SALT LAKE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
In Room 126 of the City & County Building
451 South State Street, Salt Lake City, Utah
Present from the Planning Commission were Chair Jeff Jonas, Kay (berger) Arnold, Tim Chambless, Robert “Bip” Daniels, John Diamond, Arla Funk, Peggy McDonough, Prescott Muir, Laurie Noda, Jennifer Seelig. Ms. McDonough left the meeting at 8:00 p.m.
Present from the Planning Staff were Acting Planning Director Brent Wilde; Deputy Planning Director Doug Wheelwright; Planning Program Supervisor Cheri Coffey; and Planners Doug Dansie, Marilynn Lewis, and Melissa Anderson
A roll is being kept of all who attended the Planning Commission Meeting. Mr. Jonas called the meeting to order at 5:35 p.m. Minutes are presented in agenda order and not necessarily as cases were heard by the Planning Commission. Tapes of the meeting will be retained in the Planning Office for a period of one year, after which they will be erased.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES FROM Thursday, December 5 and Thursday, December 12, 2002
Peggy McDonough referred to page 7, second paragraph, second line, and requested that the sentence be corrected to read, “. . . on the advice of their attorney, they are challenging every step that the city takes to develop the intermodal hub.” She referred to page 13, second to the last paragraph, and noted that the correct spelling is David Oka.
Robert “Bip” Daniels referred to the motion on page 1 and corrected “Robert “Bip” Arnold to read, Robert “Bip” Daniels.
Arla Funk referred to page 5, last sentence of the last paragraph regarding Amtrak and requested that the sentence be changed to read, “If it is not viable.” She noted that Amtrak is a single entity. Referring to page 6, second to the last paragraph, she requested that the word exist be changed to exit. On page 10, third paragraph, the last sentence which reads, “After further discussion, Chair Jonas clarified that the Planning Commission was comfortable with moving the pavers to 600 West as suggested by Mr. Paterson,” she recalled that the final motion directed that the decision on the pavers be determined by the Mayor’s Committee on Accessibility. Chair Jonas stated that he did not think he clarified that statement and remembered asking the Planning Commission whether they were comfortable with moving the pavers. Ms. Funk referred to Page 12, second paragraph from the bottom, and asked that the second line of the first sentence be revised to read, “ and noted that the City Council brought in a consultant from Colorado.”
Mr. Daniels corrected the spelling of Mr. Clara’s last name.
Motion
Prescott Muir moved to accept the minutes of December 12, 2002, as modified. Jennifer Seelig seconded the motion. Ms. Arnold, Mr. Chambless, Mr. Daniels, Mr. Diamond, Ms. Funk, Ms. McDonough, Mr. Muir, and Ms. Seelig voted “Aye.” Ms. Noda abstained as she was not present at the December 12 meeting. Jeff Jonas, as chair, did not vote. The motion carried.
December 5, 2002
Prescott Muir referred to page 34, last paragraph, and noted that the word sitting should be changed to siting. Referring to page 36, second paragraph, he noted that the words to on should be reversed, and the sentence should read, “It will be directed on to the building and vegetation, but it will not point into the neighborhood.”
Jeff Jonas referred to page 4, first line, and noted that “manufacturers certified use cars” should read “used cars.” On the same page, fourth paragraph, second to last line, he requested that additional pole signs be changed to read an additional pole sign. Referring to page 29, second paragraph, fourth line, he asked that the reference to deliveries between 7:00 to 9:00 p.m. be changed to read 7:00 a.m. to 9:00 p.m.
Motion
Prescott Muir moved to approve minutes of December 5, 2002, as modified. Robert “Bip” Daniels seconded the motion. Ms. Arnold, Mr. Chambless, Mr. Daniels, Mr. Diamond, Mr. Muir, Ms. Noda, and Ms. Seelig voted “Aye.” Ms. Funk and Ms. McDonough abstained as they were not present at the December 5 meeting. Jeff Jonas, as chair, did not vote. The motion carried.
CONSENT AGENDA - Salt Lake City Property Conveyance Matters:
a. University of Utah and Salt Lake City Public Utilities - The University is requesting Salt Lake City Public Utilities to issue a revocable permit to allow the location and operation of a remote location seismic activity recording and transmitting instrument at the City Wastewater Treatment Plant located at 1365 West 2300 North, in a Manufacturing M-2 zoning district.
b. Judy Bell and Salt Lake City Utilities/Property Management - Request for a renewal of a property lease agreement to allow the continued encroachment of paved parking and access upon the portion of the Jordan and Salt Lake Canal, for the property located at 1742 East Holladay Blvd. (approximately 4175 South) located in un-incorporated Salt Lake County.
c. Veda Barrie-Weatherbee and Salt Lake City Public Utilities/Property Management - Request for a property lease agreement to allow continued encroachment of pavement and fencing upon a portion of the Jordan and Salt Lake Canal, for the property located at 4163 South Highland Drive (approximately 1700 East) located in un-incorporated Salt Lake County.
d. Picture Memories, Inc., and Salt Lake City Public Utilities/Property Management - Request for a property lease agreement to replace an expired lease agreement to allow the continued encroachment of pavement and parking upon a portion of the Jordan and Salt Lake Canal, for the property located at 4227 South Highland Drive (approximately 1700 East) located in un-incorporated Salt Lake County.
e. Quest and Salt Lake City Public Utilities - Request by Quest Telephone to be allowed to install telephone cables in existing conduits that encroach into a portion of the Jordan and Salt Lake Canal Property. The utility permit encroachment is located at approximately 8600 South State Street in the un-incorporated Salt Lake County.
f. Millrock Development, LLC by MTC Partners LTD and Salt Lake City Public Utilities - Request for Salt Lake City Public Utilities to accept a new easement for a new 12 inch water main to service new commercial development. The new utility easement is located at approximately 3115 East Lion Lane (approximately 6400 South) in un-incorporated Salt Lake County near the mouth of Big Cottonwood Canyon.
g. UDOT and Salt Lake City Public Utilities/Property Management - UDOT is requesting an exchange of property to allow the realignment and reconstruction of a portion of the Jordan and Salt Lake Canal in conjunction with the construction in 1999 of Bangerter Highway at 13800 South and about 700 West in Draper City.
Chair Jonas called for public input.
A member of the public inquired about the conveyance matters and was satisfied after Staff explained that they were consent agenda items attached as a second page to the agenda.
Motion
Arla Funk moved to approve the seven conveyance matters on the Consent Agenda. Robert “Bip” Daniels seconded the motion. Ms. Arnold, Mr. Chambless, Mr. Daniels, Mr Diamond, Ms. Funk, Ms McDonough, Mr. Muir, Ms. Noda, and Ms. Seelig voted “Aye.” Jeff Jonas, as chair, did not vote. The motion carried.
Mr. Muir noted that Consent Agenda items are not posted as part of the public hearings and asked if it was appropriate to invite public response. Mr. Wilde recalled that it was determined in the original discussions that, if someone from the public was present, they would have an opportunity to comment before the Planning Commission took action. Mr. Wheelwright stated that the concept also allows a Commissioner to request that an item be removed from the Consent Agenda and discussed separately at a future meeting. Mr. Wilde explained that the Consent Agenda provides an opportunity for someone with an issue to comment without posting each item for a public hearing.
PUBLIC HEARINGS
PUBLIC HEARING - Petition No. 410-621 & 410-622, by Salt Lake City Public Utilities Department, requesting a conditional use approval for the construction of two Public Utility Buildings that will contain water fluoridation equipment. These new buildings are proposed at the existing water well sites located at 1285 East 2700 South, in a R-1-5000 Single Family Residential District, and 1907 East 2700 South in an R-1-7000 Single Family Residential District.
Mr. Wheelwright noted that the staff report does not indicate that these petitions were presented to the Community Council on November 6, 2002. He read excerpts from the Community Council minutes regarding the two sites. The motion to approve the two sites passed with a vote of 13 in favor, 3 opposed, and l abstaining, subject to a condition that the buildings be brick and that the roofs be designed to blend into the surrounding buildings. Mr. Wheelwright noted that the proposal is for concrete block construction with a metal roof. Based on the findings, the Staff recommended approval of both petitions subject to the conditions listed in the staff report.
Chair Jonas asked for a brief background on the need for the buildings. Mr. Wheelwright explained that Salt Lake County residents voted to require fluoridation in all culinary water systems in the County. Salt Lake City’s water system is complex, and water is obtained from a number of sources. Much of the water is treated in plants which provide the opportunity to put fluoride solution into the water. Salt Lake City also has well sites where water quality is high enough that the water does not require treatment and is pumped directly into the mains without going through a reservoir or treatment plant. In accordance with fluoridation requirements, when well water goes directly into the mains, fluoridation must occur at the well head. This proposal is for construction of utility buildings on these well sites to house the fluoridation equipment. Although the City is not currently required to chlorinate the water, Public Utilities anticipates that could become a future requirement, and the buildings will have sufficient room for a chlorination facility.
Mr. Daniels asked about the security of the buildings. Mr. Wheelwright replied that the doors will be metal and will be locked. The sites are fenced.
Bob Sperling, representing the Public Utilities Department, explained that they have hired a consultant to conduct a study on the security of all sites. Ms. Funk asked Mr. Sperling for his response to the Community Council’s recommendation for a brick building rather than a block building. Mr. Sperling replied that the Department is willing to construct the buildings according to neighborhood and community desires. Ms. Funk stated that she did not favor chain link fence and asked if the fence could be slatted or landscaping provided. Mr. Sperling noted that Holladay requires wrought iron fences and that he could work with fence requirements.
Chair Jonas opened the public hearing.
Helen Peters, representing the Sugar House Community Council, stated that the Council approved construction of the two buildings with the stipulation that they be brick buildings and constructed in a manner that is compatible with the general architecture of the area, specifically the garages. She noted that a letter outlining the Community Council approval was sent to the Planning Department, but she did not see it in the staff report.
Philip Carlson, a resident at 1917 East 2700 South, next door to the subject lot, requested that the Planning Commission deny this conditional use permit. His main concern was the possibility of an accident. He stated that he and his wife had researched fluoridation on the internet and found a number of accidents listed at fluoridation sites. The largest number of accidents occurred because too much fluoridation was put into the system, but a large number also occurred as spills during loading. Leaking tanks were another contributor to accidents. He believed this well was located too close to a residential neighborhood to store fluoride and chlorine. He stated that one factor when he purchased his home was that the adjacent lot was empty. A new building and storage of fluoride and chlorine would lower his home value. He referred to the down lighting mentioned in the request and commented that most down lighting he had seen in the City was ineffective. The two doors that would face his house would shine into his back yard and would make it difficult for him to star gaze. Mr. Carlson noted that the existing well is not used most of the year and suggested that it function only as an emergency backup, which would not require fluoridation. He believed the City should develop a water plan to reduce water consumption, and approving this proposal would make it easier to avoid making those important water consumption decisions. He referred to a comment that not fluoridating the water would restrict growth, and he did not believe that was a valid argument since the area it supplies does not have much room for growth. He stated that he was unable to attend the Community Council meeting and understood the Community Council discussion was restricted to the building only and that the use was not addressed. He would appreciate it if the Community Council had the ability to address the use issue and not just the physical building. Mr. Chambless noted that the Community Council vote was 13-3-1 and asked if Mr. Carlson’s vote would have made it 13-4-1. Mr. Carlson replied that, as a trustee of the Community Council, he would have slowed the process as well. Mr. Chambless referred to the imagined situations presented by Mr. Carlson in terms of risks, possible explosions, and damaging results from the storage of these materials. Mr. Carlson stated that he took issue with the word imagined, because the existence of past spills and accidents were not imagined and caused him great concern.
Sara Carlson, a resident at 1917 East 2700 South, presented a report of spills and accidents that have occurred in other areas and highlighted the ones that were 1,000 gallons or less, which address only water treatment facilities. She noted that their bedroom window is 22 feet from the proposed building, and if there were a leak, their response time would be very limited. She noted that most accidents result from faulty tanks, open pumps, human mistakes, and computer problems. She also submitted a petition from neighbors rejecting Petitions 410-662 and 410-621. She referred to the site drawing and noted that the map does not show a number of trees nor the accommodation for the four-foot sidewalk that is required to surround the building. She referred to the Standards for Conditional Uses and explained why she did not agree with several of the findings. She did not believe this proposal would promote the safe and efficient use of land nor contribute to an orderly and harmonious appearance to the City and further enhance the value of the property. She did not believe the project was compatible with the environment or the residential community. With regard to the statement of intent, she did not believe the proposal would preserve and maintain City neighborhoods as safe and convenient places to live and would not promote the harmonious development of residential communities. Ms. Carlson believed this conditional use would allow vapors, noise, and light, which are not in harmony with the general provisions of the zone. Referring to Finding F in the staff report, she noted that the property houses some type of pump which is further from her property, and she could hear it at night. She did not agree with the finding that appropriate buffering would be provided if approved. She stated that the use of this building for fluoride infiltration and a future planned use for chlorinating the water was inappropriate in a residential neighborhood. She believed the City should find an alternative way to fluoridate the water.
Ms. Funk asked Mr. Sperling how many homes are serviced by this well. Mr. Sperling replied that the well pumps 6.7 million gallons per day and services thousands of homes. He noted that the pumps should not be serviced at three and four in the morning, and if they are, the Department should be notified so that can be corrected. Ms. Funk asked Ms. Carlson if she and her husband could suggest an alternative to putting a fluoridation plant near their home. Ms. Carlson replied that she believed the Public Utilities Department could find another way to hook the fluoridation to the main water line, even thought it may be costly. She believed the risk and safety of the neighborhood would be worth the extra expense. She did not believe the neighborhood should bear the burden of a small industrial plant in a residential community.
Mr. Carlson stated that he understood that his suggestion to save this well for emergency use was not an issue for the Planning Commission to address. He suggested an alternative of charging a graduated rate for the amount of water use or charging actual water costs without a subsidy to encourage water conservation. In his opinion, this well would not be usable without the fluoride because of the vote to fluoridate the water, but it would be a great back up well for emergencies. He stated that he grew up with fluoride and believed it was a good thing.
Mr. Sperling reported that the Public Utilities Department is addressing water conservation through water rates. He stated that this well serves 6,000 residents and is only on from April to October to accommodate summer needs. However, the County would require the well to be fluoridated, even if it were only used for emergency situations. He offered to work with the neighbors on lighting. He commented on safety issues related to a fluoridation system and explained how the system works. He stated that the fluoride was a liquid solution, not a gas of any type. He further stated that the tanks have a double wall with a leak detection system, which would trigger if there were a leak in the first tank wall. The sites would be visited twice a day, and the tanks will be examined each time. Each site will house a 1,000-gallon sump to be used to catch any leaks, and also includes an eye wash and emergency shower in the event someone comes in contact with the acid. The tanks will be filled by a local company trained and certified by OSHA and DOT. Mr. Sperling explained that the Public Utilities Department does not use gaseous chloride either.
Mr. Chambless asked if it would be fair to compare a potential problem with this well to the problems that occurred with Thatcher Chemical and the chemical spill on the west side of Salt Lake City. Mr. Sperling replied that he was not aware of the problems with Thatcher Chemical, but he did not anticipate any problems. He explained that all penetration to the tanks would come through the roof of the tanks, and most of the spill and leak danger comes with side penetrations to the storage tank.
Ms. Arnold asked Mr. Sperling if he could identify other sites with similar building and storage situations. Mr. Sperling replied that there are 17 well sites, and all are in similar neighborhoods. Three are in Salt Lake, and the rest are in Holladay, the County, or Murray. He noted that there are no current fluoridation operation sites, and the ones being discussed this evening are the first of those 17. He stated that Utah is one of the last states to have fluoridation, and this technology is going on all across the country.
Ms. Seelig asked if it was necessary to put the fluoridation and chlorination at those well sites. Mr. Sperling replied that it is necessary because the water goes directly into the system (water mains).
Mr. Daniels asked about the noise level of the existing pumps and any other necessary pumps. Mr. Sperling stated that he was unaware of the noise level of the existing pump. However, the new pumps will be smaller and more efficient, and the noise should not leave the building.
Ms. Arnold asked if the Community Council discussed the materials this building would house. Ms. Peters replied that they did.
Sara Harris, a resident directly across from the well at 1908 East 2700 South, was concerned about the property value of her home, the environmental concerns discussed, and the fact that there are two private schools and one public school in the area. She asked if there were statistics regarding property values from other cities who had done fluoridation. She asked if the City would be willing to compensate for decreased property values. She also asked who would monitor the facility. She stated that lighting was also an issue and commented that the current lighting shines into her living room and dining room. She asked how many more people and trips would be added to the schedule of people who currently come twice a day to check the well. She noted that a family of owls lives in the tree, and she would hate to see something happen to them if the trees were disturbed. Mr. Sperling explained that certified operators visit the sites twice a day, and the only increase would be one visit per month to deliver the acid. He stated that there was no plan to remove the trees, so the owls should not be disturbed.
Ms. Arnold referred to a statement in the staff report indicating the necessity for fluoridating the wells. She asked if the Public Utilities Department had other alternatives if this petition is not approved. Mr. Sperling replied that the alternative would be that people could not use as much water because they would lose the 6.7 million gallons of water being produced by this well.
Ms. Carlson asked if the well water could be routed through the main system to receive its fluoridation. Mr. Sperling replied that was not an alternative, because it would be combining well water with already fluoridated water from other sources. Ms. Carlson asked how she could protect herself and her family from a worst case scenario. Mr. Sperling replied that people could make all kinds of speculations as to what could happen, but he assured that every precaution would be taken to prevent accidents and provide quick emergency response in the event of an accident.
Mr. Wheelwright noted that no gases will be stored, and the fluoride and future chlorine will be liquids.
Chair Jonas closed the public hearing.
Ms. Funk stated that she appreciated the concerns expressed this evening, but she felt it was important to be subjective when considering the good that would come from these plants. In her opinion, alternative solutions would be expensive and impractical. She favored approving the petitions and noted that it is more dangerous to drive a car down the street than to live next to a fluoridation plant. She was concerned with the attractiveness of the building and favored constructing the buildings with brick. She preferred wrought iron fences and felt that both sites needed perimeter planting.
Ms. Arnold stated that she understood the notices were received by the neighbors on December 22 and acknowledged that getting information out during a holiday is difficult. She agreed with concerns about schools being so close and asked if the schools were aware of the situation. She suggested tabling this matter to allow time to gather more information on safety and to notify the schools.
Mr. Daniels commented on concerns about property values. He stated that he lives in a neighborhood that has experienced changes such as noise, pollution, and houses rocking from trains, yet according to the County, the property values in his neighborhood have increased.
Motion for Petition 410-621 & 410-622
Arla Funk moved to approve Petition 410-621 and 410-622 requesting conditional use approval for the construction of the two Public Utility buildings located at 1907 East 2700 South and 1285 East 2700 South based on the findings of fact in the staff report, including the recommendations by staff, with additional recommendations that the building be constructed of brick, that new landscaping be approved by the Planning Director as stipulated in recommendation 1 including specifically that there be perimeter planting, and that some modification be made to the chain link fence or that it be replaced with a wrought iron fence. Laurie Noda seconded the motion.
Findings of Fact
A. Conditional Use approval is required.
B. The proposed development is in harmony with the general purposes and intent of the Zoning Ordinance. In general, the proposed development is compatible with and implements the planning goals and objectives of the City, including applicable City Master Plans.
C. The existing City streets and driveways (1300 East and 1900 East) will provide the necessary access to and from the well sites.
D. The internal circulation system is properly designed.
E. Appropriate buffering will be provided as approved by the Planning Director to protect adjacent land uses from light, noise, and visual impacts.
F. The architecture and building materials are compatible with adjacent uses. The Planning Commission has the option to impose additional design recommendations.
G. Both the existing landscaping together with a new landscaping plan should provide adequate buffering for the proposed new buildings. Installation of the new landscaping is required as approved by the Planning Director.
H. The proposed development does not affect the preservation of historical, architectural or environmental features.
I. The use and intent of the proposed conditional use is compatible with neighboring land uses.
J. The proposed conditional use will not have a material net cumulative adverse impact on the neighborhood or the City.
K. The proposed development meets all applicable City codes and ordinances.
Recommendations
1. Submittal of a supplemental landscape plan to be approved by the Planning Director.
2. Regular delivery, maintenance and repair of the buildings and equipment should be contained to normal business hours except for in the case of an emergency.
3. Subject to meeting all city Department conditions.
Mr. Chambless, Mr. Daniels, Ms. Funk, Ms. McDonough, Mr. Muir, Ms. Noda, and Ms. Seelig voted “Aye.” Ms. Arnold and Mr. Diamond voted “Nay.” Jeff Jonas, as chair, did not vote. The motion carried.
PUBLIC HEARING - Petition No. 400-02-17 by the Salt Lake City Planning Commission, requesting re-evaluation of the Temporary Use Section of the Zoning Ordinance (Chapter 21A.42), in relation to seasonal items sales.
Planner Doug Dansie explained that this petition addresses temporary uses as seasonal item sales. The petition resulted from discussions regarding snow cone huts, coffee kiosks and similar types of uses that will also be affected. He explained that temporary huts are different from sidewalk vendors which fall under the sidewalk vending ordinance. Snow cone huts and coffee kiosks are allowed as permanent buildings but only after the applicant has gone through the building and zoning code process. The issue for discussion relates to temporary buildings which are generally brought onto a site and set on skids so they can be moved off. The City has historically taken a position of not allowing temporary buildings. Mr. Dansie explained that in 1995, when the zoning ordinance was re-written, a phrase was added regarding permitted temporary uses, Christmas tree lots, and other seasonal sales. Two summers ago, someone at the permits counter decided that snow cones were a seasonal sale and should be allowed for 45 days, and every 45 days a vendor would be given a new temporary permit through the summer season. The issue came up last year, and the permits counter allowed the two vendors previously approved to operate for one more season. There have been discussions about whether these are their seasonal sales.
Notices were mailed to all community council chairs in August and September with no response. He explained that he tried to find the names of the snow cone vendors who operated last summer but was unable to obtain that information. Mr. Dansie explained that he has drafted wording to better define seasonal sales which ties it to a holiday or event and specifically excludes food, except for food harvested in the Intermountain area such as Bear Lake raspberries and corn. The proposed ordinance modification also specifies 45 days per calendar year to let the permits counter know that permits cannot be renewed every 45 days.
Chair Jonas asked about the kiosks on Main Street that served food during the Olympics. Mr. Dansie replied that those kiosks operated under the temporary Olympic ordinance. He noted that snow cones can be sold from a vending cart under the guidelines of the sidewalk vending ordinance, but they cannot be sold from a temporary building. Mr. Chambless asked about the coffee vending building at 1100 East and 900 South. Mr. Dansie explained that the building is built on a foundation and considered a permanent structure. Ms. Funk referred to produce stands which operate during the summer. The staff report indicates that if this petition were approved, the ordinance would stipulate parking, signage, placement on the lot, and hours of operation and asked why these issues were necessary for snow cones but not for produce stands. Mr. Dansie explained that, if the City wants a variety of temporary uses and not just snow cone huts, the issue needs to be addressed on a larger scale. He did not believe vendors would want to put up a snow cone hut for 45 days and not be able to operate for the entire summer. He explained that produce stands have a short harvest period and do not operate all summer.
Chair Jonas reported on a letter received from an operator of snow cone kiosks who operates in several other communities around the Wasatch Front and asked Mr. Dansie if he had looked at how other communities regulate temporary and seasonal sales. Mr. Dansie stated that he did not contact other communities about their ordinances, but he was aware that each community is different. The staff report was written from the standpoint these uses have not been allowed historically. If the Planning Commission would like to allow more temporary uses, the staff could address it as a larger picture and obtain information from other cities.
Mr. Daniels asked if Mr. Dansie knew of anything that would deter the Planning Commission from allowing the kiosks for a period longer than 45 days. Mr. Dansie replied that 45 days was meant to cover the longest seasonal time period, such as a Christmas tree lot. Extending that period could open up a number of other issues that would have to be addressed.
Mr. Wilde recalled that, when the Planning Commission addressed sidewalk vendors, they decided not to allow them in neighborhood business zones. There are three categories associated with these similar types of uses: 1) sidewalk vendors; 2) temporary building vendors; and 3) permanent building located within a parking lot. Mr. Wilde felt this presented a consistency issue. Sidewalk Vendors are not allowed in neighborhood business zones, but if temporary buildings for coffee and snow cones are allowed, and since they cannot distinguish between types of food, this provides another avenue for all types of food vendors to locate in neighborhood business zones. Mr. Dansie noted that the original vending cart ordinance was a Downtown and Sugar House ordinance, but through creative permitting, the carts ended up in any zone that allowed outdoor sales.
Ms. Arnold felt the difference was that taco stands are mobile and go away at night, whereas snow cone huts are stationary. Mr. Dansie stated that the huts are brought in and stay for a season. Sidewalk vending carts must go back to their commissary between approximately 1:00 a.m. and 6:00 a.m.
Ms. Coffey recalled that when Mr. Dansie drafted the vending cart ordinance, the Planning Department received a conditional use application for a vending cart to sell tacos at a Smith’s on the west side, which was considered a conditional use because it was outdoor sales. The Planning Commission denied the application after discussions focusing on unfair competition, parking, noise, and other neighborhood issues. In looking at this matter, the staff felt that the Planning Commission had dealt with these issues in the past and did not want to see them again. If the Planning Commission believed it was appropriate to have these uses, they should go back and address those issues.
Chair Jonas opened the public hearing.
Fred Ross, a real property owner at 214 West North Temple, stated that he was frustrated as a property owner and budding entrepreneur. He believed shaved ice was seasonal. He stated that he came to the business license office two years ago to apply for a business license and was told to go to the planning desk, where he was told that the City does not allow temporary use for temporary sales. A few weeks later, he saw the same building he owns operating in a Smith’s parking lot in Rose Park. A few weeks later he saw a similar structure at the Smith’s in Sugar House. He called the City and was told that the uses were allowed in error and would not be allowed the next year. The next year the two establishments were operating again. He found it frustrating that as a resident and taxpayer in Salt Lake City he could go to West Valley and Bountiful to conduct business but could not operate in his own city. He stated that Salt Lake City is the shaved ice capital of the Country. He noted that there are industry standards for this business. He believed there was a distinct difference between coffee, shaved ice, and tacos, just as there are separate regulations for fireworks, Christmas tree lots, and produce stands. He did not see a distinct issue in allowing snow cone huts in Salt Lake City and stated that he supports regulating these operations and making sure they meet standards. He urged the Planning Commission to research the issue and he offered to meet with Mr. Dansie to discuss the process and industry standards.
Mr. Daniels asked Mr. Ross if he discussed his issues with anyone in the Planning Department. Mr. Ross replied that he spoke with his councilman last summer. As a City employee, he did not push the issue because he did not want to make waves. However, it appears that Christmas trees, fireworks, watermelons, and raspberries are all right, and he wanted to know why there was a problem with shaved ice. Mr. Daniels suggested that Mr. Ross speak with Mr. Dansie who could explain the situation and help him find answers.
Chair Jonas closed the public hearing.
Mr. Muir stated that he is sympathetic with all property owners who struggle to lease their properties. He believed temporary vendors are entrepreneurial, provide the street life they hope to achieve, and are an asset to the community. He felt they should keep the 45-day time period because it forces vendors to renew their license midpoint in the season, which allows the City to reevaluate their performance and whether the use poses a nuisance factor to adjoining property owners. He supported the recommendation to forward this petition to the City Council and believed it could be revisited in the future if it gets out of hand. He felt that a snow cone shack every 20 feet along Main Street would be better than the boarded up store fronts.
Mr. Dansie recommended that, if the Planning Commission wants summer vendors, they define seasonal to keep other uses from being allowed and then create a section for summer temporary structures.
Chair Jonas agreed that temporary stands along Main Street would enliven downtown but was concerned about allowing a temporary stand. He felt a number of issues needed to be addressed before allowing these uses. Mr. Wilde clarified that the recommendation to advance the seasonal sales definition would exclude food products from being dispensed from temporary buildings. An operator would have to construct a small but permanent building. If the preference is to legalize a structure that is between a vending cart and a permanent building, they should think through standards and realize that it will be difficult to distinguish between food types. Chair Jonas stated that the Planning Commission should decide if they want to pursue temporary structures or take action on the staff recommendation.
Mr. Daniels stated that he did not favor doing anything that would exclude shaved ice stands and felt that the City had ordinances in place that would look at these uses on an ongoing basis and not just every 45 days. Mr. Dansie explained that there is no ordinance that regulates seasonal use. If the Planning Commission wants uses such as shaved ice, some criteria would have to be drafted. Ms. Seelig stated that another option would be to define a temporary structure.
Ms. Noda agreed with Mr. Muir’s comments about not excluding these types of vendors from certain areas. Downtown needs vitality, and that is why they tried the vending carts. Many vendors, particularly snow shacks, add vitality to a community, and she did not want to exclude them. She suggested that the staff look at defining seasonal vendors and how long they should operate. She believed most snow shacks operated on a 90-day basis during the summer, which they should be allowed to do.
Motion for Petition 400-02-17
Laurie Noda moved to table Petition 400-02-17 and asked that the staff look at defining seasonal vendors, specifically snow shacks, and the period of time they would operate.
Mr. Dansie addressed the potential for temporary buildings and noted that staff could write something specific for snow cone and ice cream summer sales. He asked if the Planning Commission wanted him to go into bigger issues such as temporary coffee kiosks, food vendors, etc. Chair Jonas suggested keeping the issue specific to snow cone huts. Ms. Funk agreed.
Arla Funk seconded the motion.
Ms. McDonough referred to Mr. Dansie’s comment about snow cones and ice cream and asked if they should be product specific or product general. She felt that should be investigated in the definition.
Mr. Muir did not believe the Planning Commission should discriminate against bona fide property owners on Main Street who cannot lease their buildings and would like to put a temporary facility in their store front. He requested that the definition of temporary structures be expanded to include those built within store fronts of bona fide buildings. Mr. Dansie explained that, if the structure is built within an existing building, it becomes a permanent structure and would not fall under the temporary definition. Mr. Muir suggested that Mr. Dansie meet with Roger Evans to look at building code issues, but he did not see why that option should be precluded. After further discussion, Mr. Wilde felt this concept could introduce a third category. He offered to meet with Mr. Evans to evaluate that possibility and report back to the Planning Commission. Mr. Muir stated that he viewed these vendors as retail pioneers who might leverage into more income-producing entities in blighted areas of the City. Chair Jonas agreed that they should start looking at ideas for turning unoccupied buildings into temporary uses. Mr. Chambless agreed that this could be a pioneering effort that might be very successful.
Ms. Arnold, Mr. Chambless, Mr. Daniels, Mr. Diamond, Ms. Funk, Ms. McDonough, Mr. Muir, Ms. Noda, and Ms. Seelig voted “Aye.” Jeff Jonas, as chair, did not vote. The motion carried.
PUBLIC HEARING - Petition No. 400-02-23, by the Salt Lake City Planning Commission, requesting to amend the text of Section 21A.38.120 of the Zoning Ordinance to provide legal conforming status for existing single-family detached dwellings, two-family dwellings and twin homes in all zoning districts, except M-1 and M-2. (In M-1 and M-2 zones they would be allowed as a conditional use.)
Planner Marilynn Lewis stated that this petition addresses continual letters to the zoning administrator. She explained that single-family homeowners are experiencing great difficulty in obtaining financing from lending institutions. Many lenders who specialize in residential properties refuse or are reluctant to lend on properties that cannot be rebuilt in their present location in Commercial zone. Homeowners are unable to make home improvements or maintain their homes because they cannot obtain home equity loans. She noted that in certain geographic areas of the City, this would not comply with some master plan policies. With the continuation of these uses, if the City does not make efforts now, deterioration may continue and became a far greater impact than not complying with the master plans. This amendment would work to protect the tax base by allowing homeowners an opportunity to rebuild or bring current structures up to code, making it more likely that residents will stay within their communities and within Salt Lake City. Maintaining housing stock helps neighborhoods retain and/or potentially increase property values. The amendments will allow owners to more easily refinance their homes and obtain home improvement loans. Homeowners in industrial zones will be allowed to request reconstruction of their homes as a conditional use to ensure appropriateness of residential uses in these districts. Any building in the M-1 and M-2 industrial zones should be reviewed as conditional uses. When a conflict occurs between the regulations of the zoning district and the imposing overlay district, the overlay district and all other local and state laws would override those regulations and be the controlling influence. Ms. Lewis stated that an ordinance currently exists for two-family and duplex homes, and they are looking to include single-family homes into the ordinance.
Ms. Arnold asked if there was a future prospect for triplexes or fourplexes. Ms Lewis replied that triplexes and fourplexes were not addressed. Ms. Arnold commented that these structures have been down zoned, and many are financially impacted from down zoning.
Mr. Wilde explained that the City does not have a rebuild provision. When the ordinance was written in 1995, they kept single-family homes out of commercial districts and down zoned a number of two-, three-, and four-family dwellings. They realized at that time that there was an issue with duplexes in the newly created R-1 districts. In 1995 they created a rebuild provision for duplexes and took the issue of three- and four-family dwellings to the City Council. The decision was made to give the status of legal conforming to duplexes to allow them to be rebuilt. There was concern about going that far with three- and four-family dwellings or apartments in this single-family setting in terms of compatibility. In 1995, they did not anticipate the issue of single-family homes in commercial districts.
Ms. Lewis stated that, based on the findings of fact, the staff recommended that the Planning Commission transmit a favorable recommendation to the City Council.
Chair Jonas opened the public hearing.
David Nyhoff, a resident at 57 South 800 West, stated that he has lived in his single-family home built in 1896 for the past eight years and recently tried to sell his property to relocate but could not obtain a rebuild letter. The lenders reject financing when commercial zoning is shown, and nobody wants to buy a house if something goes wrong and they cannot rebuild it. Mr. Nyhoff stated that he is surrounded by housing but is stuck until something can be done. It is necessary that he sell his property and move, and he urged the Planning Commission to do something to help him. Ms. Arnold asked about current zoning at his home. Mr. Nyhoff replied that his realtor informed him that the zone was general commercial, but he has never received a zoning notice.
Mr. Wilde explained that this ordinance is intended to address the CG zone and resolve the problems expressed by Mr. Nyhoff. Chair Jonas asked why the City would spend money on residential improvements in a general commercial zone. He had concerns about allowing this in areas that should naturally migrate into commercial zones and promote good commercial development and believed this amendment could preclude that goal. Ms. Coffey explained that this is the Euclid neighborhood, which is part of the West Salt Lake master plan. Part of the vision for the Euclid neighborhood is a mixed-use neighborhood. There are substantial streets with historic homes in that neighborhood as well as warehousing and light manufacturing uses. The master plan sees this as a mixed use area, but they would not want to preclude single-family homes.
Grazela Zamora, a resident at 59 South 800 West, stated that she had the same problem as Mr. Nyhoff. She moved in 10 years ago, and four years ago decided to sell her property. Last year she found a buyer but lost the sale because of the zoning. She stated that she needs to sell her property and needs a solution to her problem.
Brad Olsen, Ms. Zamora’s realtor, felt that her problem would not be addressed with this amendment. Her property is a duplex with a house in back, and this amendment would not address her triplex or solve her problem. He requested that the Planning Commission add triplexes to the amendment. Ms. Zamora’s duplex is legal conforming, but the house is legal non-conforming, and she has lost two or three sales because of this. Ms. Funk stated that she did not understand why this amendment would not help Ms. Zamora if they were to add single-family homes. Mr. Olsen explained that although they are separate structures, this is considered a triplex because they are all on one lot. Mr. Wilde stated that, by definition, this is not a triplex. He did not think Ms. Zamora would have a problem with the proposed amendment but offered to check with the Zoning Administrator to be sure.
Chair Jonas closed the public hearing.
Chair Jonas asked if the staff was concerned with the issue of single-family homes impeding better commercial development. Mr. Wilde replied that issue was the basis for the decisions in 1995. As a practical matter, few homes are destroyed, and rarely is a fire so significant that a home cannot be rebuilt. It becomes a theoretical problem, but the ability to issue a rebuild letter solves the property owner’s problem.
Mr. Muir asked how many structures would be involved. He felt this situation was a similar to the non-conforming commercial properties which they decided to address on an individual basis. Ms. Lewis stated that there are more than 580 structures throughout the City in all zones. Mr. Muir felt it would be difficult to evaluate them on a case-by-case basis. He shared Chair Jonas’s concern and agreed that it would be difficult from a developer’s perspective to aggregate property. However, he acknowledged the need for housing and that it is important to preserve existing housing stock. He stated that he was prepared to move forward with the staff recommendation.
Mr. Diamond asked if it would be possible to make an exception and allow someone the benefit of commercial status and use their house. Mr. Wilde explained that the proposed amendment provides more legitimacy for single-family homes but does not do away with any commercial rights. Homes would still be entitled to the benefit of being in a commercial district so long as they meet all the requirements for a conversion.
Motion for Petition 400-02-23
Based on the findings of fact identified in the staff report and the testimony heard, Arla Funk moved to transmit a favorable recommendation to the City Council to approve the zoning text amendment to Section 21A.38.120 to legally conform existing single family detached, two-family dwellings, and twin home structures. Laurie Noda seconded the motion.
Findings of Fact
A. The adoption of this amendment fosters the concept of allowing residents to live within close proximity to the basic goods and services that communities need. Neighborhoods become more pedestrian friendly.
This amendment works to protect the tax base by allowing homeowners the opportunity to rebuild or bring a structure up to the current codes, making them more likely to stay in their communities and within the City. Maintaining the housing stock helps neighborhoods retain and potentially increase property values until the property is redeveloped into a use consistent with the master plan.
Lastly, this amendment would make it possible for neighborhoods to upgrade their appearance, thereby reducing blight and maintaining favorable elements that are harmonious with the overall character. Affording legal conforming status for some of the low-density residential uses may help implement historic preservation and mixed use policies identified in the master plans.
B. Allowing the rebuilding of single-family, detached, two-family dwellings and twin homes, neighborhoods will, in fact, be able to retain elements that are unique, harmonious and characteristic. The amendments will allow owners to more easily refinance their homes and obtain home improvement loans to keep their homes in line with health safety standards and contribute to an improved City housing stock. Owners of homes in industrial zones will be allowed to request the reconstruction of their homes as a conditional use to ensure appropriateness of residential uses in these zoning districts.
C. The City should take a careful look at allowing homes to be rebuilt in areas of intense industry where there could potentially be exposure to certain by-products of that industry (vapors, dust, or contaminants). The City should be equally concerned with issues related to rebuilding structures within the 100-year flood plain and on extremely steep slopes. Since industrial zoned areas are more scarce, the industrial land owners should have some protection from complaints by residential land owners of land use conflicts. Therefore, rebuilding residential in M-1 and M-2 zones should be reviewed as conditional uses.
D. Structures being brought into legal conformity will be subject to the guiding principles set forth by all overlay districts for that location. Whenever a conflict occurs between the regulations of a zoning district and the imposing overlay district, the overlay district, according to the zoning ordinance, will provide the controlling influence. This amendment may increase the incentive for owners of historic homes to reinvest in their properties because it will alleviate financing issues that currently exist.
E. The amendments are not site specific. Adequacy of public facilities will be determined as owners request permits. The appropriate City Divisions have reviewed this request. Comments were only received from Zoning Enforcement and the Fire Department, neither of which found that the amendment would have an impact on their efforts.
Ms. Arnold, Ms. Chambless, Mr. Daniels, Mr. Diamond, Ms. Funk, Ms. McDonough, Mr. Muir, Ms. Noda, and Ms. Seelig voted “Aye.” Jeff Jonas, as chair, did not vote. The motion carried.
Ms. McDonough left the meeting at 8:00 p.m.
PUBLIC HEARING - Petition No. 410-617, by Matt Swain of Johansen Thackeray Commercial Real Estate Services, requesting a conditional use and planned development to construct a new commercial building at approximately 1140 East 3300 South within the Brickyard Shopping Center.
Planner Melissa Anderson reviewed the staff report and noted that the applicant has proposed a third site plan which the planning staff supports and which incorporates the recommendations of the Planning Commission subcommittee. The staff recommended approval with the conditions outlined in the staff report.
Chair Jonas asked about the depth of the back patio. Ms. Anderson replied that the patio is 6' to 8' and encouraged the Planning Commission to discuss the width with the applicant.
Matt Swain, representing Johansen Thatcheray Real Estate, stated that they went through a number of processes with different elevations and site plans with the City and the Sugar House Community Council. They have received positive affirmation from Helen Peters and the Sugar House Community Council for the site plan and elevation. Mr. Swain explained the revisions to the west elevation and retaining wall. The tenant on the east cap will be a Quizno’s restaurant, and they suggested having the patio on the east side. They have also looked at a patio on the south elevation to extend the width to 9 or 10 feet which would accommodate a patio use for another restaurant in the future. He described details related to the 3300 South elevation.
Mr. Diamond asked if it would be possible to add more glass to the south elevation. Mr. Swain replied that a previous elevation showed four smaller horizontal windows on top of the larger windows. The architect believed it would be more aesthetically pleasing to have a consistent band of awnings all the way around. Mr. Chambless asked if the awnings would be permanent and whether they could be adjusted up or down. Mr. Swain replied that they would be permanent, fixed awnings. Mr. Diamond felt that the side of the building facing the street would be more interesting if the fenestration were different than just stucco and doors. Mr. Muir referred to the west elevation being on the property line and stated that the building code would preclude putting glass on the southwest corner. If that were moved to the south face, the applicant would not have a net cost increase.
Mr. Wilde felt the applicants would have more flexibility if a tenant was found for the middle section that would lend itself to glass and a larger opening facing the south. The objective is to achieve the best street front appearance on the south wall. He explained that they are looking for the same things that were accomplished in the Sugar House Commons for Rubio’s and Panda Express.
Mr. Diamond discussed the fenestration and offered possible suggestions. Chair Jonas stated that he understood the subcommittee had recommended that the applicants push the building to the south to its proposed location. Mr. Muir confirmed that was the subcommittee’s recommendation, and the applicants complied. Chair Jonas asked if the applicant could cantilever a deck to address some of Mr. Diamond’s concerns. Mr. Wilde was unsure if property line issues would prevent this from being an alternative.
Nate Swain, representing The Boyer Company, explained another alternative for the patio and landscaping which he believed might accomplish what Mr. Diamond was suggesting. Mr. Diamond asked about a setback requirement. Mr. Wilde replied that there is not a setback requirement, and there is some flexibility in that area. He did not believe the issue could be resolved this evening and suggested that the Planning Commission give the Planning Director authority to work with the applicants on the south facade.
Chair Jonas opened the public hearing.
Helen Peters, representing the Sugar House Community Council, stated that this project has come before the Community Council on three occasions. The plan presented this evening is the most acceptable to the Community Council. She stated that the Council would also like to see the south side expanded and accessible from both sides. She requested that the developer look at tenants who would take advantage of having an entrance on the north and west sides. The idea of removing the trellis and pushing out the patio on a portion of the south elevation was favorable. Ms. Peters stated that the Community Council sees this project as trying to reclaim an area where there has not been development for a long time. While they would like to see a pedestrian element between the development and the Brickyard, she was willing to focus on trying to improve the south side elevation. She hoped they would be able to attract locally owned restaurants as they get more development in the area.
Chair Jonas closed the public hearing.
Mr. Chambless stated that he liked what the applicants were attempting on a piece of property that has never been developed. He favored the use of ivy to cut down on graffiti and add a natural look.
Ms. Funk asked if there would be a problem adding windows at the trellis level. Mr. Swain replied that alternative was previously considered and was something they could revisit. Ms. Funk commented on the doors and felt they could be more attractive. Adding the windows and changing the doors would improve the appearance, and Ms. Funk recommended considering those changes. Nate Swain explained that they only have one tenant in place at this time, and each tenant will have individual requirements based on their layout. He would prefer to add windows on a tenant-by-tenant basis to accommodate the needs of each tenant. Ms. Funk asked if the City would object to tinted windows. Mr. Muir remarked that opaque windows would not accomplish the look they want. He felt the comment about clear story and extending the glass on the easternmost bay of the south elevation would help the building by giving it more presence on the street.
Chair Jonas discussed the need to recognize that each tenant will have its own needs, and he believed the Planning Commission should be practical in making a building that functions.
Motion for Petition 410-617
John Diamond moved to approve Petition 410-617, requesting a conditional use and planned development to construct a new commercial building at approximately 1140 East 3300 South within the Brickyard Shopping Center based on the findings of fact and recommendations by staff. Tim Chambless seconded the motion.
Findings of Fact - Conditional Use
A. There is more than one principal building on the lot, so the development is required to be reviewed under the conditional use and planned development criteria. The zoning code refers to Planned Development in Section 21A.62.040, and means “a lot or contiguous lots of size sufficient to create it own character where there are multiple principal buildings on a single lot, where not otherwise authorized by this title, or where not all of the principal buildings have frontage on a public street. A planned development is controlled by a single landowner or by a group of landowners in common agreement as to control, to be developed as a single entity, the character of which is compatible with adjacent parcels and the intent of the zoning district or districts in which it is located”.
B. The proposed development is compatible with the Sugar House Community Master Plan because the building has a street orientation with windows and a patio that face the street. However, staff recommends that a minimum percentage of non-reflective glass is included along the south elevation because it faces the public right-of-way. The development not only addresses safe and efficient auto access, but also addresses the street exposure with pedestrian access and circulation.
C. According to the City’s Transportation Division, the streets are adequate to carry the demand created by the development proposal, and pedestrian access is addressed adequately. Public way standards will need to be addressed at the time of site plan review.
D. The internal circulation system is adequate for automobiles. Pedestrian circulation to the new retail building is adequate. Staff recommends that pedestrian circulation for the rest of the shopping center be addressed at the time the larger facility is slated for redevelopment.
E. The proposed utility services are adequate for the proposed development and will conform to the City’s construction standards and policies.
F. Light and noise will not create a negative impact to the surrounding commercial properties. The visual impacts will be improved by the proposed development.
G. Architecture and building materials are consistent with the development and will be a positive addition with the adjacent neighborhood. Staff recommends that the Planning Commission increase the amount of windows and clarify with the applicant the level of permeability that is proposed for the south elevation of the project with final approval of the elevations granted to the Planning Director.
H. Landscaping is appropriate for the scale of the development. Staff recommends that treatment along the western retaining wall is provided to discourage graffiti.
I. There are no historical architectural resources on the site. The surface fault rupture hazard study indicates that the building may be constructed at the proposed location.
J. The adjacent land uses are also commercial; therefore, the operating and delivery hours are compatible with adjacent land uses.
K. The proposed conditional use is compatible with the neighborhood surrounding the proposed development and will not have a material net cumulative adverse impact on the neighborhood or the City as a whole. The proposed development will provide an overall benefit to the neighborhood and the City as a whole.
L. Compliance with all other applicable codes will be required prior to the issuance of any building permit.
Findings of Fact - Planned Developments
1. The project as proposed meets several of the objectives of the purpose for planned developments. Staff recommends that the Planning Commission approve the location of the 5% interior parking lot landscaping requirement as proposed.
Findings of Fact - Other Planned Development Standards
1. The proposal meets the minimum lot area requirements for planned developments (20,000 s.f.) in the CB zone.
Recommendations
1. The south elevation of the project incorporates additional windows, and a minimum percentage of permeability is assured with final approval of the architectural elevations granted to the Planning Director.
2. Treatment along the western retaining wall is provided to discourage graffiti.
3. The location of the 5% interior parking lot landscaping requirement is approved with the landscaping proposed in the site plan.
Ms. Arnold, Mr. Chambless, Mr. Daniels, Mr. Diamond, Ms. Funk, Mr. Muir, Ms. Noda, and Ms. Seelig voted “Aye.” Ms. McDonough was not present for the vote. Jeff Jonas, as chair, did not vote. The motion carried.
OTHER BUSINESS
a. Request to reopen City View Plat A Amendment, by the Highland Park Plaza Condominium Association, requesting to modify the property lines of Lots 8, 9, & 10 of Block 2 of View City Plat B located at 1955 and 1977 South 1300 East. The properties are zoned Residential/Office RO. The existing duplex at 1977 South 1300 East will have a reduction in lot size, and the Highland Dental Center Building will gain the area currently used as a parking lot.
Mr. Wheelwright reported that this item originally started with an administrative hearing, but after neighbors objected to the subdivision amendment and condominium amendment applications, the item was scheduled with the Planning Commission on November 7, 2002. At that time the staff recommended approval. The Planning Commission did approve the request with the attached condition that the alley access to the driveway be closed. A month after that meeting, the staff heard from Bruce Baird, an attorney retained by Highland Dental, requesting that the Planning Commission not ratify the minutes. However, the minutes had already been ratified. Mr. Baird’s requested that the Planning Commission re-open the petition, and he was asked to state his reasons for the request in writing. The staff report contains a letter from Mr. Baird dated December 20 outlining reasons why he believes the Planning Commission should reconsider the matter. Mr. Wheelwright reported that he spoke with Mr. Baird today and learned that he was unaware that this was scheduled this evening and was unable to attend. Mr. Wheelwright explained to Mr. Baird that he would not have an opportunity to speak this evening and that the Planning Commission would discuss the letter and decide whether to reconsider the petition. If they choose to reconsider, the matter will be scheduled as an agenda item and re-noticed. If the Planning Commission chooses not to re-open the matter, Mr. Baird and his clients will have the option of filing with the Land Use Appeals Board. Mr. Wheelwright suggested that the Planning Commission discuss the matter and determine their willingness to reconsider. If there are technical questions regarding the letter, it would be appropriate to table the decision to a future meeting when Mr. Baird can attend.
Mr. Muir asked if a simple majority decision is required or if the interest of one Commissioner was sufficient. Mr. Wheelwright replied that a majority vote is required.
Mr. Daniels referred to claims in the letter that the applicant did not have an opportunity to respond to comments made by neighbors. He recalled that during the initial hearing, the applicant had the opportunity to respond. He was unsure if they would hear new and different testimony on the part of the applicant. He stated that he would be interested in re-opening the matter if there was something new and different to hear, but he did not believe the letter provided enough cause to do so.
Chair Jonas agreed, but after the Michael Clara issue, he preferred to err on the side of caution. He felt it would be better to re-open the petition to hear if there is anything new.
Ms. Arnold asked if anyone looked at the minutes to see if the petitioner asked to be heard. Mr. Wheelwright replied that he did not refer to the minutes.
Ms. Funk recalled that the petitioner raised his hand to speak, but no one responded to him. She asked if there would be any advantage to the Planning Commission re-hearing the matter rather than having the applicant appeal to the Land Use Board. Mr. Wheelwright replied that the Land Use Board would be limited to the record. If the Planning Commission chooses to re-open the matter, they could hear new or different information. Ms. Funk asked if the Commissioners felt from reading the letter that new information could be gained. Mr. Muir felt that, if there was new information, Mr. Baird would have put it in his letter. Mr. Chambless stated that he did not see new information, but there was an argument for fairness. He recalled a fairly long hearing that, in his opinion, was comprehensive and fair. It is possible that the applicant could have had another say to resolve neighborhood conflicts, and for that reason he concurred with Mr. Jonas that it would be better to err on the side of caution. Ms. Seelig stated that she appreciated the caution, but she also appreciated the long hearing, and she believed everyone had ample opportunity to participate. She requested a legal opinion from Lynn Pace before moving forward. Ms. Funk asked if it would be possible to re-open the hearing and restrict comments to new information from the applicant and the neighbors. Ms. Noda explained that typically when a court grants a rehearing, they will only do so if there is new information that would cause the previous decision to be reconsidered. In her opinion, if the letter did not identify new information, and there was no reason to re-open the matter.
Chair Jonas referred to the second paragraph in the letter which addresses neighbors who can testify about traffic in the alley and mitigation related to potential adverse consequences to the neighbors. In his opinion, this could be considered new information and would fly in the face of the testimony heard on November 7.
After further discussion, Mr. Diamond concurred that a legal opinion could be key in their decision and suggested that they table the discussion until they get an opinion. The Commissioners concurred. Mr. Wheelwright offered to provide Mr. Pace with a copy of the letter and report on his legal opinion at the January 22 meeting.
Mr. Daniels commented on the number of people at meetings who raise their hands for a second chance at the podium. That is not allowed under their format, and he wondered if that policy should be changed. Mr. Wheelwright stated that this was discussed by staff, and they believed the reference in Mr. Baird’s letter was a confusion with the Board of Adjustment where that has been a standard practice. Mr. Jonas referred to a situation this evening where the applicant had the opportunity to respond to questions raised by the public. Ms. Noda noted that it is standard practice to allow the applicant or the person with the burden of proof the opportunity to rebut. The question in this matter is whether the applicant asked to speak and was denied or ignored. The Commissioners discussed the possibility of allowing the petitioners a specified amount of time to rebut at the end of the public hearing.
Motion
Robert “Bip” Daniels moved to continue the discussion on the Highland Park Plaza matter to January 22 to allow the opportunity to hear a legal opinion from Lynn Pace prior to making a decision. Tim Chambless seconded the motion. Ms. Arnold, Mr. Chambless, Mr. Daniels, Mr. Diamond, Ms. Funk, Mr. Muir, Ms. Noda, and Ms. Seelig voted “Aye.” Ms. McDonough was not present. Jeff Jonas, as chair, did not vote. The motion carried.
b. Request from the Planning Division staff to initiate a petition to study the time requirement for written notice of decisions of the Historic Landmark Commission.
Mr. Wilde explained that the Historic Landmark Commission ordinance indicates that their decisions are effective the date of the meeting. Planning Commission decisions are effective with adoption of the minutes. A technical glitch in the ordinances states that the Landmark Commission will send out findings and notice within 10 days of the decision, but that is an unrealistic time frame. Mr. Wilde explained that this is a fine tuning issue that cannot wait for the next round of fine tuning issues. Chair Jonas initiated a petition for the Staff to study the time requirement.
Chair Jonas suggested that the long-range planning issues be carried over to the next meeting.
Mr. Diamond referred to an earlier comment by Mr. Daniels about changing the policy to allow rebuttals.
Motion
Robert “Bip” Daniels moved to allow the applicant or petitioner the opportunity for as much as two minutes to rebut any testimony given by the staff or the public. Tim Chambless seconded the motion with the modification to allow 3 minutes.
Ms. Funk felt the rebuttal should come after the Planning Commission discussion and before their decision. Ms. Arnold felt the opportunity should come prior to closing the public hearing. Mr. Muir did not favor allowing the applicant the opportunity to argue with the Planning Commission’s decision. Ms. Noda agreed.
Mr. Daniels amended his motion to specify that the petitioner or applicant shall have the opportunity to make a brief statement prior to closing the public hearing. Mr. Chambless accepted the amendment in his second. Ms. Arnold, Mr. Chambless, Mr. Daniels, Mr. Diamond, Ms Funk, Mr. Muir, Ms. Noda, and Ms. Seelig voted “Aye.” Ms. McDonough was not present. Jeff Jonas, as chair, did not vote. The motion carried.
The Salt Lake City Planning Commission meeting adjourned at 9:05 p.m.