Barrows, Mr. McRea, Ms. Short and Mr. Fife voted "Aye". Ms. Funk, Mr. Mariger and Mr. lker were not present. Mr. Smith, as Chair, did not vote. The motion passed.
PUBLIC HEARING -Petition No. 410-293 by John & Sierra Collins requesting a conditional use to allow a two lot residential planned development located at 1875 East 2100 South in a Residentiai"R-1-7000" zoning district.
Ms. Margaret Pahl presented the staff report outlining the major issues of the case, the findings of fact and the staff recommendation, a copy of which is filed with the minutes.
Mr. John Collins and Ms. Sierra Collins, the petitioners, were present for this portion of the meeting and stated that they were in agreement with the staff recommendations. Ms. Collins addressed some concerns that were mentioned by the abutting rental property owner's (the Sawyer's) such as increased traffic, decreased property value and privacy. Ms. Collins stated that she feels that home owners take better care of property then renters and that she has taken very good care of her lot and has done her part to better the neighborhood. Ms. Collins then stated that she will be planting a five foot landscaped buffer to give the yard and the abutting yards more privacy.
Mr. Smith opened the hearing to the public and asked if anyone wished to address the Planning Commission.
Mr. Ralph Sawyer and Ms. Allison Sawyer, abutting property owners, stated that they were opposed to the development because they feel that it will increase traffic. They also feel that having a driveway next to their property will decrease the property value. Ms. Sawyer then stated that having a home in the backyard would also infringe on her privacy. Mr. Sawyer stated that he feels that their rental property has been very well maintained.
Ms. Suzanne Parry, a concerned neighbor, stated that she is opposed to the development because she feels that a two story house built in the backyard is infringing on her privacy and that if it is approved it will set a precedence.
Ms. Parry also stated some concerns about increased traffic.
Ms. Pahl stated that the other properties in the neighborhood could not be split to build another house because the properties do not have enough width to allow for a required 20 foot wide dedicated "·Hag pole".
Ms. Claudia Pack, a concerned neighbor, stated that she is opposed to the development because she feels that a two story house is too big and that it will increase traffic. Ms. Pack also stated that she feels that the new development should have a place to contain their dog because it roams the neighborhood.
Mr. Kim Crellin, general contractor for the new development, stated that the owners have the right, at this point, to move their driveway, install a tennis court or install a swimming pool without needing to inform neighbors. Mr. Crellin then stated that he feels that the proposed house is an enhancement to the property.
Ms. Helen Peters, Vice Chair of the Sugar House Community Council, stated that she was absent at the time of this developments review by the council. However, she is aware that there is not full support by the council for the concept of having two houses on one lot and that the council members are working on receiving help from Salt Lake City to stop this type of development in the Sugar House area.
Upon receiving no further requests to address the Planning Commission, Mr. Smith closed the hearing to the public and opened it for Planning Commission discussion.
Ms. Barrows stated that she has some concern about allowing a large home in the backyard because she feels that it would infringe on the neighbor's privacy. She then stated that she would like to see something smaller like an accessory type of home.
Ms. Short stated that she concurs with Ms. Barrows and she also shares the same concerns as the community council.
Mr. McRea stated that he feels that a tennis court or a swimming pool could disrupt the quite peace more than a new residence.
Ms. Kirk stated that she likes the proposal and that she feels that it is a good design.
Motion for Petition No. 410-293:
Ms. Kirk moved, based on the findings of fact, to approve Petition No. 41 0-293 to allow a two lot residential planned development at 1875 East 2100 South subject to the following conditions as listed in the staff report:
1 The final site plan and setbacks review approval authority delegated to the Planning Director.
2 Resolution of the fire access issue that is acceptable to the Fire Department.
Mr. McRea seconded the motion. Ms. Kirk, Mr. McRea and Mr. Fife voted "Aye".
Ms. Barrows and Ms. Short were opposed. Ms. Funk, Mr. Mariger and Mr. lker were not present. Mr. Smith, as Chair, did not vote. The motion passed.
PUBLIC HEARING -Petition No. 410-280 by Jim Johnson requesting a conditional use to allow a 16 unit residential planned development located at 2552 South 900 East in a Residential "RMF-30" zoning district.
Mr. Max Smith noted that this request has been postponed until a future Planning Commission meeting.
OTHER BUSINESS
Update on the Hidden Hollow Design Plan.
Mr. Danny Walz, representing the Redevelopment Agency, was present for this portion of the meeting to update the Planning Commission on the Hidden Hollow Design Plan. Mr. Walz stated that due to a small budget, a committee was not organized. Instead, a design charette was held to receive public input and a meeting was also held with the KOPE Kids to get their ideas. Mr. Walz stated that the master plan addresses safety issues as well as adding more trails, walkways, an amphitheater and an observation deck. The planting will be cleaned up and stabilized and additional natural, native trees and shrubs are being proposed.
There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 8:00 p.m.